Cancer and chemo

From the sounds of it, yours may be a stage 3 or 4. My mother was recently diagnosed with lung cancer, they found 3 spots either late October or some time in November. I immediately ordered a bunch of stuff for her to start taking. The first was turmeric, the second was Ddr prime, the third was an essential oils called Frankincense . She went in for her biopsy, in December they removed the upper part of her lung but the other spots were gone. She meets with an oncologist in January and then she will decide if she wants to do chemo.

My recommendation would be if you continue to do chemo take this as a supplement www.amazon.com...®-MyCommunity®-Capsules-Comprehensive/dp/B002WJ1BZK

originally posted by: booyakasha
This is a book written in 1975 by a man named JW Armstrong. He claims that all cancers can be cured by a thing called urine therapy. If you look at the testimonies of people using this therapy it seems like mostly anything can be cured from this therapy.

aquariusthewaterbearer.com...

It's a very easy read. I haven't had cancer myself but after reading this book i joined a group of people on Facebook called "distilled waters". Some people in that group have had a lot of success using this therapy. If you read the testimonies of people you will see that, not only is this treatment free, but it works in 40 days tops supposedly.

It's an interesting idea, I know those that have actually tried it swear by it. I'm of the opinion that its about the only thing that contains fractionated DNA, apart from dead yeast cells. Their is a big industry in India for drinking cows urine.

a reply to: Pardon?

Answer #2:

Have you at least taken the time to read the study you have thrown at my face?
"Control of Nutrient Stress-Induced Metabolic Reprogramming by PKCζ in Tumorigenesis" by Li Ma et al.

I have just finished reading it!

Summary:

Tumor cells have high-energetic and anabolic needs and are known to adapt their metabolism to be able to survive and keep proliferating under conditions of nutrient stress. We show that PKCζ deficiency promotes the plasticity necessary for cancer cells to reprogram their metabolism to utilize glutamine through the serine biosynthetic pathway in the absence of glucose. PKCζ represses the expression of two key enzymes of the pathway, PHGDH and PSAT1, and phosphorylates PHGDH at key residues to inhibit its enzymatic activity. Interestingly, the loss of PKCζ in mice results in enhanced intestinal tumorigenesis and increased levels of these two metabolic enzymes, whereas patients with low levels of PKCζ have a poor prognosis. Furthermore, PKCζ and caspase-3 activities are correlated with PHGDH levels in human intestinal tumors. Taken together, this demonstrates that PKCζ is a critical metabolic tumor suppressor in mouse and human cancer.

Basically it said that cancer cells are able to reprogram their metabilism to utilise glutamine when glucose is sparse...

You probably have no aptitude to read and comprehend scientific paper and thus rely on distorted and perverted interpretation of wannabe scientific journalist trying to interpret paper that they do not understand.

Further:

In addition to glucose, tumor cells can metabolize glutamine, whose transport into the cell is dramatically enhanced during transformation (DeBerardinis and Cheng, 2010; Fuchs and Bode, 2006). Glutamine is a very versatile metabolite because it can not only provide ATP by oxidation through the Krebs cycle but also generate nitrogen for nucleotide synthesis, and it is a precursor of glutathione, helping to control the side effects of oxidative stress

Here, we report that PKCζ-deficient cells reprogram their metabolism for the utilization of glutamine instead of glucose through the serine biosynthetic cascade controlled by 3-phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH). This is particularly relevant in light of recent findings suggesting a critical role for this newly identified metabolic cascade in oncogenesis (Locasale et al., 2011; Possemato et al., 2011).

Discussion:

...In this regard, our data demon strate that PKCζ is determinant of metabolic plasticity and suggest that attacking the Warburg effect would actually be effective in cancer therapy as long as PKCζ is activated.

Our findings demonstrate that PKCζ deficiency allows glucose-addicted human cancer cells to reprogram their metabolism in response to glucose deprivation by increasing the utilization of glutamine through a pathway that involves the generation of 3PG...

In summary, our data show that in addition to glucose utilization, the reprogramming of cellular metabolism to produce serine from glutamine underscores the importance of serine biosynthesis for tumor cell survival and establishes PKCζ as a critical player in this important metabolic pathway for cancer.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence?

Have you read the stuff you have thrown at me? I hope not... This is just a cretinic journalistic interpretation!

a reply to: Pardon?

So they make a study that 9/10 patients will survive on chemo or live longer, not sure now, but go back and reread what other guy said.

Also how do you comment that most oncologist won't take chemo?

I have a feeling that in this topic you don't read opposite side than yours.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Pardon?

Answer #2:

Have you at least taken the time to read the study you have thrown at my face?
"Control of Nutrient Stress-Induced Metabolic Reprogramming by PKCζ in Tumorigenesis" by Li Ma et al.

I have just finished reading it!

