Steroid-sensitive cancers and the body's Detox Systems

October 2, 2003

For example, the media hype over deaths in people taking products

containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous.

>>>>I agree and would add ma huang

Alon

October 2, 2003

HI All,

Emmanuel wrote:

> Alon, Most of the reference books on pharmaceuticals describe

> specific pathways of metabolism and excretion. They're pretty

> much mostly metabolized as poisons by the liver and kidney. Is it

> your impression that Chinese herbs are mostly delivering poisons

> that require enormous work by the liver and kidney? Emmanuel

Alon wrote:

> If you look at some the pharm literature on Chinese herbs you can

> also find some info on pathways and many are the same enzyme as

> those for pharm drugs. There are interactions between herbs and

> drugs that clearly show herbs to be affecting many of the same

> pathways. There are plenty of herbs out there that cause liver and

> kidney damage. While i agree that in general CM is less toxic that

> is not the same as saying that the mechanisms are totally

> diffrent. Does the mechanism of nontoxic drugs then also totally

> different? I think we have too much feel good stuff here. Alon

Alon, agreed! ALL drugs, indeed all nutrients, are potential poisons

under certain circumstances. Even the two most essential

nutrients for live - air and water - can kill if they are taken in

excess. Water toxicity is well documented in calves and pigs

deprived of water for a few days and then allowed access to ad-

libitum water.

IMO, the body must process (metabolise/handle) ALL molecular

substances [including air & water] absorbed into it, whether from

digesta, skin or lungs. Through its organs, detox-, circulatory- and

excretory- systems, it uses what it needs, and stores or excretes

what it does not need; it neutralises or complexes metabolisable

toxins and excretes or stores the byproducts.

IMO, the same principle applies to herbs. Herbs have many active

compounds [alkaloids, glycosides, oxalates, etc] that can be toxic

under certain circumstances. Toxic compounds in herbs can (and

do) cause toxicity or adverse reactions.

For example, plant poisoning is well known in cattle [rhododendron,

senecio, veratrum, claviceps, digitalis, pterydium, taxus, nitrate

poisoning, etc]. In USA, selenium toxicity in range-cattle occurs

when they eat excessive amounts of Se-accumulator plants, such

as astragalus. If these plants grow in an area with toxic Se levels in

the soil, they can accumulate up to 10,000 ppm Se in their dry

matter!

Whether or ot toxicity occurs after ingestion of herbal materials

depends mainly on (a) the levels of toxic substances in the plant;

(b) the dose and dose-intervals of the plant, and © the health

status of the subject.

Subjects whose Detox Systems are fully operational, and who have

not been loaded previously with stored toxin [like heavy metal, etc]

can cope easily with toxin doses that could kill subjects with a

compromised Detox System.

For example, the media hype over deaths in people taking products

containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous. One MUST expect

that ANY potent drug [herbal or otherwise] poses high risk in

subjects whose livers or kidneys are damaged [bEFORE herbal

use] by severe cirrhosis, hepatitis or nephritis. The subsequent

sales ban on Hypericum and KAVA products was a cynical and

self-interested attack on herbal medicine by its opponents.

The western drug Industry pumps milliions (billions?) of dollars into

research each year. The industry has the universities and research

institutes on their side, if only because those institutions DEPEND

on industry for funding. An organisation that " does not play ball "

with the industry will receive no funding from that industry.

Ze'v wrote:

> There are presently no mechanisms to study herb interactions in

> prescriptions, although we can safely say that there are more

> complex interactions and more complex pharmacodyamics in the body

> that with most medications.

Agreed. In contrast to Pharma research, herbal research funding is

relatively pathetic. Thus, there is a relative (some would say

appaling) LACK of good research in many aspects of the safety,

efficacy and mechanisms of action herbal medicines. There is also

relatively little good research on the interactions between herbs,

interactions between their active ingredients, and interactions with

western drugs.

Whether we like it or not, many people [even many of our friends!)

see us [herbalists or holistic practitioners] as oddballs, practicing a

scientifically unproven and under-researched if not highly dubious

medicine.

In contrast to public perception, the INDUSTRY and its minions

take us VERY seriously! They see us as the SINGLE greatest

challenge to their enormous profits and will do all that they can to

bury us. That could include funding moles within our ranks, and

funding herbal research projects that they expect will produce poor

results or show adverse effects.

