RE: Alternative Cancer Therapy

[Guest guest]

Just a reminder that the FDA did not test this substance properly before

deciding not to approve it. Sammy.

Alternative Cancer Therapy

Just a reminder.

http://www.cancure.org/unapproved_by_FDA.htm

[Guest guest]

Sammy,

Why do you say this? No too long ago I posted links to studies that

showed that it had harms without proven benefits. There is a man in the

US who has been selling it and is being prosceWhat I saw was that it was

tested. I asked a man this week who worked with research on plant

substances that are potentials for medical treatments. He is a firm

believer in alternatives but wants them scientifically based. He told me

that it was shown in many tests to be not something that improved the

outcome for cancer and in fact had shown harms for some patients. I know

that it is controversial but if you make a statement like you did please

show why you are saying this.

You can look at the more official studies at the earlier links I sent.

For less official info check these links. BTW have you received any

studies that show it works and doesn't harm?

http://tinyurl.com/35you

Evidence-based treatment

The federal government isn't ignoring the growing influence of

alternative and complementary medicine. In 1998, Congress established

the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine as part

of the National Institutes of Health. The center's main goal is to

evaluate alternative therapies using established scientific testing to

see which therapies are safe and effective.

" From our point of view, very few of these therapies have been

adequately shown to be effective, though there are certainly some

promising areas, " said Nahlin, senior adviser for scientific

coordination and outreach at the center.

Dr. Bolling said his center, which is supported in part by an NIH grant,

said it's critical that whenever possible complementary therapies be

evaluated.

For example, he asks whether garlic lowers your cholesterol. After all,

thousands of Americans take it believing so, and yet " no study has ever

shown it works, " he said.

Garlic, other than bad breath, won't kill you, he pointed out, so he's

not that concerned about patients using garlic, unless they're using it

instead of proven therapies.

Other therapies aren't just unproven, they're proved dangerous. Natural

does not mean safe, Dr. Bolling said.

One therapy involves the substance laetrile, which contains material

from apricot pits and other fruits. Sound harmless? Sure, other than the

fact that those pits can contain the deadly substance cyanide.

Nevertheless, many cancer patients have traveled to Mexico seeking such

treatment, he said. Doctors in the U.S. studied the material and found

it not only didn't work, it made patients die quicker.

http://tinyurl.com/2sxp8

Kathy

Re: Alternative Cancer Therapy

Just a reminder that the FDA did not test this substance properly before

deciding not to approve it. Sammy.

[Guest guest]

Kathy,

If you are so concerned about this issue then it is your responsibility to supply first hand accounts of the problem not the second hand commentaries. Anyone can play chinese whispers.

Show me some PubMed hits on >laetrile AND side effects< or laetrile AND toxicity< and you will earn more respect (from me at least) for the statements you make. Read this (below) and take note. It may help explain why 46% of the patients in the study quoted in an earlier post responded to laetrile which you seem to have conveniently forgotten about.

Incidentally, I never tried to justify anyone for selling laetrile from his basement, so please do not make it sound as if I have. My concern is in defending alternative treatments from the heavy hand of central government. Laetrile - B17 - amygdaline are not being given a fair trial because there is no patent on them and hence no easy profit for the pharmaceutical companies - who have the financial clout to effectively lobby government.

Sam.

Int J Cancer. 1998 Dec 9;78(6):712-9. In vitro cytotoxicity following specific activation of amygdalin bybeta-glucosidase conjugated to a bladder cancer-associated monoclonal antibody.Syrigos KN, Rowlinson-Busza G, Epenetos AA.Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College of Science, Technology andMedicine, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.We describe a novel version of antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT),with the use of amygdalin as prodrug. Amygdalin is a naturally occurringcyanogenic glycoside, which can be cleaved by sweet almond beta-glucosidase toyield free cyanide. If amygdalin could be activated specifically at the tumoursite, then malignant cells would be killed without the systemic toxicity usuallyassociated with chemotherapy. To this end, we have conjugated beta-glucosidaseto a tumour-associated monoclonal antibody (MAb) (HMFG1) and the conjugate hasbeen tested in vitro for specificity and cytotoxicity subsequent to activationof amygdalin. Amygdalin was cytotoxic to HT1376 bladder cancer cells only athigh concentrations, whereas the combination of amygdalin withHMFG1-beta-glucosidase enhanced the cytotoxic effect of amygdalin by 36-fold.When 2 concentrations of HMFG1-beta-glucosidase were compared, the toxic effectwas dose dependent. The cytotoxicity of amygdalin was also enhanced by theMAb-enzyme conjugate even when the unbound conjugate was removed from the mediumprior to exposure to amygdalin and the cells were washed. In addition to thecytotoxic effect, we also demonstrated specificity, using a MAb-enzyme conjugatethat does not recognise the HT1376 bladder cancer cells. Finally, we studied thecytotoxic effect of the conjugate in co-culture of HMFG1-positive and-negativecell lines (HT 1376 and U87MG cells). We demonstrated that the rate of survivingcells corresponds well to the percentage of U87MG (HMFG1-negative) cells in theflask. Our findings indicate that ADEPT is more effective than non-directedenzyme activation of a prodrug and can result in a non-toxic cancer therapy.PMID: 9833764

Sammy.

