All I can think is wow. I was stunned when they announced that cervical cancer was caused by HPV.
I heard a researcher postulate a few years ago that cancer was caused by viral activity that caused normal cells to grow out of control. I thought about that when I heard about the HPV thing.
Then I googled - I remember reading about advancements being made by using virus' to deliver to cancer cells:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=using+virus+to+deliver+to+cancer+cells&btnG=Google+Search
posted by katie82640 at 05:05 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 29, 2007 #
Try not to get overly excited about these types of things. A single study in rats (or even humans) doesn't really mean all that much. There are literally thousands of clinical trials going on as we speak seeking to improve treatments for diseases ranging from alzheimers to lung cancer to heart disease. The good thing about this is that phase I trials are complete and safety isn't really a problem (phase I trials look at drug delivery and distribution profiles as well as preliminary safety data), so they should be able to start clinical trials pretty quickly. They probably won't ever use this drug by itself, however. Cancers are notorious for evolving mechanisms that escape the effects of a multitude drugs. Just think of all the people you know who have had relapses that then became resistant to current therapies. To prevent the evolution of these tumors a multi-pronged attack is used in a very similar way that HIV/AIDS is currently treated.
There are actually several types of cancer that have been linked directly to viruses. HPV with cervical (and penile) cancer is the most widely known. Also of note is the Epstein-Barr Virus that causes mononucleosis in most people. However, in some people EBV can cause a type of lymphoma. Human Kaposi Sarcoma Virus (AKA Human Herpes Virus Type 8) commonly causes Kaposi's sarcoma in HIV patients and in men of Mediterranean background. There are a few more but i'm having trouble remembering them all now.
It's also interesting that you've read about using viruses as a gene therapy vector. I am actually a co-author on a paper that used the exact method you're talking about. I won't get into the details about it here, but we got good results in rats with leukemias. If you're interested in the actual article I'll try to post it on here for you. There are actually some ongoing clinical trials using viruses to deliver genes (this is one method of gene therapy by the way) for some bleeding disorders. The problem with it is that the viruses can infect cells other than the tumor cells and have deleterious effects on the patient. In one trial in France an adenovirus was used, but a good percentage of the recipients went on to develop leukemias. In another notable trial carried out at the University of Pennsylvania a patient was given a virus for purposes of gene therapy that caused a massive inflammatory reaction that unfortunately resulted in his death. Despite the setbacks this type of therapy offers so much potential for such a wide range of diseases that trials are still continuing.
posted by HeyHey at 05:45 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 29, 2007 #
I am usually right with you that new discoveries in cancer medicine usually don't make it to market, usually because of safety issues that limite the dose or duration. This is different. There is no real toxicity to consider. We give this drug now to babies. Another key point about this drug is that it corrects a monumental misunderstanding about cancer that has persisted for decades. They always thought that cancer permanently damaged the mitochondria and that is why cancer relied on glycolysis. This is in fact now known to be untrue. This drug switches the mitochondria back to normal mode. Glycolysis is what a fetus runs on. Its what cancer cells run on. P-53 is re-enabled to kill the cancer cell when this drug turns the switch and normalizes the mitochondria. Another thing that makes it different from the run of the mill cancer drug, is that it appears to be able to return the cell to normal usage of sugar in spite of the overexpression of telomerase, which is the key indicator of the stemness of the cell and has been linked to the activation of glycolysis, the upregualtion of 70 cancer genes, and replicative immortality. That dichloroacetate can get around all that, and kill the cell by normalizing the mitochondria is fantastic beyond words. That the government isn't jumping on it with both feet is an Orwellian nightmare for cancer patients and their families. Again, these were human cancer zeongrafts, not mouse tumors. Its a small molecule so will cross the blood brain barrier. If I get cancer, I'll fly to a country where I can buy it over the counter. Not slamming your expertise, but I think you should look at this one a little closer. We already know the drug is of very low toxicity. I think doctors should be perscribing it off label for cancer. Would that be legal for a doctor to do???????
posted by prime3end at 06:21 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 29, 2007 #
Heyhey - why would you position as a vector? I am confused.
