43 replies to this topic

[renfr]

Just found this recent study that ginkgo can cause thyroid and liver cancer : http://cspinet.org/new/201304181.html
The cancer claims seem serious since it's considered to be a "clear evidence".

[dislocation]

is this a new study ? there was one month ago that indicated it might cause cancer but when i read the actual study they used megadoses and dipped in corn oil over prolonged use by rats. i dunno if its the same one or a new one but im curious to ask, ginkgo has been studied for decades now and how come just now they find a study linking it to cancer ?

[joelcairo]

Here's a study in ~3,000 humans taking Ginkgo for dementia. After a median period of ~6 years, the risk ratio of being hospitalized for cancer was 1.09, i.e. an increase of 9%. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was, 0.87- 1.36. The result was not statistically significant. Various types of cancer were analyzed individually, but not surprisingly none of those was statistically significant either.

http://onlinelibrary...s.1979/abstract

Re the in vivo study above, it's worth noting that the corn oil used to carry the extract (and used in the controls) is probably more carcinogenic than ginkgo could ever be. That doesn't invalidate the study, but it makes me wonder about its value.

[renfr]

There's the whole PDF of this new study : http://ntp.niehs.nih...s/TR578_508.pdf
Appendix J (page 177) contains information about how the rats and mice were fed.
Particularly they were given corn oil and soy oil as well as a soybean meal, I'm not sure if the addition of these foods changed significantly results but it's true that soy is very unhealthy.
I'm not sure if the CSPI is government-controlled or honest in their studies.

[Logic]

Ok; I'm going to go all 'conspiracy theory' here:

There's a new thread saying that Telomerase activation does not increase lifespan, and now a study saying a known telomerase activator causes cancer...

Keep an eye open for new studies saying astragalus, purslane, fenugreek, etc. will make your head explode from confusing, contradicting studies!

[renfr]

Ok; I'm going to go all 'conspiracy theory' here:

There's a new thread saying that Telomerase activation does not increase lifespan, and now a study saying a known telomerase activator causes cancer...

Keep an eye open for new studies saying astragalus, purslane, fenugreek, etc. will make your head explode from confusing, contradicting studies!

I know, that's why I'm questioning the impartiality of the CSPI, I suspect it is FDA controlled and they try to give themselves a reason to ban herbal remedies, they already did that in Europe 2 years ago with the THMPD.

[Guardian4981]

I believe it is commonly accepted that ginko raises blood sugar. Any kind of blood sugar changes has the high potential to influence thyroid health.

We know that hypoglycemia will greatly lower T3, perhaps a rise in blood sugar may cause higher T3, T3 is created mostly in the liver. This is only theory though.

The thyroid is one of the most tricky areas when it comes to health.

[renfr]

I believe it is commonly accepted that ginko raises blood sugar. Any kind of blood sugar changes has the high potential to influence thyroid health.

We know that hypoglycemia will greatly lower T3, perhaps a rise in blood sugar may cause higher T3, T3 is created mostly in the liver. This is only theory though.

The thyroid is one of the most tricky areas when it comes to health.

You mean ginkgo causes low blood sugar, there are studies about ginkgo's ability to increase insulin sensitivity and be beneficial to diabetic people.
I don't know much about the relationship between blood sugar and thyroid, the fact that there is thyroid cancer indicates more a lack of thyroid than too much thyroid and this can cause cancer and goiter.

[majkinetor]

If ginko reduces blood sugar, then it must reduce cancer incidence since of Warburg effect.

[Guardian4981]

From Livestrong

http://www.livestron...ur-blood-sugar/



"
Ginkgo

Ginkgo biloba is also taken for many conditions. It might be beneficial in treating age-related memory impairment, dementia, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma and peripheral vascular disease. According to the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, ginkgo seems to alter insulin secretion and metabolism. It might increase insulin breakdown by the liver, leading to lower insulin levels and increased blood sugar. If you have diabetes, check with your doctor before taking ginkgo and monitor your blood sugar level closely"

[renfr]

