Gene-Eden-VIR Decreased Physical and Mental Fatigue in a Post Marketing Clinical Study...

[Bob]

Not sure what to make of this abstract... Full paper available... It might be a commercially motivated study...


Gene-Eden-VIR Decreased Physical and Mental Fatigue in a Post Marketing Clinical Study That Followed FDA Guidelines; Results Support Microcompetition Theory
Hanan Polansky, Edan Itzkovitz
March 2014
Pharmacology & Pharmacy, Vol. 5 No. 3, 2014, pp. 280-290. doi: 10.4236/pp.2014.53035.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=44234

ABSTRACT

Objective: The Microcompetition with Foreign DNA theory, proposed by Hanan Polansky in 2003, describes how latent viruses can cause chronic conditions, including fatigue. The Gene-Eden-VIR formula was designed to target latent viruses. Therefore, the theory predicts that treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR will decrease fatigue in individuals infected with a latent virus. The objective of this study was to test this prediction. Framework: A post marketing clinical study that followed FDA guidelines. Treatment: Gene-Eden-VIR, a dietary supplement. A capsule of Gene-Eden-VIR includes 100 mg of quercetin, 150 mg of green tea extract, 50 mg of cinnamon extract, 25 mg of licorice extract, and 100 mcg of selenium. The treatment included 1, 2, 3, or 4 capsules per day, and lasted 2 to 54 weeks. Population: 100 individuals infected with a latent virus, including the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV), Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV), and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Ages ranged from 20 to 66. All participants reported a feeling of fatigue at the start of the study. Specifically, 98, 90, and 79 participants reported a feeling of general, physical, and mental fatigue, respectively. Results: Following treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR, 73.47%, 62.22%, and 47.36% reported a decrease in their feeling of general, physical, and mental fatigue, respectively. The participants also reported a statistically significant decrease in every aspect of fatigue tested in the study. The results also showed a duration effect, that is, those treated for 2 months or more reported a larger decrease in their feeling of fatigue (general, p=0.03, n=65; physical and mental, p=0.05, n=70). The results showed no interviewer bias, and no selection bias. In addition, the results showed therapeutic consistency under varying manufacturing conditions. The participants reported no side effects after taking Gene-Eden-VIR. Conclusions: This post marketing clinical study showed that treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR safely decreased the feeling of general, physical, and mental fatigue in individuals infected with a latent virus. Since most individuals are infected with a latent virus, health care practitioners should recommend Gene-Eden-VIR as a first line treatment for fatigue. The results of this post marketing clinical study support the Microcompetition with Foreign DNA theory.

 

[Bob]

Further info, and some background info, in a Press Release...

Study: CFS Linked to Latent EBV Replication; polyDNA Recommends Gene-Eden-VIR Against Latent Epstein Barr Virus and Resulting Fatigue
Rochester, NY (PRWEB) March 30, 2014
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1819754

 

[Hip]

Hanan Polansky argues that many common diseases will be eventually found to have an infectious etiology. Polansky believes that "most cases of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, and many other chronic diseases are caused by an infection with a common latent or chronic virus".

Polansky book Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and the Origin of Chronic Disease is technical book, but the introductory chapter is nontechnical, and pitched at a popular science level. FREE Download of Hanan Polansky’s Book in PDF Format (3.6MB).

The basic idea of Hanan Polansky’s book (often referred to as the "Purple Book") is that our own DNA and RNA is in competition with the foreign viral and bacterial DNA and RNA that gets into our cells, and this competitive battle may underlie a vast array of common chronic diseases.

I think more researchers should look into this thesis that common chronic diseases may be caused by chronic microbial infection.

I am not sure about Polansky’s sideline in selling an antiviral supplement called Gene Eden, which simply contains the natural antivirals Camellia sinensis extract (presumably EGCG), quercetin, licorice extract (presumably glycyrrhizic acid), Cinnamomum extract (presumably cinnamic acid) and selenium.


One other researcher famous for the same proposition is Paul Ewald. In his book Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease, Paul Ewald says:

“Like many great ideas in biology, the idea implicating infectious causation in chronic diseases, though simple, has far-reaching implications. It is so simple and so significant, that one would think it would have been recognized by many and would be the starting point for any discussion on the causes of disease. Not yet.“


If more researchers thought like Hanan Polansky and Paul Ewald, I think we would see much more progress in understanding and ultimately curing ME/CFS. Too few researchers realize how infectious causation may well underlie the majority of non-genetic diseases.

 

[Jon_Tradicionali]

Every piece of evidence linked to this product is hand picked to support its claims. I gave Polansky and her product the benefit of the doubt and tried it. Nothing at all happened of course.

As for her science, it isn't actually all marketing as she does raise some very valid points. But it's a shame she's chosen to back it up with a product like this (salted water would have more of an effect).

 

[Ema]

There was another recent thread about this product.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...r-otc-antiviral-for-ebv-cmv-and-others.28691/

 

[Hip]

I think for ME/CFS patients, who often have reactivated viral infections, this Gene Eden product probably will not do much. But perhaps for healthy people, who may be just interested in avoiding diseases such as cancer, which Polansky and Ewald argue is likely caused in many cases by latent infections already existing in our bodies, the product might conceivably have some disease-preventing benefits — though of course that remains unproven. Though some of the ingredients of Gene Eden, like EGCG for example, have proven anti-cancer effects.


