I am a chemicist and write my promotion about alternative anti tumor drugs. Of special interest for me is the mushroom Coguemo do Sol and limonene, resp. ots metabolite perillic alcohol. I would like to change my experiences with this drugs with other people, who are interested in this. [email protected]
"Alexander" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I am a chemicist and write my promotion about alternative anti tumor drugs. Of special interest > for me is the mushroom Coguemo do Sol and limonene, resp. ots metabolite perillic alcohol. I would > like to change my experiences with this drugs with other people, who are interested in this. > [email protected] Let's see......... "New amazing natural alternative anti-cancer drugs" Not new Not amazing Natural, true, but then so is taxol and vincristine Not anti-cancer Not alternative, because it's no alternative if it doesn't work I guess they are drugs, though
"Steph" <s[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Alexander" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > I am a chemicist and write my promotion about alternative anti tumor drugs. Of special interest > > for me is the mushroom Coguemo do Sol and limonene, resp. ots metabolite perillic alcohol. I > > would like to change my experiences with this drugs with other people, who are interested in > > this. [email protected] > > Let's see......... "New amazing natural alternative anti-cancer drugs" Not new Not amazing > Natural, true, but then so is taxol and vincristine Not anti-cancer They are anti-cancer in the same way statins are. They block cancer cells from receiving chemical signals that result in bad things happening. Another name for these substances are isoprenoids. When isoprenoids are used in certain combinations, their anti-cancer effects are synergistic. Here's an abstract that gives evidence of their potent anti-cancer properties: ----- Cancer Lett. 1995 Sep 4;96(1):15-21. Chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer with the monoterpene perillyl alcohol. Stark MJ, Burke YD, McKinzie JH, Ayoubi AS, Crowell PL. Department of Biology, Indiana University- Purdue University at Indianapolis 46202-5132, USA. Perillyl alcohol has antitumor activity against rat mammary and liver cancer. Here, we report the chemotherapeutic effects of perillyl alcohol on pancreatic cancer. Perillyl alcohol reduced the growth of hamster pancreatic tumors to less than half that of controls (P < 0.025). Moreover, 16% of perillyl alcohol-treated pancreatic tumors completely regressed whereas no control tumors regressed (P < 0.05). Perillyl alcohol induced contact inhibition in cultured human pancreatic carcinoma cells and inhibited their anchorage-independent growth (P < 0.001). Thus, perillyl alcohol has antitumor activity against pancreatic carcinomas at non-toxic doses, and may be an effective chemotherapeutic agent for human pancreatic cancer. ----- I've done a fair amount of research on them and if I had cancer, I would most definitely use them. Some of them are synergistic with statins in their anti-cancer effects. Here's a link to 129 abstracts discussing their anti-cancer properties: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pub med_pubmed&from_uid=8886131 Roger > Not alternative, because it's no alternative if it doesn't work I guess they are drugs, though
Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real world........ There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in some benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit.
"Steph" <[email protected].island> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real > world........ > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in some > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. ----- Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol administered four times a day. Ripple GH, Gould MN, Arzoomanian RZ, Alberti D, Feierabend C, Simon K, Binger K, Tutsch KD, Pomplun M, Wahamaki A, Marnocha R, Wilding G, Bailey HH. University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Developmental Therapeutics Program, Madison 53792, USA. We conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial of perillyl alcohol (POH; NSC 641066) given p.o. on a continuous four times a day basis to characterize the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor activity. Sixteen evaluable patients with advanced refractory malignancies were treated at the following doses: level 1 (L1), 800 mg/m2/dose; L2, 1200 mg/m2/dose; L3, 1600 mg/m2/dose. POH was formulated in soft gelatin capsules containing 250 mg of POH and 250 mg of soybean oil. The predominant toxicities seen were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, satiety, and eructation), which were dose limiting. There appeared to be a dose-dependent increase in levels of the two main metabolites, perillic acid and dihydroperillic acid. No significant differences were seen whether the drug was taken with or without food. There was a trend toward decreasing metabolite levels on day 29 compared with days 1 and 2. Peak metabolite levels were seen 1-3 h post ingestion. Metabolite half-lives were approximately 2 h. Approximately 9% of the total dose was recovered in the urine in the first 24 h, the majority as perillic acid. Evidence of antitumor activity was seen in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer who has an ongoing near-complete response of > 2 years duration. Several other patients were on study for > or = 6 months with stable disease. The maximum tolerated dose of POH given continuously four times a day was 1200 mg/m2/dose. Gastrointestinal toxicity was dose limiting, although significant interpatient variability in drug tolerance was seen.
"Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real > > world........ > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > some > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > ----- > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol administered > four times a day. > It wasn't a "trial", it was a study, and it's absolutely impossible to claim that anyone benefited, as you should know.
Steph <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real > world........ > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in some benefit. And many of > them have absolutely no benefit. Oh, alcohol kills tumor cells thats for sure.. And its fun trying to get the body's OH-level up to the concentration used to kill the tumor cells in the petri dish... -- madiba
In article <Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]>, "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real > world........ > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in some benefit. And many of > them have absolutely no benefit. Actually, the vast majority of them have absolutely no benefit. Long is the list of substances that had a reasonable-sounding theoretical basis for working but either didn't work or were too toxic when in animal models or clinical trials. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
In article <[email protected]>, "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real humans in the real > > world........ > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > some > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > ----- > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol administered four times a day. > > Ripple GH, Gould MN, Arzoomanian RZ, Alberti D, Feierabend C, Simon K, Binger K, Tutsch KD, > Pomplun M, Wahamaki A, Marnocha R, Wilding G, Bailey HH. Do you know what a Phase I trial is? The primary purpose of a Phase I trial is not to show efficacy or benefit or even anti-cancer activity. The purpose of a Phase I trial is to determine safety, dosage levels, and pharmacokinetics in humans. There usually is no control group in a Phase I trial. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:chqZb.575418$X%[email protected]... > > "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real > > > humans in the real world........ > > > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > > some > > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > > > ----- > > > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol > administered > > four times a day. > > > > It wasn't a "trial", it was a study, and it's absolutely impossible to claim > that anyone benefited, as you should know. Call it what you want but the point is people did benefit according to the authors by writing the following, "Evidence of antitumor activity was seen in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer who has an ongoing near-complete response of > 2 years duration. Several other patients were on study for > or = 6 months with stable disease." People with metastatic colon cancer don't have a near-complete response of > 2 years for no reason as you should know. The only reason this would occur is because of the therapy the person was on in this trial as the authors note by writing, "Evidence of antitumor activity."
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]... > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in real > > > humans in the real world........ > > > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > > some > > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > > > ----- > > > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol administered > > four times a day. > > > > Ripple GH, Gould MN, Arzoomanian RZ, Alberti D, Feierabend C, Simon K, Binger K, Tutsch KD, > > Pomplun M, Wahamaki A, Marnocha R, Wilding G, Bailey > > HH. > > Do you know what a Phase I trial is? > > The primary purpose of a Phase I trial is not to show efficacy or benefit or even anti-cancer > activity. The purpose of a Phase I trial is to determine safety, dosage levels, and > pharmacokinetics in humans. There usually is no control group in a Phase I trial. I'm well aware of what a phase I trial is for. It's possible for phase I trials to show evidence of anti-cancer effects as the authors note this trial did. It's pretty clear the person who had the metastatic colon cancer almost clear up benefitted from the therapy because that doesn't happen by itself. A control group isn't necessary to draw that conclusion. > > -- > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." > | > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:chqZb.575418$X%[email protected]... > > > > "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in > real > > > > humans in the real world........ > > > > > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > > > some > > > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > > > > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > > > > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol > > administered > > > four times a day. > > > > > > > It wasn't a "trial", it was a study, and it's absolutely impossible to > claim > > that anyone benefited, as you should know. > > Call it what you want but the point is people did benefit according to the authors by writing the > following, "Evidence of antitumor activity was seen in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer > who has an ongoing near-complete response of > 2 years duration. Several other patients were on > study for > or = 6 months with stable disease." > "According to the authors"...........think about it. What's a near complet response? A partial response, I guess, and many patients get those with all kinds of treatment. Stable disease is not uncommon in patients having NO treatment! > People with metastatic colon cancer don't have a near-complete response of > > 2 years for no reason as you should know. The only reason this would occur > is because of the therapy the person was on in this trial as the authors note by writing, > "Evidence of antitumor activity." > Believe what you like, but wishful thinking on your part or "The authors" part doesn't make it so
"Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > I'm well aware of what a phase I trial is for. It's possible for phase I trials to show evidence > of anti-cancer effects as the authors note this trial did. It's pretty clear the person who had > the metastatic colon cancer > almost clear up benefitted from the therapy because that doesn't happen by itself. A control group > isn't necessary to draw that conclusion. > It's clear you don't understand biostatistics or trial methodology. Trust me, the study does not show what you and the authors think it shows......
