Cold FX

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, we have another email read to my class by my evidently credulous teacher: http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/coldfx.asp

So, I tell everyone that only Ginseng is in it. Big argument. My teacher figures it's a drug, and everyone in the class figures it must have more than just ginseng in it.

Now everyone that I know is searching for the truth, and I'm an idiot for telling them it only contains ginseng.

Top 2 Layman reasons that people use to figure that Cold FX is a drug:
http://www.cvtechnologies.com/pdf/coldfx-consumer.pdf
http://cae.cold-fx.com/?q=102

1. Apparently the latin name for american ginseng indicates that there is also a drug present, Panax quinquefolius. It can't just mean "american ginseng" since it sounds so funky.

2. Apparently the sugars (that are the only thing taken from the plant and put in the capsules) are drugs because they have long names when they are referred to as polysaccharides and oligosaccharides. Those aren't just what sugars are called (when they aren't simple monosaccharides), so those names must be drug names, since they are long and funky sounding.


Why do I even bother? It's like arguing with idiots about whether or not dihydrogen monoxide is water. You use the scientific jargon with a layperson and they are all befuddled.

Basically Cold FX is a gingseng sugar pill. No independent studies have shown it does anything to help you along with a cold, but the studies by the manufacturer are accepted enough to label the advertising as "effective agains colds".

Not being a drug, it's not regulated as one. It's a supplement that is marketed like it's a drug, but is a supplement that is sold with all the freedoms that supplements have (you can sell it as long as you don't kill somebody with it).

So, you have this sugar pill that the manufacturer is skating along on the thin ice of guidelines for supplements, that people mistake for being a drug. It's all quite humorous.

Why does it bug me? Because I've tried to explain what this stuff is, and why the email is bogus, and everyone is thinking I'm nuts. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE IN THE PILL.

Ya okay, then what? Why is this so hard to explain? Why am I the bad guy as usual?

And can CV technologies explain what exactly they mean when they say Cold FX "stimulates the immune system"? Somewhat. They say the effects are mild, so try to prove it wasn't something else that caused the mild "increase in healthy levels of immune system components like Natural Killer cells"

WTF are natural killer cells anyways, and what do they do?
And cytokines? Don't those levels fluctuate constantly? Of course the studies aren't available for us to determine how they supposedly measured these immune system components, or if they even did. All they did was gather volunteers who already had infections within the year previously (and could have already had immune protection against whatever bug was going around). And how did they verify that a person had a cold or not? What kind of cold bug did the placebo group folks get compared to the ginseng group? There's something about seniors too, but do we know anything about the vaccines and cold bugs that went around that year, and what cold bug was or was not around during the time of the 4 month study?
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?StoryID=474&full=1

I can’t find a single study about Cold FX, or its proprietary ingredient CVT-E002, that wasn’t financed or conducted by CV Technologies. The one recent paper that wasn’t spawned directly from the Cold FX laboratories (Predy et al. CMAJ 173: 1043-1048), was financed by CV Technologies and co-authored by some of their employees (Vinti Goel and Ray Lovlin). Furthermore, the study was limited to subjects living in Edmonton only. These criticisms have been raised over and over again in the Canadian media, with a well balanced article being available from the Edmonton Journal. Currently, there are large-scale Phase III clinical trials underway that should help to clarify whether Cold FX is actually doing what it claims to.

http://sciencesque.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/trust-the-science-in-cold-fx/ (February 2007)

So, still no independent studies to replicate the biased results. Why should sugar from the ginseng plant cause your immune system to be more active? Do you really want that to happen, since allergies are precisely an overactive immune system, and there's no actual benefit.

Allergy develops if a particular cytokine is produced while a foreign structure is evaluated for its immunogenic potential. If this cytokine, called interleukin-4 or IL-4, is present during such a contact, an antiparasitic/allergic immune response is initiated. The immune system gets is right most of the time and nearly all people react against parasites and ignore allergens, but those who react in this way to an allergen develop allergy against this specific stimulus. Allergen plus IL-4 leads to allergy.

http://www.tapir.sbg.ac.at/allergy.htm
So, unless they can describe exactly what is happening, then an allergy to ginseng could be an explanation for the cytokine activities or something? (It's 2 a.m. here, and I'm trying to explain my tired rationale).

