Complimentary Cancer Therapies (sugars that heal)
THE NUGENT REPORT January 1997
This is the first in a series of articles on natural substances that could be effective complementary therapies for cancer.
It is a real tragedy that the orthodox medical community has been taught (incorrectly) by medical schools that drugs and surgery are the only options for cancer. This means that tens of thousands of cancer victims are missing the possible opportunity to use safe non-toxic natural methods that could mean the difference between life and death for many.
In my opinion, medical doctors are correctly taught to be cautious and conservative, but this should not be extended to include closed mindedness. Patient welfare must always come first without question, both orthodox and alternative practitioners must agree on that point. Medical schools do not teach doctors about the latest in so-called alliterative methods, but a new American Medical Association directive has instructed allopathic doctors (medical doctors) to start learning this area of medicine. That's terrific news!
I say so-called alternative methods because that's the popular term, but one for which I have great disdain. I use it only because so many people are familiar with it. I prefer to use the term complementary medicine. Not just because I am the founder of the International Association of Complementary Medicine (IACM), but because 1 feel that natural and orthodox medical practitioners can best serve the public by working together, sharing research and therapies. This gives the patient the best and most complete treatments for whatever their needs are. By the way, I am working to establish an international referral network of doctors. If you're interested, please call 810 352 7090.
As I have stated in my first physicians desk reference (Nugent's Physicians Desk Reference for Applied Clinical Nutrition), "I believe there is an answer for all disease that can be found in nature. It is our mission therefore to work tirelessly until we find all of those answers.
For now however, many answers must still be found through synthetics or surgeries. Eventually with the unprecedented speed at which research is progressing in the areas of phytonutrients and glyconutrients, drugs will be replaced and all doctors who wish to stay in practice will have to learn these new areas of science and patient care. In the meantime however, we need to work together. More than 45% of the U.S. population uses vitamins now. According to the National Cancer Institute, more than 35% of doctors who treat cancer are using some type of alternative therapy as an adjunct to chemotherapy or radiation.
Scientific peer reviewed studies proving the safety and efficacy of natural substances for many areas including cancer have been available for more than 26 years! No medical schools teach that information. Almost no doctors know about the information. This is appalling in the age of communication!
Keep in mind my friends; the second largest money making industry in the world is the cancer industry. That's right, second only to the Oil industry. Cancer is the most serious problem on this planet today! Why isn't the word getting out? Could this be due to scientific myopia? Are the professors and researchers simply unwilling to consider new ideas? Is there a conspiracy to insure that the cancer industry continues to grow and profit? Well, I don't have the answers to these questions and I choose not to speculate on them.
I do know that to be admitted to medical school you have to be an exceptional person, and to survive the grueling class work, internship and residency you have to be even more exceptional. Medical doctors are without question special people. Are some motivated only by money? Well despite popular myth, they are human and they do have human emotions. Some are without question motivated by greed, but I would point out that there are easier, more lucrative career paths than medicine. With this in mind, I believe most are dedicated, caring people who truly want their patients to be well. Indeed, as I have been lecturing around North America and Europe for the last 15 years, my experience has been that most are caring, good people.
I recently lectured at the University of Texas Medical School and was not only well received, I had dozens of these M.D.s asking me if I could please teach them what I know. Just as a side note here, my school has been delayed but will be underway this year. I have found medical doctors and osteopaths in western Canada to be particularly interested. This has not always been the case, the first 13 Years of lecturing was mortal combat with medical doctors, but many seem ready now.
In 1971, a group of scientists conducted a study with a naturally occurring plant saccharide called fucose. In chemistry we refer to a sugar as a saccharide. This is fucose, not to be confused with fructose or fruit sugar. The study found two important things. First the dose concentration of fucose was the key to success. Second and most exciting, was that if used in sufficient doses, that simple, safe, natural non-toxic sugar was 100% effective in inhibiting the growth of breast cancer tumors! There is no other natural substance that has been that effective in a peer reviewed scientific study against breast cancer.
What follows is the abstract from that study. In case you don't know, all scientific studies start with an abstract page. This is a summary of the study, and after reading it you'll know if you want to read the entire study. There isn't sufficient space here to include each study quoted in its entirety, so the abstract will have to do.
