Re: Re: Rectal cancer -- strategizing

[Guest guest]

PDT is non-ionizing and repeatable. This type of cancer is extremely

susceptible to radiation. I normally recommend against radiation

except in very special circumstances. This is one. I will be

considering a form that is very focused. Believe me, I am carefully

weighing all pros and cons. NAC seems to be the most researched by

way of protecting the kidneys from radiation. Bicarb has been toyed

with for decades. If there was real merit then there should be a

body of supportive literature describing where it is useful and where

it falls on its face. I have seen nothing but the excitement that

goes along with fads and the claims of a one-trick-pony from

Europe. He showed his film a while back at CCS but I didn't see

anything of interest. I know two very bright MDs who tried it per

Simoncini's instructions on four patients at the patients'

insistence. All four sank. I think the theory behind it is very weak.

My opinion of bicarb at this time is not very good. This is in a

context of my having a bias in favor of cheap treatments that would

wrest control of the treatment of serious diseases from the

authorities. At this time the only treatments that warrant this kind

of favor would be dietary control of poorly differentiated

cancers. There are a number of such diets that I think can be quite

useful. I am considering advocating a form of Breuss that wouldn't

result in weight loss.

I spoke with the doc in China last night. With PDT I would only need

about 40% of the radiation and the radiation would be

focused. Radiation normally requires the presence of oxygen. The

type I would be using does not. I am in favor of seeing what the

radiation researchers (who have access to everything) would use on

themselves. I have my own tools to kick up efficacy and protect from

friendly fire. These include Vit E Succinate, caffeine (useful for

squamous), quercetin (or DHQ), and dithiodinicotinic acid from my own lab.

I am considering the creation of an extremely acid environment

(primarily lactate) within the tumor cells themselves. This is quite

different from creating acid in the milieu of the tumor. The

research strongly supports this as an adjuvant for hyperthermia, be

it exogenous or the use of a nitrated phenol. Using a ferric ion

(Ferrlecit) I could create a free radical free-for-all within the

tumor. A similar alternative would be the use of artemether. The

named reactions involved would be Clemenson, Wolf-kishner,

Haber-Weiss, and Fenton. I would buttress this with bromopyrvate as

I have much experience with this. I want to select a cation for it

before I go to China. I might try to make an ester of

bromopyruvate. I think I can slide it right into the cancer cells.

It is easy to find a doc who has written on the wonders of a

treatment or the horrors of a treatment. It does make for exciting

reading and these guys do find their true-believer followers. It is

such a drudge to read the science of someone who has no vested

interest, who is not trying to present a balanced picture, an

unbalance picture, or make money, but who simply wants to know what

is going on; it is in the writings of these scientists that you find

the real nuggets of gold.

Thanks for your input,

At 09:03 AM 11/4/2009, you wrote:

>

> " I'm leaning toward PDT, neutron beams "

>

>Sure this radiation is tight band but you are still dowsing oneself

>in radiation and what is radiation but something that causes cancer

>and the science if very clear and definite that there is no level of

>exposure that does not compromise the body in someway. Radiation is

>the death principle itself, you ever read Dr. Walter Russel on that?

>Fantastic book of his if you can get your hands on it is ATOMIC

>SUCICIDE........just imagine burning those tumors with a death

>ray....nice if it just put the ax on the tumors but is that really

>realistic? Come on tell me you would rather go up against a partical

>beam in a foreign country then start enemas with biarbonate? Your

>going to need the bicarbonate anyway to protect your kidneys from

>the radiation anyway but why use it for that purpose when you can

>use it and other things to start getting control now?

[snip] Mark

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

" My opinion of bicarb at this time is not very good. This is in a

context of my having a bias in favor of cheap treatments that would

wrest control of the treatment of serious diseases from the

authorities. "

>

I am not really sure what you tried to say here because the bicarbonate

treatment has got to be the cheapest thing there is. That is unless you believe

that the only way of administration is the Dr. Tullio Simoncini method and sure

that will cost you a cool 20 or 30 grand to go to Rome for treatment if they are

even still doing it there with all the problems they are having. Otherwise ten

bucks will set you up quite well though of course there are other protocol items

to work with.

Second, I would like you to say these words " My opinion of bicarb at this time

is not very good " to your kidneys and pancreas which have to struggle to produce

big quantities of bicarbonate every day to keep you alive. At a minimum giving

your kidneys and pancreas an assist is a good idea. I hope you understand I am

not selling bicarbonate as a cure for cancer for I do not believe in one item

cures though I know sometimes a one shot cure does work but I would not bet my

life or anyone elses on any one medicinal.