I'm just finding the research behind these ginseng sugars quite lacking, and the reasoning behind why they would work at all nonexistant.

I think I have this right? Cold FX is a supplement, not a drug. Not only that, it is merely ginseng plant sugar. It's a sugar pill. Right?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think I have this right? Cold FX is a supplement, not a drug. Not only that, it is merely ginseng plant sugar. It's a sugar pill. Right?

Yes.

 

[Physiotherapist]

I would say that Ginseng is a herbal remedy rather than a supplement.

Ginseng, known as Panax is cultivated in China, Korea and N.E. America. The Root is the part of the plant that is used and its constituents are Steroidal glycosides called panaxosides, sterols and vitamin D.

 

[ttch]

WTF are natural killer cells anyways, and what do they do?

Natural killer cells are an important part of the immune system. See, e.g., Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_cells

 

[fls]

Okay, we have another email read to my class by my evidently credulous teacher: http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/coldfx.asp

So, I tell everyone that only Ginseng is in it. Big argument. My teacher figures it's a drug, and everyone in the class figures it must have more than just ginseng in it.

Now everyone that I know is searching for the truth, and I'm an idiot for telling them it only contains ginseng.

Top 2 Layman reasons that people use to figure that Cold FX is a drug:
http://www.cvtechnologies.com/pdf/coldfx-consumer.pdf
http://cae.cold-fx.com/?q=102

1. Apparently the latin name for american ginseng indicates that there is also a drug present, Panax quinquefolius. It can't just mean "american ginseng" since it sounds so funky.

2. Apparently the sugars (that are the only thing taken from the plant and put in the capsules) are drugs because they have long names when they are referred to as polysaccharides and oligosaccharides. Those aren't just what sugars are called (when they aren't simple monosaccharides), so those names must be drug names, since they are long and funky sounding.


Why do I even bother? It's like arguing with idiots about whether or not dihydrogen monoxide is water. You use the scientific jargon with a layperson and they are all befuddled.

Basically Cold FX is a gingseng sugar pill. No independent studies have shown it does anything to help you along with a cold, but the studies by the manufacturer are accepted enough to label the advertising as "effective agains colds".

Ginseng is a sugar pill in the sense that it is composed of sugar units, but not in the usual use of the term, which refers to pills made from sucrose. By that logic, proteins are indistinguishable from one another because they are all composed of amino acids.

Not being a drug, it's not regulated as one. It's a supplement that is marketed like it's a drug, but is a supplement that is sold with all the freedoms that supplements have (you can sell it as long as you don't kill somebody with it).

It is regulated under the Natural Health Products Directive. You can sell it as long as you provide evidence as to safety and efficacy. The standards for efficacy are relaxed compared to those for other therapeutic products.

So, you have this sugar pill that the manufacturer is skating along on the thin ice of guidelines for supplements, that people mistake for being a drug. It's all quite humorous.

Why does it bug me? Because I've tried to explain what this stuff is, and why the email is bogus, and everyone is thinking I'm nuts. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE IN THE PILL.

Ya okay, then what? Why is this so hard to explain? Why am I the bad guy as usual?

And can CV technologies explain what exactly they mean when they say Cold FX "stimulates the immune system"? Somewhat. They say the effects are mild, so try to prove it wasn't something else that caused the mild "increase in healthy levels of immune system components like Natural Killer cells"

WTF are natural killer cells anyways, and what do they do?
And cytokines? Don't those levels fluctuate constantly? Of course the studies aren't available for us to determine how they supposedly measured these immune system components, or if they even did. All they did was gather volunteers who already had infections within the year previously (and could have already had immune protection against whatever bug was going around). And how did they verify that a person had a cold or not? What kind of cold bug did the placebo group folks get compared to the ginseng group? There's something about seniors too, but do we know anything about the vaccines and cold bugs that went around that year, and what cold bug was or was not around during the time of the 4 month study?
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?StoryID=474&full=1
http://sciencesque.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/trust-the-science-in-cold-fx/ (February 2007)

So, still no independent studies to replicate the biased results. Why should sugar from the ginseng plant cause your immune system to be more active? Do you really want that to happen, since allergies are precisely an overactive immune system, and there's no actual benefit.

http://www.tapir.sbg.ac.at/allergy.htm
So, unless they can describe exactly what is happening, then an allergy to ginseng could be an explanation for the cytokine activities or something? (It's 2 a.m. here, and I'm trying to explain my tired rationale).

