The Last Word

Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients,  Oct, 2001  by Jonathan Collin

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

My apologies to Melvyn Werbach, MD whose writings normally fall on this page (you'll find "Nutritional Influences on Illness" on page 170). And I must admit that I am not one to usually have the "last word." However, knowing that the topic of glandular supplement safety has been broached and opined upon by several writers in this issue, I will take an editorial prerogative and speak last. Viewing the articles and editorial opinions as a whole, it would appear that there is a distinctively negative opinion about the use of glandular supplements. The concern is that the supplement may contain contaminated material perhaps derived from a sick cow having had Mad Cow Disease. Not knowing whether such adulteration may have occurred, there has been a consensus of sorts among the writers this month to abstain from glandular supplement therapy. I would love to look the facts over and concur with this opinion, but I find facts lacking, and writers making hay out of speculation.

Simply put, there is no evidence that animal-based glandular supplements have caused any symptoms of disease in humans. One article printed elsewhere carried a bit of hysteria which claimed that when one elderly patient died with a putative diagnosis of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), that the fact that there were bottles of supplements which she had been using found in her cupboard, was sufficient proof to draw a relationship between supplement use and risk of acquiring vCJD. This is not science, yet some media carried the story with the weight of scientific authority.

One reason that I need to jump into the fray is the remarkable absence of manufacturers of food supplements as well as doctors using glandular supplements, from this issue's editorial opinion. This oversight casts serious doubt over any consensus. My nonscientific polling of supplement manufacturers finds that most believe that their production of glandular supplements follows good manufacturing practices and contains unadulterated product free of potential pathogens. Further, the manufacturers assert that they do implement quality control practices in their obtaining raw material. Among practitioners of natural medicine who do prescribe glandular therapy including a high percentage of naturopathic physicians, chiropractors and alternatively practicing MDs, DOs, DDSs and PhDs, as well as other nutritionists, there. is a general consensus that glandular supplement products are useful and necessary in treatment of patients. Hence, the., inferred consensus of some of our writers that glandular supplements pose significant risks to patients and should not be used, lies squarely in opposition to the thinking of most food supplement manufacturers and many. natural medicine practitioners.

I may be wrongly attributing this thought to the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, but I believe he did state that when two opposing experts argue opposite opinions on a topic of scientific controversy, particularly in the field of medicine, that the courtroom is subject to belligerent, swearing matches of little scientific merit. We may, indeed, have introduced our own swearing match here. The little science that this field (if glandular supplement therapy may be called a field) offers may have had its roots in the seminal work by Royal Lee, founder of Standard Process vitamins, entitled Protomorphology. The text offers the argument, as tenuous as it may be, that glandular materials from animal tissue impart a reconstructive and rejuvenating function in analogous human tissue. The book is unfortunately out-of-print. However, interested readers may attempt to read a synopsis of Royal Lee's writings by contacting the Standard Process Vitamin Company in Wisconsin. Monographs and reviews regarding glandular supplement therapy have been written by other parties. It is true that much of this writing has been criticized and the field of glandular supplement therapy has not been developed scientifically. It has, however, had ample clinical experience, considering that clinical use of glandular supplementation has been made by chiropractors and naturopaths over the years. Alternative cancer therapies, including treatments by Max Gerson, have focused on the use of liver and other glandular materials. Thyroid treatment championed by Broda Barnes emphasized the use of thyroid USP, Armour thyroid, directly derived from beef thyroid tissue. The cancer treatment now under investigation by the NCI of the Kelly treatment administered by Nick Gonzalez, MD requires the administration of pancreatic enzymes and pancreas glandular supplements in remarkably high doses. Certainly any broad sweeping condemnation of glandular therapy flies in the face of current food supplement manufacturing as well as alternative medicine practices.

One should expect quality control in manufacturing of the glandular supplement as well as appropriate clinical judgment in recommending glandulars for treatment, It may well be that consumer use of glandular. supplements in the health food store arena deserves cautionary discussion. However, we do need evidence that glandular supplements have genuinely been injurious to human health, not speculation. As far as I know, manufactured glandular supplements have not yet harmed any patients. That's a pretty good statistic because nearly all drugs have clearly harmed patients to a greater or lesser degree. Even herbal supplements have been implicated in causing some adverse effects. I simply am not aware of glandulars routinely causing adverse effects in humans.