Thread: Cancer cures

I read a little in here about the ideas of cancer, big pharma, the little guy, and of what cancer is to you. I am sad to see much ignorance here. Again. brainwashed by big pharma you think every cancer i different, terminal, difficult to kill, expensive, etc. So many things you do not know. I have seen no mention hardly, and passed by, of the actual cures and evidence of these cures in circulation. I see much evidence of greedy corporate sabotage on the cure tests and evidence that proves that the FDA and cancer societies will not cure your cancers for you nor look for a cure but only spend mass amounts of money to suppress cures in any and every way they can. Pure desperation. The machines they tell you can scan for cancer actually hurts severely 48 people for every 1 it helps, becausethey treat all cancers rtgat do not need to be cured and put you through torturous treatments that are designed to give you cancer and to activate cancers in you and they do this to us too and it is also proven. They have passed some of these harmful drugs for you in less then 6 months while waiting over 25 years to even test a cancer cure that was and is curing thousands of people all the time, with over 70% success rate. That`s just one of them. The FDA took this man to court like 10 times and tried even to arrest him, while many of the patients flocked the court room trying to say the doctor only cured them totally of their cancers to not lock this man away. Cancer societies all bashed the drug saying it was dangerous and other things about it too,negative if asked. They would not arrest him thoug despite their efforts. they wanted thid man to stop curing cancer at all costs almost. Spending a lot of money on the court cases too everytime. millions. because he was curing people. they even banned in the courts evidence of his cures and what he was doing. it was ludicrous. finally the fda lost but they didn`t give up. they finally agreed to test his drug, and when they did they changed the procedure and only used 10% of the drug and let the patients die. then posted that it did not cure cancer. sorry guys. well they knew this, and the doctor was fighting them becuase he was notified of the changes before. and so he fought and sent letters, he has them still, and their responses too. its crazy. the director of the FDA even said no small time guy, doctor or not, pharma company or no, will be allowed to hve a drug approved unless he has billlions of dollars and is a bog pharma company. wow. some of the cancer ociety docttors, nobel prize winners, left their employment and made statements of how the cancer societies and the fda is corrupt and ruinis cancer cures, and tells people they do not work even if they do. They spoil the findings and lie they say. well it turns out the us government wanted the drugs for themselves even though they were awaiting patent already. so they copied them exactly, the same compounds, then begn filing and approving their own patents for them. they stated our old treatment give people cancer and are proven cancerous yet this new drug cures cancer effectively and mildly too. our old treatments only hurt the people mnost often. not exact words but still truth. Well that pan thorugh and they did not get his patents. but guess what they still do not let you know his cancers are being cured, no they do not tell you this. they still tell you that they do not cure cancer on their cites. its curing thousands though. its been so for years. that one costs a lot of money to use. and so they came out with another one, which is the same story almost. it was on the new media briefly, they told us, its called dca. it is non patentable, cheap, and gentle. it has been being used for years already for other things. but it tells the cancer cells to kill themselves and so it does. it cures ever cancer too. its like 78% rate of cure i think. university of alberta. the cancer societies are doing the same things with it though despite the eveidence and scientific universities, and proof of peol ebeing cured totally and awesomely and all saying it too, and their doctors too. they denied it. they had their own tests on the worst type of cancer they could find,. tested it on it (fda) and said it did not cure cancer. sorry guys same story. well they didn;t know that a universoty was doing the same study on the same tpe of cancer already, and found that in fact it did cure these cancers too. imagine that. so people started flocking to the places that began selling it cheap. hehe, and it cured them too. thousands of them so far. the fda tried to ban the substance all of the sudden. hmmm. it didn`t last for long but the fda started closing down websites that sold it. or any site that claimed it cured cancer. you can not say that in the usa it is against the law. hmm freedom of speach says that the fda can lie avbout its tests and findings and yet you can not speak that your cancer is gone now, totally and here is my doctor report. that is what the people were doing for dca. they stopped it. but not all of it, they keep selling it now, and it works. you can find it everywhere, and even some of the sites that have hundreds patient and docotr reports, scans etc. it shows you right on the tv new media too. so you can not patent it, there is no money in it, almost a free cure that is gentle. society says it can be very harmful. it has being used safely children for many years and our previous tests conformed it as gentle which is the reports mostly from all the people. except some mild tingling in their fingers, numbness. some people died form the radiation treatments they were getting along side the dca if they got it. some of those ones died as expected form the treatment of radiation. the ones who do not use their evil treatments live and thrive most often. their cancers completely vanish away, or shrink considerable to almost nothing. at worst it seems to stop the cancer from spreading and usually almost always shrinks it a least a little. thee are the worst invasive cancers known to man, that these people are on death beds, suffring and being tortued by their treatments. they turn to dca and heal. gently.

here are the first videos i will post here before adding soe referrences that i spoke of,.

Format your post if you want anyone to read it.

this i an old news video, before it was further tested and proven as well as made more available.

Originally Posted by emilito

I read a little...

Unfortunately "reading a little" appears to be what you do for everything.
You make your mind up before reading enough.
The video is nonsense.


Mods, please move this thread to Pseudo.

It was the Warburg theory of cancer that led to this cure. astonishing really. genius. His theory showed how cancer could mayhaps be beaten, all of them together. Well... the cancer society did not recognize his theory officially, and did not seek his theory for it`s cure. They neglected that small detail, however they did build a machine from it, not to cure all cancer, but to detect all cancer only. hmm. they did not and would not recognize his theory and yet used it for their machines. well it turned out the theory was correct and did find cancer, all of them, and guess what.. some people would later find it cured them too. DCA came from the Warburg theory of cancer.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

I read a little...

Unfortunately "reading a little" appears to be what you do for everything.
You make your mind up before reading enough.
The video is nonsense.


Mods, please move this thread to Pseudo.

No it is not. It has every proof directly in it. it is not pretty to be sure, but it is all proof. every word i said.

I`ve been studying cancer for years, yet read very little in the forum here, a few threads. about mostly old dogma. SO I found. Thought I would produce evidence directly, instead of just dping what everyone esle was doing, just saying stuff they were fed and believed without checking. i have checked all of this, and saw if for many years as it was happening. i follow it all. everything i have said is proven, documented, are court files and cases, or quotes and evidence from the fda or university and doctor reports. that is science and evidence. truth.

Originally Posted by emilito

It has every proof directly in it. it is not pretty to be sure, but it is all proof. every word i said.

Then you obviously don't know what "proof" means.

Blah blah blah...

You are just one of the buffoons from the site you posted bashing the video for no valid reaons. The ones who listen to people who say things like the only evidence is two people in that video testifying. yet fail to check the site for clinical trials. demand like you always do that their are none. there are no people out there, no trials, no trestimoonies, and then I check and then i find them.
good job.

the next thing he says is that teh cop in the beginning if the video says ``Ì am a cop and can detect frauds and detect no fraud in thi dr`` That is wgat YOUR link says about the video, that you posted. that is not what the cop says. not even close to his testomy. Nothing even close. Your guy is delusional, and makes up lies. Complete fabrications even. its the first thing in the video see it for yourself. your link lies about the first three things it claimed to me, which were all easily verified. You are a scientist right.. werlll i am not going to read on about the video form your guy because he is full of shit. the video is full of only truth of the dr went through with the actual government. even if he didnt have a wonderful cure imagine if it only helped ease treatment or something, then he still should have never went thorugh what he did with the gov. your government.

go ahead post your bash links... be like the fda and listen to lies. listen to the cancer societies and not the thousands of perople who are not allowed to say they were cured and still do anyways. hm yeah all justice i am sure.