I'm just finding the research behind these ginseng sugars quite lacking, and the reasoning behind why they would work at all nonexistant.

I think I have this right? Cold FX is a supplement, not a drug. Not only that, it is merely ginseng plant sugar. It's a sugar pill. Right?

The clinical studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. I have read them and they are well-done clinical trials. Your complaints (initial studies showing efficacy are funded by the manufacturer, mechanism of action not fully elucidated) also apply to most conventional drugs. I don't understand why this bothers you so much. It's not woo to think that herbals may have active ingredients (which is what a drug is, after all) or to study the effects. I agree that further research is necessary, and that the drug is over-hyped for the potential results, but the conclusion that it might prevent and modify colds is not unreasonable.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1043
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14687309&dopt=AbstractPlus

Linda

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would say that Ginseng is a herbal remedy rather than a supplement.

In the states (not sure about Canada, I should dig through that link fls provided) it's either a drug and subject to stringent regulation or it's a supplement and subject to looser regulation.

 

[fls]

In the states (not sure about Canada, I should dig through that link fls provided) it's either a drug and subject to stringent regulation or it's a supplement and subject to looser regulation.

I would call it a drug because you are allowed to make claims about the treatment of disease. But it is subject to looser standards of evidence under the Natural Products banner in Canada.

Linda

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would call it a drug because you are allowed to make claims about the treatment of disease. But it is subject to looser standards of evidence under the Natural Products banner in Canada.

I was going to note what constituted a "drug" under FDA regulations but didn't get back to this thread until now. The main difference between a "supplement" and a "drug" is that the former makes general, amorphous ("natural male enhancement" what the hell does that mean?) suggestions about what it does whereas the latter makes specific claims of treating diseases or conditions. The NHPD criteria does seem looser than that of the FDA and given some of the claims they are making about reducing the flu - as opposed to Airborne which makes anecdotal claims - it will probably come down as a drug as far as the FDA is concerned.

 

[JJM]

Drugs vs. supplements, aahh. They are artificial, legislated differences. In the US, I believe there have been no approved drugs with ephedrine for some time. However, until recently, you could buy a "supplement" containing the shrub ephedra (which contains ephedrine) because of legislation. Some time back, the FDA convened an expert panel that agreed there was a safe dose for ephedr_; but, it was too small to provide any useful pharmacological effect.

Without me looking up somebody's definition of a drug- anything having a beneficial effect on the body, aside from nutrition, is a drug. Therefore, if ginseng does something for you- it is technically, if not legally, a drug. As with all drugs, there are side effects. In the case of ginseng, these include irritability, insomnia, and intestinal "disturbances."

As for the difference between supplements and herbs, that has been blurred because the Drug Supplement Education Act allows you to sell anything as a supplement, unless the FDA already has (or establishes) control over it. And there is no need to establish safety or efficacy for supplements. Therefore, most herbalists find it convenient to market shrubbery as "supplements" today.

The bottom line- look past the legal label. Some herbs and "supplements" may be no more harmful or beneficial than celery (hey, it adds crunch and flavor). Most are unknown in terms of safety and efficacy. They may be, in fact, drugs- more beneficial than toxic. On the other hand, they may be more toxic than beneficial. Nobody knows.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ginseng is a sugar pill in the sense that it is composed of sugar units, but not in the usual use of the term, which refers to pills made from sucrose. By that logic, proteins are indistinguishable from one another because they are all composed of amino acids.



It is regulated under the Natural Health Products Directive. You can sell it as long as you provide evidence as to safety and efficacy. The standards for efficacy are relaxed compared to those for other therapeutic products.



The clinical studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. I have read them and they are well-done clinical trials. Your complaints (initial studies showing efficacy are funded by the manufacturer, mechanism of action not fully elucidated) also apply to most conventional drugs. I don't understand why this bothers you so much. It's not woo to think that herbals may have active ingredients (which is what a drug is, after all) or to study the effects. I agree that further research is necessary, and that the drug is over-hyped for the potential results, but the conclusion that it might prevent and modify colds is not unreasonable.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1043
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14687309&dopt=AbstractPlus

Linda

Hmm, I wasn't asking if it was sucrose, I was asking if it was "sugar", and my definition of sugar does include a lot of complex carbs because they are sugars that are just combined into combinations of sugars. Just like lactose is sugar, so is sucrose, and so is maltose, etc. Funny how they don't mention which saccharide combinations they have in Cold FX exactly. Maybe there is just sucrose?

I find the word "cold" very subjective. That is why I have a problem with the studies. What colds did the subjects get or not get exactly? That is my complaint. It doesn't bother me that the studies are funded as they are, but an independent study would be nice.

I did post other published complaints about the possibility of the studies being biased, yes. Considering that, and the fact that the study protocols don't make the "reported" colds any way verified, I feel there is a huge problem with the studies.

Not only that, how would complex carbs or sugar affect the immune system in a way that would reduce "colds"? They can't even establish the mechanisms of the ginseng carbs on the human body, so how can the studies be of any use? My question on that is, how do they distinguish their proposed weak effects from an allergy response even? I wonder the same way about Mannatech's products. Are Mannatech's studies just as "valid" in peoples' minds as the studies on Cold FX? Nothing has actually been proven about Cold FX, there are just hypotheses that are in no way validated.

I do completely understand the lax requirements for supplements, especially in Canada. Yet, these guys want to prove that Cold FX actually does something without explaining why it would (we understand how aspiring works in the body though). And it is marketed like a drug, which is quite funny since they don't have to follow the same rules. I have noted the claims aren't on the bottle (which is the usual for supplements). So, no actual toxicology is needed, since it is not a drug.

These guys have gone to more expense and time than most supplement makers (to make folks believe it is complex and effective), making people think it IS a drug, and that's quite humorous. I wonder if that was their intent, to make people think it is a drug?

Cold FX is not a drug. It is a supplement, a ginseng supplement. They have made sure there are only ginseng carbs/sugars in it, and that you get the same amount every time. That is what sets it apart from other supplements. Other supplements just dump any part of the plant in it, no matter what is supposed to contain the "active ingredient". Some folks try to establish what the active ingredient is, but most studies show that none to only some of the "active ingredient" is actually in any of the pills.

1. So, my question is about whether or not it is a "sugar pill": What saccharides are actually in it?

2. My other question is: Is there is anything else in Cold FX?

3. My final question is: How can carbs stimulate the immune system to protect you against microbes? How did they determine that the ginseng sugars are actually the active ingredient in ginseng?

Herbal remedies are treated as supplements (they are both regulated as food in Canada). It doesn't matter if you are taking calcium or ginseng, they are both under the same guidelines.

 

[fls]

Hmm, I wasn't asking if it was sucrose, I was asking if it was "sugar", and my definition of sugar does include a lot of complex carbs because they are sugars that are just combined into combinations of sugars. Just like lactose is sugar, so is sucrose, and so is maltose, etc. Funny how they don't mention which saccharide combinations they have in Cold FX exactly. Maybe there is just sucrose?

Correction: I should have said lactose instead of sucrose.

Why are you under the impression that a complex molecule which includes saccharide chains cannot have medicinal effects?

I find the word "cold" very subjective.

Well, you may, but does that really matter? What is more important is that there is a well-established clinical condition with specific criteria for diagnosis that is referred to as a "cold". And it was this specific clinical condition and specific criteria that the researchers were referring to. Did you read the study? All that is explained in the text.

That is why I have a problem with the studies. What colds did the subjects get or not get exactly? That is my complaint. It doesn't bother me that the studies are funded as they are, but an independent study would be nice.

Sure.

I did post other published complaints about the possibility of the studies being biased, yes. Considering that, and the fact that the study protocols don't make the "reported" colds any way verified, I feel there is a huge problem with the studies.

What do you mean that the colds weren't verified? That the researchers didn't actually visit the study participant and watch them blow their nose? If you think people made up their symptoms, why would you expect those in the placebo group to be more likely to make up stuff than those in the active drug group?

Not only that, how would complex carbs or sugar affect the immune system in a way that would reduce "colds"? They can't even establish the mechanisms of the ginseng carbs on the human body, so how can the studies be of any use?