From Livestrong

http://www.livestron...ur-blood-sugar/



"
Ginkgo

Ginkgo biloba is also taken for many conditions. It might be beneficial in treating age-related memory impairment, dementia, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma and peripheral vascular disease. According to the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, ginkgo seems to alter insulin secretion and metabolism. It might increase insulin breakdown by the liver, leading to lower insulin levels and increased blood sugar. If you have diabetes, check with your doctor before taking ginkgo and monitor your blood sugar level closely"

Never listen to Livestrong, there's so much BS on this website.
On the same website you can find an article saying the exact contrary : http://www.livestron...inkgo-diabetes/
Anyone can write an article on Livestrong and say whatever they want, it's totally unreliable.
There are some studies on ginkgo and insulin levels :
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11402628
http://www.sciencedi...211383511000074

Ginkgo biloba seems to enhance insulin response to sugar, the effect is probably too minor to cause low blood sugar, it probably doesn't affect it that much and wouldn't be a significant factor in cancer formation.

[dislocation]

in relation to conspiracies, why would FDA want ginkgo banned anyway. if it does cause cancer, FDA already allows shitload of things that cause cancer to be on the market and doesnt show any interest in removing them. also if its related to pharmaceutical intersts, ginkgo is too weak of an anti-dementia medicine (high doses, long term intake) to be threatening their drug versions which are hightly potent. perhaps its just a weak performed study and nothing to do with any intention to turn it into an enemy of the consumer.

[nightlight]

Keep in mind that these are 'cancer rodents' i.e. bred to genetically develop numerous cancers as they age. Hence any angiogenic substance will yield additional cancers (due to better blood supply; blood supply is the main throttle on their runaway cancers). Hence, with 'cancer rodent' animal models there is inversion of values -- what is normally good for you (e.g. boost in circulation or in telomorase) becames "carcinogenic" in such experiments, since what helps keep your healthy cells young and vital, helps cancer cells too. Since we're not 'cancer rodents', at least not nearly to the degree as these animals are, I would flip their "conclusions" upside down before applying to myself.

In this case, there is an additional reason to "flip" the conclusions. Considering the funding source (corrupt government agencies itching to find an excuse to ban yet another benefical traditional medicinal plant), I find such studies very useful in deciding what to take -- the harder they go after some natural medicine, the more money someone who is paying them off (usually pharmaceutical industry) is losing on their own products, hence the more beneficial for me the target is. Generally, for any health advice (and many others, such as on guns, tobacco,...) from government bureaucrats, I find it most beneficial for myself to do exactly the opposite. Among other benefits, I haven't visited docs since 91.

It basically comes down to realization that biochemical networks of one tiny cell in your little toe know more about biochemistry and molecular scale bio-engineering of health than all the biochemsts, molecular biologists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, medical researchers, doctors,... in the world put together.

Edited by nightlight, 13 May 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[niner]

Oh for godsake. The conspiracy theory is so stupid it hurts. Has anyone actually read the paper? If you do, you'll find out, for example, that although the various animals were fed corn oil, the controls also got corn oil with no Ginkgo in it.

[dislocation]

i dunno what to do. should i throw away my ginkgo now ?

[niner]

i dunno what to do. should i throw away my ginkgo now ?

Do you feel like it's doing you any good? I took some a long time ago and thought that it improved my memory, which may or may not have been a placebo effect. However, it raised my blood pressure, so I dumped it. Some years later I tried a different brand. I didn't notice any memory effect, but it raised my bp again. My doctor said he sees that a lot from ginkgo. So, personally, I'm done with it. If it did something I liked, and didn't have any short term issues, I might still take it. People aren't mice, after all.

[ihatesnow]

http://www.technolog...ancer/#comments

[Godof Smallthings]

i dunno what to do. should i throw away my ginkgo now ?

Do you feel like it's doing you any good? I took some a long time ago and thought that it improved my memory, which may or may not have been a placebo effect. However, it raised my blood pressure, so I dumped it. Some years later I tried a different brand. I didn't notice any memory effect, but it raised my bp again. My doctor said he sees that a lot from ginkgo. So, personally, I'm done with it. If it did something I liked, and didn't have any short term issues, I might still take it. People aren't mice, after all.

