Ask Me Help Desk - Bell Shark Cartilage Joint Relief

From my website, www.gratitudehealing.info

Shark cartilage is all natural and non-toxic, and commonly used in conjunction with "conventional" cancer therapies such as radiation and chemotherapy. Theoretically, it affects the development of new vascular systems, apparently the reason it seems to produce positive effects against cancer tumors as discussed below.

In 1983, two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a study showing that shark cartilage contains a substance that significantly inhibits the development of blood vessels that nourish solid tumors, thereby limiting tumor growth. Working independently, medical researchers at Harvard University Medical School found that if one could inhibit angiogenesis--the development of a new blood network--one could prevent the development of tumor-based cancer and metastasis.

William Lane made Sharks cartilage popular with his book, SHARKS DON"T GET CANCER--HOW SHARK CARTILAGE COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE, which ties together the two important findings regarding shark cartilage and angiogenesis. It recounts his own involvement in the search for a truly effective treatment of tumor-based cancer and examines the work of researchers who have conducted studies that indicate that shark cartilage can be effective in reducing cancer related tumors and also reduce the inflammation and pain associated with other conditions, such as arthritis, psoriasis and enteritis.

Recently, shark cartilage has generated intense interest in both public and medical circles because of the theoretical justification for its clinical use in diseases, including cancer and arthritis, which involve neovascularization. This interest is further fueled by clinical trials and recent patents which have demonstrated its anti-tumor activity and its ability to relieve pain and inflammation associated with tumor activity and diseases involving neovascularization.

While there are many publications outlining the theories supporting why scientists believe shark cartilage has so many therapeutic benefits, public interest in shark cartilage was first generated by writings and research first tied together by statements by Dr. Lane. that the use of a good shark cartilage, in adequate dosage levels, has helped thousands of such patients. Shark cartilage therapy has caught the attention of all levels of practitioners, but it is hard for many of them to believe that so simple an approach can work with such a stubborn disease.

Despite some controversy, many who have tried and correctly used shark cartilage are talking about it in highly positive terms. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)--after carefully weighing the clinical evidence--has recently granted full Investigational New Drug (IND) permission for phase 2 clinical trials on both advanced nonresponsive prostate cancer as well as on advanced Kaposi's sarcoma. This lends material credence to the work. These phase 2 trials will soon be under way in one of the most prestigious medical centers in the Midwest. To date, Dr. Lane personally funded the research, inexpensive facilities and groups had to be found.

This history of Dr. Lane's work with shark cartilage as well as the benchmarks that originally opened the door of his curiosity explains why and how interest developed. As a student at Cornell and later at Rutgers he had the good fortune to be exposed to the thinking of two Nobel Laureates, James B. Sumner, Ph.D., and Selman Waksman, M.D., Ph.D. He learned to look for the unusual and ask "Why?" As a so-called fisheries expert, he first became interested in the shark when the Shah of Iran asked him to look into developing, for him, a possible fishery in the Persian Gulf, an area that abounds in shark.
Upon research and inquires about the topic, it became obvious that this incredible living machine
called shark had survived literally unchanged for 300 million years; it was a prehistoric creature, and it rarely got cancer even though almost all other sea creatures get a lot of cancer, especially since pollution of the oceans has increased materially.

The "Why?" was partially answered when he met, and read the work of, John Prudden, M.D., who was working with bovine cartilage as an immune stimulator, wound healing, and anticancer agent. However, the real "Why?" was answered when, in 1983, Anne Lee, Ph.D., and Robert Langer, Ph.D.,5 published a paper that illustrated that shark cartilage inhibited angiogenesis and tumor growth. Dr. Lane learned of this study via CNN NEWS, which, along with many popular newspapers and TV programs, publicized this incredible response. Dr. Lane immediately visited Dr. Langer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, although his work was done with a complex extract, whole but undenatured shark cartilage would probably produce an even better effect. Dr. Langer later denied having this conversation, but it took place in his office in September 1983 and it was the starting point of Dr. Lane's piqued interest, who then read much of the work of Judah Folkman, M.D., on the theory of inhibiting angiogenesis as a mechanism to stop tumor growth, and the work of another Harvard researcher which said that the vascular tissues were the logical place to find the angiogenic inhibitors. Based on the published work just cited and desire to develop a practical "how and why," the concept behind the shark cartilage product developed.