This was actually a dialogue about a strategic delivery agent. On a multitude of fronts. Some are delivering genetic encoding information and some are delivering agents directly.
For most people the American drug market is pretty much been there - done that. Advancements are made elsewhere.
Americans (and others) who can afford to go where the healing is being done just pretty much go there. If somebody delivers the big "C" news to you - are you telling me you'd surrender to the FDA and the big American drug houses while they battle for who's paying the biggest dollar for which drug and who can be bought for what amount of money?
I damn sure skippy wouldn't. And if I were a doctor - I'd try to at least come into the 20'th century and realize that we aren't buying everything we're being told at the office visit anymore.
Think about it. Not sure how old you - your parents or your siblings are - but somebody is going to draw the short straw for you at some point. I've been through it. Your rhetoric doesn't fit at that point.
posted by katie82640 at 10:50 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 30, 2007 #
Exactly Katie, full agreement. HeyHey, Your claims have a critical flaw. Cancer cells can engage in literal mitochondrial pumping to get rid of TOXIC cancer drugs, or perhaps be granted the immunity of sheer survival, based on differences they have from the other cancer cells. Things like survivin. However this is different. Cancer cells rely on glycolysis. Ask any oncologist on the planet earth if he would like to eliminate tumor burden by 70 in one year by putting a non toxic white powder in the patients water glass. See what his response is. If the cell is running on glycolysis it most certainly is also overexpressing telomerase. The measure of telomerase expression is a direct measure of cancers ability to spread through the body, and a direct measure of the chances of patient survival. Your a trained expert it appears, but if I've seen anything from oncologists and doctors its a skepticism that exceeds the level required by science, and comes from too many false hopes, too much hype, and seeing too many people die of the disease. Cancer is NOT 200 different diseases. Its one disease involving 220 different cell types. They originators of these cancers are embryonic stem cells that fail to mature in the fetus, they are reactivated in an adult body and we call it cancer. (Laird USC 2006 Ded Nature-Genetics) The different cancers have different responses to the same chemo agent because they are different cell types. But the process is all the same, they are all from an embryonic stem cell that was "silenced", then awakened again sometime after we are born. Glycolysis is the diesel engine of cancer. This stuff not only stops it cold, but returns the mitochondria to normal function, AND restores the P-53 suicide gene which kills the cell. Try to get 70% tumor reduction with chemo or radiation alone in 3 weeks with lung cancer. Not likely,,,, but this stuff (DCA) does just that. If its not a cure, its so damn close that if you throw something else at the cancer its going to be curative.
posted by prime3end at 11:10 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
CORRECTION IN CAPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN 3 WEEKS NOT 1 YEAR, BRAIN FAILURE AT SHIFT REGISTER BUFFER :-)::
Ask any oncologist on the planet if he would like to eliminate tumor burden by 70% in 3 WEEKS!
posted by prime3end at 11:18 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
I think doctors should be perscribing it off label for cancer. Would that be legal for a doctor to do???????
Yes, off-label prescribing is legal. Actually, I've read estimates that 1 in 5 prescriptions in the US are written for off-label use. Once a drug is on the market and approved by the FDA, it can legally be prescribed for any condition. (Of course, for safety and liability issues, if a physician is going to prescribe a medication for off-label use, they should make certain that they are well-versed on the particular risks and benefits.)
http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/05/08/hscout532598.html
http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/offlabel.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNG10CI3M71.DTL
(General information about off-label prescribing, not specifically referencing the medication you mentioned in your original post.)
posted by mom2 at 12:21 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
Thanks Mom2,
I just put in a call to the FDA at one of the numbers listed on the links you provided. I'll let you know what they say. The guy on the phone was low level, but he said a higher level person would call me back today. From your links the key seems to be that the drug manufacturer not make the off-label claims. The doctor is only confined by having a realistic scientific basis for making the off-label perscription,, and the realization that if the patient dies, has problems with the drug, etc., he might have to defend his actions in court. I think the science is there but doctors have a lot of money and thus a lot to lose.
Prime3end
posted by prime3end at 01:40 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
The FDA site actually makes sense.
The other articles are good also.
So the drug dichloroacetate CAN be used by physicians legally.
An interesting Wiki on the substance and the U of Alberta finding.
FYI - I just sat in a waiting room at St. V's all morning while my neighbor had a stress test. A young man - maybe 26 related his merry chase through Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. And what a futile path it was to get it diagnosed once his own physician had biopsied the tumor that appeared on this man's leg at 23 years of age. It didn't present normally so locally he was told it was all in his head. Even though the tumor had been observed and biopsied by his primary caregiver.
At OSU - he was diagnosed and treated. You can be that many of the drugs they are using in these cases are off label. It's tough enough just to get a correct diagnosis if you don't fit the textbook presentation anymore.
posted by katie82640 at 01:52 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
Katie,
Yes the websites gave good information, I want to ask the FDA their opinion of the work, but also ask them if they believe doctors will perscribe it, or would most of them be too fearful to perscribe it due to lawsuits. I do know that there is a new rule pending at FDA, that would allow doctors to perscibe legally, any drug that has a piece of scientific work backing it up for that use. Even an animal trial. When it comes to cancer what the heck does the patient have to lose when we are talking about a $2 a day non toxic drug. The problem will come in when the doc tries to use it with another approved cancer drug. Then FDA and docs might balk at that. Most onco docs only know surgery, radiation, and poisons. I find it hard to imagine that drug companies have spent a trillion dollars on this disease, without testing all existing drugs against even a bunch of cells in the lab. Had this been done this very targeted and potent non toxic cancer drug would have been discovered decades ago. How many would still be alive I wonder?
posted by prime3end at 02:19 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
katie82640 you are so right about getting a diagnosis. It took me 4 yrs. and a trip to University Hospital Cleveland for a non life threatening orthopedic diagnosis. Once the correct diagnosis was made and the proper treatment executed (surgery) I was fine. Don't have anything but the most routine care here locally. I learned the hard way. My particular problem was an everday occurrence in Cleveland. Here it was a total mystery. You wouldn't believe some of the comments the local physicians made. My husband insisted I get out of town when the last local orthopod specialist said it was all in my head. I can't stress enough that if you have health insurance that will cover it get out of Toledo to either Cleveland or Ann Arbor.
posted by holland at 07:08 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
If you can - St. Josephs' in Ann Arbor is very good. I think I'm scared to death of health issues - and I tend to remember the idiots I've encountered than the good doctors. And there were alot of good doctors. We just have to learn to speak up for ourselves and keep pushing until we get treatment that makes sense. Oh - and let substandard providers know we aren't happy.
We also need to communicate those concerns with our health insurance companies. The last thing they want is to be tied to a malpractice suit.
posted by katie82640 at 10:12 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
good question prime3 - how many would still be alive. Look ahead though - how can this information be given to doc's?
Those are the folks who need to be having this dialogue and sorting out those with the courage to work outside the accepted, governmentally prescribed norm in an effort to get control in their cancer patients vs. those who haven't the courage.
posted by katie82640 at 10:14 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
LOL,, I agree, Toledo is the Lower Nowhere of medicine. For a serious brain disorder, it took a patient I know , who first reported symtoms at age 16, till age 45 to get diagnosed. He was diagnosed by a visiting physician from California, not a Toledo doctor. He then finally had access to treatments that had been available for a decade or more. For example, Toledo has the medical university, its been here for years. With Toledo's high smoking rate, very high incidence of smoking and indstrial and truck exposures, they have no clinical trial program for lung cancer, the nations biggest cancer killer. Will they write scripts for dichloroacetate? We will see. I know that one patient waited 40 days after diagnosis with non-small cell lung cancer and the primary care doctor still had not secured him an oncologist appointment date. He said to hell with it and went to Ohio State for treatment, they let him in the next day.