It is an effective concentration enhancer for me, so I'd like to keep using it, but now I may have to reconsider again, as I did with ALCAR. It's a bummer that whenever something comes along and seems genuinely effective, like these two did for me, it is soon discredited...

Can somebody with the right type of knowledge compare the dose the mice were given and convert that into a human dose, so I can see whether they dropped megadoses on the rats compared to what most people take, or not?

[hav]

i dunno what to do. should i throw away my ginkgo now ?

Do you feel like it's doing you any good? I took some a long time ago and thought that it improved my memory, which may or may not have been a placebo effect. However, it raised my blood pressure, so I dumped it. Some years later I tried a different brand. I didn't notice any memory effect, but it raised my bp again. My doctor said he sees that a lot from ginkgo. So, personally, I'm done with it. If it did something I liked, and didn't have any short term issues, I might still take it. People aren't mice, after all.

I noticed the same blood pressure effect myself. Switched to Chaga which gave me similar cognitive effects as ginkgo without the bp boost.

Regarding this study 62.5 mg/kg of body weight was the lowest dosage they used. Ranging to doses as high as 2 gm/kg. The soy oil mentioned earlier is an ingredient of the NTP-2000 meal they were all raised on.

All ginkgo doses were dissolved in corn oil. My recollection from a c60/corn oil study was that corn oil itself was found to be toxic. It's curious that their control group here found no toxicity from the corn oil. It looks like the corn oil amount was lower (2.5 ml/kg for mice and 5 ml/kg for rats) and maybe just below the toxicity threshold. I'm guessing the ginkgo in this study somehow boosted the toxic effect of the corn oil they dissolved it in. A repeat study with some more neutral oil, like olive oil, could settle that.

As an aside, the bulk of the contents in ginkgo are water soluble and not oil soluble. This study identified some of the lipophilic constituents of ginkgo as being responsible for the desirable effects on the brain. This corn oil/ginkgo study sounds like it used a homogeneous oil suspension rather than an oil solution to me. Makes me wonder if they would have gotten the same results if they had at least filtered their formulation.

Howard

[renfr]

i dunno what to do. should i throw away my ginkgo now ?

Do you feel like it's doing you any good? I took some a long time ago and thought that it improved my memory, which may or may not have been a placebo effect. However, it raised my blood pressure, so I dumped it. Some years later I tried a different brand. I didn't notice any memory effect, but it raised my bp again. My doctor said he sees that a lot from ginkgo. So, personally, I'm done with it. If it did something I liked, and didn't have any short term issues, I might still take it. People aren't mice, after all.

I noticed the same blood pressure effect myself. Switched to Chaga which gave me similar cognitive effects as ginkgo without the bp boost.

Regarding this study 62.5 mg/kg of body weight was the lowest dosage they used. Ranging to doses as high as 2 gm/kg. The soy oil mentioned earlier is an ingredient of the NTP-2000 meal they were all raised on.

All ginkgo doses were dissolved in corn oil. My recollection from a c60/corn oil study was that corn oil itself was found to be toxic. It's curious that their control group here found no toxicity from the corn oil. It looks like the corn oil amount was lower (2.5 ml/kg for mice and 5 ml/kg for rats) and maybe just below the toxicity threshold. I'm guessing the ginkgo in this study somehow boosted the toxic effect of the corn oil they dissolved it in. A repeat study with some more neutral oil, like olive oil, could settle that.

As an aside, the bulk of the contents in ginkgo are water soluble and not oil soluble. This study identified some of the lipophilic constituents of ginkgo as being responsible for the desirable effects on the brain. This corn oil/ginkgo study sounds like it used a homogeneous oil suspension rather than an oil solution to me. Makes me wonder if they would have gotten the same results if they had at least filtered their formulation.

Howard

Well said, ginkgo dilates blood vessels and enhances blood uptake by cells, this could have increased corn oil absorption and aggravated its toxic effects.

[xsiv1]

No person should EVER (and I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means) discount the role and power pharmaceutical companies have and the collusion that may occur between them and the FDA or Health Canada or any other regulatory Federal health agency. You can find scores of supplements that a patent couldn't be put on that have suddenly been proven as unsafe despite a long history of use. The problem also lies with unsavory supplement companies who don't offer what they claim is in the capsule or powder. One Ginseng brand may be superior to another. It's the nature of the beast. A recent investigative report on the FDA and it's subcontracting labs who end up with lucrative human clinical trials found that those very trials were completely biased in that many of the subjects were engaged in more than one clinical study using other drugs. They're often found to be living in destitute regions of 3rd world countries. Meridia? Ooopsy. Fen-Phen. Owww. Ephedrine? Hmmm. Suppose anything can be abused enough to cause adverse or fatal events. Iron supplements? One of the top compounds found in fatal child overdoses. Tylenol? Suppose ephedrine can be used to make Meth, but household compounds can be used to make noxious concoctions capable of bringing an easy suicide or worse, as a tool for murder. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if an OTC or any other supplement gets banned or discredited when it crosses Bigpharma's competing interests. It's not as unlikely as some may think. Many of the approved medications prescribed for you make a person worse than when they present. SSRI's, ever increasing evidence against the use of statins and now EFAS are being discredited in ANY amounts.

Edited by xsiv1, 14 May 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Logic]

Oh for godsake. The conspiracy theory is so stupid it hurts. Has anyone actually read the paper? If you do, you'll find out, for example, that although the various animals were fed corn oil, the controls also got corn oil with no Ginkgo in it.

No I didn't read the paper. My post was a knee jerk reaction based on what I know of Ginkgo.
It was a semi tongue in cheek post which I hoped would get further discussion going

The NIH, being the NIH, must know that corn oil is crap.
So WTF mix the Ginkgo with it!??

Ginkgo has broad-spectrum effects against a host of degenerative diseases.
As such it is one of the most frequently prescribed drugs in France and Germany.
This fact alone makes it a money loser for other more profitable drugs.

Ginkgo increased lifespan of rats to the surprise of French researchers evaluating its neurological effects.
http://www.lef.org/m...9/apr99-itn.htm

http://www.lef.org/m...ife-Span_01.htm

[Luminosity]

Gingko is not taken in conjunction with what is likely GMO corn oil, or dissolved in corn oil. It is not taken in megadoses. If they really wanted to know what it does, they would have given it the right way. This is happening more and more. In a sound bite world, we see a headline that this supplement is harmful or doesn't work. Then when you read the study, you see that once again, they did something really weird with the supplement that no one would ever do.

Hmmmm.

Who would have a motive for doing that?

[joelcairo]

Ginkgo increased lifespan of rats to the surprise of French researchers evaluating its neurological effects.
http://www.lef.org/m...9/apr99-itn.htm

http://www.lef.org/m...ife-Span_01.htm

Actually ginkgo increased survival and the median lifespan in some of the arms of this study as well. Especially in females, for some reason, even at the highest megadose level. Make of that what you will. See tables 5 (rats) and 15 (mice).

[nightlight]

Ginkgo increased lifespan of rats to the surprise of French researchers evaluating its neurological effects.
http://www.lef.org/m...9/apr99-itn.htm

http://www.lef.org/m...ife-Span_01.htm

Actually ginkgo increased survival and the median lifespan in some of the arms of this study as well. Especially in females, for some reason, even at the highest megadose level. Make of that what you will. See tables 5 (rats) and 15 (mice).

It is not a paradox if you recall that this "study" used 'cancer rodents' -- these animals were bred to get riddled with genetically caused cancers from late middle age. All the "study" has "discovered" is the circulatory effects of ginkgo -- the more blood supply in given organ it produces, the more genetically caused cancers they will see in that organ.

If the study were not meant to "prove" predetermined conclusion (that g.b. is bad for you), they would have sequenced the cancers to establish whether the excess tumors were of different origin than those caused genetically.

Edited by nightlight, 15 May 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[majkinetor]

If the study were not meant to "prove" predetermined conclusion (that g.b. is bad for you), they would have sequenced the cancers to establish whether the excess tumors were of different origin than those caused genetically.

Different origin ? Is that even possible ? Does it matter that "cancer prone type" is used ? Controls are the same type of animals I presume. Its intriguing that majority of folks here wine about cornoil and stuff, all those are not important. Do people even understand how studies are conducted before commenting ?