Many drugs have been proven effective long before their mechanism of action was fully understood. This complaint is quite specious.

My question on that is, how do they distinguish their proposed weak effects from an allergy response even? I wonder the same way about Mannatech's products. Are Mannatech's studies just as "valid" in peoples' minds as the studies on Cold FX? Nothing has actually been proven about Cold FX, there are just hypotheses that are in no way validated.

Huh? Under any other circumstances you seem to consider double-blind-randomized-placebo-controlled trials a valid test of a hypothesis.

I do completely understand the lax requirements for supplements, especially in Canada. Yet, these guys want to prove that Cold FX actually does something without explaining why it would (we understand how aspiring works in the body though).

We don't completely understand why aspirin is effective. And the understanding that we do have is very recent compared to our recognition that it was effective.

And it is marketed like a drug, which is quite funny since they don't have to follow the same rules. I have noted the claims aren't on the bottle (which is the usual for supplements). So, no actual toxicology is needed, since it is not a drug.

These guys have gone to more expense and time than most supplement makers (to make folks believe it is complex and effective), making people think it IS a drug, and that's quite humorous. I wonder if that was their intent, to make people think it is a drug?

Cold FX is not a drug. It is a supplement, a ginseng supplement. They have made sure there are only ginseng carbs/sugars in it, and that you get the same amount every time. That is what sets it apart from other supplements. Other supplements just dump any part of the plant in it, no matter what is supposed to contain the "active ingredient". Some folks try to establish what the active ingredient is, but most studies show that none to only some of the "active ingredient" is actually in any of the pills.

I think it is reasonable to call anything that is used to treat a condition or disease a "drug". And since Cold FX has evidence of effectiveness in the treatment of a disease, it is manufactured more like a drug instead of like a herbal preparation (standardized amount of a particular chemical), and medical doctors were involved, it may have been an automatic response on the part of the developers. That an easier back door was open to them under the NHPD doesn't really change that. Or it may be a marketing gimmick.

1. So, my question is about whether or not it is a "sugar pill": What saccharides are actually in it?

2. My other question is: Is there is anything else in Cold FX?

3. My final question is: How can carbs stimulate the immune system to protect you against microbes? How did they determine that the ginseng sugars are actually the active ingredient in ginseng?

I don't think the answers to your question have any bearing on the results of the clinical studies.

Herbal remedies are treated as supplements (they are both regulated as food in Canada). It doesn't matter if you are taking calcium or ginseng, they are both under the same guidelines.

Claims made still need to be backed up by evidence under those guidelines. I'm saying that the types of claims made for calcium are different from those for Cold FX.

I don't want to argue with you. I am just confused as to why you are making more of this than it seems to deserve.

Linda

 

[Eos of the Eons]

am just confused as to why you are making more of this than it seems to deserve.

Because this is an ongoing argument with a peer group. That is why I'm asking the questions and searching so hard for answers.

At the present, this product is not a drug under our laws, and is not being sold as one. It is being sold as an effective "all natural" supplement, and is being allowed to make claims as supplements manufacturers are allowed to do as long as the claims do not appear on the actual product label (which they don't appear on the product label). The claims are only in the brochures, commercials, etc. This is completely legal. You can check the wording in the links I've provided.

The three questions are the only reason I've posted this thread.

What do you mean that the colds weren't verified? That the researchers didn't actually visit the study participant and watch them blow their nose? If you think people made up their symptoms, why would you expect those in the placebo group to be more likely to make up stuff than those in the active drug group?

The studies were not controlled, and the colds not verified. How do we know who was actually sick? The study groups were not that big, so anyone who just sneezed more than another could skew the results. We obviously don't know what symptoms were taken down (as cold symptoms or if they were allergy symptoms), or there would be no argument over this.

I'm not caring if this is a drug or a supplement, since right now in our country it is sold and only under the laws for supplements. And you're right, if it shows to be effective in preventing colds, then it should be regulated for safety under drug laws instead.

What is funny is that people are assuming it is a drug, and that means it can't just be ginseng.

It is just ginseng though. So, how would ginseng carbs stop a cold? What exactly is a cold anyways?

What is more important is that there is a well-established clinical condition with specific criteria for diagnosis that is referred to as a "cold".

