Alternatives & Traditional

Posts tagged ‘pneumonia’

Medicinal Properties of Chaparral Part 2

Chaparral is best known for its ability to treat cancer effectively.  The antitumor effects of chaparral have been verified in studies conducted by the universities of both Nevada and Utah.  One of the things that makes chaparral unique in its ability to treat cancer is the fact that it “attacks” the cancer through multiple mechanisms.  Since the majority of cancers have a microbial origin the first mechanism is through the destruction of viruses, bacteria and fungi.  Chronic inflammation has also been linked to the formation of cancers meaning that chaparral’s anti-inflammatory properties can inhibit some cancers.  Chaparral can inhibit cancers triggered, or aggravated, by free radicals and toxins due to its antioxidant and cleansing properties.  Chaparral’s liver cleansing properties makes it helpful for hormonal induced cancers since the liver is responsible for the breakdown of excess hormones.  And finally, chaparral inhibits mitochondrial enzymes, which in turn inhibits the cellular division of cancer cells.  In short, this means chaparral can inhibit cancer growth.

Chaparral’s ability to kill microbes makes it useful for a number of diseases linked to microbial infections.  These include cancers (viral, bacterial, and fungal forms), heart disease (chlamydia bacteria), hepatitis (viral, bacterial, and fungal forms), rheumatoid (chlamydia bacteria) and other forms of infectious arthritis, multiple sclerosis (human herpes virus type 6), ulcerative colitis (mycoavium complex bacterium), Crohn’s disease (mycoavium complex bacterium), type 1 diabetes (viral), pneumonia (viral, bacterial, and fungal forms), bronchitis (viral, bacterial, and fungal forms), etc.  One of the most interesting areas of study for the use of chaparral is in the treatment of herpes infections where studies are looking very promising.

Chaparral is very resinous and so is not easy to prepare as a tea.  Resins and water do not mix and the resin will separate out and stick to the pan wall when trying to make the tea.  Therefore, I recommend not using this herb as a tea.  I personally prefer the powder mixed with other herbs.  By combining the powder with other powdered herbs the other powdered herbs will help prevent the resins in the chaparral from clumping the powder in to a big “gumball” when it comes in to contact with water.  This helps maintain a larger surface area thereby increasing the absorption and effectiveness of the herb.  In addition, the addition of other herbs can increase the effectiveness of each herb . For instance, chaparral combined with red clover blossom increases the antitumor activity of both herbs.  Combining chaparral with pau d’ arco (lapacho, taheebo, ipe roxo) increases the antiviral, antibacterial and antifungal activities of both herbs.

Again, the FDA tried to claim that chaparral was linked to 13 cases of hepatitis though medical reviews subsequently found no evidence that the chaparral was linked to the cases.  In fact, it was shown that many of the patients were found to have pre-existing liver failure or were taking pharmaceutical drugs well known for causing liver damage.  On the other hand, fresh chaparral does contain unstable alkaloids that may damage the liver if ingested for a length of time.  Therefore, chaparral should be dried and aged several months before use to destroy these alkaloids.


PolyHeme Part 2

In August of 2006 Northfield Laboratories tried to get accelerated approval for PolyHeme.  The request was declined by the FDA until further study results come in.  I guess they were in a rush since they signed a $6.7 million agreement on June 16th, 2006 to purchase a 106,000 square foot property that they intend to use to manufacture their product.  This is really putting the cart before the horse since they don’t have approval for their blood substitute, nor is there any guarantee of approval.

This brings up the question of how far will Northfield Laboratories go to get their blood substitute approved to avoid losing their investment and the money of their investors?  After all this has been a costly venture.  Not only have they spent $6.7 million for the building they intend to manufacture their product in but they are also paying the hospitals $10,000 for each patient they test the blood substitute on.  Tack on to that other research and development costs, manufacturing equipment costs and other expenses.