THE EFFECT OF L-FUCOSE ON RATE MAMMARY TUMOR GROWTH
In Vitro Studies
James M Roseman. A. B., 1. Elizabeth Miller. Ph.D., 1
Murrav H. Seltzer, MD., 1,2.
Daniel Wolfe, B.S. , 1. And Francis E. Rosato. MD.,1. 3.
Different concentrations of L-fucose uniformly produced suppression in the growth rate and a change in the morphology of cells grown in tissue culture. The inhibition of growth of these malignant cells was found to be concentrated dependent with 100% inhibition of growth at a concentration of 50 mg fucose per milliliter of medium and 60% inhibition at a concentration of 12.5 mg fucose per milliliter medium. Using other sugars that are components of glycoproteins, it was shown that mannose and galactose could also depress the rate of growth of these tumor cells in culture. When 0.05 ml of packed tumor cells used in these experiments was re-suspended in 1 ml of medium and injected into a rat, a tumor grew at the site of injection. This new tumor exhibited similar growth characteristics and showed the same histological appearance as the tumor from which the cell line was derived.
This is pretty dam exciting stuff. Yes, the study was done on rats, not humans, but what scientists in their right minds would take a chance of experimenting on human cancer patients. This is a wonderful example of a complementary modality fighting a disease with a medicine from nature. It is safe, non-toxic and non-invasive. Doesn't that make sense? None of these rats had to suffer through chemotherapy or radiation.
Since this was discovered in 1971 why didn't anybody use it? The pharmaceutical companies were interested. They attempted to make fucose into a drug. When they made fucose synthetically, it didn't work. It only works in its natural state. At that time, there was no way to patent fucose because it is a substance that occurs in nature. If you can't patent it, you can't control the profits, and if you can't control the profits, why spend the 250 million dollars in research it will take to get it approved for use by the FDA? This is why it was forgotten about and why all the tens of thousands women (and some men) who suffered from breast cancer over the last 26 years, may have done so needlessly.
Just in case one of my readers is thinking about it, there is no one to sue here. However, once doctors are made aware of this information and the fact that there is a patented product containing fucose that is available for the public (and has been since October of 1996), they would be irresponsible not to inform their patients.
You do not get fucose in your diet, but your body is designed to make fucose if nothing interferes with the process. I invite you to read my articles on toxins in the environment and how they interfere with our synthesis of fucose as well as five other saccharides necessary to the health of all systems of our bodies. I can't take the space to discuss all the details of toxins here in fact it would be impossible to cover that subject correctly in less than about 200 pages. I have created several audio tapes that deal in greater detail with the threat of toxins in the environment and the first true hope with glyconutritionals. I have been making educational tapes for doctors for many years, but these are the most important tapes I have ever made! I strongly recommend you call 1-800-319-7370 to buy these tapes. I do not sell them myself, and I have given permission to the vendor to sell them at ridiculously low prices, so that this vitally Important information can get into the hands of more people.
Each of us is biochemically unique. No two individuals will react to any substance precisely the same way. Some of us resist the toxins better than others. This is why some have glycoprotein abnormalities and the diseases related to them and some do not. Glycoproteins are essential for cell to cell communication. They are made in your endoplasmic reticulum. They are found on the surface of all cells, and this makes them immensely important.
Glycoprotein is composed of eight glycoconjugates. These glycoconjugates are monosaccharides, mono meaning one, and as I mentioned earlier, saccharide is the term used in chemistry to describe a sugar. These monosaccharides are:
Please note that it is Fucose not fruit sugar or Fructose. You may also notice that the form of glucosamine required is N-Acetylglucosamine not glucosamine sulphate. This is why so many people who try glucosamine sulphate get no results with it. Some do get results, but that's only if their bodies can convert the sulphate form correctly. Why take a chance that you won't accomplish conversion correctly? Why waste your money? Just obtain the correct form to begin with.
Mannose is by far the most important of these where the immune system is concerned, but they are all essential. We get glucose and galactose from our diets. Unless you are avoiding dairy, then you're not getting galactose either.
