The cure for cancer probably has existed for 15 years!

[JMDEM]

http://www.thedcasite.com/Yamamoto_file/Sardi_article.html

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

By Bill Sardi and Timothy Hubbell ©2008

Timothy Hubbell, a biochemist from Cincinnati, first called attention to this discovery and provided consultation on the biochemistry.

It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later. That is how researchers describe the most convincing cancer cure ever announced.

The weekly injection of just 100 billionths of a gram of a harmless glyco-protein (a naturally-produced molecule with a sugar component and a protein component) activates the human immune system and cures cancer for good, according to human studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients, producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein cure is totally without side effects but currently goes unused by cancer doctors. Normal Gc protein (also called vitamin D binding protein) , an abundant glyco-protein found in human blood serum, becomes the molecular switch to activate macrophages when it is converted to its active form, called Gc macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF). Gc protein is normally activated by conversion to Gc-MAF with the help of the B and T cells (bone marrow-made and thymus gland-made white blood cells).

But, as researchers explain it themselves, cancer cells secrete an enzyme known as alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase (also called Nagalase) that completely blocks conversion of Gc protein to Gc-MAF, preventing tumor-cell killing by the macrophages. This is the way cancer cells escape detection and destruction, by disengaging the human immune system. This also leaves cancer patients prone to infections and many then succumb to pneumonia or other infections.The once-weekly injection of minute amounts of Gc-MAF, just 100 nanograms (billionths of a gram), activates macrophages and allows the immune system to pursue cancer cells with vigor, sufficient to produce total long-term cures in humans.Nobuto Yamamoto, director of the Division of Cancer Immunology and Molecular Biology, Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, says this is “probably the most potent macrophage activating factor ever discovered.”




A MACROPHAGE OVERCOMES AND EATS A CANCER CELL. FROM THE UPJOHN COMPANY, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM

Once a sufficient number of activated macrophages are produced, another Gc-MAF injection is not needed for a week because macrophages have a half-life of about six days. After 16-22 weekly doses of Gc-MAF the amount of Nagalase enzyme fell to levels found in healthy people, which serves as evidence tumors have been completely eliminated. The treatment was fool-proof - - - it worked in 100% of 16 breast cancer patients and there were no recurrent tumors over a period of 4 years, says a report in the January 15 issue of the International Journal of Cancer.

In another startling follow-up report by Dr. Yamamoto and colleagues, published in the upcoming July issue of Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy, Gc-MAF therapy totally abolished tumors in 8 colon cancer patients who had already undergone surgery but still exhibited circulating cancer cells (metastases). After 32-50 weekly injections, ”all colorectal cancer patients exhibited healthy control levels of the serum Nagalase activity, indicating eradication of metastatic tumor cells,” said researchers, an effect that lasted 7 years with no indication of cancer recurrence either by enzyme activity or CT scans, said researchers. Published in an early online edition of this journal, this confirming report has received no attention by the new media so far, despite its striking importance.Gc-MAF treatment for cancer has been agonizingly slow to develop. Dr. Yamamoto first described this immuno-therapy in 1993.

More at link...

[Lucian]

1. I've always had a feeling a cure for cancer has been around.

You can't make money off a cure. That's why we haven't seen a cure on the market.

[JMDEM]

2. Do you realize how much suffering cancer causes?

Massive, incredible, incalcuable suffering.

Just ask Obama.

[Lucian]

4. Oh I do know how much suffering it causes.

I had a grandma die of brain cancer. I had a great-aunt die of pancreatic cancer. I have a close coworker suffering from brain and lung cancer. :cry:

I hope to god a cure goes out on the market, and soon. But, big pharma won't make money on a cure, so I don't see that happening. :grr:

[Tartiflette]

20. Actually, they would make money on it

although if it were a single-dose treatment it would be far less profitable than chronic illness, of course. However, if I might provide an example of what might occur, I attended a conference on cardiovascular illness that included an announcement by a drug company that they had discovered a stent which apparently prevented re-stenosis (If you don't know what stenosis is, well it's narrowing of the blood vessels, asnd hence is implicated in heart attacks, strokes etc. A stent is a tube that is inserted into the body to try to reopen the vessel. Restenosis, is re-narrowing, is pretty common after the introductino of stents). The difference between this stent and others on the market was that this version has a drug coated on the stent that appeared to prevent re-stenois, at least up to six months after surgery.