Ze'v wrote:

> ... we shouldn't swallow speculation and fear to the opposite about

> 'estrogenic herbs, either from articles or from studies that I

> really wonder about their accuracy. I'd raise the question of how

> we perceive herbal medicines to work as opposed to pharmaceutical

> drugs, especially when we combine them in prescriptions.

Emmanuel wrote:

> Regarding ... Quack-buster issues, anything that's not in the

> paradigm of WM can technically be targeted as quackery by those

> who wish to ignore efficacy and demand " mechanisms of action " .

Agreed. Quackbusters will attack on all fronts.

But the question of the wisdom of using steroidogenic herbs in

steroid-sensitive cancer is a prime target for Quackbusters. In

warefare, one is advised to know the enemy and attack the

weakest defences.

Mammary and prostate cancer are day-to-day concerns of the

public. Everyone knows someone afflicted with those conditions,

and many fear that they may develop them themselves. THAT is

why I see the oestrogen- or androgen- sensitive cancers as being

to important. They are a potential battle-ground for the industry to

highlight the confusion and scarcity of REAL research knowledge

in our ranks.

Many western drugs and herbal molecules work by activating or

blocking cell-receptors. IMO, we should AVOID known

oestrogenic/androgenic herbs/formulas in mammary and prostate

steroid-sensitive cancers unless we are fairly sure that they are

SAFE [i did not say EFFECTIVE!].

Comments?

Best regards,

Email: <

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

October 2, 2003

For example, the media hype over deaths in people taking products

containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous.

>>>>I agree and would add ma huang

Alon

October 2, 2003

hi all,

one of the things we bneed to realise is that all

things are poisonous to our body depending on dosage.

one mans food is another mans poison.

same with medicines. theya re more potent. CM drugs

are natural, so their absorption & strength is

limited. being natural they can be detoxed easily.

synthetic drugs are harmful as detox is harder. its

same as opium & heroin,

besides this the dosage can have a harmful effect too.

we have to be careful that today drug companies are

now producing natural health food supplements,

vutamins, minerals & other products synthetically.

this may have the same level of damage to the body

organs as synthetic drugs(medicines).

so look out.

anand

--- < wrote: > HI

All,

>

> Emmanuel wrote:

> > Alon, Most of the reference books on

> pharmaceuticals describe

> > specific pathways of metabolism and excretion.

> They're pretty

> > much mostly metabolized as poisons by the liver

> and kidney. Is it

> > your impression that Chinese herbs are mostly

> delivering poisons

> > that require enormous work by the liver and

> kidney? Emmanuel

>

> Alon wrote:

> > If you look at some the pharm literature on

> Chinese herbs you can

> > also find some info on pathways and many are the

> same enzyme as

> > those for pharm drugs. There are interactions

> between herbs and

> > drugs that clearly show herbs to be affecting many

> of the same

> > pathways. There are plenty of herbs out there that

> cause liver and

> > kidney damage. While i agree that in general CM is

> less toxic that

> > is not the same as saying that the mechanisms are

> totally

> > diffrent. Does the mechanism of nontoxic drugs

> then also totally

> > different? I think we have too much feel good

> stuff here. Alon

>

> Alon, agreed! ALL drugs, indeed all nutrients, are

> potential poisons

> under certain circumstances. Even the two most

> essential

> nutrients for live - air and water - can kill if

> they are taken in

> excess. Water toxicity is well documented in calves

> and pigs

> deprived of water for a few days and then allowed

> access to ad-

> libitum water.

>

> IMO, the body must process (metabolise/handle) ALL

> molecular

> substances [including air & water] absorbed into it,

> whether from

> digesta, skin or lungs. Through its organs, detox-,

> circulatory- and

> excretory- systems, it uses what it needs, and

> stores or excretes

> what it does not need; it neutralises or complexes

> metabolisable

> toxins and excretes or stores the byproducts.

>

> IMO, the same principle applies to herbs. Herbs have

> many active

> compounds [alkaloids, glycosides, oxalates, etc]

> that can be toxic

> under certain circumstances. Toxic compounds in

> herbs can (and

> do) cause toxicity or adverse reactions.