By 1984, Dr. Lane was able to bring 200 pounds of frozen clean shark cartilage to the United States from Panama. Working for four years with the original 200 pounds of shark cartilage, plus other shark cartilage as needed, and with the assistance of friends in the processing industry, He was able to learn how to dry best without denaturing, pulverize with minimal heat (a major feat), and encapsulate (often in his own kitchen). Via the chicken chorioallan membrane assay, a crude assay to measure inhibition of angiogenesis, “I could measure my progress.”

By 1987 George Escher, M.D., introduced Dr. Lane's work to Henri Tagnon, M.D.,who headed the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, a major cancer research center in Europe. After listening to Dr. Lane's theory, Dr. Tagnon gave him his first break when he offered, in connection with Dr. Ghanem Atassi, Ph.D., to run a xenograph in nude mice. Dr. Lane still remembers Dr. Tagnon's words after he and Dr. Atassi heard his story: "This is too good to believe but it also is too good not to believe." After running a rat toxicity study, they ran animal studies that culminated in a xenograph using nude mice in which MEXF514 human melanoma was induced subcutaneously and Dr. Lane's shark cartilage preparation was given orally in suspension. Saline was given orally to the control mice. The results showed almost complete tumor inhibition by the orally administered shark cartilage.

This animal work led to a study in Mexico at the Hospital Ernesto Contreras, where there were eight nonpaying, terminal cancer patients (seven women and one man), whose cancers had failed to respond to other therapies. Six different types of tumors were presented. This work, published by Ernesto Contreras, M.D., and Dr. Lane, showed major responses in seven of the eight patients: five were tumor-free, two had an 80 percent tumor reduction. There was only one death in eleven weeks. The only therapy was a special high potency shark cartilage material made from shark fin fibers. This product contained 91 percent protein, 8 percent water, and, at most, only 1 percent carbohydrate. The product was administered rectally at the rate of 30 gm/patient daily in two equal doses. Unfortunately, because of both a lack of funds and sufficient test material, no follow-up was undertaken to determine advanced survival as was later done in the Cuban study.

The first Mexican study led to a second study at a second clinic in Mexico, the Hoxsey Clinic, where, under the control of Roscoe Van Zandt, M.D., eight breast cancer patients were given shark cartilage orally at the rate of 60 gm/ patient/day. After eight weeks all of the tumors had significantly reduced in size. A special herbal tonic was administered along with the shark cartilage. No other therapies were undertaken. In three cases the tumors had become encapsulated and in two cases, where the tumors had been attached to the chest wall, they had become detached and free-floating. These results were not published in medical journals but were reported in Dr. Lane's book.

Because shark fin is very expensive and scarce, Dr. Lane decided to use whole shark cartilage product in the Hoxsey study but at double the dosage level used in the earlier Contreras study. The active protein fibers in shark fin and shark cartilage were the same, but in the cartilage the protein fibers were diluted with a matrix of calcium/phosphorus/carbohydrate. By doubling the dose, they were able to produce approximately the same amount of the active protein. (There are four active proteins in the protein fibrous strands, all of which are active angiogenic inhibitors. These have been identified by the unpublished work of K.P. Wong, Ph.D., of Fresno State University, Fresno, CA. it is believed that these four proteins are the ones on which most, if not all, of the anticancer effect we are getting with shark cartilage is based. The earliest study in Mexico was done with a 91 percent protein product and the excellent response seems to support Dr. Lane's position.)

Based on the human trials in Mexico, Dr. Lane was anxious to run a large clinical trial. However, his personal resources made a costly trial in the United States impossible. All the work on shark cartilage had been supported by more than $180,000 of his personal funds, a point that many critics ignore. Fortunately, he met a large group of Cubans who, after hearing of his work, invited him to meet with their health officials. He and two associates traveled to Cuba through Mexico. The meetings with the Cuban Health Ministry- and the Cuban military health officials eventually led to him being invited to do a study on nonresponsive terminal cancer patients. The Cubans agreed to provide 29 patients and a team of five oncologists, seven nurses, and the best possible follow-up. The Cuban study has, as a result of the extensive coverage and story by Mike Wallace and "60 Minutes," become a legend.

