RE: Salvestrols

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert wrote:

> Alan,

> In the light of our recent exchange I would appreciate your

> views on the subject of Salvestrols. ...

Terry,

Like you and others I would dismiss this completely if it weren't

for the participation of Dr. Gerry Potter of Zytiga fame.

I tried to do some research.  Searching Pubmed for " salvestrol " I

found not one single hit.  It appears that no one has published

anything in any scientific journal about this.

I then searched for CYP1B1.  It's a molecule discovered in the

cell in 1994 that plays a number of roles, one of which has to do

with steroid genesis.  Testosterone and estradiol are steroids

with slight differences in the atoms bonded to the basic steroid

molecule.  Perhaps because of this, it has been investigated for

its possible role in prostate and breast cancers.  CYP1B1 also

plays a role in the synthesis of piceatannol from resveratrol.

Both of those molecules appear to have anticancer properties.  It

also may be involved in breaking down some carcinogens.

There are currently 695 articles in Pubmed referencing CYP1B1 and

cancer.  I think five of them have GA Potter as the principal

author or a joint author.  So he has done research in this area.

All of his studies were very basic biochemistry research,

extremely important work but not yet working on humans.  One of

the studies involved treating mice with leukemia.  It " reduced

adenoma multiplicity by 46 +/- 18.3% compared to controls.  Some

other studies tested the chemical on cultured breast cancer

cells.

So, what does it all mean?  Is it a cure?  I haven't seen anyone

claim that yet.  Is it something that will help reduce cancer?

Maybe.  I haven't seen any articles in the brief look that I did

in Pubmed that talked about experiments on live human beings.

Since CYP1B1 is a protein, I doubt that it's possible to eat it

successfully.  Proteins are digested when we eat them, i.e., they

are broken down into the same amino acid constituents that are

found in any other protein.  Proteins do not survive digestion as

whole molecules and are never directly absorbed into the blood

stream.

Our bodies already have CYP1B1 in them.  Does " salvestrol "

(whatever that is), increase the level of CYP1B1 in the body?

Does it increase it in cancer cells?  Is an increased level

helpful beyond what we already have?  I don't know that any of

these questions have yet been addressed much less resolved.

What about the case studies?  Can we rely on them?  Are they from

reputable sources?  Are they significant?

As a check, I did a Google search on " laetrile case studies " .

Coming out very near the top were articles like this one:

    http://www.whale.to/cancer/richardson_b.html

which says:

    " Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that

    Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These

    are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had

    cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a

    firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation. "

And yet a number of studies done by the very most reputable

institutions, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, have

found no benefit from laetrile.

Here's what I'm inclined to conclude:

    The CYP1B1 molecule has anti-cancer properties.

    A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain

    extracts of berries marketed under the name " salvestrol "

    plays some role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will

    help in the treatment of all kinds of cancers.  However it's

    not clear exactly what this biochemist is actually claiming.

    All we have from him is his email to one patient.  He doesn't

    say how salvestrol works.

    Case study reports in favor of this claim have been published

    though I don't know if any of them have been authenticated

    (Did they really occur?  Did the patients really have cancer?

    Did the cancer really regress?  Were the results

    significantly better than placebo?  If five people benefited

    from salvestrol, where there five others that didn't, or were

    there 500 others that didn't?)

    No research has been published in the scientific or medical

    literature that even makes mention of salvestrol.

There are at least dozens if not hundreds of chemicals that are

in the same position as this.  Chuck Maack has a list of some of

the more prominently mentioned ones on one of his web pages.  I

don't know how salvestrol compares to any of them, whether it's

better or worse than the others, or whether any of them are

actually useful in real life cancer treatment.

In the final analysis, it seems to me that we don't have enough

information to conclude that there is any benefit from salvestrol

If the treatment is cheap and non-toxic (it looks to me like the

price is about $7.33/day USD, and it's made from natural food

products), I can certainly understand why people would want to

try it.  If they do, I would hope that they don't stop using

proven treatments, that they report what they're doing to their

doctors (though I doubt that the doctors will have heard of it),

that they keep their expectations low, and that the report to

others what happened - even if it fails.

I hope it works, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

    Alan

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Alan....and Terry.Ann

Terry Herbert wrote:

> Alan,

> In the light of our recent exchange I would appreciate your

> views on the subject of Salvestrols. ...

Terry,

Like you and others I would dismiss this completely if it weren't

for the participation of Dr. Gerry Potter of Zytiga fame.

I tried to do some research. Searching Pubmed for "salvestrol" I

found not one single hit. It appears that no one has published

anything in any scientific journal about this.

I then searched for CYP1B1. It's a molecule discovered in the

cell in 1994 that plays a number of roles, one of which has to do

with steroid genesis. Testosterone and estradiol are steroids

with slight differences in the atoms bonded to the basic steroid

molecule. Perhaps because of this, it has been investigated for

its possible role in prostate and breast cancers. CYP1B1 also

plays a role in the synthesis of piceatannol from resveratrol.