Mannose can be obtained from diet, but none of us eat enough of the foods that contain mannose to make a difference. Mannose is found in fungi for example, and that includes mushrooms. There are a number of folk remedies based on various forms of mushrooms, because of the mannose content. I have tested every commonly known as well as rare mushrooms in my practice from the very low potency Reishi to the rare and extraordinary Maitake and everything in between. None of these mushrooms including the home grown Russian variety perform as well as the glycoprotein complex. As far as diet is concerned, we would need to eats pounds of mushrooms per day to give us the manes we need in today's toxic environment. We use to get mannose from our bread because fungus commonly grows on grain, especially wheat. Since some enterprising businessman invented the process to refine flour back in 1911, we have lost the manes as well as at least 17 vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in wheat. This strongly supports the argument for using dietary supplements. Not long after industry started to refine wheat, cases of Beriberi and Pellagra began to spring up. These are diseases associated only with poor underdeveloped countries where people are starving, not here m the U. S. where the average person has a greater caloric intake than almost anywhere in the world. What happened then?
Refining flour takes out vitamin B1 and B3 (as well as 15 other nutrients). Beriberi is caused by B1 deficiency and Pellagra is caused by B3 deficiency. I wrote about this five years ago in my first desk reference by the way.
The U.S. government then required that the bread companies enrich their flour by adding back some, but not all of the vitamins and minerals, which were lost in refining. The word enrich is quite humorous when used in the context of food processing. In my desk reference I made the analogy of getting robbed and having all of your money taken, then the robber gives you back a dollar, so you can feel enriched after being robbed. So, the federal government, which has for so long fought the use of dietary supplements, was ordering the bread companies to add food supplements to the flour to prevent disease.
No significant numbers of heart disease patients were reported before the invention of the refining process that took vitamin E out of flour either. If you don't believe me, check any medical anthropology, text.
Well, this article isn't about vitamins so I need to get back on track. When it comes to saving people from disease, we must look at any scientific data that could lead to an answer. In veterinary medicine many important discoveries and observations have been made. One of the world's most renowned veterinary immunologists, Dr. Ian R. Tizard, wrote in a published paper entitled "Carbohydrates, Immune Stimulating". "There has long been a tradition in folk medicine that extracts of certain. Fungi and plants may be of assistance in the treatment of cancer. On investigation, many of these extracts have been found to possess potent immune-stimulating activity. In many cases, this activity is attributable to complex carbohydrates. These carbohydrates are usually large polymers of glucose (glucans and lentinans), mannose (mannans), xylose (hemicelluloses), fructose (levans) or mixtures of these sugars.
These long chain sugar molecules are called polysaccharides, poly meaning many and saccharides meaning sugar. It is important to know that not all polysaccharides are created equal. Dr. Tizard continues by stating, "Although common polysaccharides such as starch (alpha-], 4-glucan), dextran (alpha-], 6-glucan and inulin (fructan do not have anti-tumor activity, there is abundant evidence that some mannans and glucans are very potent anti-cancer agents. " Dr. Tizard is not alone; there is a new feeling of cautious optimism among the scientists who are currently studying this new area of science.
Science has no cure for collagen diseases and until recently, science had no idea why the diseases occurred. Although they shared certain symptoms, researchers weren't clear as to whether or not they had anything else in common. It seems they do indeed have something very interesting in common. All collagen disease patients have Genetically unique glycoproteins. These patients have widespread immunological and inflammatory alterations of connective tissue and may share any of the following symptoms or findings: synovitis, pleuritis, myocarditis, endocarditis, pericarditis, peritonitis, vasculitis, myositis, skin rash, alterations of connective tissues, and nephritis. Laboratory tests may reveal Coombs-positive hemolytic anaemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, immunoglobulin excesses or deficiencies, antinuclear antibodies (which include antibodies to many nuclear constituents including DNA and extractable nuclear antigen), rheumatoid factors, cryoglobulins. false-positive serologic tests for syphilis, elevated muscle enzymes, and alterations in serum complement (Tierney et al, 1994; page 681).
