English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The following article by Geoffrey A. Cordell is an excellent summation and analysis of the published research on the controversial dietary supplement product PC-SPES. Cordell adds his years of experience in pharmacognosy and botanically derived therapeutic agents with his interpretation of the chemical, biological, research, ethical, and legal/regulatory implications of the PC-SPES controversy. However, for all the time and effort Cordell dedicated to this task—as well as the time expended by researchers conducting clinical trials on this product—one can now question whether it is all moot. Just prior to publication of this journal, on May 15, 2002, the manufacturer of PC-SPES, BotanicLab Inc in Brea, California, quietly announced that it was closing effective June 1. After a product recall in February necessitated by reports that PC-SPES contained the anticoagulant drug warfarin (California FDA), the company found itself unable to produce acceptable new lots of the product. The subsequent loss of revenue, coupled with continued operating costs plus mounting legal costs as a result of suits filed against the company, apparently created untenable business prospects. But the firm’s closing may not provide closure to many of the issues raised in the PC-SPES controversy, many of which are covered in Cordell’s article, and some of which are summarized below. To many observers, the news of the “herbal” cancer remedy PC-SPES seemed almost too good to be true. Although the company officially claimed only that the product was “for prostate health,” the unofficial buzz was that the product helped men with prostate cancer (PC). At least 5 published studies since 1998 have demonstrated that the mixture possesses strong estrogenic, antineoplastic, and immunostimulant activity and provides benefits for men with PC, including increased quality of life and longer life with the disease. 1-5

Guest Editorial: The Rise and Fall of PC-SPES: New Generation of Herbal Supplement, Adulterated Product, or New Drug?