Both of those molecules appear to have anticancer properties. It

also may be involved in breaking down some carcinogens.

There are currently 695 articles in Pubmed referencing CYP1B1 and

cancer. I think five of them have GA Potter as the principal

author or a joint author. So he has done research in this area.

All of his studies were very basic biochemistry research,

extremely important work but not yet working on humans. One of

the studies involved treating mice with leukemia. It "reduced

adenoma multiplicity by 46 +/- 18.3% compared to controls. Some

other studies tested the chemical on cultured breast cancer

cells.

So, what does it all mean? Is it a cure? I haven't seen anyone

claim that yet. Is it something that will help reduce cancer?

Maybe. I haven't seen any articles in the brief look that I did

in Pubmed that talked about experiments on live human beings.

Since CYP1B1 is a protein, I doubt that it's possible to eat it

successfully. Proteins are digested when we eat them, i.e., they

are broken down into the same amino acid constituents that are

found in any other protein. Proteins do not survive digestion as

whole molecules and are never directly absorbed into the blood

stream.

Our bodies already have CYP1B1 in them. Does "salvestrol"

(whatever that is), increase the level of CYP1B1 in the body?

Does it increase it in cancer cells? Is an increased level

helpful beyond what we already have? I don't know that any of

these questions have yet been addressed much less resolved.

What about the case studies? Can we rely on them? Are they from

reputable sources? Are they significant?

As a check, I did a Google search on "laetrile case studies".

Coming out very near the top were articles like this one:

http://www.whale.to/cancer/richardson_b.html

which says:

"Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that

Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These

are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had

cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a

firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation."

And yet a number of studies done by the very most reputable

institutions, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, have

found no benefit from laetrile.

Here's what I'm inclined to conclude:

The CYP1B1 molecule has anti-cancer properties.

A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain

extracts of berries marketed under the name "salvestrol"

plays some role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will

help in the treatment of all kinds of cancers. However it's

not clear exactly what this biochemist is actually claiming.

All we have from him is his email to one patient. He doesn't

say how salvestrol works.

Case study reports in favor of this claim have been published

though I don't know if any of them have been authenticated

(Did they really occur? Did the patients really have cancer?

Did the cancer really regress? Were the results

significantly better than placebo? If five people benefited

from salvestrol, where there five others that didn't, or were

there 500 others that didn't?)

No research has been published in the scientific or medical

literature that even makes mention of salvestrol.

There are at least dozens if not hundreds of chemicals that are

in the same position as this. Chuck Maack has a list of some of

the more prominently mentioned ones on one of his web pages. I

don't know how salvestrol compares to any of them, whether it's

better or worse than the others, or whether any of them are

actually useful in real life cancer treatment.

In the final analysis, it seems to me that we don't have enough

information to conclude that there is any benefit from salvestrol

If the treatment is cheap and non-toxic (it looks to me like the

price is about $7.33/day USD, and it's made from natural food

products), I can certainly understand why people would want to

try it. If they do, I would hope that they don't stop using

proven treatments, that they report what they're doing to their

doctors (though I doubt that the doctors will have heard of it),

that they keep their expectations low, and that the report to

others what happened - even if it fails.

I hope it works, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Thank you Alan.

You say at one stage

<snip> So, what does it all mean? Is it a cure?

I haven't seen anyone claim that yet. Is it something that will help

reduce cancer? Maybe. <snip> and

<snip> A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain

extracts of berries marketed under the name " salvestrol " plays some

role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will help in the treatment of all

kinds of cancers. However it's not clear exactly what this biochemist is

actually claiming. All we have from him is his email to one patient. He

doesn't say how salvestrol works. <snip>

One of the references I gave in my previous

post was to a pdf labeled http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf

entitled Nutrition and Cancer: Salvestrol

Case Studies. It has four authors, including Dr Potter. The Introduction

says how Salvestrols work and says in part

“Salvestrols are a class of phytonutrients that, in

humans, are metabolised by the tumourspecific CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells to initiate

a cascade of processes, including apoptosis, that result in the arrest or decline

of the cancer…………. We use them in helping to rid our body of cells that

have become cancerous.”

So there is the basic claim – Salvestrols

will arrest or result in the decline of cancer and help in ridding the

body of cells that have become cancerous – which would usually be termed

a ‘cure’ I think. The piece then goes on to give examples of how

people have taken Salvestrols and rid themselves of cancerous cells. This is

what is termed the ‘study’ for prostate cancer.

<snip> Case #3. Prostate cancer

A seventy-four-year-old gentleman

received a PSA test result indicating a level of 11 ng/ml in the blood

following his annual check-up. His previous PSA result had been 4 ng/ml. The

consulting surgeon suspected cancer and advised that surgery or radiation would

be required. A follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full body X-ray confirmed

a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Surgery or radiation were both ruled out and

the patient was prescribed a course of the synthetic hormone leuprorelin

acetate (Prostap®) on a quarterly basis. The patient was advised that this

treatment would be required for the rest of his life.

