Alternatives & Traditional

Posts tagged ‘bile’

Top 5 Worst Internet Health Information Sites: Curezone.org Part 2: Liver Flush Forum

The name, “Liver Flush”, alone should be enough to raise red flags since this procedure does nothing to flush the liver.

The so-called “liver flushes” consist of ingesting olive oil, lemon juice and magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts), or variations of these ingredients.  The magnesium sulfate is to relax the bile ducts to allow the gallbladder to release gallstones easier.  I have seen different claims as to why the lemon juice is used from softening the stones to stimulating gallbladder contractions.  The oil is to contract the gallbladder to push the stones out of the gallbladder.

Ingestion of a large amount of oil will stimulate of gallbladder contractions.  The gallbladder though is not the liver.  Therefore, “liver flushing” is not only misleading, but also inaccurate.  The fact that the “liver flush” supporters do not know the difference between the liver and the gallbladder is very concerning by itself.  There are many more discrepancies though as well as dangers that the “liver flush” supporters have been making sure are not reported on Curezzone.

One of the largest supporters of “liver flushing” was Andreas Moritz.  One of his supporters told me that I should read his book because this has all the evidence proving “liver flushing” is for real.  Just because something is in print this does not mean something is true.  I addressed some of the claims in Moritz’s book here:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1568425#i

People doing these “flushes” pass soft, squishy, greenish blobs that they claim are gallstones being passed from the gallbladder and the liver.  Lab analysis of these so-called “stones” have proven that they are not real gallstones, but rather saponified oil.  Saponification, which is the process of forming soap compounds, is a normal occurrence within the body, and are also known as fecal soaps.  The reaction occurs between the ingredients of the “liver flush” and the bile released in to the intestine forming the blobs of saponified oil.

Some of the “liver flush” supporters have claimed that it takes hundreds of degrees for the process of saponification to occur and since the body never reaches that temperature that it would be impossible for soap stones to form in the intestines.  Apparently these individuals have never had hydroxides come in to contact with their skin.  I don’t recommend testing this due to the dangers, but I have had caustic hydroxides come in to contact with my skin when doing some experiments.  The hydroxides react with the oils of the skin immediately forming soaps that can be easily felt on the skin.  Hundreds of degrees not required as the “liver flush” supporters falsely claim and it does not take days or weeks also contrary to their claims.

Other compounds formed in the intestines that can also be mistaken for real gallstones include sterol-cholesterol complexes and calcium oxalate stones.

Sterols are common in plant materials we consume, including olive oil, and have a very high affinity for cholesterol.  Cholesterol from our diets and cholesterol in the bile released from the gallbladder bind strongly with the sterols forming an insoluble complex that is excreted in the feces.  This is the same reason sterol sources are used to lower cholesterol.  By binding dietary cholesterol it prevents the absorption of the cholesterol.  By binding bile cholesterol the sterols prevent the reabsorption of this cholesterol.

Calcium oxalate is formed from the reaction of calcium with oxalic acid from our diets or produced within the body from sources such as excess vitamin C (ascorbic acid).  It is commonly thought that most calcium oxalate is excreted in the urine, where it is responsible for the formation of some kidney stones.  In reality though, most calcium oxalate is formed in the intestines by dietary oxalates reacting with dietary calcium.  This forms the insoluble salt calcium oxalate, which cannot be absorbed.  Therefore, the calcium oxalate formed in the digestive system is excreted in the feces where it can be mistaken for calcified gallstones.

The “liver flush” supporters claim that if fecal soaps were for real that people would see the fecal soaps more often in their feces.  The problem with their claim is that saponified oils are very common in the feces, but very few people go picking through their feces to find it.

Also keep in mind that the amount of saponified oil is dependent on the amount of oil ingested.  Even though fecal soaps are formed all the time in the intestines, it is usually in small amounts.   Most people do not go around consuming a cup of oil on top of the oils and fats they already consumed in their diet.  Therefore, the amount of fecal soaps produced by the average diet is small.  Consuming the large amount of oil though as people do with these so-called “liver flushes” provides much larger amounts of saponifiable material leading to the large lumps of saponified oil being excreted in the feces.