Examples of collagen (autoimmune) disease exhibiting one or more of the above symptoms include rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile chronic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), progressive systemic sclerosis (Scleroderma), polymyositis dermatomyositis, overlap (or mixed) connective tissue disease, and Sjogren's syndrome.
The causes of these autoimmune diseases have not yet been determined. Genetics do seem to be involved, but there is a bigger picture here. It's too easy to say "oh well, it's genetic, sorry". Rheumatoid arthritis is one example of this, Since it's known that these patients have genetically unique collagen glycoproteins, doctors have no option but to look at the new information on these sugars. Since a patient can't be harmed by these sugars, a doctor would be foolish and even irresponsible not to inform his or her patients of these new advances. There are numerous functions that glycoproteins serve in the body, glycoprotein collagens acting as structural molecules illustrate just one of them. It should be obvious to you at this point that glycoprotein abnormalities do play a key role in disease.
Current nutrition science textbooks stress the importance of proper diet to obtain essential vitamins, minerals, proteins (amino acids) and fats in great detail, sugars are currently recognized only as a source of energy, not as substances essential to glycoprotein production for good health. These textbooks used by doctors, nurses and dieticians say that the human body only requires two saccharides and we get them from food. Well, that's almost correct. We do get two of the glycoprotein saccharides the body requires from food, but we need eight not two.
In contrast to the nutrition textbooks, the textbook Harper's Biochemistry, (Murray et al., 1996) lists eight monosaccharides commonly found in human glycoproteins which are known to be important to the healthy functioning of the human body. Those are the eight glycoconjugates I mentioned earlier. These eight can be derived from as many as 200 different plants not typically found in the human diet.
Of the required eight sugars named in Harper's Biochemistry), only glucose and galactose are addressed in the classic nutrition texts.' the other six are omitted. Modem nutrition textbooks give the principal sources of dietary carbohydrates as; 1) maize, rice, wheat, and potato which yield starches composed of glucose; 2) sugar cane and beet sugar which yield glucose; and 3) milk which yields galactose and glucose (Shils et al., 1994). Lactose-intolerant individuals who do not eat dairy products will be deficient even in galactose since the body manufactures galactose from the lactose in dairy products. The remaining six sugars must either be synthesized by the body or obtained from dietary supplements.
While the body uses certain dietary sugars as raw materials to build the glycoprotein, enzymes are the tools the body uses to build them. Enzymes cause (catalyze) chemical reactions 'm other substances without being destroyed or altered themselves when the reaction is completed. To function properly, enzymes require adequate supplies of substrate. In the case of glycoprotein production, the substrates are the eight sugars mentioned above. Most important: this process does not occur at optimal capacity if adequate supplies of substrate (necessary sugars) are not available (Murray, 1996).
Can the glycoprotein complex harm you? The answer is a resounding NO!! Every system of your body requires them. Just as you require air and water. You won't expire as quickly with glycoprotein deficiency or imbalance as you will without air or water, but your body will become a victim of disease if it cannot either manufacture or obtain these glyconutritionals from diet.
In my January 1995 newsletter, 1 explained something called LD50. I won't go over it again. Suffice it to say that, researchers were unable to create toxicity with these glyconutritionals in laboratory animals and were therefore unable to establish a level that could be harmful to humans. In plain English, glyconutritionals are safe!
In summary, we do need supplemental glycoconjugates if we are to resist the ravages of our toxic environment and hopefully prevent the related autoimmune and degenerative free radical diseases. Knowing what you know now, you would be exceedingly foolish not to use the latest scientific advances in this area.
Do I know for certain that by using the complete glycoprotein complex that you will never develop an autoimmune disease? No, it would be ridiculous to say that. I know only that until now we had no hope except potentially dangerous and toxic drugs that simply suppressed or controlled symptoms, but offered no hope for a cure. Using these glycoconjugates can't harm you and they may be your keys to success, so why hesitate?
As far as cancer is concerned, once again, we have strong evidence of the immune stimulating properties as well as anti tumor activity of these saccharides and they are far, far safer than drugs.
In the next article I will discuss other saccharides for the immune system.