Subsequently this gentleman spoke

with his cousin, a university lecturer, who told him that one of his students

was diagnosed with a terminal cancer of the brain and after taking Salvestrols

had proved to her doctors that 'terminal' seemed to be an overstatement. He

decided to begin a course of Salvestrol supplementation taking two (350 point)

Salvestrol Professional capsules per day.

Six months after receiving his

diagnosis his PSA level had dropped to below 1 ng/ml. However, during this time

the patient suffered from breast development, complete loss of body hair,

impotence and a complete lack of libido as a result of the synthetic hormones.

The patient moving to another country necessitated a change of doctors. At this

point the patient switched Salvestrol products and began taking one (1,000

point) Salvestrol Professional capsule per day and one (350 point) Salvestrol

Professional capsule three times per day. Twelve months after receiving his

diagnosis his PSA level had dropped to 0.2 ng/ml.

The new doctor continued with the PSA

monitoring and quarterly injections of Lupron (a different brand of leuprorelin

acetate). Upon receiving a subsequent PSA test result for this patient the

attending physician said that the PSA level received was as low as it could be

and asked if the patient was sure that he had not had surgery! Given the

physician's surprise that such a result could be attributed to leuprorelin

acetate alone the patient confessed to taking Salvestrols. The physician then

stated that he had a patient that he would like to start on Salvestrols and

asked the patient to supply him with background information. The physician

decided to 'wean' the patient off of the quarterly Lupron injections.

This patient has not had a Lupron

injection for six months and continues to receive PSA test results at the 0.2

ng/ml level. The patient continues to take one (350 point) Salvestrol

Professional capsule per day and has embarked on a fitness program and change

in diet. <snip>

Of course there is a deal of misleading information

here:

At

least 65% of men with a PSA of 11 ng/ml will not have a positive biopsy. The

most common causes of PSA readings at this level are BPH (Benign Prostatic

Hyperplasia) and prostate/bladder infections

It

is not possible to diagnosed prostate cancer without a biopsy procedure: a

follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full body X-ray cannot confirm a

diagnosis of prostate cancer.

It

is difficult to establish a time range for this study, but it would not be

unusual for a PSA of 11 ng/ml to revert to a ‘normal’

very low level if it was due to BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) following

ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) for what appears to be at least

eighteen months

So to my way of thinking it does not

support a ‘proof’ that Salvestrols have ‘cured’ this

man.

Those who may be interested in learning

more about Professor Potter and Salvestrols might like to go to another link I

gave in my first mail Trademarked

Science Trade-Offs at http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/07/trademarked-science-trade-offs.html

The comments are particularly interesting, especially as it is aid that

trial are under way – although the author of that item is somewhat vague

as to where they are being carried out and by whom. It was from one of them

that I learned of Dr Potter’s mental problems – see Private Hell Of Leicester Scientist Searching For

Cancer Wonder Drug at http://tinyurl.com/3llqh7u - and I

assume, since he estimates that his share of the Zytiga royalties will be

substantial, that he has left2012 De Montfort University, since he is no longer

listed on their site – and indeed a search of the site shows no

references to him.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry

Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert

....

> One of the references I gave in my previous post was to a pdf

> labeled

> http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf

> entitled Nutrition and Cancer: Salvestrol Case Studies. It has

> four authors, including Dr Potter. The Introduction says how

> Salvestrols work and says in part

> “Salvestrols are a class of phytonutrients that, in humans, are

> metabolised by the tumourspecific CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells

> to initiate a cascade of processes, including apoptosis, that

> result in the arrest or decline of the cancer…………. We use them

> in helping to rid our body of cells that have become

> cancerous.â€

Sorry Terry, I didn't read the case studies, for the reason given in

my original posting - that I didn't think case studies counted for much.

But I'll read them now.

....

> <snip> Case #3. Prostate cancer

....     

> Of course there is a deal of misleading information here:

> At least 65% of men with a PSA of 11 ng/ml will not have a

> positive biopsy. The most common causes of PSA readings at this

> level are BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) and

> prostate/bladder infections

> It is not possible to diagnosed prostate cancer without a

> biopsy procedure: a follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full

> body X-ray cannot confirm a diagnosis of prostate cancer.

> It is difficult to establish a time range for this study, but

> it would not be unusual for  a PSA of 11 ng/ml to revert to a

> ‘normal’ very low level if it was due to BPH (Benign Prostatic

> Hyperplasia) following ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) for

> what appears to be at least eighteen months

I agree with all of that.  It is very misleading and all three of

your criticisms seem to me entirely correct.  I will add a

fourth:

PSA will not normally rise six months after the last shot of

Lupron.  In my own case it took about nine months and I only had

two injections, a 30 day and a 90 day.  The fact that the

patient's PSA had not returned in six months is normal and

expected and not a sign that his cancer, if he actually had

cancer, was cured.

In fact I'd go further.  A PSA of 0.2 is abnormally low.  It is

not a sign of cancer cure when the patient still has a prostate.

It is a sign of androgen deprivation.

> So to my way of thinking it does not support a ‘proof’ that

> Salvestrols have ‘cured’ this man.

