A Yooper said...
Prato, doesn't sound like you bro - bad day? For me, I only look to supp's, foods, vitamins, etc. that have passed sound, medical/science based studies. When it comes to pomegranate I found plenty, including an abstract I found that was presented at ASCO 2nd June 2013 and the Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, 2013. Further, this trial was approved by the National Ethics Committee, peer reviewed by National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Complementary Therapies Research Committee and adopted by the National Cancer Research Network.
"Conclusions: In this study, it was shown that men taking the whole food supplement had a significantly lower median percentage rise in PSA compared to men taking a placebo (P<0.0001). The difference in percentage rise in PSA between these groups from the start to end of the study was large (63.8%); and as the patient characteristics were well-balanced and the trial had sufficient numbers to ensure adequate statistical power, the results of this study offer clinically meaningful guidance for men contemplating nutritional supplements after prostate cancer."
"The randomization process was outsourced and independently audited by an external agency to ensure adherence to European Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. The data was externally audited before independent analysis at Cranfield University."
Sound enough for me.
Me too. I take the approach that unless there is significant evidence of harm, and there are several studies of this type that look good, I am likely to err on the side of taking the food or supplement. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a study meeting FDA standards for a new drug to be applied to a non-patentable substance. Because, IMO, unless it can be patented no such studies are going to be done. Although, if the study sponsors are part of big pharmacy, and they are pretty sure they can supply evidence that the supplement is worthless or harmful, then you might see a big enough study resulting in negative results.
Is this the study you refer to? :www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4020278/
A chart from the study:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4020278/figure/fig3/
A separate analysis of the cohort of men managed with AS (n=121) revealed that in the FSG the mean PSA dropped by 0.14% (95% CI −7.57 to 7.95),
whereas in the PG it rose by 46.98% (95% CI 28.51–68.31)
The authors thank the charities Prostate Action and The Primrose Oncology Fund for sponsoring this study and the enthusiasm and co-operation of the participants. The full trial protocol is available on cancernet.co.uk/pomi-t.htm. Peer reviewed sponsorship was received from the charity ‘Prostate Action', and the study was also supported by ‘The Primrose Oncology Fund'. No sponsorship was received from the UK manufacturer of the investigational supplement used in this study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Hopefully there is no bias and none of these sponsers are the makers of Pomi-T. Hopefully.
I also found some studies on Pom that were not so positive. Just like when we have discussed some other non-prescript
ion drug approaches, sometime the studies are very impressive on the positive side, sometimes less so and sometimes indicate the substance is worthless or rarely even harmful. Since all of these studies come from- usually- respected universities or medical centers, it is amazing how the results can be so different.
But bias of the investigators and who is sponsoring them must always be considered. Although, it is hard for me to figure out what the bias might be that would influence a university or medical center to find great results for any non-patentable substance. Much easier to understand if researchers are related somehow to the big pharmaceuticals why they might possibly have a bias against a non-patentable substance.