Summary:

Tumor cells have high-energetic and anabolic needs and are known to adapt their metabolism to be able to survive and keep proliferating under conditions of nutrient stress. We show that PKCζ deficiency promotes the plasticity necessary for cancer cells to reprogram their metabolism to utilize glutamine through the serine biosynthetic pathway in the absence of glucose. PKCζ represses the expression of two key enzymes of the pathway, PHGDH and PSAT1, and phosphorylates PHGDH at key residues to inhibit its enzymatic activity. Interestingly, the loss of PKCζ in mice results in enhanced intestinal tumorigenesis and increased levels of these two metabolic enzymes, whereas patients with low levels of PKCζ have a poor prognosis. Furthermore, PKCζ and caspase-3 activities are correlated with PHGDH levels in human intestinal tumors. Taken together, this demonstrates that PKCζ is a critical metabolic tumor suppressor in mouse and human cancer.

Basically it said that cancer cells are able to reprogram their metabilism to utilise glutamine when glucose is sparse...

You probably have no aptitude to read and comprehend scientific paper and thus rely on distorted and perverted interpretation of wannabe scientific journalist trying to interpret paper that they do not understand.

Further:

In addition to glucose, tumor cells can metabolize glutamine, whose transport into the cell is dramatically enhanced during transformation (DeBerardinis and Cheng, 2010; Fuchs and Bode, 2006). Glutamine is a very versatile metabolite because it can not only provide ATP by oxidation through the Krebs cycle but also generate nitrogen for nucleotide synthesis, and it is a precursor of glutathione, helping to control the side effects of oxidative stress

Here, we report that PKCζ-deficient cells reprogram their metabolism for the utilization of glutamine instead of glucose through the serine biosynthetic cascade controlled by 3-phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH). This is particularly relevant in light of recent findings suggesting a critical role for this newly identified metabolic cascade in oncogenesis (Locasale et al., 2011; Possemato et al., 2011).

Discussion:

...In this regard, our data demon strate that PKCζ is determinant of metabolic plasticity and suggest that attacking the Warburg effect would actually be effective in cancer therapy as long as PKCζ is activated.

Our findings demonstrate that PKCζ deficiency allows glucose-addicted human cancer cells to reprogram their metabolism in response to glucose deprivation by increasing the utilization of glutamine through a pathway that involves the generation of 3PG...

In summary, our data show that in addition to glucose utilization, the reprogramming of cellular metabolism to produce serine from glutamine underscores the importance of serine biosynthesis for tumor cell survival and establishes PKCζ as a critical player in this important metabolic pathway for cancer.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence?

Have you read the stuff you have thrown at me? I hope not... This is just a cretinic journalistic interpretation!

Strangely I did read the study and it pretty much confirms what I said.
That inhibiting systemic glucose intake will have little or no effect on cancer metabolism
If you can selectively remove the ability for cancer cells to obtain glucose that may have an effect but you wouldn't be able to do this simply by not eating sugars.
Which part of that don't you agree with?

And how could someone as simple as I even attempt to insult your intelligence?

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

So they make a study that 9/10 patients will survive on chemo or live longer, not sure now, but go back and reread what other guy said.

Also how do you comment that most oncologist won't take chemo?

I have a feeling that in this topic you don't read opposite side than yours.

Which study showed that?
Was the study referencing ALL cancers or an individual one? (You do know that cancer isn't one disease, it's an umbrella term for many so the therapy will differ accordingly).

The "most oncologists won't take chemo" nonsense stems from a survey taken for an experimental drug which was made quite a number of years ago and isn't relative in the slightest to today.

For my sins I do read the "opposite" side from "mine" and that makes me weep for humanity.

a reply to: Pardon?

Some guy place links before in this topic.

I have also read and know many people that went trough chemo and they are subscribed for meds for rest of their life's and some of them have really low quality of life.

Also I know even more people that chemotherapy didn't save.

So with chemo you can get few more years, but what if without it you can live like normal people do.

originally posted by: saadad

So with chemo you can get few more years, but what if without it you can live like normal people do.

'What if' is too vague when it's a matter of life or death. We know that conventional treatments are tough but they can at least give you a chance. There is zero evidence of any natural treatment doing the same. Ask Steve Jobs and others.

I have also read and know many people that went trough chemo and they are subscribed for meds for rest of their life's and some of them have really low quality of life

I would suggest you volunteer in a hospice or with cancer patients so you could actually talk to real survivors and see how grateful and happy they are to have survived. I have met many and they are an inspiration!

A few members here have also beaten cancer, ask them before assuming because you read testimonials online that may not even be true.

a reply to: Agartha

I m not expert in this field and did not read about this topic online. I only know that chemotherapy patients are subscribed for medication bfir rest of their lives.

So it is a big deal, and possibly same story like with fuel, they don't want to give cheap cure because then they will lose lots of money.

This is conspiracy forum and I say where lots of money is made mist provably something dirty is going on...