I entirely agree and would go even further, it constitutes

evidence of a desire to mislead the reader.  Surely Professor

Potter ought to know what you and I know about PCa and should

have known that these statements were misleading.

> Those who may be interested in learning more about Professor

> Potter and Salvestrols might like to go to another link I gave

> in my  first mail Trademarked Science Trade-Offs at

> http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/07/trademarked-science-trade-offs.html

> The comments are particularly interesting, especially as it is

> aid that trial are under way – although the author of that item

> is somewhat vague as to where they are being carried out and by

> whom. It was from one of them that I learned of Dr Potter’s

> mental problems – see Private Hell Of Leicester Scientist

> Searching For Cancer Wonder Drug  at http://tinyurl.com/3llqh7u

> - and I assume, since he estimates that his share of the Zytiga

> royalties will be substantial, that he has left2012 De Montfort

> University, since he is no longer listed on their site – and

> indeed a search of the site shows no references to him.

I wonder if Dr. Potter has gone off the deep end (he suffers from

bipolar disorder aas indicated in the reference you cite) or

perhaps people are using his name without his full knowledge of

what they are saying.

I probably won't get to the Case Studies document for a fiew days

but I will have a look at it.

    Alan

[Guest guest]

There is a great 7 part video on YouTube about Salvestrols, what they are and how they supposedly work. I researched on behalf of my dad, but haven't gone so far to buy/try, we are going to go the liposomal vitamin C route first. I did email the folks who make Salvestrols and they said vitamin C can be taken with them. My dad's situation: nearing the end of the road, bone mets, been through Lupron, 2 types of chemo (don't know the first, Zytiga the last) and 120 days total of radiation for hot spots. He is very weakened by all of the drugs and has quite a bit of pain. 3 blood transfusions in the last month and the blood numbers still aren't good. He's fighting though and not giving up.I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense and worth the time looking at

these...Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfuPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfuPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfuPart 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrelPart 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfuPart 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfuPart 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrelRob

[Guest guest]

Nolte wrote:

....

> I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense

> and worth the time looking at these...

>

> Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfu

> Part 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfu

> Part 3:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfu

> Part 4:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrel

> Part 5:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfu

> Part 6:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfu

> Part 7:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrel

I watched the videos that Rob recommended.  They were quite

interesting.

The lecturer, Prof. Dan Burke, is a pharmacologist who worked

with Dr. Gerry Potter - who came up with a lot of the theory

behind salvestrols.  The presentation he gave was highly

enthusiastic, even exuberant, but I don't think I'd call it a

sales pitch.  At least he didn't mention anything for sale and he

didn't make outrageous claims about curing cancer.

As I understand it, here is the theory behind salvestrols.  I'm

adding a bit of my own interpretation to what I saw in the

videos.

 1. All (most?) cancer cells produce an enzyme named CYP1B1.

    This enzyme is only found in significant quantities in cancer

    cells, not healthy cells.  It may have evolved as a

    protective response against cancer.  When a stain is used

    that is sensitive only to CYP1B1, it can be seen under a

    microscope that only the cancer cells in a mixed sample take

    up and show the stain.  He showed biopsy samples from several

    cancer types, including a prostate biopsy sample, that

    clearly showed that the misshapen cancerous cells were the

    ones with the dark CYP1B1 stain.

    Not all of the functions of CYP1B1 are known, but one of them

    appears to be an ability to catalyze the conversion of

    certain harmless molecules into molecules that trigger

    programmed cell death.  See below.

 2. Many fruits and vegetables produce flavonoid molecules that

    Burke and Potter call " salvestrols " .

    It is thought that these molecules are produced by the plants

    in order to fight fungal infections.  They can damage or kill

    fungal cells but, in their natural state, are harmless to us.

 3. When salvestrol molecules come in contact with the enzyme

    CYP1B1 they are converted into a poison that causes

    apoptosis, i.e., " programmed cell death. "

    Many cells in our bodies have a natural life cycle, at the

    end of which, they die.  This is called programmed cell

    death.  It can occur as a result of receiving certain

    signals, or not receiving signals that should be present for

    the cells to live.  For example the immune system can send a

    signal to a virus infected cell causing that cell to die and

    take the virus particles with it.  Prostate cells receive

    certain signals in the prostate that, if they are not

    received (because the cell has metastasized outside the

    prostate) should cause the cells to die.  Cancer cells do not

    die when they should and often evade apoptosis.

    The theory here is that salvestrol molecules can be absorbed

    into all of our cells, but only the cancer cells, the ones

    containing the CYP1B1 enzyme, will convert them into

    pro-apoptotic chemicals.  So only the cancer cells will die.

    It is, as they say today, a " targeted " therapy.

So, how does one get salvestrols?

