Tel: 1-909-396-6530 USA
Fax: 1-909-474-8856 USA
Online Skype / Yahoo IM
 user name: Nutrimartus

16 Questions Most Often Asked of
Dr. Lane

1) What is shark cartilage?

Shark cartilage makes up the entire skeleton of the shark (about 6%-8% of its gross weight). Being prehistoric, sharks do not have calcified skeletons like more advanced creatures such as man or fish.

2) How does it work?

It appears to work through the activity of at least four complex proteins contained in the cartilage. The proteins appear to inhibit the development of new blood capillaries needed to feed a fast growing tumor. Without a feeding network, a tumor can't grow and existing tumors may wither (necroses) when their fragile blood vessels break down and are not replaced. Normal blood vessels are sturdy and last for years; whereas, tumor blood vessels are very fragile. Other processes are involved, such as the inhibition of cell division and immune system stimulation; however, I feel that the main action comes by inhibiting new blood vessel development. It's interesting to note that this inhibition of new blood vessel formation occurs in any and all metastasis of a tumor and not just the primary tumor itself.

3) If it inhibits new blood vessel development, does this make it dangerous for me if I have high blood pressure or heart problems?

I am not a medical doctor and competent medical advice should be sought before embarking on any new therapy, but you and your doctor should keep something in mind. Your existing blood network rarely has to be replaced. Generally, new blood vessels form only when: one has a growth, like a tumor (cancerous or benign); during pregnancy; following a recent coronary when collateral arteries form around a blockage to the heart; following major surgery; or during a major body-building program or similar situation. I am strictly a researcher, but at times each of us are forced to weigh degrees of risk. For example, if one has a non responsive tumor, that will kill in a short time and also a heart condition, obviously the degree of danger from each of the risks has to be accessed. Life is full of risks and choices must often be made as to which course of action will provide the greatest chance of survival for the patient: Again, I am not a medical doctor, this is only my opinion. Competent medical advice must be sought in each case. As for high blood pressure, the use of shark cartilage shouldn't pose any problem.

4) Why, in your opinion, are there so many negative comments directed at shark cartilage therapy, especially from the top researchers at certain New England universities? Aren't these some of the same people you praise so highly in your book and in speeches? This is especially difficult to understand, since the clinical work and the patient response to shark cartilage therapy has been so favorable.

It is hard to understand their motivation. I believe the criticism is based on the belief that I violated some unwritten scientific creed by worrying more about dying cancer patients than I have about publishing in some scientific journal, a process that could take years. The theory of using angio-genesis inhibition as a method to fight cancer was published 25 years ago. Eleven years ago, it was published that shark cartilage could inhibit angio-genesis and was effective in experimentally stopping tumor growth in rabbits. Even still, dying patients were not being helped by these theories until my work with shark cartilage. Many are critical of my work today because I took this information directly to those that were dying, rather than only to the scientific community. My feelings then and now are if something is non-toxic, it can't hurt, and the so-called acceptable methods have failed, why can't a patient be given a chance at life? Today thousands of patients are using shark cartilage and based on my mail and phone calls, thousands are being helped. The scientific community has gotten carried away with chemistry and are obsessed with learning the make-up and identification of the active substances in shark cartilage. This is partially due to scientific curiosity, but also largely because of the financial opportunities that synthesis can yield. My desire to work with an active, though crude, natural product in order to save lives while at the same time looking to identify the active components, obviously is contrary to accepted methods and has stirred up considerable criticism. I feel that I am right and they are wrong. But because of their association with the large universities, their opinions often carry more weight than mine. However, the positive responses on many terminal no hope patients appears to be changing this slowly. The criticism hurts, especially since I respect those that give it and because it is given in such an unfair and authoritative way. Possibly, angio-genesis inhibition is not the only mode of action and possibly other activities in the shark cartilage are also effective, but the important thing is people are being helped and this may be the only shining light on the nearby horizon in cancer therapy. If I were to do it again I WOULD NOT CHANGE despite the criticism and the lack of financial funding and support.

5) Despite the good results being reported by so many cancer patients who were considered hopeless, why haven't all doctors and medical centers started to recommend shark cartilage therapy, at least when conventional therapy has failed and there is little hope for the patient?

