Re: AMAS cancer test

June 15, 2009

I guess it wasn't accurate for me..... (test indicated no ca, but surgical

biopsy said yes).

From: katerinka70

Did anyone use the AMAS cancer test?

http://www.oncolabinc.com/health.php

June 16, 2009

I did it for the last two years. It is only 85% accurate. I also took other

tests to ensure that they are all consistent. In addition, I took PET/CT

scans once every two years.

In a message dated 6/15/2009 10:06:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

katerinka70@... writes:

Did anyone use the AMAS cancer test?

_http://www.oncolabihttp://www.onchtt_

(http://www.oncolabinc.com/health.php)

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy

Steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823265x1201398681/aol?redir=http://\

www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=Jun

eExcfooterNO62)

June 16, 2009

Has anyone tried the Navarro test.

Bob Sellie

I have used it twice, both times can back no evidence of cancer. So I don't

really know if it works or not. The tumor melanoma in my eye is gone, so

perhaps the cells are as well. I am using myself as a test case and plan

yearly test for the next five years. Time will tell perhaps! all the best,

MIke

June 16, 2009

I have used it twice, both times can back no evidence of cancer. So I don't

really know if it works or not. The tumor melanoma in my eye is gone, so perhaps

the cells are as well. I am using myself as a test case and plan yearly test

for the next five years. Time will tell perhaps! all

the best,

MIke

June 16, 2009

The AMAS test is the best they have. It is more accurate than all of the other

tests but it too is not infallible. The presence of cancer can be tested by

other means and by far the best way to detect its presence is to observe live

blood under phase contrast or darkfield illumination. The amount of detritis

(trash) found in the blood is a good indicator that a disease of some type is

running in the body. Tests for inflammation such as homocystine and C-Reactive

Protein are excellent tests to determine the presence of such activity.

Tumor formation begins with impaired lymphatic flow and the end result is a very

mild but easily detectable inflammation in the tissues of the areas of the body

so impaired. This can be observed many years before tumors form by using

thermography.

Cancer is both a local and a systemic chromic infection brought on by

unrelenting irritation.

For cancer we need to look at hCG levels in the blood as well as the level of

lactic acid as these are elevated in most cancers. In fact the early hCG

pregnancy testers were often able to pick up cancer activity but the

manufacturers of the tests have subsequently de-sensitized them so that they can

only pick up only high levels of cancer activity. This is a disease of

civilization. It is Nature's response to the gross abuse of the human frame. It

can be cured by diet.

>

> I have used it twice, both times can back no evidence of cancer. So I don't

really know if it works or not. The tumor melanoma in my eye is gone, so perhaps

the cells are as well. I am using myself as a test case and plan yearly test

for the next five years. Time will tell perhaps! all

the best,

> MIke

>

June 16, 2009

Percentages revealing the false negatives in any test are a poor reflection if

one is part of say, the 15% because then the percentage jumps to 100%.

If the 85% figure is valid that is far to many false negatives or false

positives.

The test did not work for me either. I was excited when I received an 'OK'

from the AMAS results and, to be fair, from a CT-Scan as well. However a

routine Urine Cytology said otherwise but the 'visual' by the Urologist did not

spot anything either. So I elected for a 'wait and see' and within three

months a tumor reared its head.

Test are simply tools and while we all want to get good results, are they really

reflecting the potential that out of the millions of cells in our body it has

missed some cancer cells? No they don't. Otherwise people, seemingly in

Remission would not find themselves saying, " it came back " . It didn't come

back, it never left. It is sheer arrogance on the part of the system to claim

cures because their tests did not reveal active cells such as what might happen

if someone is part of the 15% missed in the AMAS test.

Let me repeat, I'll take an 'all clear' anytime over a positive finding.

Joe C.

June 16, 2009

Where do you get the AMAs cancer test?

