Cancer and chemo

I know bodies are not cars, but if you had a problem with your car would you go online for alternative ways to fix a car or take it to a proffesional garage with experienced mechanics? If the mechanic told you he could fix your car, would you listen to them or continue your online search for anonymous advice from non experts?

A simple analogy, but maybe one worth chewing over?

hey OP.

I dunno if you are still reading this thread, as many posters are saying so much negative stuff about the alternatives, even though many people are getting better by them. I wish you will be one of them!!

tv.greenmedinfo.com...

another alternative. Maybe check out for more info and see if it is any good.

Also I know a person who got better after extensive water fasting for a longer period. Cancer was starved to oblivion. But I don't know what type of cancer or how far was developed. But doctors were giving up or at least saying she has little chance and it was also her own choice to try alternative and she made it! But that would be only appropriate choice after a lot of research or under advisement and guidance of a medical person.

there are ways, don't let the opinions of posters here bring you down. Each person and disease is unique and there are no certainties as you already know.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

if you had a problem with your car would you go online for alternative ways to fix a car or take it to a proffesional garage with experienced mechanics? If the mechanic told you he could fix your car, would you listen to them or continue your online search for anonymous advice from non experts?

I alway check online when there is an issue with my car. Tons of informations there from peoples that have found solution for the problem. I no longer go to the garage, last time I was "shafted", big bill for badly done repair that will broke soon after. It is an "alternative" to poor workmanship at high cost.

My car is important, any failure can endanger my life and those of my passagers. I no longer trust strangers to do such important work on my car. There is nothing I cannot do on it and I have all the required tools.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: woodwardjnr

if you had a problem with your car would you go online for alternative ways to fix a car or take it to a proffesional garage with experienced mechanics? If the mechanic told you he could fix your car, would you listen to them or continue your online search for anonymous advice from non experts?

I alway check online when there is an issue with my car. Tons of informations there from peoples that have found solution for the problem. I no longer go to the garage, last time I was "shafted", big bill for badly done repair that will broke soon after. It is an "alternative" to poor workmanship at high cost.

My car is important, any failure can endanger my life and those of my passagers. I no longer trust strangers to do such important work on my car. There is nothing I cannot do on it and I have all the required tools.

I think it's more akin to when taking a flight somewhere, going into the cockpit and telling the pilot that you can do his job better than he can.

However, if you're that concerned about your passengers then why did you suggest ketone "therapy" in this thread even though it's shown to be potentially harmful in breast cancer cases?

a reply to: Pardon?

However, if you're that concerned about your passengers then why did you suggest ketone "therapy" in this thread even though it's shown to be potentially harmful in breast cancer cases?

You will never stop trolling me, won't you?

The fact is you are ridiculizing yourself with your incapacity to understand a scientific paper. Like an Asperger, you can read the fine print but you are uterly incapable at understanding the big picture.

I will answer the previous question, but not for you as you cannot grasp the concept, but for the others, influenced by your innept interpretations.

If you would have at least read the paper I posted from Poff et al., you would have seen at page 1719 that they comment the work from the team of Lisanti et al. (the paper you posted).

Lisanti and coworkers have published reports that tumor- associated fibroblasts produce ketone bodies to fuel nearby cancer cells. In these reports, the authors coculture immortalized fibroblasts genetically altered to overexpress rate-limiting ketone production enzymes with breast cancer cells genetically altered to overexpress ketone utilization enzymes. Although this phenomenon may occur in the system created by the authors, there is no evidence that this situation would occur naturally in vivo. As described, the literature as a whole strongly suggests that cancer cells of various tissue types are unable to effectively use ketone bodies for fuel. Many cancers do not express the succinyl CoA 3-ketoacid CoA transferase (SCOT) enzyme that is necessary for ketone body utilization, while several reports have demonstrated a notable deficiency of cancer cell ketone metabolism in vitro. It is also widely accepted that ketone production occurs nearly exclusively in the liver, and there is no known metabolic pathway by which fibroblasts could produce ketones from glucose. Without evidence to support this phenomenon in a natural cellular environment, we continue to accept the notion that most cancer cells cannot effectively metabolize ketones for energy.