>

> For example, plant poisoning is well known in cattle

> [rhododendron,

> senecio, veratrum, claviceps, digitalis, pterydium,

> taxus, nitrate

> poisoning, etc]. In USA, selenium toxicity in

> range-cattle occurs

> when they eat excessive amounts of Se-accumulator

> plants, such

> as astragalus. If these plants grow in an area with

> toxic Se levels in

> the soil, they can accumulate up to 10,000 ppm Se in

> their dry

> matter!

>

> Whether or ot toxicity occurs after ingestion of

> herbal materials

> depends mainly on (a) the levels of toxic substances

> in the plant;

> (b) the dose and dose-intervals of the plant, and

> © the health

> status of the subject.

>

> Subjects whose Detox Systems are fully operational,

> and who have

> not been loaded previously with stored toxin [like

> heavy metal, etc]

> can cope easily with toxin doses that could kill

> subjects with a

> compromised Detox System.

>

> For example, the media hype over deaths in people

> taking products

> containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous. One MUST

> expect

> that ANY potent drug [herbal or otherwise] poses

> high risk in

> subjects whose livers or kidneys are damaged [bEFORE

> herbal

> use] by severe cirrhosis, hepatitis or nephritis.

> The subsequent

> sales ban on Hypericum and KAVA products was a

> cynical and

> self-interested attack on herbal medicine by its

> opponents.

>

> The western drug Industry pumps milliions

> (billions?) of dollars into

> research each year. The industry has the

> universities and research

> institutes on their side, if only because those

> institutions DEPEND

> on industry for funding. An organisation that " does

> not play ball "

> with the industry will receive no funding from that

> industry.

>

> Ze'v wrote:

> > There are presently no mechanisms to study herb

> interactions in

> > prescriptions, although we can safely say that

> there are more

> > complex interactions and more complex

> pharmacodyamics in the body

> > that with most medications.

>

> Agreed. In contrast to Pharma research, herbal

> research funding is

> relatively pathetic. Thus, there is a relative (some

> would say

> appaling) LACK of good research in many aspects of

> the safety,

> efficacy and mechanisms of action herbal medicines.

> There is also

> relatively little good research on the interactions

> between herbs,

> interactions between their active ingredients, and

> interactions with

> western drugs.

>

> Whether we like it or not, many people [even many of

> our friends!)

> see us [herbalists or holistic practitioners] as

> oddballs, practicing a

> scientifically unproven and under-researched if not

> highly dubious

> medicine.

>

> In contrast to public perception, the INDUSTRY and

> its minions

> take us VERY seriously! They see us as the SINGLE

> greatest

> challenge to their enormous profits and will do all

> that they can to

> bury us. That could include funding moles within our

> ranks, and

> funding herbal research projects that they expect

> will produce poor

> results or show adverse effects.

>

> Ze'v wrote:

> > ... we shouldn't swallow speculation and fear to

> the opposite about

> > 'estrogenic herbs, either from articles or from

> studies that I

> > really wonder about their accuracy. I'd raise the

> question of how

> > we perceive herbal medicines to work as opposed to

> pharmaceutical

> > drugs, especially when we combine them in

> prescriptions.

>

> Emmanuel wrote:

> > Regarding ... Quack-buster issues, anything that's

> not in the

> > paradigm of WM can technically be targeted as

> quackery by those

> > who wish to ignore efficacy and demand " mechanisms

> of action " .

>

> Agreed. Quackbusters will attack on all fronts.

>

> But the question of the wisdom of using

> steroidogenic herbs in

> steroid-sensitive cancer is a prime target for

> Quackbusters. In

> warefare, one is advised to know the enemy and

> attack the

> weakest defences.

>

> Mammary and prostate cancer are day-to-day concerns

> of the

> public. Everyone knows someone afflicted with those

> conditions,

> and many fear that they may develop them themselves.

> THAT is

> why I see the oestrogen- or androgen- sensitive

> cancers as being

> to important. They are a potential battle-ground for

> the industry to

> highlight the confusion and scarcity of REAL

> research knowledge

> in our ranks.

>

> Many western drugs and herbal molecules work by

> activating or

> blocking cell-receptors. IMO, we should AVOID known

> oestrogenic/androgenic herbs/formulas in mammary and

> prostate

> steroid-sensitive cancers unless we are fairly sure

> that they are

> SAFE [i did not say EFFECTIVE!].