A question asked of this company was the price they would charge, and the upshot of this was that they would charge something like 6x the current price for an uncoated stent, with the justification that it would be a once-only treatment, and this was therefore necessary to maintain profitability.

Long-winded, I know, but drug comapnies would not be averse to having their company find a cure, so long as people continnued to develop the disease.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Why would Pharma not make money off a cure?

Anyone who discovers/markets a real cure for cancer will be sitting on a goldmine. As it is both a common disease and a very serious one, many people will be lining up for cures and they or the state will be prepared to pay large sums for it.

The idea that it's more profitable to treat a disease long-term than cure it might at least have some defensibility with regard to non-fatal chronic conditions which *do* get treated long-term; but as cancer sooner or later kills those who are not cured, the profit for treating them soon comes to an end.

Moreover, if you cure people of cancer, then they are more likely to end up in that group of people which supplies Pharma with its biggest profits by far: the very elderly!

[grasswire]

3. from the end of the article

GcMAF is a naturally made molecule and is not patentable, though its manufacturing process is patent protected. There is no evidence of any current effort to commercialize this therapy or put it into practice. Should such an effective treatment for cancer come into common practice, the income stream from health insurance plans for every oncology office and cancer center in the world would likely be reduced to the point of financial insolvency and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be eliminated.

The National Cancer Institute estimates cancer care in the U.S. costs ~$72 billion annually (2004). Furthermore, about $55 billion of cancer drugs are used annually, none which have significantly improved survival rates throughout the history of their use. If a typical cancer patient had to undergo 30 GcMAF injections at a cost of $150 per injection, that would cost ~$4500, not counting doctor’s office visits and follow-up testing. For comparison, gene-targeted cancer drugs range from $13,000 to $100,000 in cost per year and produce only marginal improvements in survival (weeks to months).

Up to this point, the National Cancer Institute is totally silent on this discovery and there is no evidence the cancer care industry plans to quickly mobilize to use this otherwise harmless treatment.

[tanngrisnir3]

5. I smell horseshit.

[JMDEM]

6. They usually don't allow horseshit in medical journals

Where Yamamoto has been publishing papers about his research since 1993.

On the other hand, it took doctors 40 years to start washing their hands before delivering babies after one courageous doctor raised a red flag about the issue. That poor soul ended up committing suicide out of frustration.

[ConcernedCanuk]

25. I seem to recall reading a book about that doctor - and he was kicked out of the practice

.
.
.

Even though his records showed a MASSIVE drop in childbirths by making his staff wash hands constantly,

complaints from staff about having to wash their hands UNNECESSARILY got him kicked out of his profession

US HUMANS CAN BE SO FRICKIN STUPID . . .

(sigh)

(I didn't remember the suicide part)

(sigh) again . . .

[HysteryDiagnosis]

58. He was fired 2 or 3 times from different "medical" establishments

and then he permanently retired himself.... sad that.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. The sizzle may occasionally smell of shit, but the steak is real.

Phage therapy has been studied and used for nearly a century, especially in Russia and Asian Georgia.

It's time it moved into the medical mainstream. A decade of additional work in America and Europe could make phage medicine front-line treatments for many diseases and disorders. There are already some large, well-controlled studies being conducted in Europe (AFAIK).

Even a simple Google search will find hundreds of leads on this topic. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy">Wikipedia article is another good starting point, and references a number of peer-reviewed works.

--d!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Macrophages and phages are completly different things

macrophage

A type of white blood cell that surrounds and kills microorganisms, removes dead cells, and stimulates the action of other immune system cells.

http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=44054

phage. A general term used for viruses isolated from prokaryotes including bacteria, blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) and mollicutes (phytoplasma and spiroplasma). The viruses from these different host groups are termed bacteriophages, cyanophages and mycoplasmaphages, respectively.

http://www.ppath.cornell.edu/glossary/Defs_P.htm

'phage' comes from the Greek for "one that eats", so it turns up in various words to do with things that eat/engulf other things.

