From: JWebber2005@yahoo.com (Josh Webber)

I was reading the book "Surviving Prostate Cancer Without Surgery" by
Dr. Bradley Hennenfent and he tells of this case study of a guy who got
his PSA from a high of 122 down to 1 in a couple of months by taking PC
SPES several times a day.
Dr. Hennenfent said PC SPES may be the safest and most effective
prostate cancer treatment today. However, the FDA banned PC SPES in 2002
because it contained a blood thinner called sodium warfarin.

Dr. Hennenfent urges people to push for the return of this drug. I am
all for it. However, I checked on his website
www.SurvivingProstateCancerWithoutSurgery.org and although it gives a
lot of useful info about prostate cancer, it does not give any details
of citizens' efforts to bring the PC SPES back. Does anybody know of any
groups or organizations that are pushing for PC SPES? Does anyone have
any new information about it?
I hope to hear from you guys. Regards.
Josh Webber  

======================hi josh - i think that somebody is pushing the wrong advice here.  some
think that PC SPES will work, but even back in the 90's, it was taken
only as a last resort when nothing else worked.  the pills were indeed
expensive.

i've got over 15 years of studying pca and the treatments that have been
used.  it started when my dad was first dx'ed and i researched, and
researched the various treatments.  

i will tell you that i do not know of a SINGLE PERSON who was taking PC
SPES in the late 1990's that is still alive today.  i found this fact
interesting giving the fact that PC SPES is suppose to provide cure and
extend life.

i saved this email with all its markers, so you can see the person's
background as well as the results from his study.  

hope this information.

~ curtis
===========From:    JohnMarkCarter@CompuServe.com Subject:    PC-SPEC -- a
clinical study Date:    Mon, Jun 1, 1998, 3:53pm (CDT+5) Group:
  

alt.support.cancer.prostate

Last Friday (29MAY98) I attended the 1998 annual retreat of cancer
research in New Jersey. One abstract that was very interesting to me is
worth sharing with the group. It presented results from a small clinical
study of PC-SPES. The study was somewhat poorly designed and performed,
but some of the results are nonetheless conclusive. Below I present the
abstract exactly as it was published in the proceedings. Then I offer a
translation into lay language. Then my notes from the lecture that the
primary author delivered. And finally a professional critique of the
study. (Although the latter is offered IMHO, I am a PhD biochemist with
10 years experience in research including a few recent years studying
breast and prostate cancer.)

ABSTRACT:

Clinical and Biological activity of an Herbal Combination (PC-SPES) in
the Treatment of Prostate Cancer.
Robert S. DiPaola, Huayan Zhang, George Lambert, Robert Mecker, Edward
Licitra, Heidi Spaulding, Susan Goodie, Michel B. Toledano, William
Hait, Michael Gallo.
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School,
New Brunswick, NJ and EOHSI.
Background. Herbal medicines have gained popular appeal as alternatives
to proven therapies. PC-SPES, a commercially available herbal
combination, is touted as a non-estrogenic treatment for cancer of the
prostate, although other herbal medicines have been known to have in
vitro estrogenic effects. Therefore we tested the clinical and
biological activity of PC-SPES in men with cancer of the prostate.
Methods. Estrogenic activity of PC-SPES was measured by transcriptional
activation assays in yeast and in a biological assay in rodents. The
clinical activity of PC-SPES was determined in patients with
hormone-sensitive cancer of the prostate by measuring PSA and serum
testosterone concentrations during and after treatment. Results. In
complimentary yeast assays, a 1:200 dilution of an ethanol extract of
PC-SPES (320 mg per capsule) contained estrogenic activity similar to 1
nM estradiol. In ovarectomized CD-1 mice, PC-SPES increased uterine
weights compared to vehicle controls (p=0.004). In 6/6 patients, PC-SPES
suppressed the concentration of serum testosterone by 71% +/- 8.0
(p=0.025), and in 8/8 patients decreased PSA by 64% +/- 11 (p=0.005).
Patients consuming PC-SPES experienced estrogenic side effects including
breast tenderness (8/8), loss of libido (8/8), and venous thrombosis
(1/8). Conclusions. PC-SPES has potent estrogenic activity, as
demonstrated in yeast, rodents, and man. PC-SPES is capable of androgen
ablation, reducing PSA, and producing estrogenic side effects in men
with cancer of the prostate. The use of this agent may confound results
of standard or experimental therapies, and may produce significant
toxicity. These data highlight the potent beneficial and adverse
biological activities that can be associated with unrestricted
nutritional food supplements.

LAY TRANSLATION:

PC-SPES works on CaP the same way that androgen ablation therapy works.
That is, it acts like estrogen and inhibits the production of
testosterone which is needed by hormone sensitive CaP for its survival
and growth. It works, but it has side effects, as do most drugs. If you
decide to use PC-SPES tell your physician, since it's a very potent
drug.

MY NOTES:

1. PC-SPES contains the following herbs: chrysanthemum, isatis,
licorice, Lucid gamoderma, pseudoginseng, rubescens, saw palmetto, and
scute.
2. PSA levels typically began to increase within three weeks of
withdrawal from PC-SPES.
3. 2 of 6 patients experienced testosterone depression to <25 ng/dl.
This is castrate level. All 6 of 6 patients experienced significant
reduction of serum testosterone.
4. HPLC analysis of the clinically active ethanol extract administered
in the study indicated many compounds, but no estrogen. (This rules out
the possibility that the distributor simply added cheap estrogen to an
inert herbal compound.)

CRITIQUE:

1. This is a shaky little preliminary trial. You can't believe
everything that it purports. However, it looks really very interesting.
It looks interesting enough that I'm going to write a grant proposal
based on isolation of the active principle(s) from the mixture. This
principle well be a good lead towards a new therapeutic. Some people
will always prefer to take "natural" remedies. But chemists like me can
often improve on the activity and side effect profiles of naturally
occurring remedies. As a matter of fact, that's where a lot of new drugs
come from.
2. It's not really fair of the authors to make an issue of the one
incidence of venous thrombosis they observed, especially since
thrombosis was not pre-decided to be one of the clinical parameters they
would study. However, it's worth watching. One of the reasons CaP
patients don't just take cheap estrogen is because estrogen causes so
many undesirable side effects, including a risk of potentially
life-threatening blood clots.
3. Chalk one up for the alternative medicine folks! I'd like to see a
thorough comparison of PC-SPES versus traditional medicine, with costs
and risks compared to health benefits. Right now most CaP patients will
have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals, since that's what their docs
will prescribe, and it's all their health insurance plans will pay for.
Pretty cool, huh? In closing I reiterate: if you take PC-SPES (or any
other remedy) tell your doc and your pharmacist.
Mark

DISCLAIMER:

This is not a professional evaluation. I did not examine any patient
prior to making these comments, and I have neither charged nor received
any fee. Discuss these comments with your personal physician, and act
upon his/her advice. By participating in an Internet discussion, I am
not creating a physician-patient relationship, nor may I be held
responsible for any potential breach of confidentiality.

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc