By: Leon Sculti
Controversial or
Cutting Edge?
Shark cartilage is one of the
hottest and most controversial topics debated in medical circles today. Although its mode of action is accepted by
established medical principles, the mechanism, or combination of elements
responsible for triggering that action, remains a mystery.
Highly touted
for its alleged cancer-fighting abilities (and currently under clinical trials
by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] on terminally ill cancer patients in
new Jersey), this natural nontoxic substance is now becoming widely accepted as
an effective means for treating less fatal degenerative diseases such as
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
"Phenomenal" is how Robert C. Greenburgh, B.S., D.C.,
E.A.S.A., describes the results he has seen from approximately sixty-five
arthritis patients who have used, and continue to use, shark cartilage therapy
under his care. Greenburgh
explains, "When you have arthritis,
you have inflammation; you have vascularity and the creation of new blood
vessels. Shark cartilage must be the
number one choice with inflammation .... it's definitely cutting edge."
Consumers Drive
Demand
Right now,
approximately 8 million Americans suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and more
than 40 million from osteoarthritis.
Indeed, up to one-third of all Americans turn to alternative treatments
every year. Theoretically, that
represents the potential for some 16 million new consumers to enter the shark
cartilage market this year alone, seeking relief for arthritis pain. Although these numbers do not explain why
traditional medicine and its establishments all but ignore alternative
therapies, they do suggest why the demand for such therapies, like shark
cartilage, is booming.
"This is a
consumer-driven product" explains the health care manager of a major shark
cartilage manufacturer. "Sales to
[medical] professionals are up 71 percent in the last eight months alone. When a doctor orders our product, he or she
is usually doing it for a patient."
Sales figures show that medical doctors, with both traditional and
holistic philosophies, are the most active group of professionals purchasing
shark cartilage, with sales to chiropractors and naturopaths ranking second and
third, respectively.
How does Shark
Cartilage Fight
Arthritis?
Although
researchers have not been able to pinpoint the exact therapeutic agent in shark
cartilage, many agree that the primary inflammation-fighting component is a
family of complex carbohydrates called mucopolysaccharides. Two members of this family, chondroitin
sulfates A and C, have long been used by nutrition medicine practitioners to
fight inflammation and enteritis. But
for some reason it appears that the naturally occurring forms of these
compounds in shark cartilage (which are among the largest produced by any
living cells) are more effective than the synthetically refined
mucopolysaccharides.
Even more
important, when combined with the angiogenesis inhibition properties, which are
believed to exist in the proteins, shark cartilage may not only provide
inflammation relief, but also inhibit the vascularization of cartilage -- often
associated with advanced cases of both osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis
--in human joints. Inhibiting the
formation of new blood vessels is the number one basis for claims made about
shark cartilage's ability to successfully fight cancerous tumors.
Shark cartilage
itself appears to have no negative side effects, except for some reported upset
stomachs. Its major drawback is the fact
that researchers cannot locate and isolate its active elements. many people, like I. William Lane, Ph.D., the
most prominent proponent of shark cartilage and author of the book Sharks Don't Get Cancer, feel this is
not a drawback, but rather a small tactic to eventually produce a synthetic
version of shark cartilage to satisfy those with profit-driven motives. "As soon as it's pinpointed [the
therapeutic agent], you can be sure the drug companies will synthesize
it," says Lane. To the contrary,
others, like Carl Luer, who has done extensive research with shark cartilage,
feel that uncertainty is just grounds for skepticism. He says, "If it's effective, that's
great." But he adds, "We need
to find out what [the active molecule] is, rather than catching sharks,
chopping them up, and putting them in pill form." These two contrasting schools of thought give
excellent insight to the moral, emotional, and professional dilemma that the
advent of shark cartilage has spawned.
Shark Cartilage
Active Elements:
Proteins, Mucopolysaccharides, rest unknown
How supplied:
Capsule, Powder
form
First Studies:
Institut Jules Bordet,
Brussels, 1988
Early Research with
Bovine Cartilage
It was the research
of Robert Langer and Anne Lee, who were studying the antiangiogenetic effect of
bovine cartilage in 1983, that eventually brought shark cartilage to the
forefront of cancer and arthritis research.
Soon after concluding that bovine cartilage did, in fact, possess
angiogenesis inhibition properties, Langer and Lee learned why shark cartilage
may work even better in producing the same effect.
Because there is
so little fat clinging to shark cartilage as compared with bovine cartilage, it
requires far less purification, and therefore can be considered
"purer" than bovine cartilage.
In addition, a shark's skeleton, which represents 6 to 8 percent of its
body weight, is comprised entirely of cartilage, making it considerably more
abundant than bovine cartilage. Langer
and Lee reported that the same therapeutic amount of extract recovered from 500
grams of bovine cartilage could be processed from only 0.5 gram of shark
cartilage. Therefore, on a
pound-for-pound basis, shark cartilage is 1,000 times more potent as an
angiogenetic inhibitor than cartilage obtained from cows or other mammals.
Arthritis Studies
Once shark
cartilage came into the limelight, researchers concentrated mostly on
conducting cancer studies with it. The
first arthritis studies, which are the best-documented, were done using bovine
cartilage extracts. Here is a look at
some documented arthritis studies.
1. A study conducted by John Prudden was described in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism1. In this study, 28 arthritis patients, all
of whom exhibited severe pain and major functional disability, were given a
cartilage preparation over a period of three to eight weeks. Of the 28
subjects, 19 showed results that were classified as "excellent"; six
were classified as having "good" results; and three were classified
as "fair" or showed "no response". It was noted that none showed any ill
effects.
