Guest guest Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Terry Herbert wrote: > Alan, > In the light of our recent exchange I would appreciate your > views on the subject of Salvestrols. ... Terry, Like you and others I would dismiss this completely if it weren't for the participation of Dr. Gerry Potter of Zytiga fame. I tried to do some research. Searching Pubmed for " salvestrol " I found not one single hit. It appears that no one has published anything in any scientific journal about this. I then searched for CYP1B1. It's a molecule discovered in the cell in 1994 that plays a number of roles, one of which has to do with steroid genesis. Testosterone and estradiol are steroids with slight differences in the atoms bonded to the basic steroid molecule. Perhaps because of this, it has been investigated for its possible role in prostate and breast cancers. CYP1B1 also plays a role in the synthesis of piceatannol from resveratrol. Both of those molecules appear to have anticancer properties. It also may be involved in breaking down some carcinogens. There are currently 695 articles in Pubmed referencing CYP1B1 and cancer. I think five of them have GA Potter as the principal author or a joint author. So he has done research in this area. All of his studies were very basic biochemistry research, extremely important work but not yet working on humans. One of the studies involved treating mice with leukemia. It " reduced adenoma multiplicity by 46 +/- 18.3% compared to controls. Some other studies tested the chemical on cultured breast cancer cells. So, what does it all mean? Is it a cure? I haven't seen anyone claim that yet. Is it something that will help reduce cancer? Maybe. I haven't seen any articles in the brief look that I did in Pubmed that talked about experiments on live human beings. Since CYP1B1 is a protein, I doubt that it's possible to eat it successfully. Proteins are digested when we eat them, i.e., they are broken down into the same amino acid constituents that are found in any other protein. Proteins do not survive digestion as whole molecules and are never directly absorbed into the blood stream. Our bodies already have CYP1B1 in them. Does " salvestrol " (whatever that is), increase the level of CYP1B1 in the body? Does it increase it in cancer cells? Is an increased level helpful beyond what we already have? I don't know that any of these questions have yet been addressed much less resolved. What about the case studies? Can we rely on them? Are they from reputable sources? Are they significant? As a check, I did a Google search on " laetrile case studies " . Coming out very near the top were articles like this one: http://www.whale.to/cancer/richardson_b.html which says: " Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation. " And yet a number of studies done by the very most reputable institutions, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, have found no benefit from laetrile. Here's what I'm inclined to conclude: The CYP1B1 molecule has anti-cancer properties. A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain extracts of berries marketed under the name " salvestrol " plays some role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will help in the treatment of all kinds of cancers. However it's not clear exactly what this biochemist is actually claiming. All we have from him is his email to one patient. He doesn't say how salvestrol works. Case study reports in favor of this claim have been published though I don't know if any of them have been authenticated (Did they really occur? Did the patients really have cancer? Did the cancer really regress? Were the results significantly better than placebo? If five people benefited from salvestrol, where there five others that didn't, or were there 500 others that didn't?) No research has been published in the scientific or medical literature that even makes mention of salvestrol. There are at least dozens if not hundreds of chemicals that are in the same position as this. Chuck Maack has a list of some of the more prominently mentioned ones on one of his web pages. I don't know how salvestrol compares to any of them, whether it's better or worse than the others, or whether any of them are actually useful in real life cancer treatment. In the final analysis, it seems to me that we don't have enough information to conclude that there is any benefit from salvestrol If the treatment is cheap and non-toxic (it looks to me like the price is about $7.33/day USD, and it's made from natural food products), I can certainly understand why people would want to try it. If they do, I would hope that they don't stop using proven treatments, that they report what they're doing to their doctors (though I doubt that the doctors will have heard of it), that they keep their expectations low, and that the report to others what happened - even if it fails. I hope it works, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Thanks, Alan....and Terry.Ann Terry Herbert wrote: > Alan, > In the light of our recent exchange I would appreciate your > views on the subject of Salvestrols. ... Terry, Like you and others I would dismiss this completely if it weren't for the participation of Dr. Gerry Potter of Zytiga fame. I tried to do some research. Searching Pubmed for "salvestrol" I found not one single hit. It appears that no one has published anything in any scientific journal about this. I then searched for CYP1B1. It's a molecule discovered in the cell in 1994 that plays a number of roles, one of which has to do with steroid genesis. Testosterone and estradiol are steroids with slight differences in the atoms bonded to the basic steroid molecule. Perhaps because of this, it has been investigated for its possible role in prostate and breast cancers. CYP1B1 also plays a role in the synthesis of piceatannol from resveratrol. Both of those molecules appear to have anticancer properties. It also may be involved in breaking down some carcinogens. There are currently 695 articles in Pubmed referencing CYP1B1 and cancer. I think five of them have GA Potter as the principal author or a joint author. So he has done research in this area. All of his studies were very basic biochemistry research, extremely important work but not yet working on humans. One of the studies involved treating mice with leukemia. It "reduced adenoma multiplicity by 46 +/- 18.3% compared to controls. Some other studies tested the chemical on cultured breast cancer cells. So, what does it all mean? Is it a cure? I haven't seen anyone claim that yet. Is it something that will help reduce cancer? Maybe. I haven't seen any articles in the brief look that I did in Pubmed that talked about experiments on live human beings. Since CYP1B1 is a protein, I doubt that it's possible to eat it successfully. Proteins are digested when we eat them, i.e., they are broken down into the same amino acid constituents that are found in any other protein. Proteins do not survive digestion as whole molecules and are never directly absorbed into the blood stream. Our bodies already have CYP1B1 in them. Does "salvestrol" (whatever that is), increase the level of CYP1B1 in the body? Does it increase it in cancer cells? Is an increased level helpful beyond what we already have? I don't know that any of these questions have yet been addressed much less resolved. What about the case studies? Can we rely on them? Are they from reputable sources? Are they significant? As a check, I did a Google search on "laetrile case studies". Coming out very near the top were articles like this one: http://www.whale.to/cancer/richardson_b.html which says: "Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation." And yet a number of studies done by the very most reputable institutions, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, have found no benefit from laetrile. Here's what I'm inclined to conclude: The CYP1B1 molecule has anti-cancer properties. A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain extracts of berries marketed under the name "salvestrol" plays some role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will help in the treatment of all kinds of cancers. However it's not clear exactly what this biochemist is actually claiming. All we have from him is his email to one patient. He doesn't say how salvestrol works. Case study reports in favor of this claim have been published though I don't know if any of them have been authenticated (Did they really occur? Did the patients really have cancer? Did the cancer really regress? Were the results significantly better than placebo? If five people benefited from salvestrol, where there five others that didn't, or were there 500 others that didn't?) No research has been published in the scientific or medical literature that even makes mention of salvestrol. There are at least dozens if not hundreds of chemicals that are in the same position as this. Chuck Maack has a list of some of the more prominently mentioned ones on one of his web pages. I don't know how salvestrol compares to any of them, whether it's better or worse than the others, or whether any of them are actually useful in real life cancer treatment. In the final analysis, it seems to me that we don't have enough information to conclude that there is any benefit from salvestrol If the treatment is cheap and non-toxic (it looks to me like the price is about $7.33/day USD, and it's made from natural food products), I can certainly understand why people would want to try it. If they do, I would hope that they don't stop using proven treatments, that they report what they're doing to their doctors (though I doubt that the doctors will have heard of it), that they keep their expectations low, and that the report to others what happened - even if it fails. I hope it works, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Thank you Alan. You say at one stage <snip> So, what does it all mean? Is it a cure? I haven't seen anyone claim that yet. Is it something that will help reduce cancer? Maybe. <snip> and <snip> A famous biochemist appears to say that eating certain extracts of berries marketed under the name " salvestrol " plays some role in the genesis of CYP1B1 in humans, and will help in the treatment of all kinds of cancers. However it's not clear exactly what this biochemist is actually claiming. All we have from him is his email to one patient. He doesn't say how salvestrol works. <snip> One of the references I gave in my previous post was to a pdf labeled http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf entitled Nutrition and Cancer: Salvestrol Case Studies. It has four authors, including Dr Potter. The Introduction says how Salvestrols work and says in part “Salvestrols are a class of phytonutrients that, in humans, are metabolised by the tumourspecific CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells to initiate a cascade of processes, including apoptosis, that result in the arrest or decline of the cancer…………. We use them in helping to rid our body of cells that have become cancerous.” So there is the basic claim – Salvestrols will arrest or result in the decline of cancer and help in ridding the body of cells that have become cancerous – which would usually be termed a ‘cure’ I think. The piece then goes on to give examples of how people have taken Salvestrols and rid themselves of cancerous cells. This is what is termed the ‘study’ for prostate cancer. <snip> Case #3. Prostate cancer A seventy-four-year-old gentleman received a PSA test result indicating a level of 11 ng/ml in the blood following his annual check-up. His previous PSA result had been 4 ng/ml. The consulting surgeon suspected cancer and advised that surgery or radiation would be required. A follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full body X-ray confirmed a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Surgery or radiation were both ruled out and the patient was prescribed a course of the synthetic hormone leuprorelin acetate (Prostap®) on a quarterly basis. The patient was advised that this treatment would be required for the rest of his life. Subsequently this gentleman spoke with his cousin, a university lecturer, who told him that one of his students was diagnosed with a terminal cancer of the brain and after taking Salvestrols had proved to her doctors that 'terminal' seemed to be an overstatement. He decided to begin a course of Salvestrol supplementation taking two (350 point) Salvestrol Professional capsules per day. Six months after receiving his diagnosis his PSA level had dropped to below 1 ng/ml. However, during this time the patient suffered from breast development, complete loss of body hair, impotence and a complete lack of libido as a result of the synthetic hormones. The patient moving to another country necessitated a change of doctors. At this point the patient switched Salvestrol products and began taking one (1,000 point) Salvestrol Professional capsule per day and one (350 point) Salvestrol Professional capsule three times per day. Twelve months after receiving his diagnosis his PSA level had dropped to 0.2 ng/ml. The new doctor continued with the PSA monitoring and quarterly injections of Lupron (a different brand of leuprorelin acetate). Upon receiving a subsequent PSA test result for this patient the attending physician said that the PSA level received was as low as it could be and asked if the patient was sure that he had not had surgery! Given the physician's surprise that such a result could be attributed to leuprorelin acetate alone the patient confessed to taking Salvestrols. The physician then stated that he had a patient that he would like to start on Salvestrols and asked the patient to supply him with background information. The physician decided to 'wean' the patient off of the quarterly Lupron injections. This patient has not had a Lupron injection for six months and continues to receive PSA test results at the 0.2 ng/ml level. The patient continues to take one (350 point) Salvestrol Professional capsule per day and has embarked on a fitness program and change in diet. <snip> Of course there is a deal of misleading information here: At least 65% of men with a PSA of 11 ng/ml will not have a positive biopsy. The most common causes of PSA readings at this level are BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) and prostate/bladder infections It is not possible to diagnosed prostate cancer without a biopsy procedure: a follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full body X-ray cannot confirm a diagnosis of prostate cancer. It is difficult to establish a time range for this study, but it would not be unusual for a PSA of 11 ng/ml to revert to a ‘normal’ very low level if it was due to BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) following ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) for what appears to be at least eighteen months So to my way of thinking it does not support a ‘proof’ that Salvestrols have ‘cured’ this man. Those who may be interested in learning more about Professor Potter and Salvestrols might like to go to another link I gave in my first mail Trademarked Science Trade-Offs at http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/07/trademarked-science-trade-offs.html The comments are particularly interesting, especially as it is aid that trial are under way – although the author of that item is somewhat vague as to where they are being carried out and by whom. It was from one of them that I learned of Dr Potter’s mental problems – see Private Hell Of Leicester Scientist Searching For Cancer Wonder Drug at http://tinyurl.com/3llqh7u - and I assume, since he estimates that his share of the Zytiga royalties will be substantial, that he has left2012 De Montfort University, since he is no longer listed on their site – and indeed a search of the site shows no references to him. All the best Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Terry Herbert .... > One of the references I gave in my previous post was to a pdf > labeled > http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf > entitled Nutrition and Cancer: Salvestrol Case Studies. It has > four authors, including Dr Potter. The Introduction says how > Salvestrols work and says in part > “Salvestrols are a class of phytonutrients that, in humans, are > metabolised by the tumourspecific CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells > to initiate a cascade of processes, including apoptosis, that > result in the arrest or decline of the cancer…………. We use them > in helping to rid our body of cells that have become > cancerous.†Sorry Terry, I didn't read the case studies, for the reason given in my original posting - that I didn't think case studies counted for much. But I'll read them now. .... > <snip> Case #3. Prostate cancer ....    > Of course there is a deal of misleading information here: > At least 65% of men with a PSA of 11 ng/ml will not have a > positive biopsy. The most common causes of PSA readings at this > level are BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) and > prostate/bladder infections > It is not possible to diagnosed prostate cancer without a > biopsy procedure: a follow-up magnetic resonance scan and full > body X-ray cannot confirm a diagnosis of prostate cancer. > It is difficult to establish a time range for this study, but > it would not be unusual for a PSA of 11 ng/ml to revert to a > ‘normal’ very low level if it was due to BPH (Benign Prostatic > Hyperplasia) following ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) for > what appears to be at least eighteen months I agree with all of that. It is very misleading and all three of your criticisms seem to me entirely correct. I will add a fourth: PSA will not normally rise six months after the last shot of Lupron. In my own case it took about nine months and I only had two injections, a 30 day and a 90 day. The fact that the patient's PSA had not returned in six months is normal and expected and not a sign that his cancer, if he actually had cancer, was cured. In fact I'd go further. A PSA of 0.2 is abnormally low. It is not a sign of cancer cure when the patient still has a prostate. It is a sign of androgen deprivation. > So to my way of thinking it does not support a ‘proof’ that > Salvestrols have ‘cured’ this man. I entirely agree and would go even further, it constitutes evidence of a desire to mislead the reader. Surely Professor Potter ought to know what you and I know about PCa and should have known that these statements were misleading. > Those who may be interested in learning more about Professor > Potter and Salvestrols might like to go to another link I gave > in my first mail Trademarked Science Trade-Offs at > http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/07/trademarked-science-trade-offs.html > The comments are particularly interesting, especially as it is > aid that trial are under way – although the author of that item > is somewhat vague as to where they are being carried out and by > whom. It was from one of them that I learned of Dr Potter’s > mental problems – see Private Hell Of Leicester Scientist > Searching For Cancer Wonder Drug at http://tinyurl.com/3llqh7u > - and I assume, since he estimates that his share of the Zytiga > royalties will be substantial, that he has left2012 De Montfort > University, since he is no longer listed on their site – and > indeed a search of the site shows no references to him. I wonder if Dr. Potter has gone off the deep end (he suffers from bipolar disorder aas indicated in the reference you cite) or perhaps people are using his name without his full knowledge of what they are saying. I probably won't get to the Case Studies document for a fiew days but I will have a look at it.    Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 There is a great 7 part video on YouTube about Salvestrols, what they are and how they supposedly work. I researched on behalf of my dad, but haven't gone so far to buy/try, we are going to go the liposomal vitamin C route first. I did email the folks who make Salvestrols and they said vitamin C can be taken with them. My dad's situation: nearing the end of the road, bone mets, been through Lupron, 2 types of chemo (don't know the first, Zytiga the last) and 120 days total of radiation for hot spots. He is very weakened by all of the drugs and has quite a bit of pain. 3 blood transfusions in the last month and the blood numbers still aren't good. He's fighting though and not giving up.I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense and worth the time looking at these...Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfuPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfuPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfuPart 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrelPart 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfuPart 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfuPart 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrelRob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Nolte wrote: .... > I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense > and worth the time looking at these... > > Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfu > Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfu > Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfu > Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrel > Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfu > Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfu > Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrel I watched the videos that Rob recommended. They were quite interesting. The lecturer, Prof. Dan Burke, is a pharmacologist who worked with Dr. Gerry Potter - who came up with a lot of the theory behind salvestrols. The presentation he gave was highly enthusiastic, even exuberant, but I don't think I'd call it a sales pitch. At least he didn't mention anything for sale and he didn't make outrageous claims about curing cancer. As I understand it, here is the theory behind salvestrols. I'm adding a bit of my own interpretation to what I saw in the videos. 1. All (most?) cancer cells produce an enzyme named CYP1B1. This enzyme is only found in significant quantities in cancer cells, not healthy cells. It may have evolved as a protective response against cancer. When a stain is used that is sensitive only to CYP1B1, it can be seen under a microscope that only the cancer cells in a mixed sample take up and show the stain. He showed biopsy samples from several cancer types, including a prostate biopsy sample, that clearly showed that the misshapen cancerous cells were the ones with the dark CYP1B1 stain. Not all of the functions of CYP1B1 are known, but one of them appears to be an ability to catalyze the conversion of certain harmless molecules into molecules that trigger programmed cell death. See below. 2. Many fruits and vegetables produce flavonoid molecules that Burke and Potter call " salvestrols " . It is thought that these molecules are produced by the plants in order to fight fungal infections. They can damage or kill fungal cells but, in their natural state, are harmless to us. 3. When salvestrol molecules come in contact with the enzyme CYP1B1 they are converted into a poison that causes apoptosis, i.e., " programmed cell death. " Many cells in our bodies have a natural life cycle, at the end of which, they die. This is called programmed cell death. It can occur as a result of receiving certain signals, or not receiving signals that should be present for the cells to live. For example the immune system can send a signal to a virus infected cell causing that cell to die and take the virus particles with it. Prostate cells receive certain signals in the prostate that, if they are not received (because the cell has metastasized outside the prostate) should cause the cells to die. Cancer cells do not die when they should and often evade apoptosis. The theory here is that salvestrol molecules can be absorbed into all of our cells, but only the cancer cells, the ones containing the CYP1B1 enzyme, will convert them into pro-apoptotic chemicals. So only the cancer cells will die. It is, as they say today, a " targeted " therapy. So, how does one get salvestrols? The answer is that they come from many different fruits, vegetables and herbs. The following were ones that Dr. Burke specifically mentioned: apples avocados basil oranges bell peppers mint grapes broccoli thyme blueberries olives dandelion raspberries But there is a catch. To get the most benefit from these foods it is necessary to eat organically grown plants. Because the plants produce the salvestrols in response to fungal attacks, the fungicides used on most fruit and vegetables relieve the plant of the necessity of producing salvestrols. He said that there can be as much as 30 times more salvestrols in an organic plant as in one treated with fungicides. Furthermore, salvestrols are bitter tasting, so the growers try to breed varieties that don't taste bitter, which means they have fewer salvestrols. If the fruits and vegetables taste bitter, that may be good. If they taste very sweet, it's bad. Cooking fruits and vegetables with salvestrols is okay. They are heat resistant. But boiling them in water is bad because the boiling water leaches the salvestrols out of the food. So if you boil them, save and consume the water in one way or another. What will the effect of consuming salvestrols be? Dr. Burke made fairly modest claims. He didn't really talk about curing cancer. What he talked about was " culling the herd " of cancer cells. He thought we could reduce the number of cancer cells in our bodies by taking salvestrols. He also said that some of the best cancer fighting chemicals are " anti-oxidants " (like vitamin C) and that salvestrols were a good " plan B " . The anti-oxidants will help prevent cancer from developing and salvestrols will help kill off some of the cells that do become cancerous. If we don't have a detectable cancer, taking salvestrols can help keep us that way. If we do have cancer, salvestrols can help slow the growth of the cancer and enable us to live longer. He said it's not about curing cancer, but about controlling it so that we can live longer and die of something else. I was impressed by his presentation. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 wow, very nicely summed up! .... > I can't say if Salvestrols work, but the story makes good sense > and worth the time looking at these... > > Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds5HuuYhJ_o & feature=relmfu > Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDP5FUFpBs & feature=relmfu > Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtjXPc8KDk & feature=relmfu > Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrRQXsQ6sE & feature=fvwrel > Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwKTtYpwXU & feature=relmfu > Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dko7QYNNJQQ & feature=relmfu > Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhDwjs_PhQA & feature=fvwrel I watched the videos that Rob recommended. They were quite interesting. The lecturer, Prof. Dan Burke, is a pharmacologist who worked with Dr. Gerry Potter - who came up with a lot of the theory behind salvestrols. The presentation he gave was highly enthusiastic, even exuberant, but I don't think I'd call it a sales pitch. At least he didn't mention anything for sale and he didn't make outrageous claims about curing cancer. As I understand it, here is the theory behind salvestrols. I'm adding a bit of my own interpretation to what I saw in the videos. 1. All (most?) cancer cells produce an enzyme named CYP1B1. This enzyme is only found in significant quantities in cancer cells, not healthy cells. It may have evolved as a protective response against cancer. When a stain is used that is sensitive only to CYP1B1, it can be seen under a microscope that only the cancer cells in a mixed sample take up and show the stain. He showed biopsy samples from several cancer types, including a prostate biopsy sample, that clearly showed that the misshapen cancerous cells were the ones with the dark CYP1B1 stain. Not all of the functions of CYP1B1 are known, but one of them appears to be an ability to catalyze the conversion of certain harmless molecules into molecules that trigger programmed cell death. See below. 2. Many fruits and vegetables produce flavonoid molecules that Burke and Potter call "salvestrols". It is thought that these molecules are produced by the plants in order to fight fungal infections. They can damage or kill fungal cells but, in their natural state, are harmless to us. 3. When salvestrol molecules come in contact with the enzyme CYP1B1 they are converted into a poison that causes apoptosis, i.e., "programmed cell death." Many cells in our bodies have a natural life cycle, at the end of which, they die. This is called programmed cell death. It can occur as a result of receiving certain signals, or not receiving signals that should be present for the cells to live. For example the immune system can send a signal to a virus infected cell causing that cell to die and take the virus particles with it. Prostate cells receive certain signals in the prostate that, if they are not received (because the cell has metastasized outside the prostate) should cause the cells to die. Cancer cells do not die when they should and often evade apoptosis. The theory here is that salvestrol molecules can be absorbed into all of our cells, but only the cancer cells, the ones containing the CYP1B1 enzyme, will convert them into pro-apoptotic chemicals. So only the cancer cells will die. It is, as they say today, a "targeted" therapy. So, how does one get salvestrols? The answer is that they come from many different fruits, vegetables and herbs. The following were ones that Dr. Burke specifically mentioned: apples avocados basil oranges bell peppers mint grapes broccoli thyme blueberries olives dandelion raspberries But there is a catch. To get the most benefit from these foods it is necessary to eat organically grown plants. Because the plants produce the salvestrols in response to fungal attacks, the fungicides used on most fruit and