The answer is that they come from many different fruits,

vegetables and herbs.  The following were ones that Dr. Burke

specifically mentioned:

    apples          avocados        basil

    oranges         bell peppers    mint

    grapes          broccoli        thyme

    blueberries     olives          dandelion

    raspberries

But there is a catch.  To get the most benefit from these foods

it is necessary to eat organically grown plants.  Because the

plants produce the salvestrols in response to fungal attacks, the

fungicides used on most fruit and vegetables relieve the plant of

the necessity of producing salvestrols.  He said that there can

be as much as 30 times more salvestrols in an organic plant as in

one treated with fungicides.  Furthermore, salvestrols are bitter

tasting, so the growers try to breed varieties that don't taste

bitter, which means they have fewer salvestrols.  If the fruits

and vegetables taste bitter, that may be good.  If they taste

very sweet, it's bad.

Cooking fruits and vegetables with salvestrols is okay.  They are

heat resistant.  But boiling them in water is bad because the

boiling water leaches the salvestrols out of the food.  So if you

boil them, save and consume the water in one way or another.

What will the effect of consuming salvestrols be?

Dr. Burke made fairly modest claims.  He didn't really talk about

curing cancer.  What he talked about was " culling the herd " of

cancer cells.  He thought we could reduce the number of cancer

cells in our bodies by taking salvestrols.

He also said that some of the best cancer fighting chemicals are

" anti-oxidants " (like vitamin C) and that salvestrols were a good

" plan B " .  The anti-oxidants will help prevent cancer from

developing and salvestrols will help kill off some of the cells

that do become cancerous.

If we don't have a detectable cancer, taking salvestrols can help

keep us that way.  If we do have cancer, salvestrols can help

slow the growth of the cancer and enable us to live longer.  He

said it's not about curing cancer, but about controlling it so

that we can live longer and die of something else.

I was impressed by his presentation.

    Alan

[Guest guest]

wow, very nicely summed up!

....

> I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense

> and worth the time looking at these...

>

> Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfu

> Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfu

> Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfu

> Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrel

> Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfu

> Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfu

> Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrel

I watched the videos that Rob recommended. They were quite

interesting.

The lecturer, Prof. Dan Burke, is a pharmacologist who worked

with Dr. Gerry Potter - who came up with a lot of the theory

behind salvestrols. The presentation he gave was highly

enthusiastic, even exuberant, but I don't think I'd call it a

sales pitch. At least he didn't mention anything for sale and he

didn't make outrageous claims about curing cancer.

As I understand it, here is the theory behind salvestrols. I'm

adding a bit of my own interpretation to what I saw in the

videos.

1. All (most?) cancer cells produce an enzyme named CYP1B1.

This enzyme is only found in significant quantities in cancer

cells, not healthy cells. It may have evolved as a

protective response against cancer. When a stain is used

that is sensitive only to CYP1B1, it can be seen under a

microscope that only the cancer cells in a mixed sample take

up and show the stain. He showed biopsy samples from several

cancer types, including a prostate biopsy sample, that

clearly showed that the misshapen cancerous cells were the

ones with the dark CYP1B1 stain.

Not all of the functions of CYP1B1 are known, but one of them

appears to be an ability to catalyze the conversion of

certain harmless molecules into molecules that trigger

programmed cell death. See below.

2. Many fruits and vegetables produce flavonoid molecules that

Burke and Potter call "salvestrols".

It is thought that these molecules are produced by the plants

in order to fight fungal infections. They can damage or kill

fungal cells but, in their natural state, are harmless to us.

3. When salvestrol molecules come in contact with the enzyme

CYP1B1 they are converted into a poison that causes

apoptosis, i.e., "programmed cell death."

Many cells in our bodies have a natural life cycle, at the

end of which, they die. This is called programmed cell

death. It can occur as a result of receiving certain

signals, or not receiving signals that should be present for

the cells to live. For example the immune system can send a

signal to a virus infected cell causing that cell to die and

take the virus particles with it. Prostate cells receive

certain signals in the prostate that, if they are not

received (because the cell has metastasized outside the

prostate) should cause the cells to die. Cancer cells do not

die when they should and often evade apoptosis.

The theory here is that salvestrol molecules can be absorbed

into all of our cells, but only the cancer cells, the ones

containing the CYP1B1 enzyme, will convert them into

pro-apoptotic chemicals. So only the cancer cells will die.

It is, as they say today, a "targeted" therapy.

So, how does one get salvestrols?

The answer is that they come from many different fruits,

vegetables and herbs. The following were ones that Dr. Burke

specifically mentioned:

apples avocados basil

oranges bell peppers mint

grapes broccoli thyme

blueberries olives dandelion

raspberries

But there is a catch. To get the most benefit from these foods

it is necessary to eat organically grown plants. Because the

plants produce the salvestrols in response to fungal attacks, the

fungicides used on most fruit and vegetables relieve the plant of

the necessity of producing salvestrols. He said that there can

be as much as 30 times more salvestrols in an organic plant as in

one treated with fungicides. Furthermore, salvestrols are bitter

tasting, so the growers try to breed varieties that don't taste

bitter, which means they have fewer salvestrols. If the fruits

and vegetables taste bitter, that may be good. If they taste

very sweet, it's bad.

