Mike,

I was checking through an article about osteoporosis and strontium and found this paragraph in the article. Thought it was interesting. Mari


https://www.vrp.com/art/1193.asp?c=11...p.css&p=no&s=0

Strontium and Metastatic Bone Cancer
Dr. Skoryna (1981) also tested the effect of strontium in patients with breast or prostate cancer that had spread to the bones.6 Metastatic bone cancer is usually a tragic condition with a poor prognosis, in which the cancer cells are multiplying out of control and gradually eat away the bone tissue. In addition to causing severe pain, metastatic bone cancer can make bones so weak that they break after only minimal trauma, or simply collapse under the body�s weight. Deforming and disabling fractures may culminate in loss of mobility and intolerable pain. Metastatic cancer is difficult to treat and usually becomes progressively worse, although successful treatment of the cancer will occasionally cause the bone lesions to regress.

Notwithstanding this rather dim prognosis, Dr. Skoryna administered strontium (in the form of strontium gluconate) for at least three months. The dosage of strontium was only 274 mg/day�much lower than the 600 to 700 mg/day he used in his osteoporosis study. However, since strontium gluconate is absorbed more efficiently than strontium carbonate, less strontium was needed to achieve the same blood level. In many cases, the results were clear-cut and dramatic. X-rays taken before and after strontium therapy demonstrated new mineral deposits in areas of bone that had been eroded by the cancer. In one patient, a vertebra that appeared to be on the verge of collapse showed extensive remineralization. Although much of this newly deposited mineral was no doubt made up of calcium crystals, the presence of strontium was clearly evident by its characteristic appearance on the X-rays. These strontium deposits were still visible on X-rays taken several months after strontium therapy had been discontinued. Many of the cancer patients reported subjective improvements and gained weight while receiving strontium.

Mari--
Thanks for the suggestion about strontium. I have ordered some. In the past I was reluctant because of its association with the radioactive strontium 90. Was I ever wrong! I need to do better research.

Sally B.--
I will get this book about visual imagery. I have tried imagery recently but have been frustrated because I can�t seem to get a grip on how exactly to do it with my particular temperament and mental associations. Perhaps this is the best cure because if we created disease (dis-ease) through our mind-set, then we can cure it through the same mechanism.

Gerry--
I met with an oncologist yesterday who has been a scientist at the NIH. Very bright but reluctant to recommend anything that hasn�t been proven according to his criteria. He was not about to recommend vitamin C IV therapy (he couldn�t) but did say when I pressed him that he might use it if he were in my situation--which is an aggressive cancer which all involved are dumbfounded as to its speed of development.

This makes me wonder if I have injured myself be using �healthy� supplements. (Rhetorically)-- could the chondroitan sulfate I take for osteoarthritis speed along the cancer because of its association with prostate cancer? Could the CoQ10 and and L-carnitine I take increase the ATP which cancer cells thrive on?

I know it may be futile to find out what caused the problem--but if we continue to contribute to it, then it is important to make changes.
Wouldn�t it be a bummer if what we do to promote health assists our destruction?

Mike

Association is not causation. And those representing big Pharma do everything they could to take things that would heal us and "associate" them with disease.

Chondroitin is just cartilage material. And hasn't shark cartilage been considered for cancer control because of substances that inhibit blood vessel formation? And yet, the big Pharma people are just so willing to pounce on a product that threatens their sales of pain killers.

On the other hand, big Pharma and its allies would never even associate their products with the deaths it produces. When their cancer chemo is obviously the cause of death, no one even complains. This is graphically seen in one thread here (click here to read what happened to Margie) where a patient with early stage lung cancer was brought to near death in four months of chemo. I doubt if the early cancer could have done that in four months!

I doubt your nutrition would have caused or aggravated the cancer, which is just the healing process gone uncontrolled. The first control should have been the immune system. Most likely there might have been factors that inhibited a proper immune response, like the very common pain/fever relievers. Your taking of glyconutrients should get your immune system going. (It would still need protein for the full response, though.)

Of course, the second line of defense should have been the cancer killers from food like B17, sulforaphane (broccoli, cauliflower, turnips, kale, Brussels sprouts), p-coumaric acid and lycopene (tomatoes and others), allylic sulfides (garlic, onion), etc.

