But whether that's good or bad isn't yet clear
by gerrypotter on Fri Mar 02, 2012 05:34 PM
I Agree, every oncologist should undergo a round of their own chemotherapy before giving it to anyone else !!!
Lets see how many of them would be alive to prescribe their foolish toxins. I bet you wouldnt get many recommending the nephrotoxic agent cisplatin.
I stand by every medication that I have developed and will happilly take large doses of any of these non-toxic agents. I actually worked on developing an improved version of cisplatin called carboplatin and was part of the team awarded the Queens award for technology for this in 1989.
Salvestrols are 10 times safer than paracetamol. The highest dose that I have heard of is 120,000 points per day, taken every day for a whole year. This is equivalent to 60 salvestrol platinum 2000 point capsules per day, or 120 salvestrol platinum 1000 point capsules daily. This is a huge amount and equates to consuming 7.5 grams of pure salvestrols per day. This dose of 120,000 points per say was taken by someone in holland for a whole year, without any side-effects. So I would happily take my own medicine at 12,000 points per day. In fact I take 1000 points of salvestrols every day and have done every day since they came out in 2004. The reason I take salvestrols is for their myriad of other health benefits such as protecting against neurodegenerative diseases.
The reason I recommend 6,000 points is based on economic grounds so that it is cheaper to take, and yet is still very effective at this dose. I think you can also take too much since some salvestrols actually work better at lower doses. So I think 12,000 points is a sensible maximum if cost is not a barrier.
The reason I am so against chemotherapy is because I have witnessed first hand the terrible damage that it does. You only need to see a bald post chemo patient to see how sick they look. Chemo makes people look sicker than the cancer does. I have known so many people that have died agonising deaths through chemotherapy that I could not possibly recommend these foolish and outdated toxins to anyone. So lets give them all back to the oncologists for a taste of their own medicine !
by Slartibartfast on Fri Mar 02, 2012 05:39 PM
Returning to your statement about what you would do if diagnosed with cancer (avoid chemo and take 12,000 Salvestrol Points daily), I wonder how you would tackle the oncologist?
I mean, the consultant would probably say "you need chemo" and you would refuse it, explaining that you intend to use salvestrols.
The consultant would then, almost certainly, counter with "that's unproven treatment......chemo is proven, we know how to best use it and we know that patients have survived cancer because of it......what you intend to do is reckless and I strongly urge you to use the established treatment endorsed by the whole oncology profession."
How might you counter this argument? It's very persuasive, after all.
by Slartibartfast on Fri Mar 02, 2012 05:48 PM
Apropos cisplatin -
Yes, it's bloody awful stuff - I should know; I was pumped full of it in 2004. It rather puts you off when the nurse comes along with the chemo in a bag, holding it with thick rubber gloves! It's so toxic they can't even handle the outside of the bag!
But.....but.....there are a small number of cancers which can be routinely cured with chemo - mine (testicular cancer) being one. Do you think there's any mileage in giving chemo the thumbs-up in these cases, or do you consider chemo to be inappropriate treatment in any case of cancer?
by ainars on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:00 PM
Hi Gerry, is it possible to treat stomach cancer by taking salvestrols? My wife refused offer to cut out stomach when stomach cancer was diagnosed. I couldn't find any notice in discussions about treatment of this kind of cancer. Please advise.
by Slartibartfast on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:07 PM
Hi again Gerry.
You clearly have very strong feelings about chemotherapy; I didn't know about the statistics on nurses and pharmacists handling the stuff.
But I still think it's a difficult one - the patient is told that chemo is proven, and that there are plenty of people walking around 10 or 20 years later who have been through it. Against this we have new technology coming through - such as Salvestrols - which have a much more sensible rationale than chemo but are as yet untested and unproven (as you will know, the scientific community sets no store by anecdotes.)
It's a conundrum.....my wife awaits tests for possible colon cancer so we may be faced with the choice of "to chemo or not to chemo" if cancer proves to be the reason for her symptoms. She won't want it, I won't want her to have it, but the oncologist will be very, very persuasive.....
by gerrypotter on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:12 PM
So I've spoken about the cons of chemotherapy, but what about the pros ?
