Fenbendazole, Cancer and developing scandals

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

This is some of the evidence used to try to get people to eat more berries and fruit to help to fend off cancer

Taking measures to avoid contracting cancer is not the same thing as curing cancer. Especially stage IV.

Not smoking in order to avoid lung cancer is one thing. Stopping smoking will not cure it.

Did you even bother watching that video? I read NIH research that shows how it actually stimulates the body to kill espphogeal cancer. It can help to inhibit cancer of other kinds, but not kill it because it is not direct exposure.

There are three chemicals in Strawberries that do the trick, they are also very much anti-flu chemistries, acting in a way that is similar to what it does to cancer.

I am not talking about just eating a few berries, a pint to a quart a day for an extended period. That is not normal consumption. I spent years studying this stuff and usually never believe what I see on sites, I actually go look at the research to determine it's validity. Three different food chemistries are effective at destroying cancer. You can combine adjuvants with the chemistries to boost their effectiveness...other companion food chemistries. I actually backtracked from Pharmacuetical research information to find two of these chemistries, chemistries the drugs are designed off of.

What is your alternative to esophogeal cancer, I had a friend with it, he broke a record around here, he lived seven years after the surgery, most people die within five. According to the official documents, living over five years after surgery is rare. The doctors do not do anything for months, so what is the difference if you go out and buy seven quarts of strawberries a week and gorge yourself on strawberry shortcake and strawberry pie, you aren't going to be able to eat anything for months after they take out your esophogas. I would definitely try the berries to see if it puts it into remission.

a reply to: rickymouse

Sure. Try anything. Most especially "conventional" treatments.

But saying "It takes almost three months of strawberries to cure stage four cancer though" is bull# and you should not be making such claims.

a reply to: Phage
Phage; it could be what is within the berry seeds that helps kill the cancer cells. I have experimented successfully with stage IV esophageal cancer and my higher self tells me EAT THE BERRIES. Conventional treatment (no surgery) worked for me as well.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Read on.

Perhaps. But probably not in sufficient quantities within the seeds to do so.

Pretty much every chemotherapy agent is derived from plants (or other "natural" sources) , but plants don't seem to provide them in high enough concentrations to be of effect. And it is important to remember that plants also produce highly toxic substances. The topic of this thread being a case in point.

But no worries, they're natural.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Sure. Try anything. Most especially "conventional" treatments.

But saying "It takes almost three months of strawberries to cure stage four cancer though" is bull# and you should not be making such claims.

Did you watch that video from Nutrition Data I put in my first response, upon checking that I found the evidence that substantuated it. I did not discover this, research scientists discovered it. I read one that actually used human trials to show it reversed cancer of the esophogus. I couldn't believe it at first. The articles mentioned that they were unsure how it worked, probably compound chemistries working together. A couple of them mentioned that Black berries or black Rasberries had a more profound effect but I wouldn't want to be eating a pint of blackberries a day, too many little seeds. Red raspberries do not seem to have the same effect from my studies, they are missing a chemistry or something.

On thing about Strawberries, everyone is a little allergic to them, they stimulate the immune system to attack almost like you get from the birch tree mushrooms. You can even use birch tree leave tea to help to protect you from cancer, it contains the chemical the mushroom concentrates but in way less amounts, just good for helping to kill newly forming cancer cells when there are only new ones. The Chaga mushroom was tested in Europe as to it's effectiveness and it did better than many of the cancer drugs with no side effect. Birch leaf tea contains a lot of sylicicates though, one cup is like an aspirin at three hundred mg.

Pardon my spelling of the scientific words, I never was much at spelling and unless I can find an error correction program that knows scientific medical words, they do not help.

One of the most expensive new cancer drugs is designed off of the parsley family chemicals and they found a way to make a molecule that works like one of the chemicals in parsley to kill cancers. You cannot patent a natural chemical and unless you patent it you can't get megabucks for it.

a reply to: rickymouse

You cannot patent a natural chemical

A natural chemical is no different from an artificial chemical with an identical structure. You can patent a process for producing such a chemical artificially or refining it.

Most, if not all, chemotherapy agents are derived from natural sources.

Eating strawberries will not cure cancer. Stage IV or otherwise. Stage IV is very problematic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Read on.Perhaps. But probably not in sufficient quantities within the seeds to do so.
Pretty much every chemotherapy agent is derived from plants (or other "natural" sources) , but plants don't seem to provide them in high enough concentrations to be of effect. And it is important to remember that plants also produce highly toxic substances. The topic of this thread being a case in point.But no worries, they're natural.