Herr is site designed to raise awareness of antineoplasticins. That your link said was not existing, much like you say everything does not exist.
Burzynski Patient Group

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

I read a little...

Mods, please move this thread to Pseudo.

Feeling generous today?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

It has every proof directly in it. it is not pretty to be sure, but it is all proof. every word i said.

Then you obviously don't know what "proof" means.

Blah blah blah...

I haven`t gotten to all the reports, scans, and testimonies yet. Of every detail, like the nobel prie winner who worked for these societies. The video holds proof of the fda`s actions, their letters, their quotes, the evil deeds of the givernemt steakling patents and lieing many times. concealing evidence to tghe public of a cure for cancer. A document written by the fda testing that states antineoplaticin cures cancer effectively. But only if it belongs to the government. clinical trial results right in the video, that your guys says doesn`t exist at all. and yet do exist in the world in different testings, and also in the fda. proof. what more do you ask.. we have the patients who are healed now. many of them.

http://www.thedcasite.com/DCA_reports.html

here is a link with hundreds of testimonials. I have read every one of them.

here is a sample.

Letter, July 2011 regarding Bile Duct cancer
I received a letter from Bill and Shirley. Quote: "... My health is the best it has been in years. I've regained my weight, my blood tests are totally normal and I feel great. Nothing shows up on CT so my oncologist doesn't want to see me any more- he actually said "the DCA must have worked on me because he can't find any record of anyone in the world having survived my cancer when it reoccured"..."
Email, 17 August 2010. This relates to a fanastic response a child with a brain cancer had to a combined treatment. No DCA was used. Here is the email:
Hi Jim,
The six year old child with the astrocytoma brain tumor used the following products to clear the cancer in four months:

Earth’s Aloe
First Elements
MMS
NAC
Zynergy

Email 14 June 2009
" I take between 550 and 600 mg of DCA daily Mon-Fri. I also take 2000 mg of green tea extract and 500 mg of Benfotiamine and 600 mg of R-Lipoic Acid daily. I have prostate cancer and have been on the DCA protocol for about 16 weeks. I also take many other supplements including prostasol. I am having great results (my PSA has come down from 27 to 0.08). "

---

Email, 11 May 2009
[I used] DCA for a cat with a grape-sized tumor growing on the outside of its face next to its nostrils. It was considered inoperable as what was inside was extensive. The cat was give an appropriate amount in its drinking water. The tumor first developed a bloody crack. Within 4 or 5 months the tumor completely disappeared, leaving no visible trace. The cat never appeared to be ill during the entire process and is alive and well today.

Email, 17 April 2010
"Hello Jim.......Unbelievable news! After taking a 4 month break from DCA, *** decided it might be wise to take another 2 month round of DCA before the last MRI. After being told there was nothing they could do for him about three and half years ago, he is now cancer free! Apparently the tumor has died and is no longer active. The MRI report states that there is "No evidence of tumor locally", so it appears the large tumor in ***'s head is gone or has died.

Originally Posted by emilito

the next thing he says is that teh cop in the beginning if the video says ``Ì am a cop and can detect frauds and detect no fraud in thi dr`` That is wgat YOUR link says about the video, that you posted. that is not what the cop says. not even close to his testomy. Nothing even close. Your guy is delusional, and makes up lies.

Hmm, obviously you failed to realise that the link I gave discussed a different (although still relevant) video...
The video you posted is, presumably, excerpted from the original - entire - "documentary" (that you have to buy from the guy).

Burzynski Patient Group

Oh yeah.
Clinical trials, usually the results of actual scientific clinical trials include ALL the relevant information, not just the 42.5% that doesn't even support his the original claim.

The guy - and you - is a nutcase.
In his case it's probably because he's a liar (out to make as much money as possible ¹).
In your case it's probably because you don't know the first thing about science and how it's done.

here is a link with hundreds of testimonials. I have read every one of them.

Testimonials are not scientific evidence.

1 [T]he first month’s bill is expected to be $28,000. Every month after that is expected to cost $16,000. The treatment usually lasts eight to 12 months. But I suppose it's just "Big Pharma" that makes profits, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

the next thing he says is that teh cop in the beginning if the video says ``Ì am a cop and can detect frauds and detect no fraud in thi dr`` That is wgat YOUR link says about the video, that you posted. that is not what the cop says. not even close to his testomy. Nothing even close. Your guy is delusional, and makes up lies.

Hmm, obviously you failed to realise that the link I gave discussed a different (although still relevant) video...
The video you posted is, presumably, excerpted from the original - entire - "documentary" (that you have to buy from the guy).

Burzynski Patient Group

Oh yeah.
Clinical trials, usually the results of actual scientific clinical trials include ALL the relevant information, not just the 42.5% that doesn't even support his the original claim.

The guy - and you - is a nutcase.
In his case it's probably because he's a liar (out to make as much money as possible ¹).
In your case it's probably because you don't know the first thing about science and how it's done.

here is a link with hundreds of testimonials. I have read every one of them.

Testimonials are not scientific evidence.

1 [T]he first month’s bill is expected to be $28,000. Every month after that is expected to cost $16,000. The treatment usually lasts eight to 12 months. But I suppose it's just "Big Pharma" that makes profits, isn't it?

That's the funny part. The people against "Big Pharma" are always raking in tons of money with their alternative treatments (that have no evidence to support their use). Except insurance doesn't cover a penny of it.

Dr. Russell Blaylock: The cumulative effect of radiation from mammograms is causing breast cancer. And if there were already a tumor present, the smashing of breast tissue in a mammogram machine could rupture the tumor and cause the cancer to metastasize. Dr. Russell Blaylock recommends that the new “gold standard” of cancer screenings should rely on these technologies in this order:

1. Annual Thermograms for early detection (Thermograms can detect breast cancer 8 to 10 years before Mammograms)
2. Ultrasound to follow up on any areas of concern detected via Thermogram
3. MRI to examine any areas of concern detected via Ultrasound

Dr. Christiane Northrup: Thermograms, The Best Breast Test
International Academy of Clinical Thermology: Summary of Research Findings

• An abnormal Thermogram is ten times more significant As a Future Risk Indicator For Breast Cancer Than a First Order Family History of the Disease.
• Breast thermography has the ability to detect the first signs that a cancer may be forming up to 10 years before any other procedure can detect it.
• Breast thermography has an average sensitivity and specificity (accuracy) of 90%.

Dr. Len Saputo: Beyond Mammography

• Mammography has a false-negative rate of 30%
• Mammography has a false-positive rate as high as 89%
• In women under the age of 50…MRIs and PET scans cannot come close to matching the combined sensitivity and specificity (accuracy) of breast thermography.
• Young women with dense breast tissue are the most difficult to evaluate using breast palpation, mammography, and ultrasound examinations, yet their significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer can be accurately detected with breast thermography.
• Because of its low cost and high degree of sensitivity and accuracy, all women who want to be screened for breast cancer should begin having breast thermograms beginning at age 25.

