[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Enhanced immune response - Reduces cancer
Hit by the radsafe "from" bug :-)
Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
Bill,
Disingenuous. The issue was whether homeo's use hormesis research to
support homeopathy, not the reverse. They do. Hormesis is real.
(Hormesis is a biological function, not limited to radiation.)
Why do you not consider that the immune response indicates reduction
of cancer? Almost weekly there are medical research reports of using
immune system stimulation to treat cancer. (LDR is not the only
stimulator of immune response - see the chemical hormesis and
pharmocology literature.)
How many times do you have to get refs on LDR/cancer?
>>>>>
Getting more specific to just a couple of examples, see, from Dr. Pollycove:
"Low-dose stimulation of the immune system may not only prevent cancer
by increasing removal of pre-malignant or malignant cells with
persistent DNA damage, but may also destroy gross cancer growths with
metastases (Figure 17) [ref] 35.
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_fig17.gif
Recently Sakamoto, et al at Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan have
reported successfully treatment of non-Hodgkins lymphoma with total or
half body low-dose radiation35. Half body irradiation (HBI) of the rib
cage area (thorax from xyphoid process to suprasternal notch) was as
effective as whole body irradiation (TBI). Fractionated doses of 10
cGy 3x/week or 15 cGy 2x/week were given for 5 weeks for a cumulative
dose of 150 cGy (Figure 18).
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_fig18.gif
In some patients tumors completely outside the HBI field disappeared
after HBI alone (Figure 19) 36.
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_fig19.gif
Analysis of peripheral lymphocytes demonstrated immune system
stimulation. The 10 year survival of patients receiving only local
high-dose radiotherapy and chemotherapy is 50% compared to 84% 9 year
survival of patients (no deaths after 3.7 years) receiving additional
low dose TBI or HBI. (P<0.05, Figure 20)."
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/Docs/MP98_Fig20.gif
Refs:
35. Sakamoto K, Myogin M. Hosoi Y, Ogawa Y, Nemoto K, Takai Y, Kakuto
Y, Yamada S, Watabe M. Fundamental and clinical studies on cancer
control with total or upper half body irradiation. J. Jpn. Soc. Ther.
Radiol. Oncol. 9:161-175 (1997).
36. Takai Y, Yamada S., Nemoto K, Ogawa Y, Kakutou Y, Hosi A, Sakamoto
K. Anti-tumor effect of low dose total (or half) body irradiation and
changes in the functional subset of peripheral blood lymphocytes in
non-Hodgkins lymphoma patients after TBI (HBI). In: Low Dose
Irradiation and Biological Defense Mechanisms (Sugahara T, Sagan LA,
Aoyama T, eds). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1992: 113-116.
>>>>>
See also:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-2/3/3/12334ta91.html
Takai, Y., Ogawa, Y. Nemoto, K., Yamada, S. and Sakamoto, K. (1991)
Direct anti-tumor effect of low dose total (or half) body irradiation
and changes of the functional subset of peripheral blood lymphocytes
in non-Hodgkinís lymphoma patients after TBI (HBI), J. Jpn. Soc. Ther.
Radiol. Oncol. 3: pp9-18.
>From the abstract, Dr. E.I. Azzam and colleagues report (1996) that:
"A single exposure of quiescent C3H 10T1/2 cells to a dose of 0.1, 1.0
or 10 cGy followed by a 24-h incubation reduced the risk of neoplastic
transformation from the spontaneous level to a rate three- to
four-fold below that level. If similar processes are induced in human
cells, a single low dose at background or occupational exposure levels
may reduce rather than increase cancer risk, a conclusion inconsistent
with the linear no-threshold model of cancer risk from radiation."
REF: Azzam, E.I., de Toledo, S.M., Raaphorst, G.P. and Mitchel, R.E.J.
(1996) Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Decreases the Frequency of
Neoplastic Transformation to a Level below the Spontaneous Rate in C3H
10T1/2 Cells, Radiat. Res. 146, p369.
If you don't believe me, see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8927708&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Drs. Yoshio Hosoi and Kiyohiko Sakamoto of the Tohoku University
School of Medicine discuss (1997) TBI effects on metastasis: "Low dose
total body irradiation (TBI) (was shown to) suppress metastasis using
both artificial and spontaneous lung metastasis in WHT/Ht mice...
Injection of tumor cells irradiated with 10-50 cGy in vitro showed no
difference from the control value, which indicated that the
suppressive effect of the low dose TBI was based on the radiation
effect on mice but not on tumor cells."