Some people have claimed that what is being passed must be gallstones because they have passed these blobs without using oil and with repeated “flushes” they no longer pass these blobs.  What needs to be kept in mind is that our diets contain other sources of oils or fats that can be saponified.  The reason that they may not still pass these blobs after repeated “flushes” is that repeated, frequent flushes can deplete the level of cholesterol in the bile, which would otherwise become part of the saponified oil or sterol-cholesterol complexes that the “liver flush” supporters frequently mistake for real gallstones.

One of the regular posters on my old forum decided to find out if these “flushes” were for real or not.  She started by having an ultrasound performed, which confirmed she did not have any gallstones.  Then she tried the “liver flush” and passed the same green, squishy blobs despite not having any gallstones.

Some of the “liver flush” supporters have also posted their own evidence proving that these so-called “stones” were formed in the intestines, not the liver or gallbladder.  Various people have tested this by mixing red dye in the olive oil before ingesting it. When they collected the blobs from their feces and cut them open they found specs of the red dye in these blobs.  Since the dye never travels to the liver, nor the gallbladder the only possible way for the dye to have gotten in to these blobs was to have formed in the intestines where saponification is well known to take place.  Some of the supporters have claimed the dye got inside as what they refer to as “stones” passed in to the intestines since the stones are permeable to the dye.  Real gallstones though are hard and not permeable to dye.

Gallstones are soft when they first start out and they are super tiny and crumbly.  As they grow though real gallstones calcify making them hard and impermeable. As they grind against each other the gallstones form facets.  At no point are real gallstones soft, squishy, shapeless blobs like the soap stones passed during these so-called “liver flushes”.

There are various other facts that prove these blobs are not real gallstones:

  • Real gallstones do not melt.  Many of the websites promoting this quackery tell their readers to freeze the “stones” so they do not melt.  Again, large gallstones are calcified and do not melt.
  • People have claimed to have passed “stones” the size of quarters to the size of baseballs.  If these were real gallstones then this would have been impossible.  The maximum size the bile ducts can possibly expand, even with all the magnesium is only 8mm.  A real stone the size of a quarter would be around 25mm, which means that it could not possibly pass from the gallbladder in to the intestines
  • Real gallstones are dense and sink in water.  The squishy blobs that people are passing during these so-called “liver flushes” float due to their high fat content and lack of calcification since they are mostly saponified oil formed in the intestines.
  • The so-called “stones” people are passing during these “flushes” are bright green and translucent.  Real gallstones are not bright green and they are opaque due to their calcification.
  • People claim to only see these “stones” when they do these “flushes”.  If it were possible to pass real gallstones this large though by the ingestion of oil as they are claiming then simply eating high oil or fatty meals such as a hamburger would regularly flush the gallstones from the gallbladder.  Yet these people don’t find these large blobs in their feces unless they drink an excessive amount of oil during their “flushes” because they are formed from the “flush” ingredients.
  • People are claiming to pass amounts of “stones” that far exceed the amount of real gallstones the gallbladder can actually hold.  I read posts where people have claimed to pass cups full of “stones”, which far exceeds the size of the gallbladder.  Although the most ridiculous claim was from a man who gave the size and amounts of everything he passed in a week that he claimed were gallstones.  Calculating the total the volume of the so-called “stones” would have literally filled him up from his neck to his knees.  All these “liver flush” supporters need to do is to research the size of the gallbladder to realize that the gallbladder is not large enough to hold what they are claiming is being excreted.
  • I have had some people try and argue that the cups full of “stones” were coming from  the liver.  There are various flaws with their hypothesis though.  First of all there would not be this much space in the liver either.  Secondly, liver stones, which do exist, are EXTREMELY rare.  Most liver stones are found in Asian countries where they are formed as a result of parasitical infection.
  • People are claiming to pass these “stones” in amounts not only in quantities larger than the gallbladder can actually hold, but they are also claiming to do this repeatedly within short periods of time.  This provides more solid proof that these are not real gallstones.  Real gallstones are very slow growing and literally take years to form.  So how can people pass cups of what they are calling gallstones several times a week or month?  The answer is they can’t.  Real gallstones cannot form that fast.
  • One of the posters trying to argue that these really were gallstones told me that he cut them open and the smelled claiming that they therefore had to be in his body for years since food matter, such as oil cannot smell in such a short time. I wonder how he would explain the smell of feces since he claims that food matter cannot smell unless it is in your system for years?  Actually his claim provides even more evidence that these blobs are not real gallstones.  First of all the smell is from the action of bacteria on various substances.  But the gallbladder almost never contains any bacteria, and therefore we do not find bacteria in real gallstones.  On the other hand as the oil is saponified in the intestines bacteria is trapped within these soap stones the same way the red dye was trapped in the soap stones as I referred to earlier.  It is the bacteria acting on the materials in the soap stones that create the intense smell the poster referred to.