Because thermograms can detect breast cancer so many years earlier than mammograms, there is still plenty of time to bring the body back into balance via (1) an anti-cancer diet; (2) a concerted effort to eliminate exposure to toxins in your environment (drinking water, body-care products, household cleaning products, indoor air, etc.), (3) cleansing and detoxing to rid the body of toxins accumulated through a lifetime of unhealthy diet and exposure to environmental toxins, (4) self-healing work focused on resolving emotional traumas that are blocking healthy energy flow, and (5) adoption of other habits of a healthy lifestyle, such as getting enough sunshine, exercise, and sleep.


Most Doctors Who Prescribe Chemotherapy Would Never Take It Themselves

“In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all. No treatment ‘proved a significantly better policy for patients’ survival and for quality of remaining life.'”
~ Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer – The Cures – the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! – page 9




“My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery …”
~ Prof. Hardin B. Jones



Document Approved by the US Patent Office States Radiation and Chemotherapy are Carcinogenic

This statement is included in one of several copycat patents of Dr. Stanislav Burzynski’s anti-neoplastons by his former researcher, Dvorit Samid, and stands as approved in federal government records of the US Patent Office:
“Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” Source: US Patent #5,605,930; “Composition and Methods for Treating and Preventing Pathologies Including Cancer”; Filed 3/7/94; Approved 2/25/97; Dr. Dvorit Samid; The USA Dept. of HHS; p. 56.


Li-Chuan Chen, PhD, National Cancer Institute Scientist 1991-1997: “In the past, when the NCI or its assigned entity is conducting an alternative cancer therapy [clinical trial], they always alter the protocols and let it fail to discredit the therapy. But this time the pharmacokinetic data shows that they didn’t do it right. And most scientists will not look at it carefully. Because “Popeye is telling you something, and you don’t question him.”

The Corrupt Cancer Industry | Integrating Dark and Light: Remembering Evolution

....And you still haven't provided an appropriate source. Also, I had to look up what "ND" and "MH" stood for...yeah, putting that after a person's name makes me even less likely to believe anything they say.

Oh, was that a change of subject?
I barely noticed because it was so subtle...

(NOT aimed at mat5592, but the post prior to his).

Dr. Kelley had 33,000 patients with a 93% cure rate!! How come the FDA has not approved his treatment? Dr. Gonzalez is duplicating part of Kelley’s treatment, but the New York state medical society has forbidden Dr. Gonzalez to release the results of his study until his study is “done.” Of course, no one knows when his study will be done.
The FDA approved Iressa and the Cancer Industry threw Kelley in jail and kicked him out of the country. What is wrong with this picture?

"Recent studies have shown that Iressa shrinks tumors in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and is also associated with mild side effects," said study coordinator Karen Kelly, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. - See more at: Study Investigating Addition of Iressa to Conventional Treatment in Lung Cancer Patients | Cancer Network

http://www.cancertutor.com/nocancer13/

here is a link for trials, tests, and direct evidence, following some of dca`s findings.

an example here.

Update on Kidney Cancer Report
Doctor's reports and scans Link (19 Dec 2008)

just one of maaaany.

http://www.thedcasite.com/

Originally Posted by mat5592

....And you still haven't provided an appropriate source. Also, I had to look up what "ND" and "MH" stood for...yeah, putting that after a person's name makes me even less likely to believe anything they say.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Oh, was that a change of subject?
I barely noticed because it was so subtle...

(NOT aimed at mat5592, but the post prior to his).

Do you also have the feeling that, no matter the quality of possible counterarguments, there will be an incessant stream of copy-pasted webpages from questionable websites? There is, as far as I can tell, not an elegant solution to gishgalloping, so I propose we send a message to the Staff for thread relocation and stay out of this mess.

Originally Posted by mat5592

....And you still haven't provided an appropriate source. Also, I had to look up what "ND" and "MH" stood for...yeah, putting that after a person's name makes me even less likely to believe anything they say.

Great.. Go right ahead mistrust people because they have sneaky letters behind their names that you do not know what they mean. Must mean they are liars. Letters with their names.. geesh. Now I have to look them up and see what they mean, wow, what a load a work. People do that, they put letters behind their names that mean different things. Crazy I know. Must mean they are not to be trusted yeah. thats the ticket. no paranoia there. no agenda.

(1) the plural of anecdote is not data
(2) obviously not a single person has ever died of cancer, so why seek treatment ?

off to pseudo it is

Originally Posted by marnixR

off to pseudo it is

Thanks marnixR!

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by mat5592

....And you still haven't provided an appropriate source. Also, I had to look up what "ND" and "MH" stood for...yeah, putting that after a person's name makes me even less likely to believe anything they say.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Oh, was that a change of subject?
I barely noticed because it was so subtle...

(NOT aimed at mat5592, but the post prior to his).

Do you also have the feeling that, no matter the quality of possible counterarguments, there will be an incessant stream of copy-pasted webpages from questionable websites? There is, as far as I can tell, not an elegant solution to gishgalloping, so I propose we send a message to the Staff for thread relocation and stay out of this mess.

Oh yes I know.

Clinical trials from cancer societies, quotes from the doctors and leaders in many fields. Doctor scans, patients testimonies, court cases, all evidence. not creditable, no way. universities are not creditable either to you guys. Patents statements from and trials of the drug written by the fda confirming that it cures cancer is not acceptable either. not valid. i know guys. you only listen to what you want to listen to. its an incredible feat you pull off, somehow ignoring every detail and evidence, claiming that university trials, doctor reports, patient`s words and body`s being not evidence. fda tests not evidence. Even cancer society tests not valid. nothing is valid!

tell me what is valid to you guys....

This really needs to be in trash. There is no potential benefit to the load of hogwash emilito is spouting about cancer. It is so far from the actual science involved to not even being wrong. Leaving this in pseudo is likely to actually lead someone to think there is some validity to this nonsense.

DogLady (a real physician and scientist)

Originally Posted by emilito

Dr. Kelley had 33,000 patients with a 93% cure rate!! How come the FDA has not approved his treatment?

Mainly because the guy was a money-grabbing lying dickhead who claimed that people had cancer (and then proceeded to charge them for treatment) when, in fact, there was no evidence whatsoever that they had cancer at all.

He claimed that his "Protein Metabolism Evaluation Index" could diagnose cancer before it was clinically apparent and that his "Kelley Malignancy Index could detect "the presence or absence of cancer, the growth rate of the tumor, the location of the tumor mass, prognosis of the treatment, age of the tumor and the regulation of medication for treatment."
In other words, many (if not all) of his patients "survived cancer" not due to his treatment but because (and this is important) they didn't f*cking have cancer in the first place.

Originally Posted by emilito

Originally Posted by mat5592

....And you still haven't provided an appropriate source. Also, I had to look up what "ND" and "MH" stood for...yeah, putting that after a person's name makes me even less likely to believe anything they say.

Great.. Go right ahead mistrust people because they have sneaky letters behind their names that you do not know what they mean. Must mean they are liars. Letters with their names.. geesh. Now I have to look them up and see what they mean, wow, what a load a work. People do that, they put letters behind their names that mean different things. Crazy I know. Must mean they are not to be trusted yeah. thats the ticket. no paranoia there. no agenda.