vegetables relieve the plant of the necessity of producing salvestrols. He said that there can be as much as 30 times more salvestrols in an organic plant as in one treated with fungicides. Furthermore, salvestrols are bitter tasting, so the growers try to breed varieties that don't taste bitter, which means they have fewer salvestrols. If the fruits and vegetables taste bitter, that may be good. If they taste very sweet, it's bad. Cooking fruits and vegetables with salvestrols is okay. They are heat resistant. But boiling them in water is bad because the boiling water leaches the salvestrols out of the food. So if you boil them, save and consume the water in one way or another. What will the effect of consuming salvestrols be? Dr. Burke made fairly modest claims. He didn't really talk about curing cancer. What he talked about was "culling the herd" of cancer cells. He thought we could reduce the number of cancer cells in our bodies by taking salvestrols. He also said that some of the best cancer fighting chemicals are "anti-oxidants" (like vitamin C) and that salvestrols were a good "plan B". The anti-oxidants will help prevent cancer from developing and salvestrols will help kill off some of the cells that do become cancerous. If we don't have a detectable cancer, taking salvestrols can help keep us that way. If we do have cancer, salvestrols can help slow the growth of the cancer and enable us to live longer. He said it's not about curing cancer, but about controlling it so that we can live longer and die of something else. I was impressed by his presentation. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 thank you for the kind note! Best to you as well.Subject: SalvestrolsTo: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:50 PM Hi All, Rob: I had never heard of Salvestrols,,,I haven't checked out the links you left but I will ,,just want to thank you for the info..How are you doing? Being a Caregiver is not an easy task...make sure you take care of you first,,,because you won't be albe to take care of anyone if you burn out. And watching our love ones weak and in pain has to pull on your heart strings. Just wanted to help,,and wanted you to know,,,if you just need to vent, we are here...We all know how you feel. I will keep you both in my thoughts and prayers. Hang in there and thank you for the info Best Wishes, Sheila Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Alan, You say: <snip> I was impressed by his presentation.<snip> This despite no independent peer reviewed scientific studies to back up what he was saying? I’m not having a dig at you, but doesn’t this show how we are all influenced by outside factors. It seems the fact that Dan Burke is a pharmacologist carries a significant degree of weight with you which is not offset by the fact that it appears that he is Gerry Potter’s partner in the marketing of Salvestrols, for which claim ARE made. If Joe Blow was to make the same claims, would you not be inclined to regard him a a quack, misleading people? All the best Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Terry Herbert wrote: > Alan, You say: > <snip> I was impressed by his presentation.<snip> > This despite no independent peer reviewed scientific studies to > back up what he was saying? Yes, I was impressed, mainly by the scientific plausibility of his presentation. He came up with plausible explanations for the properties of the salvestrols (evolved by plants to fight fungal infection) and the conversions via the human enzyme (evolved by animals to prolong life in the presence of cancer). Are they true explanations? Do the chemicals work as predicted by the theory? We can't say for sure until we see scientific studies. So I have to say that being impressed is only part way towards being convinced. However, I'll add that this is a low risk, low cost therapy on offer here. It amounts to eating organically grown fruits and vegetables (admittedly more expensive than the supermarket kind), and not boiling them in water. He didn't say you have to buy any pills or eat anything that humans don't usually eat. > I’m not having a dig at you, but doesn’t this show how we are > all influenced by outside factors. It seems the fact that Dan > Burke is a pharmacologist carries a significant degree of > weight with you which is not offset by the fact that it appears > that he is Gerry Potter’s partner in the marketing of > Salvestrols, for which claim ARE made. If Joe Blow was to make > the same claims, would you not be inclined to regard him a a > quack, misleading people? What you say is true. Burke made some very significant oversimplifications in his presentation. Had Joe Blow made the same presentation I might have thought, " Joe doesn't fully understand the nature of apoptosis or the natural cell life cycle. "  But knowing that Burke was a professor of pharmacology at a reputable university, and that he worked with a famous biochemist (Potter), I thought, " of course he knows this stuff better than I do, but he's simplifying things in order to make them more understandable to his audience. " So, yeah, I was influenced by what you've called " outside factors. "  It's a risky sort of influence but maybe not unreasonable. Credentials don't count for everything but they do count for something. Based on my own limited knowledge of cancer biology, I would guess that what salvestrols provide is more likely to be a help than a cure for most cancer patients. Cancer evolves, sometimes quite quickly. Cancer arises because of damage to a cell's DNA that causes some genes to stop working. Some of the genes that stop working can be genes involved in DNA repair. When they are damaged, other damage accumulates faster and the cells mutate faster. One of the problems in cancer cells is that they generally fail to respond to some apoptotic signals, or the response is insufficient to kill the cell. Thus, for example, cells deprived of their special environment, i.e., metastatic cells, should die. They don't because the mechanisms that respond to the signals, or lack of signals, have