Reply With QuoteThis ticks many of the boxes of standard selling techniques, such as exclusivity, scientific jargon, a deadline and so on. It makes you wonder if someone, somewhere expects to make some money out of it!
Has anyone seen this http://www.hsibaltimore.com/hsi_weiss_801.htm and has any input regarding it.
seems a low cost scam to me
This ticks many of the boxes of standard selling techniques, such as exclusivity, scientific jargon, a deadline and so on. It makes you wonder if someone, somewhere expects to make some money out of it!
Last edited by Mulder; 14th August 2009 at 04:17 PM.
Low cost? They've built this stuff up as the cure for cancer, said there's a very limited supply of it and only given a slight clue as to how to find out the price. I stroingly suggest that these will be some very expensive miracle 'erbs. Whenever someone's trying to sell em stuff but withholds infomration on the price I rememebr the maxin "If you have to ask how much it costs you can't afford it."Originally Posted by Briz
I'm guessing that this may well cost some people their life savings and maybe even their lives.
The entire website (http://hsibaltimore.com/) looks like typical sCAM rubbish to me.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
People like Matt and Pebble will be far more informative, but for the moment, have a read of THIS
ETA Matt already posted while I was reading that link!
ETA2 THIS seems to be the original page with a reassuring (and reassuringly large) disclaimer at the bottomIMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.
Last edited by DrS; 14th August 2009 at 05:16 PM.
Meh, not so expensive after all
http://www.iherb.com/Now-Foods-Gravi...ules/5018?at=0
Research charity view http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/de...asp?page=48168
Just because it can do things when mixed directly with cells in a lab, it doesn't mean it would work in a human. More research needed!
Last edited by Mulder; 14th August 2009 at 05:48 PM.
It appears that no one has done any work on this product that relates to humans except to show it could have an adverse effect on the nervous system.
... and if it's being advertised in the UK at least as a cancer cure, then I believe it's breaking the law.
Here's the thing. They claim that there have been promising pre-clinical trials. That would be tests on cell cultures and lab animals.
I haven't really looked for these trials or asked them to send me the limited edition information. Frankly even if they do exist and say that thee substances effectively kill cancer cells in a petri dish then what of it? The same can be said of boiling lead or napalm but these aren't generally regarded as drugs considering that they have a similar indiscriminate effect on other tissues. Maybe if there were some lab animal studies that would be of interest but they're not claiming that. They're claiming that research was done in vitro and was not published. Seems plausible but…
They claim that these trials were stopped because magic meant the evil corporate monoliths couldn't profit from the drug. It’s a familiar old story. They couldn't isolate/synthesize it so they couldn't patent it so they couldn't profit.
Lets examine that claim because it crops up rather often.
Firstly they say that one or two ingredients were really promising but they couldn't isolate them. That makes little sense. If they couldn't isolate them how could they test them? If they did test them without isolating them then how would they know that it was those ingredients that caused the effect. So either they didn't isolate these ingredients or they didn't test them in isolation.
Then they say they couldn't synthesize these compounds. Let’s examine that claim. Have a look at this.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html
That's individual atoms being placed in position one at a time to spell out a word.
These compounds are merely arrangements of atoms. There's going to be much simpler ways of synthesizing them than directly arranging atoms but I'm just not familiar with the idea of a compound that can be constructed by a vegetable but not by a lab. It makes no sense to me. We’re really, really good at this and have biochemical pathways for every carbon chain imaginable.
Even if it can't be synthesized cost effectively, it can still be grown and isolated maybe the isolation process isn’t cost effective. But by cost effectively were talking about the amount that people will pay for a cancer treatment and how can you know that the boffins won’t come up with a more efficient process.
They say that it's all natural so can't be patented. That's bullcrap you can certainly patent usages for all natural isolates. Even if that weren't the case the company could develop a number of patents regarding the processes of isolation, synthesis or delivery. Further trademarks and design copyrights would protect its investment. What's more even out of patent medicine are still in regular use and being manufactured by companies that make a profit.
So given that desperate and vulnerable people hand over their life savings for the merest glimmer of home of a cancer cure it's certain that if this substance was really so promising then any pharmaceutical drug company would certainly have moved on to Phase I clinical testing certain in the knowledge that they could recoup their investment.
Yet even if that were not the case, the evil behemoths of the corporate world are not the only source of funding for promising cancer cures.
I went to the cancer research shop the other day but it turned out that all they were selling were second hand books and clothes, VHS videos and old toys and games. The nearest thing I got to being able to buy some cancer research was a beaten up 1998 edition of "Operation" from before they added the "brain freeze." I snapped it up hoping that one day it would become a collectors edition.
As it happens they don't sell cancer research at all. They used the money I gave them to buy cancer research - expecting nothing in return but the merest hope for a cure for cancer. Their profit motive was the exact opposite of big pharma and if Graviola was the most promising research project looking for funding then it would certainly be next on the list.