>

> Comments?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Email: <

>

> WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave.,

> Dublin 4, Ireland

> Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic:

> 0]

>

> HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

> Tel : 353-; [in the Republic:

> 0]

> WWW :

> http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

>

=====

Anand Bapat

Pain Management Specialist

Sports Injury Specialist

Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville

0402 472 897

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

October 3, 2003

Well put piece. If you look at the case of PC-SPES you will see how this

formula was first heralded by urologists and oncologists as a worthy drug in

the armamentarium against prostate cancer (and indeed some other cancers as

well - check PubMed). HOWEVER, when it was discovered the formula was not as

squeaky clean as the makers claimed all hell let loose. Not one WM doc stood

up to put in a word for PC-SPES. It was withdrawn from the market after

heavy pressure from the FDA and California HD. Men using PC-SPES to suppress

advanced PC either died, had to go back on conventional meds such a Zoladex,

Lupron, Casodex or Flutamide (horrible side effects) or took their chance

with herbal analogs such as PC-PLUS.

> Many western drugs and herbal molecules work by activating or blocking

cell-receptors. IMO, we should AVOID known oestrogenic/androgenic

herbs/formulas in mammary and prostate steroid-sensitive cancers unless we

are fairly sure that they are SAFE [i did not say EFFECTIVE!].

Despite the clamour against PC-SPES there is no clear evidence that it

promoted androgen independent PC any more than conventional medicines. What

is more PC-SPES had a cancer cell kill effect in its own right. For example,

reports in peer reviewed journals were coming out that PC-SPES was effective

in treating colon cancer (again check PubMed if you feel the need to follow

this up). That is something the conventional meds have never had. Safety is

another issue, I agree. Problems of formula consistency and herb quality

abound. Together of course with a general lack of understanding of the true

mechanism(s) of action. But you are right Phil, there was an enormous effort

to get PC-SPES off the market so that it was not a thrreat to conventional

meds. After all, you can't have 100,000's of PC patients self medicating at

1/4 the Big Pharma price can you !

There now comes another strange 'herbal' by the name of DIM which is the

extract of cabbage. Diindolylemethane (DIM) is the digestive product of

enzymatically reduced brassicans first converted to indoles by mastication,

primarily I3C (indole-3-carbinole) and then DIM in the gut. 200 mg + doses

of DIM have been shown to act as steroid receptor disruptors for both BC and

PC. In others words, DIM is something like Tamoxifen and Casodex put

together in one. At lower doses DIM blocks CYP450 enzymatic production of

16-alpha-hydroxyestrone (16a-OH1) a highly carcinogenic estrogen implicated

in BC and probably PC as well.

DIM has a 'subtle effect' : Its electronic cloud configuration is similar to

the anti-androgen (AA) Casodex. Casodex (like Tamoxifen which is effectively

an anti estrogen AE) has a 'lock and key' action with steroid receptors.

Once the AA/AE key docks into the steroid receptor(s) found on most cells,

there is no way for the real steroid to reach the cell and activate cellular

processes like growth and mitosis. This blocking effect has been used for

years to suppress sex-steroid cancers. Now a cheap vegetable extract has

been found to do the same thing as highly expensive drugs. Time will tell

how the FDA and Big Pharma deal with this threat, but here is a clue that

DIM, like PC-SPES may have a naturally limited 'life-cycle' if that is the

right word to use:

Eventually cells learn to treat Casodex and Tamoxifen as if they were

androgens and the cellular processes go on again in a new form, often in the

guise of far more aggressive cancer. This may be because conventional AA's

and AE's have a similar chemistry to sex-steroids and are able to initiate

intracellular cAMP cascade instead of the real steroid. Now, PC-SPES (and

analogs) and DIM are chemically different to steroids. They are similar in

the morphological configuration only - hence they may be *incapable* of

initiating the ugly cellular adaptations found with conventional AA's and

AE's. Time will tell.

Hope that helps. But you are right Phil, stay away from steroid receptor

disruptors if you want TCM to stay clean dealing with BC and PC. There are

other things out there that address the cancer process in a TCM way.

Sarcandra for example has been used to relieve stasis in the pelvis. It is

most unfortunate that the product available in the west Xin Huang Pian is

contaminated with the western anti-inflammatory Indometacin. Indometacin has

a side effect profile that beggars belief and why commercial preparations

should include it baffle me. Yun Zhi has also been used to address immune

system imbalance which also may play a part in cancer process. Work by John

Tindall at the Yuan Clinic may be of interest here, if anyone knows John ..