[Dogmudgeon]

53. I'm pretty sure I was actually talking about Phage Therapy

I'm not sure what you were correcting, but I think I was on-topic there.

I was also responding to a "skeptic" who wanted to "debunk" something about which s/he was uninformed. And I did it rather nicely, I might add. No matter: a medical process that is at least extremely similar to that in the OP has been in development since about WWI, and it's enjoying a period of renewed scientific interest and growth.

By the way, if you are interested in "hard" science fiction, Greg Bear's book Darwin's Radio contains a major plot line about phage therapy being developed by scientists in Tbilisi, (Asian) Georgia. Like most of Bear's fictional work, the book is an incredible read on its own merits.

--d!

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. That's the point - the OP is not about phage therapy at all

It's about using a chemical to get human macrophages functioning again.

No, the OP is not at all similar to phage therapy. In the OP, a particular organic chemical, which is active in the functioning of the human immune system, is given to patients recovering from cancer treatment - because cancer cells secrete another chemical that blocks it. This enables the human cells called macrophages to attack the remaining cancer cells. If you want an analogy (and it's still a pretty loose one), it's more like giving a diabetic insulin.

Phage therapy is a way of attacking infectious bacteria, by giving a patients the viruses which naturally attack bacteria, rather than using antibiotics.

[slay]

10. Here's some shockingly good outcomes (2008) with prostate cancer using this treatment:

No horseshit - See links here: http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/12/28/gc-maf-in-treatment-of-prostate-cancer-part-ii/

Or: http://www.transonc.com/pdf/manuscript/v01i02/neo08106.pdf

[Mind_your_head]

15. No you don't, you just don't want to see a CURE.

A simple, low-cost cure.

Maybe this is. Why not investigate before you call it sh*t.

That's not being very scientific.....or is it all about the $$$$ to you?

[tanngrisnir3]

34. Yes, that's right, genius, you found me out. I just don't want a cure

When claims like this are made, and then the contention is offered that this cure has been around for 15 years, but no enterprising soul, no doubt due to the malfeasance of a big, evil corporation, has actually started to commercialize or popularize it for a solution to one of the world's longest, most difficult problems, I smell horseshit.

[Why Syzygy]

45. FDA

It isn't JUST the pharmcos.

Andrew von Eschenbach
New FDA Leadership has Strong Ties to Big Pharma,
Wall Street
NewsTarget 18aug2006

According to Byron J. Richards, author of "Fight For Your Health: Exposing The FDA'S Betrayal of America," the FDA is in a position to change the health and wellbeing of all Americans, but are set to steer that change in the wrong direction, "straight over a cliff." The root of this problem, Richards says, is the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry — also known as "Big Pharma" — in the FDA decision-making process.

Andrew von Eschenbach: New FDA Leadership has Strong Ties to Big Pharma, Wall Street - NewsTarget 18aug2006

"The top two positions at the FDA are now headed by Big Pharma representatives," Richards says. "The Bush-appointed new FDA leadership is intent on removing any brakes being applied to the drug approval process, quite happy to turn ill Americans into human guinea pigs."
...
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2006/FDA-von-Eschenbach18aug06.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. You seem to think that the FDA controls medicine over the whole world

You know, the rest of the world doesn't revolve around the USA. You're not in charge.

[Why Syzygy]

56. pfft

:wtf: Are you lost? The post I replied to was making a simplistic sarcastic statement, re: blame pharmco.
I pointed out it goes beyond pharmco. Dunno where you drew your conclusion that I don't know the FDA.
(over the whole world) :wtf:

[Why Syzygy]

7. Is there a way to post this on the

change.gov site? This would save Americans billions of dollars, not to mention untold numbers of loved ones.

[JMDEM]

9. I hope that if enough people hear of it, they will demand action

If it turns out to be bogus, so be it. But with massive scrutiny, claims of false bogosity would not be accepted, I would think.

