I have written before about my assertion that if you find someone saying that you cannot get all the nutrients you need through food, then you have also found someone selling food supplements. This is the basic scam behind so many nutritionists – they make the process of eating a healthy diet look so formidable and fraught that you had better hedge your bets and scoff a lot of pills – that they can provide for you for a small(ish) fee.
I wish I could automate this rule in the quackometer. It is proving to be a sure rule in identifying quackery. Let’s look at a recent health story in the Daily Mail:
You’re eating the WRONG fruit and veg!
We’ve known for some time that eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day can help protect you against cancer, but now research suggests that if we’re not eating the right sort, it could be a waste of time and money. British researchers believe that most of the produce we eat is low in important cancer-fighting compounds called salvestrols. A typical five-a-day diet would give you only 10 per cent of the beneficial compounds you need to keep cancer at bay.In research published in the British Naturopathic Journal, Gerry Potter, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry [de Montfort], and Dan Burke, Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutical Metabolism, explain how salvestrols work.
Have a look to see what the Quakometer makes of this article.
A couple of alarm bells ring here, such as the statement that you are unable to get enough of this through a normal diet, but also the words “naturopathic” and “emeritus”. (More of that later.)
Later in the article, advice is given:
To boost your salvestrol intake you could take a supplement (available from health food stores). Or, simply increase your intake of the following foods…
… and then goes on to give a long list of foods that are hard to remember. But the seed has now been planted. Salvestrols, cancer-fighting, you are never going to get enough, supplements available.
But surely, we have the names of the researchers, they are associated with a UK University (de Montfort) and they are publishing papers. Surely, there must be something in this?
Well, one doesn’t need to dig a lot further to find a few worrying things.
Now ‘salvestrol’ turns up on the UK patents register as a registered trade mark. What would a chemical name be doing there? Well, the registrant is a company called Nature’s Defence Investments Ltd and they are based in Leicester. Now isn’t de Monotfort University based in Leicester?
Let’s have a look at Nature’s Defence. Searching reveals a lot of related web sites, all using the Nature’s Defence, or a fruitforce name, but operating in different countries. All promote the health benefits of salvestrols. All the sites appear to extol the benefits of salvestrols, and may offer training for health care professionals, and offer to sell supplements containing this ‘super-vitamin’. Funnily enough, all the sites appear to involve our Profs Burke and Potter and point back to an address in Leicester.
Now what is the harm in trying to raise money from research you are doing, even to make a lot of money and become rich? Nothing in principle. But in doing so, we the consumer then have the right to question if there is a likely conflict of interest. Scientists have a duty to present all their evidence, good and bad, to give their best unbiased opinions on the nature of their work and to be seen as being objective as possible.
My worry is now that Profs Burke and Potter, having done some interesting work on some unusual chemicals, are heading down the path to the dark side of quackery.
Worrying is the lack of evidence that Salvestrols have any effect on reduction of cancer in humans. Most of the work so far has been done in vitro. That is, some cancer cells have been squirted with the stuff in a dish and, lo and behold, the cells don’t do too well afterwards. Lots of chemicals have this effect on cells, it does not mean that we are looking at the next big cancer cure. The work done in humans has been looking at how salvestrols may be absorbed by digestion and what the metabolism pathways may be like. Results to date suggest there are concerns over how much would actual end up usefully in the body. At this stage, the selling of food supplements as a way of reducing cancer risk looks like it could be overpromotion – quackery.
To be fair, the jury is out. We do not know enough to give clear answers. But as for Burke and Potter, they have acted as if the firing gun has gone and the marketing campaign to the public has begun in earnest. Expect to see SalvestrolsTM in your health food shop before too long.
For me the most worrying aspect is where the latest research on this has been published. We see the latest paper is published in the British Naturopathic Journal. Now naturopathy is something that really get’s the black duck’s quackometer going. Naturopathy appears to be a mish-mash of philosophies of alternative medicine and pseudo-religious beliefs. Not somewhere you would expect the latest best thing in cancer prevention to get serious attention – apart from the health food adicts, the gullible and the desperate.
The publishing of this paper looks more like marketing than science then. Has science lost out here?
Take a look at http://www.sohumone.com A Canadian who has tried and benefited from Salvestrols. He does not appear to be connected to the organisations selling the remedy.
Thanks for the link on the Canadian who has ‘benefited’ from Salvestrols. Yep, he clearly makes it very clear (Why?) on his web site that he has no connection with ‘Salvestrol or its distributors’. Unfortunaltly, there is also no connection with reality. This is just a straightforward anecdote typical of quackery – and any scientist such as Prof Gerry Potter would have little to do with it as a piece of so-called evidence of efficacy. It is typical of the way quack medicine works – rely on authentic sounding and believable anecdotes. And sure enough, a quick Google reveals the writer of this piece is a ‘reiki master, and Qigong teacher’ (http://www.earthfuture.com/econews/back_issues/06-05.asp). About as quacky as it gets.
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries a product and says it works is an anecdote and can be dismissed!
I guess the kind of people who will be willing to try a route like this are going to be the ‘open minded’ ones. (In your terms empty headed). No surprise then that Ken Shannon is in to reiki.
It’s easy to be cynical when your life is not threatened, but if you do a bit of digging on the background of the two Profs I think you will find that neither of them is remotley interested in making money. They are academics trying to get recognition for a great discovery. A Nobel prize would be worth more to them than any financial reward.
Anonymous said…
“So basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries a product and says it works is an anecdote and can be dismissed!”
Absolutely. Anecdotes are near worthless.
If you believe that all personal ‘anecdotes’ are worthless then it follows that just about everything YOU have to say on this subject (not to mention the rest of this totally biased and blinkered website) is, by definition, also worthless. I would rather trust the word of people with no links to the drug companies than someone like you who is obviously in their pay.
What a cowardly accusation. With no evidence whatsoever.
“If you believe that all personal ‘anecdotes’ are worthless then it follows that just about everything YOU have to say on this subject (not to mention the rest of this totally biased and blinkered website) is, by definition, also worthless.”
Erm, no. What this site is about (if I may be so bold) is evidence. What is said here is not anecdotal *that is the whole point*, it also offers detailed explanations for why anecdotal evidence can not be relied on. If you care to read. And try to understand. If you’re not too busy shouting.
“I would rather trust the word of people with no links to the drug companies…”
LCN is not in the pay of big pharma. Neither am I. You would rather trust the word of people who do not remotely care about evidence and are evidently in the pay of the multimillion pound alternative medicine racket instead. Genius. Your arguments make no sense taken purely on their own terms, without bringing in any other factors. Why trust anyone? Why not think for yourself?
“…than someone like you who is obviously in their pay.”
To paraphrase: “I can’t be wrong, so if you say something I don’t agree with you must be part of a conspiracy”. Yawn.
What you have said here is demonstrably wrong. And rather offensive.
Mike, do you have anything sensible to say? Or are you another ‘shout some rubbish and run away’ merchant?
I am getting rather bored of this and am about ready to quit commenting here. I really don’t see the point, other than to provide a document of the counter-arguments, not for the arguees, but for some passing readers with a glimmer of intelligence.
Just one alt med person who can hold something that even vaguely resembles a dialogue would be nice.
Just one.
*sigh*
So you have a glimmer of intelligence? Don’t make me laugh you closed minded fool.
See- things- for- what- they- are said,
The day these fellas produce some scientifially sound research to show that they have found a preventative for cancer, they should indeed receive a Nobel Prize.
However, what we have is are two fellas pedalling their unproven supplement and assuring people that the cancer cells will be obliterated. Now that’s not fair, because it has no scientific basis behind it (e.g. If I poured bleach over some cancer cells , I dare say I’d kill them, but one cannot then assume that we should all be drinking a glass of bleach a day to ward off cancer.That would be stupid, right?).
They published a paper in 2002 which looked promising IN THE LAB. Now it’s 2006, we all look forward to hearing that it is successful in humans. And I promise I will applaud them if they were right all along. It’s just I don’t think they should be selling their product NOW, becasue that is quackery.
GET REAL said,
these guys last published a paper in 2002 which gave some promising results IN THE LAB. i.e not on human beings. It’s the fact that this cure for cancer is being pedalled without any scientific research in humans that definately earns it a “Quack” label. For example, if I was to take a petri dish of cancer cells and pour bleach on them, I dare say they would all die. Now, do I have the right to suggest to you that you drink a glass of bleach every day to cure/prevent cancer. No, that would be stupid, right?
It is a long leap between the petri dish to the human body and alot of good research should come in between.
If they do manage to show that it works in humans, I promise, I will salute them. But right now, they should not be selling “supplements” that will supposedly kill your pre cancer cells. They have no proof as yet.