As an example look at these pictures soap stones, produced in the intestines, that are being posted as gallstones from a “flush”:

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=1110

Now compare those soap stones  to these pictures of real gallstones:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/healthtap-public/ht-staging/user_answer/avatars/263182/large/open-uri20120701-17085-p20tka.jpeg?1341153391

Notice the differences.  For example, the soap stones are not solid like the real gallstones.  The real gallstones are also faceted unlike the soft, squishy soap stones.  This occurs with larger real gallstones in the gallbladder because the stones calcify as they grow becoming hard and solid.  As the real gallstones rub against each other the faceted faces form on the stones.

If they were soft and squishy like the soap stones produced during these “flushes” they would simply break down in to little, irregular chunks during the gallbladder contractions.

Also note that the soap stones in the Curezone link would be way too large to pass through the bile ducts if they were real gallstones.  Because they are produced in the intestines though and do not have to pass through the ducts since they do not come from the liver or gallbladder there is no problem excreting them.

Often the amount of soap stones being passed far exceed the total volume that the gallbladder could actually hold if these were actually gallstones.  The Curezone “liver flush” supporters falsely claim that the reason for this is that the “stones” are not coming from the gallbladder, but rather the liver.  There are several problems with this claim though.  First of all I have seen people on Curezone claim to have passed “stones” in volumes that far exceed the volume of the liver and the gallbladder combined.  Secondly, liver stones are EXTREMELY rare and are seen almost exclusively in Asian countries where the stones are caused from parasites.  Still this myth persists among the “liver flush” supporters.  One even posted this photo claiming this was proof that liver stones are real:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1871497#i

Yes, liver stones are real.  But once again they are extremely rare.  Furthermore, what the picture shows in this liver with macronodular cirrhosis.  Those little green round parts are nodules, not stones.  The green color comes from bile accumulations that can result from either a biliary obstruction or damage to the liver.  Bile is not the same as stones.  In fact, bile is a liquid while real gallstones are a solid.

Some “liver flush” supporters claimed that they were confirmed to have gallstones by ultrasound and after doing the “flush” their gallbladders no longer contained any gallstones.  This can be easily explained.  There is a somewhat common condition in which the gallbladder can build up with precipitated cholesterol known as sludge.  Sludge particles are very tiny and with a little help from gallbladder contractions can easily pass through the bile ducts along with tiny stones.  On an ultrasound sludge is frequently mistaken for gallstones since real gallstones look the same on an ultrasound.  When these people drink the large amount of olive oil this stimulates the strong contractions of the gallbladder that can move the sludge and tiny real gallstones out of the gallbladder.

This also brings up though why these so-called “liver flushes” can be so dangerous.  If a person really has gallstones of any significant size the ingestion of a large amount of oil can cause the gallbladder to contract strong enough to force a real stone in to the bile ducts where it can get lodged.  This leads to pancreatitis and requires emergency surgery to correct.  This is not hypothetical, cases of this happening after people did these so-called “flushes” have been reported in the medical journals.  I have also read posts on Curezone where supporters reported symptoms of a lodged gallstone in their ducts after doing these flushes.  The symptoms were blamed on other things though such as having a panic attack.

It was posting this warning that got me banned from Curezone’s Liver Flush Support forum.  As with so many forums  on Curezone posting potential dangers is not considered “support”.  “Support” means agreeing with the moderator’s opinion no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.  This also means that questioning the validity of these so-called “flushes” or providing any evidence that they are bogus is not allowed either.  Even posting evidence to the contrary is taboo in the “Liver Flush Debate” forum.  Unless you are agreeing with the false claims made by the “liver flush” supporters you are not welcome on the “Liver Flush Debate” forum either.  Interestingly, since they cannot argue the facts they try to turn the tables and require that others provide proof that the “flushes” are bogus. And when you do they twist what was said, go on the attack, try to get the evidence provider banned, etc.  Here is a thread of posts that are a clear example of the multiple games the “liver flush” supporters play to make sure their quackery is not exposed:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1752316#i

Another mistake the “liver flusher” supporters make is that they report they feel better after doing the “flushes” and thus this is proof they are passing gallstones.  Claims of being cured from everything from indigestion to allergies have been reported even though the passing of gallstones would not do anything for these.  Still, the unverified testimonials of all these cures after doing the “flushes” abound as evidence the “flushes” work.  One of the things that the “liver flush” supporters do not seem to comprehend is that feeling better does not mean one has been cured of something.   Morphine can make a person with a broken leg feel better, but this does not mean their leg is healed.