And some members already put links that show some proves.

If they tell you that you need chemotherapy you should really make decision knowing all facts and not just because they tell you.

They tell me I will stink if I don't use soap, I don't use soap nor deodorant and my sound and smell was never before.

They told me I need to use toothpaste or I lose teeth, I made my own toothpaste from coconut oil and my teeth's were never stronger.

They told me I need to eat meat to be strong and to endure physical work, but I was never stronger than before and my endurance us enormous.

I can continue with this examples, but what if chemo is not needed and I m not talking about any holistic medicine here. And please don't mention steve jobs in this bad context. He was man above Hus time and if he refused chemotherapy it was the correct choice even if he didn't survive. People using it to promote chemotherapy are evil...

a reply to: saadad

I m not expert in this field and did not read about this topic online. I only know that chemotherapy patients are subscribed for medication bfir rest of their lives.

You are mistaken. I finished my chemotherapy 28 years ago and have not been on prescribed medication for anything having to do with the chemotherapy and certainly nothing for an extended period of time.

If they tell you that you need chemotherapy you should really make decision knowing all facts and not just because they tell you.

This is true. You will not find any disagreement with that statement.

Not using soap or toothpaste will not kill you, they are completely different scenarios. Patients usually make their own choices regarding treatment and yes, they should always make informed choices, but there is no evidence to suggest natural therapies work. Show me the evidence and I'll believe it. I strongly believe a healthy lifestyle can help prevent cancer (to a degree), but it cannot cure it.

originally posted by: saadad
He was man above Hus time and if he refused chemotherapy it was the correct choice even if he didn't survive. People using it to promote chemotherapy are evil...

Evil? Blimey! I have never heard a doctor promote chemotherapy by mentioning Steve Jobs, I used it here as he is one of the most famous example of how he could have survived, his cancer wasn't that aggressive, but he chose to delay conventional treatment and by the time he did it was too late as it had spread. If you read his last interview you'll see that he said he regretted not having had conventional treatment immediately and decided to go on fasting, meditation etc.

a reply to: Agartha

Yea I understand you, but what if he had chemotherapy and died as well? Will people then say he should listen to Hus gut and go with whatever he believed?

We can't say he would survive and if the odds that after chemotherapy are1:10 you survive then I don't like this odds. But are this odds correct? Hows many chemotherapy patients survive? And how long do they live?

I know their lifespan us heavily shorted even if they survive.

a reply to: saadad

Hows many chemotherapy patients survive? And how long do they live?

That depends upon the type of cancer:
www.cancer.gov...

I know their lifespan us heavily shorted even if they survive.

So, they would live longer with no treatment? You think a shortened lifespan is worse than no lifespan?

BTW, my lifespan does not seem to have been shortened, but it's hard to tell because I'm still here after 28 years.

a reply to: saadad

They told me I need to use toothpaste or I lose teeth,

and what did you do ??????????????????????????

I made my own toothpaste

the dishonesty required here is off the scale

My cousin has just been told that he has stage 4 lung cancer .

It sucks .

a reply to: Phage

Link didn't provide answer to my question but I found a very scary data. 39%/people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life.

Yes you are lucky one, but maybe someone who didn't do a chemo and is still alive will cone and post same thing.

I would really like to know odds if chemotherapy chances and no chemotherapy chances.

The fact is that nobody gave this stats, if someone have them please post because people that read this topic would like to know that.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Why do you say I m dishonest? I never lie!!!

That is another thing in my life, you can find it weird, but you can't say I m dishonest if I use my own made toothpaste and have white teeth strong as rock and zero problems with my mouth hygiene, but let not talk about this, this is cancer topic.

a reply to: saadad

Yes you are lucky one, but maybe someone who didn't do a chemo and is still alive will cone and post same thing.

I don't consider having cancer to be lucky. But yes, I am glad to be alive.

I know of people who avoided chemotherapy. They are dead.

You can see some examples of people surviving without chemotherapy right here in this thread. But the odds are far in favor of those who choose it and it is their right to make that choice. I did, and I'm happy with it.

a reply to: Phage

Chemo is obviously advisable IF the tests show you have cancer or traces of cancer remain.

According to the OP all the cancer was removed, plus some healthy tissue to boot.

The doctors are offering her chemo as an optional extra - as they do to all patients who have had cancer surgery.

It's extremely taxing on the body (as you know yourself) and not something you just do 'just to be on the safe side'.

a reply to: CJCrawley

According to the OP all the cancer was removed, plus some healthy tissue to boot.

The OP does not say that. It is not possible determine that all of the cancer was removed. A small number of cells, undetectable, anywhere in the lymph system can cause a relapse. That is why chemotherapy is indicated post surgery.

It's extremely taxing on the body (as you know yourself) and not something you just do 'just to be on the safe side'.

I disagree, based on the level of the consequences of the gamble.