I would encourage people to have some patience here. I understand the value of a Quackometer, but I don’t think there’s evidence to include salvestrols.
I have met Gerry Potter twice. He is Professor of Medicinal Medicine and Director of the Cancer Drug Discovery Group at the School of Pharmacy at De Montford University, in Leicester. He is genuine, sincere, and a solid scientist. See http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/hls/staff/pharmacy/res_gpotter.jsp.
The science behind salvestrols starts with Gerry’s work on resveratrol (found in red grapes), which triggers an enzyme that is present in every cancer cell to produce a compound called piceatannol, which then attacks the cancer cell, and the cancer cell alone.
He developed a drug to mimic the role of resveratrol in fighting cancer, which is going through clinical trials. He then asked the question, “Since nature did not need a drug to trigger the enzymes, the enzyme must exist in nature. So where is it?”
After analyzing every kind of food, his team found it in abundance in organic food, and named the family of compounds salvestrols. When ripe fruits and vegetables are attacked by fungus, which happens all the time, they develop the salvestrols as a natural defence. When we eat the plants, the salvestrols in the food trigger the enzymes in any cancer cell to produce piceatannol, which then attacks the cancer.
Having discovered this, his team searched for plants that had the highest level of salvestrols, and stared testing to see if the compound would fight an active cancer if eaten as a supplement. When they discovered that it seemed that they did, he helped create the Nature’s Defence to sell the food supplements as Fruitforce; these are simply concentrated salvestrols, taken from fruit.
The salvestrols are currently undergoing clinical trials in London, Dublin and Malaysia, and it will be several years until these are complete. Until then, all evidence of their effectiveness is rightly considered “anecdotal”. That word covers everything from “I heard it at the bus stop” to (in the case of salvestrols) evidence from doctors supervising cancer patients who are using the salvestrols. It is not true that all anecdotes are nearly worthless. Some are; some are not. It depends on the source of the evidence.
As to the company being formed, this was the best way to get the salvestrols distributed so that people with cancer could benefit from them, and so that a body of informal evidence could be gathered. The income goes back into further research.
Cancer is such an insidious disease that I really welcome a development such as this. It is completely right that we should cast a skeptical eye on new developments, since the world is full of scams and quackeries, but this one deserves to be given patience while the clinical trials are proceeding.
Sincerely,
Guy Dauncey
Canada
PS I have no personal stake in the company, and nobody asked me to write this. I am co-chair of the Canadian non-profit society Prevent Cancer Now (www.preventcancernow.ca), and co-author of the book Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic, which is being published in May 2007.
I am also the Editor of the monthly newsletter EcoNews, which has printed stories about organic food, cancer, and salvestrols. (www.earthfuture.com/econews)
Unfortunately, 9 years trial data on humans has still to be revealed. I am a retired NHS Clinical Scientist (Immunology). I met Dan Burke nearly 3 years ago thought the science was exciting and tried Salvestrols for 2 years at considerable cost to treat my Ca Prostate to no effect despite ensuring I had all the necessary minerals and vitamins supplied by the Grow Co of America who are the only company to have solved the problem of restoring full bio-availability to purified vitamins and minerals in pure chemical form by processing them in yeasts or fungi so they have yet to resolve how to gain activation of CYPB1 in human cells. I suggest you therefore await concrete evidence to support their claims
These Salvestrol people are even trying to get sneaky free adverts on the British Government petitions website. Check out http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cancer-Act/
Doesn’t this underhand behaviour betray an unethical and deceptive approach to “medicine”? My mother died from cancer in 2001, and in my opinion the marketing and money-making efforts of these fraudsters are sickening. I wish I could get one of them toe-to-toe!
I can understand your concern in regard to claims being made by some that this is some proven cure but I don’t think there is any doubt at all about quackery. There is none in regard to those who are actually pushing ahead with clinical trials.
the scientific work done on resveratrol is sound and does not originate from supplement pushers. Logic and the present science indicates this has a higher than usual probability of actually having a meaningful effect on the treatment of cancer.
Is their any clinical trial to yet point to to say it will? No. Does the science we have indicate that it has a serious possibility (not certainty)of being effective? Yes
Then why shouldn’t a cancer patient now take a few pills or change their diets if they don’t have time to wait for a clinical trial?
Sorry but this cannot be lumped into a quack file.
Where is the evidence that there is a high probability that salvestrols ‘will work’? Lot’s of pill pushers make the samee claims – all unfounded. To repeat – I have nothing against the science, but dislike the haste to sell food supplements as miracle cures. The history of food supplements is not good. Just look up the latest on antioxidents – touted as the must take pills – no seen as potentially harmful.
Dear Black Duck,
I understand your difficulties with the idea, widely touted, that people cannot get all the vitamins, minerals etc they need from a well-balanced diet; and it is indeed often used as a way of selling supplements. You take the orthodox position on this issue. But, there is more than a grain of truth in the dysnutrition story … …. and several well-understood and structural reasons why it is so common.
1. We are astonishingly physically inactive. The available data suggest our daily calorific expenditure rates have fallen by about 30% since 1950, and by nearly 100% since 1900. This is for reasons such as the availability of inexpensive energy, labour-saving technology, and the huge social shift from blue to white collar occupations. As a result our food intakes have been dramatically reduced, although they have started to rise again (due in part to the marketing efforts of the fast food franchises).
2. Poor food choices – thanks in no small measure to our need for convenience foods, and the rush by food manufacturers to supply that need.
This has lead to a situation where even the UN Standing Committee on Huma Nutrition issued a statement last year to the effect that dysnutrition was rife. I know you are a sceptic (and share that tendency), so check out the USDA survey of nutrient intakes, and our very own Gregory et al 2000, National Diet & Nutrition Surveys, HMSO.
You surely would not want your own prejudices to cloud your own judgment?
PS. I advise a number of companies in this area, including NutriShield.
Paul Clayton
Nature’s Defence recently sent out letters to customers claiming that 10 million pounds had been spent on research into salvestrols over twnety years.
Now the company was only formed in 2005, and from the accounts at Companies House it looks like less than £50,000 could have been invested. Add to that the trademark is only a few years old and the whole thing looks questionable.
A bit of homework on one of the directors reveals that he was a director of a company that went bust a few months after he left it. That appears to have been a natural products company too called The Herbal Apothecary Ltd.
Nature’s Defence seems to punch well above it’s weight. It has very few employees, but in it’s letter to customers it appears to be involved in all sorts of world beating projects. If there was a prize for bull**** they would be leading contenders.
I will not comment further on whether the release of the supplement is for the benefit of the user or that of the pocket of the supplier – I know where I place my trust. However if the haste of this is disliked then follow the timeline for Aspartame (splenda) if haste is a factor of quackary then this product is top of the list.
I know which product I would take a risk and it isn’t the one that has all so called scientific research. As in so many things “you pays your money and you makes your choice” – just leave people with a choice, at least in the case of supplements they have one – not so sure about some of these other items that don’t seem to appear on the quack list.
I know prof Potter quite well…. oh, yes, so that means my comments can be dismissed. And no – he’s not a money grubber by any means. He is quite a zealot for his product though. I recommended them to a friend (or did I?) who had lung cancer. The tumour disappeared (obviously I’m a nutter too). He’s just had a lung operation, sad to report. Once the tumour had “disappeared” he stopped taking them and it came back. Against our advice. Either that or I’m lying. Not sure why I would!
And stop dissing Leicester. He works in Leicester and he set up his company in Leicester (Oh – hoh. Something very suspicious in that. Conspiracy!)
Have a look at this if you’re interested. Once again, it could all be rubbish…. but hey – don’t sue me – I reckon it’s true.
http://www.salvestrolen.nl/ResearchItem.asp?IDResearch=43
Michael Cleary
Sec ResQ Club
The lesson learnt from the use of salvestrol (Platinum) 2000 salvestrol points is that when the CT scans reveal a tumour clearance the person must continue eating the daily capsule. Cancer comes roaring back along another pathway and unwanted mitosis is rapid.
We have lost six members who were please that their tumour has gone but that was the worst part … they stopped eating the Salvestrol.
It is early days on this anecdotal route to show whether salvestrol is truly effective. The science from various universities and institutes show that success is strong possibility
The fact that GSK ($720M) and Pfizer testing analogues, have
dipped their toes is a sign for the future.
Here's hoping for other benefits which are becoming apparent such a dementia deceleration et al
Cheers
Follow this link
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Private-hell-Leicester-scientist-searching-cancer-wonder-drug/article-1832255-detail/article.html
Is the jury still out?