Do we see this criteria specified in these studies? No. We have no idea what they figure a cold is. In this case it is very subjective. Are these well-established clinical conditions? No. These are supplement makers playing around in an attempt to give their supplement the legitimacy to sell it as "effective" without making it a drug and having to follow the guidelines to sell it as a drug. They'd better hope the independent studies going on now don't show it has any real effect, or Health Canada may have to start paying attention to this product and make CV technologies follow drug guideline instead.

I know when something is classified as a drug, rather than a supplement. That is not the argument. The argument is rather about what the supplement currently contains.

People figure oligosaccharide is some sort of drug, like a long name means something is a drug (this is a really dumb argument, like trying to tell people how dihydrogen monoxide is just water, and for some reason not succeeding in convincing them). I'm trying to explain what oligosaccharide means. In the case of Cold FX it could mean sucrose. Does anyone know for sure?

Right now I really don't care how well or good the studies are/aren't. I also don't care right now if ColdFX actually does work to reduce colds. That's not the argument.

The argument is addressed in my 3 questions, and it's a rather far mor simple argument

1. So, my question is about whether or not it is a "sugar pill": What saccharides are actually in it?

2. My other question is: Is there is anything else in Cold FX? (I'm quite certain the answer is "no")

3. My final question is: How can carbs stimulate the immune system to protect you against microbes? How did they determine that the ginseng sugars are actually the active ingredient in ginseng? (I may never get the answer to this question, but it would be nice if someone wants to address it somehow)

Why are you under the impression that a complex carbohydrate (like those found in Cold FX) molecule which includes saccharide chains cannot have medicinal effects?

Please, oh mercy please, explain how it can, pleeeeease. Or please explain how it could cause the immune system to rev up against a cold virus... please, I'm begging! As far as I know, and have researched, sugars just don't have this effect on the immune system, and there is no reason to think it would.

So, can we finally get down to business? help!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Polysaccharides - polymers consisting of chains of monosaccharide or disaccharide units

COLD-fX
Marketed by: COLD-fX Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc (Chicago, Ill), a wholly owned subsidiary of CV Technologies Inc
Indication: COLD-fX is a natural dietary supplement that enhances the body's immune system. The product's active ingredient, CVT-E002, is a patented natural extract which consists of distinctive polysaccharides that are isolated from Panax quinquefolius (american ginseng).

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/Article.cfm?Menu=1&ID=4250

The monosaccharides I know of are: glucose, fructose, and galactose

The disaccharides I know of are: sucrose, lactose, maltose

sucrose — common table sugar = glucose + fructose
lactose — major sugar in milk = glucose + galactose
maltose — product of starch digestion = glucose + glucose

product of starch digestion = glucose + glucose
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Carbohydrates.html

Two important plant polysaccharides, cellulose and starch, are composed exclusively of glucose units bonded together.
Cellulose is the most abundant polysaccharide in plant cell walls, and thus, the most abundant polysaccharide on Earth. In cell walls, cellulose occurs along with other complex polysaccharides, each of which is composed of more than one type of sugar. Because of the way glucose is linked in cellulose, individual chains, hundreds of glucose molecules long, are able to bond together by hydrogen bonding in a crystalline arrangement to form a cable-like structure known as a microfibril. These microfibrils are interwoven and give cellulose its strength in plant cell walls and in cotton fabric and paper.

Glucose, fructose, sucrose, and starch are readily digested by humans. Cellulose and the other complex carbohydrates of the plant cell wall are not readily digested, but constitute useful dietary fiber.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/carbohydrates-plsc-01/

Now, since plants like ginseng are starch and cellulose, and we know some have sucrose, and since polysaccharides are just mono and disaccharides, what conclusion must I come to?

Cold FX is a sugar pill, probably mostly starch coming from the ginseng plant, no?

 

[fls]

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/Article.cfm?Menu=1&ID=4250

The monosaccharides I know of are: glucose, fructose, and galactose

The disaccharides I know of are: sucrose, lactose, maltose

sucrose — common table sugar = glucose + fructose
lactose — major sugar in milk = glucose + galactose
maltose — product of starch digestion = glucose + glucose

product of starch digestion = glucose + glucose
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Carbohydrates.html


http://www.bookrags.com/research/carbohydrates-plsc-01/

Now, since plants like ginseng are starch and cellulose, and we know some have sucrose, and since polysaccharides are just mono and disaccharides, what conclusion must I come to?

