Calcium D-Glucarate

January 24, 2009

here's a copy of an email saying that calcium d-glucarate is not a major supplement to rely on. We all have financial and pill overload constraints, and want to concentrate on getting the most bang for our buck. I have no way of evaluating pro's and con's, but must rely on experts.

I asked him a question about calcium

d-glucarate and DIM. This was his response.

Love Devaprem

No,

the reason I think it has yet to show benefit worth talking about, is

not strictly because it " only " hasn't been studied in human subjects,

albeit one should not rush pass the point that something studied in the

rat model has been historically only the beginning of the story and [in

the overwhelmingly preponderance of the

times] has been the end of the story.

I

know the researchers personally who have done essentially all the work

in modern times. Dr. Walaszek is an absolutely wonderful person, a

very good and dedicated researcher, and he and his lovely wife [also

very bright and delightful] have been pursuing this for over 15 years at

least. About 10 years ago, if one reads the literature very

carefully, all the rat model information was known and completed. This

research team [the Walaszek's] then went to the AMC Cancer Research

Center in Denver from the U. of Texas where they had been specifically [specifically]

working to advance the use of D-glucarate beyond the mouse model. If

anything [anything]

in the reasonably obvious sense had then come about in their 10 years

of added focus while at AMC Cancer Center, we would have seen it in the

literature. After 10 years, since nothing has come up since the big

push began, we must note that this tells us something. I assure you

they just didn't forget about it and then -- hey! -- said " let's look

at ole d-glucarate again. How did I miss researching that friend? "

Now

the monograph that was attached says two things. Under the section,

" Clinical Indications -- Cancer, " we find that the monograph says

that study of its [d-glucarate] mechanism of action shows that its

mechanism of action for tumor inhibition [is] ... very similar in each

[tumor] including colon, liver, lung, skin, breast, and prostate

tumors. Now note that the Phase I trial underway is simply to identify

a dose level so that it may be tried as a substitute of tamoxifen as an

estrogen competitor. Then, to the extent that the estrogen

cannot encourage estrogen-positive tumors, it may inhibit such

encouragement, thereby reducing the risk of recurrence or initial

occurrence. Kindly note that [although I may be mistaken], neither

liver nor lung nor skin tumors care very much about estrogen levels.

Breast and prostate yes, the others no. So right off, this monograph

is far from cogent and on the money. Something is wrong with this

picture. But that is an aside.

In

any case, the focus at the moment, if one again reads the monograph

carefully, is to now see whether d-glucarate can act as an estrogen

inhibitor. In humans. Beyond the mouse model. And if it did, whether

that would even mean anything. Maybe it works a bit, and it's just not

a difference that makes any difference. Don't know. In the mean time,

one can definitely down-regulate their undesirable estrogen levels with

DIM off the bat, over-the-counter supplement, tomorrow morning. And if

so, the question is whether d-glucarate might make a penny's worth of

difference for the people taking DIM or exercising or lowering their

estrogen levels with fiber from flaxseed -- not flax oil-- or what

have you. You can bet your bottom dollar no pharmaceutical will EVER

test that variation on a theme out there. So whether it is a useful

down-regulator of estrogen for women with estrogen-positive tumors so

that it makes any difference, there is not a wit of evidence yet on the

table. Sorry.

So

in the meantime, we know absolutely bupkis as they say in the research

field. I admire the Walaszek's and truly hope their life's work proves

worthwhile. If they were not hanging on to this for the last 20 years,

easy, it would have died long ago. They really believe in it. In the

meanwhile, what do we know and when did we know it? In summary,

although the reader does not need it now, we have modest mouse model

evidence and we have the thin prospect that it might ultimately have a

human-responding estrogen-blocking impact. From an evidence point of

view, we have even less evidence so far that any blocking would have

any impact. And how long will such evidence take? A ghastly length of

time. So in the meantime, is this a place to put one's supplement

money? Well, I suggest that it would be on a list of the top 100, but

at the moment it would not make the list of the top 20. There are only

so many pills we can take and for some of us, only so much money we can

spend right now.

Thus I have said before, in

a much shorter version of the above, it is NOT

ready for prime time at this time.

Let

me add, given how much I liked the Walaszek's, I truly hope I [and

they] will live to see the day it gets further along than this. For

that to happen, I will have to take my other supplements faithfully ...

and for a very long time.

January 24, 2009

It takes SOOOO long. In 1998 R Firshein published The Neutraceutical Revolution. To quote: Calcium d-glucarate is so promising that the National Cancer Institute (USA) has begun a study of this compound in patients with a high risk of breast cancer. (Not enough bucks in it for them? Did they suppress it?)Also: Calcium D-glucarate is a potent inhibitor of beta-glucuronidase.As an aside, lactobacillus acidophilus also inhibits beta-glucuronidase activity in the colon.Walaszek published in the Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res. 37:183, 1992!!!!Heerdt, A. S., et al. Calcium glucarate as a chemopreventive agent in breast cancer. Israel Journal of Medicine Science. 1:101-105, 1995.Maracuja--- On Fri,

1/23/09, Rhoda Mead <hummingbird541 wrote:Rhoda Mead <hummingbird541 Calcium D-Glucarateoleander soup Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 10:44 PM