Research article on cetyl myristoleate

[Guest guest]

Cetyl Myristoleate for Arthritis

Science for Speculation

By Rusty Ford

There are a lot of fabulous stories about Cetyl Myristoleate (also

known as CMO or CM) floating across the Internet. Mine is one of

them. There have been a number of articles published in little known

journals or magazines. There have been four small booklets

published. One making fantastic claims, all four filled with

anecdotal evidence but offering no real research to back up the

claims. There are a number of Doctors sharing the results they are

having with their patients but so does every other wonder-working

product. The question is, are there any scientific studies to back

up any of these claims? The answer is yes. To date there are

several patient studies and two double blind studies completed. I

will mention the three most prominent below.

Dr Len Sands of the San Diego Clinic completed the first human study

on the effectiveness on Cetyl Myristoleate in 1995. There were 48

arthritis patients in this study. All but two showed significant

improvement in articular mobility (80% or better) and reduction of

pain (70% or better). Obviously the study had its flaws. One doctor

conducted the study, there was no control group and the number of

participants was small. Even so, it suggested to many that maybe

there was some hope here and that more scientific studies should

follow.

The first double blind study followed two years later. Dr. H.

Siemandi conducted a double blind study under the auspices of the

Joint European Hospital Studies Program. There were 431 patients in

the study, 106 who received cetyl myristoleate, 99 who received cetyl

myristoleate, and glucosamine, sea cucumber, and hydrolyzed cartilage

and 226 who received a placebo. Clinical assessment included

radiological test and other studies. Results were 63% improvement for

the cetyl myristoleate group, 87% for the cetyl myristoleate plus

glucosamine group and 15% for the placebo group.

In August of 2002, a double blind study was published in the Journal

or Rheumatology. The study included sixty-four patients with chronic

knee OA. Half of the patients received a cetyl myristoleate complex

and half a placebo. Evaluations included physician assessment, knee

range of motion with goniometry, and the Lequesne Algofunctional

Index (LAI). The conclusion was that the CM group saw significant

improvement while the placebo group saw little to none. In fact in

their conclusion the state that CM " may be an alternative to the use

of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OA " .

Advanced Medical Systems & Design, Ltd completed the last study I

would like to mention in Oct 2001. It was not a double blind study

but the study included 1814 arthritis patients. The results showed

that over 87% of the subjects had greater than 50% recovery and over

65% of those showed from 75% - 100% recovery following a sixteen day

regimen. I know that this is not the most scientific study but a

study this large does suggest that there could be a positive benefit

to the use of CM in the treatment of arthritis.

Conclusion: There is mounting evidence that CM can be effective in

the treatment of many forms of arthritis. While it is true that the

evidence from these three studies can not be considered conclusive,

it is a beginning. It should challenge you to think out side the box

and consider that just because it did not come from a drug company

does not mean that it will not work. With over 10,000 people a year

dying from Nsaids would it not be great to find a safer and more

effective product. Especially with the cost of prescription

treatments for arthritis costing into the hundreds and good Cetyl

Myristoleate products can be found for between $20 and $40.

[Guest guest]

Rusty, your story is getting rusty.

Where are these studys posted?

rheumatic Research article on cetyl myristoleate

Cetyl Myristoleate for Arthritis

Science for Speculation

By Rusty Ford

There are a lot of fabulous stories about Cetyl Myristoleate (also

known as CMO or CM) floating across the Internet. Mine is one of

them. There have been a number of articles published in little known

journals or magazines. There have been four small booklets

published. One making fantastic claims, all four filled with

anecdotal evidence but offering no real research to back up the

claims. There are a number of Doctors sharing the results they are

having with their patients but so does every other wonder-working

product. The question is, are there any scientific studies to back

up any of these claims? The answer is yes. To date there are

several patient studies and two double blind studies completed. I

will mention the three most prominent below.

Dr Len Sands of the San Diego Clinic completed the first human study

on the effectiveness on Cetyl Myristoleate in 1995. There were 48

arthritis patients in this study. All but two showed significant

improvement in articular mobility (80% or better) and reduction of

pain (70% or better). Obviously the study had its flaws. One doctor

conducted the study, there was no control group and the number of

participants was small. Even so, it suggested to many that maybe

there was some hope here and that more scientific studies should

follow.

