Re: The safety and effectiveness of oleander extract

Show me where any of the information in the Wikepedia link was incorrect.
I find it interesting that you are complaining about a source like Wikepedia, but you are posting on a board where a lot of misinformation is being posted. The fact is that it is not the source, but who is putting the source there. A lot of people post things without no scientific basis, or without the knowledge to be posting on the subject.

Yes, anything can be toxic. You completely missed the point though. I have seen people on here saying to make your own Oleander soup with no links to a recipe or safety instructions. So what if someone decides to make soup like any other soup and boils up a bunch of Oleander leaves to eat them? Do you really think they are going to survive?

We have different views on curcumin and turmeric. It has many of the same compounds as in your Oleander soup, but offers additional cancer fighting mechanisms not found in oleander. And as I pointed out it is readily available, safe, and extremely cheap.

Though I would not rely on any plant solely for cancer. No plant is going to address all of the aspects that need to be addressed with cancer. For example does oleander address the lactic acid cycle? ATP formation? Angiogenesis? Hyaluronidase inhibition? Fibrolynisis? Do you even have a clue why these are so important to address? By the same token do you even understand how the various compounds you list as being active work? I would really be interested in hearing your explanation for rutin. By the way, rutin is a metabolite of quercetin, and its primary role is strengthening blood vessel walls, which has nothing to do with cancer. And yes, quercetin is antitumor, do you know why? And all the studies involving rutin for cancer also include quercetin, which I have already admitted is antitumor.

And how do the other compounds you mention work? I am not familiar with foliandrin so I looked it up with cancer. No research available whatsoever. Alpha-amyrin again no reasearch for cancer, but it is listed as a potent irritant. Presence of does not mean they have anticancer activity, so I would like to the research to back these claims.

You also list oleandrin and folinerin, which different names for the same compound. This really reduces credibility when you list the same compound multiple times making it appear that there are more active components than there really are.

Another mistake I see is in your quote "several long-chain polysacharrides such as Beta-sistosterol". First of all polysaccharides are long chain. Poly means many, saccharides refer to sugars. Thus polysaccharides are long chain Sugar molecules. For example beta glucan, fructooligosaccahrides, even cellulose. And they are found in a number of sources: seaweeds, mushrooms, schisandra, echinacea, myrrh, birch, yeasts, astragalus..... Secondly, beta sitosterol is not a polysaccharide, it is a plant sterol. These are natural steroidal compounds found in plants that help them to adapt to stresses.

I am also curious as to why they use the name Sutherlandia when oleander and sutherlandia are two completely unrelated plants? I am quite familiar with the use of sutherlandia for its use in the treatments of cancer, hepatitis, etc. Excellent plant and a lot safer than oleander.

As a final note it really does not matter how many cardiac glycosides are present. It does not change the fact that they can be dangerous, and that safer alternatives exist.