I'll be darned. The spell checker says "bogosity" is a word.

[SPedigrees]

11. The $$$ Chemotherapy Racket

The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy
http://www.positivehealth.com/Reviews/books/mike33.htm
This full article used to be available, but although it isn't now, this excerpt is pretty definitive.

Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, he is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Acute Iymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and non- seminomatous testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the United States. This leaves some 96% to 98% of other cancers, in which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as breast, colon, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy.
However, there is another category where chemotherapy has a relatively minor effect--The most "successful" of these is in Stage 3 ovarian cancer, where chemo- therapy appears to extend life by perhaps eighteen months, and small-cell lung cancer in which chemotherapy might offer six more months.
Effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life.
When the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it cures cancer. But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.
Chemotherapy usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of the life either. Doctors frequently make this claim though. There are thousands of studies that were reviewed by Dr. Moss as part of the research for his book--and there is not one single good study documenting this claim.
What patients consider "good quality of life" seems to differ from what the doctors consider. To most it is just common sense that a drug that makes you throw up, and lose your hair, and wrecks your immune system is not im- proving your quality of life. Chemo- therapy can give you life-threatening mouth sores. People can slough the entire lining of the intestines! One longer-term effect is particularly tragic: people who've had chemotherapy no longer respond to nutritional or immunologically-based approaches to their cancers. And since chemotherapy doesn't cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway...People who take chemotherapy have sadly lost their chance of finding another sort of cure.
It's especially telling that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have said they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons.

[SPedigrees]

12. Here's another cancer cure

... although it apparently is only effective against certain types of cancer.

The drug is called Lodamin and it was developed in Japan in 1990. Again the link to this article has expired.

Accidental fungus leads to promising cancer drug

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science EditorSun Jun 29, 6:28 PM ET

A drug developed using nanotechnology and a fungus that contaminated a lab experiment may be broadly effective against a range of cancers, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

The drug, called lodamin, was improved in one of the last experiments overseen by Dr. Judah Folkman, a cancer researcher who died in January. Folkman pioneered the idea of angiogenesis therapy -- starving tumors by preventing them from growing blood supplies.

Lodamin is an angiogenesis inhibitor that Folkman's team has been working to perfect for 20 years. Writing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, his colleagues say they developed a formulation that works as a pill, without side-effects.

They have licensed it to SynDevRx, Inc, a privately held Cambridge, Massachusetts biotechnology company that has recruited several prominent cancer experts to its board.

Tests in mice showed it worked against a range of tumors, including breast cancer, neuroblastoma, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, brain tumors known as glioblastomas and uterine tumors.

It helped stop so-called primary tumors and also prevented their spread, Ofra Benny of Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School and colleagues reported.

"Using the oral route of administration, it first reaches the liver, making it especially efficient in preventing the development of liver metastasis in mice," they wrote in their report. "Liver metastasis is very common in many tumor types and is often associated with a poor prognosis and survival rate," they added.

'ALMOST CLEAN' LIVERS

"When I looked at the livers of the mice, the treated group was almost clean," Benny said in a statement. "In the control group you couldn't recognize the livers -- they were a mass of tumors."

The drug was known experimentally as TNP-470, and was originally isolated from a fungus called Aspergillus fumigatus fresenius.

Harvards's Donald Ingber discovered the fungus by accident while trying to grow endothelial cells -- the cells that line blood vessels. The mold affected the cells in a way known to prevent the growth of tiny blood vessels known as capillaries.

Ingber and Folkman developed TNP-470 with the help of Takeda Chemical Industries in Japan in 1990.

But the drug affected the brain, causing depression, dizziness and other side-effects. It also did not stay in the body long and required constant infusions. The lab dropped it.

Efforts to improve it did not work well. Then Benny and colleagues tried nanotechnology, attaching two "pom-pom"-shaped polymers to TNP-470, protecting it from stomach acid.

In mice, the altered drug, now named lodamin, went straight to tumor cells and helped suppress melanoma and lung cancer, with no apparent side effects, Benny said.