The first double blind study followed two years later. Dr. H.

Siemandi conducted a double blind study under the auspices of the

Joint European Hospital Studies Program. There were 431 patients in

the study, 106 who received cetyl myristoleate, 99 who received cetyl

myristoleate, and glucosamine, sea cucumber, and hydrolyzed cartilage

and 226 who received a placebo. Clinical assessment included

radiological test and other studies. Results were 63% improvement for

the cetyl myristoleate group, 87% for the cetyl myristoleate plus

glucosamine group and 15% for the placebo group.

In August of 2002, a double blind study was published in the Journal

or Rheumatology. The study included sixty-four patients with chronic

knee OA. Half of the patients received a cetyl myristoleate complex

and half a placebo. Evaluations included physician assessment, knee

range of motion with goniometry, and the Lequesne Algofunctional

Index (LAI). The conclusion was that the CM group saw significant

improvement while the placebo group saw little to none. In fact in

their conclusion the state that CM " may be an alternative to the use

of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OA " .

Advanced Medical Systems & Design, Ltd completed the last study I

would like to mention in Oct 2001. It was not a double blind study

but the study included 1814 arthritis patients. The results showed

that over 87% of the subjects had greater than 50% recovery and over

65% of those showed from 75% - 100% recovery following a sixteen day

regimen. I know that this is not the most scientific study but a

study this large does suggest that there could be a positive benefit

to the use of CM in the treatment of arthritis.

Conclusion: There is mounting evidence that CM can be effective in

the treatment of many forms of arthritis. While it is true that the

evidence from these three studies can not be considered conclusive,

it is a beginning. It should challenge you to think out side the box

and consider that just because it did not come from a drug company

does not mean that it will not work. With over 10,000 people a year

dying from Nsaids would it not be great to find a safer and more

effective product. Especially with the cost of prescription

treatments for arthritis costing into the hundreds and good Cetyl

Myristoleate products can be found for between $20 and $40.

To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I'm kind of new here, so forgive me if I break any of the

rules. I'm a quick learner, though, so here goes...

Two of the studies referenced by Rusty are highly questionable

in terms of their results, study design, and (in the case of

the study done by Dr. H. Siemandi) of questionable authenticity.

The former was simply poorly designed as a scientific tool

for determining CMO efficacy, the latter was poorly designed

and has been untraceable (nobody seems to know who Dr. Siemandi

is).

The last reference was interesting to me in that it is a

bonafied medical journal in the US. I did a little research

last night and found the abstract for the study online in the

Journal of Rheumatology archives:

http://www.jrheum.com/abstracts/abstracts02/1708.html

If you read this abstract, the first thing you will note

is that CMO is not specifically sited as the molecule being

evaluated. Rather, cetylated fatty acids (CFA) is the

referenced class of molecules. I don't have the full transcript

of the publication so I don't know if it used CMO or not.

In any case, the results of this study are encouraging

for the class of molecules in the CFA family, of which I

presume CMO to be a member. The significance number (p<0.001)

is exceptional. For those unfamiliar with this, the

smaller p is the better - it represents the probability

that the positive effects of the study could have occurred

randomly - in this case there is a <0.1% chance that the

patients in the study group experienced their improvement

as a result of random variations in the symptoms of their

disease.

The other good thing about this study is that it was very

specific - it focused on the effects of CFAs on OA of the

knees. The more specific a study is, the more meaningful

will be the results.

So, what does this mean relative to the CMO claims? The

study is about a class of molecules called CFAs, of which

CMO is apparently a member. Since I don't have the full

transcript I don't know if CMO was used. In any case

even if it was, the study says that for OA the CFA did

provide improvement in some of the symptoms of the

disease. Also unknown to me at this time is the relative

significance of the amount of improvement measured. The

results state about 11 degrees of added flexibility in

the knee (when bending it, not when streightening). If the

typical patient started with 10 degrees and added 11, then

this is very significant. If they started with 50 and added

11 then perhaps not so great but meaningful nonetheless. I

would love to see the whole transcript if anyone has

access to it.

