Comments on: Triamazon Man Convicted

By: Triamazon Cancer Pill Scam Busted | The Quackometer

Triamazon Cancer Pill Scam Busted | The Quackometer — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:16:32 +0000

[...] Police swoop on cruel internet cancer “cure” pill conmen ************************************************************************* Update. 10th September 2008 Andrew Harris has now been convicted. [...]

By: The Finchley Clinic, Triamazon and the Law. | The Quackometer

The Finchley Clinic, Triamazon and the Law. | The Quackometer — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:36:02 +0000

[...] Harris’s appearance in court was not too unusual as well in that a few years ago he was found guilty under the Cancer Act of 1939 after advertising Triamazon as a cancer cure. Harris was arrested [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:51:00 +0000

LCN your ignorance is beyond belief.

Which drug company did you say you worked for??

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:38:00 +0000

Hi anonymous, or should I say, Andrew.

Please give it up. Ask yourself a simple question, "What evidence could you imagine that would convince you that Triamazon is not a cure for cancer?" Can you answer that honestly?

You appear to be taking the flimsiest evidence for the pills as proof that they work. For every cancer cure, there are a thousand 'promising' chemicals that are studied in test tubes. The above paper says nothing about the ability to treat patients. If you do not understand this then you are not competent to be giving advice. If you do understand this then you are a fraud.

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:03:00 +0000

Do you have any studies that show it can be used to successfully treat cancer?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:37:00 +0000

3 people contacted the Manchester Evening News and gave evidence that Triamazon got them into full remision, see this from pubmed…
The acetogenins of Annonaceae are known by their potent cytotoxic activity. In fact, they are promising candidates as a new future generation of antitumoral drugs to fight against the current chemiotherapic resistant tumors. The main target enzyme of these compounds is complex I (NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase) of the mitochondrial respiratory chain, a key enzymatic complex of energy metabolism. In an attempt to characterize the relevant structural factor of the acetogenins that determines the inhibitory potency against this enzyme, we have prepared a series of bis-tetrahydrofuranic acetogenins with different functional groups along the alkyl chain. They comprise several oxo, hydroxylimino, mesylated, triazido, and acetylated derivatives from the head series compounds rolliniastatin-1, guanacone, and squamocin. Our results suggest a double binding point of acetogenins to the enzyme involving the alpha,alpha’-dihydroxylated tetrahydrofuranic system as well as the alkyl chain that links the terminal alpha, beta-unsaturated-gamma-methyl-gamma-lactone. The former mimics and competes with the ubiquinone substrate. The latter modulates the inhibitory potency following a complex outline in which multiple structural factors probably contribute to an appropriate conformation of the compound to penetrate inside complex I.

PMID: 11123988 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

By: Mojo

Mojo — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:30:00 +0000

@gimpyblog: “Firstly the Cancer Act makes no mention of harm, it simply prevents advertising, so any prosecution under the Act cannot take harm into account. Whatever the motivations of passing the Cancer Act, the possibility of harm does not feature in the legislation as written.”

However, judges, when interpreting how an act should be applied, use something called the “mischief rule”: they consider what “mischief” (or harm) the act was intended to prevent.

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:40:00 +0000

And don’t judges have the discretion to take into account the nature, severity and implications of the crime when sentencing?

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:38:00 +0000

Surely, it is implicit in the very existence of such laws that harm can be done? Advertising per se is not illegal or a harmful activity. Nor is the act of trading. But when trading or advertising can potentially lead to harm then such activities can be criminalised?

Selling electrically faulty washing machines in itself does no harm. The fact that it is irresponsible and could lead to death means that laws exist to stop you doing such things

By: gimpyblog

gimpyblog — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:48:00 +0000

LCN, firstly the Cancer Act makes no mention of harm, it simply prevents advertising, so any prosecution under the Act cannot take harm into account. Whatever the motivations of passing the Cancer Act, the possibility of harm does not feature in the legislation as written.

Secondly, there is no evidence of harm done, as I said previously. You may speculate that patients might have refused effective medical treatments after Harris' advertising but speculation without evidence cannot be used in a prosecution.

Thirdly, fleecing money from the terminally ill is most probably illegal. But Harris was not prosecuted for this. It can have no bearing on his sentence.