From: Ivan Roseland <iroseland@...>
Subject: [nathanfaustmantrials] Re: Mistake in Faustman's Lab Web Page? (CFA is described as non-toxic, but is toxic)
To: nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 7:33 PM

--- In nathanfaustmantrial s@yahoogroups. com, Joshua Levy <joshua2levy@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> Faustman's new lab web page contains the following quote:
>
> In research published in 2001 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and in 2003 in Science,
> Dr. Faustman and colleagues used a brief, non-toxic treatment to induce
> TNF-a in end-stage diabetic mice and permanently eliminate their
> disease.
> (from http://www.faustman lab.org/research /research. html)
> But this is an obvious mistake: Faustman's treatment described in the paper uses CFA, which is highly toxic to people and animals.
>
> Take a look at the 2001 paper. The abstract clearly says:
>
> Hyperglycemic NOD mice were treated with CFA to induce TNF-á expression
> and were exposed to functional complexes of MHC class I molecules and
> antigenic peptides either by repeated injection of MHC class I matched
> splenocytes or by transplantation of islets from nonautoimmune donors.
> (from http://www.jci. org/articles/ view/12335)
>
> And CFA (Complete Freud's Adjuvant) is well known to be toxic. So toxic that it can not be used in people at all, and is discouraged even in animals, as show here:
>
> (CFA) is quite toxic and cannot be used in humans.
> (from http://books. google.com/ books?id= TFoIXMe-UEEC& pg=PA403& lpg=PA403& dq=complete+ Freund%27s+ adjuvant+ CFA+safety& source=web& ots=dYXKq2PcQ- &sig=zrlavn3Lmah le2DArr02aE1_ Ib8&hl=en& sa=X&oi=book_ result&resnum= 10&ct=result)
> and also
>
> The undesirable side effects attributed to CFA use include increased pain and suffering and morbidity in inoculated test animals
> (from http://www.vcu. edu/oehs/ chemical/ biosafe/CFAinfo. pdf)
> and here:
>
> The
> best example of this is complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA). While it
> remains the gold standard in terms of adjuvant potency, its extreme
> reactogenicity and toxicity precludes its use in human vaccines, and
> there have been discussions of banning CFA even in veterinary vaccines.
> (from http://biopharminte rnational. findpharma. com/biopharm/ Downstream+ Processing/ New-Age-Vaccine- Adjuvants- Friend-or- Foe/ArticleStand ard/Article/ detail/444996)
>
> So it sounds like the description of Faustman's treatment as "non-toxic', as is done in her lab's web site, is a mistake. The experiment used CFA, which is toxic. Or is there something I'm missing? Does someone know why Faustman's web page refers to this treatment as non-toxic? Is there something about her formulation or dosing that makes it safe? (This question has nothing to do with the safety of Faustman's current clincial trial, because that trial uses BCG. From a safety point of view, BCG and CFA are quite different.)
>
> Joshua Levy
>

I think by non-toxic they meant a doseage that was not known to cause the toxic side effects... Also, she has made a point of telling folks that part of the research is to find a human tolerable replacement for CFA.

Ivan