Cheers,

Sammy.

[]

02 October 2003 18:41

Cc: traditional_Chinese_Medicine

Steroid-sensitive cancers and the body's Detox Systems

HI All,

Emmanuel wrote:

> Alon, Most of the reference books on pharmaceuticals describe

> specific pathways of metabolism and excretion. They're pretty

> much mostly metabolized as poisons by the liver and kidney. Is it

> your impression that Chinese herbs are mostly delivering poisons

> that require enormous work by the liver and kidney? Emmanuel

Alon wrote:

> If you look at some the pharm literature on Chinese herbs you can

> also find some info on pathways and many are the same enzyme as

> those for pharm drugs. There are interactions between herbs and

> drugs that clearly show herbs to be affecting many of the same

> pathways. There are plenty of herbs out there that cause liver and

> kidney damage. While i agree that in general CM is less toxic that

> is not the same as saying that the mechanisms are totally

> diffrent. Does the mechanism of nontoxic drugs then also totally

> different? I think we have too much feel good stuff here. Alon

Alon, agreed! ALL drugs, indeed all nutrients, are potential poisons

under certain circumstances. Even the two most essential

nutrients for live - air and water - can kill if they are taken in

excess. Water toxicity is well documented in calves and pigs

deprived of water for a few days and then allowed access to ad-

libitum water.

IMO, the body must process (metabolise/handle) ALL molecular

substances [including air & water] absorbed into it, whether from

digesta, skin or lungs. Through its organs, detox-, circulatory- and

excretory- systems, it uses what it needs, and stores or excretes

what it does not need; it neutralises or complexes metabolisable

toxins and excretes or stores the byproducts.

IMO, the same principle applies to herbs. Herbs have many active

compounds [alkaloids, glycosides, oxalates, etc] that can be toxic

under certain circumstances. Toxic compounds in herbs can (and

do) cause toxicity or adverse reactions.

For example, plant poisoning is well known in cattle [rhododendron,

senecio, veratrum, claviceps, digitalis, pterydium, taxus, nitrate

poisoning, etc]. In USA, selenium toxicity in range-cattle occurs

when they eat excessive amounts of Se-accumulator plants, such

as astragalus. If these plants grow in an area with toxic Se levels in

the soil, they can accumulate up to 10,000 ppm Se in their dry

matter!

Whether or ot toxicity occurs after ingestion of herbal materials

depends mainly on (a) the levels of toxic substances in the plant;

(b) the dose and dose-intervals of the plant, and © the health

status of the subject.

Subjects whose Detox Systems are fully operational, and who have

not been loaded previously with stored toxin [like heavy metal, etc]

can cope easily with toxin doses that could kill subjects with a

compromised Detox System.

For example, the media hype over deaths in people taking products

containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous. One MUST expect

that ANY potent drug [herbal or otherwise] poses high risk in

subjects whose livers or kidneys are damaged [bEFORE herbal

use] by severe cirrhosis, hepatitis or nephritis. The subsequent

sales ban on Hypericum and KAVA products was a cynical and

self-interested attack on herbal medicine by its opponents.

The western drug Industry pumps milliions (billions?) of dollars into

research each year. The industry has the universities and research

institutes on their side, if only because those institutions DEPEND

on industry for funding. An organisation that " does not play ball "

with the industry will receive no funding from that industry.

Ze'v wrote:

> There are presently no mechanisms to study herb interactions in

> prescriptions, although we can safely say that there are more

> complex interactions and more complex pharmacodyamics in the body

> that with most medications.

Agreed. In contrast to Pharma research, herbal research funding is

relatively pathetic. Thus, there is a relative (some would say

appaling) LACK of good research in many aspects of the safety,

efficacy and mechanisms of action herbal medicines. There is also

relatively little good research on the interactions between herbs,

interactions between their active ingredients, and interactions with

western drugs.

Whether we like it or not, many people [even many of our friends!)

see us [herbalists or holistic practitioners] as oddballs, practicing a

scientifically unproven and under-researched if not highly dubious

medicine.

In contrast to public perception, the INDUSTRY and its minions

take us VERY seriously! They see us as the SINGLE greatest

challenge to their enormous profits and will do all that they can to

bury us. That could include funding moles within our ranks, and

funding herbal research projects that they expect will produce poor

results or show adverse effects.

