5 ms·
There is a very interesting book around the metabolic route for treating cancer. It's called "Starving cancer" by Jane McLelland. It talks about using over the
by aficiomaquinas 6y ago
There is a very interesting book around the metabolic route for treating cancer. It's called "Starving cancer" by Jane McLelland. It talks about using over the counter drugs and supplements that have been studied for their metabolic blocking properties for cancer, as well as changing the diet to reduce as much as possible the nutrients that cancer craves the most according to their metabolic phenotype. Most of the times it's glucose or glutamine, but the trick is to block as many metabolic pathways using the drugs so that mutation is prevented. Most of these drugs have their patents expired and are quite cheap. The author had a very aggressive form of cancer with less than 5% statistic survival rate and were able to survive and go back to NED (no evidence of disease). It's not exactly a substitute for standard therapy such as chemo, but there's many people who also went to NED just with her protocol.
I tried this back when I had cancer, and even though my survival rate was very high just on standard care, my tumor markers went way down almost to normal on the first cycle combined with Jane's protocol.
Unfortunately, the cancer industry and pharmaceutical industry won't really invest much money on clinical trials for expired patent, or even existing drugs in their portfolio. There are a couple of independent clinical trials going on, so far, with good results AFAIC.
Another very controversial, but interesting treatment for cancer that will probably never see the light is Chlorine Dioxide. And don't you dare write that on Facebook or YouTube because it'll be outright banned or deleted for "spreading misinformation". I have friends and persons I know that went to NED just on chlorine dioxide and diet. Having used it myself for many months with no negative effects, and, after chemo, I can't help but cringe every time someone tells me that it's "very toxic". Oh lord, you should have seen what chemo was like. Now, that was toxic.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoIf something is flagged by YouTube, it must be a really bad idea. Chlorine isn’t too bad in terms of toxicity, or it wouldn’t be added to drinking water and freely sold for all sorts of purposes. But there’s absolutely no reason to ingest it (or any other route of administration). I guess it’s exactly because of it’s ubiquity that those of a conspiratorial mindset like it so much: it fits with the idea that there are obvious and easy answers suppressed by that mighty cabal of Bill Gates/Soros/some other Jews.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wittyreference 6y agoChlorine sucks. It's added to water because the other major way of disinfecting water (ozone) is too transient to last all the way through the water pipelines. Nonetheless, they're often used in combination, to minimize the amount of chlorine needed. The only thing worse than chlorinated water is the diseases you catch by not having chlorinated water.
- aficiomaquinas 6y agoThis is exactly my point. If anything, the effects of chlorine dioxide seem minimal or barely noticeable compared to chemo, and of course, much better than dying of cancer. I'm not saying that cancer patients should skip chemo, though!
- aficiomaquinas 6y agoI don't agree with trusting YouTube blindly. I trust my friends and colleagues that have cured their cancer better. Also note that chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypoclorite. It's like comparing salt (which also contains chlorine) with sugar.
- JPLeRouzic 6y agoA company named Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals created a drug named NP001. NP001, a pH-adjusted IV formulation of purified sodium chlorite, is a novel molecule that regulates inflammation in vitro and in vivo. It was used in a phase II clinical trial for ALS, and a subset of patients did not have any progression during the 6 month trial [0]. Something highly improbable. Unfortunately this was not confirmed in a following phase III trial. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396529/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396529/
- aficiomaquinas 6y ago
- bbojan 6y agoWhat is "cancer industry"?
- Ralfp 6y agoIt's a conspiracy theory saying that we know natural and effective cures to cancer, but those are ignored or shammed by Big Pharma and scientific world because they are conspiring to instead produce drugs that are costly and require taking for long periods of time because thats more profitable to them.
- aficiomaquinas 6y agoI didn't mean that. Simply, pharmaceutical companies don't have incentives to invest in drugs that they won't profit from. Expired patent drugs come off first on that list.
- theshadowknows 6y agoHi - as the person you replied to noted, you were a cancer researcher. I recently had a much beloved dog lose her fight with cancer (specifically, she had mass cell tumors that started on her leg and grew). All of her oncologists (we spent close to ten thousand dollars keeping her as healthy and happy for as long as we could) kept telling us that mass cell tumors in dogs are "very nasty" and pretty much told us on the outset that even amputating her leg probably wouldn't save her. So my question is, what about mass cell tumors makes them nasty and, as a follow up question, why is it that the tumors became resistant to each line of treatment that we used? We went through I think 6 different drugs until we ran out of options, and then kept her on prednisone for about a year to keep the growth slowed down until she started showing signs of declining.