There are several things that can explain why people feel better though.

First of all the ingestion of all the oil has a laxative effect due to the oil itself and the release of the bile, which both promote bowel movements.  If you have ever been constipated didn’t you feel better when the constipation was corrected?

The ingestion of oil can also prevent bile stagnation, which can also make a person feel better.  But it is safer and less caloric to prevent bile stagnation by ingesting small amounts of oil/fat with each meal to stimulate the gallbladder rather than ingesting single large amounts of oil.

It also helps to keep the hormones in balance since both elevated estrogen and progesterone contribute to actual gallstone formation.  This is also why women are more prone to gallstones than men.

Another factor with the “liver flushes” that can make a person feel better is the ingestion of the magnesium sulfate.  Magnesium deficiencies are actually rather common and can lead to a variety of health problems including muscle cramping, constipation, high blood pressure and increased risk of asthma attacks.  Magnesium is involved in about 300 different processes within the body.  Simply correcting the magnesium deficiency with the ingestion of magnesium salts therefore can make a person feel better.

I have had posters repeatedly tell me that the burden of proof of these claims is on me and that I should demonstrate this principle in an experiment to prove the claims.  My responses to this claim are first of all the burden of proof is on the original claimants, which are the “liver flush” supporters.  Secondly, this process has been shown in experiments and is one of the experiments demonstrated in college chemistry classes.  Since the burden of proof is really on the “liver flush” supporters though they can run the experiment themselves if they really want to see the proof.  All they need to do is to buy some cholesterol from a lab supply, which is about $500-600 a pound.  Get some oil, magnesium hydroxide (formed from the breakdown of magnesium sulfate) and some bile then go to town  with the experiment.

Personally I think it would be a waste of time since the process is already known and all the evidence already presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that those big squishy blobs are not real gallstones.

Still, people are not going to test this concept nor accept the evidence for a simple reason.  When people have been duped by such quackery they feel foolish when they finally see the truth.  And nobody likes feeling like a fool.  Therefore, some people will continue to try and argue that those blobs are real gallstones until the day they die despite the overwhelming evidence.  This is why places like Curezone attract so many quacks and gullible people.

Advertisements

Is “Oleander Soup” for Cancer A Scam? Part 1

I first ran across a product called “oleander soup” when reading posts on Curezone where it was being promoted for cancer, AIDS and hepatitis.  When I first read about it the posts really concerned me because one of the promoters of oleander soup was telling people to just use oleander soup for their cancer with no mention of safety or preparation.  This really concerned me because simply saying oleander soup could leave some people to assume that they simply boil up some oleander leaves in to a soup and ingest, which would be deadly.  Oleander is an extremely poisonous plant with all parts of the plant and even the honey made from the plant being poisonous.

When I pointed out my concerns about simply telling people to ingest oleander soup was highly dangerous I instantly became public enemy #1 to another oleander soup promoter named Tony Isaacs.

Mr. Isaacs is a self-proclaimed expert on oleander.  Although, exchanges with Mr. Isaacs clearly show a different picture.  For example, Mr. Isaacs repeatedly claims that oleander is an effective cancer treatment and that the oleander phase 1 trials proved it was effective in the treatment of cancer.  The truth though is that every study on oleander tested on humans has shown it to be ineffective.  This includes the recent study Mr. Isaacs claimed proved oleander effective was funded by the manufacturer of the oleander product, tested at MD Anderson Cancer Center.  Despite the fraud that appears to be perpetrated in the study I discussed in my last blog post

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

the study still showed the oleander extract was ineffective for cancer.

I have not seen any evidence that oleander has been shown effective for hepatitis nor AIDS either as has been claimed.  When asked for evidence to the oleander being proven effective for AIDS,  I was directed to a sales site that is not even close to being evidence of effectiveness.

