| |
| Updated: 19 May 08 |
| |
Misinformation and Misperceptions |
| |
| Despite accurate and responsible information circulated on Biobran MGN-3, and despite the fact that a large and growing number of oncologists and doctors are showing great interest in this product, Biobran attracts its share of reactionary and unscientific opinion from a small percentage of closed-minded doctors, those hostile to complementary and alternative approaches to healing. Whilst this can be annoying from a scientific viewpoint, for many patients who could be benefitting from Biobran MGN-3, the consequences of this misperception and misinformation can be serious. We therefore list some recent examples of these to give the reader some idea of the types of criticism being made. |
| |
MISINFORMATION BY BIOBRAN MGN-3 DETRACTORS |
| |
| |
There are a lot of examples of these and we can only address a few of them here. For a start, the name "Biobran" sounds a bit like a laxative! Rest assured, however, that being a soluble fiber, Biobran has no laxative effect! |
| |
|
| |
Most sceptical doctors and oncologists that we have come across are open to being convinced of Biobran's efficacy; discerning and critical open-mindedness is always in the best interest of patients. However, there is always a small percentage who believe that any complementary activity such as Biobran MGN-3 supplementation is a direct affront to orthodox medicine. This is ironic when one considers that the development and research of Biobran MGN-3 was, and is, undertaken almost exclusively by orthodox researchers who present their results at orthodox medical conferences and in orthodox medical journals. We hope, over the coming years, that those doctors hostile to complementary approaches such as Biobran supplementation will at least be open to dialogue about their concerns and prejudices. |
| |
|
| |
Following are some of the negative and false reactions and assumptions made by those who are skeptical about Biobran MGN-3: |
| |
|
| |
| 1) |
"This is an absolute con!" |
| |
|
| |
This was the knee-jerk response of an oncologist at a leading UK cancer hospital to a patient who asked him to give a professional opinion on Biobran MGN-3. The oncologist in question examined none of the research and stated that he was going to complain to immunologist Professor Ghoneum. Strangely, he failed to respond to the manufacturer, Daiwa Pharmaceutical, who offered to have two doctors experienced with the product visit him to review the research and to discuss his concerns. To date he has contacted neither Daiwa nor Ghoneum. Ironically, in the very same week this oncologist disparaged Biobran, another consultant oncologist from the same hospital told his patient that, although he could not recommend the product because he had had no experience with it, from the research he read he saw no reason why it should not be taken and that it "may well indeed help". |
| |
|
| 2) |
"My oncologist, who is very knowledgeable and senior in his specialist area, does not see how this could work." |
| |
|
| |
Oncologists are doctors who specialize in cancer treatment. They are not immunologists – scientists who study the immune system. We were recently in contact with a highly credentialed and experienced immunologist who explained to us how little many oncologists know about immunology, and how it generally takes about 10 or 15 years for discoveries in immunology to filter through to the medical profession. For example, it is an established fact amongst immunologists that short chain polysaccharides can stimulate immune function, and yet, many oncologists will dismiss the idea that Biobran MGN-3, which is a short chain polysaccharide, can help the body to modulate immune function. |
| |
|
| 3) |
"Immune system strength and more specifically NK-cell activity is not particularly relevant to cancer survival." |
| |
|
| |
Few other beliefs have done more damage to public health than this one, and it has given rise to orthodox treatments focused entirely on the direct elimination of cancer cells at the direct expense of immune system function. There is little point eliminating 99.99999% of cancer cells in the body if, in the process, the immune system is knocked out so that the remaining 0.00001%, (which are often the most virulent to have survived the orthodox onslaught), have free-reign to cause a relapse. This is one of the reasons why returning cancer is usually much more dangerous than the original. It is always advisable, therefore, to bolster immune system function during conventional treatment, which might include the elimination of stress, good diet, vitamin and mineral supplements, and/or food supplements such as Biobran. In fact, many leading-edge doctors and oncologists are now openly advocating that the strengthening of immune function is an important factor in cancer treatment success rates. (Other factors include genetics, disease progression, stage at which treatment began, diet, body toxicity etc.) Only a foolish oncologist would state that immune system strength has little relevance. |
| |
|
| |
Once again, it is also important to remember that although much of the marketing on Biobran erroneously focuses solely on NK-cell activity, research indicates that it also modulates T-cell, B-cell and other components of the immune system. Biobran also significantly increases quality of life (QOL) of patients undergoing conventional treatments. Therefore, just because NK-cell activity might be less relevant for a particular type of cancer does not mean that a product will not be beneficial. |
| |
|
| 4) |
"Biobran MGN-3 is ridiculously expensive and is a way for unethical companies to fleece desperate people." |
| |
|
| |
