You know, our differences could have been handled much more diplomatically, but it appears that either you wish to get into a prolonged debate here about oleander as well as attempt to discredit me.  It is disappointing to see you make so many other good posts here and to be so off based about oleander.

I may not be as scientifically well versed as you when it comes to discussing individual compounds or the minutaie of what does or does not constitute a cardiac glycoside or whether it is technically redundant to call something a "long chain" polysacharride, but I nevertheless do know oleander. I know the people who make Anvirzel, know the people who make the new form of oleander in phase I trials at MD Anderson, and know the lead scientific researcher at MD Anderson who has led or participated in most of the major peer reviewed scientific studies on oleander.  I also know oleander and how well it works from years of personal experience with literally hundreds of people.

The bottom line here is that when it comes to oleander, I know what I know and you appear to know only what Wikipedia or mainstream literature tells you.  By and large, mainstream medicine knows precious little about oleander other than the toxicity of the raw plant - and your point about warning people not to attempt to make their own "soup"
without knowing what they are doing is well taken and I will redouble my efforts to make that clear.  However, I would suggest that before you go about warning people off something that has been proven to save thousands of lives you might be better advised to find out about the healing properties of an aqueous oleander extract by going beyond Wikipedia and general mainstream knowledge and opinion - something that your other posts here at this site indicate that you normally do.

I have given you plenty of links so that you can learn more about oleander, including much more authoritative sources than Wikipedia.  You obviously have chosen to ignore them.  Otherwise you would know that the Sutherlandia OPC herbal supplement gets it's name from the fact that it contains 20% of an extract of the Sutherlandia Frutescens plant (also known as the South Africa Cancer bush), which is indeed a good plant to compliment oleander but. like curcumin, is not as successful against cancer and autoimmune disorders as oleander.

Yes, curcumin is readily available, cheap and safe.  It also is not water soluable and has very poor bioavailibility because only a tiny fraction of raw curcumin is absorbed in the body. Most importantly, despite all the excitement about cucumin, it is simply not nearly as effective as oleander and to state that it is might well be advice that would keep someone from otherwise beating cancer and THAT, rather than arguing the finer points of individual compounds, is what I am all about.  Thus far, in over five years, no one who has followed my advice regarding oleander and fighting cancer, HIV or Hep-C is not still alive.  Can you say the same?

I have already stated that I like and recommend curcumin - in fact I think it is great (and I take it every day myself), the same as does highly respected alternative cancer authority Webster Kehr of the reknown Cancer Tutor site (http://www.cancertutor.com/).  He states on his site that he considers curcumin among the top 50 cancer fighters, though it has not yet made the cut to be listed among his top Stage IV, Stage III and other alternative treatments on the title page of his website.  Oleander on the other hand is listed in his top 5.

Another top alternative cancer site is the Minnesota Wellness Directory.  They too consider oleander to be one of, if not THE, best cancer fighters and often refer people to me for advice.

Marc Swanepoel, the cancer and HIV researcher and crusader who developed the OPC supplement has studied a great number of natural substances to help the HIV sufferers and indigent cancer victims in his native South Africa.  His choice of major ingredients was oleander.

Likewise the well known and highly respected (outside the FDA) owner of Alpha Omega Labs had his choice of any ingredients in the world when he formulated his new Cansema III tonic.  He and his medical professionals chose oleander as the main ingredient, along with graviola and chaparral.

Listing or debating the known actions of individual compounds is misleading.  Isolating and concentrating on individual compounds is one of the great fallacies of mainstream medicine.  The fact is that nature works synergistically and no one really knows how all the various compounds in oleander (which are far from identical to those in curcumin) or many other medicinal plants combine to make them as effective as they are.  A compound noted in mainstream literature for producing one action may combine with other compounds to produce entirely other actions.

To paraphrase a department head at MD Anderson "We don't really know all the ways that oleander works.  We just know that it appears to attack the bad cells, and ONLY the bad cells, and both cause them to die as well as prevent them from multiplying."

Rather than arguing about the number of cardiac glycosides, what their various names are, and the actions of individual compounds as reported by mainstream medicine, how about you show me where curcumin has been over 90% successful against a broad range of cancers or 100% effective in reversing AIDS symptoms.  Or show me studies where an extract of curcumin was found to have six times the immune stimulating activity of the most powerful patented immune stimulators known to man.

If you can, then I will consider using it in the same breath as oleander.  Until you do I will continue to consider it a good cancer preventative and a good complimentary cancer fighting supplement worthy of including in a cancer fighting protocol that includes more powerful cancer fighters.

DQ