Ze'v wrote:

> ... we shouldn't swallow speculation and fear to the opposite about

> 'estrogenic herbs, either from articles or from studies that I

> really wonder about their accuracy. I'd raise the question of how

> we perceive herbal medicines to work as opposed to pharmaceutical

> drugs, especially when we combine them in prescriptions.

Emmanuel wrote:

> Regarding ... Quack-buster issues, anything that's not in the

> paradigm of WM can technically be targeted as quackery by those

> who wish to ignore efficacy and demand " mechanisms of action " .

Agreed. Quackbusters will attack on all fronts.

But the question of the wisdom of using steroidogenic herbs in

steroid-sensitive cancer is a prime target for Quackbusters. In

warefare, one is advised to know the enemy and attack the

weakest defences.

Mammary and prostate cancer are day-to-day concerns of the

public. Everyone knows someone afflicted with those conditions,

and many fear that they may develop them themselves. THAT is

why I see the oestrogen- or androgen- sensitive cancers as being

to important. They are a potential battle-ground for the industry to

highlight the confusion and scarcity of REAL research knowledge

in our ranks.

Many western drugs and herbal molecules work by activating or

blocking cell-receptors. IMO, we should AVOID known

oestrogenic/androgenic herbs/formulas in mammary and prostate

steroid-sensitive cancers unless we are fairly sure that they are

SAFE [i did not say EFFECTIVE!].

Comments?

Best regards,

Email: <

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

October 3, 2003

Hi Phil,

I accept your crossposting as acceptable since you are quoting and addressing

people on both lists. Seems ethical to me, but my apologies to those who feel

bruised by this.

Phil, I can't think of anything to say except nutrients in normal amounts do not

cause hepatomegaly (liver enlargement and injury), while drugs in normal amounts

often do cause hepatomegaly or at least some extra work by the liver. Now I'll

jump completely over to your side, Phil, and point out that simple food intake

and metabolism is presented by physiologists as the most stressful thing we do

over a lifetime. Makes you want to subsist on moderate doses of well cooked and

pureed soup doesn't it? This is exactly what I do when I compete as a distance

runner. Low stress foods and plenty of sleep makes me a more energetic athlete.

That's all I can think of for the moment aside from a recommendation that you

look at the molecules characterized in an August, 1998 research article in the

Journal of Chromatography A. Dr. Lin, et. al. characterized 26 new ring

structured molecules in Dang Gui, Angelica sinensis Radix. None of them are

steroids, but some have 5 or 6 rings that show resonance. Makes my biochemist

heart smile. I have similar articles that look at newly found molecules in

Huang Qi, Wu Wei Zi and a number of other herbs. Probably pretty boring for

most of the list, but I figured you, Phil, would get off on it. If you have a

fax number in Ireland, I'll fax you the two pages that shows the 26 cool ring

structured molecules found in Dang Gui. There's one ligustilide dimer that has

a fifth hidden resonant ring ... I love it. Hey, it's no worse than collecting

stamps, coins or Barbie dolls.

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College

-

Cc: traditional_Chinese_Medicine

Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:41 AM

Steroid-sensitive cancers and the body's Detox

Systems

HI All,

Emmanuel wrote:

> Alon, Most of the reference books on pharmaceuticals describe

> specific pathways of metabolism and excretion. They're pretty

> much mostly metabolized as poisons by the liver and kidney. Is it

> your impression that Chinese herbs are mostly delivering poisons

> that require enormous work by the liver and kidney? Emmanuel

Alon wrote:

> If you look at some the pharm literature on Chinese herbs you can

> also find some info on pathways and many are the same enzyme as

> those for pharm drugs. There are interactions between herbs and

> drugs that clearly show herbs to be affecting many of the same

> pathways. There are plenty of herbs out there that cause liver and

> kidney damage. While i agree that in general CM is less toxic that

> is not the same as saying that the mechanisms are totally

> diffrent. Does the mechanism of nontoxic drugs then also totally

> different? I think we have too much feel good stuff here. Alon

Alon, agreed! ALL drugs, indeed all nutrients, are potential poisons

under certain circumstances. Even the two most essential

nutrients for live - air and water - can kill if they are taken in

excess. Water toxicity is well documented in calves and pigs

deprived of water for a few days and then allowed access to ad-

libitum water.