This is a tough question and one that is somewhat political. Many doctors are afraid of being sued or shunned by other practitioners if they suggest something that is not officially approved by the FDA or considered mainstream therapy by the orthodox medical establishment. If they recommend chemo or radiation and a patient dies, they are safe from lawsuits. On the other hand, if they suggest a non-recognized therapy, like shark cartilage, there is a good chance they could be sued should the patient die. A patient can help a doctor with this dilemma by telling the doctor they've decided to use shark cartilage therapy and will take responsibility for the results; however, they would like the doctor to monitor the results. Also, you must realize that the medical profession is quite conservative and in many ways closely associated with the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors get a great deal of information from representatives of the pharmaceutical companies and since this therapy was not developed by the pharmaceutical industry, precise information is not as readily available as it is with other therapies. Additionally, since shark cartilage is presently classified as a food supplement, no medical claims can be made. As such, disseminating information on the therapy has been difficult. FDA-sanctioned clinical trials are underway and hopefully, within a short time, some limited uses will be approved. This will ease this problem and make information more available to the doctor. Even now the information is available. I speak regularly all over the world and although these talks are well attended by patients, only the more open-minded doctors seem to attend and show an interest in the therapy.

6) If shark cartilage can help with very advanced stage 3 and stage 4 cancers, why isn't it effective with the less-advanced stage 1 or stage 2 patients?

I believe that shark cartilage can help at any stage of cancer. At the same time, however, I would never suggest that a patient abandon the currently accepted therapeutic approaches to treatment, until if and when, we have a lot more research under our belt and FDA approval. Although we still need more clinical trials to support the idea, the best approach would probably be to include shark cartilage along with the more traditional therapies like surgery, radiation and hormone therapies. Many natural health advocates are strongly opposed to chemo and radiation, for reasons we all understand. At this time, I remain open on these points, but I do feel that shark cartilage in combination with these accepted therapies can help. Unfortunately, at this time I have no hard evidence comparing the effectiveness of shark cartilage with or without conventional therapies. I can't help but think, however, that using a treatment like shark cartilage that preserves the integrity of the immune Is system, could only improve ones chances of survival. Certainly chemo and radiation in many cases hurt the ability of the immune system to naturally protect the body.

7) What is the difference between powder, capsules and tablets?

The material in all three would be the same. For high dosages, powder is probably easier to take and less expensive. At the higher dosages, the gelatin capsules become illogical. The large amounts of gelatin could cause digestive problems. Some patients might find tablets, provided they disintegrate readily, more suitable than the powder, especially if the powder has an unpleasant taste. Again, the dosage is the important part. The type of product will be determined by whatever method of introduction is up to the patient and their ability to use powder or the need to use tablets.

8) Do you suggest that shark cartilage be self-medicated or should I consult and work with a doctor?

Although shark cartilage is a food supplement that can be purchased without a prescription, for something serious like cancer, especially advanced stage cancer, competent medical monitoring and advice is mandatory in my opinion. When selecting a doctor, try to seek out a medical or naturopathic doctor who is familiar with the therapy since experience is needed to evaluate and guide progress. Until more doctors are aware and sympathetic to the therapy, this may take some searching, but my office will try to steer you to a knowledgeable practitioner OR possibly even help advise your own doctor. Often one may have to travel to see a doctor with experience with the therapy, at least until more doctors recognize its potential, but I feel one can justify a short trip if it might help save your life. I speak around the country and around the world a lot and hopefully more and more doctors will start attending my lectures or reading my books as a starter. An increasing number of doctor groups are inviting me to speak and I rarely refuse such an opportunity. So you may also suggest to your doctor that his or her organization invite me to address them so that the knowledge can be intelligently evaluated by competent practitioners rather than just rejected as quackery as many may arbitrarily do at first. The data has been presented to some of the more critical organizations, including some of the best known cancer research centers, and to date, not one has expressed anything but major interest.

9) What dosage levels of shark cartilage have you found to be most effective with various maladies? We recognize that you are not a medical doctor, but please give us your thoughts based on the research and results reported to you.

Doctors working with hundreds of patients typically suggest that with conventional shark cartilage, 1 gram per 2.2 pounds of body weight, per day is effective. However, with very advanced cases, doctors have been using up to twice that level, namely, 1 gram per pound of body weight per day. I suggest 35 grams per 100 pounds of body weight per day as the standard therapeutic dose for advanced cancer. This is a reduction of 30% over conventionally processed shark cartilage. Since there is no toxicity or known adverse side effects, a dose two times higher (70 grams per 100 pounds of body weight per day) may be warranted for very advanced cases to yield a faster response. This should be a judgment call on the part of the practitioner. Most people drink the cartilage orally, in 15 to 20 gram doses, taken as often as needed throughout the day to get the full daily dose. Ideally, the dosage can be divided into three equal portions with each portion being mixed in 4 to 6 ounces of juice (orange, apple, grape or tomato) or water in a mechanical blender and taken 15 to 30 minutes before meals. Make it fresh each time, because if allowed to sit in an acidic juice for an extended period it may lose potency. Generally, the high dose is continued until the tumors are largely gone and the blood markers are normal. This is usually a minimum of 20 weeks. If after 20 weeks, the patient has shown significant improvement, you may lower the dosage first by 50% for 4 weeks and then to a holding dosage of 8 to 10 grams daily, for an extended period of time. The dosage should be increased if tumors start to grow again. Based on research and reports to date, this now appears to be the best approach.

