Ukrain is a drug that was created in 1978 and has been promoted to treat cancer, HIV, and few other conditions. The drug is a semi-synthetic form of celandine or also called the Chelidonium plant. Ukrain treatment can be given in two ways, either by intramuscular injection or intravenous injection. Various cancer studies have showed extremely positive results with Ukrain therapy. Results so good, no other alternative cancer treatment has ever achieved. Are these results too good to be true? Or have we finally found an alternative cancer treatment that works better then chemotherapy?
Multiple case studies and clinical trials show Ukrain treatment to be highly active. It has been tested on various types of cancer including, but not limited to, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, and various carcinomas. All of which have responded exceptionally well to Ukrain treatment. Surprising response rates as high as 40% and 2 year survival rate of 78.6% are a common find as shown in a 1996 colorectal monotherapy study. Also, Pancreatic cancer which has one of the lowest survival rates, on ukrain therapy, showed a 76% one year survival rate. And the positive results keep coming. Not one published study reported any negative results. Is Ukrain treatment just that good?
Ukrain Therapy Side effects.
Toxicity of Ukrain therapy seems to be very low. Which is surprising since taking oral celandine (what ukrain is made of) can cause toxic hepatitis. This is where things start to feel a little off. Comparing Ukrain therapy to something like IV Vitamin C, both have about grade 2 adverse events when tested in trials. However, one can be toxic in its oral form and the other is completely non-toxic. You would think injecting a higher dose in your body would cause more side effects and not less. But maybe the manufacturing process solves this issue somehow?
The involvement of the manufacture in most of the trials can cause some justified alarm. This honestly is a big fat red flag when most of the positive data came from the manufacture that produces the drug. This doesn’t mean for sure that the manufacture would omit negative data so the drug would look better, but the possibility surly exists. Many of the trials had issues that would make results questionable as well. For instance, sample size was low, detailed information missing, and only positive results exist. This can maybe explain the lack of toxicity seen in the trials? The manufacture would have a financial interest to show the drug in the best light. This is something you must consider when reading all of the studies.
At a cost of about $3,400 per week for Ukrain therapy injections, even if all the studies were 100% accurate, many people would not be able to afford this. Since this of course would not be covered under insurance, the entire cost would be out of pocket. However, since the ukrain treatment is so expensive, the manufacture should be able to afford at least one quality controlled randomized double blind cancer study. At least that way they can justify that hefty price tag.
At first glance, the Ukrain treatment looks like a super cancer therapy. It looks like something that I spent years looking for. When I found the first Ukrain study, I was really excited. But as I went deeper and deeper, my excitement quickly faded. Studies aren’t perfect, so when a study has a low sample size or has other issues, i can take that into consideration and not completely disregard the study altogether. But add the fact that most of the studies came from the manufacture that has a financial interest in the drug, it becomes a little much. Plus if the manufacture is behind the studies, why not do them correctly in the first place?
I also understand that trying to approve a natural cancer drug by the FDA is a very expensive process. And it does seem that the drug manufacture has been trying to get acceptance by applying for orphan drug status and various other drug approvals. This is an uphill battle, so i am sure they have encountered plenty of resistance regardless of the drugs true potential.
It would be great to see this drug properly tested by an independent third party. If it can even do half of what is shown in the existing trials, we will have a winner. But putting trust in a manufacture that charges over $3000 a week for treatments, is a little hard to do. I have no idea if the manufacture really cares about helping cancer patients or is just in business to collect money from them. I don’t know enough about the manufacture to make that determination. And honestly we might never really know the truth. But if the drug really works, they need to test it properly so they can gain some much needed credibility. Until then, the drug will continue to get pushed back and be criticized for its lack of detailed cancer trials.
- Colorectal Cancer Monotherapy.
- Pancreatic Cancer One Year Survival.
- Pancreatic Phase 2 Trial.
- Combo Treatment With Hyperthermia.
- Dose Comparison.
- Monotherapy Prostate Cancer.
- Bladder Cancer Treatment.
- Rectal Cancer 48 Patients.
- Case Report 1.
- Case Report 2.
- Case Report 3.
- Amino Acids From Tumor Tissue.
- Immune System Effect.
- Hormonal Effect.
- Lab Tests.
- Terminal Cancer Patients Phase 2.
- Effect On Various Carcinomas.
- Systematic Review.