Earlier, he had been contacted by CBS and "60 Minutes." The station wanted to go ahead with the story, which the station had initially looked upon as a scam. For the visit on the sixth week of therapy, he was accompanied by David Williams, D.C., the editor of the health newsletter Alternatives, five people from "60 Minutes" (including the producer Gail Eisen, who was medically oriented and initially very negative about the story), and Charles Simone, M.D. a consultant who I had asked to help evaluate the results. It was clear that a number of the patients were already responding. Except for Dr. Simone, who joined at 16 weeks, this same group visited again at 11 weeks and again at 16 weeks. We were joined at this time by Mike Wallace, who stayed with them in Cuba for three days to review the results and to do filming.

Continued below...

... At this time, the Cubans had added Fernandez Britto, M.D. a world-class pathologist, to the team. He showed, for the first time, autopsy pathologic slides that demonstrated the action of the shark cartilage in stimulating the rapid growth of fibrin tissue replacing and encapsulating the cancer cells. His slides, which now include "before" and "after" biopsy slides, add materially to the explanation of how and if shark cartilage works. "60 Minutes" later showed X-ray pictures along with blood work records to Eli Gladstein, M.D. of the University of Southwestern Texas for collaboration; Dr. Gladstein confirmed the findings and he did so without knowing that shark cartilage was the therapeutic agent. The "60 Minutes" team was so excited about these results that it broadcast the show within 10 days after their tape was finished; and they showed it twice, something that is rarely done. The team also promoted the story each time for four days prior to each broadcast.

Fortunately, this show had a budget that was large enough to truly study the effects, see the patients, and then report on the positive results they themselves observed. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), on the other hand, surprisingly, never took the time to hear the whole presentation, see the slides, talk to Dr. Lane, or talk to the interested doctors.

Of the original 29 terminal patients, nine (31 percent) died of cancer, all within the first 17 weeks; none have died of cancer since; six others have died of accidents, heart failure, or other natural causes; 14 (48 percent) are completely well and cancer-free after 34 months (almost three years) as of June 15, 1995. After the 60 gm/day of shark cartilage for 16 weeks, these patients went to the maintenance dose of 20 gm/day, which appears to have been keeping them well for almost three years. With stage IV cancer patients, this is very impressive, even incredible, even if one or two patients might have been at stage III rather than at stage IV at the outset.

All cancers had been biopsy-confirmed. The head Cuban oncologist, Dr. Menendez, told Dr. Lane recently, "In my history as an oncologist, I have never seen or experienced anything like this response with shark cartilage."

The FDA approved the phase II IND #47373 for clinical trials on a new version of shark cartilage called Benefin on advanced nonresponsive prostate cancer, and for advanced nonresponding Kaposi's sarcoma. These trials took place in one of the most prestigious research hospitals in the country. This hospital, however, has insisted on retaining anonymity because the topic of shark cartilage is so controversial.

As a result, there were additional approvals for trials to be run in China as follows: advanced nonresponding brain and liver cancer at the Second Military Hospital in Shanghai; breast cancer, primary and nonresponsive, at the Chinese/Japanese Hospital in Beijing.

In Santiago, Chile, one hospital approved trials for nonresponsive breast cancer and also on nonresponsive uterine/cervical cancer. And, at a children's hospital, a trial took place on young children with nonresponsive brain tumors. These tumors cost that country more than 100 deaths annually. These trials, and the trials in China, showed results to tie in, and add to, the weight of the FDA's IND trials in the United States. In addition, the Royal Free Hospital in London had tentatively asked to run a trial on 3-5 brain tumor patients.

All trials were based on the FDA protocol, including biopsy-proven cancer, full tumor scans, tumor markers, blood work, quality of life, and Karnofsky indexes, followed by full peer-review articles written related to this latest work.