Gerry Potter is absolutely committed to finding something to stop people dying – he has dedicated his life to it, even to the point of becoming ill. The article gives the background – someone will make a film of his story, for sure.
Trials of one of the drugs he has come up with “have shown that it can shrink tumours in 80% of the most aggressive forms of prostate cancers. The second biggest killer of men in Britain may become a manageable disease” and “A study of 1,200 patients worldwide is now in progress and the drug could be licensed and available in the UK as early as next year”.
Doubters, please go and find some real quacks and leave this dedicated team alone – their work will probably save the life of someone you know.
My wife and I attended a lecture by professor Burke here on the Isle of Wight last year. Though neither of us suffer from the disease (as far as we know) we went purely out of curiousity and I must say we found the man to be totally genuine and enthusiastic about their (& Potter’s) research. Using slides, he graphically explained how salvestrols destroy new cancer cells without harming normal ones. He did this in front of several sceptical members of the medical profession that were in the audience and answered their questions confidently and to their satisfaction.
I thought that on the way out there would be tables laden with boxes of salvestrols at jacked up prices, but no, there were none to be seen so I asked the girl behind the desk where we could get some and she said she didn’t know. One interesting incident occured during the lecture. A man stood up and said that his friend had advanced throat cancer and the surgeons wanted to operate but he refused and ate apricot kernels instead, he was examined some time later and they found that the cancer had completely disappeared. Does that mean that apricot kernels are high in salvestrols also ? Ted.
Salvesterols are converted by the P450-1 Cytochrome enzyme into picotannins which work via the CYPB1P1 metabolic pathway and have shown in-vivo and in-vitro tumor killing properties and unlike traditional chemotherapy to not harm regular cells. This is a big deal especially the latter property. Regular anti-cancer drugs knock out the mitochondria and just kill and damage everything which is why you feel like you’re dying on chemo. We need a selective anti-tumor agent.
I have met people whose end stage cancer who had been through chemo and radation – which didn’t work and were told to “get their affairs in order” who weeks later began taking salvesterols and cutting out sugar (tumor cells feed on sugar directly for energy, regular cells use ATP) and went into complete remission.
The salvestrols are a plants response to fungal infections; since we’ve been using anti fungal sprays since WWII the plants we eat make so little of this now it’s one possible explanation as to why cancer rates are so high. Organic fruit still contain regular amounts of salvestrols, but keep in mind as well that salvestrols are bitter and we’ve bred the bitterness out of fruit over the years which of course doesn’t help either.
As Li points out in his recent TED talk, cancers form all the time in our bodies and are normally knocked out but our defenses. But lowered levels of salvestrols means this doesn’t happen as often as the body lacks the nutrients required to do this.
Great site, keep up the good work, but this one shows great promise and probably doesn’t deserve to be put in the same junk bucket as crap like homeopathy.
Naturopathic medicine is only for the gullible? That’s interesting because my naturopathic doctor just cured me of cervical dysplasia (a precancerous condition of the cervix). Regular doctors only treat this by cutting out a piece of the cervix. Naturopathic doctors treat it naturally with a very involved process. It works.
Now I am free of the condition as well as HPV, which causes dysplasia. See, conventional treatments don’t attack the cause, only the symptom. Women who have a piece of their cervix removed by regular docs still have HPV so the bad cells eventually return.
Yeah, so I guess I’m gullible because I chose to preserve my cervix and go the natural route. Silly me.
People like you who talk trash about natural healers and think only “regular” doctors are worth anything infuriate me because you’re discouraging people from looking into treatments like I had. I know it’s just because you’re uneducated and ignorant and it’s not really your fault, but it still makes me mad.
Marcy,
Many people get small non-/pre-cancerous growths that are then just eliminated by the body by itself. Nothing to do with the naturopathy (or any other quack treatment) they happened to be having at the time. Your case seems like a typical example.
From Wikipedia:
1) Most Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) spontaneously regress. Left untreated, about 70% of CIN-1 will regress within two years… About 50% of CIN 2 will regress within 2 years without treatment.
2) Progression to cancer typically takes 15 (3 to 40) years. Also, evidence suggests that cancer can occur without first detectably progressing through these stages and that a high grade intraepithelial neoplasia can occur without first existing as a lower grade.
Summary: In most cases the CIN just goes away within 2 years. It can easily return and becomes cancerous.
Tell me how you KNOW that your symptoms went away because of the naturopathy and not by itself? However, in many cases the abnormal growth returns and becomes full-blown cancer. That’s why some people are “discouraging people from looking into treatments like I had”: It might just save your life.