June 16, 2009

Hi, Is the hCGthat you mention the same as the human Chorionic

Gonadotropin hormone produced during pregnancy?

regards

comdyne2002 wrote:

> The AMAS test is the best they have. It is more accurate than all of the other

tests but it too is not infallible. The presence of cancer can be tested by

other means and by far the best way to detect its presence is to observe live

blood under phase contrast or darkfield illumination. The amount of detritis

(trash) found in the blood is a good indicator that a disease of some type is

running in the body. Tests for inflammation such as homocystine and C-Reactive

Protein are excellent tests to determine the presence of such activity.

>

> Tumor formation begins with impaired lymphatic flow and the end result is a

very mild but easily detectable inflammation in the tissues of the areas of the

body so impaired. This can be observed many years before tumors form by using

thermography.

>

> Cancer is both a local and a systemic chromic infection brought on by

unrelenting irritation.

>

> For cancer we need to look at hCG levels in the blood as well as the level of

lactic acid as these are elevated in most cancers. In fact the early hCG

pregnancy testers were often able to pick up cancer activity but the

manufacturers of the tests have subsequently de-sensitized them so that they can

only pick up only high levels of cancer activity. This is a disease of

civilization. It is Nature's response to the gross abuse of the human frame. It

can be cured by diet.

>

>> I have used it twice, both times can back no evidence of cancer. So I don't

really know if it works or not. The tumor melanoma in my eye is gone, so perhaps

the cells are as well. I am using myself as a test case and plan yearly test

for the next five years. Time will tell perhaps! all

the best,

>> MIke

>>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

June 16, 2009

Anti-Malignin AntibodyA Screening Test For Cancer?

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0AYN/>NCAHF

Newsletter

,

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0AYN/is_5_22/>Sept,

1999 by

<http://findarticles.com/p/search/?qa=Ed%20Friedlander>Ed Friedlander

<mailto:erf@...>erf@...

[Editor: I have had numerous inquiries about the

Anti-Malignin Antibody Test. The following should

help anyone who is going to rely on this test. H. Renner MD]

I am a pathologist, board-certified in both

anatomic and clinical pathology. I operate the

world's largest public pathology site, which

includes a free personalized help line. I have

received about ten inquiries in the past few

years about the " anti-malignin antibody in serum "

blood test (AMAS). This is said to be an

extremely accurate way of determining whether

cancer is present somewhere in the body. This is

every pathologist's dream. As its proponents

point out, such an assay could replace the

current methods of cancer screening, and would

render most biopsies and other invasive studies

unnecessary. " Anti-malignin antibody " has been

promoted as such for over twenty years by a

single husband-wife team, with occasional brief

reports in the medical literature. The team

operates the only lab which offers the test. They

claim to assay for a substance called " malignin " ,

and for antibodies against it. Unlike other

independent medical thinkers, the team is not

presenting a mysterious, arcane, or secret

substance. They claim instead that it's a tumor

antigen, like many others that are known --

except that it is ubiquitous among malignant

cells and distinguishes them from their benign

counterparts. They have conducted themselves

decently, and obviously believe in their test.

The team is the only group offering the assay.

There is an Italian report, not from the main

group, but in the obscure International Journal

of Biological Markers from 1997 which I presently

have on order. The promoter's website states that

-Kline labs also did the test and published

results in symposium proceedings in 1983, though

nothing in the refereed scientific literature. That's all.

The wording of the claims for " anti-malignin

antibody " never actually say that a person can

forego pap smears, mammography, or biopsy of

suspicious lesions. But some of the test's

proponents suggest that this is possible, and

this makes me worry about a public health hazard.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the team that

offers the test, and am relying (as is the norm

in real science) on publications. According to

the 1999 AMA directory, he is boarded in

neurology-psychiatry, but practicing immunology

and oncology. She is listed as practicing

psychiatry and " other " , and as unboarded. He also

made some contributions in mainstream

neurochemistry before 1980, and has a recent

publication on virus receptors and dementia in a

theme issue of ls of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Except as noted, after over 20 years, no other

group has published in the refereed literature on

" malignin " or given any independent evidence that

the substance actually exists. (Nor has anybody

reported being able to confirm the existence of

" astrocytin, " another substance which the same

team claimed to have discovered at the same time

as " malignin " .) Again, I have no personal

experience either with this supposed substance or

with the people who describe it. But I am

familiar with assays and procedures of the kinds

described in their publications.