Uh, yeah, nice try. More accurately, I looked up the terms and they happened to be instacrank indicators.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

Dr. Kelley had 33,000 patients with a 93% cure rate!! How come the FDA has not approved his treatment?

Mainly because the guy was a money-grabbing lying dickhead who claimed that people had cancer (and then proceeded to charge them for treatment) when, in fact, there was no evidence whatsoever that they had cancer at all.

He claimed that his "Protein Metabolism Evaluation Index" could diagnose cancer before it was clinically apparent and that his "Kelley Malignancy Index could detect "the presence or absence of cancer, the growth rate of the tumor, the location of the tumor mass, prognosis of the treatment, age of the tumor and the regulation of medication for treatment."
In other words, many (if not all) of his patients "survived cancer" not due to his treatment but because (and this is important) they didn't f*cking have cancer in the first place.

And further down:

Originally Posted by Article from QW

In 1970, Kelley was enjoined from practicing medicine without a license after witnesses testified that he had diagnosed lung cancer on the basis of blood from a patient's finger and prescribed dietary supplements, enzymes, and a diet as treatment. In 1976, following unsuccessful court appeals, his dental license was suspended for five years(...).

It would be hilarious if it did not have such a huge, negative impact on the lives of many people.

Originally Posted by mat5592

Uh, yeah, nice try. More accurately, I looked up the terms and they happened to be instacrank indicators.

I managed to find the meaning of ND, but I could not find MH. Of course, neither of those are recognized as medical degrees in U.S. (correct me if I am wrong).

DCA shown to kill cancer cells, but Big Pharma has no interest in this inexpensive potential cure

Learn more: DCA shown to kill cancer cells, but Big Pharma has no interest in this inexpensive potential cure - NaturalNews.com

Originally Posted by emilito

DCA shown to kill cancer cells, but Big Pharma has no interest in this inexpensive potential cure

Learn more: DCA shown to kill cancer cells, but Big Pharma has no interest in this inexpensive potential cure - NaturalNews.com

Please stop posting links to crackpot websites.

Well antineoplasticin and DCA work very well. ANP is expensive while dca costs pennies to make, and costs only about 30-40 dollars a bottle from the net. Noth have been proven to cure cancer in people and is stated as doing so. No psuedoscience there. sorry bud.

Originally Posted by emilito

Well antineoplasticin and DCA work very well. ANP is expensive while dca costs pennies to make, and costs only about 30-40 dollars a bottle from the net. Noth have been proven to cure cancer in people and is stated as doing so. No psuedoscience there. sorry bud.

Please provide a peer-reviewed study that supports your assertion. That is what we are looking for, not anecdotes, quotes, and crank websites.

DCA:

Originally Posted by American Cancer Society

At this time, clinical trials (studies on human volunteers) have just been started to find out if DCA might be helpful against cancer. No human studies have been completed yet, so it is unclear how or whether it might help, or what the proper dose might be.

The study NaturalNews is not referring to, is this probably this one (Michelakis, E.D., et al., 2010).
It says that "[w]ith the small number of treated patients in our study, no firm conclusions regarding DCA as a therapy for GBM [gliobastoma multiforme] can be made. Our work supports the need for further studies with DCA in GBM, with an emphasis on combination therapy protocols. GBM may also be vulnerable to other drugs in the emerging family of metabolic modulators, pointing to a new approach in the management of this incurable cancer."

And it does not stop there:

Originally Posted by the Globe and Mail

What about the 2010 study on brain-tumour patients? While the study showed favourable results, a 2011 newsletter from the B.C. Cancer Agency noted that patients had also received chemotherapy and radiation. There’s no telling what helped them: DCA or traditional medicine. The patients in the study also had similar survival rates to those who only received chemo and radiation.

Meanwhile, other researchers have reported troubling news. A team from the University of Guelph studying DCA in mice found the drug actually seemed to speed the growth of some colon-cancer tumours.


“Cancer is a complicated disease,” said Dr. Brenda Coomber, professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Guelph who led the study. “Other labs besides mine have seen that, depending on the kind of cancer, DCA may or may not have a cell-killing effect.”

Original study can be found here: Shahrzad, S., et al., 2010

Antineoplastons (ANPs):

Originally Posted by American Cancer Society

Thousands of patients have been treated with antineoplastons, mostly at a single clinic, and clinical trials are reported to be under way there for many types of cancer. More than 40 years after antineoplastons were first discovered, published clinical trial results are available only for a relatively small number of patients, mostly preliminary reports, uncontrolled studies, or case reports. According to the National Cancer Institute, “No randomized controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” In other words, there is no convincing evidence showing that antineoplastons actually work.

(Bold mine)


Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...ticle14857445/

This is exactly what I think about from EVERY single post that I have read that emilito has posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

I therefore will disregard reading anything posted by you & expect a suspension will come soon if you continue to post idiotic nonsense.

Originally Posted by DogLady

This really needs to be in trash. There is no potential benefit to the load of hogwash emilito is spouting about cancer. It is so far from the actual science involved to not even being wrong. Leaving this in pseudo is likely to actually lead someone to think there is some validity to this nonsense.

DogLady (a real physician and scientist)

And that someone could be a cancer sufferer, desperate for a cure. It doesn't just need to be trashed. It needs to be set on fire and destroyed, to be honest.

It is disheartening to see just how many of the absolute and dangerous quacks there are out there.

Originally Posted by emilito

Dr. Russell Blaylock: The cumulative effect of radiation from mammograms is causing breast cancer. And if there were already a tumor present, the smashing of breast tissue in a mammogram machine could rupture the tumor and cause the cancer to metastasize. Dr. Russell Blaylock recommends that the new “gold standard” of cancer screenings should rely on these technologies in this order:

1. Annual Thermograms for early detection (Thermograms can detect breast cancer 8 to 10 years before Mammograms)
2. Ultrasound to follow up on any areas of concern detected via Thermogram
3. MRI to examine any areas of concern detected via Ultrasound

Dr. Christiane Northrup: Thermograms, The Best Breast Test
International Academy of Clinical Thermology: Summary of Research Findings

• An abnormal Thermogram is ten times more significant As a Future Risk Indicator For Breast Cancer Than a First Order Family History of the Disease.
• Breast thermography has the ability to detect the first signs that a cancer may be forming up to 10 years before any other procedure can detect it.
• Breast thermography has an average sensitivity and specificity (accuracy) of 90%.

Dr. Len Saputo: Beyond Mammography

• Mammography has a false-negative rate of 30%
• Mammography has a false-positive rate as high as 89%
• In women under the age of 50…MRIs and PET scans cannot come close to matching the combined sensitivity and specificity (accuracy) of breast thermography.
• Young women with dense breast tissue are the most difficult to evaluate using breast palpation, mammography, and ultrasound examinations, yet their significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer can be accurately detected with breast thermography.
• Because of its low cost and high degree of sensitivity and accuracy, all women who want to be screened for breast cancer should begin having breast thermograms beginning at age 25.

Because thermograms can detect breast cancer so many years earlier than mammograms, there is still plenty of time to bring the body back into balance via (1) an anti-cancer diet; (2) a concerted effort to eliminate exposure to toxins in your environment (drinking water, body-care products, household cleaning products, indoor air, etc.), (3) cleansing and detoxing to rid the body of toxins accumulated through a lifetime of unhealthy diet and exposure to environmental toxins, (4) self-healing work focused on resolving emotional traumas that are blocking healthy energy flow, and (5) adoption of other habits of a healthy lifestyle, such as getting enough sunshine, exercise, and sleep.


Most Doctors Who Prescribe Chemotherapy Would Never Take It Themselves

“In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all. No treatment ‘proved a significantly better policy for patients’ survival and for quality of remaining life.'”
~ Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer – The Cures – the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! – page 9




“My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery …”
~ Prof. Hardin B. Jones



Document Approved by the US Patent Office States Radiation and Chemotherapy are Carcinogenic

This statement is included in one of several copycat patents of Dr. Stanislav Burzynski’s anti-neoplastons by his former researcher, Dvorit Samid, and stands as approved in federal government records of the US Patent Office:
“Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” Source: US Patent #5,605,930; “Composition and Methods for Treating and Preventing Pathologies Including Cancer”; Filed 3/7/94; Approved 2/25/97; Dr. Dvorit Samid; The USA Dept. of HHS; p. 56.


Li-Chuan Chen, PhD, National Cancer Institute Scientist 1991-1997: “In the past, when the NCI or its assigned entity is conducting an alternative cancer therapy [clinical trial], they always alter the protocols and let it fail to discredit the therapy. But this time the pharmacokinetic data shows that they didn’t do it right. And most scientists will not look at it carefully. Because “Popeye is telling you something, and you don’t question him.”

The Corrupt Cancer Industry | Integrating Dark and Light: Remembering Evolution

So Cancer isn't actually that deadly now? What rubbish. Please stop spreading misinformation that gets people killed. The numbers, the statistics that aren't living things, show that people who get chemo and radiation therapy have a greater chance of surviving. A significantly greater chance. And people that try these fake cures, much like medieval peasants going to the Apothecary for charms and wards, don't have this increased survival rate. Who knew? Oh, that's right. The actual experts who went to 14 years of schooling for this. Those people knew.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

DCA:

Originally Posted by American Cancer Society

At this time, clinical trials (studies on human volunteers) have just been started to find out if DCA might be helpful against cancer. No human studies have been completed yet, so it is unclear how or whether it might help, or what the proper dose might be.

The study NaturalNews is not referring to, is this probably this one (Michelakis, E.D., et al., 2010).
It says that "[w]ith the small number of treated patients in our study, no firm conclusions regarding DCA as a therapy for GBM [gliobastoma multiforme] can be made. Our work supports the need for further studies with DCA in GBM, with an emphasis on combination therapy protocols. GBM may also be vulnerable to other drugs in the emerging family of metabolic modulators, pointing to a new approach in the management of this incurable cancer."

And it does not stop there:

Originally Posted by the Globe and Mail

What about the 2010 study on brain-tumour patients? While the study showed favourable results, a 2011 newsletter from the B.C. Cancer Agency noted that patients had also received chemotherapy and radiation. There’s no telling what helped them: DCA or traditional medicine. The patients in the study also had similar survival rates to those who only received chemo and radiation.

Meanwhile, other researchers have reported troubling news. A team from the University of Guelph studying DCA in mice found the drug actually seemed to speed the growth of some colon-cancer tumours.


“Cancer is a complicated disease,” said Dr. Brenda Coomber, professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Guelph who led the study. “Other labs besides mine have seen that, depending on the kind of cancer, DCA may or may not have a cell-killing effect.”

Original study can be found here: Shahrzad, S., et al., 2010

Antineoplastons (ANPs):

Originally Posted by American Cancer Society

Thousands of patients have been treated with antineoplastons, mostly at a single clinic, and clinical trials are reported to be under way there for many types of cancer. More than 40 years after antineoplastons were first discovered, published clinical trial results are available only for a relatively small number of patients, mostly preliminary reports, uncontrolled studies, or case reports. According to the National Cancer Institute, “No randomized controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” In other words, there is no convincing evidence showing that antineoplastons actually work.

(Bold mine)


Source:
Why every claim of an exciting new cancer cure needs close examination - The Globe and Mail

Yeah you are posting the american cancer society garbage. duh. It clearly states many conclusions in the trial here are a couple I found. Very different then yours.

``Solid tumors, including the aggressive primary brain cancer glioblastoma multiforme, develop resistance to cell
death, in part as a result of a switch from mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation to cytoplasmic glycolysis. This
metabolic remodeling is accompanied by mitochondrial hyperpolarization. We tested whether the small-molecule
and orphan drug dichloroacetate (DCA) can reverse this cancer-specific metabolic and mitochondrial remodeling in
glioblastoma. Freshly isolated glioblastomas from 49 patients showed mitochondrial hyperpolarization, which was
rapidly reversed by DCA. In a separate experiment with five patients who had glioblastoma, we prospectively secured
baseline and serial tumor tissue, developed patient-specific cell lines of glioblastoma and putative glioblastoma stem
cells (CD133 neston cells) and treted each patient with oral DCA for up to 15 months. DCA depolarized mitochondria, increased mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, and induced apoptosis in GBM cells, as well as in purative GBM stem cells, both in vivo and vitro. The dose limiting toxicity was a dose-dependent, reversible peripheral neuropathy, and there was no hematologic, hepatic, renal, or cardiac toxicity. Indications ofclinical efficacy were present at a dose that did not cause peripheral neuropathy and at serum concentrations of
DCA sufficient to inhibit the target enzyme of DCA, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase II, which was highly expressed
in all glioblastomas. Metabolic modulation may be a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of glioblastoma.``

Originally Posted by SowZ37

So Cancer isn't actually that deadly now? What rubbish. Please stop spreading misinformation that gets people killed. The numbers, the statistics that aren't living things, show that people who get chemo and radiation therapy have a greater chance of surviving. A significantly greater chance. And people that try these fake cures, much like medieval peasants going to the Apothecary for charms and wards, don't have this increased survival rate. Who knew? Oh, that's right. The actual experts who went to 14 years of schooling for this. Those people knew.

The rubbish is that is what you read from that article which states no such thing at all. And also the fact you even mention of witch craft and deman or hoodoo or whatever in this idea presented here. you turn your back on your own sciences and call them now witchery woo. but in reality the cures i present here are not made by billionaire pharm companies or fda, it is still pharmacy and medicine and Doctors too. Tests and trials too. Not crazy woodoo sorry to say, just medicine. You think DCA, or antineoplasticins are hoodoo!! They are pills, and one of them has been used for years by doctors.

Traditional cancer treatments..
There is no denying that such methods work; deaths from cancer have dropped by around 20% in the U.S. over the past two decades. But as effective as they are, these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumor. So researchers were especially excited by a pair of studiespublished in the New England Journal of Medicine last week that showed a new type of anticancer drug, which works in an entirely different way from chemotherapy, helped leukemia patients tally up to an 83% survival rate after being treated for two years.

Last weekend, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), researchers reported on a promising advance: Dr. Kimberly Blackwell, director of the breast cancer program at the Duke Cancer Institute, said that she and her colleagues had successfully treated 991 women with advanced and metastatic breast cancer with an innovative “smart bomb” of a therapy, an antibody designed to bind only to tumor cells and then deliver its killer payload, an uberpowerful toxin, to destroy them. The idea is eloquently simple, yet, says Blackwell, it was a dozen years in the making.

(MORE: On the Horizon at Last, Cancer Drugs That Harness the Body’s Own Immune System)

Originally Posted by emilito

Yeah you are posting the american cancer society garbage. duh. It clearly states many conclusions in the trial here are a couple I found. Very different then yours.

``Solid tumors, including the aggressive primary brain cancer glioblastoma multiforme, develop resistance to cell
death, in part as a result of a switch from mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation to cytoplasmic glycolysis. This
metabolic remodeling is accompanied by mitochondrial hyperpolarization. We tested whether the small-molecule
and orphan drug dichloroacetate (DCA) can reverse this cancer-specific metabolic and mitochondrial remodeling in
glioblastoma. Freshly isolated glioblastomas from 49 patients showed mitochondrial hyperpolarization, which was
rapidly reversed by DCA. In a separate experiment with five patients who had glioblastoma, we prospectively secured
baseline and serial tumor tissue, developed patient-specific cell lines of glioblastoma and putative glioblastoma stem
cells (CD133 neston cells) and treted each patient with oral DCA for up to 15 months. DCA depolarized mitochondria, increased mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, and induced apoptosis in GBM cells, as well as in purative GBM stem cells, both in vivo and vitro. The dose limiting toxicity was a dose-dependent, reversible peripheral neuropathy, and there was no hematologic, hepatic, renal, or cardiac toxicity. Indications ofclinical efficacy were present at a dose that did not cause peripheral neuropathy and at serum concentrations of
DCA sufficient to inhibit the target enzyme of DCA, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase II, which was highly expressed
in all glioblastomas. Metabolic modulation may be a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of glioblastoma.``

Apart from not giving a link, how do you think that says anything particularly different from what Cogito Ergo Sum stated?
I.e.:

no firm conclusions regarding DCA as a therapy for GBM [gliobastoma multiforme] can be made.

Maybe you didn't read the concluding sentence of the part you quoted:

Metabolic modulation may be a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of glioblastoma

Poppy flowers have been found to be a powerful anti-cancer. In 1998, researchers at Emory University in Atlanta first showed that noscapine could fight tumors. Since then, research on animals and human cancer cells has suggested that it can shrink breast and prostate cancers and possibly prevent metastasis, the spread of tumors throughout the body that tends to cause cancer death.

Against triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Noscapine inhibited growth of MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468 cells with the IC50 values of 36.16±3.76 and 42.7±4.3 µM respectively. The CI values (<0.59) were suggestive of strong synergistic interaction between Noscapine and Doxorubicin and combination treatment showed significant increase in apoptotic cells. Noscapine showed dose dependent reduction in the tumor volumes at a dose of 150–550 mg/kg/day compared to controls. Noscapine (300 mg/kg), Doxorubicin (1.5 mg/kg) and combination treatment reduced tumor volume by 39.4±5.8, 34.2±5.7 and 82.9±4.5 percent respectively and showed decreased expression of NF-KB pathway proteins, VEGF, cell survival, and increased expression of apoptotic and growth inhibitory proteins compared to single-agent treatment and control groups.

Against prostate cancer-
Mean total tumour volumes were 1731.6+/-602.0 mm(3) in the control group, 644.3+/-545.1 mm(3) in the noscapine pretreatment group and 910.9+/-501.1 mm(3) in the noscapine treatment group (p<0.001 pretreatment vs. control, p<0.05 pretreatment vs. control, p<0.001 pretreatment vs. treatment group), with no evidence of toxicity. Noscapine pretreatment and treatment also reduced tumour weight, the incidence of metastasis and primary tumour inhibition rate.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017733

Prophylactic noscapine therapy inhibits human... [Anticancer Res. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Scientists Identify Opium Poppy Genes that Make Promising Cancer Drug | TIME.com

"THC, the major active component of marijuana, has anti-cancer properties. This compound is known to act through a specific family of cell receptors called cannabinoid receptors," says Dr. Peter McCormick, from UEA's School of Pharmacy.

The researchers found that administering THC to mice with human tumors initiated autophagy and caused the growth of the tumors to decrease. Two human patients with highly aggressive brain tumors who received intracranial administration of THC also showed similar signs of autophagy, upon analysis.
The team behind the new study - co-led by Complutense University and the University of Anglia (UEA) in the UK - claims to have discovered previously unknown "signaling platforms" that allow THC to shrink tumors.

Further evidence that cannabis reduces tumor growth in new study - Medical News Today

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

For three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Yeah, rather than address points raised (like a rational person would) you choose to spam the thread with yet more claims.
Enjoy it while it lasts...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

Yeah you are posting the american cancer society garbage. duh. It clearly states many conclusions in the trial here are a couple I found. Very different then yours.

``Solid tumors, including the aggressive primary brain cancer glioblastoma multiforme, develop resistance to cell
death, in part as a result of a switch from mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation to cytoplasmic glycolysis. This
metabolic remodeling is accompanied by mitochondrial hyperpolarization. We tested whether the small-molecule
and orphan drug dichloroacetate (DCA) can reverse this cancer-specific metabolic and mitochondrial remodeling in
glioblastoma. Freshly isolated glioblastomas from 49 patients showed mitochondrial hyperpolarization, which was
rapidly reversed by DCA. In a separate experiment with five patients who had glioblastoma, we prospectively secured
baseline and serial tumor tissue, developed patient-specific cell lines of glioblastoma and putative glioblastoma stem
cells (CD133 neston cells) and treted each patient with oral DCA for up to 15 months. DCA depolarized mitochondria, increased mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, and induced apoptosis in GBM cells, as well as in purative GBM stem cells, both in vivo and vitro. The dose limiting toxicity was a dose-dependent, reversible peripheral neuropathy, and there was no hematologic, hepatic, renal, or cardiac toxicity. Indications ofclinical efficacy were present at a dose that did not cause peripheral neuropathy and at serum concentrations of
DCA sufficient to inhibit the target enzyme of DCA, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase II, which was highly expressed
in all glioblastomas. Metabolic modulation may be a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of glioblastoma.``

Apart from not giving a link, how do you think that says anything particularly different from what Cogito Ergo Sum stated?
I.e.:

no firm conclusions regarding DCA as a therapy for GBM [gliobastoma multiforme] can be made.

Maybe you didn't read the concluding sentence of the part you quoted:

Metabolic modulation may be a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of glioblastoma

Oh then. How about the next trial they did then, after that one.

The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be therapeutically targeted. Compared to normal cells, several human cancers have high mitochondrial membrane potential (DeltaPsim) and low expression of the K+ channel Kv1.5, both contributing to apoptosis resistance. Dichloroacetate (DCA) inhibits mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK), shifts metabolism from glycolysis to glucose oxidation, decreases DeltaPsim, increases mitochondrial H2O2, and activates Kv channels in all cancer, but not normal, cells; DCA upregulates Kv1.5 by an NFAT1-dependent mechanism. DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor growth, without apparent toxicity. Molecular inhibition of PDK2 by siRNA mimics DCA. The mitochondria-NFAT-Kv axis and PDK are important therapeutic targets in cancer; the orally available DCA is a promising selective anticancer agent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222789

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Yeah, rather than address points raised (like a rational person would) you choose to spam the thread with yet more claims.
Enjoy it while it lasts...