Cooking fruits and vegetables with salvestrols is okay. They are

heat resistant. But boiling them in water is bad because the

boiling water leaches the salvestrols out of the food. So if you

boil them, save and consume the water in one way or another.

What will the effect of consuming salvestrols be?

Dr. Burke made fairly modest claims. He didn't really talk about

curing cancer. What he talked about was "culling the herd" of

cancer cells. He thought we could reduce the number of cancer

cells in our bodies by taking salvestrols.

He also said that some of the best cancer fighting chemicals are

"anti-oxidants" (like vitamin C) and that salvestrols were a good

"plan B". The anti-oxidants will help prevent cancer from

developing and salvestrols will help kill off some of the cells

that do become cancerous.

If we don't have a detectable cancer, taking salvestrols can help

keep us that way. If we do have cancer, salvestrols can help

slow the growth of the cancer and enable us to live longer. He

said it's not about curing cancer, but about controlling it so

that we can live longer and die of something else.

I was impressed by his presentation.

Alan

[Guest guest]

thank you for the kind note! Best to you as well.Subject: SalvestrolsTo: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:50 PM

Hi All,

Rob:

I had never heard of Salvestrols,,,I haven't checked out the links you left but I will ,,just want to thank you for the info..How are you doing? Being a Caregiver is not an easy task...make sure you take care of you first,,,because you won't be albe to take care of anyone if you burn out. And watching our love ones weak and in pain has to pull on your heart strings. Just wanted to help,,and wanted you to know,,,if you just need to vent, we are here...We all know how you feel.

I will keep you both in my thoughts and prayers. Hang in there and thank you for the info

Best Wishes,

Sheila

[Guest guest]

Alan, You say:

<snip> I was impressed

by his presentation.<snip>

This despite no independent peer reviewed

scientific studies to back up what he was saying?

I’m not having a dig at you, but

doesn’t this show how we are all influenced by outside factors. It seems

the fact that Dan Burke is a pharmacologist carries a significant degree of

weight with you which is not offset by the fact that it appears that he is

Gerry Potter’s partner in the marketing of Salvestrols, for which claim

ARE made. If Joe Blow was to make the same claims, would you not be inclined

to regard him a a quack, misleading people?

All the best

Terry

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert wrote:

> Alan, You say:

> <snip> I was impressed by his presentation.<snip>

> This despite no independent peer reviewed scientific studies to

> back up what he was saying?

Yes, I was impressed, mainly by the scientific plausibility of

his presentation.  He came up with plausible explanations for the

properties of the salvestrols (evolved by plants to fight fungal

infection) and the conversions via the human enzyme (evolved by

animals to prolong life in the presence of cancer).

Are they true explanations?  Do the chemicals work as predicted

by the theory?  We can't say for sure until we see scientific

studies.

So I have to say that being impressed is only part way towards

being convinced.

However, I'll add that this is a low risk, low cost therapy on

offer here.  It amounts to eating organically grown fruits and

vegetables (admittedly more expensive than the supermarket kind),

and not boiling them in water.  He didn't say you have to buy

any pills or eat anything that humans don't usually eat.

> I’m not having a dig at you, but doesn’t this show how we are

> all influenced by outside factors. It seems the fact that Dan

> Burke is a pharmacologist carries a significant degree of

> weight with you which is not offset by the fact that it appears

> that he is Gerry Potter’s partner in the marketing of

> Salvestrols, for which claim ARE made. If  Joe Blow was to make

> the same claims, would you not be inclined to regard him a a

> quack, misleading people?

What you say is true.  Burke made some very significant

oversimplifications in his presentation.  Had Joe Blow made the

same presentation I might have thought, " Joe doesn't fully

understand the nature of apoptosis or the natural cell life

cycle. "   But knowing that Burke was a professor of pharmacology

at a reputable university, and that he worked with a famous

biochemist (Potter), I thought, " of course he knows this stuff

better than I do, but he's simplifying things in order to make

them more understandable to his audience. "

So, yeah, I was influenced by what you've called " outside

factors. "   It's a risky sort of influence but maybe not

unreasonable.  Credentials don't count for everything but they do

count for something.

Based on my own limited knowledge of cancer biology, I would

guess that what salvestrols provide is more likely to be a help

than a cure for most cancer patients.  Cancer evolves, sometimes

quite quickly.  Cancer arises because of damage to a cell's DNA

that causes some genes to stop working.  Some of the genes that

stop working can be genes involved in DNA repair.  When they are

damaged, other damage accumulates faster and the cells mutate

faster.

One of the problems in cancer cells is that they generally fail

to respond to some apoptotic signals, or the response is

insufficient to kill the cell.  Thus, for example, cells deprived

of their special environment, i.e., metastatic cells, should die.

They don't because the mechanisms that respond to the signals, or

lack of signals, have been damaged by DNA mutations.

It seems likely that whatever apoptotic signals are generated by

salvestrols in cancer cells, there are likely to be some cells

that are resistant to them and, as with ADT resistant and chemo

resistant cells, they will eventually come to predominate in the

tumor population.