The account of the origin of " malignin " is itself

curious. According to one source linked below,

the principal proponent of the test " discovered

that the outer coating on cancer cells contain

[sic] sugar molecules over an inner layer of

protein (glycoproteins). Cancer cells bump into

each other and the outer layer is ground off --

exposing the inner protein layer and the malignin antigen. "

I've spend a good amount of my life looking at

cancer cells. This business about them bumping

into each other just isn't true, especially in

the early stages. In fact, they're no more mobile

than the surrounding cells, and much less mobile

than the benign cells of the bloodstream, bone

marrow, or lymphoid organs, where collisions among cells happen constantly.

At another site, there is a more

sophisticated-sounding account. " Early in the

process of malignant transformation, there is a

50% loss in the amount and heterogeneity of the

carbohydrate constituents of the cell membrane

glycoprotein GlycolOB which results in the

appearance of peptide epitopes (malignin) in

AglycolOB. " Visitors should know that the claim

that there is a 50% loss of carbohydrate content

and heterogeneity in the cell membrane when a

cells turns cancerous is unsubstantiated at best,

and ... a " Medline " search over the refereed

literature shows no other mention of either

GlycolOB or AglycolOB. If the author is referring

to OB, the leptin receptor (an appetite

regulator), the above account makes no sense. I

am presently tracking down all of the team's

publications. Except for three letters to Lancet,

they are in obscure medical journals. I was

startled, though, by the Lancet letter from July

18, 1981. Pathologists routinely use antibodies

as stains to identify particular types of cells.

In fact, anti-malignin antibody is promoted to

the public as a way for pathologists to

distinguish benign from malignant cells under the

microscope. The " Lancet " letter announces the use

of anti-malignin antibody as a stain, and the

fact that it successfully stained three different

types of cancer cells in wet preparations.

But what is most curious is that the writer does

NOT mention trying out the antibody on any

non-cancerous cells. This would be extremely easy

to do. If the antibody is really specific for

cancer cells, it would leave benign

(non-canceous) cells unstained. If the author

really believed his own fundamental claim, he

would stain sections of tissue containing both

benign and malignant cells (i.e., the edges of

cancer masses). If he is right, he would see

stain only on the cancer cells. After eighteen

years, we still have no photos or reports of any such investigations.

Even without a blood assay, if the antibody had

demonstrated the predicted ability to distinguish

benign and malignant cells, the photographs would

have been published within the lead article of

the prestigious medical journal of the author's

choice. And any second-year medical student knows

this. On this evidence alone ... at least for

now, I will draw the obvious conclusion.

To the team's credit, they engage in no dark talk

of conspiracies to suppress a breakthrough. But

the truth is that the screens that actually work

(i.e., that work in more than one person's lab)

are quickly taken by big-money corporations and

used to earn huge profits. It is inconceivable

that no biotechnology corporation has tried to

reproduce the work on " malignin " . And no major

lab has told an audience of fellow-scientists that " malignin " even exists.

Real science is the serious business of trying to

make sense of the world, constantly testing and

taking elaborate precautions against

self-deception. No one can say with real

confidence exactly what's going on here. I

believe in the sincerity and good intentions of

the persons offering the test, and those

promoting it. For now, I must simply caution

physicians and patients alike against basing

clinical decisions on the " anti-malignin antibody

serum test. " The principal website promoting

anti-malignin antibody is: amascancertest.com

Follow Up

I have now (July 27, 1999) obtained and reviewed

the other major publications on " malignin " . I

found the following to be the most revealing. J

Med. 13:49, 1982. The team presents data on

staining of cells from patients known to have

cancer, and those known not to have cancer.

