DNA technology led to the abandonment of these viruses in favour of replicative incompetent viruses as vectors for gene therapy.

Alternative Cancer Therapies

Use of Unconventional agents

            In the 1940s as radiation therapy for cancer to public attention, the oscilloclast (a device to correct electron disharmony) was popular. The 1950s saw an intense regulatory effort involving the Hoxsey treatment (an herbal method with external and internal components), found by the Food and Drug Administration (FAD) to have no antitumour effort. With the development of chemotherapy and its early acceptance as a treatment method in the 1960s, saw the flowering of Krebiozen, reported by the FDA to be creatine and found by the NCI to have no antitumour activity (McGinnes, 1991). Continued interest in chemotherapy in the 1970s saw the development of laetrile (a cyanogenic glcoside) with many advocates, including the John Birch Society. Intense public debate occurred resulting in Dr. Charles Moertel’s clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic, and again no antitumour activity was found. The laetrile advocates claimed that the trial were rigged that the real laetrile was not used in the trial. Greek doctors reported that urea can be effective in treatment of skin carcinoma (Danopoulos and Danopoulou, 1974). A liquid medicine made from camphor 714 X is being increasingly used, particularly in patients with breast and prostate cancer (Kaegi, 1998 a). 714 X contain nitrogen, ammonium salt, sodium chloride and ethanol. It is generally given by injection. The treatment is based on an unusual set of therapy about the biology of cancer, such as the importance of ‘somatids,’ particles essential to life, which can be seen only in a special microscope, and a substance, called ‘cocancerogenic K factor ,’ which is said to protect cancer cells from immune attack. There is no systematic human research on 714 X (NCI website).

            Hydrazine sulphate as an alternative anticancer medicine is still very popular in US and Canada (Ernst and Cassileth, 1999). Based on Warburg’s notions that cancer cells are characterized through their anaerobic (rather that aerobic an in normal calls) glucose metabolism, Dr. Joseph Gold, an American research oncologist sought to find a way of blocking this pathway with a view of inhibiting cancerous growth. In his experiment the substance, which apparently proved most effective in achieving this aim, was hydrazine sulphate. Research on hydrazine sulphate as a single agent and in combination with standard chemotherapy regimens continued through the mid-1990s. Hydrazine sulphate has shown only limited anticancer activity in animal and human studies, and the evidence concerning its effectiveness as a treatment for cancer related cachexia by blocking gluconeogenesis, and interfering with supply off nutrients to tumour is inconclusive. Furthermore, hydrazine sulphate has been shown to increase the incidence of several types of tumour in animals, and the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and human Services has classified it as a potential carcinogen. FDA has not yet approved the use of hydrazine sulphate outside the context of clinical trials (NCI website).

            The concept of using oncolytic viruses to treat cancer caught the attention of many scientists. The first published report to establish a link between infection with a virus and the regression of cancer appeared in 1912 (Bergsland and Venook, 2002). Many patients were treated with replication conpetent viruses during the 1950s through the 1970s. Wild type, attenuated, or tissue culture-adapted viruses possessing tumor cell selectivity were used, including adenovirus, mumps virus, NDV, and others. Despite some promising results, the advent of recombinant DNA technology led to the abandonment of these viruses in favour of replicative incompetent viruses as vectors for gene therapy.

Pharmacological and Biological Agents

                Immunology as cancer control mechanism captured public attention in the late 1970s and 80s. Correspondingly, Dr. Lawrence Burton’s immunoaugmentative therapy (IAT) began to flourish in the Bahamas (McGinnes, 1991). Burton’s therapy was based on balancing four protein components in the blood. This injected therapy relied on strengthening the patient’s immune system. According to proponent literature, Burton claimed that IAT was particularly effective in treating mesothelioma (Moss, 1992). Documentation of IAT’s efficacy remained anecdotal. The clinic has continued to operate following Burton’s death but seems to have declined in popularity (Cassileth and Chapman, 1996). As biological therapy entered the scene, the “hot” alternative therapy centered on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons, which are medium sized peptides found in human blood and urine. Probably this ACT is one of the most popular pharmacologic therapies today. Despite laboratory investigation by a scientist who concluded that antineoplastons do not exist (Green, 1992), clinical evidence evaluated under NCI found encouraging results of the therapy for pediatric patients with brain tumors. The study did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, in a best-case series. Investigators at several centers like Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinic Center at the NIH developed protocols for phase ll clinical trial with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski. However, because of the small number of patient in these trials, no definitive conclusion could be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplaston. Studies of Japanese researches have now shown that Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibits cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells in vitro and showed minimum adverse effect in a phase I clinical trial. Antineoplaston AS2-1 was found to be useful as a maintenance agent after transcatherter arterial embolization in patients with liver cancer (Tusda et al., 1997). Antineoplaston A 10 injection was also found useful in treatment of HCC especially for maintenance therapy (Kubabe et al., 1998). Combined therapy of chemoradiation therapy and antineoplastons AS2-1 and A10 in phase I clinical trial showed encouraging results and rapid antitumour response in multiple metastatic lung cancer, thalamic glioma and primary lung cancer (Tusda et al., 1998).

            A 1992 book written by I William Lane, Shark Don’t Get Cancer, followed by a television special that displayed apparent remission in patients with advanced cancer treated with shark cartilage in Cuba, spurred interest in Shark cartilage as a cancer therapy (Cassileth and Chapman, 1996). Two glycoproteins (sphyrnastatin land 2) have been isolated from the cartilage of the hammerheaded shark and were reported to have strong antiangiogenesis activity inhibiting tumour neovascularisation (Lee and Langer, 1983) an effect which could be helpful in cancer therapy. According to mainstream scientist, however, the active macromolecules in the “food supplement” shark cartilage sold at health food stores are too large to permit absorption. They decompose into inert ingredients and are excreted. Despite lack of positive evidence shark cartilage pills and suppositories are widely publicized and are available in health food stores through the United States (Cassileth and Chapman, 1996). To date, no controlled clinical studies testing the efficacy of shark cartilage have been published. Through 3 randomized control trial are under way (Weiger et al., 2002). Preliminary results have been reported from as US trial : 50% of cancer patients who took 100 mg dried cartilage powder daily reported Improvement in quality of life, appetite and relief of pain (Mathews 1993). More recently, well-documented trial was published (Miller et al., 1998). No complete or partial response was noted,