Also there's this huge organisation concerned with health in this country, I don't know if you've heard of them, they're called the NHS. They run hospitals, doctors’ surgeries and public health programmes for people who can't afford private health care. It's a government funded project and it's been quite successful. Their closest hospital to me is called a university hospital. They actually train doctors and do research there. My wife has been part of two clinical trials there. All government funded. Of course the government has their own nefarious motives for wanting us healthy. They think that healthy people are productive and pay taxes. So much so that they even fund public health research outside the auspices of the NHS. They fund a great deal of pure science. Just for the sheer heck of it. You never know what'll turn out to be useful. So if Graviola was the most promising research project looking for funding then it would certainly be next on their list too.
So if research into Graviola isn't being done by publicly funded researchers, the NHS, research funded by charity or big pharmaceutical companies and the early studies which showed huge promise haven't been published what could be the reason.
The evils of big phrama are legion but in this case they simply can't account for any lack of published research so what could the reason be.
Now here's just a suggestion. Thinking out of left field for a moment but what if the research they're talking about wasn't followed up on and wasn't published because either 1 it never existed in the first place or two it was poorly conceived, poorly performed or poorly written up such that the conclusion that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, was unreliable.
Perhaps someone is inflating the claims for this product whilst suggesting false reasons why the mainstream isn’t so excited about this wonder drug.
That would also account for why when Ralph Moss did his PubMed search for papers on annonaceous acetogenins he found 121 hits and when I did that research again I saw 313 hits.
Scaling these hits down to those relating to cancer (210) hits I looked first for clinical trials. There were none. I then looked for reviews there were 14.
They seem to agree that that this family of chemicals are among the hundreds of active chemicals that are being actively investigated. There appears to be no evidence of a cover up. However what will emerge from these investigations might be a pesticide rather than an anti cancer-drug.
If it is to become a cancer drug first it will need to be tested on animals to get some indication of the range of safe and effective dosage.
This range of safe dosage will then need to be confirmed in humans by a phase I clinical trial to establish any side effects.
If this looks promising a slightly large phase II clinical trial will help establish the optimal dosage whilst still keeping a weather eye on side effects.
If this looks promising a much larger and longer phase III clinical trial with establish its efficacy and safety compared to placebos or already established treatments.
Finally the product will be released and yet still there will be systematic monitoring to pick up low risk side effects or interactions
Now though time consuming and expensive these procedures are in place the help maximise the benefit to the patient. These are the procedures of evidence based medicine that have revolutionised the practice of doctoring in the past few decades from the paternalistic, prescriptive doctor know best approach of the past to the current systematic recording of what really works. These are the procedures that have added a decade to the life expectancies and decimated infant mortality rates across the world in the past 50 years. It's new age it's incredible and almost everybody you know has a personal experience to relate about how good this technique is.
Of course if anybody prefers the doctor knows best, do it because I say so attitudes of the past then sure, let a herbalist "prescribe" these capsules. As far as they know there are no side effects or interactions. Then again herbalists aren’t monitoring for them, just hoping that because it's as natural as digitalis or belladonna it'll be safe. Don’t ask for evidence, herbalist knows best. They dutifully carry on knowing best by remaining wilfully ignorant of the direct observation of the nerve damage associated with the indiscriminate use of this drug. Ignorance allows them to carry on selling the stuff with a clear conscience. Rumours that it might be harmful could just be something to do with big pharma and the cover up. Remember Big Pharma are evil and suppress new ideas
They can ask what a safe dosage is. Obviously I have no idea as these clinical trials haven't been done yet. With my crazy new age idea of evidence based medicine (which has brainwashed almost every MD alive today into accepting it's value) I'd go as far as to say that the safe dosage isn't actually known. But of course it's all natural so what do these crazy doctors and scientists know. Have I mentioned that big pharma are evil? Any herbalist will be able to make an assessment the old fashioned way, based upon how much the patient can afford, and how sick they are. If the patient suffers some sort of harm afterwards they can choose whether to dismiss the possibility that it might have been related to the drug or publicise the harm through the register that herbalists will be setting up any day now.
The patient can ask what the optimal dose is and of course us crazy new age science types, hung up on this modern fad of evidence based medicine just wont' have any answers for you. It's always wait and see, wait and see. But the herbalist can answer you. They can sell you this drug right now in a dosage based upon the old fashioned methods and their reasonable guess that this batch of capsules contains roughly the same amount of active ingredient as any other. You can ask for evidence but maybe that’s just a fad this evidence thing, it might blow over. Medicine men didn’t need it for thousands of years and still managed to keep some people alive long enough to breed at least. Don’t forget that Big Pharma are evil and suppress new ideas.
So evil are big Pharma that if they could they’d even suppress evidence based medicine. Used to be a time when you could sell anything and call it a medicine but with this new age evidence fad that swept up all these crazy doctors and scientists they even got the politicians duped. Politicians have decreed from their ivory towers that EBM should have the last word on what can be sold as a drug. You can’t sell something and claim it cures disease unless you’ve got some of this new fangled evidence. That really pisses off big Pharma. It means that a full third of their profits come from products which they can’t actively market except as natural supplements. Where they have to rely on other people making evidence free claims about how they will cure disease.