been damaged by DNA mutations. It seems likely that whatever apoptotic signals are generated by salvestrols in cancer cells, there are likely to be some cells that are resistant to them and, as with ADT resistant and chemo resistant cells, they will eventually come to predominate in the tumor population. Still, if the therapy works on some cells, it will provide benefit and could, in theory, prolong life. I hope that studies are done. Dr. Burke said that there isn't a lot of money to be made on this because a drug company can't patent broccoli and cranberries. So drug development and trials may not be forthcoming. We'll just have to see. But in the meantime I'm going to add extra olives to my martinis    Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Alan Meyer wrote: .... > Credentials don't count for everything but they do count for > something. .... This is one of the problems we face with Dr. Burzynski. The man really is a credentialed professor of oncology. He got the education, passed the exams, and was accepted into the profession at a high level. He does understand the science. So it's hard to dismiss him on the same grounds that we might dismiss the inventor of, say, Essiac tea. Given his cynical seeming manipulation of the clinical trials process, his steep fees, his lack of cooperation with the rest of the scientific community, and other behaviors, my inclinations are against him. The fact that so many other credentialed people oppose him is not a strong point for him either. But it illustrates a problem. We'd like to believe the experts, but sometimes the experts disagree and, sometimes, we're not sure they are honest. So, while Burke and Potter have considerable credibility, we can't completely suspend rational skepticism on that account. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 Rather than run around in circles .. .. Maybe we should get Prof Potter to address these concerns. Sam. Alan, In the light of our recent exchange I would appreciate your views on the subject of Salvestrols. The claim to discovery of efficacy of Salvestrols is made by someone no les than Dr Gerry Potter who is credited with the original discovery of Abiraterone Acetate, now known as Zytiga. He owns the patent rights for Salvestrols, through a Trust, as far as I know and I think he markets Salvestrols through a company he owns. All of which makes me suspicious, but….. he IS Dr Gerry Potter and has a tremendous reputation. In defending what he saw as my attack on the credibility of Dr Potter and Salvestrols, one of the men on the Yana Forum said: <snip> As for the credibility of Salvestrols. Prof Gerry Potter is responsible for “Zytiga” http://www.zytiga.com/ which is now marketed and sold by Janssen Biotech. So by your logic, we can trust him to produce a pharmaceutical drug that’s gone through clinical drugs and is now sold for I believe some $4000. But when he produces a natural product that’s freely available and sold for I believe $100, its rubbish and questionable. <snip> My response in part was: <snip> Of course I never said what you have implied, but anyone with any element of intelligence and logic would know that merely because a man was involved in producing a pharmaceutical this would not automatically preclude him from using his reputation to make money for himself by skipping the tedious process of actually PROVING that anything worked. I am not suggesting that Dr Potter is being dishonest in any way – I am merely pointing out an inherent flaw in what you have to say. There are many instances in this modern world of doctors with good reputations selling trademarked goods or therapies for which they make claims that are not independently substantiated. <snip> This is not a trick question or aimed at trapping you in any way. I am genuinely interested in your views – and of course any one else’s views. Am I being too hard on a scientist whose work is internationally recognized at one level? The relevant Threads on the Yana Forum are at 1. http://tinyurl.com/cugtr9m titled initially as My dads story-So far anyone familiar? 2. http://tinyurl.com/cacz2z9 titled salvestrols For ease of reference the edited relevant part of the exchange on the first thread follows: J F : May 30, 2010 Here is a message I received from Prof Gerry Potter, the inventor of Abiraterone Acetate and the discoverer of Salvestrols. Reply by Prof Gerry Potter on May 27, 2010 at 5:56pm Dear , as you might imagine since I invented abiraterone 20 years ago that I might have made further discoveries since then ! And indeed I have. The most important has been the discovery of Salvestrols which are non-toxic natural molecules that selectively destroy cancer cells by selective tumour bioactivation with the CYP1B1 enzyme (a relative of the CYP17 enzyme that Abiraterone targets). These are effective against all forms of cancer. Since Salvestrols are natural food based molecules I have been able to formulate them as a product without the need for clinical trials, since I understand how lengthy the trials process is and also how urgent the need for effective therapy is. Personally I do not know anyone with cancer since my friends who had this disease have recovered with salvestrol therapy. The problem is because they are produced as a food product rather than a medicinal product we cannot legally advertise the products for cancer. Thus the news can only be spread by word of mouth or on the internet. So if there is anyone out there with cancer spread the news on salvestrols. Our latest product that is recommended is called Salvestrol Platinum, and this should be taken at 1 capsule. The dose can be increased to 3 capsules daily for advanced cancers. We have also developed a cream, Salvestrol Gold, for skin cancer. These products are avilable from www.salvestrolnaturalproducts.com in the UK, or www.salvestrol.ca in the US. For further info you can google on " Salvestrol Case Studies " They are explained in detail at http://www.theshenclinic.com/en/treatments/salvestrols I will leave the decision up to you and your