As far as I am concerned you just said my opinion of breathing is not very good

nor of vitamin D and the sun. We are talking solid and very basic medicine. If

you are at all acid then dietary changes and bicarbonate have got to be your

friends.

Mark

[Guest guest]

Did you read anything like this about the photon beams?

From the linked website:

" Regular radiation therapy for cancer uses beams of electrons or photons (also

called x-rays) to bombard cancer cells. The collisions release free

radicals-unusually active atoms that have one or more unpaired electrons. Free

radicals damage the DNA in the cancer cells, ideally killing them. Each dose

kills only some of the targeted cells, depending on where the cells are in their

life cycle. So doctors give multiple doses over time to reach more of the cells

during the periods when they are most vulnerable.

Neutron therapy uses beams of neutrons to attack cancer cells. There are two

advantages to using neutrons instead of electrons or photons. The first is that

neutron beams are much more powerful. They deposit about 20 to 100 times as much

energy into the target tissue as regular radiation therapy does.

" The second is that neutron beams have a higher probability to damage both

strands of a cell's DNA, whereas regular radiation in general damages only one

strand. This makes it harder for cells to repair neutron beam damage and harder

for them to survive the treatment. So neutron therapy is a good choice in some

cases when tumors are resistant to regular radiation. Because neutron beams are

so damaging, the risk of side effects on healthy tissue near the cancer site is

greater. For this reason and because neutron beams tend to diffuse more, neutron

therapy equipment includes many mechanisms designed to precisely focus and

direct the beam and to block exposure to any surrounding tissue. "

http://www.seattlecca.org/diseases/salivary-gland-cancer-treatment-neutron-thera\

py.cfm

Marcus

[Guest guest]

Mark,

If I go with the neutron beam then it will

require only about two treatments rather than the

usual four or five as this will most likely be

after the PDT. I will be using PARP inhibitors to prevent DNA repair.

At 02:03 PM 11/4/2009, you wrote:

>

>Did you read anything like this about the photon beams?

>

> From the linked website:

>

> " Regular radiation therapy for cancer uses beams

>of electrons or photons (also called x-rays) to

>bombard cancer cells. The collisions release

>free radicals-unusually active atoms that have

>one or more unpaired electrons. Free radicals

>damage the DNA in the cancer cells, ideally

>killing them. Each dose kills only some of the

>targeted cells, depending on where the cells are

>in their life cycle. So doctors give multiple

>doses over time to reach more of the cells

>during the periods when they are most vulnerable.

>Neutron therapy uses beams of neutrons to attack

>cancer cells. There are two advantages to using

>neutrons instead of electrons or photons. The

>first is that neutron beams are much more

>powerful. They deposit about 20 to 100 times as

>much energy into the target tissue as regular radiation therapy does.

> " The second is that neutron beams have a higher

>probability to damage both strands of a cell's

>DNA, whereas regular radiation in general

>damages only one strand. This makes it harder

>for cells to repair neutron beam damage and

>harder for them to survive the treatment. So

>neutron therapy is a good choice in some cases

>when tumors are resistant to regular radiation.

>Because neutron beams are so damaging, the risk

>of side effects on healthy tissue near the

>cancer site is greater. For this reason and

>because neutron beams tend to diffuse more,

>neutron therapy equipment includes many

>mechanisms designed to precisely focus and

>direct the beam and to block exposure to any surrounding tissue. "

>

><http://www.seattlecca.org/diseases/salivary-gland-cancer-treatment-neutron-the\

rapy.cfm>http://www.seattlecca.org/diseases/salivary-gland-cancer-treatment-neut\

ron-therapy.cfm

>

>Marcus

>

>

>

>No virus found in this incoming message.

>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

>Version: 8.0.323 / Virus Database:

>270.14.49/2480 - Release Date: 11/04/09 07:37:00

[Guest guest]

,

If you are looking for a facility that offers neutron radiation, there is

one near Chicago called Fermi lab.  I'm including the link for you.  

 

http://www-bd.fnal.gov/ntf/ntf_home.html  

 

Also, to protect from radiation exposure, NAC is good (as you mentioned),

but you may also want to consider kelp, which is considered a radiation

antagonist.  Another therapy that has worked to prevent radiation damage is

microcurrent therapy.  Fermi did a pilot study a few years ago using

microcurrent and the results are on their website.  I actually

had microcurrent treatments myself a few years ago from an RN who at one time

worked at Fermi, although I did not have radiation treatments. 

      

Best,