The me, the greatest mistake will be to suppress the immune system, which should be our main "treatment." Chemo and radiation are guaranteed to suppress our immune system, and yet, it's what is used for cancer???

If anything, blood glucose spikes may feed cancers, so cut your calories from carbs and shift to protein and fat (as you're doing with the Budwig protocol).

Vitamin C therapy, which you are well intent on getting, has been shown by Dr. Rath to be the mechanism to control metastasis. Click here to download his books for free. There's one on cancer which your doctor may want to read to support your desire for vitamin C therapy.

To your recovery,
Gerry

Gerry,

Thanks for your thoughts. I am in general agreement with your ideas. Pertaining to me, however: I am well-aware of the Pharmaceutical industry's dirty deeds. I have written about them in my book. And I have also written about about "preventatives" like mega-doses of vitamin C or supplemental CLA which I believe may create many problems.

I generally follow the thinking of the Weston Price Foundation: High protein and good fats, little refined carbs, the proper balance of omega 3s to 6s, etc. etc. I have followed this thinking for years. (Perhaps a little too much red wine, however.)

Where I disagree is that perhaps we rely too much on "natural" supplements which are thought to be good. Chondroitin sulfate (which I have taken for years) may not just be a marker for prostate cancer, but may be a player in its spread because it assists cell proliferation.

You wrote: "I doubt your nutrition would have caused or aggravated the cancer, which is just the healing process gone uncontrolled." I am not sure what you mean by the last part of your statement. But I am beginning to believe that supplementation, perhaps, not necessarily a cause of cancer, could exaccerbate the problem.

As an example: For years I have used CoQ10 and L-carnitine. They both increase the cells' production of ATP, which is exactly what cancer cells need. From Sloan-Kettering: "It is well known that all cells need Adenosine trip hosphate (ATP) to survive. Cancer cells grow and divide unchecked, and therefore are more dependent than noncancerous cells on the key metabolic pathways that generate ATP, such as glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. We present here an invention that relates to the composition and method of administering compounds that deplete ATP to lethal levels in cancerous cells."

I am not saying that my intake of supplements is the cause of my cancer, but could it be a promoter of an aggressive form? My docs are dumbfounded by the speed at which this cancer is progressiing. I have stopped using chondroitin, CoQ10, and carnitine to be safe.

There is no way I will do chemo or radiation. To my way of thinking, I am the last person in the world who should get cancer (modestly spoken) with all I have done to avoid carcinogens, to eat organic, no trans fats, etc. This is why it is so frustratiing. Perhaps it is in my genetics or the penta chemicals I got all over myself 30 years ago when I worked on my house. Who knows? Maybe it is the non-organic wine. Shame on me

Of course, I need to focus on what can be done now instead of reliving the past. But I know I must stop what I may be doing to hasten the unnaturally fast spread of this disease.

Gerry, your thoughts are always welcome.

Mike

I may have missed something about chondroitin. What I know of the substance is that it's one of the polysulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) that make up connective tissue. Dr. Rath's vitamin C approach proposes that weakening of connective tissue (by what he sees as lack of vitamin C and certain amino acids) is what allows for metastasis. So I would think that chondroitin, if anything, would promote connective tissue formation to contain the cancer. (I have no research on this, though. Just looking at the biochemical pathways.)

I also have not seen any literature which says that chondroitin assists cell proliferation, unless the cells were connective tissue cells. But of course, this may just be because I haven't looked.

As for "supplements," I'm not so much into them. As much as possible, I get nutrients from food. I get to enjoy them more.

My working theory on what cancers are is based on the trophoblastic or unitarian thesis of cancer. Basically, it says that when the body is damaged or goes into the process of repair, estrogen stimulates trophoblasts (I would say, stem cells) to differentiate into the cell or tissue needed for repair. Thus, all of us "have cancer" all the time, and the various types of cancer are dependent on what these trophoblasts differentiate to.

When healing is done, these differentiating cells (cancer!) stop growing and multiplying from the action of pancreatic enzymes and white blood cells (to which I would add, other aspects of the immune system, like tumor necrosis factor, natural killer cells, lactoferrin, etc.). If this fails, then we have the fallback on nutrients that kill cancer cells.