Within Buddhism is an understanding that there is a cure for every physical ailment including cancers. Those exist within the natural plant/terra world. I do not think this ideology includes those companies that isolate and manufacture nuclear medicines. You are right; chemo drugs come from various natural sources. Why are they so hideously expensive? Maybe those that are heavy metal Platinum based like Oxilaplatin or Carboplatin can be justified, but Pacitaxol comes from the common Yew tree. All of my hair fell out from that one.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Within Buddhism is an understanding that there is a cure for every physical ailment including cancers.

Yeah. That's the basis of western medicine too. The trick is figuring out what the cure is. Fortunately for me, they had the cure for Hodgkin's figured out a few decades ago.

Why are they so hideously expensive?

In the US, you mean? Good question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Within Buddhism is an understanding that there is a cure for every physical ailment including cancers.

Yeah. That's the basis of western medicine too. The trick is figuring out what the cure is. Fortunately for me, they had the cure for Hodgkin's figured out a few decades ago.

Why are they so hideously expensive?

In the US, you mean? Good question.

I do mean the US as I live there. For some reason the Lamas will not give up or divulge these easy cures (infidels). Bad luck with that Hodgkin's trial; glad you bested it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Read on.

Perhaps. But probably not in sufficient quantities within the seeds to do so.

Pretty much every chemotherapy agent is derived from plants (or other "natural" sources) , but plants don't seem to provide them in high enough concentrations to be of effect. And it is important to remember that plants also produce highly toxic substances. The topic of this thread being a case in point.

But no worries, they're natural.

That is where you are wrong, I actually researched the quantities of the chemicals in many plants, with organic or naturally grown fruits and veggies having more some times, and found that in some of these there is adequate amounts in certain parts of the plants. Like in dried parsley leaves or in certain parsley family spices. The information I was looking at is the same as the Pharmaceutical companies look at. This does not apply to every cockamamie thing out there that people are saying is a miracle cure because it contains a chemistry that cures or treats something, but if you spend many days researching you can find things that can be used to treat diseases.

Take for instance the statin meds, a two ounce portion of the (I think) oyster mushroom is about as strong. Levostatin is the name of the chemistry. They grow all over here. If you eat them on a regular basis, you may get the same side effects as the statins.

They have been BSing people for seventy years about this stuff. People used to know where to get aspirin before, but Bayer or some other company long ago figured they could concentrate it into a cheap pill and make a profit if everyone bought them. Cucumbers are high in that chemistry too. But now, aspirins are expensive and because they are concentrated they can cause ulcers, two half inch slices of a cucumber do not give you ulcers like two aspirin do.

Although, some people are allergic to cucumbers, others are allergic to strawberries, some are allergic to medicines of all sorts.

I am probably unable to break down Benzoates well, I get autoimmune type stuff off of the balsam of peru foods containing benzoic acid or sodium benzoate. Now benzoates are very powerful medicines, since I can't break down the chemicals in tomatoes I get some bad side effects, so I don't need a tenth of that chemistry that others need to help protect them against some diseases. I can't drink much orange juice either.

I also could not break down the chemistry in the antiepileptic drugs, they almost killed me and screwed up my short term memory. I recovered and learned how to control my epilepsy with food. Since I cannot break down those chemistries, small amounts of the chemistries are needed, those can be incorporated into a person's diet and will control the seizures. I kind of am sick of the foods, but am not going to go on even a small dose of the meds because I alternate like four kinds of antiepileptic chemistries in my diet, not one like they would give me.

If I didn't have this problem with the epilepsy I would have never taken up researching pharmaceuticals and the chemicals they are based off of.. I would have never spent the time finding the chemical databases to look up how much of the chemistries are found in food and how bioavailable it is. I would never have researched heat and freeze liability of these chemicals. Some actually get stronger when cooked, others change and the veggies get toxic when frozen.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

The process sucked. I bailed on the last round (oncologist said, "Ok, your decision.") but I hear they've managed to cut back on the side effects since then. I kept most of my hair but the 'stash got so pathetic I had to shave what was left.

After 32 years the 'stash is back but I haven't managed to put those 10 pounds back on.

a reply to: rickymouse

Eating strawberries will not cure cancer. Stage IV or otherwise.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

You cannot patent a natural chemical

A natural chemical is no different from an artificial chemical with an identical structure. You can patent a process for producing such a chemical artificially or refining it.

Most, if not all, chemotherapy agents are derived from natural sources.

Eating strawberries will not cure cancer. Stage IV or otherwise. Stage IV is very problematic.