When dealing with such dangerous diseases, such as cancer, it is essential that people get proper information.  Especially considering that time is essential for cancer patients.  If a cancer patient wastes time with a proven ineffective treatment like oleander soup they may not have time for a second chance with a therapy that actually works.  That is if they do not kill themselves by assuming oleander soup is simply oleander leaves boiled in water.  This is why I am so passionate about exposing the truth behind oleander soup.

Many of the exchanges between Mr. Isaacs and I were hidden or deleted from Curezone since Mr. Isaacs is a moderator on the Cancer forum where many of the posts were made.  Luckily I made copies of much of this information and other information from Curezone before it was deleted.  The following is a compilation of some of the comments made by Mr. Isaacs and my responses so people can decide for themselves if Mr. Isaacs really is an expert on oleander as he portrays himself.  Comments made by Tony Isaacs that I have not responded to previously will be italicized:

Tony Isaacs:  I may not be as scientifically well versed as you when it comes to discussing individual compounds or the minutaie of what does or does not constitute a cardiac glycoside or whether it is technically redundant to call something a “long chain” polysacharride, but I nevertheless do know oleander.

Tony Isaacs:  Here is a parial list of the cancer fighting compounds in oleander:

Oleandrin and a number of other cardiac glycosides including Neriin,  Oleandrinogen, Oleandrigenin, Uzarigenin and others; several long-chain polysacharrides such as Beta-sistosterol; Quercitin, Linoleic-acid, Oleic-acid, Adynerin, Alpha-amyrin,  Betulin, Foliandrin, Folinerin, Gitoxigenin, Isoquercitrin, Lauric-acid,  Oleanolic-acid,  Rutin, Stigmasterol, Ursolic-acid

James Sloane:  And how do the other compounds you mention work? I am not familiar with foliandrin so I looked it up with cancer.  No research available whatsoever. Alpha-amyrin again no research for cancer, but it is listed as a potent irritant. Presence of does not mean they have anticancer activity, so I would like to the research to back these claims.

You also list oleandrin and folinerin, which different names for the same compound. This really reduces credibility when you list the same compound multiple times making it appear that there are more active components than there really are.

Another mistake I see is in your quote “several long-chain polysaccharides such as Beta-sitosterol”. First of all polysaccharides are long chain. Poly means many, saccharides refer to sugars. Thus polysaccharides are long chain sugar molecules. For example beta glucan, fructooligosaccharides, even cellulose. And they are found in a number of sources: seaweeds, mushrooms, schisandra, echinacea, myrrh, birch, yeasts, astragalus….. Secondly, beta sitosterol is not a polysaccharide, it is a plant sterol. These are natural steroidal compounds found in plants that help them to adapt to stresses.

Tony Isaacs: Likewise the well known and highly respected (outside the FDA) owner of Alpha Omega Labs had his choice of any ingredients in the world when he formulated his new Cansema III tonic.  He and his medical professionals chose oleander as the main ingredient, along with graviola and chaparral.

James Sloane: I did not respond to this bogus claim earlier, but will here.  I went to the Alpha Omega Labs website to look up the product:

http://www.altcancer.com/products/cansema-tonic-tm

And looked at the list of ingredients:

Ingredients: Aloe vera (as a base medium), bioenergized extracts of the following cancerolytic botanicals: graviola (Annona muricata) from the Amazonia, Andrographis paniculata, neem (Azadirachta indica A. Jus), chapparal (Larrea mexicata), and hydronium solution (H3O) to enhance and preserve contents. Contains no alcohol or artificial chemicals.

Note that not only is oleander not the main ingredient in Cansema III as Tony Isaacs claims, but oleander is not in the product whatsoever.

James Sloane:  We have different views on curcumin and turmeric. It has many of the same compounds as in your oleander soup, but offers additional cancer fighting mechanisms not found in oleander. And as I pointed out it is readily available, safe, and extremely cheap.

Tony Isaacs:  Yes, curcumin is readily available, cheap and safe.  It also is not water soluable and has very poor bioavailibility because only a tiny fraction of raw curcumin is absorbed in the body. Most importantly, despite all the excitement about cucumin, it is simply not nearly as effective as oleander and to state that it is might well be advice that would keep someone from otherwise beating cancer and THAT, rather than arguing the finer points of individual compounds, is what I am all about.  Thus far, in over five years, no one who has followed my advice regarding oleander and fighting cancer, HIV or Hep-C is not still alive.  Can you say the same?