posted by prime3end at 10:16 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
Katie, I've presented earth moving research paper from prestigious journals, to oncologists and general practicioners in Ohio. They are not moved. They don't want to do anything outside the box. However, you may be right, there may be a way to do it now that they can write scripts for DCA off-label. What bar or country club would we find them at, which forum? The usual method of distribution is going to be horribly biased against DCA, because they would rather sit a patient down for a 1 hour infusion of $6000 chemo, than give him a $2.00 a day drug that has little toxicity and will save his life. The business aspects of medicine are so detrimental! Notice on the CTV video on U of Alberta's website, the reporter mentions that this is the 3rd such treatment that has "gone nowhere" because it wasn't patentable. Ok, enough of my bad attitude,,:-) , how and who can formulate a good way to get this into the face of every doctor in Toledo??
posted by prime3end at 10:24 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 31, 2007 #
Front page posting by prime3end moved here:
---- START ----
U of Alberta might have cured cancer, no story? - by prime3end on 11:16 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 01, 2007
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
I don't know if this has been on the local news or not, but it seems so very important. This is a very major non toxic therapy that has been used in babies for decades for mitochondrial disorder and lactic acidosis in people with malaria. 70% tumor reduction in 3 weeks (human cancer in mice) with no side effects.
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
U of Alberta put up a website with their t.v. coverage, and with their request for money, and a link to the journal Cancer Cell mouse study. Nobody may finanace it because its non patentable. Hopefully you folks at the media can spur some charitable interest. It only needs a phase 2 study, maybe a 3 to get approved. My expectation is that after the early phase 2 results come in the drug would be approved. It even gets to the brain, its a small molecule drug so it gets past the blood brain barrier. Hope you will unleash the media upon this story.
It has long been thought that when cancer converted the mitochondria to glycolysis mode, it was a damaging and permanent event. This drug switches the mitochondria back to normal utilization of sugar. Cancer isn't cancer without glycolysis. Also , P-53 gene is enabled again when the mitochondria switches back to normal mode. The drug is cheap, easy to make, no toxicity compared to chemo, and it would cost about $2.00 a day to take.
---- END ----
posted by jr at 11:49 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 01, 2007 #
I don't think there is any financial incentive for a doctor to prescribe something like this. Cancer is huge business.
So getting the information to the doctors might be futile. Maybe getting it out to the patients?
posted by katie82640 at 09:54 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 03, 2007 #
Very true, I noticed that U of Alberta just took out a patent in November on Sodium Dichloroacetate. I think they really want to keep it out of the hands of big pharma.
posted by prime3end at 03:03 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 04, 2007 #
YOU CAN FORGET ABOUT DRUGS,CHEMO, RADIATION, SURGERY ETC. LOOK OVER THIS LINK FOR CURING CANCER, THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN WITHHELD SINCE 1951, OR SEARCH ON GOOGLE FOR "DR JOHANNA BUDWIG'S CANCER DIET" OR "MEDICINAL BENEFITS OF FLAXSEED OIL", ITS A SIMPLE DIET BASED ON FINDINGS OF A BIOCHEMISTS (DR JOHANNA BUDWIG, 6 TIME NOBEL PRIZE WINNER)FINDINGS ON SIMPLE FLAXSEED OIL AND COTTAGE CHEESE , THE DIET IS 13 PAGES LONG AND IS FREE TO DOWNLOAD AND WHEN YOU DO READ IT PLEASE PASS THE INFORMATION ON TO ALL YOU CAN THINK OF ...........GOD BLESS........JACK ARTHUR
posted by blacjac687 at 06:43 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 04, 2007 #
Flax is a very good oil, no doubt. But many cancers are widely spread through the body at the time of diagnosis. For that you need intervention and I think DCA might show itself to be a relatively harmless and effective treatment, even crossing the blood brain barrier. I've not seen any non toxic drug, even in mice that could knock 70% of a lung cancer down in only 3 weeks like dichloroacetate. I agree with most of Budwig's claims of flax seed oil for prevention though. Reminds me of the great book "Fats That Heal, Fats that Kill", 1986 & 1993 by Udo Erasmus.