What's astounding is that the team did not focus

on whether the actual cells they were staining

were cancerous, but only whether the patients had

cancer. On the evidence, the team took any cells

that were handy. There were 22 specimens,

evidently all liquid (effusions, brushings, or

aspirations), since duplicates were sent to

pathologists for papanicolaou examination. The

authors report " Standard Papanicolaou stain

examinations performed blind on duplicates of

these specimens by other pathologists were

correct in 17/22 specimens (77%). " It is

commonplace for a person with cancer to produce

specimens that do not contain cancer cells, and

visual examination by a pathologist remains the

gold standard for diagnosis. If I understand

English, this means that the group is reporting

that its antibody stains cells from cancer

patients even if there are no cancer cells in the

specimen. This is weird, since the team also

claims that only cancer cells express malignin.

The photos that accompany the article are also

curious. The pattern of staining on the supposed

squamous lung cancer cells looks coarse and very

irregular. (I can't tell that this isn't just

nonspecific dye binding to a bit of lung debris.)

The " lymphocytic leukemia cell from blood "

(somebody did a papanicolaou stain on blood?)

looks like a normal lymphocyte though I can't

exclude a very low-grade leukemia. The " ovarian

carcinoma cells at surgery " appear not to be

stained at all, and the " anaplastic astrocytoma

at surgery " photo is probably not really stained

either, since there is no nuclear-cytoplasmic

differentiation. The remaining photo isn't even

from one of the 22 patients, but from a cell

culture of a squamous cancer from a group in

Florida, which I found despite the article's

reference to the mainstream journal Cancer

Research being incorrect. Something is not right here.

Neurochem Res 4:465, 1979. The team described two

more proteins, which they named " recognins " .

Nobody else has ever reported that either of

these even exists. Cancer Det Prev 6: 317, 1983.

An author in Germany reviewed tumor markers in

the CNS, mentioning astrocytin and malignin and

the team's claims. He adds that " These findings

remain to be confirmed by others " -- as true

today as it was 16 years ago. Int J Biol Mark

12:141, 1997. The Italian NCI team reviews the

original team's work uncritically. There is no

" Materials and Methods " section, and no new data.

In other words, even these people do not have an

independent assay for " malignin " , and has not

even described the substance independently. My

local biochemist reviewed the articles and

pointed out: The team writes about supposed

phylogenetic relationships without even reporting

a sequence; The team writes about carbohydrates

components of the molecules they have supposedly

discovered, without ever describing what the

carbohydrates are; The team gives molecular

weight by chromatography rather than by

ultracentrifugation, which was the norm even 20 years ago.

Ed Friedlander

" <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0AYN/is_5_22/ai_n18609420/>Anti-Maligni\

n

AntibodyA Screening Test For Cancer? " . NCAHF

Newsletter. FindArticles.com. 16 Jun, 2009.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0AYN/is_5_22/ai_n18609420/

June 16, 2009

Any reference to where thermography and the " live blood " test can be done? All I

found for thermography is the one for breast.

I did HCG in a US Metabolics lab and it came back negative. I do have cancer.

Just trying to figure out how to track progress without radioactive scans.

> >

> > I have used it twice, both times can back no evidence of cancer. So I don't

really know if it works or not. The tumor melanoma in my eye is gone, so perhaps

the cells are as well. I am using myself as a test case and plan yearly test

for the next five years. Time will tell perhaps! all

the best,

> > MIke

> >

>

June 16, 2009

Yes. hCG is a hormone released from the activity of the trophoblastic cell which

was previously a stem cell known as the diploid totipotent. These stem cells

contain all the material required to construct any tissue in the body including

an entire body itself as it also contains the construction blueprints. The

Trophoblast cell is like a construction site manager. It orders in utilities

(blood vessels) constructs scaffolding (accumulation of fibrin), provides

drainage pathways, and forms a protection containment vessel (tumor/placenta) to

protect the building from the elements (hostile white blood cells). It is this

hCG hormone that prevents the white cells from attacking the sperm (a foreign

enemy) and it also prevents their interference when cellular repair is taking

place. Tumor formation is a natural part of the healing process. We form tumors

all the time and at any given time a small amount of hCG hormone is circulating

in the body fluids. The blood and urine levels considered normal are

5mIU/ml(milli International Units per milli liter). Above this level there may

be a pregnancy due to the formation of a placenta or a tumor may be forming. The

mechanism to construct either is identical.

