Arguably The Most Important Documentary In The History Of Medicine Was Just Released

a reply to: TerryDon79

Read that one

That's the same one that said that it can reduce the effectiveness of chemo.

If the used chemo is one that is designed to increase level of ROS then you add to the melting pot something like vitamin C that lower ROS, then sure, one effect negate the other.

ETA: Question #5 imply that vitamin C produce H2O2, a ROS ?! Eh??? I'm confused and begin to wonder is this FAQ is serious?!

ETA2: from wiki on ascorbic acid

Ascorbic acid or vitamin C is a common enzymatic cofactor in mammals used in the synthesis of collagen. Ascorbate is a powerful reducing agent capable of rapidly scavenging a number of reactive oxygen species (ROS).

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TerryDon79

Read that one

That's the same one that said that it can reduce the effectiveness of chemo.

If the used chemo is one that is designed to increase level of ROS then you add to the melting pot something like vitamin C that lower ROS, then sure, one effect negate the other.

Like I said, it's such a mixed bag of results that it's nowhere near conclusive to even give an accurate % of effectiveness.

One thing that has helped my wife is a high fiber diet. It's not helped with the cancer, but it's helped remove some of the pain and discomfort she gets. Having 90% of her large intestines removed kind of screws up anything she eats anyway, so it could just be the effect of a regular fiber diet for "regular" people.

ETA: Yeah, I don't quite understand the hydrogen peroxide bit myself. It states that vit c involves a chemical reaction in different types of cancer cells. There must be more to it than just the cells and vit c that isn't shown in the answers.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Like I said, it's such a mixed bag of results that it's nowhere near conclusive to even give an accurate % of effectiveness.

The problem I see is with the way modern medecine is practiced. They often prescribe meds that nullify each other.

Like in cancer, I am a big believer that having high blood glucose level is bad when having cancer, just take as an example that diabetes sufferer have a higher incidence of cancer. High glucose level is very bad. But docs often prescribe during cancer chemo a product called corticosteroids for the anti-inflammatory effect. But corticosteroids increase the level of blood glucose.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TerryDon79

Like I said, it's such a mixed bag of results that it's nowhere near conclusive to even give an accurate % of effectiveness.

The problem I see is with the way modern medecine is practiced. They often prescribe meds that nullify each other.

Like in cancer, I am a big believer that having high blood glucose level is bad when having cancer, just take as an example that diabetes sufferer have a higher incidence of cancer. High glucose level is very bad. But docs often prescribe during cancer chemo a product called corticosteroids for the anti-inflammatory effect. But corticosteroids increase the level of blood glucose.

I think that's just an incidental correlation. I'm not 100% sure though.

My wife can't take any anti-inflammatory meds. Last time the doc did (without reading her notes) she collapsed and was rushed to hospital. Bleeding from both ends, highly irritated pancreas and generally in a bad way. She spent a week in hospital, 3 of those days were in an induced coma.

ETA: But I fully understand what you mean about competing medications. What's the point of giving one med to then give another that cancel each others effects out either a little or completely?

a reply to: TerryDon79

ETA: Yeah, I don't quite understand the hydrogen peroxide bit myself. It states that vit c involves a chemical reaction in different types of cancer cells. There must be more to it than just the cells and vit c that isn't shown in the answers.

I think we both agree this is not a good reference, so I will retract it.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TerryDon79

ETA: Yeah, I don't quite understand the hydrogen peroxide bit myself. It states that vit c involves a chemical reaction in different types of cancer cells. There must be more to it than just the cells and vit c that isn't shown in the answers.

I think we both agree this is not a good reference, so I will retract it.

Fair enough.

You should read this from NHS (it's in the uk). NHS is our National Health Service. The reason we don't pay for doctors, hospital visits, operations and so on.

ETA: Incidentally it addresses your previous link that you just retracted lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Since there seem to be few consistent vitamin C info outhere. May I suggest you do some reading on the metabolism of cancerous cells vs normal cells. They have some singular metabolic differences.

One very interesting come from the Warburg hypothesis and is one that cause lot of interest on my parts. This come from the fact that 'most' but possibly not all cancerous cells prefer anaerobic glycolysis to produce energy. And that normal cell prefer aerobic glycolysis, a process that require a well functionning mitochondrion, the same mitochondrion that is required for apoptosis process to work correctly.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Incidentally it addresses your previous link that you just retracted lol.

That the problem with internet as a source, they often come from the same place. Very hard to find independant source sometime.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Funny you should bring up the Warburg hypothesis. I found out about it about 2 months ago and my wife is speaking with her specialist about it. He seems to think it has promise too.