posted by prime3end at 02:20 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
Promising drugs have been covered up for over 60 yrs just look at this site, it even tells about "714-x" that cures "AIDS" !!
www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy.html (if "html"doesn't work try "htm")
also a cure for SKIN CANCER AND THE FDA SHUT THEM DOWN,I'VE USED CANSEMA SALVE AND I KNOW IT WORKS BUT SEE FOR YOUR SELF AT WWW.ALTCANCER.COM/RLBANKS.HTM "no chemo no surgery, no radiation ! no drugs,! if your interested in the salve look up www.bloodroot.com ..............jack
posted by blacjac687 at 08:17 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
I'VE FOUND THE MINNESOTA WELLNESS DIRECTORY IS "WWW.MNWELLDIR.ORG/DOCS/CANCER1/ALTTHRPY.HTM SO THE FIRST LINK I USED IS NO GOOD SORRY, SIMPLE THINGS LIKE CAYENNE POWDERED RED PEPPER HAVE CURRED "INOPERABLE BRAIN TUMMORS"
IF YOU SUFFER FROM SINUS HEADACHES THIS WILL GET RID OF IT IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, OPEN YOU YR LUNGS AND OPEN PLUGGED EUSTACIAN TUBES IN 5 TO 15 MINUTES "GUARANTEED" GET 2 8oz glass's, fill one with cold water from the tap, the 2nd put no more hot water you can swallow in one gulp(just hot enough it won't burn you) put into the hot water 1/8 to 1/4 level tsp of cayenne powered red pepper, pick up Both glass's and mix the pepper and hot water as well as possiable, then "QUICKLY DOWN THE HOT WATER AND PEPPER, JUST AS QUICKLY PUT THE COLD WATER INTO YR MOUTH,AND RINSE,AND SWALLOW IT, REPEAT THE RINSE AND SWALLOWING ONLY UNTIL YOUR MOUTH IS VERY WARAM BUT NOT BURNING, QUIT RINSING, TAKE ALL THE AIR INTO YOUR LUNGS YOU CAN HOLD, HOLD IT AS LONG AS YOU CAN AND THEN LET THE AIR OUT YOUR NOSE SLOWLY, REPEAT THE BREATHING EXERSIZE 4 OR 5 TIMES, YOUR PAIN OR PRESURE WILL BE GONE, IF NOT REPEAT THE PROCESS,"IVE SEEN THIS WORK FOR A LADY IN TEXAS WHO SUFFERED FOR NEARLY 3 WEEKS WITH A SINUS HEADACHE AND IN 5 MINUTES IT WAS "GONE" !!
THEN AGAIN I'VE SEEN IT STOP THE SINUS HEADACHE IN AS LITTLE AS 30 SECONDS !
ABOUT 14 YRS AGO I MADE UP A ALL NATURAL HERBL FORMULA THAT CURED A ADVANCED CASE OF "EMPHYSEMA" FOR WILLARD BOOTH OF MARION ARK.
posted by blacjac687 at 08:38 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
PRIME3END; IF YOU'LL LOOK OVER THE "DR. JOHANNA BUDWIGS CANCER DIET" " YOU'LL SEE ITS CURING PEOPLE LITTERALLY ON THEIR DEATH BEDS ! HOW MUCH FARTHER CAN IT SPREAD?
posted by blacjac687 at 08:48 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
Excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Dr. Johanna Budwig.
"Dr. Johanna Budwig (30 September 1908–19 May 2003) was a German chemist, pharmacologist and physicist who believed that cancer is easily treatable through a specially-designed diet."
"The so-called Budwig Diet is based around regular consumption of a blend of flaxseed, flaxseed oil, and quark or cottage cheese. The Budwig Diet also bars consumption of animal and hydrogenated fats, foods high in preservatives, meats, and especially sugar."