Still, if the therapy works on some cells, it will provide

benefit and could, in theory, prolong life.

I hope that studies are done.  Dr. Burke said that there isn't a

lot of money to be made on this because a drug company can't

patent broccoli and cranberries.  So drug development and trials

may not be forthcoming.

We'll just have to see.  But in the meantime I'm going to add

extra olives to my martinis

    Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan Meyer wrote:

....

> Credentials don't count for everything but they do count for

> something.

....

This is one of the problems we face with Dr. Burzynski.  The man

really is a credentialed professor of oncology.  He got the

education, passed the exams, and was accepted into the profession

at a high level.  He does understand the science.  So it's hard

to dismiss him on the same grounds that we might dismiss the

inventor of, say, Essiac tea.

Given his cynical seeming manipulation of the clinical trials

process, his steep fees, his lack of cooperation with the rest of

the scientific community, and other behaviors, my inclinations

are against him.  The fact that so many other credentialed people

oppose him is not a strong point for him either.

But it illustrates a problem.  We'd like to believe the experts,

but sometimes the experts disagree and, sometimes, we're not sure

they are honest.

So, while Burke and Potter have considerable credibility, we

can't completely suspend rational skepticism on that account.

    Alan

[Guest guest]

Rather than run around in circles .. .. Maybe we should get Prof Potter to address these concerns.  Sam.

 

Alan,

 

In the light of our recent exchange I would

appreciate your views on the subject of Salvestrols. The claim to discovery of

efficacy of Salvestrols is made by someone no les than Dr Gerry Potter who is

credited with the original  discovery of Abiraterone Acetate, now known as

Zytiga. He owns the patent rights for Salvestrols, through a Trust, as far as I

know and I think he markets Salvestrols through a company he owns. All of which

makes me suspicious, but….. he IS Dr Gerry Potter and has a tremendous

reputation. In defending what he saw as my attack on the credibility of Dr

Potter and Salvestrols, one of the men on the Yana Forum said:

 

<snip> As for the credibility of Salvestrols.

Prof Gerry Potter is responsible for “Zytiga”

http://www.zytiga.com/ which is now marketed and sold by Janssen Biotech. So by

your logic, we can trust him to produce a pharmaceutical drug that’s gone

through clinical drugs and is now sold for I believe some $4000. But when he

produces a natural product that’s freely available and sold for I believe

$100, its rubbish and questionable. <snip>

 

My response in part was:

 

<snip> Of course I never said what you have

implied, but anyone with any element of intelligence and logic would know that

merely because a man was involved in producing a pharmaceutical this would not

automatically preclude him from using his reputation to make money for himself

by skipping the tedious process of actually PROVING that anything worked. I am

not suggesting that Dr Potter is being dishonest in any way – I am merely

pointing out an inherent flaw in what you have to say. There are many instances

in this modern world of doctors with good reputations selling trademarked goods

or therapies for which they make claims that are not independently

substantiated. <snip>

 

This is not a trick question or aimed at trapping you

in any way. I am genuinely interested in your views – and of course any

one else’s views. Am I being too hard on a scientist whose work is internationally

recognized at one level?

 

The relevant Threads on the Yana Forum are at

 

1. http://tinyurl.com/cugtr9m titled

initially as My dads story-So far anyone

familiar?

2. http://tinyurl.com/cacz2z9

titled salvestrols

 

 

For ease of reference the edited relevant part of the

exchange on the first thread follows:

 

 

J F : May 30, 2010

Here is a message I received from Prof Gerry Potter,

the inventor of Abiraterone Acetate and the discoverer of Salvestrols.

 

Reply by Prof Gerry Potter on May 27, 2010 at 5:56pm

 

Dear , as you

might imagine since I invented abiraterone 20 years ago that I might have made

further discoveries since then ! And indeed I have. The most important has been

the discovery of Salvestrols which are non-toxic natural molecules that

selectively destroy cancer cells by selective tumour bioactivation with the

CYP1B1 enzyme (a relative of the CYP17 enzyme that Abiraterone targets). These

are effective against all forms of cancer. Since Salvestrols are natural food

based molecules I have been able to formulate them as a product without the

need for clinical trials, since I understand how lengthy the trials process is

and also how urgent the need for effective therapy is. Personally I do not know

anyone with cancer since my friends who had this disease have recovered with

salvestrol therapy. The problem is because they are produced as a food product

rather than a medicinal product we cannot legally advertise the products for

cancer. Thus the news can only be spread by word of mouth or on the internet.

So if there is anyone out there with cancer spread the news on salvestrols. Our

latest product that is recommended is called Salvestrol Platinum, and this

should be taken at 1 capsule. The dose can be increased to 3 capsules daily for

advanced cancers. We have also developed a cream, Salvestrol Gold, for skin

cancer. These products are avilable from www.salvestrolnaturalproducts.com in

the UK, or www.salvestrol.ca

in the US.