Oh yes this is a story about the evils of big Pharma and how they suppress evidence alright. However just dig a little. Just find out who owns the companies grinding up bits of rainforest, putting them in capsules and distributing them round the world. You guessed it. Big Pharma. And the evidence they’re suppressing isn't the fact that it cures cancer but they can't profit from it. The evidence their supressing is that they haven't the first clue whetehr it can cure cancer or not, it'll take years to find out but they're gonna sell it to you anyway. The claims made for these drugs are at best premature, at worst harmful poppycock.
Last edited by Matt; 17th August 2009 at 12:50 PM.
I'm a Family Practice physician in the U.S. and have been diagnosed with Stage III Adenocarcinoma of the colon-been through surgery and now on FOLFOX chemotherapy. Like most folks with cancer, I'm a bit scared and have researched out my condition and treatments fairly thoroughly.
Though I think many herbal medications have merit and show promise for actual clinical application, I have to admit that I am skeptical if there are no actual clinical trials on humans and suggest everyone to maintain the same skepticism. In this era of "evidence-based medicine", numerous studies have been done on numerous herbal medications-some substantiating benefits and many others revealing that they aren't efficacious.
From my research, graviola and paw paw were initially researched, as part of an NIH-funded search for botanical medicinals, in the 40's-50's. Apparently the leaves of the plant contain phytochemicals called annonaceous acetogenins. The National Cancer Institute did some studies on gaviola in 1976 but it appears the the best body of research done was at Purdue University. They did a number of in vitro (in the test tube) studies over numerous years and found that it had significant impact on 5 cancer cell lines. I couldn't find whether in vivo (in the body) studies were performed or not. Animal studies may have done, but from what I can find, clinical trials have not been conducted. There are other purported properties of graviola as an antidiarrheal, antiparasitic, antihypertensive and more, but the primary interest seems to be its anticancer properties.
It seems that the principal anti-tumor effect has been through the effect on ATP production. ATP is the primary energy storage compound of the body. As such, it ends up killing tumor cells, as they have higher energy requirements than normal cells, since they are in "hyperdrive".
It seems that the main reason graviola hasn't reached mainstream pharmaceutical production is that it cannot be patented in its natural form extracted from plants. Apparently, numerous efforts to alter the compound to make it unique and patentable have been unsuccessful. Several chemical alterations to the natural chemical have been done but they were not efficacious at reducing tumor cell growth.
As many folks surmise (and I agree), if the drug can't be patented, there's less financial incentive, so there's little interest in producing an FDA-approved product that's been through clinical trials with proven efficacy and focus on side-effects. Simply put, there's not enough money in it for them. At this point, only some government-sponsored research will prove whether the drug is truly efficacious.....and then, after a government pours research dollars into the drug and it proves to be efficacious, in the end, some pharmaceutical company will reap the benefits without having to pay for the research. As for side effects, reportedly there's a neurologic (Parkinsonian-type syndrome) associated with its use in some people, though it seems, anecdotally that side effects are otherwise minimal.
Now comes the problem.....with lack of real human clinical trials and at least some purported degree of efficacy (in vitro), many folks will post online claims of efficacy-not strictly associated with companies that are producing herbal preparations of graviola. The companies can't make clinical claims of treatment efficacy, or they would come under the scrutiny of the FDA. They can sell the product without making clinical claims, while letting anecdotal claims of efficacy advertise the product for them.
To get back to my hesitation to recommend herbal medications, St. John's Wort has been proven to be efficacious in treating mild to moderate depression. Problems is that St. John's Wort is dispensed with stems and leaves packed into a capsule, and there is no guarantee of potency between capsule to capsule, very much like differences between potency of various grades of marijuana sold on the street. The same issue will exist with graviola, unless it's produced in a pharmaceutical-grade form.
In the end, I would certainly like to be cured of my cancer and might consider it if my surgery and mainstream chemotherapy doesn't put me into remission, but I think I'll trust the hematologist-oncologist before I'll resort to unproven internet claims.
But you could synthesize it and patent the (manufacturing) process and the uses of the molecule.
skb
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
I particularly like the Scare story about Warfarin. "Your Doctor is giving you Rat Poison".
Well that is strictly true...
It's one of things that woo-mungers don't seem to be able to grasp - for medicine to work it has to do something. If a substance has no side effects then it almost certainly has no effects at all. And anything in large enough doses can be nasty (such as Vitamin C causing diarrhoea).
Last edited by Croydon Bob; 16th December 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: spilling mishtake (got "diarrhoea" right but "to" wrong)
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
It was the inference that because it is also used as a Rat Poison that people should stop taking it and take their herbal alternative that amused me.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks