Alternatives & Traditional

Posts tagged ‘angiogenesis’

Ozone Misinformation

I was recently reading a post on the internet entitled “Ozone Therapy/ Common Mistakesposted by Bret Peirce, founder of American Cancer Advocates.

Even though the concept of the article is good, most of the information is incorrect.

Ozone therapy is fantastic for many things and administered properly is one of the safest therapies available for many diseases and disorders including cancer.  As with any therapy though, ozone therapy can be very dangerous and cause a lot of harm and possibly even death if improperly administered.  Therefore, the goal of this blog article is to address what I see as misinforming claims being made by Mr. Peirce regarding ozone therapy.

Mr. Peirce starts by stating he is listing the primary mistakes made with ozone therapy in regards to cancer.

In the first claim Mr. Peirce states a failure to check lactic acid levels before starting the therapy.  The problem with this claim is that contrary to popular belief cancer cells DO NOT secrete lactic acid.  In fact, no human cells secrete lactic acid.  The only cells in or on the body that secrete lactic acid are beneficial bacterial cells that inhabit the body commonly referred to as “flora”.  These bacteria secrete lactic and other acids to help control pathogens and to aid in nutrient assimilation.

Human cells can generate non-acidic lactate, which is frequently and incorrectly referred to as lactic acid even though lactic acid and lactate are not the same thing.

Regardless, lactate is an important fuel for the body’s cells and is generally regulated by the body preventing excessively high or low levels.

Reading Mr. Peirce’s past posts Mr. Peirce’s reasoning is that oxygen cannot enter cancer cells unless the cells are sufficiently alkalized. Therefore, Mr. Peirce recommends using heavy metal salts to neutralize the lactic acid so oxygen from oxygen therapies can enter the cancer cells.  The problems with these claims are:

  1.  Cancer cells do not secrete lactic acid.
  2. The internal pH of cancer cells is already more alkaline than healthy cells and excess alkalinity of healthy cells have been shown to induce transformation of healthy cells in to cancer cells (1,2,3,4,5,6).  Cancer cells cannot tolerate an acidic pH, which kills them, and therefore cancer cells export acidic hydrogen ions (protons) in to the external matrix to maintain the internal alkalinity cancer cells need to survive and proliferate (5,6,7,8).
  3. Alkalinity actually promotes anaerobic glycolysis of cancer cells (9).  This could be from the fact that alkalinity reduces oxygen utilization by inhibiting oxygen release from hemoglobin and by constricting blood vessels leading to decreased circulation(10,11,12).
  4. Cancer cells have a higher affinity for oxygen than normal cells and utilize that oxygen very well (13,14).  On the other hand cancer cells die in the absence of oxygen.  The process of cancer cells dying due to a lack of oxygen during their early stages of development lead to the production of angiogenesis growth factors that stimulate the formation of blood vessels that brings sufficient oxygen and nutrients to the cancer cells for the cancer cells to survive and thrive (13,15,16).

Therefore, adding heavy metal alkaline salts as is being recommended will make no difference as regards to the effectiveness of ozone therapy, but the salts can pose health problems themselves.

For example, the most common alkaline salt recommended for cancer treatment alone or with ozone is cesium chloride.  The use of cesium chloride is actually based on numerous false premises, but that is another story.  Cesium chloride has not only been shown to be a failure in the treatment of cancer, it has also been shown to induce cancer and promote existing cancers (17,18,19,20,21,22,23).

Cesium chloride can also cause heart related side effects (24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34) and liver damage (35).

In Mr. Peirce’s second claim Mr. Peirce claims it is a mistake to fail using a maximum dose.  Not only is this claim incorrect, but it is EXTREMELY dangerous!

First of all there is no definition of “dose”.  Dose could refer to the concentration or the volume, which both present their problems in excess.

Concentration refers to the milligrams per milliliter (mg/ml) also referred to as gamma.  Since most ozone therapy for cancer is administered internally through injection or insufflation the proper concentration is essential.  Ozone is administered internally only in trace amounts of ozone to oxygen since higher concentrations can damage tissues and hemolyze red blood cells leading to serious health issues.

Volume refers the actual amount of ozone administered at a given concentration.  If ozone is administered at the proper concentration then larger volumes can be administered as long as it is administered slow enough.  Administering a large volume of ozone to quickly by injection or vaginal insufflations risks the possibility of embolus.  Administering ozone too quickly though by rectal insufflation risks overinflating the colon and rupturing the colon wall.

