What kind of a person names a miracle cure after themselves? Ádám Kovács
Damian Thompson has already dissected the vacuous puff-piece that appeared this week about the so-called miracle cure CellAdam.
If one ever needs to find a perfect example of the modus operandi of quackery, one need look no further than CellAdam.com. Claims are made, bereft of any evidence and research to back them up. Instead, there is a reliance on blinding the audience with scientific terminology. Check out the opening paragraph:
“The most important effect CellAdam has is necrosis on the tumor. This means that it destroys the tumor cells, it tears them to pieces. Moreover, the activation of the P53 gene prompts the cancer cell to commit voluntary cell “suicide.” In other words, CellAdam uses two mechanisms to attack tumor cells. A great deal depends, however, on the biopsy. There are certain cells which react very positively to CellAdam. Such cells include breast, lung and large intestinal cancer cells, melanoma malignum and certain types of obstetric tumors.”
It certainly sounds scientific, using technical terms such as ‘necrosis’ and ‘biopsy’. The science is even mildly correct when it’s not discussing the product itself; the P53 gene does cause cancer cell suicide (”apostasis”, if you want to impress your friends) and its mutation is one of the hallmarks of the onset of cancer in humans.
But how do the drops kill off cancer cells? No explanation is given. Which is not surprising, as the chemical makeup of any gene and the effects it has is horrendously complicated. I’m currently looking at a ‘pathway map’ of the P53 gene. At least ten other genes feed into it before it activates, whereupon it creates seven proteins that kill off cancerous cells. It’s not surprising to hear, then, that it is still very unclear how mutated P53 can be corrected to resume killing off cancer cells, and what exact processes it invokes to do so. If one can create droplets which somehow avoid being broken down by the human body, then can be taken by the bloodstream to the precise area where the tumour resides and manipulates the genes in such a way so as to cure cancer, then they deserve a Nobel prize.
It does not stop there. Ádám Kovács goes on:
“As CellAdam consists of several active ingredients, it has several positive side effects. One among these is the manner in which it assists the cellular elements of the immune system to multiply in appropriate proportions. Consequently, the immune system cells produce so-called immune hormones. Immune hormones are present in our systems to a minimum level already. However, when they are called upon to suddenly begin working, they need to increase their number tenfold. CellAdam plays a very important role in this catalization.”
Ignoring that fact that this medicine apparently has no negative side effects (isn’t that nice!), I was intrigued to find out what role hormones may have in stopping cancer growth. PubMed, the US medical papers database, reveals no studies. A quick search through the British Medical Journal reveals just one, where hormone treatment, coupled with a blast of healthy radiation, can slow down prostate cancer growth. Oh, and there’s also a series of studies suggesting that hormone replacement therapy is linked to breast cancer in women. Whoops.
Of course, CellAdam could have some positive effects, so I tried a search for it on PubMed. There are four studies into the medicine, all with no authors listed, so I cannot contact them to ask questions about their research and conclusions. There’s also a paper listed, simply titled “Remedies and Quackeries”, with the following abstract:
“Several unorthodox drugs for healing cancer recommended widely in the USA and Hungary are discussed. Credulity plays a decisive role in the application of the drugs of doubtful effect and/or “remedies” that are undoubtedly without any effect. Typical examples are Krebiozen, Laetrile, Celladam and water with decreased deuterium concentration.”
I could go on. I have yet to discuss the graphs that mean absolutely nothing, or the reams of testimonials masquerading as serious scientific data. But it’s clear that this is another bogus product that relies on exploiting the ill and the desperate, and as such I’m not going to waste another sentence on this medical detritus.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
7 responses
Zenit.org backed away from the article by Edward Pentin today:
Message To Readers
————————————–
CellAdam Cancer Drug
ROME, JAN. 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- ZENIT would like to inform readers interested in CellAdam, the anti-cancer treatment discussed in last week’s Rome Notes column by Edward Pentin titled the “Believe-It-or-Not Cancer Drug,” that while the product may be as effective as the article suggests, ZENIT cannot and does not officially endorse the treatment.
The views expressed were those of the writer, who was impressed by the faith and sincerity of the company’s Catholic directors and their belief in the treatment’s effectiveness. We recommend that readers interested in the drug do their own research, or wait for the results of the clinical trials that will be completed in the next few years.
I can’t help but notice that out of Ferguson’s four pieces of “evidence”, only one of them is even an actual assertion of any kind. The other three are merely rhetorical questions. In fact, let’s take them one by one:
“1) a visit to the clinic, and discussion with patients”
Of course we could ask the patients whether they think CellAdam has helped them, but the history of quack medicine is full of patients who swore by “treatments” that did nothing for their health (placebos), or even damaged their health further. The plural of anecdote is not data.
“2) what proof of the 25 year timeline do we have?”
I don’t know — what proof DO we have? Of course, if you were in the least bit qualified in science, you would realize that the burden of proof is upon you to show that this alleged 25-year track record exists, not on anyone else to prove that it doesn’t.
“3) why would this company say there is a clinic if in fact it did not exist?”
Why would Madoff have said that his investors’ profits came from clever trading of securities options if where they actually came from was an illegal Ponzi scheme instead? Ummm… duh? Dude, are you seriously expecting us to take “the company says blah-blah-blah” as evidence for blah-blah-blah?
“4) why would this company want to undergo the very clinical trials that would disprove the validity of this product, if in fact it was false?”
Two basic possibilities:
A) The company has convinced itself of the validity of the product, even though it has none, and therefore it wants to undergo the clinical trials that they believe will “confirm” the product’s usefulness. It wouldn’t be the first time.
B) The company knows that the product has no validity, but their plan is simply to keep the show going long enough to collect lots of money from gullible investors and desperate patients, and then disappear with it. The best way to keep the show going and get lots of money coming in is to act like you’ve got the utmost confidence in your product and everyone else should too.
“It would seem to me if you are going to want to dupe people, there would not be any evidence ‘at all’ to back up your claims.”
Oh, wouldn’t the world be easy if things were that simple! I mean, in a world like that, if a restaurant brought you food, the very fact that the food was there would be powerful, if not incontrovertible evidence that it was the finest quality food! Because if the restaurant was going to cheat you by promising you good-quality food and not delivering good-quality food, why would they deliver food at all?? (Well, besides the obvious that if you don’t get food at all, you’ll know you’re being shafted and you won’t pay, so even cheats will put something on your plate.)
“And, you certainly wouldn’t lay it out there with claims such as the exisitence of the clinic, the 25 year time frame, etc.”
Sure you would. That’s the first thing you’d do. Why? Because of gullible souls like Ferguson, who jump to the conclusion that if the claims are made then obviously the claims would hold up under investigation. As long as there are rubes who think “These things are easy to investigate; therefore no one actually needs to investigate” then con men can get away with the very boldest lies.
As for the patent description being some sort of proof — pfft. Yeah, right. I can show you where patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines, compression algorithms that compress all inputs, and other impossible “inventions”. The idea that CellAdam must actually cure cancer simply because a patent examiner noted “the use of the above compounds in the therapy of tumorous diseases and for regenerating tumorous cells and tissues is also claimed” is utter baloney.
Help me bust ‘em! Join me at >>>>>>>
twitter.com/ponzibuster
I’ve recently learned that the company spent millions of dollars over the past 20+ years to support their claim with serious scientific studies.
How many companies that are selling ‘food supplements’ take the effort to support their claims with scientific studies?
Please check out the following link:
http://www.celladam.com/study.html
While I have little reason to believe that CellAdam is a miracle cure, I have little doubt that many comments to this article are made by pseudointellectual establishment snobs who want us to believe that pharmaceutical medicine is the only source of valid information.
In curing cancer , medicine has probably less success than faith - and I have little faith in faith-healers also. In respect to placebos, they have about the same rate of success as chemotherapy in all but about eight different types of cancer.
In respect to any company investing millions of dollars and many years in investigating, no upstart company can afford the amount of money required to compete with the pharmaceutical giants and their in-roads into the FDA aristocracy. If an upstart company comes close to proving a “cure”, the FDA will promply change the ground rules to extend the trials while the pharmaceutical companies continue to pile up profits on ineffective chemo agents. If you doubt this, check what has happened to Burzynski in his efforts to have his system approved. And his system has a long-term success record at treating some cancers that exceed that of competing cancer drugs.
While I have no reason to believe CellAdam will produce any miracle cures, let us not forget that the flawed science of chemotheraphy has also failed us.
Incoming links from other sites