2. The results of
a long-term study conducted by Dr. Rejholec, Head of Internal
Medicine/Rheumatology at
Charles
University in
Prague,
Czechoslovakia, were published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism2. The five-year, double-blind study was done
using three groups, with a total of 147 osteoarthritic patients. Two of the three groups were given variations
of bovine cartilage extract; the other
group (control) received a placebo. The
placebo group was encouraged to use various non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) during active episodes.
These results were quite exceptional.
The groups treated with the
cartilage had average pain scores drop 85 percent, whereas the average pain
score of the control group fell only 5 percent over the five years.
Also, the actual joint degeneration in the cartilage-treated group was
significantly less than that of the control group. At the end of five years, the joint
degeneration of the cartilage-treated group was 37 percent of the control
group.
3. In 1989, Jose
A. Orcasita of the University of Miami School of Medicine administered doses of
dry shark cartilage for a period of three weeks to six elderly patients
suffering from "significant" to "unbearable" pain from
osteoarthritis. In all cases Orcasita
reported that pain was markedly reduced and quality of life was vastly improved.3
Clinical
Applications Using Shark
Cartilage to Treat
Arthritis
Approximately,
15,000 to 18,000 Americans, whether under the supervision of a physician or
not, take daily doses of shark cartilage as a treatment for either arthritis or
cancer. As of yet, there has been no
official protocol concerning the application of shark cartilage to treat
arthritis. There is, however, a wealth
of information from which to draw.
Based on the
research he has been privy to over many years, Lane, who makes it clear that he
is not a medical practitioner, reports that "60 to 70 percent of
rheumatoid and osteoarthritis cases have experienced successful reduction in
pain when given 1 gram of dry powdered shark cartilage per 15 pounds of body
weight." If capsules of powdered
shark cartilage (assuming they are 740-750 mg each) are administered, that
dosage would be equivalent to 1 capsule per 11 pounds of body weight. Lane adds,
"The effect with arthritis is rapid. You can usually notice a difference within 2
to 3 weeks, due to the anti-inflammatory agent.
If results do not occur within 30 days of treatment, this therapy
probably will not work for that particular patient."
Greenburgh, who
has adapted shark cartilage therapy in his
Missouri practice, uses somewhat
different guidelines when treating patients who suffer from arthritis. Like Lane, he uses body weight as a measuring
device when determining dosages, but elaborates:"... the stage or state of
inflammation is important as well; the bigger the individual and the more
advanced the situation, the higher the dosage." He estimates his dosage platform to be
"1 gram of dry powdered shark cartilage per every three to five pounds of
body weight." Greenburgh employs a
90-day program for his patients and says, "I have never been disappointed
... and have always noticed a significant change for the better when using this
90-day program."
Once treatment
has been considered successful, Greenburgh reduces the dosage to a maintenance
level of "about 1 to 2 capsules three times a day." When asked what was the best thing about
shark cartilage, Greenburgh responded, "The fact that it's been deemed
totally nontoxic by the FDA ... I know that I can't hurt anybody." Most doctors familiar with shark cartilage
generally agree that: (1) It is most effective when the daily dosage is taken
orally, three times a day, in equal amounts, about 15 to 20 minutes before
meals; (2) When taking dry powdered shark cartilage, every 1 gram of shark
cartilage should be mixed in a blender with 2 oz of non-acidic fruit juice or
nectar (capsules can be taken with water); (3) If a patient experiences an
upset stomach due to the fishy taste, retention enemas can be applied; (4) Due
to the antiangiogenetic effect, children, pregnant women, and people who have
experienced a recent heart attack should not be taking shark cartilage. It should also be discontinued three months
before and after any major surgical procedure.
Determining the
Best Product
Due to the fact
that shark cartilage is sold a food supplement in the Untied States,
manufacturers of the product must abide by certain FDA regulations. These companies are forbidden to directly
claim or indirectly imply through the labeling, advertising, marketing, or
promotion of their product that it has any medical or therapeutic value
whatsoever. The result of this has been
mass confusion in a mass market. Unable
to mention primary consumer benefits and selling points, it has become
extremely difficult for any one brand to separate itself from the rest, Thus, consumers, doctors, and retailers alike
are all left to decipher for themselves which products are truly effective and
which are merely cheap imitations.
The Lesser or Two
"Evils"?
It is likely
that consumer demand will continue for shark cartilage as more and more people
experience its benefits. With it being
deemed nontoxic by the FDA, shark cartilage does not have many of the side
effects such as gastric irritation seen with other prescription arthritis
agents on the market such as the NSAIDs.
Certainly, this is where shark cartilage has a distinct advantage. One has only to read many of the current
advertisements for arthritis pain and medications featured in popular health
magazines. A recent ad informed readers
that, if taken once a day, the drug "may relieve arthritis
pain." However, the ad also warned
that this very same drug could cause "serious side effects, including
stomach ulcers and intestinal bleeding."
In addition, the copy revealed that "the most common side effects
associated with the use of [that particular product] can include abdominal
pain, constipation, diarrhea, stomach upset, nausea, and skin rash." The drug being advertised was only available
with a doctor's prescription.
__________________________________
References
1.
Prudden, J. Sem Arthritis and Rheumatism,
Summer 1974.
2.
Rejholec. Sem Arthritis and Rheumatism, 17(2), Nov. 1987.
3. Let's Live, March 1994, p.