Biobran is expensive. It is made by a pharmaceutical company in Japan using state-of-the-art equipment and it has and continues to be put through many expensive tests and trials, most of which have to be ultimately paid for by the consumer. For the same reasons, drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry are also expensive, but often the public will never see that cost because it is covered by their health insurance. (For example, a doctor recently informed us that a single course of a well known chemotherapy drug used commonly in breast cancer costs £10,000.) If Biobran did nothing, then it would not be ethical for anyone to sell it, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is effective. |
| |
|
| 5) |
"Companies promoting this product state that research has shown that people taking [Biobran] MGN-3 have an increased number of natural killer (NK) cells in their blood. This does not prove it can stop a cancer growing."* |
| |
|
| |
This is a quote on Biobran MGN-3 from the leading UK cancer charity website Cancer Research UK. It clearly indicates that whoever wrote it did not look very carefully at the research: Biobran does increase the number of NK-cells, but more importantly, it increases their activity. The statement that increasing NK cell activity "does not prove it can stop a cancer growing" is nonsensical and misleading because it can be applied to any treatment or complementary regime. For example, even though chemotherapy kills cancer cells, this also does not prove that it can stop a cancer growing. (Temporary reduction in the number of existing cancer cells does not equate to a longer-term cancer reduction or cure, especially if the integrity of the body is damaged in the process.) Cancer Research is guilty of misinformation that gives the reader the impression that NK-cell activity is completely irrelevant to cancer recovery. This is incorrect. |
| |
|
| 6) |
"…the immune system can recognise cancer cells as abnormal and kill them. Unfortunately, this is not enough to get rid of cancer altogether."* |
| |
|
| |
This is another unscientific statement from the same cancer charity. Stating that "this is not enough to get rid of cancer altogether" applies to ANY treatment, orthodox or otherwise, that does not have a 100% success rate measured in terms of survival after a 5 year period, and it merely emphasizes our current losing battle in the war against cancer. Scientists work with probabilities. No oncologist would deny that immune system strength factors somewhere in the equation of recovery, but because there is little proper research in this area (as Cancer Research UK admit in their next paragraph) then the only responsible and logical statement that can be made is that strengthening the immune system, without any treatment, is unlikely to be enough for the average person to recover from cancer. Even though the research is not there, the word "unlikely" should be used because it is mandatory to err on the side of caution with "life and death" matters until the data is in.
(This same statement, conservatively applied to Biobran, also applies of course to any treatment with a success average, measured in terms of survival after a 5 year period, less than 50%. This would unfortunately apply to most orthodox cancer treatments as well.) |
| |
|
| |
Much of the latest research in this area, however, does indicate that a strong immune system may well be a significant factor in cancer survival. Cancer Research UK denigrate Biobran by mispresenting their information on this supplement with the heading "Can Biobran treat cancer?" and then concluding that, because it is unlikely to cure cancer by itself, it is not worth taking. This again is illogical and is a standard method of turning a complementary product into an "Aunt Sally" so that criticism is more stinging. Biobran is not, never was, and never will be a treatment per se, but rather a very useful adjunct to both conventional and non-conventional treatments. It must be remembered that most of the more successful cancer treatments are multi-faceted, involving a comprehensive treatment regime that may include complementary therapies such as de-stressing, diet changes, psychological counselling, and dietary supplements such as vitamins and Biobran. |
| |
|
| 7) |
"Only well designed clinical trials can find out if people with cancer who take MGN-3 do better than people who don't. We are not aware of any trials looking into this."* |
| |
|
| |
The phrase "well-designed" is deliberately nebulous here because the gold standard for any medical trial is for it to be double-blind placebo controlled, something that most chemotherapeutic agents have NOT been through because of ethical considerations (withholding treatment from a control group in the name of research is rightly against medical ethics). Having said that, Biobran MGN-3 can be subject to these sorts of double-blind trials, and the manufacturers have tried and continue to try to get hospitals interested in undertaking such trials. |
| |
|
| |
Whilst there has been interest by some leading hospitals in undertaking double-blind placebo controlled trials with Biobran, oncology departments have not generally been interested or broad-minded enough to consider spending the time and money necessary to undertake them. To set up and run these sorts of trial is notoriously expensive, difficult and time-consuming, and would probably in the trial selection process be displaced by a drug trial sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company able to cover all the costs. However, this is beginning to change as doctors and researchers start to realize that the conventional cancer treatment paradigm, which focuses entirely on cancer cell destruction with little regard to immune system integrity, is not winning the war against cancer. |