"Most oncologists and cancer researchers do not believe that dietary changes alone can be used to treat advanced cancer. Reports of dramatic remissions as a result of the Budwig diet are anecdotal, and not supported by peer-reviewed research. Nevertheless, the Budwig diet is relatively sound from a nutritional standpoint, and is likely to do no harm as a complement to conventional cancer therapy."
posted by jr at 08:57 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
HOWEVER PRIME3END; WE ARE OF THE SAME MIND AS TO RADIATION AND CHEMO, ITS JUST A WAY TO RUN UP THE COSTS SEE WHAT DR DAY SAYS ABOUT IT IN CALIFORNIA AND THE CANCER ON HER BREATS THE SIZE OF A "GRAPEFRUIT" AT WWW.DRDAY.COM .DON'T GET ME WRONG I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE DRUG THEY FOUND BUT YOU CAN BET YOU ASS "YOU'LL NOT SEE IT IN THE GOOD OLD USA" JUST LIKE VITAMIN B-17 OR APPRICOT SEEDS OR EVEN APPLESEEDS IN BULK APPRICOT SEEDS HAVE THE HIGHEST CONTENT OF "LAYITRILE" "WHICH IS ALL NATURAL" AND KILLS CANCER CELLS NATURALLY IF ANYONES INTERESTED JUST SEARCH FOR "MEDICINAL BENEFITS OF APPRICOT SEEDS"
OH YEA IF NO ONE'S LOOK UP THE "CANCER TREATMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA" I HAVE, THEY WILL NOT EVEN TALK TO YA UNLESS YOU HAVE $28,000 UP FRONT ! WHY SPEND ALL THAT MONEY? IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT OK. BUT DR.JOHANNA BUDWIGS CANCER DIET IS ALL NATRAL AND IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE FOR VERY LITTLE MONEY AND YOU CAN GET MOST OF IT AT KROGERS OR WAL-MART
posted by blacjac687 at 09:09 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 05, 2007 #
I guess the good news out of this is that we do have some information to give to cancer patients. Maybe restore a little control to them in a bad situation.
I put flax seeds in just about everything. From salad to soup.
posted by katie82640 at 03:24 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
I think we're suppose to consume flaxseed oil or milled flaxseed because whole flaxseed is too hard for the human body to digest. Maybe someone can confirm that.
posted by jr at 03:56 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
Front page posting by blacjac687 moved here.
---- START ----
"NO MORE DISINFORMATION" ON THE CURE FOR CANCER - by blacjac687 at 03:42 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007
I'M REALLY SICK OF THE DISINFORMATION BEING POSTED THE OTHER DAY SOMEONE QUOTED SOME "CRAP"FROM WICOPEDIA MENTIONING SOMETHING ABOUT "CONVENTIONAL ONOCOLOGISTS" AND "IN CONNECTION WITH CONVENTIONAL" THERAPIES WELLTHAT IS A BUNCH OF "CRAP"!! in the "CURRENT AND CONVENTIONAL" IS REFERRING TO THE SAME ASSENIGN PEOPLE AND SYSTEM THAT HAS "VERY SUCCESSFULLY" BEEN FILLING OUR CEMETARIES FOR NEARLY A CENTURY I'M REALLY GLAD THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA HAS A GREAT NEW DRUG "IN THE FIRST PLACE, A ONOCOLOGIST AND FORMER CARDIOLOGIST INITIONALY DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE "DR JOHANNA BUGWIG CANCER DIET BUT AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION DR DAN C.ROEH MD.WROTE IN LETTER CALLED THE "TOWNSEND LETTER FOR DOCTORS" IN JULY OF 1990 "HIS FINDS INVETRO AND VETRO RESULTS WERE "IMMEDIATE"
SO, THIS IS MY STORY AND "I'M STICKING TO IT" FOR YOU "DOUBTING THOMAS'S" LOOK INTO YOUR DISINFORMATION A LITTLE DEEPER!!