My view is that this is a very important first

step (beyond the unscientific studies done to date) in

evaluating the efficacy of CFAs for OA. There is still

a LOT of work to be done, but it is encouraging. As

for CMO specifically - I hope someday we will have enough

data to get past all the marketing junk and really

know what this stuff is good for.

> Rusty, your story is getting rusty.

>

> Where are these studys posted?

>

> rheumatic Research article on cetyl myristoleate

>

>

>

> Cetyl Myristoleate for Arthritis

> Science for Speculation

> By Rusty Ford

>

> There are a lot of fabulous stories about Cetyl Myristoleate (also

> known as CMO or CM) floating across the Internet. Mine is one of

> them. There have been a number of articles published in little

known

> journals or magazines. There have been four small booklets

> published. One making fantastic claims, all four filled with

> anecdotal evidence but offering no real research to back up the

> claims. There are a number of Doctors sharing the results they are

> having with their patients but so does every other wonder-working

> product. The question is, are there any scientific studies to

back

> up any of these claims? The answer is yes. To date there are

> several patient studies and two double blind studies completed. I

> will mention the three most prominent below.

>

> Dr Len Sands of the San Diego Clinic completed the first human

study

> on the effectiveness on Cetyl Myristoleate in 1995. There were 48

> arthritis patients in this study. All but two showed significant

> improvement in articular mobility (80% or better) and reduction of

> pain (70% or better). Obviously the study had its flaws. One

doctor

> conducted the study, there was no control group and the number of

> participants was small. Even so, it suggested to many that maybe

> there was some hope here and that more scientific studies should

> follow.

>

> The first double blind study followed two years later. Dr. H.

> Siemandi conducted a double blind study under the auspices of the

> Joint European Hospital Studies Program. There were 431 patients

in

> the study, 106 who received cetyl myristoleate, 99 who received

cetyl

> myristoleate, and glucosamine, sea cucumber, and hydrolyzed

cartilage

> and 226 who received a placebo. Clinical assessment included

> radiological test and other studies. Results were 63% improvement

for

> the cetyl myristoleate group, 87% for the cetyl myristoleate plus

> glucosamine group and 15% for the placebo group.

>

> In August of 2002, a double blind study was published in the

Journal

> or Rheumatology. The study included sixty-four patients with

chronic

> knee OA. Half of the patients received a cetyl myristoleate

complex

> and half a placebo. Evaluations included physician assessment,

knee

> range of motion with goniometry, and the Lequesne Algofunctional

> Index (LAI). The conclusion was that the CM group saw significant

> improvement while the placebo group saw little to none. In fact in

> their conclusion the state that CM " may be an alternative to the

use

> of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OA " .

>

> Advanced Medical Systems & Design, Ltd completed the last study I

> would like to mention in Oct 2001. It was not a double blind

study

> but the study included 1814 arthritis patients. The results showed

> that over 87% of the subjects had greater than 50% recovery and

over

> 65% of those showed from 75% - 100% recovery following a sixteen

day

> regimen. I know that this is not the most scientific study but a

> study this large does suggest that there could be a positive

benefit

> to the use of CM in the treatment of arthritis.

>

> Conclusion: There is mounting evidence that CM can be effective

in

> the treatment of many forms of arthritis. While it is true that

the

> evidence from these three studies can not be considered

conclusive,

> it is a beginning. It should challenge you to think out side the

box

> and consider that just because it did not come from a drug company

> does not mean that it will not work. With over 10,000 people a

year

> dying from Nsaids would it not be great to find a safer and more

> effective product. Especially with the cost of prescription

> treatments for arthritis costing into the hundreds and good Cetyl

> Myristoleate products can be found for between $20 and $40.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribe@e...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Saturday, October 26, 2002, at 01:20 AM, kronahp wrote:

> I'm kind of new here, so forgive me if I break any of the

> rules. I'm a quick learner, though, so here goes...

Thanks for an excellent post.

To others... Please don't post near adverts into the group. A simple

question like " Has <Product> worked for any of you? " , without the list

of claimed benefits, would avoid the effect of advertising.

--

spwhite@...