Pursuant to CFR 50.24 certain criteria must be met in order for testing to be performed on patients without their consent.  For example, section (2) (ii) states “Appropriate animal and other preclinical studies have been conducted, and the information derived from those studies and related evidence support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the individual subjects”.  So where are these previous animal or preclinical studies?  The only study was halted early after a significant increase in deaths in patients receiving PolyHeme.  Section (2) (iii) states “Risks associated with the investigation are reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.”  Again, the only clinical study was halted early because of a disproportionate death rate between those receiving PolyHeme and those that did not.  This is hardly reasonable when standard therapy has been shown to be considerably safer and effective.

The regulation also requires that they try to gain consent prior to, or as soon as possible from a legal representative such as a relative.  From what I have seen I don’t think this is being done.  For instance, if a married couple is in an accident, and only one has sufficient trauma to require blood are they obtaining consent from the spouse?  It does not appear that they are.  Instead, saline or PolyHeme were not chosen for the patient until the patient was on the way to the hospital.  And according to news reports, the decision was based on sealed envelopes the paramedics opened in route to determine what treatment the patient would be given.  Such a practice would prohibit the paramedics from explaining the risks and benefits to the spouse to allow them to make an informed decision or give time to obtain consent even if the spouse was aware of the risks.  If no legal representative can be found then the company must provide proof of attempts to contact a legal representative.

Section (7) (ii) states “ Public disclosure to the communities in which the clinical investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn, prior to initiation of the clinical investigation, of plans for the investigation and its risks and expected benefits”.

The first problem with this is that Northfield Laboratories did not disclose the adverse effects of their product found in the 1998 study.  In fact, they threatened to sue the group that made the fact public claiming that the adverse effects that included death were part of their trade secret.  I also see a problem with this regulation by the fact that everyone will not be aware of the study since not everyone follows or has access to the media.  For example, the homeless would not likely know about the study and therefore there will be no disclosure as is required to certain groups.  Despite this people in these groups may be subjected to the study.  The law does allow life saving measures in people unable to give consent such as unconscious patients.  This is called implied consent.  For instance, if a person tries to overdose on drugs to commit suicide and they refuse treatment the paramedics cannot touch the patient.  Once the patient passes out they can claim implied consent and start treatment.  The basis is that the person if they were conscious and able to give consent would likely give consent to save their life.  Does this apply to unapproved and untested drugs like PolyHeme though?  I doubt if such an argument would hold up.  A person would probably give consent if they knew or had reason to believe that the drug or treatment had been thoroughly tested and was an approved treatment.  A reasonable person is not likely going to consent to an unproven and potentially dangerous unapproved drug or treatment.  Especially when safer and proven therapies exist.  Northfield Laboratories claims to have followed CFR 50.24 explicitly.  I disagree based on the facts that they never completed previous trials, their product has a higher death rate than controls and those receiving blood, they have not informed the public of their testing, or the possible dangers of the therapy and I don’t see any evidence that they are really trying to obtain consent as is required by law.

Patients were allowed to opt out of the test in case they suffered a severe trauma that would leave them unable to give consent.  To do so though they had to obtain a blue plastic bracelet from the company that they had to be wearing at the time paramedics arrived.  In order to get the bracelet the person would first have to be aware of the test.  Many people were not aware that the test was going on until testing had almost been completed.  And as previously pointed out, people that did not follow the media or who had no access to the media would have still been uninformed about the testing.  The same could apply to those who do not speak English.  Even if the story came on the TV news it does not mean they would understand what the test was about or how to opt out.

So what are the potential side effects of PolyHeme?  Previous hemoglobin products have all been shown to cause kidney damage, liver damage, high blood pressure and inflammation of the arteries.  There is also concern that allergic reactions may occur.  Northfield Laboratories claims that these adverse effects are not possible and their product is safe.  Other researchers disagree.  And Northfield Laboratories has not had the greatest track record of being honest to the public about the safety record of their product.  For instance when they tried to suppress the fact that 10 patients died within one week of receiving their product and no patients receiving real blood died.  Or the fact that their study was halted early due to problems.  Would more deaths have occurred if the study had continued its full duration?  Other adverse affects reported by the use of PolyHeme were significant increases in the rate of heart attacks, arrhythmias and pneumonia.

Tag Cloud