Dr. U. Yamamoto of the Faculty of Life Science at the Yasuda Women
College in Hiroshima and Dr. T. Seyama of the Radiation Effect
Research Foundation, Hiroshima discuss (1997) HTO ingestion in mice:
"(By) continuous oral administration of HTO on mice weight-selected
(24 ± 1 g) at 10 weeks, the total tumour frequency was decreased from
80% to 50% at about 3.6 mGy/day. The linear line crossed to the base
line at 12 mGy/day which is a threshold dose-rate (essential threshold
dose-rate). However, this linear line has a tailing (which) becomes
linear in normal scale. This linear line crosses to the base line at 9
mGy/day which is another threshold dose-rate (tail threshold
dose-rate). The relationship between life-shortening and dose-rate is
also linear with a tail in semi-log scale. Two mGy/day was found to be
the essential threshold dose-rate and 0.2 mGy/day the practical tail
threshold dose-rate. There exists two types of threshold dose-rates,
essential and practical, not only in the frequency of thymic lymphoma
but also in the life-shortening. In the case of gamma-irradiation, a
similar pattern resulted when the data presented by Lorenz et al
(1954) and modified by Failla and McClement (1957) and those presented
by Grahn et al (1969) and averaged by NCRP (1980) were plotted, the
essential and the practical threshold dose-rates being 20 mGy/day and
2 mGy/day. It is clear that the effect of 3-H beta-rays is greater
than that of gamma-rays.
"The linear no-threshold theory has been... questioned and the
need emphasized for studies of radiation risk at low exposures. If
there is a threshold, it would allay the fear of the public and save
billions of dollars spent in unnecessary remediation of low level
waste sites. From this point of view, the existence of the threshold
dose-rate result in the present study would be important evidence."
All the refs in our pages are at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/references98.html
Or, you can go to PubMed, e.g.:
Int J Radiat Biol 1998 May;73(5):535-41
Oral administration of tritiated water (HTO) in mouse. III: Low
dose-rate irradiation and
threshold dose-rate for radiation risk.
Yamamoto O, Seyama T, Itoh H, Fujimoto N
Faculty of Life Science, Yasuda Women College, Hiroshima, Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9652811&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Also at PubMed see:
J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 1997 Dec;38(4):233-40
Single dose radiocurability of four murine solid tumors and a
predictive assay for the
curability in situ.
Takai Y, Hosoi Y, Sakamoto K, Okada S
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku University,
Sendai, Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9558826&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Radiat Oncol Investig 1997;5(6):283-8
Effect of combination treatment of 15 cGy total body irradiation and
OK-432 on spontaneous
lung metastasis and mitogenic response of splenocytes in mice.
Hosoi Y, Ishii K, Yamada S, Ono T, Sakamoto K
Department of Radiology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai,
Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9436245&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Radiat Res 1996 Nov;146(5):582-5
Decreased incidence of thymic lymphoma in AKR mice as a result of
chronic, fractionated
low-dose total-body X irradiation.
Ishii K, Hosoi Y, Yamada S, Ono T, Sakamoto K
Department of Radiology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai,
Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8896586&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
There are dozens more. Review especially tumor-injection studies.
The only people who don't know that LDR is bio-positive (perhaps even
more so to infections than cancer) are those who WON'T consider the
evidence (and esp. those who manipulate the data for self-serving
intent). What about the Gerber et al abstract etc sent a few weeks ago?
Regards, Jim
============
FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I read the information as you suggested. I stand by my original assertion
> that homeopaths have not embraced low dose radiation therapy. If you know of
> a homeopath in the United States that uses it as part of their practice,
> please let me know. Otherwise, I agree - let's move on to another topic.
>
> Also, It may be useful to the Listserv if you could list the peer reviewed
> scientific publications (available in English) that document how low dose
> radiation prevents or reduces cancer. Please just do not say that these
> articles show enhanced cellular or molecular responses. Stating something
> causes enhanced cellular and molecular responses is generic nonsense. These
> terms provide no information in terms of how it may help someone fight
> cancer. Increased T cell or IL2 production does not mean you will not get
> cancer or reduce cancers. Immune response capable of reducing cancers
> requires specificity to the tumor. You do not get that by a general increase
> in the number of T cells or IL2. Researchers have given patients IL2 with
> little success in reduction of cancer. Problems arise when you have too few
> T cells. Extra T cells with no specificity to the tumor do little good.