In article <1a_Zb.586626$X%[email protected]>, "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > I'm well aware of what a phase I trial is for. It's possible for phase I trials to show evidence > > of anti-cancer effects as the authors note this trial did. It's pretty clear the person who had > > the metastatic colon > cancer > > almost clear up benefitted from the therapy because that doesn't happen by itself. A control > > group isn't necessary to draw that conclusion. > > > > It's clear you don't understand biostatistics or trial methodology. > > Trust me, the study does not show what you and the authors think it shows...... Why not? I read the article. The authors didn't make any outrageous claims. They simply discussed the toxicity and pharmacokinetics and reported that the one patient out of sixteen had objective evidence of a possible response to treatment. That's about it. As you know, that's about par for the course for most Phase I studies, many of which show no objective evidence of response to treatment but still provide sufficient evidence for justifying a Phase II study. I'd agree with the author's conclusions that a Phase II study is justified from the data. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
In article <[email protected]>, "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message newsrac-4F85F9.1954212[email protected]... > > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Q7hZb.570105$X%[email protected]... > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to say that there was no evidence that they work in > real > > > > humans in the real world........ > > > > > > > > There are many substances which have a theoretical basis for belief in > > > some > > > > benefit. And many of them have absolutely no benefit. > > > > > > This trial with real humans showed benefit to some. > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Feb;6(2):390-6. > > > > > > Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of perillyl alcohol > administered > > > four times a day. > > > > > > Ripple GH, Gould MN, Arzoomanian RZ, Alberti D, Feierabend C, Simon K, Binger K, Tutsch KD, > > > Pomplun M, Wahamaki A, Marnocha R, Wilding G, > Bailey > > > HH. > > > > Do you know what a Phase I trial is? > > > > The primary purpose of a Phase I trial is not to show efficacy or benefit or even anti-cancer > > activity. The purpose of a Phase I trial is to determine safety, dosage levels, and > > pharmacokinetics in humans. There usually is no control group in a Phase I trial. > > I'm well aware of what a phase I trial is for. It's possible for phase I trials to show evidence > of anti-cancer effects as the authors note this trial did. It's pretty clear the person who had > the metastatic colon cancer almost clear up benefitted from the therapy because that doesn't > happen by itself. A control group isn't necessary to draw that conclusion. Actually, unless the effect is so crystal clear as to be near-miraculous (as some of the alt-med proponents claim for some of their remedies), a control group IS necessary to draw that conclusion. In this study, it's impossible to draw any conclusions, simply because patients with different advanced malignancies (ranging from leukemias to colon cancer to breast and pancreatic cancer) were in the study, all of whom had some prior therapy, and because the numbers of patients were too small. (For instance, there were only two patients with colorectal cancer.) Only one patient (with colorectal cancer) had anything resembling a response. That response may well have been real and due to the drug, but without a control group and at least some more numbers it's impossible to say for sure. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]... > In article <1a_Zb.586626$X%[email protected]>, > "Steph" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > I'm well aware of what a phase I trial is for. It's possible for phase I > > > trials to show evidence of anti-cancer effects as the authors note this > > > trial did. It's pretty clear the person who had the metastatic colon > > cancer > > > almost clear up benefitted from the therapy because that doesn't happen by > > > itself. A control group isn't necessary to draw that conclusion. > > > > > > > It's clear you don't understand biostatistics or trial methodology. > > > > Trust me, the study does not show what you and the authors think it shows...... > > Why not? I read the article. The authors didn't make any outrageous claims. The poster does.........."It's pretty clear the person who had the metastatic colon cancer almost clear up benefitted from the therapy"
