Even when they swim in pollut water...

Even when they swim in pollut waters, sharks will not unravel cancer. Why? Is it the shark's rugg immune system? or Is it the fact that the shark's cartilage -- six to eight percent of its gros weight -- shut ups the start of tumors and, if they should start, sculptures off their means of growing and spreading?

It is part of the pair factors, according to the consensus of authorities forward shark cartilage.

Face it, we live in a pollut environment. There are pollutants in the air we breathe, in the water we drink, and in the bread we eat.

And, as we all know at now, pollutants damage and kill healthy small rooms which can lead to a higher risk of cancerous confined apartments developing and multiplying. By taking shark cartilage regularly, can we be as cancer-resistant as sharks? Presumably thus but we lack enough hard facts to completely verify this theory.

I. William Lane, PhD says that a investigation on this subject would be extremely expensive (to all parties involved) and require monitoring a large number of cancer patients through the whole extent of a long period of time.

"Without control funding, this is beyond my means," he states. "However, it is my not past nor future feeling, as well as that of many doctors I work with, that a dosage of seven to 10 g for day should prove to be a fairly prophylactic [disease-preventing] dose.

Most rife interest in shark cartilage is center around what it can do to cope with already existing cancers, as stated in Dr Lane's best-selling main division Sharks Don't Get Cancer and the consequence Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer, which is to be paid out in print this year.

As underscored in Lane's portion on a CBS 60 Minutes program, during which he was interviewed by means of Mike Wallace, much interest is center around on what account shark cartilage may be effective in coping with hard tumors.

Questioning "why" or "how" activeed various researchers to look at the health-promoting possibilities of shark cartilage, including that of R to leeward and A. Langer, according to their paper "Shark Cartilage Contains Inhibitors of Tumor Angiogenesis," reported in Science in 1983

In that year, lee-side and Langer reported that shark cartilage contains a substance which eagerly inhibits the growth of recently made known blood vessel networks to solid tumors. This, of course, would restrict tumor growth

Hypotheses are formulated in the late 1980s

Then, in 1987 Dr Judah Folkman and an associate published a paper with the hypothesis that solid tumors are hanging on the growth of of recent origin capillaries for food, cell metabolism, and discharge of wastes. His inferior hypothesis was that by preventing modern capillary growth, one could edge-stone the growth of the tumor.

In an citation from the "Shark Cartilage: Its Potential Medical Applications," published in the Journal of Advancement in Advancement in Medicine, Dr Lane writes:

"In its simplest form, this hypothesis states that one time a tumor has formed, each increase in tumor cell population must be preced according to an increase in new capillaries that tend to the same point upon the tumor.

"This theory was supported on experimental evidence that tumors of undivided to two cubic millimeters stopped growing when separated from their capillary bed, nevertheless resumed rapid growth when revascularization was permitted. At this size, the delivery of nutrients and the removal of waste works becomes growth-limiting."

One year later, in 1988 P.A. D'Amore, in Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, wrote that if fresh capillaries are so essential in the establishment and posterior growth of metastasis, it would appear to be that the blocking of strange capillary growth might prevent cancers from mestastasizing. He indicated the ne for a non-toxic or a soft toxicity inhibitor, because administration of so an agent would have to be athwart a relatively long period.

Then, in 1989 researcher G Atassi, at the institute of Jule Bordet, Brussels, Belgium, showed tumor mass reductions of 36 percent in xenographs -- unique and accurate photography -- end the use of orally-taken shark cartilage, while tumor mass in commands increased by 169 percent. All of the vegetation occurred in the seven days after the establishment of the descendants network, which required about 14 days.

Patrick Quillin, PhD RD who is the Vice President of Nutrition for Cancer Treatment Center of America (phone: 1-800-FOR-HELP), gave his take upon "why," in his 1994 work Beating Cancer With Nutrition: "shark cartilage probably does not harm the growing of healthy blood vessels. Sharks have this anti-angiogenesis factor in their young, who [sic] are able to put forth quite well in spite of the substance that selectively squelches tumor sprouting Tumors send out blood utensils that grow in cork-screw fashion, while healthy tissue creates children vessels that grow more direct, like tree roots

This difference allows the active ingredient in cartilage to selectively inhibit tumor tissue angiogenesis while allowing healthy legion tissue to grow necessary vital current vessels."

Researcher W.A. Moses and co-workers, as reported in Science magazine, identified a blocker of the generation of strange arteries to tumors: a macro protein from the cartilage.