>
> Bill Field
> College of Public Health
> University of Iowa
> bill-field@uiowa.edu
>
> In a message dated 1/30/00 4:54:44 PM Central Standard Time,
> muckerheide@mediaone.net writes:
>
> << Bill,
>
> I didn't "suppose" homeo's use hormesis research, see, e.g. a 1998
> paper at at homeo conference, not only ref Arndt-Schulz, but Stebbing!?:
> http://www.entretiens-internationaux.mc/bastide.html
> (except they can't spell Schulz :-)
>
> Also, see:
> http://www.entretiens-internationaux.mc/giri.html
> 1/2 way down, 3 paras before INTRO...
>
> To help the reader, the papers will be organized into four chapters;
> each chapter will be introduced by a short analysis of the papers
> included. The "Introduction" debates the question of scientific
> evolution and revolution in the context of modern science. The 1st
> chapter "Hormesis" gathers together all the papers related to this
> concept: these models are often evoked to demonstrate or to explain
> the similia law although hormesis is always based on a relationship of
> identity. The 2nd chapter "In Vitro and in Vivo Experimental Models"
> includes many experiments which demonstrate low dose or high dilution
> activity and is introduced by a summary of classical receptology. The
> 3rd chapter "Therapeutics and Provings " discusses the question of
> analysis of the symptoms in a systemic way of thinking and also
> includes pathogenetic studies (provings) as well as homeopathic
> therapeutic studies in humans or in animals. The last chapter presents
> an "Epistemologic Approach" which become necessary in order to enlarge
> the possibility of interpretation of the law of similarity and the
> high dilution effectiveness considering that these dilutions are above
> the Avogadro number."
>
> See also, "Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine"
> This article provided by Homeopathic Educational Services
> Dana Ullman, M.P.H. Copyright 1995
> Excerpted from: The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, Dana Ullman,
> Tarcher/Putnam, 1996
> http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/research.html
>
> And much more... I don't pull stuff out of my butt! Nor have a
> "belief system" from having been brainwashed in the LNT! Nor have
> self-serving interests that demand capitulation to the
> ICRP/IAEA/NCRP/BRER Gestapo (now to include UNSCEAR getting Gonzalez
> as "Scientific Secretary?) and DOE/EPA/NRC and other national rad protectists
>
>
> But this issue seems a waste of time. The real issue is that LDR
> prevents/reduces cancer, that enhanced cellular/molecular responses
> are shown.
>
> Regards, Jim
> ============
>
> FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > You ask, What is the basis for my conclusion that homeopathy would distance
> > itself from low dose radiation therapy, magnetic therapy, and far infra red
> > technology
> >
> > I am speaking about modern day homeopathy. Practices and beliefs of today
> do
> > not necessarily reflect past beliefs. (Remember, there was a time in
> history
> > when most Health Physicist actually embraced the LNTT).
> >
> > I asked numerous homeopaths including one of the leading academic
> homeopaths
> > in the United States about it and she said, "Any current practitioner of
> > homeopathy I know and respect would distance themselves from low dose
> > radiation therapy, magnetic therapy, and far infra red technology. That
> > pretty much sums up the basis for my statement above.
> >
> > She indicated, there are some researchers in Europe who are looking at
> > chemical hormesis and it's effects on the level of the cell and enzyme
> > production and they
> > have written a book trying to use their research as a model for how
> > homeopathy works. She did not think most homeopaths are buying into it. She
> > was not aware of any current research looking at the effects of ultralow
> > quantities of radiation in the homeopathic area.
> >
> > She pointed out that you support your statement by finding one prominent
> > individual (Arndt) who had hoped to help homeopathy become more legitimate
> by
> > wedding it to a concept (hormesis ) which was popular at the time. A few
> > researchers may continue to think this way, but she indicated it hasn't
> > become generally accepted amongst homeopaths.
> >
> > Jim, if you know of a current homeopath in the United States who supports
> > low dose radiation as a homeopathic practice, I would love to talk with
> them.
> > Modern day homeopaths prescribe radium bromate for some illnesses, but you
> > would be hard pressed to find any radioactivity in the "remedy". Their
> > dosage is so low, it is called the essence of radium bromate.
> >
> > This is an interesting area of dialogue.
> >
> > Regards, Bill
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/29/00 3:52:40 PM Central Standard Time,
> > jmuckerheide@delphi.com writes:
> >
> > << Bill,
> > >>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html