| |
|
| |
Although double-blind trials on Biobran are still a few years away, there have been quite extensive smaller-scale trials and studies undertaken with Biobran in vitro and in vivo over the past decade. (Most of these are listed in the research section of this site.) This research has been professionally undertaken by orthodox research scientists and most of it has been presented in papers at immunology and oncology conferences, some of it being published in peer-reviewed journals. Anyone who bothers to examine the results of this research would conclude the following: firstly, Biobran is completely safe to take and no contraindications have ever been reported (it should obviously not be taken with immunosuppressants); secondly, it can undeniably help modulate immune function, often quite substantially in the case of severely weakened immune systems; and thirdly, the research indicates that, at the very least, something very interesting is going on and that it is worth doing more research. |
| |
|
| |
It must also be remembered that Biobran has been used most extensively outside the hospital and lab by thousands of doctors and their patients around the world. Certainly, the progressive medical community must by now have some awareness of its usefulness as a part of a treatment program, and this is no doubt reflected by the large annual growth in Biobran usage by those doctors. It is uncharitable for Cancer Research UK not to give any consideration to the observations of these doctors "on the front line" who actually use the product. |
| |
|
| |
It is also unclear what Cancer Research UK mean by "do better" in terms of who takes and who does not take Biobran. Does "do better" refer to survival over a period of time for those with cancer or could it refer also to quality of life (something not given prominence from the conventional perspective)? Almost every doctor using Biobran has stated that at the very least it offers an improved quality of life and that it can help mitigate some of the side effects of harsh conventional treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy. After all, immune function has a direct correlation with how we feel: if we feel low, then it is likely that our immune function is low. That said, most of these doctors recommend Biobran supplementation alongside conventional treatment because they know that a strong immune system gives any patient the best chance of recovery. |
| |
|
| |
Given these conclusions, it is entirely reasonable for any doctor to include Biobran MGN-3 in his or her treatment regime. |
| |
|
| * |
From a very short page of information on Biobran MGN-3 entitled "Can Biobran treat cancer?" located on the Cancer Research UK website at www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5429. Quotes are correct as at 16th Jan 2004 and constitute almost EVERYTHING said about Biobran MGN-3 on their site to date. So much for the immune system being an important consideration in cancer recovery! |
| |
|
8) |
"Stephen Barratt at Quackwatch gives it a negative review because he says there is no clinical research." |
| |
|
| |
Stephen Barrett is a retired MD in America who spends his time dismissing any and every alternative treatment going. He personally runs the Quackwatch.org website that purports to give reasoned and scientific critiques of everything alternative. |
| |
|
| |
However, scratch the surface and you find that Barrett is no scientist. He is actually a religious zealot unreasonably dismissing everything and anything that does not conform to his orthodox worldview. For example, he criticised a practitioner's alternative treatment program because a patient died, despite the fact that he himself mentions in the same article that the patient didn't even follow the proposed treatment program! When pushed by the author for proper evidence of fraudulent practice, all Barrett weakly replied was, "I have the information I need to conclude that [this practitioner] is not trustworthy." So much for logic and reason! |
| |
|
| |
Unsurprisingly, Barrett has a negative piece on his site regarding MGN-3 arabinoxylan. He starts his critique by incorrectly stating that MGN-3 arabinoxylan's manufacturer is Lane Labs. The MGN-3 arabinoxylan itself is manufactured by Daiwa Pharmaceutical in Japan , and Lane Labs only puts together its own label product containing this active ingredient. He also forgets to mention Hiroaki Maeda's central role in the development of MGN-3, and the fact that he jointly hold the production patent with Mamdooh Ghoneum. Whilst these mistakes and omissions show that he has poorly researched his subject, they have little relevance to the central question of his article: whether MGN-3 is effective or not. |
| |
|
| |
This question, the central theme of his whole article, is actually addressed in only one tiny paragraph - the fourth. Barrett's argument, which is the one almost always applied by those in orthodox medicine attacking any alternative treatment, is that there have been no "well-designed clinical trails" to support claims made for the product. This statement raises two important questions: what does he mean by "well-designed"? (For many sceptics, any trial that gives a positive response has not been well-designed!) And secondly, what "claims" is he talking about? Lane Labs' over-the-top marketing claims? If this is what he is referring to, then of course MGN-3 will fall short. It is NOT a magic bullet or a cancer treatment per se. Daiwa Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of the product, has only ever claimed that MGN-3 is a useful adjunct to proper treatment programs supervised by a medical practitioner. |
| |
|
| |