All trials. Evidence. Scientific studies and journals too. Sorry man you are seeing something different. This is a thread about cancer research and cures. That is all I am posting here. No spam. The first video you could consider spam maybe, but it is a cure for cancer that was blocked. It shows you what happened. That is all. All of the other drugs I have presented here are also tested and being tested, and i show you data for everyone of them. Enjoy.

Originally Posted by emilito

Oh then. How about the next trial they did then, after that one.

Er, yeah...

The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be therapeutically targeted.

the orally available DCA is a promising selective anticancer agent.

I.e., as previously stated, no firm conclusions.

The small, water soluble molecule Dichloroacetate (DCA) is recently arousing lively interests in the field of cancer therapy for it has been shown to be able to inhibit the growth of human tumors acting specifically on the mitochondria of cancer cells without perturbing the physiology of nonmalignant cells. Neuroblastoma was one of the tumor types on which DCA was considered ineffective as it is composed of cells with few recognized mitochondrial anomalies. Neuroblastoma, however, is composed of different cell types in terms of metabolism, phenotype and malignant potential. Despite the above prediction, in this work, we show that (i) DCA exhibits an unexpected anticancer effect on NB tumor cells and (ii) this effect is selectively directed to very malignant NB cells, whereas the more differentiated/less malignant NB cells are refractory to DCA treatment. This result supports the need of a detailed investigation of DCA anticancer properties against this tumor type with the final aim of its possible use as therapeutic agent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222789

Medicor Cancer Centres was the first cancer clinic in North America to begin prescribing DCA off label� to cancer patients under the full supervision of a medical team. We have consulted with the relevant regulatory bodies in Canada and are following their guidelines and policies. We would like to thank everyone who has expressed an interest in our DCA therapy. We appreciate your feedback and encouragement. We would also like to acknowledge and extend a special thanks to two of our patients who brought DCA to our attention, and motivated us to begin DCA treatments




Observational DCA Data

For the first time in the world, on Dec 7, 2007 we publicly shared our observational data from the treatment of 118 cancer patients with DCA. We updated our data in 2009 from treating over 347 patients. This can be found here. As of Oct 2011, we have treated over 800 cancer patients with DCA, the most of any center in the world. Since clinical trial data is now emerging, we are no longer collecting observational data. Instead, we are focusing our efforts on publishing our findings in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals. Our first publication is: Use of Oral Dichloroacetate for Palliation of Leg Pain Arising from Metastatic Poorly Differentiated Carcinoma: A Case Report.� This can be viewed here.




What types of cancers does DCA work on?

Several publications demonstrate that DCA works in a variety of cancers.
These include human studies / case reports and lab studies (rat and in vitro)

Role of SLC5A8, a plasma membrane transporter and a tumor suppressor, in the antitumor activity of dichloroacetate. Oncogene. 2011 Sep 22;30(38):4026-37. 2011 colon, breast, prostate Dichloroacetate Induces Apoptosis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cells Through a Mechanism Involving Modulation of Oxidative Stress. Reprod Sci. 2011 Jun 23. 2011 ovarian DCA inhibits neuroblastoma growth by specifically acting against malignant undifferentiated cells Int J Cancer. 2011 May 9. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26173 2011 brain (neuroblastoma) Use of Oral Dichloroacetate for Palliation of Leg Pain Arising from Metastatic Poorly Differentiated Carcinoma: A Case Report. J Palliat Med. 2011 Apr 12 2011 poorly differentiated / unknown primary Synergistic antitumor effect of dichloroacetate in combination with 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:740564. Epub 2011 Feb 20. 2011 colon In vitro cytotoxicity of novel platinum-based drugs and dichloroacetate against lung carcinoid cell lines. Clin Transl Oncol. 2011 Jan;13(1):43-9. 2011 lung (carcinoid) Dichloroacetate shifts the metabolism from glycolysis to glucose oxidation and exhibits synergistic growth inhibition with cisplatin in HeLa cells.Int J Oncol. 2011 Feb;38(2):409-17. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2010.851. 2010 uterus (cervix) Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Reversal with Dichloroacetate.J Oncol. 2010;2010. pii: 414726. Epub 2010 Sep 16. 2010 lymphoma (non-Hodgkins) Metabolic modulation of glioblastoma with dichloroacetate.Sci Transl Med. 2010 May 12;2(31):31ra34. 2010 brain (glioblastoma) Reversal of the glycolytic phenotype by dichloroacetate inhibits metastatic breast cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;120(1):253-60. 2010 breast Dichloroacetate (DCA) sensitizes both wild-type and over expressing Bcl-2 prostate cancer cells in vitro to radiation. Prostate. 2008 Aug 1;68(11):1223-31. 2008 prostate Dichloroacetate induces apoptosis in endometrial cancer cells.Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jun;109(3):394-402. 2008 uterus (endometrial) A mitochondria-K+ channel axis is suppressed in cancer and its normalization promotes apoptosis and inhibits cancer growth. Cancer Cell. 2007 Jan;11(1):37-51. 2007 breast, lung, brain (glioblastoma)

DCA (dichloroacetate) Frequently Asked Questions | Medicor Cancer Centres

You're just spamming at this point

Originally Posted by mat5592

You're just spamming at this point

How is it spam to you... it is what you asked for. peer reviewed evidence and publications of findings. nothing more.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

Oh then. How about the next trial they did then, after that one.

Er, yeah...

The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be therapeutically targeted.

the orally available DCA is a promising selective anticancer agent.

I.e., as previously stated, no firm conclusions.

It`s a firm conclusions that dca causes apoptosis in cancer cells of many types. It shrinks and reverses tumor and cancer growth significantly. The entire process is in fact concluded in many studies now. It is concluded now that it inhibits metastatic growth of cancer as well. That is a pretty positive outcome I would say so far. Not to mention doctor scans and case reports of hundreds of people as well. You say that this is not evidence, and yet i see everything is evidence of something. Hundreds of people all saying they were saved by DCA means something to me. Then evidence to support that it shrinks tumours and deactivates cancer of many types in humans. that is conclusive for me. Causes cancers cells to kill themselves. That is also confirmed. Sounds very PROMISING to me indeed as becoming a great widely accepted cancer treatment. I agree. Cheap and gentle.

You're just copying and pasting a bunch of information, some of it unrelated to the original topic, without providing any input of your own. Nobody has time to debate all of your copypasta; try to stick to one thing at a time.

The medicor cancer dca case studies link did not work so I found another here.. Case Studies | Medicor Cancer Centres

In our experience DCA has definite potential for treatment for the advanced stage cancer patient. In the cases presented, response to DCA treatment included:

• measurable tumour shrinkage
• reduction in tumour markers (CA125)
• improvement in general non-specific lab tests (alk phos, liver enzymes etc.)
• symptomatic improvement (appetite, weight gain, pain reduction, relief of bowel and ureteric obstruction)

DCA appears to work well on many different types of cancer. In the above cases, DCA was found to be effective in pleural mesothelioma, ovarian carcinoma, glioblastoma and melanoma (the last 2 in combination with TM). All these patients had metastatic and /or end stage disease and were not taking simultaneous conventional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Originally Posted by emilito

It`s a firm conclusions that dca causes apoptosis in cancer cells of many types.