Marcy, remember that naturopaths are NOT properly trained medics. Please don’t be another statistic that died of a treatable cancer because they wasted time with a quack. Have a properly trained medical professional keep a close look on your condition keep your fingers crossed.
I hope you stay healthy.
Have you any idea how many people die from orthodox medicine? Chemotherapy can cause new cancers to develop; it can damage the liver, the heart, the bones, the skin. It can even kill you. It will certainly make you feel so ill that death no longer seems such a bad idea. But it isn’t only chemotherapy that is hit and miss; the vast array of drugs on offer can give you side effects that will keep you going back for more until the day you die. Oh, and did you know, the very chemicals that cause cancers are also made by the same companies that make the chemotherapy drugs? Yes, it’s a win win situation for the drug industry. And you’re sceptical about the efficacy of natural remedies and angry that anyone producing them should make profit? Do some research and find out the true costs of orthodox medicine.
No-one really knows how many people die from conventional medicine. The classic paper is Barbara Starfield’s “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” and is much quoted by advocates for “natural health”. The estimated numbers are shocking but to make the leap from US healthcare systems performing badly compared to other comparably industrialised countries to “drugs are bad, natural remedies are good”, I’m sorry that’s not what the paper says. And whilst many Americans might not grasp it, the USA is not the whole of the world. Countries differ.
(Reporting of iatrogenic injury is NOT mandatory in the US, despite strong calls for it.)
Yes, chemotherapy drugs are nasty. Some are very toxic and there are documented cases of patients dying from standard doses. Some suppress the immune system and leave the patient vulnerable to infection, which can kill. Can chemotherapy cause secondary cancers? Yes, it certainly increases the risk compared to the likelihood of the general population developing cancer. And the number of people with secondary cancers is likely to increase as there will be more primary cancer survivors who live longer.
To give “natural remedies” special treatment in regards to marketing claims versus conventional medicine would be anti-competitive and would hurt consumer protection. Bear in mind that some of the companies that sell “natural remedies” are big and some are owned by Big Pharma.
I am educated by universities in molecular biology and physiology and you are an idiot by saying what you are saying. Unless you can present medical journal articles that show that this does not work then you are the one that is not telling the truth.
I have read medical journal articles and botanical articles about salvestrol and resveratrols and there have been animal and human trials that worked and saved lives that were going to be lost.
Are you just one of those people who does not like to spread the truth for your own profit? Why would you make such ignorant remarks about something that works to save lives? You could be keeping people from living. What does that make you?
Sister kaite – it is not up to me to produce evidence to show someones claims are false – it is up to those who make the claims to produce the evidence.
Yes, but you must also produce evidence to show someones claims are false, because you accuse them. If I claim that you are stupid and you claim to be intelligent, which one of us must produce the evidence?
Grandma’s Natural Remedies
Maybe you’re not in the UK, but here we protect the public from advertising claims that are misleading by requiring advertisers to hold good evidence for whatever they claim at the time they make that claim. Sensible, don’t you think? Unless you don’t care about others, of course.
Any updates on “Salvestrol”? Perhaps the clinical trials mentioned in Guy Dauncey’s message on December 29, 2006, specifically “The salvestrols are currently undergoing clinical trials in London, Dublin and Malaysia, and it will be several years until these are complete”.
It is now seven years since his statement and I can’t find any up-to-date data. Since Salvestrol was recommended to me by my very expensive MD, I am however leary about taking it without reading something very specific. Since Salvestrol is not under the FDA, who really knows if the ingredients listed are accurate. Who governs the contents of the capsules? Would be very interested in response. Thank you
They damned Potter for developing Zytiga years ago…it didn’t work, it harmed cortisol, etc.etc… He was a quack researcher claiming his research was valid.
Now, in late 2014, when coupled with Prednisone, it is the cancer drug of choice for treating many cancers.
This blog is a waste.
I read this article today looking through the history of CYP1B1. In light of research since it’s likely the author’s views have changed. I was an undergraduate under Burke and Potter. I was also rejected by Potter for a PhD position sometime ago, and consequently studied elsewhere. The lives of Potter and Burke have been tormented by their cancer discoveries. Of which there are quite a few very important ones. They have suffered scorn, sections, isolation and more. It’s highly unlikely that either have any other interest than the wellbeing of fellow members of the human race. If you google either you’ll see the lengths they have gone to to help dying people. On forums, at presentations and so on. Yes there had been no extensive phase 3 study at the time this article was written, but neither was there any evidence to disprove their in vitro work.
