Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Two new studies examine the purported benefits of Essiac®, an herbal compound often used by those with cancer . . .  . . .

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 28 Aug 2006 22:21 GMT
Note from Ilena Rosenthal:  Interesting that the Net Nannies here
think they will control the information people have a right to see.

Everytime I post here, I receive grateful messages that I am not
intimidated by the Net Nannies. I just noticed that NinaW did one of
the most deceitful tricks of censoring information they don't want
others to benefit from ... by changing the subject line. Very rude
tactics.

~~~~~

Source: American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP)
Released: Wed 09-Aug-2006, 09:45 ET

http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/522530/
Herbal Remedy Essiac® and Cancer
Libraries
Medical News   Keywords
ESSIAC; ESSIAC AND CANCER  
Contact Information

Two new studies examine the purported benefits of Essiac®, an herbal
compound often used by those with cancer.  

Newswise — Essiac® is an herbal formula that has been used by North
American cancer patients. Its recorded history dates back to the 1920s
when Canadian nurse Rene Caisse blended a tea of burdock root, sheep
sorrel, slippery elm bark, and turkey rhubarb root, and offered it to
her cancer patients. It is believed she received the formulation from
an Ojibwa Indian woman. The name Essiac is Caisse spelled backwards.

Despite its relatively widespread use, there is little published
research about this herbal remedy in the scientific literature. As a
result, two teams of Canadian researchers launched research efforts.

The first group of researchers utilized a series of assays to
determine the validity of some of Essiac®’s purported activities in
vitro; the second group used an animal model to investigate the
effects of the mixture on the stomach, liver and immune system. Both
studies were funded by an educational grant from the manufacturer of
Essiac®. The company had no role in the collection or analysis of the
data.

Both research teams are presenting their findings at the 21st Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians
(http://www.Naturopathic.org), being held August 9-12, 2006 at the
Oregon Convention Center, Portland, OR.

Study 1: In Vitro Analysis of Herbal Compound Essiac®
The first study entitled, An In Vitro Analysis of the Herbal Compound
Essiac®, was conducted by Deborah A. Kennedy, MBA, ND (Cand.),
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, CN; Stephen P. Myers, PhD, BMed, ND,
Phillip A. Cheras, Ph.D., BAppSc., David Lin, Ph.D., Rachel Li, PhD,
Trudi Cattley, BAppSc., and Petta-Anne Paul Brent, BSc., all of the
Australian Centre for Complementary Medicine, Southern Cross
University, Lismore, NSW, AU; Dugald M.R. Seely, ND, MSc. (Cand.),
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, CN and the Institute of Medical
Science, University of Toronto, CN; and Blair J.N. Leonard, MD,
Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, CN.

Methodology
The purpose of the study was to utilize a series of assays to
determine several of Essiac®’s purported activities in vitro. The
activity of Essiac® was measured using established in vitro assays to
quantify: (1) antioxidant activity; (2) platelet aggregation
inhibition; (3) anti-microbial activity; (4) arachidonic acid pathway
inhibition; (5) cell-based immunomodulation; (6) neoplastic cell
specific cytotoxicity; (7) fibrinolytic activity; and (8) inhibition
of enzymes of the CYP450 pathway.

Results
Highlights of the findings showed:

§ there was significant antioxidant activity in the ABTS assay, with 1
ml of Essiac® having the anti-oxidant activity of 3mm Troxol, a
vitamin E analogue;
§ Essiac® at 20-fold dilution showed significant immunomodulatory
effects;
§ Essiac® showed significant cell specific cytotoxicity towards
ovarian epithelial carcinoma cells;
§ after hydrolysis with beta glucosidase, Essiac® showed increased
cytotoxicity towards prostate adenocarcinoma cells;
§ a 20-fold dilution of Essiac® showed significant inhibition of
several cytochrome P450 enzymes;
§ Essiac® demonstrated dose-dependant inhibition of clot fibrinolysis;
and
§ Essiac® showed no specific activity in the platelet aggregation or
anti-microbial assays.

Conclusions
This analysis of Essiac® indicates significant antioxidant and
immunomodulatory properties, as well as neoplastic cell specific
cytotoxicity consistent with the historical properties ascribed to
this compound. Importantly, significant cytochrome P450 and
fibrinolysis inhibition was also observed. These data represent the
first comprehensive investigation of the in vitro effects of Essiac®.

Study 2: An In Vivo Analysis of the Herbal Compound Essiac®
The second study entitled, An In Vivo Analysis of the Herbal Compound
Essiac®, was conducted by Blair J.N. Leonard MD, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; Deborah A. Kennedy, MBA, ND
(Cand.), Division of Clinical Epidemiology, The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, CN; Fong-Chi Cheng, MDS Pharma
Services-Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, TW; Keng-Kuang Chang, MDS Pharma
Services-Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, TW; and Dugald M.R. Seely, ND, MSc.
(Cand.), Division of Clinical Epidemiology, The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, CN and the Division of
Hematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, CN.

