Frankincense: Could it be a cure for cancer?

[lildreamer316]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8505251.stm

The gift given by the wise men to the baby Jesus probably came across the deserts from Oman. The BBC's Jeremy Howell visits the country to ask whether a commodity that was once worth its weight in gold could be reborn as a treatment for cancer.

<snip>

Scientists have observed that there is some agent within frankincense which stops cancer spreading, and which induces cancerous cells to close themselves down. He is trying to find out what this is.

"Cancer starts when the DNA code within the cell's nucleus becomes corrupted," he says. "It seems frankincense has a re-set function. It can tell the cell what the right DNA code should be.

"Frankincense separates the 'brain' of the cancerous cell - the nucleus - from the 'body' - the cytoplasm, and closes down the nucleus to stop it reproducing corrupted DNA codes."


more at link...

[aquart]

1. What if the Wise Men really were?

We've been finding out all sorts of things about gold and myrrh is a disinfectant...

Damn fine gifts.

[Celebration]

2. only on one condition

It makes someone a whole lot of money.

[Orrex]

10. Ladies and gentlemen, I present another sad case of

[BuddhaGirl]

15. don't be sad!

I recommend some St. John's Wort - :hi:

[truedelphi]

18. yes, unless Big Pharma can control frankincense supply ,

This item ever get the FDA approval.

[Uben]

3. Pfizer corners frankincense market!

That'll be the next headline on the subject

[Orrex]

11. Ladies and gentlemen, I present another sad case of

[BuddhaGirl]

16. +1

n/t

[WhiteTara]

4. I take frankincense for arthritis

the anti inflammatory properties of boswellia (the herbal name) are very high. Myrrh (another 3 wise men gift is a powerful antimicrobial)

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. I've been taking Boswellia and Turmeric for many years for my bad knees. great stuff.

Ayurvedic anti inflammatory compounds (heard about it on the People's Pharmacy one day) - I shouldn't even be able to walk on my knees, according to my orthopedic doc. But I can get around really well. I add a glusocamine sulfate to it as well.

Certainly much less expensive than the Cox 2 inhibitors (which are dangerous and in most cases no better than ibuprofin).

[rurallib]

6. Can it be purchased OTC at pharmacies? Is there another name

for either?

[rurallib]

7. Never mind - I googled

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. Best place we've found re prices is Vitacost.com

A fraction of the price compared to places like GNC and Whole Foods!

[MichellesBFF]

9. Me too!

I read about it on the health forum, I'm a runner with crunchy knees. Also taking avocado oil for the osteoarthritis.
My films must look pretty bad, when I see the orthopedist he keeps offering me shots of this and that, but I always turn him down. Knees seem okay for now, and they don't bother me while running.

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. I have torn ACL in both knees - one is bone on bone. Knee replacement at 60 the goal.

I get cortisone shots in each knee once per year in late winter - gets me through gardening season, but I do believe that without the herbal supplements, I'd be unable to do even a fraction of what I can. And if it is placebo effect...so be it! I've also noticed that the arthritis that was starting to affect my right hand fingers has completely gone.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. DNA code within the cell's nucleus becomes corrupted

Frankincence is herbal chkdsk. Makes sense.

[FirstLight]

14. that is just soo cool

More and more I think about the wisdom of the ages and how we have been provided woth so much of our health needs by natures pharmacopia.

More often than not I feel the synthetic drugs are more damaging, and when I turn to more natural therapies and holistic approaches to health (like incorporating diet, herbs and movement, and even energy healing like acupuncture or reflexology) i do much better...

[MorningGlow]

17. It's also a great lesson in humility

We tend to think that we in the 21st century are the pinnacle of...well...everything, and our forebears were ignorant louts with IQs of about 7. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact they had far greater knowledge than we could ever hope to have about the healing properties of nature IN its natural state. We are merely rediscovering what they already knew.

[trotsky]

23. Oh, absolutely.

I mean they must have known everything about treating every disease. That's why they typically lived to a grand old age of about 30. Hopefully we can go back to using only the medicines, technology, hygienic practices, and social institutions they had, and have similar life expectancies.

[MorningGlow]

24. Well

you're putting words in people's mouths bright and early today, Trots. Happy Valentine's Day to you too. Go hug somebody IRL; it might help. :hug:

[trotsky]

32. That's quite the display of passive-aggressiveness, MG.

Well done! Let me know when you want to discuss facts and not engage in personal attacks.

[MorningGlow]

33. You first.

:P

[trotsky]

34. Already did, in my first post in this subthread.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss the substance of that post. If ancient peoples knew how to cure with nature, why didn't they live even half as long as we do today?

[MorningGlow]

35. ROFLMAO

Oh how O8) of you! After constantly popping up all over DU with the sole intent of stirring shit up and baiting people, including me, suddenly you're shocked--shocked!--that I'm not taking you seriously about wanting to have a conversation.

Tell you what--first knock off the disingenuous crap. Pretending to ask a sincere question this one time does not make up for all the other nonsense you've spewed all over these boards. And yes, I'm going to include my recollection of all your nonsense in other threads when I say this: When you're ready to have a serious conversation WITHOUT mockery, name calling, condescension, AND running back to the skeptics group to mock people, by name, who are Not Like You, and WITH an intent to consider a viewpoint other than your own, look me up. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time. :hi:

[trotsky]

36. My question to you, then, is simply:

If ancient peoples knew how to cure with nature, why didn't they live even half as long as we do today?