10) Based on your experience, what other conditions can shark cartilage therapy potentially improve?

Although I haven't been directly involved with clinical research in these areas, following are observations that have been reported to me by other health care professionals as guidelines for suggested treatment of the following conditions:

11) When I take shark cartilage, what effects should I look for? How long will it be before I notice any
changes?

Based on reports from patients, doctors and scientists working with shark cartilage, I am able to give you some general observations. Understand, however, that each person and each case is different so these are only observations. Generally, by the forth to sixth week, one begins to get a feeling of well being and experience an improvement in their quality of life. This happens in almost all cases. By the eighth to tenth week, there is almost always a mitigation of any pain that was present, especially in cases involving bone cancer. Hopefully, by the twelfth week, changes begin to occur within the tumor itself as well as any applicable blood tumor markers like PSA in prostate cancers. Also, at this time we often encounter tumor encapsulation and tumor death. As it was shown in the Cuban study, a scan may not show tumor reduction, but expectantly it will show reduced, or eliminated tumor growth. This is where blood tumor markers can be most useful. They can indicate a change in tumor activity even if a scan shows no change in size or shape.
These observations assume the patient has taken the cartilage routinely. The tumor response to shark cartilage therapy may come more slowly than that which occurs from chemical or radiation treatment. However, shark cartilage therapy doesn't trigger the severe adverse side effects
associated with conventional therapies. Patients often comment that the biological events which results from shark cartilage therapy unfold slower, patients that go on the therapy must be able to survive at least 8 to 10 weeks. Waiting to start shark cartilage until a patient only has a few days left to live doesn't give the therapy enough time to work.

12) What daily dosages do you suggest be taken for the prevention of cancer or for cancer patients presently in a state of remission?

We have never run a preventative study. Such a study would be extremely expensive and would require monitoring a large number of patients over a very long period of time. Without government funding this is beyond my means. However, it is my present feeling, as well as many of the doctors I work with, that a dosage of 7 to 10 grams per day should prove to be a fairly good prophylactic dose. Again, this is only an educated guess and is what I would do if I were the patient involved. All of this could be taken orally and divided into two doses, one in the morning and one in the evening.

13) Why do you suggest taking the shark cartilage before meals and if so how long before meals?

The orally administered shark cartilage, primarily the active protein portion, can be partially damaged by major exposure to stomach acids. On an empty stomach, the cartilage will pass through the stomach rapidly with minimum damage from the acid. This is the primary reason I suggest taking it on an empty stomach. However, if that is not possible, taking the shark
cartilage on a partial or full stomach will not render the cartilage completely ineffective. The exact degree of destruction caused by stomach acid is difficult to assess. My thoughts in this regard are hypothetical and logical, but have not been proven.

14) Which method of administration is best, oral or rectal?

The patients in the Cuban study were initially given the cartilage rectally. At six weeks, they were able to choose either method. Most patients today are taking the cartilage orally and the results appear to be equal in effectiveness. The FDA trials are all oral, but no results are yet available. If for some reason one can't take the product orally, the retention enema approach is a good alternative.

15) How can I recognize a good shark cartilage product versus so many of the knock-off or copycats which may be ineffective or even harmful?

Ever since the "60 Minutes" show, numerous new and untested so called Shark cartilage products" appeared overnight on the market. The cleaning, drying, pulverizing and sterilizing are critical to activity. Pure shark cartilage that is fresh or frozen when fresh, is mandatory in a product that is to be used with critical patients. Unfortunately, many if not most, of the quickly derived copycats are loaded with sugar or other dilutants. This is still the case, although more quality oriented organizations are now entering the market as the sales grow. My best advice to you is deal with a known name, either as a trademark or a manufacturing company and beware of the bargain or multi-level marketed products. My observations regarding a frozen product, where a few cc's can replace 100 grams of a good powdered product, have also been poor and an assay has shown the product to be over 99% water. This alarms me. Odor and taste can also be a tip-off, unless of course, as in one product, flavoring is used to try to mask the bad taste. If cartilage is really clean, taste and odor will be minimal. True cleaning is difficult and costly.