So, the only difference between animals is the ginko, nothing else.

The real question is weather those results are unique to this mouse type and this type of diet (that is ginko does harm in that specific environmental/genetic context) or those are applicable to wild mice type.

Edited by majkinetor, 15 May 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[nightlight]

If the study were not meant to "prove" predetermined conclusion (that g.b. is bad for you), they would have sequenced the cancers to establish whether the excess tumors were of different origin than those caused genetically.

Different origin ? Is that even possible ?

Of course, sequencing differentiates types and origins of cancers.

Does it matter that "cancer prone type" is used ? Controls are the same type of animals I presume. Its intriguing that majority of folks here wine about cornoil and stuff, all those are not important. Do people even understand how studies are conducted before commenting ?
So, the only difference between animals is the ginko, nothing else.

It matters of course. Anything that promotes angiogenesis or circulation will increase the number of cancers. Consider analogy of human organism with social organism. Improving angiogenesis & circulation is analogous to improving roads and traffic flows. That is normally good for the nation. But in case of war or insurrection, it becomes liability since enemy can use the same roads to conquer the country more quickly. E.g. in WWII, the well developed nation France fell to Nazis in weeks, while backwards Balkans were never fully fell under control beyond the main cities. The argument against ginkgo here is then analaogous to arguing that nations should remain backwards and not build roads since in case of war enemy can conquer them more easily. Cancer, like war, inverts the values, what was good (circulation) becomes bad, what was bad (toxic chemo) becomes good in case of cancer.

The real question is weather those results are unique to this mouse type and this type of diet (that is ginko does harm in that specific environmental/genetic context) or those are applicable to wild mice type.

Yep, that's the experiment that should have been done, with wild strains. But then, they couldn't scare people away from a beneficial natural suplement. Like so much medical & other research lately, this was obviously an agenda ($$$) driven "research", hence one should take its conclusions & advice and flip them upside down.

[majkinetor]

Of course, sequencing differentiates types and origins of cancers.

Not necessarily because of convergent evolution.

It matters of course. Anything that promotes angiogenesis or circulation will increase the number of cancers.

Yes, but how that relates to anything ? We have cancer prone mices that eat shitty food and some of them get ginko. Angiogenesis ability is the same in both type of mices since they are of same strain. I don't understand why do you teach here about relative benefits. Cancer cells are of the same origin as yours ofc, they benefit for the same reasons in majority of cases.

Yep, that's the experiment that should have been done, with wild strains

And that is precisely why it isn't done, because you would need enormous amount of mices that are not prone to cancer to get statistical power.

But then, they couldn't scare people away from a beneficial natural supplement.

While I don't argue that this isn't pre-aranged study (I really don't know) arguments so far aren't convincing. "Natural" means almost nothing, and "beneficial" may be hype. Actually, Bruce Ames showed long time ago that natural substances are nothing less cancerogenic then synthetic ones, and there is a hell lot more of them. Plant isn't here to supplement us, but to survive. It provides benefits to other creatures only with common interest and you can only speculate if such situation is happening here or if it happens at all anywhere. If ginko works by hormesis, then dosing is crucial - low doses would be beneficial, high doses would be detrimental. Perhaps that is what is shown here - which only means that they didn't do anything wrong and nobody will ever find a problem with research cuz there isn't any, its just interpretation thats wrong, not the data.

Edited by majkinetor, 15 May 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[Logic]

Removed

Edited by Logic, 15 May 2013 - 09:33 PM.

[niner]

It is not a paradox if you recall that this "study" used 'cancer rodents' -- these animals were bred to get riddled with genetically caused cancers from late middle age. All the "study" has "discovered" is the circulatory effects of ginkgo -- the more blood supply in given organ it produces, the more genetically caused cancers they will see in that organ.

The Fischer 344 strain was not bred to be "riddled with genetically caused cancers". It's a general purpose strain. Is there any evidence that ginkgo makes any difference in perfusion? How do you know that increased blood supply wouldn't reduce the likelihood of cancer? There would be more cancer-fighting leukocytes available.