IMO, the body must process (metabolise/handle) ALL molecular

substances [including air & water] absorbed into it, whether from

digesta, skin or lungs. Through its organs, detox-, circulatory- and

excretory- systems, it uses what it needs, and stores or excretes

what it does not need; it neutralises or complexes metabolisable

toxins and excretes or stores the byproducts.

IMO, the same principle applies to herbs. Herbs have many active

compounds [alkaloids, glycosides, oxalates, etc] that can be toxic

under certain circumstances. Toxic compounds in herbs can (and

do) cause toxicity or adverse reactions.

For example, plant poisoning is well known in cattle [rhododendron,

senecio, veratrum, claviceps, digitalis, pterydium, taxus, nitrate

poisoning, etc]. In USA, selenium toxicity in range-cattle occurs

when they eat excessive amounts of Se-accumulator plants, such

as astragalus. If these plants grow in an area with toxic Se levels in

the soil, they can accumulate up to 10,000 ppm Se in their dry

matter!

Whether or ot toxicity occurs after ingestion of herbal materials

depends mainly on (a) the levels of toxic substances in the plant;

(b) the dose and dose-intervals of the plant, and © the health

status of the subject.

Subjects whose Detox Systems are fully operational, and who have

not been loaded previously with stored toxin [like heavy metal, etc]

can cope easily with toxin doses that could kill subjects with a

compromised Detox System.

For example, the media hype over deaths in people taking products

containing Kava or Hypericum was ludicrous. One MUST expect

that ANY potent drug [herbal or otherwise] poses high risk in

subjects whose livers or kidneys are damaged [bEFORE herbal

use] by severe cirrhosis, hepatitis or nephritis. The subsequent

sales ban on Hypericum and KAVA products was a cynical and

self-interested attack on herbal medicine by its opponents.

The western drug Industry pumps milliions (billions?) of dollars into

research each year. The industry has the universities and research

institutes on their side, if only because those institutions DEPEND

on industry for funding. An organisation that " does not play ball "

with the industry will receive no funding from that industry.

Ze'v wrote:

> There are presently no mechanisms to study herb interactions in

> prescriptions, although we can safely say that there are more

> complex interactions and more complex pharmacodyamics in the body

> that with most medications.

Agreed. In contrast to Pharma research, herbal research funding is

relatively pathetic. Thus, there is a relative (some would say

appaling) LACK of good research in many aspects of the safety,

efficacy and mechanisms of action herbal medicines. There is also

relatively little good research on the interactions between herbs,

interactions between their active ingredients, and interactions with

western drugs.

Whether we like it or not, many people [even many of our friends!)

see us [herbalists or holistic practitioners] as oddballs, practicing a

scientifically unproven and under-researched if not highly dubious

medicine.

In contrast to public perception, the INDUSTRY and its minions

take us VERY seriously! They see us as the SINGLE greatest

challenge to their enormous profits and will do all that they can to

bury us. That could include funding moles within our ranks, and

funding herbal research projects that they expect will produce poor

results or show adverse effects.

Ze'v wrote:

> ... we shouldn't swallow speculation and fear to the opposite about

> 'estrogenic herbs, either from articles or from studies that I

> really wonder about their accuracy. I'd raise the question of how

> we perceive herbal medicines to work as opposed to pharmaceutical

> drugs, especially when we combine them in prescriptions.

Emmanuel wrote:

> Regarding ... Quack-buster issues, anything that's not in the

> paradigm of WM can technically be targeted as quackery by those

> who wish to ignore efficacy and demand " mechanisms of action " .

Agreed. Quackbusters will attack on all fronts.

But the question of the wisdom of using steroidogenic herbs in

steroid-sensitive cancer is a prime target for Quackbusters. In

warefare, one is advised to know the enemy and attack the

weakest defences.

Mammary and prostate cancer are day-to-day concerns of the

public. Everyone knows someone afflicted with those conditions,

and many fear that they may develop them themselves. THAT is

why I see the oestrogen- or androgen- sensitive cancers as being

to important. They are a potential battle-ground for the industry to

highlight the confusion and scarcity of REAL research knowledge

in our ranks.

Many western drugs and herbal molecules work by activating or

blocking cell-receptors. IMO, we should AVOID known

oestrogenic/androgenic herbs/formulas in mammary and prostate

steroid-sensitive cancers unless we are fairly sure that they are

SAFE [i did not say EFFECTIVE!].

Comments?

Best regards,

October 3, 2003