OK, since someone need to hold your hand, here again: "we continue to accept the notion that most cancer cells cannot effectively metabolize ketones for energy."

And since it is most probable you still cannot understand, it say that Lisanti et al. team used genetically altered cell to overexpress rate-limiting ketone production enzymes with breast cancer cells genetically altered to overexpress ketone utilization enzymes.

==> "and there is no known metabolic pathway by which fibroblasts could produce ketones from glucose. Without evidence to support this phenomenon in a natural cellular environment"

What your fertile imagination with produce to counter this? I have no doubt that you will "invent" something "creative".

A "friendly" advise: Don't quit your day job to work in this field ...

ETA:

A strong hint that the paper you cited is pure bull# is this citation (p.1282):

Remarkably, it has been shown that metformin prevents cancer cells from using their mitochondria, induces aerobic glycolysis and ...

How can you prevent the use of the mitochondrion and induce aerobic glycolysis at the same time? Aerobic glycolysis is a metabolic pathway that MUST use the mitochondrion !!!

I would not bet an arm and a leg on this paper ...

a reply to: Night Star

let me try and get this straight. With radiation, you go from normal to losing all your hair and having radiation poisoning, weak, sick, feeble, then they put you on a endless perscriptions...but that's gonna help you? That's gonna fix you?

Or chemo, you take it into your body and you get so sick after you can't even function. you lose your memory. It's the same symptoms as drinking a poison because thats' what it is. But that's good for you right? Like come on get real. Please think about this.

Because a dr who's been brainwashed by big phrama to say to you it's okay, somehow makes it safe and effective? It's nuts. Okay don't do canabas oil. (even though it's been proven "actualy safe" and effective) and don't do anything. At least you're not KILLING YOURSELF by some the lies of some brainwashed dr. Like get serious.




chemo (starts at 3:00)


check this out... (you know the mass growth of cancer is a new thing right? Wells so are vaccinations)




The only thing MSMed might have that might have a chance is the: car t cells theorpy
but you know for a FACT that if it actually works? well it will be shelved and we'll be told that "it doesn't work" even though the clinical trials already prove that it might work as people have been healed by using it. cuz again there's NO MONEY in curing people...duhhhh. It's not the dr's so much. They're stupid. They're morons in the eyes of big pharma who decided what dr's use on people. That's why you can't believe the dr's, because they work for big pharma.



Also there's study that asks like 100 cancer dr's if they would use chemo or radiation on themselves or their own family members or friends. 95% of the cancer dr's surveyed said they WOULD NOT USE chemo or radiation as it's too risky.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: lavatrance
a witch dr is no different than a MD. Only that they operate in 2 different countries. In one they witch dr does what they call a curse. In the other the md give a diagnosis. Exact same thing. Both voodoo curses. Both can work if you're not careful. That why you should avoid dr's at all cost. They'll kill you. They're paid assassins for big brother and big corps.

At what point does the MD do this "voodoo curse" on you?
Which one, out of countless visits to them do they suddenly think "Right, it's time to do the curse thing"?
Who do they select and why and why do they not curse the majority?

I'm really interested to hear your answers on this.

not much has changed with dr's through out history. So for example. In some tribes around the world, and in recent history they have "witch dr's". if the witch dr (who's a respected member of the community) put a curse on you, you'll die. How is that possible? It's like this. It's NO DIFFERENT than what happens right now. You go see a dr and if they "tell you" that you're sick. Then you'll get sick even if you're not. Alternatively if they find something and "don't tell you", then you might not get sick, and actually recover by not knowing. Look it up there's tons of research on all this stuff.

Google: dr gives fake knee surgery

www.wsj.com...

It shows that if a person is convinced that "something real happened" they get well. Or if they're "convinced" that something bad is happening ie: cancer... then they get sick. To a large degree it's all in our minds!

So to answer your question the moment you get the curse is the moment you get diagnosed. The diagnosis is the curse. So what does that mean.... well what that means is use hospitals and dr's for major trauma care ONLY! Everything else you can fix on your own with a little research, that way it gets done right the first time.

