Re: [MOL] Marty [00145] Medicine On Line


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MOL] Marty



Thanks for pointing that out to me, appreciate it.  Your friend, lillian


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Auslander <fitecancer@earthlink.net>
To: mol-cancer@lists.meds.com <mol-cancer@lists.meds.com>; Lil Jennings
<firefly@islc.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MOL] Shark Cartilage/Alternative Therapies


>Dear Lil,
>
>Thank you for all the information on supplemental/complementary
>therapies and treatments. Just a suggestion I like to think of them as
>supplemental to conventional rather than alternative as alternative
>implies either/or and to most of us we take these treatments that you
>have been posting as complementary or supplemental to the foods and
>conventional treatments that we ingest or incur. Just a suggestion. Now
>there are those that only alternative treat, but that is a rarity. HOpe
>you don't mind my intrusion in this matter. Alternative implies
>negativity rather than a positive because supplemental/complementary
>therapies in combination with conventional tends to result in higher
>more successful survival rates according to the National Institute of
>Health and the Clearing House of Supplemental Medicine. Again hope you
>don't mind me adding this information.
>
>God Bless
>marty auslander
>
>> lillian wrote:
>>
>> SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
>>
>> No randomized clinical trials have been conducted with cartilage
>> products.
>>
>> Nine clinical series1,5,6 7-11(one article11reported two series) and
>> one
>> best case series12 of cartilage have assessed disease response and/or
>> survival outcomes.
>>
>> Prudden conducted a clinic series study of patients with a variety of
>> cancer sites (n=31) who had large tumors with or without metastasis
>> for
>> whom conventional therapy had failed. Cartilage treatment resulted in
>> 19
>> patients with complete responses, 10 with partial responses, and 2
>> with no
>> response1.
>>
>> A second clinic series concerned patients with colon, renal, or other
>> cancers (n=9) with distant non-brain metastases who had received
>> conventional therapy. This study resulted in one responder (treated
>> for 39
>> weeks) and eight patients with progressive disease7.
>>
>> In the third clinic series study of 22 renal carcinoma patients, 3
>> patients
>> responded with disappearance and greater than 50% shrinkage of lung
>> lesions. None of these 3 responders had received previous treatment8.
>>
>> Because the fourth clinic series of 15 patients taking shark cartilage
>> conducted in Cuba was described on the TV program, "60 Minutes," but
>> never
>> published, disease response and survival times cannot be reviewed9.
>>
>> A phase I/II trial of safety and efficacy in 47 evaluable patients
>> with a
>> variety of advanced cancers found 4 patients who had to stop because
>> of
>> toxicity, 5 deaths, no significant improvement in quality of life, and
>> no
>> partial or complete responses at 12 weeks10.
>>
>> Shark cartilage for oral use was evaluated in two separate phase II
>> studies
>> for patients with metastatic prostate (n=12) or breast cancer (n=20)
>> that
>> was refractory to standard treatments. Patients had to remain on study
>> for
>> at least two months to be evaluable. Of the 10 evaluable patients with
>> prostate cancer, there were 3 with stable and 7 with progressive
>> disease.
>> Of the 10 patients with breast cancer, there were 2 with stable and 8
>> with
>> progressive disease. There were no significant changes in performance
>> status, quality of life, or pain scores for patients in either the
>> prostate
>> or breast groups11.
>>
>> A phase II study of 14 stage 4 breast cancer patients reported that of
>> the
>> 4 who have completed 20 weeks of treatment with shark cartilage, 2
>> show no
>> response, 1 is stable, and 1 has reduced neck metastasis and
>> eliminated
>> lung metastasis5.
>>
>> The final clinic series was a phase I trial of 77 lung and prostate
>> non-responsive cancer patients treated with varying doses of
>> Neovastat.
>> Results suggest a positive trend in favor of a dose/response effect of
>> patients&rsquo; clinical benefits and tumor mass stabilization at
>> doses of 30-50
>> mg/kg6.
>>
>> The best case series included late stage cancer patients using shark
>> cartilage. Of the 21 patients, 61% reported reduced tumor size and 87%
>> reported improved quality of life. All 7 prostate patients reported a
>> reduced PSA level. It should be noted that these patients may have
>> taken
>> cartilage in conjunction with other natural therapies12.
>>
>> *See legend for design, result, and outcome coding.