medical team, as to whether you decide to purchase them or not. If you require any further information on Prof Gerry Potter then just Google his name. May 30, 2010 Something seems a bit dodgy with this stuff. The site that you can buy silvestrol from refers to a University of Sutherland that doesn't exist in wikipedia (although it has a nice web site page)and the word silvestrols desn't come up in PubMed literature search and PubMed has research papers on all sorts of standard and alternative medications. I thought I might buy some but I don't think so now. Terry Herbert May 31, 2010 I believe that your posts on salvestrols are made in a genuine desire to provide information on a subject which you accept and do not breach the 'no commercials' rule, but I am somewhat concerned about the lack of any demonstration of the value of salvestrols apart from the statements from the man who makes and sells the product, like this one Since Salvestrols are natural food based molecules I have been able to formulate them as a product without the need for clinical trials, since I understand how lengthy the trials process is and also how urgent the need for effective therapy is. Personally I do not know anyone with cancer since my friends who had this disease have recovered with salvestrol therapy. That kind of vested interest and statement usually points to a pretty dodgy product and can be seen in connection with many other products that, despite claims made have not demonstrated any real value. One site I found says: Research has shown salvestrols can destroy cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. but fails to mention what the research was, who carried it out, what proof there was that this claim was accurate. It may be that the research was based on what are termed in vitro experiments where compounds are tested in Petri dishes. We know that very few of the observed results in such experiments result in viable treatments. I think that anyone considering using salvestrols should read articles like this one TRADEMARKED SCIENCE TRADE-OFFS and do more research on the alleged value. As the legal maximum has it: Caveat emptor - Let The Buyer Beware JF May 31, 2010 I have always been a sceptic when it comes to natural medicines, as my wife knows, because she has tried them on many occasions over the years, with mixed results. Regarding my post on Salvestrol, You are right in assuming that I am only trying to help people, with information on what is on offer, to maybe treat people who are infected with Prostate Cancer. What impressed me about Solvestrol is who discovered it and the case studies I found on the internet, of its success in treating people with Terminal Cancer. i.e. http://www.hans.org/magazine/278/Nutrition-and-Cancer-Salvestrol-Case-Studies and http://www.natuurdietisten.nl/files/Salvestrolen%20case%20studies4.pdf admittedly the last link was written by Prof G Potter and Prof D Burke, both of whom have a conflict of interest in promoting this treatment. I am in no way promoting or endorsing this product, I am only passing on information provided to me by Prof Gerry Potter, maybe because I am on the Phase 3, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Abiraterone Acetate (CB7630) Plus Prednisone. Trail, which he invented and to which my untreatable prostate cancer is responding to, I may be biased. Like all treatments and medications available, it is up to the individual to do their own research and make the decision as to whether they wish to pursue them any further or not. The link you provided seems to base its conclusion that is quackery, on the fact that both Prof Potter and Burke are a part of the company that has been formed to produce and sell this product. I may be wrong but I cannot see any thing wrong with the fact that they should be able to market a product that they themselves have discovered and researched over many years. Both men as far as I can find out, are ethical scientists, with years of research into treatments or a cure for cancer. Terry Herbert May 31, 2010 We all interpret things through the lens of our own experiences and there seems to be nothing that is easily found on the subject of Salvestrol that is not authored by Dr Potter - both references you gave have him as author. So essentially we have a man, who no doubt genuinely believes that his latest discovery is even better than his previous one, and so he promotes it as a cure without any proof that it is. Why, one may well wonder, did he go the distance with trials and studies for Abiraterone Acetate and not for Salvestrol? That doesn't make much sense to me. The anecdotal evidence in the links you gave are far from convincing - at least for me because I have seen dozens of such examples of claimed cures for any number of compounds and treatments, all with anonymous but amazing recoveries......but with no evidence that these recoveries were in fact due to the compound or treatment claimed. If they did experience a 'cure' could this have been spontaneous regression rather than Salvestrol? I wrote up a piece in December last year which anyone interested can find by putting spontaneous regression into the search engine on this forum. In my last post I quoted from an Study Suggests Some Cancers May Go Away in the New York Times series on Cancer. It refers to a study in Norway - those darned Scandinavians!! - and it says in part …new study, to be published Tuesday in The Archives of Internal Medicine, suggests that even invasive cancers may sometimes go away without treatment and in larger numbers than anyone ever believed. Jun 1, 2010 If someone has discovered a cure for cancer(or even something that would stop it for even 10 years in 75% of cases) they would get a Noble Prize and be the richest person in the world already. On the other hand I do drink pomegranate juice in the blind faith that it works too ;-) It always helps to have something to believe in just don't spend too much money on it and make sure to tell your doctors. All the best Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.