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: Night Star
let me try and get this straight. With radiation, you go from normal to losing all your hair and having radiation poisoning, weak, sick, feeble, then they put you on a endless perscriptions...but that's gonna help you? That's gonna fix you?

Actually, yes. In my case I had 63 radioactive seeds inserted into the tumour. I felt a little bushed for a week or so. No hair loss, no ill effects, tumour toasted and I'm 9 years clear. Ya...that fixed me.

Also there's study that asks like 100 cancer dr's if they would use chemo or radiation on themselves or their own family members or friends. 95% of the cancer dr's surveyed said they WOULD NOT USE chemo or radiation as it's too risky.

Please cite the study so that we, too, may become enlightened. And yes...your claim, so it's up to you to provide the references.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

lavatrance is misrepresenting the study. The doctors were asked if TERMINALLY ILL would they continue invasive treatment for the POSSIBILITY of extending their life by some months (3? 6? I forget).

This is absolutely not the same as "cancer doctors would not use chemotherapy if they got cancer".

originally posted by: lavatrance
Google: dr gives fake knee surgery

www.wsj.com...

It shows that if a person is convinced that "something real happened" they get well. Or if they're "convinced" that something bad is happening ie: cancer... then they get sick. To a large degree it's all in our minds!

No it doesn't. Stop talking bollocks.

It means that evidence-based medicine (emphasis on the evidence) showed that particular procedure was largely ineffective for that particular injury, not "cancer is all in the mind". How the heck did you even come to that conclusion? Wild guesswork??

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
lavatrance is misrepresenting the study. The doctors were asked if TERMINALLY ILL would they continue invasive treatment for the POSSIBILITY of extending their life by some months (3? 6? I forget).
This is absolutely not the same as "cancer doctors would not use chemotherapy if they got cancer".

Yes, and it a response to a question about a very specific protocol for a very specific cancer, and it's also a number of years old. God only knows how many people have died through morons and quacks disseminating this crap as universally relevant.
But...if our esteemed poster searches out the study, he might actually read it.

a reply to: GetHyped

Yes it is. I hope you are not so negative in real life. Negative people are under stress, get all kind of disease.

AND YES, you can plant all kind of ideas in their weak minds aka cancer or other things you are planted every day through the box.

Research done about pills, if people see pill commercial they will go and buy it. So please stop being dumb ass and start using your brain, there is whole new world out there, the world you don't know egzist.

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes it is.

No, this is either you deliberately misrepresenting the study or being too blinded by your beliefs to understand the conclusions.

originally posted by: UniFinity

By itself, artemisinin is about 100 times more selective in killing cancer cells as opposed to normal cells. Artemisinin is 34,000 times more potent in killing the cancer cells as opposed to their normal cousins. So the tagging process appears to have greatly increased the potency of artemisinin’s cancer-killing properties. – Henry Lai

^^ in vitro! And stopped the growth of a type of cancer cells in mice. This does not mean it works in humans. There is NO evidence it kills cancer cells in humans.

Here is the study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: GetHyped

I m not talking about study. I m talking about planting ideas in weak human minds.

If you don't know anything about it please investigate and educate your self on the problem.

I just said that it s possible to plant cancer in human body. If you listen every day that you will get cancer, most probably sooner or later you will get one.

Same thing works in a positive way, if you are positive and people around you are positive, literally you can do anything. This is visible in many sport miracle events and history is full of it.

Also I see you ignored my thesis about pills as commercials on TV box. They be banned soon because as people watch this commercials they deal sick and go buy them...

Do a research, then you will know that world is not just black and white there is a huge mess between it.

a reply to: Agartha

Yea but thus tests are done on rats on purpose. If it works on mice most probably will work on humans. So it is high chance it will work, be positive.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

well I'm not saying they're not effective 100 % of the time. But I'm saying that the medical industry has such an awful track record that I'd never feel safe using those or any treatments being offered by a dr working for big phrama. They are not your friends in life. They are out to keep you sick for as long as they can to make as much money off you as possible.

www.dailymail.co.uk... tml

www.naturalnews.com...

www.whale.to...

tons of these surveys out there. But they'll do it on you though, why is that?

a reply to: GetHyped

any aliment or decease can be started or stopped by the voodoo curse, aka diagnosis

a reply to: Agartha

so what you are saying, just becouse there is no such evidence in science for humans than one should not even bother to try on their own experiance, if one refuses chemo?