>>
>> Bib#
>>
>> Design
>>
>> Sites
>>
>> Number Patients
>>
>> Stage
>>
>> Patient
>> Characteristics
>> TreatmentOutcome
>> Assessed
>> Results
>>
>> 1
>>
>> CS
>> vs
>> BC
>>
>> Numerous
>>
>> 31
>>
>> Local  ext Regional or distant
>>
>> Large tumors +/- mets. Had failed conventional therapy. Complied with
>> cartilage treatment.Catrix p.o. (8g/d) and Catrix-S s.q. injection
>> (100
>> ml/day)
>>
>> DR
>>
>> CR-19; PR-10; None-2
>>
>> 7
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Colon, renal & other
>>
>> 9
>>
>> Distant non-brain mets
>>
>> Previous conventional therapyCatrix-S injection 100ml/wk
>> 3 wks 150 ml/wk>=4wks.
>>
>> DR
>>
>> 8 progressive disease
>>
>> 8
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Renal
>>
>> 22
>>
>> Distant
>>
>> Catrix p.o. (3g/d 30 days). Catrix 5Q s.g. injections:
>>
>> DR
>>
>> 3/22 with disappearance and >50% shrinkage of lung lesions.
>>
>> 9
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Unknown
>>
>> 15
>>
>> Catrix p.o. and rectal
>>
>> DR
>>
>>  are still alive at time of report
>>
>> 12
>>
>> BC
>>
>> Various
>>
>> 21
>>
>> Late stage
>>
>> Shark cartilage users
>>
>> Survival & DR
>>
>> 61% reduced tumor size. 87% improved quality of life
>>
>> 10
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Various
>>
>> 58 (47 evaluable)
>>
>> Advanced
>>
>> Life expectancy of 12 wks, ECOG performance 0-2, no other anticancer
>> therapy, no prior cartilage.1g/kg of oral shark cartilage per day
>>
>> DR
>>
>> no partial or complete responses
>>
>> 11
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Breast
>>
>> 20 (10 evaluable)
>>
>> Metastatic
>>
>> Measurable disease that had progressed after at least 2 chemo
>> regimens1g/kg
>> of oral shark cartilage in 4 divided doses per day
>>
>> DR
>>
>> 2 stable disease at 8 and 20 weeks; 8 progressive disease.
>>
>> 11
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Prostate
>>
>> 12 (10 evaluable)
>>
>> Metastatic
>>
>> Measurable disease or bone only mets or rising PSA that progressed
>> after at
>> least 2 hormone trmts.1g/kg of oral shark cartilage in 4 divided doses
>> per
>> day
>>
>> DR
>>
>> 3 stable disease at 20 and 24 & 28 weeks; 7 progressive disease.
>>
>> 5
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Breast
>>
>> 14 (4 evaluable)
>>
>> Stage 4
>>
>> Non-responsive, terminal patients off all therapies for at least 3
>> weeks1g/kg or oral shark cartilage taken 3-4 times per day
>>
>> DR
>>
>> 2 no response; 1 stable;
>>
>> 1 reduced neck mets and eliminated lung mets
>>
>> 6
>>
>> CS
>>
>> Lung & prostate
>>
>> 77
>>
>> Refractory and no longer responding to conventional
>> treatmentProgressively
>> higher doses of Neovastat
>>
>> DR
>>
>> Positive trend in favor of highest dose.
>>
>> *Legend
>>
>> CODESTUDY DESIGNCODERESPONSE OR OUTCOMERCTRandomized Clinical TrialCR
>> Complete ResponsePCo/IntProspective Cohort with Internal Controls
>> PRPartial
>> ResponseRRRetrospective ReviewSDStable DiseasePCo/HistProspective
>> Cohort
>> with Historical ControlsDPDisease ProgressionPCo/NoProspective Cohort
>> with
>> No ControlsOSObjective StabilizationCCCase ControlORObjective
>> ResponseCSClinical SeriesMRMixed ResponseBCBest CasesPOS RPositive
>> ResponseCRCase ReportDTDiscontinued TreatmentRCo/HistRetrospective
>> Cohort
>> with Historical ControlsUUnknownPco/ExtProspective Cohort with
>> External
>> ControlsEXPExpired DRDisease Response SSurvival
>>
>> Proposed Mechanism of Action (Pharmacology)
>>
>> Theories concerning the mechanism of action for shark and bovine
>> cartilage
>> differ. For bovine cartilage, Prudden states that the action is due to
>> the
>> active muco polysaccharide (large sugar molecules) that acts on tumor
>> cell
>> membranes to block mitosis (cell division). Unpublished observations
>> by
>> A.G. Johnson cited by Prudden1 report general activation of and
>> increase of
>> macrophages and activation of cytotoxic T and B cells. The increase in
>> B
>> cells increases immunoglobulins A, G, and M, resulting in an overall
>> increase in anti-mitotic activity; and increase may also be found in
>> NK
>> cells. Further, the immuno-stimulatory activity reduces the size of
>> aberrant cells.