Cold FX is a sugar pill, probably mostly starch coming from the ginseng plant, no?

It looks like you've dug yourself into a hole in your class by trying to introduce skepticism but on a topic you don't know very much about, and you are looking to us to rescue you.

I was hoping that JJM was going to address your questions, since I'm no chemist. One of your links states that Cold FX is comprised of poly-furanosyl-pyranosyl-saccharides. The pharmacologic effect probably comes from the structure of the molecules (which I can't discern from the name), so considering the effects by looking at the effect of some of the individual components will be useless. Bacterial polysaccharides stimulate the immune system, so I don't see any particular reason to exclude the possibility that these polysaccharides can have some effect on the immune system. As well, various other polysaccharides from various other sources have various pharmacologic effects:

http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v148/n6/abs/0706741a.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15066706
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=027bb267215ab7975e238df6ac3e2208

Linda

 

[JJM]

{snip}
1. So, my question is about whether or not it is a "sugar pill": What saccharides are actually in it?

According to the standard usage, it is not a "sugar pill" if it contains anything more than lactose. So, no, unless they are cheating, this is not a sugar pill because it contains material other than lactose (even if the other material is also a sugar). "Sugar pills" lack active ingredients- they are placebos, containing only the inert "vehicle."

Suppose you need to take a 10 mg (pinhead size) dose of drug. Most people can't measure that at home, so the manufacturer could dissolve it in water such that a teaspoon contains the 10 mg, with water as the "vehicle." The same applies to tablets, you get a few mg of drug, with lactose as the standard vehicle to bulk it up so you can manage it.

According to the manufacturer's information given in recent posts, we cannot tell what saccharides are in it. Furanose and pyranose are generic terms. I can't even tell if humans can digest them. Since ginseng is a natural product, the nature and amounts of saccharides probably vary widely depending on where you get it, when you get it, etc.; just as wines vary from place to place, and year to year.

2. My other question is: Is there is anything else in Cold FX? (I'm quite certain the answer is "no")

Once again, we have to rely on the manufacturer to be honest and complete in the product description. So, with the information we have, the answer is "no."

Honesty is important here. Many herbs, homeopathic preps and "supplements" that have real clinical activity have been found to contain added, active ingredients (ingredients that are not found in the source).

3. My final question is: How can carbs stimulate the immune system to protect you against microbes? How did they determine that the ginseng sugars are actually the active ingredient in ginseng? (I may never get the answer to this question, but it would be nice if someone wants to address it somehow)
{snip}

My knowledge of immunology and $5 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. However, if the carbs are 1- BIG (way beyond disaccharides), 2- indigestible, 3- absorbed from the intestine and 4- recognized as foreign to your body, they may stimulate the immune system. The immune system has a bazillion methods for reacting to BIG, foreign molecules.

A popular method for detecting an immune-system response is to incubate the test material in some blood fraction containing components of the immune system, and looking at whether the immune cells (lymphocytes, et al) become more active. Note, this doesn't mean it happens clinically.

 

[JJM]

{snip} Now, since plants like ginseng are starch and cellulose ...

Sorry, no, they are much more chemically complex, not to put too fine a point on it.

and since polysaccharides are just mono and disaccharides ... {snip}

Again, no- "poly" means "many," not 1 or 2. Offhand, I can't think of an upper, size limit.

Sugar chemistry is an ENORMOUS subset of organic/biochemistry because of the great variety of carbohydrates, and their biochemical and commercial value.

Sugars were also instructive in the development of basic chemistry- the second Nobel Prize in chemistry went to someone (Hermann Emil Fischer) who studied the chemistry of sugars http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1902/ .

 

[Eos of the Eons]

It looks like you've dug yourself into a hole in your class by trying to introduce skepticism but on a topic you don't know very much about, and you are looking to us to rescue you.

Oh, be nice now , the only thing I've done is mention that it is ginseng. The others just want to know if it is a drug, like aspirin is compared to tree bark. My first guess is no, but I really don't know.