But if you want to get into a mocking/name-calling contest instead of answering my question, there's a wealth of stuff for me to mine in ASAH too. :hi:

[MorningGlow]

37. What the...NO!

What part of "I'm not going to waste my time" didn't you understand? Your MO has been quite transparent for some time, so you'll forgive me if I do not enter into any sort of debate with you, because it will inevitably devolve into your twisting words around, splitting minor hairs, and eventually name-calling. Prove that you can actually have a respectful discussion--by example, not empty promises--and I may reconsider my decision in the future. But right now...no.

[trotsky]

38. LOL

I love this "innocent victim" routine you're playing.

I've asked you a sincere question, and I'm simply waiting for a reply. You let me know when you've decided you can engage in a mature conversation, and post an answer for me. Thanks!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough

But I couldn't find any completed clinical trials, double blind studies, or peer reviewed work that investigates frankincense or boswellia. The only web sites with significant information about the substance are quack pages about essential oils or downright woo-mongers.

The author of this story is a business writer - that should automatically disqualify him from writing about stories of a scientific nature. There's nothing in the story that says that frankincense can cure cancer. Just a lot of conjecture from someone who obviously wants to profit from the "discovery".

Maybe boswellia can cure cancer, but I'm not holding my breath.

[MorningGlow]

20. Er...

"'There are 17 active agents in frankincense essential oil,' says Dr Suhail. 'We are using a process of elimination. We have cancer sufferers - for example, a horse in South Africa - and we are giving them tiny doses of each agent until we find the one which works.'

'Some scientists think Boswellic acid is the key ingredient. But I think this is wrong. Many other essential oils - like oil from sandalwood - contain Boswellic acid, but they don't have this effect on cancer cells. So we are starting afresh.'

The trials will take months to conduct and whatever results come out of them will take longer still to be verified. But this is a blink of the eye in the history of frankincense."

:shrug:

On edit: Oh, and thanks for throwing "woo" in there--that makes your point soooo much more valid. :eyes:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. They talk about these "trials" in the article

But the trials don't pass the eyeball test. The way Dr. Suhail seems to be working is less than scientific.

I was looking for real studies of frankincense and its supposed curative properties. I couldn't find any - and that's what I was pointing out.

[MorningGlow]

22. Well, what in the world would satisfy you?

The man has an hypothesis and he has begun tests in conjunction with scientists from the University of Oklahoma. Every research has to start somewhere. So keep your wig on.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. Evidence.

[MorningGlow]

27. That's what they're working on, a'ight?

Sheesh. :eyes:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

28. I'm actually looking for evidence

to back up the original claim made by the scientist that frankincense cures cancer, and now all he needs to do is figure out which substance in the frankincense does that. There doesn't seem to be any information out there that backs up that claim that frankincense cures or is helpful for cancer. Like I said, the only sites with information are shitty woo sites that can't be trusted.

I hope he's right, but I have serious doubts.

[MorningGlow]

29. Let me ask you this (in all sincerity)

Could it be that you're iffy about the premise, even before any solid research is conducted, let alone concluded and any conclusions reached, because of this association: Frankincense --> used for incense --> incense usually associated with "woo" (do we HAVE to keep using that term?) --> anything to do with "woo" is automatically discounted as not worthy? :shrug:

On edit: Also, please note that the headline of the article is Frankincense: Could it be a cure for cancer? Note the question mark. Nobody's saying it IS yet, but there's no way we're going to find out if someone doesn't conduct studies first.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

30. Sorry, I wasn't clear

In the article, Dr. Suhail says:

"Cancer starts when the DNA code within the cell's nucleus becomes corrupted," he says. "It seems frankincense has a re-set function. It can tell the cell what the right DNA code should be."

The claim that frankincense has a reset function is what I'm trying to substantiate. I can't find anywhere that this claim itself can be backed up with science.

The headline is exactly what I have a problem with, especially since this article was penned by a business writer in a non-scientific publication. There are many among us who will misread the question and assume that frankincense is actually a cure for cancer, then later when science finds that frankincense is worthless as a treatment for cancer, will blame big pharma for "hiding the truth". Mainstream media companies should stay away from stories like this unless they are willing to actually examine the claims being made and describe the structure of the studies being performed. Unfortunately, we instead get bullshit like this that doesn't really mean anything.

When I use the term "woo", I use it to describe ideas and points of view in general, and websites in particular, that often lie and present untested pseudoscience as real science. And yes, anything labeled "woo" is worthless - someone who presents documented bullshit on numerous occasions can't be trusted, even if they're correct one. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf.

[MorningGlow]

31. That's a lot of speculation

I understand what you're saying about Dr. Suhail's statement. But I took that as what he is trying to prove or disprove with his studies. He thinks that might be how it works; but isn't the purpose of scientific research to find out IF the hypothesis is correct or not? Hence his research.

You are not finding any substantiation online because no one has conducted any similar research yet. I don't find that damning at all--like I said, all research has to start somewhere.

As for who wrote the article, well, speaking as a professional writer, I would say that your disapproval of the background of the journalist who wrote the article does not automatically make the article false. Lots of times freelancers are asked to write about something that is a little outside their specialty; I certainly have. A decent journalist learns about the subject and does his or her best to communicate the topic properly. There are also fact-checkers. You are presuming that some people will misread it and assume the theory has already been proven; again, this is not the fault of the article, which is quite clear, but the interpretation of the readers, who, you assume, are going to misunderstand it. However, that is not a certainty, but a speculation of worst-case scenario on your part. (To me and, likely, to most others, the point of the article is entirely clear--frankincense MAY be found to prevent cancer; it's not a fact.)

The term "woo" is derogatory and loaded. To you it means outright lies and unscientific information; however, it's also used to imply that anyone who has a spiritual nature is a moron, even though the person doing the name-calling knows NOTHING about the person to whom they've applied the label. As I have had that epithet flung at me more times than I can count here on DU, I'll ask you to understand that it can be interpreted in quite a different way.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.