>>
>> In contrast, the proposed mechanism of action for shark cartilage is
>> anti-angiogenesis. Langer identified the antiangiogenesis factor as a
>> peptide that is destroyed by digestion, and thus, unlikely to be
>> effective
>> if taken orally which is the usual route for shark cartilage. As per
>> Boik
>> (page 164)4, Gardner "&hellip;found that large polypeptides do pass
>> through the
>> stomach and intestines undigested and that the terminal stages of
>> protein
>> digestion occur intracellularly in the mucosal absorptive cells of the
>> intestinal lining; small amounts of intact proteins and peptides do
>> enter
>> the circulation under normal conditions. Peptide transport systems,
>> distinct from free amino acid transport, have been identified in
>> intestinal
>> brush-border membranes, but the degree that peptides are able to enter
>> the
>> circulation is considered limited."
>>
>> Lane cites the study by Lee and Langer13 which reports that shark
>> cartilage
>> is 1000 times more potent as an angiogenic inhibitor than bovine;
>> since it
>> takes 500 grams of calf cartilage to produce 1 milligram of
>> &lsquo;cancer-inhibiting extract&rsquo; versus 0.5 grams of shark
>> cartilage to produce
>> the same amount of active extract - a ratio of 1 to 100014. Folkman,
>> however, used over one ton of shark cartilage to extract a few
>> micrograms
>> (millionths of a gram) for experiments with mice15. Langer showed that
>> bovine cartilage does have less of an anti-angiogenic effect than
>> shark
>> cartilage on tumors transplanted into the eye16.
>>
>> In August, l998, a large manufacturer of shark cartilage (Aeterna
>> Laboratories) announced the isolation of an compound from shark
>> cartilage
>> with anti-matrix metalloprotease (MMP) inhibition properties. The MMP
>> enzyme assists cancer cells to metastases by degrading the
>> inter-cellular
>> structure 17.
>>
>> In contrast, Prudden states that the most important active principle
>> is the
>> immunostimulating effect on macrophages. Following this theory, it
>> takes 9
>> grams of bovine to achieve therapeutic levels versus 70 grams (1/2
>> gram per
>> pound of body weight) for shark; therefore, the ratio of 8 to 1 in
>> favor of
>> bovine cartilage for immunostimulation.
>>
>> Holistic Approach?
>>
>> No
>>
>> Possible Toxicity
>>
>> Catrix has been given in very high doses with minimal or no side
>> effects.
>> It is apparently less toxic than many chemotherapies. However, since
>> Catrix-S is formulated for injection, issues of sterility and
>> contamination
>> are critical. In addition, occasional serious reactions to the
>> injectable
>> form of Catrix-S such as allergic reactions to traces of bovine
>> protein may
>> be expected to occur. The possibility of contamination of individual
>> batches exists and should be carefully monitored at the existing
>> manufacturing sites.
>>
>> A possible complication of shark cartilage could be the excessive
>> amount of
>> calcium at 22% which with a daily dose of 70 grams results in 14 grams
>> of
>> calcium, or 14 times that recommended by the USRDA.
>>
>> No serious side effects were reported in the Phase I trial of 77
>> patients
>> by Aeterna Laboratories, Inc6.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This is an automatically-generated notice.  If you'd like to be
>> removed
>> from the mailing list, please visit the Medicine-On-Line Discussion
>> Forum
>> at <http://www.meds.com/con_faq.html>, or send an email message to:
>> majordomo@lists.meds.com
>> with the subject line blank and the body of the message containing the
>> line:
>> unsubscribe mol-cancer your-email-address
>> where the phrase your-email-address is replaced with your actual email
>> address.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically-generated notice.  If you'd like to be removed
from the mailing list, please visit the Medicine-On-Line Discussion Forum
at <http://www.meds.com/con_faq.html>, or send an email message to:
majordomo@lists.meds.com
with the subject line blank and the body of the message containing the line:
unsubscribe mol-cancer your-email-address
where the phrase your-email-address is replaced with your actual email
address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------