Re: [rad-sci-l] I would like a copy of the Science article you mention

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Hi John,

I've sent the article separately. Jaworowski noted that the figs
couldn't be retreived (presume that link needs a subscription, or I
can send), but they aren't important to the text (they describe the
complete identification of the ~2.8 million base pairs).

Dr. Welsh treated Ed Bauser from the week of 9/7 to 10/11. I though we
had sent info on this to the list. Ted Rockwell did a write up a few
weeks ago (attached). We just took that to the ANS meeting. It does
need to be updated following the completion of the treatment and
continued reduction of the blood proteins - to lower levels than from
his 5-months of debilitating chemotherapy. As described in this
summary, Myron Pollycove was heavily involved with Welsh and other
doctors that considered this application, and has kept up with the
medical specifics. We also took this to Ottawa and Toronto the week
before. Both Sakamoto and Tubiana were there, with similar initatives
being proposed in Canada.

(In Ted's summary, we've discussed the fact that the "conclusion"
needs to go further since in addition to saying that the dose is much
higher than limits, it needs to be clear that the cellular/molecular
basis for these beneficial effects are enhanced biolgical functions
that are consistent with general biological and health benefits rather
than damage from other "higher than normal levels" treatments that
could potentially increase later cancers.

Also, note that Sakamoto's results show various cancer treatment
successes in addition to the non-Hodgkins lymphoma clinical trials in
Japan. Sakamoto successfully treated himself following diagnosis with
advanced colon cancer. After removal of the primary tumor, his
treatment controlled the multiple local polyps and distal metastases.
He treated himself with a second series at about 10 months for a
"booster" to assure that any small latent cells were removed. He is
now in excellent health (with the "problem" of now gaining too much
weight :-). He much more energized than when we saw him in Washington
at our Nov 1996 ANS Sessions. We also met with him as part of the
Tokyo Symposium in April - see his paper and the Symposium Program and
Summary papers at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/tokyo99/tokyo99.html


Where does the term "bradytherapy" come from? Is this limited to the
use as LDR-only (as with Capt Bauser), vs. Sakamoto's more general use
of LDR before high-dose local therapy (either 6-8 hours after the 2 or
3 times per week LDR treatments, e.g., about 300 cGy, or with high
local dose after the 5-week LDR series)?

Myron Pollycove has used "LDR immunotherapy" to distinguish the
current conflicting definition and use of "radioimmunotherapy." I'm
not sure what Dr. Welsh is/will use :-)

(See below.)

John Cameron wrote:
> 
> Jim, I am volunteering to give a seminar to the Radiation Oncolgy Dept. at
> U. of Florida as described in the following abstract:
> 
> Does Low Dose Whole Body Radiation (Bradytherapy) Stimulate the Immune
> System? .
> by John Cameron, Ph.D. Visiting Professor
> 
> Abstract: The talk will summarize human and animal data which suggest that
> whole- or hemi-body low dose radiation significantly improves the immune
> system. The human data will describe the significantly reduced cancer
> mortality in geographical regions of high background radiation.  Data from
> the nuclear shipyard worker study (NSWS) at Johns Hopkins University show
> that 29,000 nuclear shipyard workers with the highest cumulative doses had
> significantly improved Standard Mortality Ratio from all causes  compared
> to 33,000 age-matched and job-matched controls. The SMR for the radiation
> workers was 0.76 compared to 1.0 for the controls. This is 16 standard
> deviations. The nuclear workers also had reduced cancer mortality. The talk
> will describe the successful use of bradytherapy on non-Hodgkins lymphoma
> patients in Japan. I  will end with a suggestion for  preliminary
> bradytherapy research by offering to be the first test subject.
> 
> Jim wrote: "Do you want the Science article?
> >The real significance of this, not developed in this article, is that
> >the "tools" that D. radiodurans uses to "protect itself" are the same
> >tools that are enhanced by whole-body or half-body low-dose radiation
> >(generally a few cGy to about 25-50 cGy) in "whole" organisms and
> >animals, and confirmed in some cell cultures. :-)
> >These immune system, enzymatic repair/replication, and removal factors,
> >including cell-cycle delay and apoptosis, not only succeed in limiting
> >DNA damage but have limited/prevented cancers, and have actually reduced
> >and eliminated some cancers, in both animal studies and human clinical
> >applications (recently done in the US as well as Japan - despite the rad
> >protectionists efforts to constrain such applications!?  :-)"
>
>         I suggest a name for low dose radiation to stimulate the immune
> system. It is not truly therapy as it is not treating a specific disease.
> It is more similar to the role of essential trace elements and vitamins.