You cannot patent a chemical that is found in nature, you can patent a process to extract it, but not the chemical. Someone else can find a way to extract it and patent it, this creates competition which drives the price down. Altering the chemistry so it fits into the DNA or enzyme to do the same thing as the chemical in the plant does can be done. This is what Pharmacutical companies try to do so they can get megabucks for their patented new drug chemistry which often does the same thing as the natural chemistry but not many people know that. I have been deep into studying how to hack pharmacology for years now, it is a good thing those companies like to brag or I would not know how to figure it out. I also go regularly to the FDA site to see if there is any new policy changes out there governing regulation of these chemistries. They are changing all the time now, in the favor of the chemical companies most times it appears.

a reply to: Phage
Its a hell of a way to get back to the old 'college' weight (would not recommend this method) but am surprised at my attitude about the ordeal (why did I want to experience this in this lifetime); because my soul grew by leaps and bounds. The whole knowingly killing oneself in order to survive process...was something alright.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I consider 175 as my fighting weight. Never carried much fat.
My decision to do chemo was educated (libraries, no internet them days). Some associates advised me otherwise. I have no regrets, and now, a daughter.

a reply to: rickymouseI am so happy to have your help with my cancer odyssey, although it is behind me now (I survived a death sentence) I am glad to have resources you provided to stimulate my immune system. I was hugely stressed, my immune system not functioning properly and became a cancer petri dish. Thank you.

a reply to: Phage
My higher self has been telling me for at least a year "Eat the berries" (have been) now I know why.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Phage: I consider 175 as my fighting weight. Never carried much fat.
My decision to do chemo was educated (libraries, no internet them days). Some associates advised me otherwise. I have no regrets, and now, a daughter.

I am so happy for you! 125 is my fighting weight (I am there). I had no choice or die; so radiation and chemo was my battle plan..the cancer was non operable, spread too far everywhere. Its gone now. I loved it embraced it and told it to go away. I am glad you are here.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

You cannot patent a natural chemical

A natural chemical is no different from an artificial chemical with an identical structure. You can patent a process for producing such a chemical artificially or refining it.

Most, if not all, chemotherapy agents are derived from natural sources.

Eating strawberries will not cure cancer. Stage IV or otherwise. Stage IV is very problematic.

You cannot patent a chemical that is found in nature, you can patent a process to extract it, but not the chemical. Someone else can find a way to extract it and patent it, this creates competition which drives the price down. Altering the chemistry so it fits into the DNA or enzyme to do the same thing as the chemical in the plant does can be done. This is what Pharmacutical companies try to do so they can get megabucks for their patented new drug chemistry which often does the same thing as the natural chemistry but not many people know that. I have been deep into studying how to hack pharmacology for years now, it is a good thing those companies like to brag or I would not know how to figure it out. I also go regularly to the FDA site to see if there is any new policy changes out there governing regulation of these chemistries. They are changing all the time now, in the favor of the chemical companies most times it appears.

There is such a thing as composition of matter patents, as well as for-use patents. If you think companies can't make money using these, or even just using the plant extract, you should look at the profit margins for vitamin and supplement companies. The difference is that they are not regulated, and often the thing you think you are taking is actually something else, or has other things in it that you don't want. As far as consuming these purportedly active compounds from their source, the thing Phage mentioned about concentration bears repeating. As an example, there are some plant oils that are known to have activity against parasitic mites - specifically tea tree and Manuka. However, whether or not a sample of these oils shows any activity at all is dependant on the presence of certain compounds, and there is so much variability in the concentration of these compounds that oil from one plant is completely useless, whereas the same amount (or even significantly less) from another plant grown somewhere else will show extremely high potency. There's no way to know that you have a good oil without compositional analysis after the fact, which makes prescribing either oil for treating parasitic mites a fraught endeavour. There is at least one company that I know of that has patented formulations of plant concentrates or synthetic equivalents containing specific active compounds (not derivatives) - they're doing reasonably well.

One of the main reasons Pharma doesn't often use natural products straight up as drugs is because even if they are potent against a particular process, cell type or or organism, they rarely make good drugs. There are other things you have to consider outside of potency such as solubility, toxicity, metabolic clearance, specificity, etc. Yes, commercialisation is an important aspect (making drugs costs a lot of money!), but it is far from the only reason why many natural products are usually developed into derivatives or fragmented within the drug discovery pipeline.

There have been 3 years after this thread have been posted, and there now there are a lot of arguments why this drug is used as cancer cure.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pdfs.semanticscholar.org...
www.cancertreatmentsresearch.com...