For further info you can google on " Salvestrol Case Studies "

 

They are explained in detail at

http://www.theshenclinic.com/en/treatments/salvestrols

 

I will leave the decision up to you and your medical

team, as to whether you decide to purchase them or not.

 

If you require any further information on Prof Gerry

Potter then just Google his name. May 30, 2010 Something seems a bit

dodgy with this stuff. The site that you can buy silvestrol from refers to a

University of Sutherland that doesn't exist in wikipedia (although it has a

nice web site page)and the word silvestrols desn't come up in PubMed literature

search and PubMed has research papers on all sorts of standard and alternative

medications. I thought I might buy some but I don't think so now.

 

Terry

Herbert 

May 31, 2010

 

I believe that your posts on salvestrols are made in

a genuine desire to provide information on a subject which you accept and do

not breach the 'no commercials' rule, but I am somewhat concerned about the

lack of any demonstration of the value of salvestrols apart from the statements

from the man who makes and sells the product, like this one

 

Since Salvestrols are natural food based molecules I

have been able to formulate them as a product without the need for clinical

trials, since I understand how lengthy the trials process is and also how

urgent the need for effective therapy is. Personally I do not know anyone with

cancer since my friends who had this disease have recovered with salvestrol

therapy.

 

That kind of vested interest and statement usually points

to a pretty dodgy product and can be seen in connection with many other

products that, despite claims made have not demonstrated any real value.

 

One site I found says: Research has shown salvestrols

can destroy cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. but fails to mention

what the research was, who carried it out, what proof there was that this claim

was accurate. It may be that the research was based on what are termed in vitro

experiments where compounds are tested in Petri dishes. We know that very few

of the observed results in such experiments result in viable treatments.

 

I think that anyone considering using salvestrols

should read articles like this one TRADEMARKED SCIENCE TRADE-OFFS and do more

research on the alleged value. As the legal maximum has it: Caveat emptor - Let

The Buyer Beware

 

 

JF May 31, 2010

 

I have always been a sceptic when it comes to natural

medicines, as my wife knows, because she has tried them on many occasions over

the years, with mixed results.

 

Regarding my post on Salvestrol, You are right in

assuming that I am only trying to help people, with information on what is on

offer, to maybe treat people who are infected with Prostate Cancer. What

impressed me about Solvestrol is who discovered it and the case studies I found

on the internet, of its success in treating people with Terminal Cancer. i.e.

http://www.hans.org/magazine/278/Nutrition-and-Cancer-Salvestrol-Case-Studies

and http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf

admittedly the last link was written by Prof G Potter and Prof D Burke, both of

whom have a conflict of interest in promoting this treatment.

 

I am in no way promoting or endorsing this product, I

am only passing on information provided to me by Prof Gerry Potter, maybe

because I am on the Phase 3, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

of Abiraterone Acetate (CB7630) Plus Prednisone. Trail, which he invented and

to which my untreatable prostate cancer is responding to, I may be biased.

 

Like all treatments and medications available, it is

up to the individual to do their own research and make the decision as to

whether they wish to pursue them any further or not.

 

The link you provided seems to base its conclusion

that is quackery, on the fact that both Prof Potter and Burke are a part of the

company that has been formed to produce and sell this product. I may be wrong

but I cannot see any thing wrong with the fact that they should be able to

market a product that they themselves have discovered and researched over many

years. Both men as far as I can find out, are ethical scientists, with years of

research into treatments or a cure for cancer.

 

Terry

Herbert May 31,

2010

 

We all interpret things through the lens of our own

experiences and there seems to be nothing that is easily found on the subject

of Salvestrol that is not authored by Dr Potter - both references you gave have

him as author.

 

So essentially we have a man, who no doubt genuinely

believes that his latest discovery is even better than his previous one, and so

he promotes it as a cure without any proof that it is. Why, one may well

wonder, did he go the distance with trials and studies for Abiraterone Acetate

and not for Salvestrol? That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

The anecdotal evidence in the links you gave are far

from convincing - at least for me because I have seen dozens of such examples

of claimed cures for any number of compounds and treatments, all with anonymous

but amazing recoveries......but with no evidence that these recoveries were in

fact due to the compound or treatment claimed.

 

If they did experience a 'cure' could this have been

spontaneous regression rather than Salvestrol? I wrote up a piece in December

last year which anyone interested can find by putting spontaneous regression

into the search engine on this forum. In my last post I quoted from an Study

Suggests Some Cancers May Go Away in the New York Times series on Cancer.

 

It refers to a study in Norway - those darned

Scandinavians!! - and it says in part …new study, to be published Tuesday

in The Archives of Internal Medicine, suggests that even invasive cancers may

sometimes go away without treatment and in larger numbers than anyone ever

believed.

 

Jun 1, 2010

 

If someone has discovered a cure for cancer(or even

something that would stop it for even 10 years in 75% of cases) they would get

a Noble Prize and be the richest person in the world already.

 

On the other hand I do drink pomegranate juice in the

blind faith that it works too ;-)

 

It always helps to have something to believe in just

don't spend too much money on it and make sure to tell your doctors.

 

 

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert

- diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html