But the use for cancer treament is therapy. In the reduced cancer in
the Taiwan C0-60-exposed population, this is simply being described as
"hormesis." As a "nutrient," as in the "nutrient-toxin continuum,"
whether "essential" or "beneficial," are there current terms that
should be applied? Perhaps even just as vitamin and mineral
"supplements," although other specific immune system stimulants exist.
However, the effect of "suplemental radiation" is more than immune
function enhancement, adn treating this only as immune system
enhancement is too narrow for the cellular/molecular effects of
enzymatic and apoptosis/removal, etc. effects.

          I would welcome any comments and suggestions. By the way, a young
> radiation oncologist at Johns Hopkins, Dr. James Welsh is (I believe)
> planning to try the hemi-body low dose approach as used in Japan on some
> cancer patients. I don't know if he has started any treatments yet but he
> sounds serious.


If you didn't hear about this from us; where did you hear about it?
:-)  That could be interesting. We know that the word was around
Hopkins, having gone thru the institutional reviews, and that more
recently we got to the Hopkins medical physicist Jonathan Links,
incoming SNM President, before his presentation to Congress a few
weeks ago. But he would have known that the Bauser treatment had been
completed (with preliminary positive results based on both
confirmation of immune stimulation by the second week, stabilizing of
the macroglobulin, and later reduction).


However, the most important recent paper is still the Gerber et al paper:

Q Rev Biol 1999 Sep;74(3):273-89, "The nutrient-toxin dosage continuum
in human evolution and modern health." Gerber LM, Williams GC, Gray
SJ. Department of Public Health, Cornell University Medical College,
New York, New York 10021, USA. LIG2002@MAIL.MED.CORNELL.EDU 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10513405&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
(See the abstract also below:)
At 17 pages it's very substantial. I can fax it, though Linda Gerber
sent a reprint quickly from a request to her email address above. I
haven't followed up on requesting a supply from QRB.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim
============

> Best wishes, John
> 
> John R. Cameron
> 2678 SW 14th Drive,
> Gainesville, FL 32608-2050
> jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
> 352/371-9865; FAX 352/371-9866
> 
> NOTE: Sometime in May 2000 I will be at:
> 2571 Porter Rd. PO Box 405,
> Lone Rock, WI 53556-0405
> 608/583-2160; FAX 608/583-2269
> e-mail is the same all year
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rad-sci-l mailing list
> rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu
> http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-sci-l

Q Rev Biol 1999 Sep;74(3):273-89 

The nutrient-toxin dosage continuum in human evolution and modern health.

Gerber LM, Williams GC, Gray SJ

Department of Public Health, Cornell University Medical College, New
York, New York 10021, USA. LIG2002@MAIL.MED.CORNELL.EDU 

Recent findings support the long-recognized principle that nutritive
and toxic effects of an ingested material depend not only on its
nature but very much on its quantity. The well known observation that
essential nutrients can be toxic at high dosages suggests that the
same reversal of effect may be true of many substances that could be
beneficial but not essential at low dosages (the phenomenon of
hormesis). This has been demonstrated for many well known toxins. We
suggest a mathematical model that describes these dosage effects as an
expected result of the
evolution of human metabolic and dietary adaptations for maximizing
benefits and minimizing costs of the ingestion or other intake of any
substance. Evolved mechanisms for achieving benefits may be unrelated
to those for reducing costs. These evolutionary considerations suggest
important consequences demonstrable by experimental or epidemiological
studies. They also suggest ways in which our evolved dietary
adaptations may be currently maladaptive, and individual development
of taste preferences poorly calibrated by early experience in modern
environments. The apparent reality of hormesis raises the possibility
of counterproductive effects of current dosage recommendations and
limits for nutrients and pollutants. We propose that some conceptual
and factual problems are urgently in need of resolution. Fundamental
to evolutionary biology is the tendency for organisms to become
increasingly adapted to those environments to which they are most
commonly exposed (Parsons 1990).

Unknown Document