Mr. Peirce’s claims continue with oxidative stress can be countered by adding catalase. And if no oxidative stress is present the person can go higher in their dose.

If the author had done his research he would have found that catalase (CAT) is only one of several antioxidant enzymes produced by the body.  And CAT along with superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidases are increased by properly administered ozone therapy.  This reduces the risk of oxidative damage to healthy cells already, but a high concentration or dose of ozone too quickly can still cause damage or death regardless of the increase of antioxidant enzymes stimulated by ozone therapy.

Pathogens and cancer cells lack these defenses.  This is why cancer cells and pathogens are  selectively destroyed by properly administered ozone therapy without destruction to healthy tissue.

Excessive concentrations of ozone though can overwhelm the body’s antioxidant enzyme systems though leading to tissue destruction.  As mentioned earlier this is why the recommendation of maximizing ozone dosing is not only incorrect, but also dangerous.

It also needs to be kept in mind that the antioxidant enzymes taken as a supplement may be destroyed long before they could be absorbed unless they are enteric coated.

Since many people use ozone therapy personally at home there would not be a way for them to monitor the oxidative stress on red blood cells.  Even in a clinical setting where blood samples can be monitored for oxidative stress by the time the red blood cells are hemolyzed it is too late.  Therefore it is essential to use the proper concentration of ozone used in guidelines for ozone therapy set by over a hundred years of proper research and not just go for a “maximum ozone dosing” as recommended by Mr. Peirce.

Another issue with high dose ozone being overlooked by Mr. Peirce is that rapid destruction of cancer cells can not only lead to tissue damage, but also potentially kill the patient.  There are several reasons for this:

-The destruction of cancer cells leads to the formation of uric acid.  A sudden high uric acid load can lead to kidney damage as these sharp crystals get excreted through the kidneys where they can cut up the kidney tissue.  Other tissues in the local region of the destroyed tumor can also be damaged from the elevated uric acid.  This is especially dangerous in the case of brain tumors as the uric acid can inflame the brain tissue leading to dangerous brain swelling.  Since the brain is inside an inflexible skull there is no room for the expansion and the brain can suffer crushing damage if the brain swells too much within the skull.  To reduce these risks the cancer cells must be killed off little by little to allow time for clearance of the uric acid.  Drinking plenty of water throughout the day when using ozone therapy to help hydrolyze the uric acid in to safer urea can also help.

High dose ozone can further increase uric acid levels by hemolyzing red blood cells.  Hemolysis though does not occur when proper ozone levels are used, which are actually quite dilute when administered internally.

-The destruction of cancer cells leads to an increase of alkaline potassium released from the cancer cells as they are destroyed.  A sudden surge of potassium can create electrolyte imbalances that can impair heart function if cancer cells are destroyed too rapidly by higher than recommended ozone levels.

-In cases of brain tumors there is also danger of swelling if cancer cells are destroyed too quickly not only due to uric acid induced inflammation, but also due to the release of serum from dead cancer cells and the surge in potassium that can draw water in to the tissues by osmosis.  Again, this can be avoided by slowly destroying the cancer cells with the dilute doses of ozone used with internal ozone therapy rather than the dangerous “maximum ozone dosing” recommended by Mr. Peirce.

-The other risk is a dangerous infection condition known as sepsis.  Large tumors can be destroyed very easily with high dose ozone, but this is not a safe thing to do.  Dead cancer cells constitute infectious material to the body just like any other dead tissue in the body.  Of a person had a malignant tumor the size of a basketball it could be easily destroyed with a single ozone treatment using high concentrations of ozone. But the massive amount of dead cellular debris would kill the patient from sepsis.  Again, ozone therapy needs to be used in low concentrations, not “maximum ozone dosing”, to gradually kill the cancer cells.  And it is essential to allow time between treatments for the body to clear the dead cellular debris as well as the uric acid, and to allow time for the electrolytes to rebalance.  Using a shotgun approach of “maximum ozone dosing” could kill the patient.

Mr. Peirce then repeats the myth that alkaline salts are required to allow oxygen to enter the cancer cells.  This claim is based on the myth that cancer cells are totally anaerobic.  Cancer cells though are only partially anaerobic with the majority of energy for cancer cells being produced by an aerobic processes known as oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos).  In other words, oxygen not only readily enters cancer cells, but cancer cells are highly reliant on oxygen for energy production.  A low pH does not interfere with this process as Mr. Peirce claims.

Interestingly, Mr. Pierce later contradicts himself by admitting “hormone dependent cancers, sarcomas, and advanced cancers can also burn glucose oxidatively”.  This would be impossible if oxygen could not get in to cancer cells without alkaline salts as Mr. Pierce claimed previously.

Additionally, it is not only hormone dependent, sarcomas and advanced cancers that burn glucose oxidatively.  All malignant tumors including cancers in their earliest stages primarily burn glucose through OxPhos as studies have shown (13,14).

Next on Mr. Peirce’s list is an application failure.  In this case Mr. Peirce states “it is a mistake to not use ozone in high enough concentrations as well as causing irritation to the tissues or not using a humidifier”.

As previously mentioned though high concentrations of ozone are contradicted in internal ozone therapy due to the fact that high concentrations of ozone will damage the tissues and destroy red blood cells.  In addition, as pointed out in cases of cancer high concentrations of ozone can lead to tissue damage and possibly death.  The correct concentration of ozone used in internal therapies is  highly dilute, not concentrated as Mr. Peirce advises.  The recommended concentration of ozone for internal therapy is only around 0.1% ozone and 99.9% oxygen to prevent tissue damage and hemolysis.

This brings up another of Mr. Peirce’s contradictions.  Mr. Peirce keeps recommending high concentrations of ozone, which will cause tissue irritation and damage while at the same time claiming it is a mistake to cause tissue irritation with ozone.

The use of a humidifier in ozone therapy is controversial.  The humidification will result in a loss of some of the ozone as the ozone reacts with the moisture to form peroxides.  This may be helpful in the sense of reducing the damage that could occur from improperly using high concentrations of ozone.  Although, this also means that the person will not be able to properly gauge the level of ozone being administered for safety and effectiveness.  Imagine if your pharmacist was diluting down your medications with a random amount of water then telling you to take the same dose as would be normally recommended.  That would be ridiculous, yet this is the same principle as using a humidifier with ozone.  This is one of the reasons I don’t use humidifiers with ozone.  The second reason is because the mucus membranes and blood are already moist.  Therefore, if proper low concentrations of ozone are given in the first place the required moisture for oxidation will already be present in sufficient levels.

Another dangerous claim made by Mr. Peirce is at the end of his paragraph discussing inhaling ozone.  Mr. Peirce is correct that inhaling ozone is an irritant.  Mr. Peirce goes on to say though that inhaling ozone must be done at a lower concentration through a humidifier.  He also recommends doing slight exercise during the therapy and running the oxygen through the ozone generator at up to 6 liters per minute.  And finally Mr. Peirce states if the ozone causes a cough or irritation despite the humidifier to slow down the oxygen rate.  So what are the problems with these claims?

Well, first of all it is not recommended to inhale ozone for several reasons.  The lungs are more sensitive to ozone than other tissues and can be easily damaged by high levels of ozone.  In addition, ozone can trigger asthma attacks in those prone to asthma.

The most dangerous part of Mr. Peirce’s claim is that if a cough or irritation develops that you should slow down the oxygen rate.  The problem with doing this  is that this will significantly INCREASE the concentration of ozone increasing the risk of serious damage.  Ozone concentration is regulated by several factors such as voltage and discharge tube length.  The third factor is the flow rate of oxygen. The faster the flow rate the less contact time the oxygen has in the discharge tube and thus the lower the ozone concentration.  When you slow down the flow rate as Mr. Perice dangerously advises there is a greater contact time of the oxygen in the discharge tube, which increases the concentration of ozone. If you are developing a cough or irritation from the ozone concentration as it is showing damage occurring then why would anyone recommend increasing the concentration dangerously higher?!!!

Another issue not even mentioned by Mr. Peirce is that there are different methods of generating ozone and not all ozone units can utilize oxygen as a starter gas.  Using air with ultraviolet or hot corona systems also present a problem of the generation of nitrogen and sulfur based acids that can irritate or burn the tissues in the presence of moisture.

