Science or Speculation
There are a lot of fabulous stories about
Cetyl Myristoleate (also known as CMO or CM) floating across
the Internet. Mine is one of them. There have been a number
of articles published in little known journals or magazines.
There have been four small booklets published. One making
fantastic claims, all four filled with anecdotal evidence
but offering no real research to back up the claims. There
are a number of doctors sharing the results they are having
with their patients, but so does every other wonder-working
product. The question is, are there any scientific studies
to back up any of these claims? The answer is yes. To date,
there are several patient studies and two double blind studies
completed. I will mention the four most prominent below.
Dr. Len Sands of the San Diego Clinic completed
the first human study on the effectiveness on Cetyl Myristoleate
in 1995. There were 48 arthritis patients in this study. All
but two showed significant improvement in articular mobility
(80% or better) and reduction of pain (70% or better). Obviously
the study had its flaws. One doctor conducted the study, there
was no control group, and the number of participants was small.
Even so, it suggested to many that maybe there was some hope
here and that more scientific studies should follow.
The first double blind study followed two
years later. Dr. H. Siemandi conducted a double blind study
under the auspices of the Joint European Hospital Studies
Program. There were 431 patients in the study, 106 who received
cetyl myristoleate, 99 who received cetyl myristoleate, and
glucosamine, sea cucumber, and hydrolyzed cartilage and 226
who received a placebo. Clinical assessment included radiological
test and other studies. Results were 63% improvement for the
cetyl myristoleate group, 87% for the cetyl myristoleate plus
glucosamine group and 15% for the placebo group.
In August of 2002, a double blind study was
published in the Journal or Rheumatology. The study included
sixty-four patients with chronic knee OA. Half of the patients
received a cetyl myristoleate complex and half a placebo.
Evaluations included physician assessment, knee range of motion
with goniometry, and the Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LAI).
The conclusion was that the CM group saw significant improvement,
while the placebo group saw little to none. In fact in their
conclusion they state that CM "may be an alternative
to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the
treatment of OA".
Advanced Medical Systems & Design, Ltd.
completed the last study I would like to mention in Oct 2001.
It was not a double blind study, but the study included 1814
arthritis patients. The results showed that over 87% of the
subjects had greater than 50% recovery and over 65% of those
showed from 75% - 100% recovery following a sixteen day regimen.
I know that this is not the most scientific study, but a study
this large a study does suggest that there could be a positive
benefit to the use of CM in the treatment of arthritis.
Conclusion: There is mounting evidence that
CM can be effective in the joint discomfort reliever of many
forms of arthritis. While it is true that the evidence from
these three studies can not be considered conclusive, it is
a beginning. It should challenge you to think out side the
box and consider that just because it did not come from a
drug company does not mean that it will not work. With over
10,000 people a year dying from Nsaids, would it not be great
to find a safer and more effective product, especially with
the cost of prescription treatments for arthritis costing
into the hundreds and good Cetyl Myristoleate products can
be found for between $20 and $40.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Be sure to visit the Glucosamine Product Guide for a review of commercially available glucosamine products broken down by 9 different categories such as price per month, quality and type. Learn what the best products out there are and what criteria was used to ranked each.