The rest is out of my own curiosity, and to check my facts before I do dig myself into a hole I can't crawl out of. You know, fact check before spouting off any assertions. It is the responsible thing to do, to check first. Do I get any credit for that, I will worship you if you can help increase my knowledge base, one that is now splattered out for all to see in this thread. I just want to know what I do or don't actually know, you know.

Bacterial polysaccharides stimulate the immune system, so I don't see any particular reason to exclude the possibility that these polysaccharides can have some effect on the immune system. As well, various other polysaccharides from various other sources have various pharmacologic effects:

Why would plant saccharides cause an immune reaction against the cold bug, any cold bug? I'd be more convinced if someone could explain that. So far, I'm still not seeing any reason it would. I could see an allergic reaction caused to ginseng, that would make sense, but how would that help you fight off some cold? Your awesome links point to specifics in other plants that have effects (polysaccharide GA3P, D-galactan sulfate associated with L-(+)-lactic acid), but the Cold FX information lacks those specifics. This is exactly what I'd need on another plant (if I was looking for info on that plant polysaccharide and why it would bind to something to cause an effect), but we don't have this information on the so-called ginseng saccharides. I'll do some more searching.

Sugars were also instructive in the development of basic chemistry- the second Nobel Prize in chemistry went to someone (Hermann Emil Fischer) who studied the chemistry of sugars

Still nothing to show how it would cause any immune response

According to the manufacturer's information given in recent posts, we cannot tell what saccharides are in it. Furanose and pyranose are generic terms. I can't even tell if humans can digest them. .

Yeah, again they are more simple sugars too, (monosaccharides). This doesn't help to convince me that Cold FX is not just simpler sugar pill

The cyclic pyranose and furanose forms are the preferred structures for monosaccharides in aqueous solution.

http://www.web.virginia.edu/Heidi/chapter7/chp7.htm

I'm suspicious of why the manufacturer is so ambiguous. These questions need to go to them now, but do I really expect any satisfactory answers from them? They only thing they assure us of is that we get the same amount of carbs in every pill, and that is an assurance we can't get from any other herbal supplement. I'll give them that much.

You have to at least understand that I did take organic chemistry courses as part of my Bio-Tech background years ago. I'm not coming from a completely ignorant stance. This background caused my hypothesis in the first place, and everything I find is only confirming my theory that Cold FX is just a sugar pill.

Again, no- "poly" means "many," not 1 or 2. Offhand,

What I meant was that polys are made up of mono and disaccharides.

This is frustrating, but I thank you all for trying to help.

 

[luchog]

Oh, be nice now , the only thing I've done is mention that it is ginseng. The others just want to know if it is a drug, like aspirin is compared to tree bark. My first guess is no, but I really don't know.

Yes, in fact, it is.

Still nothing to show how it would cause any immune response

Actually, I found this after about a 5 second Google search:
Immune Stimulants and Antiviral Botanicals: Echinacea and Ginseng
It specifically for Panax ginseng, rather than P. quinquefolius; but similar ginsenosides and polysaccharides can be found in both. (Ginsenosides are technically glycosides, which consist of a saccharide bonded to another molecule).

Also found this after another 5 second search:
Immunomodulating Activities of Polysaccharides Isolated from Panax ginseng

It's not definitive, but it does contain the information you're looking for.

As for what specific polysaccharides are present in Cold FX, the only way you'll be able to find that out is via the manufacturer, and chances are they won't tell you since they are most likely using a proprietary formula. Since it is regulated as a supplement rather than as a drug, no further public disclosure is required; although confidential disclosure to the FDA still would be.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you for trying Luch, but that is really not at all helpful. May I suggest that this is over your head as far as explaining specific mechanisms? Not only that, but words like "may" are not at all what I need in a reference. We already discussed ambiguous study protocols too. Human studies (not in-vitro) would be better as well. Replicated studies along with the mechanisms of specific action are what would be most helpful.


When it comes to Cold FX specifically, they are clear that only the carbs are present, to make the product "safe".

Unlike aspirin, very unlike aspirin. Aspirin is very very very far from being just the carbs from the tree.

Another for instance is that just plain water can cause a blood cell to burst in a petri dish, but you can safely drink plain water because of how your body is, altogether, working to put that water where it needs to go.

 

[fls]

Human studies (not in-vitro) would be better as well.

Huh? You told me in big, bold letters that you were not interested in the clinical studies.

Linda