Anyone considering ozone therapy should research the subject thoroughly before initiating the therapy.  Thoroughly researching the subject is also recommended even if receiving ozone from a practitioner to make sure they understand the therapy and are administering the therapy properly for the particular condition.
Select References:

  1. Na+/H+ exchanger-dependent intracellular alkalinization is an early event in malignant transformation and plays an essential role in the development of subsequent transformation-associated phenotypes. FASEBJ 2000 Nov;14(14):2185-97
  2. Tumorigenic 3T3 cells maintain an alkaline intracellular pH under physiological conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990 October; 87(19): 7414–7418
  3. 31P NMR analysis of intracellular pH of Swiss Mouse 3T3 cells: effects of extracellular Na+ and K+ and mitogenic stimulation. J Membr Biol 1986;94(1):55-64
  4. Extracellular Na+ and initiation of DNA synthesis: role of intracellular pH and K+. J Cell Biol 1984 Mar;98(3):1082-9
  5. Vacuolar H(+)-ATPase in Cancer Cells: Structure and Function. Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology       Sept. 2011
  6. Vacuolar H+-ATPase in human breast cancer cells with distinct metastatic potential: distribution and functional activity. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 286: C1443–C1452, 2004
  7.  Targeting vacuolar H+-ATPases as a new strategy against cancer. Cancer Res 2007 Nov 15;67(22):10627-30
  8.  Vacuolar H(+)-ATPase signaling pathway in cancer. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2012 Mar;13(2):152-63
  9. Role of the Intracellular pH in the Metabolic Switch Between Oxidative Phosphorylaiton and Aerobic Glycolysis-Relavance to Cancer.  Cancer 2011;2(3):WMC001716
  10. Biochemistry, Mary Campbell, Ph.D. and Shawn Farrell, Ph.D. 2005
  11. Regulatory mechanisms of hemoglobin oxygen affinity in acidosis and alkalosis.       J Clin Invest 1971 March; 50(3): 700–706
  12. Hematology in clinical practice: a guide to diagnosis and management Robert S. Hillman, Kenneth A. Ault, Henry M. Rinder 2002
  13. Oxygen Consumption Can Regulate the Growth of Tumors, a New Perspective on the Warburg Effect. PLoS One 2009 Sep 15;4(9):e7033
  14. Choosing between glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation: a tumor’s dilemma? Biochim Biophys Acta 2011 Jun;1807(6):552-61
  15. Anoxia is necessary for tumor cell toxicity caused by a low-oxygen environment. Cancer Res 2005 Apr 15;65(8):3171-8
  16.  Relationship between oxygen and glucose consumption by transplanted tumors in vivo. Cancer Res 1967 Jun;27(6):1041-52
  17. Relative protection given by extract of Phyllanthus emblica fruit and an equivalent amount of vitamin C against a known clastogen–caesium chloride.
  18. Food Chem Toxicol 1992 Oct;30(10):865-9
  19. Inhibition of clastogenic effects of cesium chloride in mice in vivo by chlorophyllin. Toxicol Lett 1991 Jun;57(1):11-7
  20. Comparative efficacy of chlorophyllin in reducing cytotoxicity of some heavy metals. Biol Met 1991;4(3):158-61
  21. Modification of cesium toxicity by calcium in mammalian system. Biol Trace Elem Res 1991 Nov;31(2):139-45
  22. Cytogenetic damage induced in vivo to mice by single exposure to cesium chloride. Environ Mol Mutagen 1991;18(2):87-91
  23. Clastogenic effects of cesium chloride on mouse bone marrow cells in vivo. Mutat Res 1990 Aug;244(4):295-8
  24. Cesium toxicity: a case of self-treatment by alternate therapy gone awry. Ther Drug Monit 2003 Feb;25(1):114-6
  25. Acquired long QT syndrome secondary to cesium chloride supplement. J Altern Complement Med 2006 Dec;12(10):1011-4
  26. Acquired long QT syndrome and monomorphic ventricular tachycardia after alternative treatment with cesium chloride for brain cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Aug;79(8):1065-9
  27. Polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in a woman taking cesium chloride. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001 Apr;24(4 Pt 1):515-7
  28. Life-threatening Torsades de Pointes resulting from “natural” cancer treatment.       Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2009 Jul;47(6):592-4
  29. Torsades de pointes – a report of a case induced by caesium taken as a complementary medicine, and the literature review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2013 Jun;38(3):254-7
  30. Cesium-induced QT-interval prolongation in an adolescent. Pharmacotherapy 2008 Aug;28(8):1059-65
  31. Cesium chloride-induced torsades de pointes. Can J Cardiol 2009 Sep;25(9):e329-31
  32. Cesium chloride induced ventricular arrhythmias in dogs: three-dimensional activation patterns and their relation to the cesium dose applied. Basic Res Cardiol 2000 Apr;95(2):152-62.
  33. Cesium-induced atrial tachycardia degenerating into atrial fibrillation in dogs: atrial torsades de pointes? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1998 Sep;9(9):970-5
  34. Spontaneous, electrically, and cesium chloride induced arrhythmia and afterdepolarizations in the rapidly paced dog heart. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001 Apr;24(4 Pt 1):474-85
  35. The high pH therapy for cancer tests on mice and humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1984;21 Suppl 1:1-5
Advertisements

Is “Oleander Soup” for Cancer a Scam? Part 2

According to Tony Isaacs oleander extract has been found to be effective against a wide range of cancers based on a study that actually found oleander extract to be ineffective.

Even links posted on Tony Isaacs own website show oleander in Petri dish cultures were only effective against some cancer cell lines.  It is also important to keep in mind that even if oleander extract works against some cancer cell lines in a Petri dish this does not mean the effects will be the same in the human body.  For example, the first study done on oleander extract in the human body came to the conclusion once again that oleander extract was ineffective when given to humans despite limited success in culture tests.  In the words of the study researchers “No objective anti-tumor response was seen.”:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16763787

Invest New Drugs. 2006 Sep;24(5):423-7.

Phase 1 trial of Anvirzel in patients with refractory solid tumors.

Abstract

Anvirzel is an aqueous extract of the plant Nerium oleander which has been utilized to treat patients with advanced malignancies. The current study reports a phase 1 trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of Anvirzel in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumors. Patients were randomized to receive this agent by intramuscular injection at doses of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 ml/m2/day with subsequent patients receiving 0.8 or 1.2 ml/m2/day sequentially. Eighteen patients were enrolled and completed at least one treatment cycle of three weeks. Most patients developed mild injection site pain (78%). Other toxicities included fatigue, nausea, and dyspnea. Traditional dose limiting toxicity was not seen, but the MTD was defined by injection volume as 0.8 ml/m2/day. No objective anti-tumor responses were seen. Anvirzel can be safely administered at doses up to 1.2 ml/m2/day, with the amount administered intramuscularly limited by volume. The recommended phase II dose level is 0.8 ml/m2/day.

The following is part of the resulting conversation between Tony Isaacs and myself after the presentation of this evidence.  Once again statements I did not make at the time are being presented in italicized print.

Tony Isaacs:  Those who would like to detract from oleander point out that no tumor responses were noted in the trail.  However, what they fail to point out is that the trial only lasted for 3 weeks for most participants and its only purpose was to determine toxicity.

James Sloane:  Note that Mr. Isaacs here has clearly stated the study was only to determine toxicity, not efficacy.  Yet, Mr. Isaacs has posted on numerous internet sites that the study had shown oleander extract was “apparently  effective against a wide variety of cancers”.  In reality though, not only did the study fail to show that oleander extract was effective against any cancers, as Mr. Isaacs pointed out himself the study was not even to determine efficacy.  Therefore, why is Mr. Isaacs making false claims about the study finding oleander extract supposedly being effective against a wide range of cancers? As we will see though this is not the only contradictory statement that Mr. Isaacs has made concerning oleander extract.

First of all I would expect to see some type of progress within 3 weeks.  Even chemotherapy shows activity within 3 weeks.  And being that many people do not turn to alternatives until their cancers are well advanced they may not have 3 weeks to begin with.  So how many months or years does it take to see some type of response to oleander extract?  And let’s see the studies that show any activity against cancers in the human body.  Oh that’s right, I asked before and all you presented were Petri dish studies that only showed some activity against some cancers.  Of course this means NOTHING as many things can be applied to cancer cells in a Petri dish and will kill cancer cells.  But in the body these substances have absolutely no effect.

In response to the presentation that the first study showed no benefit from oleander extract Mr. Isaacs tried to claim the reason was the study was too short to allow time for a response:

Tony Isaacs:  Oleander does not usually work overnight when it comes to cancer, but rather usually works slowly but surely where it first begins to slow tumor growth (normally within the first two months), then stabilizes tumor growth and then ultimately regresses tumors until they often are no longer present at all.