Pregnancy testers sold in the United States are deliberately held to 20 mIU/ml

so that patients can't challenge a cancer diagnosis or discover that they are

being defrauded, which of course, they are whenever they take conventional

cancer treatment.

Remember this always: The American system of medicine isn't geared for your

health, it is all about your wealth. Sad but true. If you get cancer see your

travel agent.

>

> Hi, Is the hCGthat you mention the same as the human Chorionic

> Gonadotropin hormone produced during pregnancy?

> regards

>

SNIP

June 16, 2009

Thermography is primarily used to detect breast cancer often 10 years or more

prior to the formation of a tumor. Steps can be taken so as to prevent its

eventual occurance which is why this test is so desirable. There are only a

handful of doctors performing them presently. I know of one in Hawaii and

another in northern Kentucky. I would search for the equipment manufacturers and

have them tell you who they sold the equipment to. There may be an organization,

I do not know.

Ditto for live blood analysis. Very few medical doctors will attempt it for fear

of enraging the local medical moffia regulatory bodies. Its a hunt to be sure

but they are out there. I have one myself and any standard research microscope

can be converted for a few hundred dollars. Lomo of Russia built supurb lenses

and scopes but now most of these items are built in India. I suspect the quality

is good but I cannot say for sure. You will need an oil imersion objective with

an adjustable iris in order to get good results. I have an X60 and I prefer it

over the more common X100s found on the market. Too much magnification at the

expense of area coverage. More is not always better.

hCG in not perfect and many factors can contribute to both false negatives and

positives. Far more cancers are diagnosed than actually exist. This may be

intentional as those who go through treatment are often success stories as they

didn't have cancer to begin with. Childhood Leukemia is a good example.

I personally do not fear cancer. I have seen too many good results with patients

who are willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes and beat the disease.

Most of them do. I know of one lovely woman who checked out of a hospice to die

at home. When her daughter wheeled her into the clinic she was strapped in with

bungi cords as she didn't have the trunk strength to hold herself erect. That ws

about 6 months ago. Today she is driving all over Dodge City and no one can tell

she has cancer. She followed instructions and made the sacrafices required. Her

reward, she is alive after sentencing as she was told she wouldn't last a week

in the hospice.

June 16, 2009

wow condyne,

I'm so happy to hear that story

>

> Thermography is primarily used to detect breast cancer often 10 years or more

prior to the formation of a tumor. Steps can be taken so as to prevent its

eventual occurance which is why this test is so desirable. There are only a

handful of doctors performing them presently. I know of one in Hawaii and

another in northern Kentucky. I would search for the equipment manufacturers and

have them tell you who they sold the equipment to. There may be an organization,

I do not know.

>

> Ditto for live blood analysis. Very few medical doctors will attempt it for

fear of enraging the local medical moffia regulatory bodies. Its a hunt to be

sure but they are out there. I have one myself and any standard research

microscope can be converted for a few hundred dollars. Lomo of Russia built

supurb lenses and scopes but now most of these items are built in India. I

suspect the quality is good but I cannot say for sure. You will need an oil

imersion objective with an adjustable iris in order to get good results. I have

an X60 and I prefer it over the more common X100s found on the market. Too much

magnification at the expense of area coverage. More is not always better.

>

> hCG in not perfect and many factors can contribute to both false negatives and

positives. Far more cancers are diagnosed than actually exist. This may be

intentional as those who go through treatment are often success stories as they

didn't have cancer to begin with. Childhood Leukemia is a good example.