If the immune system and nutrition are not enough to contain the proliferating trophoblasts, then we have cancer.

Note that you may consider taking pancreatic enzymes as part of your regimen, based on the trophoblastic or unitarian thesis of cancer.

Well, cancer cells have the same needs as normal cells, but in greater quantities, as you pointed out. Maybe, that's why many cases of spontaneous remission involve people who virtually stopped all eating.

In fact, if I knew you were up to it, I would have recommended several days of complete fasting -- no food, water only, not even juices. Well, maybe tea with no sugar would be allowable. :wink:

The body naturally stops eating when sick and this is for protein breakdown so that amino acids can be used for the immune response -- acute phase proteins, lactoferrin, etc. A higher body temperature will be required (fever, exercise? -- definitely countered by antipyretics). In this regard, regular exercise -- raising your body temperature -- can add to the ability of our immune systems. So if you're not doing it, yet, get into regular exercise that really raises your body temperature. (Forget deadly aerobics. Go for the healthy interval type training methods, variants of the Tabata protocol. :wink: )

As for the ATP production from the electron transport chain (in which niacin, as NADH, and riboflavin, as FAD, and CoQ10 are involved), this is the very mechanism blocked by acetogenins from graviola or paw paw.

I agree. Just focus your mind on what you can do. With my father in 2000, I only knew about substances that could help kill the cancer cell. Since that time, I have learned a lot more about our immune system, so I would put a lot of emphasis now on our immune system as well.

There are various glyconutrient sources that stimulate the immune system -- mushrooms, aloe vera, lactobacilli and yeasts (their cell walls), goji berries, etc. -- but this would just be stimulus. (They bind to receptor sites in macrophages and stimulate these to secrete cytokines/chemokines that get the immune system up and running.) To respond to the stimulus, the immune system needs protein and other nutrients.

I, too, think that I'm someone who would be in the least risk for cancer. But in the event that I still get diagnosed with cancer (I know we have cancer all the time -- it's only when it gets out of control that we get diagnosed with it), one of the first things I would do would be to go on several days of fasting. Then as all my cells are starving, including the cancer cells, I would eat only foods with all the cancer killers. This should lead to increased uptake of the cancer cells of the deadly nutrients, no different from insulin potentiation therapy (IPT). After such fast, I would also have a diet that will do nothing but stimulate and cause response of my immune system -- glyconutrients, protein. You may want to consider such an approach.

And remember, have fun and don't lose your sense and appreciation of humor. Laughter is still excellent (probably the best) medicine. It DOES make our immune system act up as well.

To your complete recovery!

Gerry

Or experienced a high fever.

https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Re.../dp/0943951178

Ruby, your post reminds me of a conversation I had with my altmed minded dentist recently who
told me that he knew several several people who cured their lymes disease with "fever therapy".

He says to heat the body with blankets or a sauna, but keep an ice pack
on your head and be sure you have someone monitoring you.

__________________
Porsche 9FF GT9

__________________
Porsche 9FF GT9

To put it more accurately, it's the immune system as a whole that's working "overtime" during a fever, not just antibodies (which may still have to be formed). The inappetence that accompanies most diseases (may be mimicked by fasting?) leads to protein breakdown, making amino acids available to the liver and macrophages and lymphocytes for formation of acute phase proteins (mannose binding protein, C-reactive protein, serum amyloid protein, etc.) -- what may be called universal antibodies -- as well as other cytokines, chemokines, enzymes, binding proteins, etc. (and yes, specific antibodies as well) that put the immune system into high gear. But all these cannot occur unless we have a higher than normal body temperature.

Strange.

Why would antibiotics be blamed? They don't affect the fever mechanism at all!

It should be obvious that the blame should be put on the indiscriminate use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Though sold mainly as pain relievers, they are anti-pyretics (anti-fever) as well. It would be interesting to find out how many people with cancer (and other chronic diseases) were habitual users of NSAIDs (aspirin, paracetamol/acetaminophen, ibuprofen, COX-2 inhibitors like Celebrex, etc.).

