Chemotherapy may spread cancer and trigger more aggressive tumours, warn scientists

a reply to: scojak

You didn't mention the 'suicide:'

Investigations into GcMAF are also under way outside the UK. Immuno Biotech has supplied the drug to James Jeffrey Bradstreet, a controversial US doctor who used GcMAF to treat patients with autism.

The US Food and Drug Administration searched Dr Bradstreet's premises, with a warrant for GcMAF in July. Three days later Dr Bradstreet was found dead. The local sheriff reported suicide.

Link


Bradstreet is the anti-vax doctor that was so controversial. I had no idea his suicide coincided with this potential cancer treatment.

That entire article is so interesting. The drug was confiscated because it may have been "contaminated"...

And this:

Meanwhile, Swiss authorities are investigating a business in Lausanne run by David Noakes, which was treating cancer patients with GcMAF.

The Swiss were alerted after a number of foreign cancer patients who had been visiting the facility in Lausanne were treated at the local university hospital. The patients, who were terminally ill, all died. Two died in Switzerland, the others after they returned home.

Patients that tried GcMAF and then died at *cough* other facilities. Such an odd and interesting topic...so super fantastically interesting.

***

ETA: It's such a shame that terminally ill patients aren't even allowed to try something. They are doomed with a medical death sentence...but still not allowed to try it for the sake of their 'safety.' It's all such sh*t.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

They are doomed with a medical death sentence...but still not allowed to try it for the sake of their 'safety.' It's all such sh*t.

A patient is not disallowed. Physicians are.

In any case, any results would be anecdotal. Of no clinical importance.

a reply to: seasonal

More fearmongering misinformation as usual, all taken from unreliable sources such as newspapers. I told you before: why don't you go and read the original studies instead of believing what unqualified reporters write? They only write their own interpretation, which is poor as they did not study/train as health professionals.

So let me explain what the original study (- HERE - if anybody is interested) showed:

- The study was only on breast cancer and only on one type of chemo (there are at least twenty types that I know of, if not more). The sample was small.
- The study was also only on women who had chemo before surgery.
- Researchers found that TMEM increased in 20 women in the study. TMEM becomes a gateway for cancer cells to enter the circulatory system and spread to other parts of the body (Tumor Micro Environment of Metastasis).
- Researchers in this same stud also found that a drug called Rebastinib interferes with TMEM and therefore can stop mets from happening.

This means that we need more studies with other types of cancer, more studies with other types of chemo, more studies with bigger samples, more studies with patients having surgery before chemo and not the other way round.

Also please bear in mind that only 6% of women with breast cancer will get metastasis.

And the question is: if this is all a trick by 'Bad Scary Big Pharma', would they spend millions studying the efficacy and disadvantages of chemo? And publish these results for all to see?

Chemo saves lives. It is a really agressive treatment, but it's all we have right now. And chemo drugs are made from plants (just to point the 'natural/toxic' cures fallacy I see on this types of threads all the time).

a reply to: seasonal

I wish I could say this surprises me. Doesn't, though; I never did understand making someone so ill as a supposed cure to another problem. I wonder that no one made the connection before.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I wish I could say this surprises me. Doesn't, though; I never did understand making someone so ill as a supposed cure to another problem. I wonder that no one made the connection before.

Because (like I said on my post above) chemo is all we have right now, nothing else works (and they are made from plants, by the way).

Because chemo saves lives, people recover from feeling ill and loosing their hair, and then they live. In women with breast cancer (the type of cancer in the OP), it reduces death by one third (Meta analysis with over 100000 woment over 40 years in 123 randomised trials).

Because all medication have side effects, but health professionals know that you need them when benefits outweigh the side effects.

Etc etc etc.

a reply to: seasonal

Imagine this. The charities and cancer centres find a cure, find many cures for all the types of caners. Yet someone, from somewhere high up comes and tells them that they should pass their findings onto them and not speak anymore of these findings. This finding dissolves into a black hole and the only cure they allow to be used are those that only generate money and eventually the patient dies.

That system, is a money making machine and will continue to drive revenue. Just like oil, we wont see any cures until they burnt all the oil.

a reply to: rickymouse

"I have only read about sixty or seventy articles on that, I am far from an expert on the matter."

Holy crap! Well, much more 'expert' than I am!!

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: rickymouse

"I have only read about sixty or seventy articles on that, I am far from an expert on the matter."

