|
|
 | | From: | markd at toad-net.com | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 20:39:46 GMT |
|
|
 |
>(I don't have access the full article) Interesting but they administer the
>enzyme preparations with feed.
>Would the enzymes not interact with the proteins in the feed, or self digest
>this casts doubt on the conclusions of the experiment?
>Also they use small doses - Dr Gonzalez uses extremely high doses - > 45g
>away from meals.
I don't see if food or water makes a difference. The mice had it in
water, surely they didn't stop eating during the test. Enzymes are large
proteines and they like other proteins are broken into quite small
proteins or the basic amino acids in digestion so amount is not relevant.
If they drank alot they broke down alot or passed them from the gut if
absorption was overwhealmed.
>Why do you think this, they had 2 randomised groups of rodents with PC, one
>group the enzyme group lived significantly longer than the other?
If I rub enzymes on my skin and get relief from joint pain I can say with
great certainity that the relief didn't come from doing so because they
can not pass through the skin because again the proteins are too large.
This is why for example insulin can not now be used by the skin patch
method, the insulin protein is too large.
>Also why do you ignore the article I posted showing that Bromelain is
>absorbed into the plasma from oral preparations, this clearly shows that
>Bromelain (an enzyme) is indeed absorbed intact?
Forgive me, I didn't see that, repost please.
>(The study on Dr Kelley's patients would never be accepted as science
>because it's uncontrolled, however to produce so many cures it seems
>irrational to dismiss them because they are not 'science')
>I understand the limitations of the work as it is now, however the pilot
>study was promising although not randomised and also small.
>http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/pilot_study_abstract_txt.htm
>I am not aware of any mainstream study however small and biased which can
>replicate these results.
Given what I read about Gonzales I must in the first instance question his
source of reliable information. To be blunt, why should we believe them
when for too many of such folk on the fringes of demonstrated and
confirmed science have been found lacking in this area. But we not rely
on them, the trial now underway should provide a better picture, and even
then it will have to be replicated before it has a chance of being
accepted.
>Why does the rodent study fail the enzyme absorption test?
>If you have 2 randomised groups they should live the same time if they are
>receiving no treatment.
>There was a marked difference in life span between the 2 groups of mice, so
>if the enzymes were not absorbed then what other rational would you say lead
>to the increased survival?.
From what is in the abstract, they did not demonstrate that enzymes
originating from the external source appeared in the blood. See the pig
and my skin example above. If this can be replicated by others then they
will start to look at what effect the mixture has on other parts of
metabolism or other parts of the bodies reactions to substances consumed.
As in the case of insulin, it is first stimulated by food in the gut
before glucose even starts to rise in the blood. If it can be shown that
the course of cancer can be affected then it will be fine but the theory
on which kelly/Gonzalesbase their claims will have to be abandoned as
explanatory.
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:46:40 -0000 |
|
|
| The crux of the theory is that around the cancer cell is HCG, this carries a
charge which repels the killer cells.
The amylase attacks the sugar molecule on the HCG and the
trypsin/chymorypsin dissolves the protein part.
Without the HCG coating the cell is vulnerable to attack by the immune
system and it wiped out.
Anth
wrote in message
news:41f40b92$0$63176$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
[snip]
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:48:46 -0000 |
|
|
| http://www.navi.net/~rsc/sialo.htm
Anth
"Anth" wrote in message
news:41f42952$0$122$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:29:53 -0000 |
|
|
| wrote in message
news:41f40b92$0$63176$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>
>
>>(I don't have access the full article) Interesting but they administer the
>>enzyme preparations with feed.
>>Would the enzymes not interact with the proteins in the feed, or self
>>digest
>>this casts doubt on the conclusions of the experiment?
>>Also they use small doses - Dr Gonzalez uses extremely high doses - > 45g
>>away from meals.
>
> I don't see if food or water makes a difference.