Hm .. funny (not really) .. my father-in-law died 4 years ago on Cancer he had for over 15 years .. (yeah long time) .. well they gave him some experimental treatment which increased the cell production rate but also the cancer cell rate - killing him in the process.

During that time I did a lot of research of what could be done and I was reading about the Vitamin-C and talked with a doctor about that - Oh my god - he was so upset with me, going off that "I shouldn't believe all the stuff I read in the Internet and that we (doctors) actually put a lot of research in this stuff" ...

Now I see this:
www.cancer.gov...

I swear if I go back to that doctor - he will be all about PDQ (since it's trademarked) ...

I know that the Cancer Industry is a pure scam because I experienced it myself .. there was a doctor locally here who actually did some serious and promising research on some other cancer destroying methods - she eventually got shut down because nobody gave her research money .. she did a fundraiser in the end which allowed her to finish some of the stage-1 research but that was the end of the line.. she asked for about 50k to finish her studies ..

There is no interested to cure Cancer .. it's a massive money maker .. just plain and easy ..

a reply to: TerryDon79

Funny you should bring up the Warburg hypothesis. I found out about it about 2 months ago and my wife is speaking with her specialist about it. He seems to think it has promise too.

There is lots of discution on the web about Warburg hypothesis, but very few place seem to have a basic understanding of what it is. Wikipedia article is good for understanding but not alway exact. I take my interpretation from a couple of papers I have here. An interesting paper on such metabolic singularity is:

ZUCCOLI, G. et al. - Metabolic Management of GBM using Std Therapy together with a restricted KD - Case Report

Easy to find on internet.

They speculate that such metabolic bottleneck can be exploited to fight cancer by reducing blood level of glucose and trying to feed rest of the body with other metabolic fuel than glucose.

a reply to: flyandi

Um, we have literally just stopped speaking about it and how it is inaccurate.

You should look back at the last couple of pages of this thread

a reply to: flyandi

she eventually got shut down because nobody gave her research money .. she did a fundraiser in the end which allowed her to finish some of the stage-1 research but that was the end of the line.. she asked for about 50k to finish her studies ..

That is a real problem, when I investigated use of metabolic bottleneck as I spoke previously (Warburg hypothesis), I saw that some research papers I found were pretty old even if they were promising and serious. Strangely there never seem any money or support for these team and they eventually vanish into nothingness...

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I think the reactivation of the mitochondrial in the cancer cells is the problem (and so do other papers).

Would be amazing if we could just turn it back on and the cells would self destruct.

I know that's part of the premise, but I, personally, think that would be the ultimate goal.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Is turmeric problematic for her?

One of it's key benefits is being anti-inflammatory.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I think the reactivation of the mitochondrial in the cancer cells is the problem (and so do other papers).

Would be amazing if we could just turn it back on and the cells would self destruct.

I know that's part of the premise, but I, personally, think that would be the ultimate goal.

Yes, seem the Holy Grail...

But somes have postulated an interesting theory based on the Warburg hypothesis. If we cannot reactivate it, why not exploit the fact that it does not work in cancerous cell? The idea is to starve the cells (all of them) from required glucose (I know, body need glucose but more on this later). When glucose is scant, a normal cell will goes to others metabolic fuel, one is ketones, produced from fat burning. But ketones metabolization require a mitochondrion that function well. Something that cancerous cell does not possess! If you follow me, the idea is not to kill cancerous cell but to starve them and forcing them to use less common metabolic fuel like glutamine. So to speak we make life harder for them and thus give more time for conventionnal treatements to work or immune system to finally wakeup and fight them...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TerryDon79

Is turmeric problematic for her?

One of it's key benefits is being anti-inflammatory.

She has to steer clear of all anti-inflammatory substances.

Turmeric has been a problem for her in the past.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Wouldn't reducing glucose cause other, possibly major, problems?

If the lack of glucose in the body wasn't a problem I could see it, possibly, working. Or do you mean "program" the cancerous cell to not metabolize glucose?

a reply to: TerryDon79

She has to steer clear of all anti-inflammatory substances.

Is the cause being the blood thinning effect? Something undesirable when intestine bleed.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TerryDon79

She has to steer clear of all anti-inflammatory substances.

Is the cause being the blood thinning effect? Something undesirable when intestine bleed.

Aggravates her pancreas, causes internal bleeding from both ends and intense pain.

Not sure about blood thinning. Never saw it mentioned on her chart when she was in hospital.