To understand exactly what's going on, you need to be patient and read this fiasco about sharks below.
In the 1990s, shark cartilage products made a grand entrance in the United States. Once upon a time, sharks contributed the noble "fins" to banquets, soothing taste buds and satisfying vanity. However, this time, shark cartilage plays the role of "cancer nemesis". I. William Lane and Gary K. Ostrander are at the forefront of this "cartilage against cancer" controversy.
It all started in academia
Cancer has long been a "nightmare" for humans. In the usual sense, cancer refers to malignant tumors. Tumor cells have abnormal morphology and metabolic processes, and malignant tumor cells can proliferate rapidly and metastasize to other parts of the body. Countless medical workers have made great efforts to overcome cancer and have achieved remarkable results. So how is shark cartilage linked to cancer treatment?
Judah Folkman, an important figure in cancer research who currently directs the Catheter Biology Program at Children's Hospital Boston, published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1971, proposing the hypothesis that "the growth of all tumors is dependent on the process of angiogenesis. In 1971, Folkman published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in which he proposed the hypothesis that "all tumors depend on angiogenesis for their growth," which became a cornerstone of worldwide research into the mechanisms of cancer. According to this theory, tumor cells rely on the blood vessels around them to provide nutrients and oxygen to "grow like crazy"; if the angiogenic process can be inhibited, the rapid growth and spread of tumor cells can be controlled. Folkman and his graduate student Henry Brem (Henry Brem) day and night in the laboratory, they used the cartilage of newborn rabbits as a material, hoping to find a substance to inhibit angiogenesis. The duo first discovered that cartilage could inhibit the growth of tumor cells. Subsequently, another young man Robert Langer (Robert Langer) joined the study, the three used purified calf cartilage as a material to carry out similar experiments, and got the same results. 1976 July 2, they reported in the "Science" magazine found that: calf cartilage can inhibit the growth of tumor cells. Soon after, Brehm left Folkman's lab, but Ranger decided to repeat the original experiment, only this time using shark cartilage as the experimental material. Even though the Boston slaughterhouse at the time was happy to provide calves for the experiment, the researchers used shark cartilage. "Sharks have much more cartilage compared to calves. Shark bones are all cartilage." Eventually, Ranger and another researcher, Anne Lee, managed to repeat the original experiment. In the Sept. 16, 1983, issue of Science, the researchers reported their discovery that, like rabbit cartilage and calf cartilage, shark cartilage inhibits the growth of tumor cells by blocking angiogenesis.
Judah Folkman (left) and his student Henry Brehm (right) found in their study that "cartilage inhibits the growth of tumor cells. The discovery set the stage for a series of later studies.
A marketing success story
If it hadn't been for William Lane, the story of shark cartilage would have remained confined to the lab for a long time. Lane was technically a businessman, but he was most widely known as "Dr. Lane," a title that became the subject of derision - some claiming that Lane was actually a PhD in agricultural biochemistry rather than a medical doctor. However, it was this doctor of agricultural biochemistry who, in the 1990s, published two best-selling books, appeared on television and gained widespread attention, and whose nutraceutical company made huge profits from shark cartilage products with a successful marketing strategy that drew numerous followers.
Lane learned of Robert Ranger's and Anne Lee's research on a CNN broadcast, and was astute enough to see the possibilities of oral shark cartilage in the treatment of cancer. At the same time, another scientific study solidified his idea: Carl Luer of Florida studied sharks in a laboratory in an environment containing high concentrations of carcinogens and found that no tumors developed in these sharks. Lane was extremely excited by the huge business opportunity. He first developed a device to pulverize shark cartilage, and in 1991 was awarded a patent for "Inhibiting Angiogenesis with Shark Cartilage" In 1992, Lane co-authored the best-selling book "Sharks Don't Get Cancer - See How Shark Cartilage Can Save You" with Linda Comac. -How Shark Cartilage Can Save Your Life. In the book, Lane wrote: "Oral shark cartilage can stop the growth of tumors; the 'precious' shark cartilage is not only the savior of cancer patients, but also provides hope for patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, because the onset of these diseases involves the process of angiogenesis. " Lane is also actively conducting clinical trials in Mexico, Panama, and Cuba. According to his own reports, in a Cuban study, 27 patients with advanced cancer were treated with shark cartilage, and all of them improved; an 82-year-old patient with prostate cancer had a 58% reduction in the number of tumors in his body and was no longer suffering from pain.In 1993, Lane appeared on the television show 60 Minutes to present the "Shark Cartilage for Cancer." Shark Cartilage for Cancer". Along with him were doctors and patients from Cuba who participated in Lane's clinical trials. Three years later, Lane released his second book, "Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer.
The cover of "Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer. The promotional blurb reads that the therapeutic effects of shark cartilage are an "extraordinary discovery."
The "shark cartilage for cancer" trend was in full swing. Websites promoting alternative and natural remedies have touted the healing properties of shark cartilage, with one even boasting, "It could save your life! One even had the slogan "It could save your life! Many companies have followed Lane's lead and introduced their own shark cartilage products. The powder or small tablets in brown bottles appeared as "dietary supplements" (or "supplements" in the usual sense of the word) and were aimed at the consumer's pocketbook. For example, a single bottle of one of the brands on the market at the time cost $27.99, contained 90 tablets, and the recommended dosage of 8 tablets per day on the directions for use, which meant a monthly expense of $75. It's hard to estimate just how much profit the industry as a whole is making. Lane's son, Andrew Lane, who is president of his own company, Lane Labs, declined to disclose the company's profit on shark cartilage products. It is estimated that the global market for shark cartilage in 1995 was profitable at more than $30 million.