---- END ----
posted by jr at 04:04 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
KATIE, YOUR DOING MORE THAN YOU CAN IMMAGINE FOR YOUR HEALTH,"JR", IN YOUR QUOTE IT SAYS "CONVENTINAL ONOCOLOGISTS" SEE NO REASON DR BUDWIGS DIET CAN'T BE USED TO COMPLEMENT "CURRENT THERAPIES" I REALLY DON'T MEAN TO BE CONDESENDING BUT AREN'T "MOST ONOCOLOGISTS" AND HOSPITALS, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY THE SAME ASSENEIGN PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY BEEN "FILLING OUR CEMETARIES" AND EVEN TAKING OUR CHILDREN AWAY FOR NEARLY A CENTURY PROMISSING A CURE FOR THE SAME LENGTH OF TIME?? "I BELIEVE I'VE MADE MY POINT""!! BUT JUST IN CASE,A FORMER CARDIOLOGIST, AND NOW ONOCOLOGIST "DR. DAN C. ROEHM PUBILICALY RECCOGNIZED HIS RESULTS INVETRO AND VETRO IN A LETTER CALLED THE "TOWNSEND LETTER TO DOCTORS" IN JULY OF 1990 AND HE ALSO CALLED THE RESULTS OF HIS RESEARCH TO BE "IMMEDIATE"! IN KILLING AND FIGHTING CANCER
posted by blacjac687 at 04:13 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
posted by blacjac687 at 04:16 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
blacjac687 - can you please not use all caps??
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:53 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 06, 2007 #
Sorry Maggie I'll try to restrain my self
posted by blacjac687 at 05:06 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 07, 2007 #
thanks...it's just hard to read.
posted by MaggieThurber at 09:37 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 07, 2007 #
I just heard on wspd a few days ago that Canada has found a 'cure' for cancer - that it kills cancer cells & doen't damage healthy cells - BUT - they can't get a patent for it because it's a drug already in use for something else - and if they can't patent it for cancer, there's no money to be made on it, so they won't release this for cancer patients. Is this the same drug?
posted by starling02 at 12:27 A.M. EST on Sun Feb 18, 2007 #
I don't know starling - I'll see if I can find something on it. Do you remember what show you would have heard it on?
You know, that's actually a fear of mine. And I don't have too many - but I really fear that there WILL be or maybe is a cure for cancer but there is more money to be made on the treatment of cancer so they sit on it.
posted by katie82640 at 08:05 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 19, 2007 #
Yup - it is the Alberta deal:
CTV
Columbia News
Newscientist
posted by katie82640 at 08:08 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 19, 2007 #
A summary from the research paper
For any of you folks in the medical field - the paper is archived somewhere under: Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020
posted by katie82640 at 08:11 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 19, 2007 #
The Alberta researchers are not the first to examine DCA in relationship to cancer.
Here is a patent which uses DCA in conjunction with lipoic acid derivatives that showed specificity and tumor killing action:
"United States Patent 6,951,887
Bingham , et al. October 4, 2005
Lipoic acid derivatives and their use in treatment of disease
Abstract
This invention relates to the identification of a novel class of therapeutic agents which selectively target and kill tumor cells and certain other types of diseased cells, and to compositions comprising lipoic acid derivatives which poison the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex specifically in such cells. This invention also provides for methods of using therapeutically effective amounts of the lipoic acid derivatives for the treatment of cancer and other diseases. The lipoic acid derivatives described herein have a wide range of preventive and therapeutic applications."
Which stated:
...Another embodiment of the invention relates to a method of treating a disease sensitive to lipoate derivatives comprising administering an effective amount of a lipoate compound and a second reagent to treat said disease. This second reagent is preferably an inhibitor of mitochondrial energy metabolism and/or one that induces apoptosis. Such reagents include metabolism inhibitory reagents. Many such reagents are known in the art. One particularly preferred reagent is dichloroacetate. This second reagent may be administered sequentially, simultaneously or separately, so as to amplify patient response to said treatment method."
So even though the Alberta contingent is acting like they have invented the idea, they have not.
posted by IronRyan at 12:59 P.M. EST on Sat Mar 24, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
