After reading the previous referrence to “Quercetin targets hnRNPA1 to overcome enzalutamide resistance in prostate cancer cells” cited by one of our members, I decided to read the entire paper. When I went to the journal (Molecular Cancer Therapeutics) in which the paper originally appeared, I learned that the umbrella organization for MCT is AACR, the American Association for Cancer Research. At the bottom of the page was a link: Patient Access. I clicked on the Patient Access link which took me to a site “RightsLink.” At the bottom of the RightsLink page, I learned that for $3.50, I, as a “patient.” Since I didn’t continue, I don’t know whether they would just accept my word that I was a bona fide patient, or I would need a note from my oncologist with my current PSA reading on it. At this point I was very angry and upset.
Why? For one thing, as I have written previously, these researchers, for the most part, are getting public funds, either in the form of research grants or salaries from public universities. They already are being supported with my tax dollars: now I have to pay again for information that will, for the most part, be almost untelligible to me, especially the part describing how to apply their conclusions to my own life. I have been writing email to such researchers residing in China, Japan, Korea and other countries all over the world for almost thirteen years, and the best I can report from my efforts is that almost 95% of these research people don’t answer: the few that do respond are very cagey with their answers. What such papers, as the one I have referred to above, do is create hope in us: yes, now we can include another dietary derived nutrient (to be read “non-toxic”) weapon to our ever-growing arsenal (and cost) to fight this disease. However, the BIG question, always remaining, is how much to take? What is a therapeutic dose? Silence. Well, it can’t hurt us, so let’s take the maximum strength, 2 caps, 3xday—that ought to do it. After all, Quercitin is not that expensive, so I suppose that many of us could afford to include it…but that’s not the point. These research papers are not written for our benefit! Chances are there will be no long-term, or even short-term, follow-up studies in which we can sink our teeth. No, just more mice and test tubes, if anything. What counts here, if you haven’t already gotten the message, is reputation, funding and status. We, as “patients,” are not even in the equation. So I have a modest proposal: the next time someone in the community cites such a paper that provides little, if any, practical information, especially about dosage, let’s all make an effort to find or figure out a solution before we rush off to start doubling and tripling whatever we THINK should be a therapeutic dose. By the way, in just a cursory examination of the literature linking quercitin and Pca, I have found a number of papers going back 10-15 years. Much of the dosage given to the mice is in the usual uM or ug or dl percent of diet, yada yada. There are many of you with backgrounds in chemistry, biology, or other science who could really be of help to all of us in deciphering and translating these papers so that the entire community might benefit. Their efforts would certainly be appreciated by all of us.
One final thought: someone who shares a paper or abstract with us that they have read is not being criticized, here. It’s not the messenger that’s at fault but the “medium!”