Scientific Opposition
In 2004, Gary Ostrander, a professor in the Department of Biology and Comparative Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, published an article as first author in Cancer Research that publicly rebuked Lane. In the article, titled "Shark Cartilage, Cancer, and the Continuing Threat of Pseudoscience," the researcher noted that: sharks do get cancer; that it is not possible to tell the odds of sharks getting cancer based on current data; and that even if sharks were less likely to get cancer, this would not be a basis for concluding that their extracts have a therapeutic effect on cancer.
Ostrander began by pointing out that the title of Lane's book did not match its contents. In the title, Lane makes a big deal about how "sharks don't get cancer," but in the book, Lane says "sharks do get cancer, but the chances of them getting it are very low.
In the article, Ostrander published 42 documented cases of benign and malignant tumors in sharks and their close relatives, noting that the chances of a shark developing cancer are uncertain. In addition, Ostrander said that even if sharks are not susceptible to cancer, the use of shark cartilage extracts to treat cancer is unjustified. This is because the mechanism of cancer is very complex. If it is true that sharks are less susceptible to cancer, there could be a variety of reasons for this. For example, it is less exposed to environments with cancer-causing agents, or it has a unique and effective DNA repair process.
Ostrander, who has been the director of research at the Krieger Institute at Johns Hopkins since 1996, heard about the "shark cancer cure" in the late 1980s. His first impression was that the claim was incorrect, but he didn't pay much attention to it. It was not until one day that a public service announcement in the newspaper caught his eye. In bold letters, the ad read, "We must protect sharks." As a biologist, Ostrander was concerned about the overheated shark cartilage industry: "Overhunting could remove sharks from the marine ecosystem, and the disappearance of a predator at the top of the food chain could have extremely serious consequences." Ostrander and another of his colleagues reviewed a large body of literature in search of evidence and reported their findings at the 2000 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, where a large number of cancer researchers in attendance rallied in support.
Faced with an abundance of facts, Lane was forced to concede that sharks can develop cancer, but he insisted that their chances of doing so were "negligible." "It may not be so accurate to say that 'almost no sharks get cancer' ......," he is careful to say in his book, "for years the American medical establishment has consistently referred to the Lane also expresses his regret over the fact that the U.S. medical establishment has consistently shut out "shark cartilage therapy" for years. He said, "They were stubborn and didn't want to believe the evidence supporting shark cartilage therapy."
Who is responsible for consumers?
Vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, including shark cartilage, are all dietary supplements, or nutraceuticals. These nutraceuticals serve to supplement the daily diet, but they are not a substitute for medication. In terms of safety, efficacy, and quality, nutraceuticals do not meet the standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for regular medications. For example, before a new drug can be marketed, it usually undergoes a lengthy testing process, including preclinical trials, clinical trials, and other processes; whereas a health supplement manufacturer only needs to submit a "product safety certification" to the FDA before its product can be marketed, stating that it will not cause harm to consumers. In recent years, the FDA has had to step up its monitoring of the market for supplements that have caused health problems for consumers.
In response to Lane's big claims, Henry Brehm said, "That's a misrepresentation of the science." According to Brehm, the clinical trials conducted by Lane lacked controls, and "none of those trials would have met our standards for clinical trials here." In addition, Brehm and other oncologists expressed concern: "If patients refuse normal treatment because of oral shark cartilage, the consequences will be severe." A Canadian doctor once encountered such an incident: after a nine-year-old girl underwent a brain tumor removal surgery, her parents insisted on using shark cartilage for treatment, stubbornly refusing the doctor's recommended radiation and chemotherapy. The girl, who had a 50 percent chance of survival, died of her deteriorating condition.
A shark cartilage product containing 100 capsules. The description on the label identifies it as a "dietary supplement" and advertises the product as "all natural, high quality" shark cartilage.
In December 1999, the FDA issued a permanent injunction barring Lane's company from continuing to manufacture Benefin, a shark cartilage product, noting that Benefin's claims of "treating and preventing cancer and other diseases" were unsubstantiated, overstated, and outside the bounds of the nutraceutical claims.
Meanwhile, the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has launched two clinical trials. The first, conducted at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Research Center at the University of Texas, tested the therapeutic effects of Neovastat, a shark cartilage extract, on patients with lung cancer; the second clinical trial, which tested the therapeutic effects of Benefin on breast and colon cancers, was later terminated because of a lawsuit filed by the FDA against Benefin's manufacturer, Lane Labs.June 2007 2 Charles Lu, Associate Professor at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Research Center, presents the results of a multi-year clinical trial at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Disappointingly, lung cancer patients treated with Neovastat, a shark cartilage extract, did not have improved chances of survival. In other words, Neovastat was not an effective treatment for lung cancer patients. Lou warned that cancer patients need to be extra cautious in the future because "there is no evidence that cartilage extracts have a therapeutic effect on cancer."
Editor's Postscript
The reasons for the popularity of "shark cartilage therapy" are many -- a strong marketing strategy by manufacturers, consumer fervor, an overly lax health care market... ...Cancer patients should not be blamed too much for choosing to use shark cartilage, said Henry Brehm: "Desperate people do crazy things." However, patients who are gullible enough to believe in the rhetoric of health product manufacturers spend a lot of money, but delay a good cure and may even lose their lives. Cancer patients are not the only victims. How many sharks have suffered unwarranted disasters because of ridiculous and irresponsible commercial propaganda? Just who cares about the lives of sharks when human lives are at stake?
Ostrander said the "evidence-based" assessment mechanisms widely used in the scientific community are just as important for media professionals as they are for government officials. Whether it's a personal decision or a public **** decision, it's only rational if there's enough evidence; otherwise it's just blind obedience.