James Sloane:  First of all turmeric has more active compounds than just curcumin that work synergistically. Therefore, large amounts are not required or a strong effect

In addition, keep in mind that not all compounds are required in large amounts to have a significant effect on the body. For example, it does not take a large amount of oleander to kill an adult human.

Just because curcumin is poorly soluble in water is irrelevant.  Fish oil is insoluble in water but still has plenty of health benefits. This is because oil soluble compounds are made water soluble for absorption in the intestines from the lecithin in bile.

Funny though that Tony Isaacs would try to use that as an argument though being that the main compound he claims is active in oleander, oleandrin, is not water soluble. Therefore, using his same argument his “oleander soup” would not contain what he claims is the active component from the oleander leaves.

And how does Mr. Isaacs know who is still alive after his protocol and who is not?  He has posted this supposed treatment all over the internet where numerous strangers that he has no contact with could have followed his advice.  The fact is that Mr. Isaacs has no clue how many people may have died following his advice and using this proven bogus therapy.

Even if someone is still alive this dos not prove oleander was effective.  If we read the various protocols for oleander, including those by Mr. Isaacs himself, they include other therapies and/or supplements that have shown effectiveness against cancer.  This is like saying if someone takes an oral antibiotic for a bacterial infection that it was the water they washed the pill with that treated the infection.

Tony Isaacs:  Listing or debating the known actions of individual compounds is misleading.  Isolating and concentrating on individual compounds is one of the great fallacies of mainstream medicine.

James Sloane: Yet this is exactly what Mr. Isaacs did when it fit his needs.  I was talking about the effects of turmeric and one of its constituents curcumin.  Yet, Mr. Isaacs decided to focus only on the curcumin in his response ignoring the other synergistic compounds in turmeric.

James Sloane: Though I would not rely on any plant solely for cancer.  No plant is going to address all of the aspects that need to be addressed with cancer.  For example does oleander address the Cori cycle?   ATP formation?  Angiogenesis?   Hyaluronidase inhibition? Fibrinolysis?  Do you even have a clue why these are so important to address?  By the same token do you even understand how the various compounds you list as being active work?

Tony Isaacs: (No response ever given.)

Tony Isaacs:  I have already stated that I like and recommend curcumin – in fact I think it is great (and I take it every day myself), the same as does highly respected alternative cancer authority Webster Kehr of the reknown Cancer Tutor site (http://www.cancertutor.com/).  He states on his site that he considers curcumin among the top 50 cancer fighters, though it has not yet made the cut to be listed among his top Stage IV, Stage III and other alternative treatments on the title page of his website.  Oleander on the other hand is listed in his top 5.

James Sloane:  Renowned is a matter of opinion.  Among other things that are recommended at this site include the so-called “liver flushes” that have been proven bogus and coffee enemas that weaken the immune system by taxing the adrenals, which also puts more stress on the thymus and decreases white blood cell activity.  In addition, coffee has been shown to contain various carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PACs) and anti-nutrients such as tannins. Coffee should not be put in to the body in any form if a person has cancer. Other sources of caffeine or other stimulants should also be avoided.

Just because a site reports the sales hype of various alternative cancer therapies without understanding the chemistry or other factors behind the treatment this does not make the site renowned.

Since Tony Isaacs brought this site up though let’s look at his claims. Isaacs claims that oleander is in the top 5 for stage III and stage IV cancers.  So what does the site really say?:

http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/RuleOfThumb.html

As we can see under the listing for stage III treatments the top recommendations are:

“Checklist 1a of 11: Exactly ONE of the “Strong Stage III” Treatments

There are five treatments in this category:

1) The Frequency Generator (aka “Rife Machine”) [actually a Stage IV Treatment],
2) The Bill Henderson Protocol [actually a Stage IV Treatment],
3) The Brandt Grape Cure using red, black or purple grapes [actually a Stage IV Treatment],
4) The Brandt Grape Cure using a vegetable juice, which includes carrot juice, beet juice, and other specific juices [a Strong Stage III Treatment]
5) Amazon Factor Protocol [a Strong Stage III Treatment] “

Notice that not only is oleander not part of the 5 recommendations for stage III cancer, but it is not even mentioned at all in the recommended treatment protocols on the page as Mr. Issacs claimed.

There is a brief mention of oleander as a stage IV treatment, but again nothing about it being in the top 5. 