Well enzymes cleave proteins so if you include them with food proteins
there's a good chance they are going to work on those proteins.
> The mice had it in water, surely they didn't stop eating during the
> test.
> Enzymes are large proteines and they like other proteins are broken into
> quite small
> proteins or the basic amino acids in digestion so amount is not relevant.
> If they drank alot they broke down alot or passed them from the gut if
> absorption was overwhealmed.
When the enzymes entered the blood they would be inactivated by the action
of the blood serum.
This is a good argument to say they don't work, but experimental data says
they do work, so maybe they act at the tumour site?
>>Why do you think this, they had 2 randomised groups of rodents with PC,
>>one
>>group the enzyme group lived significantly longer than the other?
>
> If I rub enzymes on my skin and get relief from joint pain I can say with
> great certainity that the relief didn't come from doing so because they
> can not pass through the skin because again the proteins are too large.
Well it is accepted in science that enzymes are absorbed intact orally..
See :-
Castell, J.V., G. Friedrich, C.S. Kuhn, G.E. Poppe. 1997.
Intestinal absorption of undegraded proteins in men: presence of bromelain
in plasma after oral intake. Am J Physiol 273(1 Pt. 1):G139-146
http://www.mucos.cz/eng/far_mech/drbobat.htm
> This is why for example insulin can not now be used by the skin patch
> method, the insulin protein is too large.
>>Also why do you ignore the article I posted showing that Bromelain is
>>absorbed into the plasma from oral preparations, this clearly shows that
>>Bromelain (an enzyme) is indeed absorbed intact?
> Forgive me, I didn't see that, repost please.
>>(The study on Dr Kelley's patients would never be accepted as science
>>because it's uncontrolled, however to produce so many cures it seems
>>irrational to dismiss them because they are not 'science')
>>I understand the limitations of the work as it is now, however the pilot
>>study was promising although not randomised and also small.
>>http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/pilot_study_abstract_txt.htm
>>I am not aware of any mainstream study however small and biased which can
>>replicate these results.
>
> Given what I read about Gonzales I must in the first instance question his
> source of reliable information.
Politics aside, Gonzalez is a doctor, he is trying to do good science, this
is more than a lot of the quacks out there.
If you support something controvercial you are always going to get flack
from the sceptics for making claims etc.
(I think the pancreatic cancer study was reviewed at Sloan Kettering - the
famous hospital).
> To be blunt, why should we believe them when for too many of such folk on
> the fringes of demonstrated and
> confirmed science have been found lacking in this area.
Well that's entirely your choice, you are right it is a matter of belief
until it becomes mainstream scientific fact.
It has been around 100 years since John Beard proposed the trophoblast
theory of cancer.
> But we not rely on them, the trial now underway should provide a better
> picture, and even
> then it will have to be replicated before it has a chance of being
> accepted.
Well if the trial produces many cures people will listen, but it is single
arm so it will be critiqued to hell.
>>Why does the rodent study fail the enzyme absorption test?
>>If you have 2 randomised groups they should live the same time if they are
>>receiving no treatment.
>>There was a marked difference in life span between the 2 groups of mice,
>>so
>>if the enzymes were not absorbed then what other rational would you say
>>lead
>>to the increased survival?.
There's other rodent studies showing amazing cures but the enzymes were
injected into and around the tumour mass, or given with cyanide and vitamin
a emulsion etc.
> From what is in the abstract, they did not demonstrate that enzymes
> originating from the external source appeared in the blood. See the pig
> and my skin example above. If this can be replicated by others then they
> will start to look at what effect the mixture has on other parts of
> metabolism or other parts of the bodies reactions to substances consumed.
> As in the case of insulin, it is first stimulated by food in the gut
> before glucose even starts to rise in the blood. If it can be shown that
> the course of cancer can be affected then it will be fine but the theory
> on which kelly/Gonzalesbase their claims will have to be abandoned as
> explanatory
Anth.
|
|
|