All untreated mice had fluid in the abdominal cavity, and enlarged livers covered with tumors. Mice treated with lodamin had normal-looking livers and spleens, the researchers said.

Twenty days after being injected with cancer cells, four out of seven untreated mice had died, while all treated mice were still alive, Benny's team reported.

"I had never expected such a strong effect on these aggressive tumor models," she said. The researchers believe lodamin may also be useful in other diseases marked by abnormal blood vessel growth, such as age-related macular degeneration.

[Why Syzygy]

17. Here's a link.

http://lodamin.net/Research.php

[SPedigrees]

13. Sorry for the above lengthy posts

but I think it's important to get this info out there. Big pharma sure isn't about to publicize it.

[goclark]

14. This is amazing ~ this must get out to America

and the Pill Pushers are as guilty as the Wall Street crooks.

:puke:

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Here's A De-Bunking

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/12/03/cancer-cured-for-good-gc-maf-and-the-miracle-cure/

[Why Syzygy]

19. Sponsored by AstraZeneca

More pharma sponsored "research".
You have to follow the trail since a google for "Cancer Research UK" returns only their own sites, with this exception:
On Page 3 of search results. (wiki article disregarded for obvious reasons)

The Beatson Institute - Home
Link to Cancer Research UK. The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, a Registered Scottish Charity No SCO06106 and Company Limited by Guarantee ...
http://www.beatson.gla.ac.uk/

Which also links back to Cancer Research UK.

A search on The Beaston Institute returns this:

Press releases: CRT and The Beatson Institute Announce Research ...
Studies based at the Beatson Institute and led by Cancer Research UK-funded scientists there will develop non-invasive imaging technologies for studying ...

http://pharmalicensing.com/public/press/view/1184660071_469c7a673301b/crt-and-the-beatson-institute-announce-research-collaboration-in-tumour-imaging-with-astrazeneca

London, Glasgow UK, Tuesday 17 July 2007 – Cancer Research Technology Limited (CRT), the oncology-focused development and commercialisation company and The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow (Beatson Institute) today announce a new research collaboration with AstraZeneca to develop optical imaging techniques for use in cancer research.

The three-year research collaboration will be funded by AstraZeneca and focus on the development of cutting-edge real-time fluorescence and confocal imaging techniques. Studies based at the Beatson Institute and led byCancer Research UK -funded scientists there will develop non-invasive imaging technologies for studying tumour progression, including the investigation of tumour development, invasion and metastasis. The work will form part of a wider initiative by the Beatson Institute to develop imaging as a key technology underpinning its basiccancer research programme.

http://www.beatson.gla.ac.uk/

Cozy closed loop. No one ever said current cancer treatments aren't profitable for someone!
But don't worry. They aren't looking for a "cure". They're researching more diagnostic techniques. (in this case)

[Tartiflette]

23. Cancer Research UK

Is the UK's largest cancer charity, sponsored primarily by public donations. It in turn provides funds for the Beatson. AstraZeneca and all other major drug companies routinely work together with publicly funded institutions (universities, etc). There are also good reasons for improving diagnostics, as early detection is often critical in improving the prognosis. Don't read too much into this article, and try to ascribe some sort of ulterior motives, as the article is not intended to discredit Yamamoto's research, rather to provide proper context for the results observed.

[Why Syzygy]

24. RIght. And, that doen't meet the standards of a "debunk"

the article is not intended to discredit Yamamoto's research

How do we make the most of the money?

Because research costs a lot to do we sometimes work with other funders to make sure that important, large pieces of work get done. We also make sure that all our funds are well spent and that the work is of the highest standard.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/whatwedo/ourresearch/howwefundresearch/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x54266

[Tartiflette]

26. Again, we agree

Perhaps you took offence when I wrote "debunking article" in my comment below? It seems I should have put debunking in quote marks to make it clear that it was not my belief that this article debunked the research. I was adopting Manny's term.