Of course, it’s a massive threat to the pharmaceutical industry and to the whole cancer industry which makes massive profit by treating people with chemo and radiotherapy.
LOL! Truly daft article. Basically what you’re saying is that fruits cannot have the necessary chemical structure and valence that would allow it to combine with cyp1b1?!? And despite the research validating their conclusions including combining the same doses of salvestrol with normal cells to determine at what dose they would start dying off (since anything can become toxic including water at a high enough dose) to find the different doses that cancer cells and normal cells would die off, you pretend, without any scientific proof to counter their conclusions that it cannot possibly work!?! You should just stop pretending that anything you’re saying has anything to do with science and just accept that you’re nothing more of a religious (i.e. because it’s all about belief and not about science) nutter!
I know three people that had terminal cancer that took salvestrol with a multivitamin and biotin.
They had zero CYP1B1 inhibiting foods which are, ginko biloba, Korean gingsen, grapefruit juice, canabis, smoking and apricot kernels..
All tumours where undetectable.
Funny how fungicides remove Salvestrol from our food supply isn’t it cancer research UK Ltd.
Wankers.
Our diet has been engineered to give you and your family cancer, fungisides etc have removed 80% of salvestrol from our food shelvs.
where did you find the list of foods CYP1B1 inhibitors?
First the comment from Mr. Lewis that you can get all the nutrients that one needs from eating conventional foods. Let’s first consider all the research showing not only depletion of nutrients in the soil but as well in fruits and vegetables going anywhere from 60% to 80%. Then you have the amount of pesticides shown on different foods with 20 different pesticides on strawberries of which 12 are known to be potentially carcinogenic, and 10 different pesticides on spinach. The Environmental Working Group highlights other fruits and vegetable such as Kale, apple, nectarines and tomatoes. Fruits and vegetables that people eat on a daily basis. Yet Mr. Lewis believes that eating conventional foods will provide you with all the nutrients you need!?! It beggars belief how clueless one has to be to come to that conclusion. In the US, the organic standard has been further bastardised by big agra by changing the standard to allow for higher levels of GMOs in foods as well as allowing for the food to be grown in “organic biosludge” which contains such toxins as gender bending atrazine among all manner of industrial waste. In the EU it is slightly better but that did not prevent them from looking the other way and relicensing glyphosate and allowing for the continued use of folpel. And yet you have the gall to consider nutritionist “quacks”!?! Mr. Lewis should stop writing since he shows how little he understands about food science and health whenever he uses his computer.
It has clearly been explained to you. But I think you are too vested to understand.
Finally in relation to Salvestrol, what Mr. Lewis fails to highlight or as with the lack of nutrients in conventional foods doesn’t know is that salvestrol doesn’t work by itself to destroy cancer cells. It does this in conjunction with the CYP1B1 which is an enzyme which marks cancer cells. This enzyme is a gene and protein which is present in all human cells, but it is only activated in cancer cells, not normal healthy cells. In a chemical reaction, the salvestrols interact with CYP1B1 to become cancer-killing agents. Here is the key statement from the research in the dutch research journal, Orthokennis (https://www.orthokennis.nl/artikelen/bitter-is-better-an-introduction-to-salvestrols).
“Healthy tissue cells do contain the gene for CYP1B1, but under normal circumstances this gene does not appear to come to expression, or only scarcely does so. In-vitro research has shown that CYP1B1 can activate (pro)carcinogens. However, CYP1B1 is unlikely to play an important role in the development of cancer, because the enzyme is not active in normal cells. Burke’s research group found the CYP1B1 protein in all the possible types of human tumour cell lines. The extreme over-expression of CYP1B1 enzyme is a common characteristic of all forms of cancer that occur in humans … Professor Burke suspects that the CYP1B1 gene is ‘switched on’ in a mutated body cell in order to allow the tumour cell to be selectively removed (tumour suppressor gene).”
What seems clear is that Mr. Lewis doesn’t even understand how salvestrol interacts with CYP1B1 to kill cancer cells but he is already calling into question into its value!?!
I should add that produce sprayed with pesticides and herbicides don’t produce salvestrol so you don’t benefit from this natural process unless you’re getting clean organic produce.