Well its true that many forms of cancer can be tackled with chemotherapy, but at a high cost in terms of carcinogenicity and toxicity.
The most notable successes of chemotherapy are the platinum agents, both cisplatin and carboplatin, for testicular cancer. This form of cancer is particularly sensitive to the anti-tolemerase activity of cisplatin. These agents have also been used with some success in treating other solid tumours such as ovarian cancer.
Many cases of leaukaemia are treated with chemotherapy combined with a bone marrow transplant to spare the bone marrow from the chemotherapy. Wouldnt it be much simpler to give a non-toxic tumour selective agent such as salvestrol that would destroy the tumour without affecting the bone marrow. This would save all the agony associated with this operation and negate the need for bone marrow donors.
But children with leukaemia have a fat chance of getting salvestrols because they are completely under the control of oncologists and cannot make up their own mind of what to do. Only older adults take salvestrols where they have had the chance to read about them and make their own mind up. Maybe one day children with leukaemia will be given salvestrols as first line treatment, but not the way things stand.
This would be the ideal situation for the treatment of cancer. First give salvestrols for 3 months since they are completely harmless and have a variety of health benefits. The initial dose would be 6000 points daily, increased to 12,000 points daily if there is no effect after 3 months.
If after 6 months of salvestrol therapy there is no effect then clearly this approach has failed to work. In practice this point has never been reached and everyone who has taken salvestrol has made an improvement within 6 months.
If the salvestrol approach failed to work then chemotherapy should be considered. It would be wise to use only those agents that are not carcinogenic such as taxol.
Sometimes people opt to pursue chemo and take salvestrols which is perfectly safe to do. People who have previously had chemo said they were less sick and tolerated the chemo better when they were on salvetsrols. Together they can work synergistically to help debulk the tumour and remove residual tumour cells.
So chemo does have a role but I think it should be second line treatment rather than first line treatment.
by ainars on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:25 PM
by Slartibartfast on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:34 PM
That's an eminently clear and sensible reply. Thank you.
Perhaps I might suggest that the Salvestrol therapy could be accompanied by a special diet - wholefood; with no sugar, dairy, red meat, processed meat, hydrogenated fat, caffeine, alcohol and fast foods.
(After all, people with heart disease and diabetes have to follow diets such as these, and it's considered a vital part of the management of their condition.)
Then, too, some synergistic supplements could be taken - the vits and mins appropriate to enhance Salvestrols, plus maybe the flax oil / cottage cheese mixture recommended by Dr Budwig (cheap and simple), plus some sort of oxygen enhancer (Oxygen Elements Plus or something similar) and something to stimulate the immune system - maybe Beta Glucan or Astragalus.
If the NHS could prescribe the Salvestrols and other supplements, the whole protocol would be very cheap compared to conventional treatment - and the patient could continue with their work, with great benefit to the economy!
I really hope that the cancer scourge is on the edge of being beaten, just as the TB scourge was at the dawn of the antibiotic age. And I also hope that more rational treatment will remove much of the fear associated with cancer, reducing it to a controllable condition such as diabetes.
I hope also that your own researches go from strength to strength; though I would like to think that you and the De Montfort team are not the only group in the world who are finally starting to tackle cancer from a radically new, and humane, angle.
Bless you Gerry.
by gerrypotter on Fri Mar 02, 2012 07:43 PM
Dear Ainars, I do not know if salvestrols will work against stomach cancer because no-one with stomach cancer has ever tried it.
We do know that it works against similar cancers for example colon and bladder cancer.
In the laboratory we have analysed stomach cancers and they all expressed the CYP1B1 enzyme that is crucial for salvestrol activity, so this indicates that salvestrols should work against stomach cancer.
by ainars on Fri Mar 02, 2012 08:05 PM
Dear Gerry, thank you very much for your attention. I really hope that Salvestrols will help us to recover my wife's health and we are on the right way. She have been taking (3x2000) Salvestrols already for three weeks. Thank you again and good luck in your work for the benefits of people. Ainars
When you track a discussion, you will get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to track this discussion?
If you stop tracking this discussion, you will no longer get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to stop tracking this discussion?
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.