Methodology
The study aimed to assess some of Essiac®’s purported effects on the
liver, stomach and immune system. To do so, the researchers
administered Essiac® liquid extract to Wistar rats under established
rodent experimental models. The rats received Essiac® 30-minutes prior
to a physical challenge to the liver, stomach or immune system. The
rats were dosed again with the compound at 4, 8 and 24 hours. Also at
24 hours they were sacrificed and specific levels were measured,
including body weight.

Results and Conclusions
Essiac® showed significant effects in gastric protection and
non-significant changes with other properties. Thus, the researchers
concluded that Essiac® administered in established in vivo experiments
did not significantly demonstrate the purported physiological
modifying effects. These results are significant as they represent the
first published investigation on the in vivo effects of Essiac®
consumption.

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) was founded
in 1985 to provide alternative methods for healing human diseases and
disorders than have been traditionally offered in the United States.
Members of the AANP must have graduated from one of North America’s
six accredited graduate schools of naturopathic medicine.
Jeff - 30 Aug 2006 00:58 GMT
Amer. Association of Naturopathic Physicians?

You can do better than that. On second thought, you can't.

This crap wasn't even published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Jeff

> Note from Ilena Rosenthal:  Interesting that the Net Nannies here
> think they will control the information people have a right to see.
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> Members of the AANP must have graduated from one of North America's
> six accredited graduate schools of naturopathic medicine.
Ilena Rose - 30 Aug 2006 17:20 GMT
LOL ... Jeff Utz, altho somehow made it thru Med School ... he was
never allowed to practice medicine with an unrestricted license ...
despite this, he has falsely claimed to be a Pediatrician (Kids Doc)
on Usenet for years ... while promoting the Vaccination Propaganda of
the vast Vac Industry.

"Peer review" is recognized as being Pro-Industry ... far from
unbiased ...just like Utz & his ilk.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1615

EXCERPT:
The blatant pro-industry bias of OMB’s peer review panel selection
criteria is staggering.

Public Citizen Criticizes White House Plan to Impose Peer Review on
Agency Information, Increase Secrecy, Stymie Important Public
Protections

OMB Proposal Would Increase Pro-Industry Bias in Government
Decision-Making and Delay or Derail Needed Health, Safety and
Environmental Protections

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A proposal issued by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) would effectively give regulated industries such as
utilities and chemical manufacturers the ability to block federal
agencies from implementing important safeguards or making critical
information about hazards available to the public, Public Citizen said
in comments filed with the agency last week. The proposal would bar
federal agencies from using scientific data, or releasing it to the
public, unless the information has first gone through a cumbersome and
industry-favored "peer review" process.

Other groups that have filed comments opposing the proposed bulletin
include the Federation of American Scientists, the American Public
Health Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, OMB Watch,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Progressive
Regulation and members of Congress.

"Requiring outside peer review of all scientific data prepared by or
used by government agencies is an impossibility, and is wasteful and
unauthorized," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "This
proposal is a red herring designed to stymie government decisions,
keep information secret from the public, and introduce potentially
massive costs and delays into the regulatory process."

Public Citizen has a long history of involvement in regulatory
activities at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, among other agencies. In its detailed
critique of the proposal, Public Citizen highlighted some of the many
flaws in the proposal, including:

OMB has not produced a single example of flawed government science
that would have benefited from peer review, but proposes sweeping new
requirements.

The blatant pro-industry bias of OMB’s peer review panel selection
criteria is staggering. All academic scientists whose universities
receive federal funding are labeled as having "conflicts of interest,"
but scientists employed by regulated industries are not, unless they
actually work on the specific issue under review. The result will be
panels stacked with pro-industry scientists sitting in judgment on
government science.

The mandatory review and comment periods imposed by the bulletin will
bog agencies down to the point of ossification and lay the groundwork
for challenges by regulated industries at the end of the process.

"Permit applications" are exempt from the scope of the bulletin. In
other words, when industry wants a government agency like the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or FDA to grant permission for a business activity,
science doesn’t have to be peer reviewed under the proposal. But when
the government is considering imposing limits on industry for the
protection of the public, it does.

Control over release of information to the public in the event of a
public health emergency is transferred away from health, safety and
environmental officials and into the hands of OMB. This makes explicit
a power that OMB has already exercised behind the scenes. According to
a December 29, 2002 article by Andrew Schneider in the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, "White House Office Blocked EPA’s Asbestos Plan," OMB
prevented the EPA from declaring a public health emergency and issuing
a national warning about Zonolite insulation, which contains highly
carcinogenic asbestos fibers. (Click here to view the newspaper
article and Public Citizen’s letter to OMB.)
In joint comments, the Association of American Medical Colleges and
the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, with
105,000 and 60,000 members respectively, described the proposal as
effectively creating a "receivership regime" and deplored its "likely
interference with timely, responsible public health announcements to
the detriment of the public weal." Click here to view those comments.

###

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pharmin4 - 30 Aug 2006 23:23 GMT
Edward J.

Find some more info about classes and pharmacotherapeutical treatment
of cancer and related medical conditions of neoplasms:
http://drugs-about.com/icd/c00-d48.html - Cancer Diseases -
Drugs-about.com - ICD-10
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.