James Sloane:  A big problem with Mr. Isaacs claim in this case is that the study he said was too short to elicit a response was conducted by giving the participants the drug for 3 weeks (21 days).  In the second human study where Mr. Isaacs falsely claimed the drug appeared to be effective against a wide range of cancers the test participants were only given the drug for 21 days.  So how does Mr. Isaacs justify his claim the first trial failed due to the short duration yet claims the second study was a success when it was conducted for the same exact duration?

Sounds like it is too slow to me for advanced or aggressive cancers.  Let’s see, someone with liver cancer usually has 6 months or less to live once their cancer is discovered.  You are saying it takes about 2 months to even start slowing this rapidly growing cancer. Then sometime in the future it may “stabilize” the cancer if the person is not already dead.  And how much will that cancer have metastasized by the time the cancer is supposedly stabilized?

Sounds to me like a person would have to be a fool to try something like this, especially if they have a fast growing and aggressive cancer.  And especially when there is no proof it works in the human body. Chemotherapy, which is quackery, has more evidence to back it than oleander extract does!!!

Tony Isaacs:  Though that trial was also intended to primarily identify limiting toxic doses, it was a longer trial and also returned some remarkable results.  At the end of two months, 9 out of 20 enrolled patients had their cancer’s stabilized and three of them had already begun to see tumor regression.

James Sloane:  Mr. Isaacs just got done claiming that it takes 2 months to even start seeing results, which was his excuse for why the first trial found no effect.  Yet here Mr. Issacs is now claiming that at the end of two months 9 out of twenty enrolled patients had their cancer’s stabilized.  How can that be if it takes two months to even start seeing results?  And where is Mr. Isaacs coming up with these numbers?  There have been only two human studies on oleander extract for cancer.  In the first study shown previously in this blog post there were only eighteen patients total, and no significant tumor responses were noted.  In the second human study:

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=102&abstractID=80984

There were 46 participants, but only 7 had stabilized cancers for 4 months or more.  Even in the original report of this study there were only 15 participants at the time and only 3 participants with cancers stabilized for 4 months or more.  Nowhere is there evidence of a study with 20 participants, nor 9 cases of cancer stabilization as Mr. Isaacs claims.

In fact, Mr. Isaacs was asked repeatedly to present evidence of the clinical trials he claimed that had been finished.  Mr. Isaacs refused to provide evidence to the studies and I quickly found out why.  The first study found no effect from the oleander extract.  The second study had not been completed as Mr. Isaacs had claimed at the time.  By the time the study was finally completed there were only 7 of 46 participants that had cancers stabilized for 4 months or more.  Since these are the only two human studies conducted again where did Mr. Isaacs come up with the 9 out of 20 participants with stabilized cancers numbers?

After various claims made by Mr. Isaacs were shown to have been fabricated his next tactic was to present supposed testimonials by Dr. Ozel:

Tony Isaacs:  In real life, the aforementioned Dr. Ozel has a multitude of case reports which vouch for the effectiveness of oleander.  Some of those are:

Mesothelioma – HD
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_mesothelioma_HD.htm

Adenocarcinoma (epithelial type malignant mesothelioma?) – US
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_adenocarcinoma_US.htm

Small cell anaplastic carcinoma in the lung -YG
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_smallcell_YG.htm

Malignant lymphoma, lung cancer – MG
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_malignant_MG.htm

Prostate cancer with bone metastases – KE
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_pancreas_SO.htm

Pancreas cancer with bone metastases – SO
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_pancreas_SO.htm

Pancreas cancer – MH
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_pancreas_MH.htm

Peritoneal carcinosis – HA
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_peritoneal_HA.htm

Inoperable stomach carcinoma with metastases -VO
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_stomach_VO.htm

Brain tumor – AS
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_brain_AS.htm

Brain tumor – SD
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_brain_SD.htm

Breast cancer (Ductal carcinoma) – SE
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_breast_SE.htm

Antrum cancer – YT
http://www.drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_antrum_YT.htm

Brain tumor – EO
http://drozel.org/eng/diagnosis_brain_EO.html

James Sloane:  Supposed stories of cures in which there is no way to verify the information being claimed.  Common tactic of quack sites.  Where have these findings been presented to determine authenticity?  And where were they reported to determine long term effectiveness if any?