Our immune system is all we need to keep well. And probably all diseases are the result of somehow inhibiting or warping the action of our immune system, such as by lack of nutrients, or use of immune suppressing drugs like NSAIDs, injecting vaccines instead of giving it by the route of natural infection, etc.

Just the way I see things. 8)

Gerry

Simply bringing the body temperature up doesn't activate the the immune system, putting it into "high gear," does it? I do not know. Would the high fever have to be the result of some knid of infection which activates the immune system? Sitting in a hot tub all day, I guess, wouldn't do the trick??

Using Coley's Toxins to activate the immune system seems intriguing:

https://whale.to/cancer/coleys.html


Mike

Gerry,

Here is an interesting article about chondroitin sulfate's relationship to prostate cancer. It seems to be a "chicken or the egg" question. Is chondroitin sulfate merely a marker for prostate cancer, or is it a player?

https://www.prostateforum.com/info-chondroitin.htm


Mike

Thanks for the link, Mike.

However, as you yourself question, chondroitin was not shown to play a role at all. And yet, here's this guy advising people like you to avoid it?

1. He calls chondroitin a DRUG??? Is this guy a doctor or what?

2. The studies only noted the amount of chondroitin in prostate tissue. Why avoid it? Were those with prostate cancer taking any chondroitin? I would not think so. You see, the body can make its own chondroitin. (And note that chondroitin was present also in normal prostates!) This is reminiscent of the authorities finding cholesterol in blocked heart arteries and then concluding we should avoid dietary cholesterol. Well, we should all know by now how wrong that concept is. (The body makes its own cholesterol from excess blood glucose. Dietary cholesterol just goes directly to fat and other cells and does not affect blood cholesterol at all.) Definitely, no causative relationship was even hinted at by the studies! It says, If so, what's this guy's business saying that we should avoid chondroitin?

3. Chondroitin was in decorin (good) and versican (bad). So why blame chondroitin? Why not just blame the versican? If we reduce chondroitin intake, won't we also be reducing the formation of decorin?

4. The guy concludes with, Wrong! Pain relievers NEVER treated arthritis. They only relieve the pain, thus allowing the patient to use the joint and add further damage!

My own impression of the studies: I think it concurs with Dr. Rath's idea that the body tries to limit spread of cancer with connective tissue. Thus, I would not be surprised if all the chondroitin found in the prostate cancer cells were there because the body was desperately trying to LIMIT the spread of the cancer.

And yes, as you mention, chondroitin is just a marker. But to me, it's a marker of how much the body was reacting to contain the cancer. It's the versican that shows malignancy, not the chondroitin which is just attached to it. But even versican is just a connective tissue, and as you say, it may just be another indicator.

Again, thanks for the link. But no, it doesn't show any justification to limit chondroitin intake. And I seriously doubt the capability of this Dr. Myers based on how he formed conclusions and recommendations in the link you gave.

Gerry

I know building up temperature from the inside, as with exercise or similar physical activity, would have its effect on the immune system. (Of course, previous stimulation with glyconutrients would help.)

I don't know about heating the body from the outside. Maybe if it's enough to raise the inside body temperature. But still, the body would be reacting to such "outside" heat by trying to cool off. So I tend to doubt "outside heating." But of course, I could be wrong.

Thanks for this info, too, Mike.

I don't see much explanation as to what the toxin is composed of. I found it in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coley's_toxin

(where I read a very impressive explanation, I would say).

I think it's along the lines of working WITH our immune system and not against it.

It also reminds me of the principle of homeopathic approaches. As well as the use of dead Mycobacterium (tuberculosis organism) to stimulate immunity against cancer, and malaria against AIDS.

Gerry

Mike,

I've since learned more about versican and decorin in Wikipedia.

Still, no contraindication of chondroitin itself for your situation because it's up to the body to decide whether it makes versican or decorin from the chondroitin it receives. And, as I mentioned, the body can make its own chondroitin, given the raw materials of sulfated amino acids, protein and glucose.

Do you need to take chondroitin? Why not try MSM instead?

Gerry

Mike,

If you want your immune system to work better, I highly recommend Beta Glucan, 1/3,1/6. You can read about it here:

www.nsc24.com

It has been researched for use with cancer. There is alot of info at this website. Check it out! My family uses this product!

Sally B.