Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Steffi, I am pleased that you brought this matter to the list's attention. I have a fairly dim view of most conventional medicine, most alternative medicine, most energy medicine, most homeopathic medicine, and most research medicine. My opinions are based on decades of both clinical and research experience, and more recently lots of self-experimentation. Newcomers to cancer tend to be quite Pollyannaish. They read a few abstracts and fall prey to the internet marketeering personalities and become absolutely sure of some theory or treatment. If they are on the List then after a while they disappear. When Manju Ray first reported on her human trials with methylglyoxal, I did suspect a bit of exaggeration. I assumed that this was unintended and mostly through prescreening of candidates and inadequate methods of assessment in India. She was reporting a 70% remission rate among people with approximately three months left to live. Often people try to please their docs and report good results with more enthusiasm than warranted. I decided to work with it on problem cases. Several people were selling it, but of very questionable quality and at unconscionable prices. Much of what was on the market was polymerized, contained formaldehyde, or were " homeopathic. " I know one of the clinics in Tijuana tried these products and was very disappointed. Twice Manju was kind enough to leave her lab in India and visit me in California. We considered working together on the project but this could not be realized for philosophical reasons. She was focused solely on methylglyoxal and I was only interested in saving lives. If I thought something wasn't working, I would drop it in a hot second. Her work as continued in the direction of using the methylglyoxal with vitamins C and B complex, melatonin, and creatine. She was also investigating putting it in nanoparticles. I would use it with vitamins C, K, EGCG and with various glyoxalase inhibitors. I have also used the related mitoguazone and I have synthesized several analogs and deriviatives. I do find a practical clinical use for methylglyoxal when selectively used. It does not seem to work on Hodgkin's disease and seems only mediocre in such cancers as squamous cell carcinoma. It is probably not the ticket for cancers that are highly differentiated nor for sarcomas and leukemias. As cancers in animal models tend to quickly return when methylglyoxal is discontinued, one has to think of long term commitment. The literature reports potential risk to eyes, pancreas, and other high-value real estate but I haven't seen a problem. I know of one person in a hospital setting who tried to push it through their skin using glycerin and propylene glycol as a carrier along with an ATP decoupler. The person's blood pressure dropped precipitously. There is much that is not known about this compound, and I think someone who doesn't properly respect it will run into a problem. I don't sell it. I do make sure that it is available if it is a good match and it will rescue someone. Personally I think it would be terrible news if I found out that only methylglyoxal would save my life, as its vinegary taste gets old very quickly. But then, hemlock tastes worse. I continue to have the highest respect for Manju Ray. She is a brilliant pioneer. Most of the criticism that has been directed against her is because of the turf war between clinicians and researchers. There is a photo of us having dinner at the UCLA Faculty Club at: http://natural-oncology.org/gallery/album02 _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of steffi.potter Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:43 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> To , It's been almost 10 years since you wrote the post below. It would be interesting to know if you continue to hold the same " opinion " , i.e. " the general consensus is that this particular strategy is too problematic " and " none of Manju Ray's results are that impressive. She is a very bright lady and she is doing important research, but it is very premature to get enthusiastic about something that has been so well researched and has performed so poorly " . Can you refer me to other articles that can disprove the above? So far, I've only managed to go through this and related reviews in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18533369 Thanks in advance, Steffi List, none of Manju Ray's results are that impressive. She is a very bright lady and she is doing important research, but it is very premature to get enthusiastic about something that has been so well researched and has performed so poorly. V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 , I am new to cancer and Pollyanna-ish. You say you take a dim view to basically all forms of medicine. You certainly are familiar with Navarro numbers. My first was 53. I am expecting results of my second any day. I will ask more questions at that point. I may even be visiting you at some point. We all have our biases and presuppositions. What are yours? Thanks. Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T RE: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> Steffi, I am pleased that you brought this matter to the list's attention. I have a fairly dim view of most conventional medicine, most alternative medicine, most energy medicine, most homeopathic medicine, and most research medicine. My opinions are based on decades of both clinical and research experience, and more recently lots of self-experimentation. Newcomers to cancer tend to be quite Pollyannaish. They read a few abstracts and fall prey to the internet marketeering personalities and become absolutely sure of some theory or treatment. If they are on the List then after a while they disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 This subject should bring a lot of topic so I’ll add my own two cents because I suppose we all have some bias and presuppositions when it comes to this involved subject. For openers what I read from ’s is about what I hope most of us on this list have developed and that is that we have a ‘dim’ view of “most†conventional medicine and for me, a rapidly developing ‘dim’ view of a lot of so-called Alternative practices. I did not see a statement that has a ‘dim’ view of ‘ALL’ medicine or ‘All’ conventional so I’ll stick with the milder word, most. Most is not all because only a very poorly informed person would not think that there are some beneficial aspects to medicine or tests that are often heralded. . Does anyone remember the AMAS test for cancer? That one was heralded and so I used it. My tests came back negative and so did a CT-Scan...............three months later a tumor was visible to the naked eye via a Cystoscope. Later I began to read that “many†(not all) AMAS tests were giving false Negative and false Positive results. In most people’s eyes, surgery is still a part of medicine and this is where there are a lot of instances where it is required such as when a knife is sticking out of our back, or a blockage so severe that death is imminent etc.. I myself try to distance surgery from Medicine because corrective surgery can be helpful while “most†of drugging is not. That leaves a lot of room for the other part of ‘most’ which is ‘some’. I find I have to read and re-read a post when it makes seemingly dramatic statements. This one did not seem so dramatic because a “dim view†allows for some room as most of us know what dim means. It doesn’t mean outright blindness to something. I try to avoid all drugs but find I wind up avoiding most instead. My thought is that sometimes the pain is worse than the drug we use to stop it. While pain may be a warning and it is only a symptom, it wreaks havoc on our nervous system and is very enervating. Trust me, it is the rare person that can withstand the use of a pain pill when a Kidney stone is lodged in their bile duct or wherever they lodge. In fact some people also use things like Tagamet because there is strong evidence it is beneficial for people with Colon Cancer and If I am incorrect on this, I’m sure I’ll be corrected. So here we are again using the right words to describe most (not all) of our beliefs. We need to use more words such as Many, Most, similar, it seems, and the big one, some because there is little that perfectly describes something as the final word except death. Death is dead but everything else is open to a more loose description. Advice to me would be to re-read a post before responding because this is something I haven’t always done. As for biases, good protection against unwarranted bias is to have an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out. Joe C. From: joywharton@... , I am new to cancer and Pollyanna-ish. You say you take a dim view to basically all forms of medicine. You certainly are familiar with Navarro numbers. My first was 53. I am expecting results of my second any day. I will ask more questions at that point. I may even be visiting you at some point. We all have our biases and presuppositions. What are yours? Thanks. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Joe, I like that, having an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out. It is the qualifiers that wreak havoc! Being new to cancer and not liking the statistics of the cancer industry I turned to other stuff that seems backed by science and has recognizable accomplished people attached to it. Guess the proof will be in the pudding...that I can't eat! Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Make pudding with stevia!! My daughter mage me some peanut butter pie with stevia!  It was so good you could put a bowl of in on top of your head and your tongue would knock your brains out trying to get to it!! Dennis From: joywharton@... <joywharton@...> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 11:58 AM  Joe, I like that, having an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out. It is the qualifiers that wreak havoc! Being new to cancer and not liking the statistics of the cancer industry I turned to other stuff that seems backed by science and has recognizable accomplished people attached to it. Guess the proof will be in the pudding...that I can't eat! Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 steffi and , I'd like to tell you what I was told in 2008 that cancer is not a disease, it is a condition caused by a weakened immune system . Our body produces a small amount of cancer cells from the moment we are born to the moment we die. This is why a fetus and babies and childen get cancer. Our immune system kills cancer cells all through our lives. But the processed foods we eat help feed these cancer cells and make the cancer cell stronger. This makes it harder for the immune system to kill them. With the processed sugar foods we eat every day, the immune system finily gets overwhelmed with just to many cancer cells that then form into cancer tumors but the immune system keeps trying to kill off the cancer but with the process foods we eat keeps feeding the cancer. So it comes down to a balancing act between how many cancer cells our imune system can kill