RE: Alternative Cancer Therapy

Sammy,Why do you say this? No too long ago I posted links to studies thatshowed that it had harms without proven benefits. There is a man in theUS who has been selling it and is being prosceWhat I saw was that it wastested. I asked a man this week who worked with research on plantsubstances that are potentials for medical treatments. He is a firmbeliever in alternatives but wants them scientifically based. He told methat it was shown in many tests to be not something that improved theoutcome for cancer and in fact had shown harms for some patients. I knowthat it is controversial but if you make a statement like you did pleaseshow why you are saying this. You can look at the more official studies at the earlier links I sent.For less official info check these links. BTW have you received anystudies that show it works and doesn't harm?http://tinyurl.com/35youEvidence-based treatmentThe federal government isn't ignoring the growing influence ofalternative and complementary medicine. In 1998, Congress establishedthe National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine as partof the National Institutes of Health. The center's main goal is toevaluate alternative therapies using established scientific testing tosee which therapies are safe and effective."From our point of view, very few of these therapies have beenadequately shown to be effective, though there are certainly somepromising areas," said Nahlin, senior adviser for scientificcoordination and outreach at the center.Dr. Bolling said his center, which is supported in part by an NIH grant,said it's critical that whenever possible complementary therapies beevaluated.For example, he asks whether garlic lowers your cholesterol. After all,thousands of Americans take it believing so, and yet "no study has evershown it works," he said.Garlic, other than bad breath, won't kill you, he pointed out, so he'snot that concerned about patients using garlic, unless they're using itinstead of proven therapies.Other therapies aren't just unproven, they're proved dangerous. Naturaldoes not mean safe, Dr. Bolling said.One therapy involves the substance laetrile, which contains materialfrom apricot pits and other fruits. Sound harmless? Sure, other than thefact that those pits can contain the deadly substance cyanide.Nevertheless, many cancer patients have traveled to Mexico seeking suchtreatment, he said. Doctors in the U.S. studied the material and foundit not only didn't work, it made patients die quicker.http://tinyurl.com/2sxp8Kathy-----Original Message-----From: sammy_bates Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 9:20 AMTo: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Alternative Cancer TherapyJust a reminder that the FDA did not test this substance properly beforedeciding not to approve it. Sammy.

[Guest guest]

Sammy,

Simply the old trick of accentuate the Negative and

Eliminate the Positive, Hi.

sammy_bates wrote:

Kathy, If

you are so concerned about this issue then it is your responsibility to

supply first hand accounts of the problem not the second hand commentaries.

Anyone can play chinese whispers. Show

me some PubMed hits on >laetrile AND side effects< or laetrile AND toxicity<

and you will earn more respect (from me at least) for the statements you

make. Read this (below) and take note. It may help explain why 46% of the

patients in the study quoted in an earlier post responded to laetrile which

you seem to have conveniently forgotten about. Incidentally,

I never tried to justify anyone for selling laetrile from his basement,

so please do not make it sound as if I have. My concern is in defending

alternative treatments from the heavy hand of central government. Laetrile

- B17 - amygdaline are not being given a fair trial because there is no

patent on them and hence no easy profit for the pharmaceutical companies

- who have the financial clout to effectively lobby government. Sam. Int

J Cancer. 1998 Dec 9;78(6):712-9.

In vitro cytotoxicity following specific activation of amygdalin by

beta-glucosidase conjugated to a bladder cancer-associated monoclonal

antibody.

Syrigos KN, Rowlinson-Busza G, Epenetos AA.

Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College of Science, Technology

and

Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.

We describe a novel version of antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy

(ADEPT),

with the use of amygdalin as prodrug. Amygdalin is a naturally occurring

cyanogenic glycoside, which can be cleaved by sweet almond beta-glucosidase

to

yield free cyanide. If amygdalin could be activated specifically at

the tumour

site, then malignant cells would be killed without the systemic toxicity

usually

associated with chemotherapy. To this end, we have conjugated beta-glucosidase

to a tumour-associated monoclonal antibody (MAb) (HMFG1) and the conjugate

has

been tested in vitro for specificity and cytotoxicity subsequent to

activation

of amygdalin. Amygdalin was cytotoxic to HT1376 bladder cancer cells

only at

high concentrations, whereas the combination of amygdalin with

HMFG1-beta-glucosidase enhanced the cytotoxic effect of amygdalin by

36-fold.

When 2 concentrations of HMFG1-beta-glucosidase were compared, the

toxic effect

was dose dependent. The cytotoxicity of amygdalin was also enhanced

by the

MAb-enzyme conjugate even when the unbound conjugate was removed from

the medium

prior to exposure to amygdalin and the cells were washed. In addition

to the

cytotoxic effect, we also demonstrated specificity, using a MAb-enzyme

conjugate

that does not recognise the HT1376 bladder cancer cells. Finally, we

studied the

cytotoxic effect of the conjugate in co-culture of HMFG1-positive and-negative

cell lines (HT 1376 and U87MG cells). We demonstrated that the rate

of surviving

cells corresponds well to the percentage of U87MG (HMFG1-negative)

cells in the

flask. Our findings indicate that ADEPT is more effective than non-directed

enzyme activation of a prodrug and can result in a non-toxic cancer

therapy.

PMID: 9833764 Sammy.

Re: Alternative Cancer Therapy

Just a reminder that the FDA did not test this substance properly

before

deciding not to approve it. Sammy.