Let me ask ME/CFS patients here: for those whose ME/CFS was clearly triggered by a viral infection, did this fact not revolutionize your own personal view on the causes of disease?

For me, once I saw for myself how easily a viral infection can precipitate a serious life-altering chronic disease like ME/CFS, I became very interested in infectious etiologies of all chronic diseases.

Once you start reading the medical literature, you find that many everyday chronic diseases (like MS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, cancers, schizophrenia, etc, etc) have been linked to low level infections with common infectious pathogens (like enterovirus, Epstein-Barr, HHV-6, Chlamydia, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, etc — all the usual culprits).



The possibility that many chronic diseases may be simply cause by pathogens was a revelation to me. But I was also astounded to see that medical researchers have been slow on the uptake of this idea that a huge array of everyday diseases may in fact be caused by microbes.

If this were better appreciated by researchers, more effort might be focused on the prevention and elimination of common infectious pathogens.

The recent introduction of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer is at least one example of a step taken to try to prevent a cancer with an infectious etiology. Of course that vaccine does occasionally have sides effects, like many vaccines. But the general principle that many common diseases may turn out to be caused by infections is a perspective that should be taken much more seriously.

If a coxsackievirus B vaccination had been developed and had been routinely administered to the population, most of us here would probably not have come down with ME/CFS, and would have had healthy lives. If only!

 

[chronickiller29]

Every piece of evidence linked to this product is hand picked to support its claims. I gave Polansky and her product the benefit of the doubt and tried it. Nothing at all happened of course.

As for her science, it isn't actually all marketing as she does raise some very valid points. But it's a shame she's chosen to back it up with a product like this (salted water would have more of an effect).

Regarding the study about Gene-Eden-VIR, Jon_Tradicionali said that “Every piece of evidence linked to this product is hand picked to support its claims.”

But isn’t this what most studies do? To think that clinical evidence, statistics etc. are not skewed in favor of positive results throughout the pharmaceutical industry (and the complimentary and alternative medical industry too) is a bit naïve.

Don’t you agree?

With that said, it is worth noting that the study that focused on the effects of Gene-Eden-VIR in reducing viral symptoms in those infected with various chronic herpes viruses, the human papillomavirus (HPV) and certain strains of the hepatitis virus like (HCV), was a post-marketing clinical study.

This very same sort of study, which used Patient Reported Outcomes (PROS), has been considered legitimate enough by the United States government to approve multiple drugs that are available today. “From the years 1997 to 2002, the FDA approved 23 new drugs based on PRO endpoints only. They include six anti-migraine products (Amerge®, Ax-ert®), several anti-epileptics (Gabitril®, Keppra®), and a variety of other therapy classes (Tamiflu®, Relenza®). (1)

So, I think Mr. Jon_Tradicionali’s statements here are a little harsh. As to whether Gene-Eden-VIR is super effective or not…probably more studies need to be conducted. But when you think about the fact that most natural products have zero studies to back their claims, the fact that the formula of Gene-Eden-VIR has ANY kind of study that does, sets it apart.

Outside of the issues related to the product, I think the medical community would really do well to begin taking a very hard look at the ideas presented by both Dr. Ewald and Dr. Polansky.

Here's the reference I mentioned:

(1) R. J. Willke, L. B. Burke and P. Erickson, “Measuring
Treatment Impact: A Review of Patient-Reported Out-
comes and Other Efficacy Endpoints in Approved Prod-
uct Labels,” Controlled Clinical Trials, Vol. 25, No. 6,
2004, pp. 535-552
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245604000911

 

[Jon_Tradicionali]

@chronickiller29

I'll start of by saying I DID try the product before reviewing it. Therefore my opinion applies to my personal experience with the product of course and is not the universal fact.

Regarding hand picking studies to back up their claims; they consistently associate their product with studies relating to viruses in conjunction with illnesses such as MS, ME, Cancer just to name a few. This is just a really low method of appealing to a wider patient base.

I wasn't harsh at all. Predatory marketing used by this company deserves to be targeted and unveiled by patients in order to warn off others.

 

[chronickiller29]

@chronickiller29

I'll start of by saying I DID try the product before reviewing it. Therefore my opinion applies to my personal experience with the product of course and is not the universal fact.

Regarding hand picking studies to back up their claims; they consistently associate their product with studies relating to viruses in conjunction with illnesses such as MS, ME, Cancer just to name a few. This is just a really low method of appealing to a wider patient base.

I wasn't harsh at all. Predatory marketing used by this company deserves to be targeted and unveiled by patients in order to warn off others.

Of course. Your personal experience is yours and is totally legitimate. As is your opinion.

I'm just asking, in the wider scheme of things, and in comparison to other companies in the pharmaceutical and CAM industries, why you would expect something different? Moreover, why would you hold them to some sort of higher standard? And...in terms of predatory marketing...can you honestly point to ANY company that markets a treatment or remedy and say that their marketing is seriously to the benefit of the consumer?

Obviously, every transaction needs to be mutually beneficial (the company benefits, and so does the consumer) but there is always one group that benefits to a greater degree than the other.

As for using studies that back the products claims...isn't that what the company SHOULD be doing? I mean...who wants to buy a product for which there is NO evidence to support its claims?