>

> I personally do not fear cancer. I have seen too many good results with

patients who are willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes and beat the

disease. Most of them do. I know of one lovely woman who checked out of a

hospice to die at home. When her daughter wheeled her into the clinic she was

strapped in with bungi cords as she didn't have the trunk strength to hold

herself erect. That ws about 6 months ago. Today she is driving all over Dodge

City and no one can tell she has cancer. She followed instructions and made the

sacrafices required. Her reward, she is alive after sentencing as she was told

she wouldn't last a week in the hospice.

>

June 16, 2009

To find a thermogram near you, run a google search for your city and

thermogram/thermography. If nothing comes up, google the next largest city

close to you, etc. Thermography centers are everywhere across the USA. Many

people who run the thermograms actually are mobile and will drive to different

locations throughout the month. Check with chiropractor offices, herb shops,

etc.

ar

>

> Thermography is primarily used to detect breast cancer often 10 years or more

prior to the formation of a tumor. Steps can be taken so as to prevent its

eventual occurance which is why this test is so desirable. There are only a

handful of doctors performing them presently. I know of one in Hawaii and

another in northern Kentucky. I would search for the equipment manufacturers and

have them tell you who they sold the equipment to. There may be an organization,

I do not know.

June 16, 2009

For several years I worked with the AMAS test quit extensively and also used

it personally when I was healing from cancer.

1) It is not recommended to use if the tumor is larger than 3 cm. At one

point they were saying 5 cm and then they changed it to 3 cm several years

back.

2) It is not recommended for late stage cancers.

3) For a higher accuracy rate, it should be performed at least twice. (one

right after the other)

They also caution that a negative result (meaning no cancer) can happen in

late stage cancers.

We found that the best time to use the AMAS test was after the removal of

all tumors (baseline for future determination if treatments are working) or

in healthy people as a baseline. In my case we used it 6 months post

surgery tumor removal and one month of " preventative " chemo. I had already

been on the natural protocol for 3 months when we did the first AMAS Test.

My test came back on the low side of high at 188 with 135 and below normal.

Even though I was not happy about the results, I was highly encourage to

continue on my natural protocol. In fact my doc suggested to me that had I

done the test three months eariler the number most likely would have been

much higher -- in other words the number was on its way down. Well, I never

thought about that! I just " assumed " they were going up --- negative,

negative thinking on my part. Four months later I took another AMAS test

and it came back at 76 which was well within the normal range. I will say

that I felt great and I looked great -- very important observations as a

piece of lab paper should never be the end-all. I tested several times over

the years and never got anything higher than 88. I also did the recommended

conventional cancer tumor marker tests and they continued to stay in the

normal range, as they continue to do.

I would suggest that since for the AMAS test the blood must be prepared in a

very precise manner before it is sent to the lab, possibly some of these

labs are not as careful as they should be. At the time I was doing the AMAS

test, Texas Chiropractic College actually offered the test and they did

their own processing so that all the client had to do was provide the dry

ice and the box to mail it to Onco Lab. TCC discontinued offering the test

several years back -- they said because of liability issues -- not sure what

that meant. It happened along the same time that they got a new President.

Afterwards, we went to Quest one time and they acted like they couldn't

follow the directions that were on the sheet as far as how to prepare the

serum....they were asking us what the instructions meant. Not good. So, we

found an independent person who would draw the blood and prepare it

correctly.

There are NO tests that are great indicators as far as measuring tumors. In

fact on the actual blood test papers it will say something like " This test

is NOT recommended to use as a determination for cancer, etc. " (not the

exact words but close)

I think that the AMAS test, if used correctly, can be a very good test but

again no tumor marker tests are 100%.

There is still a nice list of docs (those that tend to offer alternatives to

conventional medicine) that use the AMAS test in their arsenal of testing.

I have seen it prove invaluable for some and not so valuable for others.

But, again, this also happens with conventional tumor marker tests.

Be Well

Loretta

June 17, 2009

Hi, Loretta, what are other conventional cancer tumor marker tests you take

in addition to AMAS?

In a message dated 6/17/2009 12:56:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

drlanphier@... writes:

For several years I worked with the AMAS test quit extensively and also

used