Dr. Lane's published his work where possible despite personal financial constraints, he continued to conduct studies that are typical of peer review; the work was done by centers in other countries that made major contribution to progress but they also did not have the funds or ability to do all that peer review required. Dr. Lane believes that this work is valid and should not be ruled out just because it was not subject to peer review. The Cuban results themselves are dramatic and were documented by "60 Minutes." A one-on-one interview for four hours with Mike Wallace was extremely difficult and as intense as any other review--perhaps even more so. "60 Minutes" came to Cuba, saw and followed the results, the team was just not reporting on hearsay.

Animal work is now under way in rats at North Texas University. James Lott, Ph.D. is using a technique that can help to identify mode as well as degree of activity. Already, work is forthcoming that shows how the tumor disintegrates and the edema-caused tumor enlargement and microscopic examination shows the tumor breaking up. All of this work is based solely on shark cartilage therapy.

A good measurement of activity, the endothelial cell assay, has been developed by Dr. Wong, something that has contributed materially to authenticating the value of BeneFin.

Folkman has reported that a naturally formed product, angiostatin, may be formed by large tumors to inhibit angiogenesis in metastatic tumors. When a large tumor is removed, the source of angiostatin is removed and the metastases grow rapidly. It seems likely that, when angiostatin and the four shark cartilage active proteins are compared, they will show a lot of similarity.
Shark cartilage therapy has received criticism that the shark cartilage will be digested before it is absorbed. The criticism is that the active proteins, rather than being effective proteins, will be amino acids or may be too large to be absorbed. In terms of protein molecule, however, Robert Gallo, M.D. of the NIH claims unequivocally that a cancer patient can absorb protein molecules of up to 45,000 Daltons from the gastrointestinal tract. However, it must be noted that the active proteins in shark cartilage have been described as being in the 15,000 Dalton range. As far as digestion is concerned, the thousands of people worldwide who have been helped by shark cartilage taken orally or rectally suggest that enough of the substance is getting through to do the job. Whether that is 100 percent or 20 percent becomes unimportant if the substance works.

Dr. Lane's position from the outset has been--and continues to be--"Does it work?" rather than "How does it work?" The latter is important, of course, but the research to date confirms that it works in a nontoxic noninvasive way. Dr. Lane hopes that the NIH and other organizations will collaborate to study how shark cartilage works. Dr. Lane's own premise is that its effect is based on the angiogenic inhibition according to the Folkman theory or possibly an angiogenic modulation as shown by the Cuban pathologic slides.
Summary
Shark Cartilage

The possibility of culturing shark cartilage cells to avoid reliance on sharks themselves is being developed with Dr. Wong. Meanwhile, millions of sharks, formerly caught only for their valuable fins, are now also being used for their cartilage. No shark is being killed expressly for its cartilage. The plant in Brisbane, Australia, is currently importing 2-4 40-foot frozen containers of semicleaned shark cartilage monthly.

The work on shark cartilage has already been partially reported at two peer medical conferences.
Dr. Lane's is proud and willing to put his own money on the table to develop the shark cartilage therapy, and will defend the results as will others who have seen the responses. Peer review is a cornerstone of our system but other results, if well documented and supported, should not just be discarded and ridiculed. The poor results with conventional cancer therapy should suggest that any new therapy that seems promising should be investigated, especially if it is inexpensive, nontoxic, and noninvasive. In these times of uncontrolled health costs, and the cancer epidemic that does not seem to be abating, all possibilities deserve attention.

*I. William Lane, Ph.D. is Founder and chairman of Cartilage Consultants, Short Hills, New Jersey.
He is also a coauthor of Sharks Don't Get Cancer , a summary of his research with shark cartilage
as a treatment for cancer, for which he received a U. S. patent in 1991. Dr. Lane holds a Ph.. D.
from Rutgers University (Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition), an M.S. from Cornell
University.

(Nutritional Science) and a B.S. from Cornell University. Dr Lane was also fortunate to study under
two Nobel Prize winners. Dr. J. Summer of Cornell who won the Nobel for crystallizing the first
enzyme (urease) and Dr. S. Waksman of Rutgers for streptomycin.