The site does claim that oleander works for AIDS, which I have been unable to find any evidence of.  They also claim various beneficial effects from oleander that have not been shown to occur in the human body.  Again, the site is just regurgitating the same sales hype and misinformation they are presented or read on sales sites rather than researching the claims to find out if they are factual before presenting the claims.

Tony Isaacs:  Another top alternative cancer site is the Minnesota Wellness Directory.  They too consider oleander to be one of, if not THE, best cancer fighters and often refer people to me for advice.

James Sloane:  I looked at the site and again nowhere do they state that oleander is a top recommendation as Mr. Isaacs claims.  I did find a few interesting statements though such as:

The simple fact is that the ethanolic extraction method used by the Russians only gets a small amount more oleandrin than the water extraction method, but loses the vital polysaccharides and other synergistic compounds that make Anvirzel and the folk remedy version so effective.”- From an email sent to the Minnesota Wellness Directory by Tony Isaacs

The problem with Mr. Isaacs’ claim is that oleandrin is soluble in alcohol, but insoluble in water.  Therefore, there would be a high level of oleandrin, what he claims is the most active component, in the alcohol extract.  The water extract though, such as “oleander soup” would have little to no oleandrin.

Polysaccharides, which are found in numerous non-toxic plants, can help stimulate white blood cell activity.  If that is the only real active compound in oleander soup though then why not just use polysaccharides from plants that you do not have to process to render them non-poisonous such as astragalus, seaweeds or medicinal mushrooms?

I also pointed out to Mr. Isaacs a while back that the polysaccharides do increase white blood cell activity.  The immune system has a very difficult time finding and killing cancer cells though, so stimulating white blood cells with polysaccharides cannot kill cancer cells directly.  Instead, the stimulation of white blood cells help fight cancer by killing cancer pathogens such as cancer viruses, which account for the vast majority of cancers.  When I brought this up to Mr. Isaacs he went haywire on me attacking me over and over in posts and encouraging others to do the same.  His problem was that Isaacs did not believe viruses were the primary cause of cancer.  In fact, to prove it to me he ran a Google search and came up with zero hits.  Yet, I type in “cancer viruses” and it comes up with about “20,900,000 results”.  Honestly, I cannot figure out for the life of me how he ever managed to write a book with such poor research skills!!!  I am currently working on a book about alternative cancer therapies.  In one of the chapters I have already included 63 medical journal references on cancer viruses, which is only a small portion of the articles I have found. But not only does Isaacs not believe viruses are a primary cause of cancer, Isaacs not believe that microbes cause any disease as evidenced by this article he wrote:

http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1691964

Ironically, Mr. Isaacs happens to sell a colloidal silver product on his website, which Isaacs claims kills viruses, bacteria and fungi. If the germ theory is wrong, and thus microbes don’t cause disease why is he selling $24.00 bottles of colloidal silver to kill microbes that he does not even believe cause disease?

The Minnesota Wellness Directory did post the findings from the Phase 1 study of the oleander extract Anvirzel, which is the same study Tony Isaacs claimed proved the effectiveness of oleander:

Summary  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 [labored breathing]. 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.

As we can see from the study findings though it clearly states that the product had no real effect on the tumors.  Therefore, once again Mr. Isaacs misrepresented the facts to make it appear that oleander was effective for cancer when the studies have clearly demonstrated that it is not.

Tony Isaacs:  Marc Swanepoel, the cancer and HIV researcher and crusader who developed the OPC supplement has studied a great number of natural substances to help the HIV sufferers and indigent cancer victims in his native South Africa.  His choice of major ingredients was oleander.

James Sloane:  Marc Swanepoel recommends Sutherlandia OPC along with various other supplements for cancer.  Sutherlandia OPC also contains sutherlandia (“cancer bush”), which unlike oleander has been backed as being effective for cancer in studies.

Tony Isaacs:  how about you show me where curcumin has been over 90% successful against a broad range of cancers or 100% effective in reversing AIDS symptoms.  Or show me studies where an extract of curcumin was found to have six times the immune stimulating activity of the most powerful patented immune stimulators known to man.

James Sloane:  Why should I?  I never claimed that curcumin was that effective.  And oleander has never been shown to have anywhere near that kind of success rate either. Unlike oleander though, there is numerous research studies showing the effectiveness of turmeric and its extract curcumin against cancer.

For related information see:

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

Tag Cloud