Please stop lying.
I have quoted your posts back to you with certain words highlighted.
Those words specifically refute your claim that it is a firm conclusion.
"Might", "may" and "promising" are NOT "firm conclusions".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by emilito

It`s a firm conclusions that dca causes apoptosis in cancer cells of many types.

Please stop lying.
I have quoted your posts back to you with certain words highlighted.
Those words specifically refute your claim that it is a firm conclusion.
"Might", "may" and "promising" are NOT "firm conclusions".

Sorry man I can`t help it. It must be because all of these guys lie to me.

Dichloroacetate induces apoptosis and cell-cycle arrest in colorectal cancer cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883702/



...and its normalization promotes apoptosis and inhibits cancer...
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/dichloroacetate--dca-



DCA induces apoptosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222789


DCA treatment caused significant apoptosis
www.researchgate.net/...(DCA)...apoptosis.../0fcfd50990bb164ae700000...

Originally Posted by emilito

Originally Posted by SowZ37

So Cancer isn't actually that deadly now? What rubbish. Please stop spreading misinformation that gets people killed. The numbers, the statistics that aren't living things, show that people who get chemo and radiation therapy have a greater chance of surviving. A significantly greater chance. And people that try these fake cures, much like medieval peasants going to the Apothecary for charms and wards, don't have this increased survival rate. Who knew? Oh, that's right. The actual experts who went to 14 years of schooling for this. Those people knew.

The rubbish is that is what you read from that article which states no such thing at all. And also the fact you even mention of witch craft and deman or hoodoo or whatever in this idea presented here. you turn your back on your own sciences and call them now witchery woo. but in reality the cures i present here are not made by billionaire pharm companies or fda, it is still pharmacy and medicine and Doctors too. Tests and trials too. Not crazy woodoo sorry to say, just medicine. You think DCA, or antineoplasticins are hoodoo!! They are pills, and one of them has been used for years by doctors.

Traditional cancer treatments..
There is no denying that such methods work; deaths from cancer have dropped by around 20% in the U.S. over the past two decades. But as effective as they are, these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumor. So researchers were especially excited by a pair of studiespublished in the New England Journal of Medicine last week that showed a new type of anticancer drug, which works in an entirely different way from chemotherapy, helped leukemia patients tally up to an 83% survival rate after being treated for two years.

Last weekend, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), researchers reported on a promising advance: Dr. Kimberly Blackwell, director of the breast cancer program at the Duke Cancer Institute, said that she and her colleagues had successfully treated 991 women with advanced and metastatic breast cancer with an innovative “smart bomb” of a therapy, an antibody designed to bind only to tumor cells and then deliver its killer payload, an uberpowerful toxin, to destroy them. The idea is eloquently simple, yet, says Blackwell, it was a dozen years in the making.

(MORE: On the Horizon at Last, Cancer Drugs That Harness the Body’s Own Immune System)

Telling people they shouldn't get chemo in lieu of other treatments is hokum. Yes, radiation and chemo therapies hurt the patient but they drastically improve odds of survival. A tourniquet and lancing a boil are also damaging to the patient, but they can do more good than harm in the right conditions. The raw numbers and survival ratios are on my side. There are all kinds of pills prescribed by doctors. Some of them are nothing but random, harmless, useless herbs. I honestly don't care what kind of homeopathic treatments somebody uses as long as it's alongside traditional medicine. If it makes the person feel more confident and hopeful, I'm happy for them. Assuming they continue with mainstream and recommended treatments. Where I will step in is not when somebody advocates some alternative remedy. It is when they suggest the patient use such remedy to the exclusion of chemo. That's when you've awoken the bear in me.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

"Might", "may" and "promising" are NOT "firm conclusions".

No they are not, but oh you are shifty. They also were not applied to the question of whether or not dca induces apoptosis. That is established. The statment was about DCA`s promising future as an agent of anti-cancer treatment.. As the statements were made may progressed to promising. Not to mention they said IS a promising selective anticancer agent. That is a good thing. It shows promise. I agree. Wouldn`t any medicine that destroys cancer be promising.. you somehow see it as a bad thing.

Show me where it says `may`prompte apoptosis only or some way of saying that. How you imply it to mean. Noo its says it does and explains how too.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

What rubbish. Please stop spreading misinformation that gets people killed. The numbers, the statistics that aren't living things, show that people who get chemo and radiation therapy have a greater chance of surviving. A significantly greater chance. And people that try these fake cures, much like medieval peasants going to the Apothecary for charms and wards, don't have this increased survival rate. Who knew? Oh, that's right. The actual experts who went to 14 years of schooling for this. Those people knew.

You are socially conditioned to see and `cure for cancer` as hoke. As soon as you see the word cancer cure you`re done for. You then bring in your the imagery you state in your post. The first post I made is a drug called antineoplastacin that has been said by your FDA to cure cancer.

Here is what the government and FDA says about antineoplastons and what they say about their current treatments. Comes from the patent offices and their trials. The governement tried to steal the Doctor`s patents and made them their own instead, that failed in court later. But here is what they (US government) said while the the drugs were theirs.
These patents are full of useful information. Aside from noticing their blatant infringement, “Compositions and Methods for Treating and Preventing Cancer” [Pg 1], using the distribution of Antineoplastons AS2-1’s ingredients. [pg 71] They enthusiastically state: “The neoplastic conditions treatable by this method include neuroblastoma, leukemia, myelodisplasia, acute glioma, prostate cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, medulloblastoma, and lymphoma” to name a few. [pg 49] They also point out how Antineoplastons can also be used as a cancer preventative. [pg 56]

However, the most revealing piece of information found in these patents is where they state: “Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” Let’s read that one again, shall we? “Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” [SOURCE: US Patent #5,605,930 pg 56]

Alejandro Levy, M.D., fellow at the Children's Cancer Hospital at M. D. Anderson, presented research showing for the first time that the M. D. Anderson-developed drug, 3-BrOP, reduces tumor growth by more than 75 percent as a single agent. The study, conducted with human neuroblastoma cells transplanted into mice, showed how 3-BrOP, a glycolysis inhibitor, starved the cancer cells to death by shutting down their main energy source, glucose.

Pre-clinically, 3-BrOP has already been proven effective against other cancers including glioblastoma, colon cancer, lymphoma and acute leukemia. A Phase I clinical trial is planned to open this year for adult patients.

investigators on the study were Lauren Akers, D.O., Maurizio Ghisoli, M.D., Timothy Graham, Lizhi Zeng, M.D., Riitta Nolo, M.D., Peter Zage, M.D., Ph.D., Wendy Fang, M.D., Sankaranarayanan Kannan, Ph.D., Anna Franklin, M.D., Peng Huang, M.D., Ph.D., and Patrick Zweidler-McKay, M.D., Ph.D. 04/23/09

http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2009/novel-cancer-drug-reduces-neuroblastoma-growth-by-75-percent.html

2-DG

Our in vitro analysis demonstrated that treatment with a combination of subtoxic doses of 2-DG and the IGF1R inhibitor II reduced cancer cell proliferation 90% and promoted significant apoptosis.

http://www.jbc.org/content/284/35/23225