Got it, thanks!

way to attached to science. If one refuses chemo, than it is expected that such a person does not care for what science says so much...own experiance should be priority and testimonies of people who got better on their own. There are many!

and I agree, no mouse should be tested on ever! it is useless concept we are not the same so what it happen in their body does not mean it will in human body.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Pardon?

However, if you're that concerned about your passengers then why did you suggest ketone "therapy" in this thread even though it's shown to be potentially harmful in breast cancer cases?

You will never stop trolling me, won't you?

The fact is you are ridiculizing yourself with your incapacity to understand a scientific paper. Like an Asperger, you can read the fine print but you are uterly incapable at understanding the big picture.

I will answer the previous question, but not for you as you cannot grasp the concept, but for the others, influenced by your innept interpretations.

If you would have at least read the paper I posted from Poff et al., you would have seen at page 1719 that they comment the work from the team of Lisanti et al. (the paper you posted).

Lisanti and coworkers have published reports that tumor- associated fibroblasts produce ketone bodies to fuel nearby cancer cells. In these reports, the authors coculture immortalized fibroblasts genetically altered to overexpress rate-limiting ketone production enzymes with breast cancer cells genetically altered to overexpress ketone utilization enzymes. Although this phenomenon may occur in the system created by the authors, there is no evidence that this situation would occur naturally in vivo. As described, the literature as a whole strongly suggests that cancer cells of various tissue types are unable to effectively use ketone bodies for fuel. Many cancers do not express the succinyl CoA 3-ketoacid CoA transferase (SCOT) enzyme that is necessary for ketone body utilization, while several reports have demonstrated a notable deficiency of cancer cell ketone metabolism in vitro. It is also widely accepted that ketone production occurs nearly exclusively in the liver, and there is no known metabolic pathway by which fibroblasts could produce ketones from glucose. Without evidence to support this phenomenon in a natural cellular environment, we continue to accept the notion that most cancer cells cannot effectively metabolize ketones for energy.

OK, since someone need to hold your hand, here again: "we continue to accept the notion that most cancer cells cannot effectively metabolize ketones for energy."

And since it is most probable you still cannot understand, it say that Lisanti et al. team used genetically altered cell to overexpress rate-limiting ketone production enzymes with breast cancer cells genetically altered to overexpress ketone utilization enzymes.

==> "and there is no known metabolic pathway by which fibroblasts could produce ketones from glucose. Without evidence to support this phenomenon in a natural cellular environment"

What your fertile imagination with produce to counter this? I have no doubt that you will "invent" something "creative".

A "friendly" advise: Don't quit your day job to work in this field ...

ETA:

A strong hint that the paper you cited is pure bull# is this citation (p.1282):

Remarkably, it has been shown that metformin prevents cancer cells from using their mitochondria, induces aerobic glycolysis and ...

How can you prevent the use of the mitochondrion and induce aerobic glycolysis at the same time? Aerobic glycolysis is a metabolic pathway that MUST use the mitochondrion !!!

I would not bet an arm and a leg on this paper ...

So ignoring your superman stance and your unnecessary reference to Asperger's let's take a look at the bigger picture shall we?

You say that the Lisanti paper isn't valid as it uses an "unnatural" model (even though it's showing that this effect CAN occur).
Then you cite a study using mice...
Since both are aimed at human cancer I would suggest that in this respect, neither are valid claims (although the Lisanti one does use human breast cancer cells, albeit modified).

As you well know, mouse models do not equal human trials and plenty of potential treatments are successful in mice but fail further down the line.

So, to add credence to your belief that ketones are the way, show some positive human trials, I mean, ketogenic diets as treatment for cancer has been around for years so surely there should be some robust data supporting this?