Holy crap! Well, much more 'expert' than I am!!

I am trying to figure out how to increase activity of the endocannabinoid system without smoking or eating the cannabis. I first had to determine if what they were saying about cannabis is real. It actually is pretty much real. But there is more than one way to skin a cat.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

They are doomed with a medical death sentence...but still not allowed to try it for the sake of their 'safety.' It's all such sh*t.

A patient is not disallowed. Physicians are.

In any case, any results would be anecdotal. Of no clinical importance.

Study conclusions be damned.

If a terminally ill patient wants to try something, then they should be able to. It doesn't mean they have to be included in a study's conclusions because they choose to couple 2/3/4/5...however many treatments. It doesn't mean they should be denied a promising treatment. If they are terminal, then there is no compelling harm to convince me they should be disqualified from a treatment.

They should NOT be denied any treatment just because they are disqualified from having any effect on the conclusions of a study.

Hence my entire point.

And, BTW, I got that idea from another ATSer who was concerned about being denied a certain treatment because s/he tried another one, at the same time.

Boo hiss, Phage. Life is greater & more profound than patients simply contributing to the conclusions of a rigid cancer treatment study. If a patient wants to fight for their life, only, that's the greater cause.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: seasonal

I wish I could say this surprises me. Doesn't, though; I never did understand making someone so ill as a supposed cure to another problem. I wonder that no one made the connection before.

I noticed when reading Wikipedia's list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments that none of them are actually thought to cause new tumors or spread cancer like chemotherapy and radiation treatment are.

It's also interesting that many of the "unproven and disproven cancer treatments" listed are linked from their own pages by text that says "List of ineffective cancer treatments."

That's not truthful, at all, for a site that acts like sourcing to evidence to support claims is the end-all be-all.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I wish I could say this surprises me. Doesn't, though; I never did understand making someone so ill as a supposed cure to another problem. I wonder that no one made the connection before.

Because (like I said on my post above) chemo is all we have right now, nothing else works (and they are made from plants, by the way).

Because chemo saves lives, people recover from feeling ill and loosing their hair, and then they live. In women with breast cancer (the type of cancer in the OP), it reduces death by one third (Meta analysis with over 100000 woment over 40 years in 123 randomised trials).

Because all medication have side effects, but health professionals know that you need them when benefits outweigh the side effects.

Etc etc etc.

It's all we have, but it's a mixed blessing for many. Some people are helped, but some aren't. Cancer is a serious subject.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: seasonal

I wish I could say this surprises me. Doesn't, though; I never did understand making someone so ill as a supposed cure to another problem. I wonder that no one made the connection before.

I noticed when reading Wikipedia's list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments that none of them are actually thought to cause new tumors or spread cancer like chemotherapy and radiation treatment are.

It's also interesting that many of the "unproven and disproven cancer treatments" listed are linked from their own pages by text that says "List of ineffective cancer treatments."

That's not truthful, at all, for a site that acts like sourcing to evidence to support claims is the end-all be-all.

Why am I not surprised? I suspect that money is the goal for many who do the research, anyway.

This has been something I've spoken to my mom a Operating room RN about, it's certainly an option to take, that does work in some cases but also it's like nuking a city to rid an army, you're most likely going to get them or you're going to force them underground where it's harder to fight.

Not to mention, it's sooo taxing on your body.

There has been recent medical advances in gene therapy, using your own body to fight cancer, but by enhancing via DNA immune cells to seek and destroy cancer cells.

That would be what I'd want to have done, however, the medical red tape to have such experimental procedures done, is often the issue and setback.

I can completely see how chemo could spread cancer, but also see it as a viable option in some situations of dire need.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
This has been something I've spoken to my mom a Operating room RN about, it's certainly an option to take, that does work in some cases but also it's like nuking a city to rid an army, you're most likely going to get them or you're going to force them underground where it's harder to fight.

Sorry but this is not a good analogy: chemo targets cells by their division speed, so only cells that are dividing at a certain speed (and above) are targeted. This is why healthy cells that are constantly growing and dividing are also targeted too, because unfortunately we still have to create a drug that can recognize them as fast dividing but healthy. Three tissues end up being affected by chemo: skin and lining of the digestive system (constantly renewing to protect us), hair and nails (constantly growing) and bone marrow (constantly producing blood cells).

So no, it's not nuking a whole city to save an army, it is more like shooting enemy soldiers and friendly soldiers wearing enemy uniforms.