In fact according to your own claim earlier these reports are suspect.  You claimed that it took several months to even start slowing a malignant tumor.  Yet in the first report they are claiming that about half the mass had disappeared in a month’s time.

In the third report he claims a large remission of the cancer in “12 days”.  Yet the only published study we can find found no effectiveness with oleander extract in three weeks.  Sounds to me like someone is making up their “facts”.

This is a great example though of why unsubstantiated testimonials are completely worthless!!!  Multilevel marketing companies use this tactic all the time making up testimonials that of course cannot be verified so that they can make their compounds appear effective when they are really garbage.  So where are those medical study publications where these “cures” can be verified?  That would at least be real evidence.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Isaacs claims that Dr. Ozel has “cured thousands of cancer patients”, yet Tony Isaacs keeps posting the same 14 unverifiable “testimonials”.  If there are really thousands of people cured using oleander why are there not more testimonials?  Why can’t we find their case histories in any medical journals.  I can find various case histories for numerous other alternative cancer therapies in the medical journals, but none for any of Dr. Ozel’s patients that supposedly exist. Without their histories how do we know they actually exist? How do we know that they did not use other therapies known to work along with the oleander? How do we know if their cancers came back or if they even survived past 5 years cancer free?……..  And more importantly, why aren’t these people, if they exist, touting the cure on the internet? I would think that if these people really existed and survived their cancers that they would be so thankful that they would at least be on YouTube touting how they were cured by Dr. Ozel’s protocol. Yet, there is absolutely no real evidence that any of these people really exist.  And again, let’s not forget that the self proclaimed oleander expert, Tony Isaacs, clearly stated that oleander takes at least two months to start seeing results but according to these questionable testimonials significant reductions or cures are being reported within a few weeks.  Are these “testimonials” fake?  In my opinion they certainly appear to be. 

As mentioned earlier the first in human test of the oleander extract Anvirzel (Anti viral Ozel) found the product to be ineffective for cancer.  This can be explained in large part due to Dr. Ozel’s own claims. 

According to the article Immunologically Active Polysaccharides from the Aqueous Extract of Nerium oleander by Dr. Ozel and other authors the active component in this water extracted oleander extract is a polysaccharide. 

Contrary to Tony Isaacs’ claim that the active ingredients include the cardiac glycosides, the article states “Since the cardiac glycosides for some reasons cannot be responsible for the anti-tumor activity of the aqueous extract”.  Although some cardiac glycosides from various plants have been shown to have some anti-tumor activity in cell culture studies, Isaacs assumes that the same applies to in human effects.  There are several flaws with this assumption though. 

First of all as I pointed out earlier what happens in a cell culture does not always work the same way within the body.  Various factors such as digestive secretions, metabolic enzymes, binding compounds, etc. within the human body can create totally different effects than occur within a Petri dish. 

In addition, with highly toxic compounds such as cardiac glycosides, concentrations of the test substance can be applied to cells in a Petri dish safely that would kill a human if administered directly to a human. 

And this self proclaimed oleander expert, Tony Isaacs, keeps overlooking the fact that the cardiac glycoside oleandrin that he keeps claiming is an active component is not water soluble.  How can oleandrin be an active component in Anvirzel or his so-called “oleander soup” when the oleandrin being lipid soluble would not be extracted in these water extracted products? 

Therefore, the only active component would be the polysaccharide as Dr. Ozel himself points out.  Polysaccharides alone cannot kill cancer cells though.  If that were the case then we could use any of hundreds of polysaccharide rich plants to cure cancer without having to process the plants to render them non-toxic like must be done with oleander.  The purpose of these polysaccharides is to activate white blood cells.  The problem though is that cancer cells are very adept to evading the immune system, and white blood cells cannot attack the cancer cells if the cancer cells cannot be detected.  Therefore, polysaccharides have a very limited effect against cancer.

What polysaccharides can do to help fight cancer is activate the immune system against cancer microbes such as cancer viruses that account for the majority of cancers.  According to Mr. Isaacs though the germ theory is bogus and therefore he does not believe that microbes cause any diseases.  If Mr. Isaacs were correct about this claim then he is just providing further proof that oleander is completely worthless for the treatment of cancer.