Having said that, there is some truth to Barrett's remark. More research does need to be done on the product, as is the case with all products… including orthodox medicines. But unlike many orthodox medicines, which are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year (despite well-designed double-blind clinical trials), MGN-3 is a non-toxic natural compound with no contraindications (except of course that it should obviously not be taken in conjunction with immunosuppressants). |
| |
|
| |
The proper trials that Barrett alludes to are the remit of multi-national pharmaceuticals with millions to spend on research and development. Daiwa Pharmaceutical is a small, privately owned company without limitless financial resources. As such, Daiwa has to choose its experiments carefully, but unfortunately cannot pay the levels of money often demanded by most hospitals to carry out large-scale clinical research. Considering these constraints, the body of research on the efficacy of Biobran MGN-3 is actually quite impressive, and grows larger each year. Overall, the trend is extremely positive (see research). |
| |
|
| |
And while it is very easy to criticise experimental protocols, it must be remembered that every clinical experiment involves real, live people, often with serious illnesses. Many of them have failed intense orthodox treatments which have seriously damaged their body's own immune system, further reducing their chances of survival. So anyone on alternative treatments is not only often in a very bad way to start with, they invariably choose a multi-faceted treatment program that includes lifestyle changes such as diet, as well as a whole host of supplements. Do researchers suggest that they take only one supplement to give better research results? Of course not, that would be unethical. And who would want to take part in a double-blind randomized experiment for the sake of scientific research, if there is the possibility of ending up in the group with fewer or no treatments. The situation is very complex. |
| |
|
| |
Dismissing the Biobran MGN-3 research out of hand, therefore, because no "well-designed clinical trials" from the perspective of a professional debunker have yet been performed is entirely unhelpful. Try telling that to the tens of thousands of people around the world who will personally tell you that they received great benefit from taking the product, and to the thousands of doctors who have recommended it. |
| |
|
| |
After this single criticism of a lack of "well-designed clinical trials", Barrett focuses the entire remainder of his article on Lane Labs' and another company's irresponsible marketing of MGN-3, and the responses to those by the FDA and the Attorney General. But he never makes the point that Lane Labs is "just" the US distributor for Daiwa's MGN-3 arabinoxylan, and their irresponsible marketing does not reflect, in any way, on the integrity of either the product or its Japanese manufacturer, Daiwa Pharmaceutical. |
| |
|
| |
Barrett does makes the valid criticism that Lane Labs used Ghoneum's writings for marketing purposes, for which he received a royalty on MGN-3 sales in return. Whilst it is usual for patent holders to gain from use of their inventions, it does unavoidably throw up a conflict of interest. Fortunately, Biobran MGN-3 has now also been researched by many other scientists who receive no such royalty. Perhaps the best testimony for Biobran at the moment is the thousands of doctors worldwide who have used it in their practices. (If you know anything about doctors, you will know that it takes a lot of convincing for them to recommend natural products to their patients, especially when those patients are extremely ill and can litigate against bad decisions.) |
| |
|
| |
Finally, Barrett ends with the line, "It remains to be seen whether MGN3 has any practical value. It is certainly not revolutionary or a magic bullet." This is certainly quite a tame conclusion from a man notoriously hell-bent on denigrating every natural and alternative treatment and product. It appears that he has found the product itself quite hard to criticise, which is why he has given so much attention to the way it has been irresponsibly marketed in the Untied States. Having said that, Barrett is actually wrong in his conclusion: whilst Biobran MGN-3 may not be revolutionary or a magic bullet, it is now undeniably of great practical value to those needing to strengthen weak immune systems. |
|
|
| |
MISINFORMATION BY BIOBRAN MGN-3 PROMOTERS |
| |
| |
European agents distributing Biobran MGN-3 tend to be quite responsible and we are not aware of any agent making irresponsible or irrational claims. (There has been some irresponsible marketing in the USA where ads have appeared stating, "Is this the Magic Bullet?", but the company doing this has been banned from selling MGN-3 by the FDA.) The only criticism of Biobran agents is that they often tend to focus entirely on NK-cell activity which presents the product one dimensionally. Research shows that Biobran modulates the entire immune system including the activity of NK-cells, T-cells, B-cells and other blood factors and parameters. It also has an anti-inflammatory effect. As far as we are aware, however, agents are correctly presenting Biobran MGN-3 as a useful adjunct to proper treatment, rather than as a treatment in its own right. (Fortunately, in most European countries there are laws that forbid medical marketing without a proper medical licence. That said, there is no doubt that as Biobran MGN-3 becomes better known, some of those selling it, perhaps in countries with more open legislation, will be tempted to present it as a panacea. We will be adding instances of misperception and misinformation by those promoters as and when we come across them.) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