off, and how many cancer cells there are that can turn into cancer tumors. In the end no matter what treatment we have, its our immune system that will keep fighting our cancer. Ray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Ray, There are hundreds of theories as to the cause(s) of cancer. Almost all have a grain of truth to them. Almost all these theories have many weaknesses. Theories will misdirect your decision-making machinery. One should never take one's eye off the ball - and that ball is verifiable and repeatable clinical results. _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Randall Crossley Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> steffi and , I'dlike to tell you what I was told in 2008 thatcancer is not a disease, itisa conditioncaused bya weakened immune system . Our body produces a small amount of cancer cells from the moment we are born to the moment we die. This is why a fetus andbabies and childen get cancer. Our immune system kills cancer cellsall through our lives.Butthe processed foods we eathelp feed these cancer cellsandmake the cancer cell stronger. Thismakes it harder for the immune system to kill them. With the processed sugar foods we eat every day, the immune systemfinilygetsoverwhelmed with just to many cancer cellsthat then form into cancer tumors but the immune system keeps trying to kill off the cancer but with the process foods we eat keeps feeding the cancer. So it comes down to a balancing act between how many cancer cells our imune system can kill off,and how many cancer cells there are that can turn into cancer tumors. In the end no matter what treatment we have, its our immune system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Ray, Asking to look at clinical results with substances that are not mainstream medicine, does not necessarily mean EBM. It means clinical observation of a holistic practitioner who has treated thousands of patients and have noticed some emerging patterns of what works, what doesn't work and when and in what conditions. For this you don't necessarily need EBV. By the way, most chemo drugs especially those used as 3d and 4th lines are not based on EBV ---- Original Message ----- From: Randall Crossley Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:30 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> wrote: " One should never take one's eye off the ball - and that ball is verifiable and repeatable clinical results. " > ,�the only problem with that is all�verifiable and repeatable clinical results are from�million-dollar drug programs. They're�based not only on if they work or not or if they cure but on�how much money that drug will make and keep making.� Around�1935�synthetic drugs come�on the market. before that doctors used mostly herbs to treat there patients and they had�great success with them. then someone thought why not get the the active ingrediant out of the herb and use it.� I know I have posted about this before but it's still true. I was reading an article about a Synthetic compound that may lead to drugs to fight cancers like pancreatic and lung cancer. I also read that in the EU has past a law that come in to effect in April this year 2011 that said that all herbs have to go through the same testing as Synthetic drugs before they can be used on patients. but I remember seeing a program on TV a few day ago. It was on what would happen once the worlds oil supply runs out.It said the modern world may crumble, but it also said the ability to create lifesaving drugs will be eliminated because most of these drugs in some way come from crude oil and without crude oil, there will be no synthetic compound to create these drugs. So by the time the oil runs out, the only thing we will have left to fight the disease that will plague our grand children will be herbs and yet the world governments are trying to pass laws making it almost impossible to use them. Yet doctors have used herbs to treat patients for thousands of years. To a lot a people it's unbelievable that when the oil runs out, herbs will be all we will have left to treat disease. without herbs our children and possibly our great grand children will die from common illnesses that were once easily treatable. We should not be trying to ban herbs but learning better ways to use them to treat disease so when the time comes we be ready Ray� ________________________________ From: Gammill <vgammill> Sent: Thu, 24 March, 2011 � Ray, There are hundreds of theories as to the cause(s) of cancer. Almost all have a grain of truth to them. Almost all these theories have many weaknesses. Theories will misdirect your decision-making machinery. One should never take one's eye off the ball - and that ball is verifiable and repeatable clinical results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Well said, Gubi. List, Shlomo " Gubi " Guberman is an author and alternative cancer treatment consultant in Israel. I have worked with him hundreds of times and I have never seen him give questionable advice. Gubi, along with long-time list members Leonard Rosenbaum and Joe Castronovo are paragons of patience, intelligent reflection, equanimity, and generosity of spirit. Whenever their posts appear on the list you can be sure that their comments aren't frivolous. _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Gubi Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> Ray, Asking to look at clinical results with substances that are not mainstream medicine, does not necessarily mean EBM. It means clinical observation of a holistic practitioner who has treated thousands of patients and have noticed some emerging patterns of what works, what doesn't work and when and in what conditions. For this you don't necessarily need EBV. By the way, most chemo drugs especially those used as 3d and 4th lines are not based on EBV ---- Original Message ----- From: Randall Crossley <mailto: %40> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:30 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> wrote: " One should never take one's eye off the ball - and that ball is verifiable and repeatable clinical results. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 I'm honored to be worthy of such praise from you . To those on the list who may not know this, I have known for over eight years now, and consider him a close friend. Have visited twice in these years. has been my mentor and inspiration, on this road I have taken. I often consult with him on difficult to treat cases. I cherish our friendship . Gubi [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> wrote: " One should never take one's eye off the ball - and that ball is verifiable and repeatable clinical results. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 hi Gubi, yeah you've got a point. its just that I have just started doing a naturopathy course and I now find the EU has pass laws in Europe that almost ban all herbs. when I do go over seas, it going to limit the work I was looking forward to doing so it kind of on my mind. Ray ________________________________ From: Gubi <gubisara@...> Sent: Thu, 24 March, 2011 Ray, Asking to look at clinical results with substances that are not mainstream medicine, does not necessarily mean EBM. It means clinical observation of a holistic practitioner who has treated thousands of patients and have noticed some emerging patterns of what works, what doesn't work and when and in what conditions. For this you don't necessarily need EBV. By the way, most chemo drugs especially those used as 3d and 4th lines are not based on EBV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 I totally understand Ray. Am familiar with Codex Alimentarius, and like many others, saddened by the recent developments. Gubi Re: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> hi Gubi,� yeah you've got a point.�its just that I have just started�doing a naturopathy course and I now find the EU has pass laws in Europe that almost ban all herbs.�when I�do�go over seas,�it going to limit�the work I was looking forward to doing so it kind of on my mind. Ray � ________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 I can't recall seeing a fast return of the cancer when discontinuing methylglyoxal, but then almost everyone is on a comprehensive protocol. _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of steffi.potter Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:41 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> , Thank you for your comprehensive response. Have you also seen cancer return as quickly in your patients who discontinued methylglyoxal? If so, did they recover as fast when they resumed intake? Thanks, Steffi --- " Gammill " wrote: > I do find a practical clinical use for methylglyoxal when selectively used. .... As cancers in animal models tend to quickly return when methylglyoxal is discontinued, one has to think of long term commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Methylglyoxal is only going to be useful for those cancers that are reliant on the glycolytic pathway, i.e., those cancers with a high affinity for sugar. Keep in mind that cancers are polyclonal, they tend to be very opportunistic and there are several important selection processes going on to assure the survival of the cancer. 1. Nutritional components. Starve a cancer of sugar and you will be actively selecting for the survival of those cancer cells that thrive on other nutritional components. 2. Immune function and immune therapies. Immune strategies assure the survival of all variations of the cancer that the immune system can't kill. Cancer tends to develop its own escape mechanisms such as the use of IDO to dumb down cellular immunity. 3. Exogenous therapies. There is a commonality in exogenous meds/supplements such that any of them (chemotherapies, oxygen, ozone, methylglyoxal, free fatty acids, hyperthermia, etc.) will kill only the cells (many cancer cells and often a percentage of normal cells) that are susceptible to such attacks and again leave everything else with license to grow. 4. Mitotic rate. Those cancer cells with the highest mitotic rate will eventually win out over those with the slowest rates. You can consider this and get all depressed, much like the blind drunk who felt his way around a lamp post a few times and said, " Its no use - I'm all walled in. " Or, you can see it like a chess player who finds himself playing against an opponent who cheats. You either watch him like a hawk, or you do a little of your own cheatin'. _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of melizzard11 Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:37 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Methylglyoxal >> And then there are those of us for whom methylglyoxal doesn't do much of anything ... just like every other therapy. :/ That's the frustrating thing .... you choose therapies, they don't work, and then you're not sure what other thing to try that WILL work. xxoo > > I can't recall seeing a fast return of the cancer when discontinuing > methylglyoxal, but then almost everyone is on a comprehensive protocol. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.