If someone really wants to address cancer, in my opinion they should address the various aspects of cancer that can be targeted as weak points of these cells.  For example, addressing  the cancer causing microbes.  In addition, increasing interferon and other cytokines, increasing peroxides, addressing the Cori cycle, blocking angiogenesis, blocking hyaluronidase to prevent metastases, etc.  Simply stimulating white blood cells with polysaccharides alone is going to do virtually nothing for cancer as the oleander extract studies have shown.

It should also be noted that Mr. Isaacs is claiming that oleander extract is helpful for autoimmune disorders.  The exact opposite is true though.  Sources rich in immune stimulating polysaccharides are contradicted for a very good reason.  In autoimmune conditions there is an over production of low affinity (nonspecific) antibodies being produced that tag healthy tissues for destruction by white blood cells.  When the white blood cells are stimulated by high concentrations of immune stimulating polysaccharides the activated white blood cells speed up the destruction of the “antibody tagged” tissues aggravating the autoimmune condition.

Tony Isaacs:  There are also many other case reports about the successful use of oleander, as researched and reported in the book I wrote.

James SloaneSee above.  And keep in mind that the book was written by the same person who also presented Petri dish studies as “proof of effectiveness” after being asked for human studies showing actual proof of effectiveness.  This is why we cannot believe everything we read.

Tony Isaacs:  Neither have I stated that cancer can be caused by cellular hypoxia, but rather that he believes that cellular hypoxia is a result of the process that leads to cancer which most often begins due to a prolonged inflammation.

James Sloane:  Problem with this hypothesis is that inflammation INCREASES oxygen levels to the tissues.  When we are injured inflammatory prostaglandins dilate blood vessels in the area to INCREASE oxygen and nutrients to the injured area to help promote healing.

Tony Isaacs:  or exposure to a carcinogen.

James Sloane:  Radiation is a carcinogen, but this is because the radiation breaks chromosomes.  The broken strands of genetic material reattach where they can leading to changes in the metabolism of the cells.  Again this has NOTHING to do with lower oxygen levels to cells.  Radiation can also lead to immune suppression due to its destructive effects on the bone marrow.

Tony Isaacs:  Likewise, the moderator believes that the pleomorphic process of cancer involves a viral stage.

James Sloane:  Not all cancer microbes involve pleomorphism.  For example the fungus Aspergillus niger that produces aflatoxins that can lead to liver cancer.  And again there are a number of cancer viruses. They are not morphing in to each other.

This claim is also contradictory to Tony Isaacs other claim that the germ theory is wrong.  In another post Isaacs claims that the germ theory is wrong, and thus he does not believe that microbes are responsible for any diseases.  Yet here are claims that he believes that cancer is microbial in origin as the term “pleomorphism” here refers to the changing of disease causing microbes in to their various forms including viruses.  I guess Isaacs just believes in whatever fits his needs at that time rather than proven facts.

 

As a final note here a poster askedI’ve read that it (oleander soup) is very good at raising white blood cell counts. Is this true?”  According to Tony Isaacs in a 2010 article he wrote Isaacs claims that oleander has been shown to boost white blood cell counts.

This is yet another false claim.  The polysaccharides from oleander stimulate white blood cell activity, but they do not increase white blood cell counts.  Low white blood cell counts are most often from bone marrow damage.  This can be from a number of things including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), chemotherapy drugs, radiation, certain cancers or infections, etc.  Oleander has not been shown to restore bone marrow and thus increase white blood cells as Isaacs claims.  Nor has it been shown to reduce overactive splenic activity, the other cause of low white blood cells.

The reason for presenting all this is to get people to realize that they need to be EXTREMELY careful when getting their health information online.  There are many people pretending to be experts on topics they know virtually nothing about and promoting strange and unproven concepts about disease.  Just because someone makes claims in a book or online this does not make these true.  People get conned all the time by people who know just enough to make themselves sound like authorities.   They count on people not being willing to research the claims they are making.  Don’t get conned.  Take a little extra time and research some credible, non sales or propaganda sites, to verify health claims before jumping in to some therapy or taking some supplement.

For related articles see:

https://medreview.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/is-oleander-soup-for-cancer-a-scam-part-1/

http://medproductreview.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/quackery-alert-oleander-cancer-treatment/

Tag Cloud