There are enormous numbers of potential avenues for research, but limited funds. Some of these focus on early detection (and hence increased likelihood of improved life expectancy), others on treatment of advanced disease, and others on early disease. The drug companies tend to have access to larger pools of candidate molecules, higher throughput screening methods, and superior synthesis tools than publicly funded institutions, hence co-operation benefits both the company and the institution in many instances. Most of these institutions/companies are working in a number of areas, and are not limited to only one area of research (depends on the size of the institution). The larger drug companies will be working at early-stage progression and detection, as well as symptom relief, and late-stage treatments.

If new research becomes available that suggest a potential for therapy, then drug companies tend to immediately set up a group to explore the potential for new drugs that might exploit that knowledge.

[Why Syzygy]

27. All good points.

It just seems odd that there is no information outside of the Charity's own web sources.
I'm uncomfortable with concentrations of innovation held by one entity. If they are the only ones with "authority" to research and publish, the opportunity for abuse is way too high. But, that's quite common in the health care field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_UK

External links

* Cancer Research UK - General Portal (for the General Public)
* Cancer Research UK - What We Do (Information on the research Cancer Research UK supports)
* Cancer Research UK - Scientific Portal (for scientists and medical professionals)
* Cancer Research UK - Cancer Help Page (general information about cancer for patients)
* Cancer Research UK - News and Resources (Cancer news, statistics, science and health information)
* Cancer Research UK - Clinical Trials database
* CancerCampaigns, Cancer Research UK's campaigning arm
* British Journal of Cancer Scientific journal published by Cancer Research UK
* Academic Clinical Oncology & Radiobiology Research Network An NCRI initiative funded by Cancer Research UK to revitalise radiotherapy research in the UK. Website contains a database of clinical trials and research projects.
* Cancer Research UK, Registered Charity no. 1089464 at the Charity Commission

[Tartiflette]

28. Well,this is a weakness in the private model

Being under no pressure to publish basic research, as their source of revenue relies on sales of drugs rather than progression of science, drug companies may be witholding useful information (even if that information is negative, ie a potential treatment that is shown to be problematic for whatever reason), that could prevent doubling up on research, and save time and money as we progress towards effective treatments.

Cancer Research, IIRC from my time in the UK, sponsor research but do not claim ownership of that research, rather demand simply that they are acknowledged in publications. There may be others on the board who can provide more info on that. The publishing process in such instances is, unlike drug companies, not in their hands. There is competition for their grants, and in that respect there is selection about the work being done, however.

[sam kane]

50. this seems like a lousy apology. nt.

nt.

[trotsky]

31. So can you dispute the facts in the article?

Yeah, thought not.

Fast-forward a few years, to the publication of three papers detailing the results of clinical trials of Gc-MAF carried out by Yamamoto, testing the treatment on patients with breast, bowel and prostate cancer.

The results appear to be startling – all the patients on the trials are ‘cured’ of cancer. Surely this is an amazing breakthrough? Put bluntly, no it isn’t. There are significant scientific problems with the trials. For a start, all the studies are very small, involving fewer than twenty patients in each – rather than the thousands needed to make the sort of claims mentioned above.

Next, all the patients involved had received standard treatment for their cancer, including surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. This is a somewhat unorthodox design for a trial of this kind, because it makes it very difficult to tell if any successes are due to the new drug, or the more conventional treatments.

...

Perhaps most significantly, there are no controls – untreated patients for comparison – and the studies only followed the patients for a few years. We have no way of telling whether their cancers were growing again, or had been successfully treated, and whether this was due to Gc-MAF or the other treatment they had received.

[JMDEM]

37. Bullshit

How many patients are normally cured using chemo and radiation?

Very very few.

All of these patients were cured.

Yes there were no controls, because Yamamoto knew he had something that saved lives, and he wanted to save lives, not let half his patients die.

And "following the patients a few years" -- 7 years is "just a few years"?

[trotsky]

39. Really?

How many patients are normally cured using chemo and radiation?

If you don't know, how can you answer "very very few"? The actual answer is quite a lot.


An 86.4% 5-year survival rate for breast cancer with evidence-based treatments. That's "very very few"???

Yes there were no controls, because Yamamoto knew he had something that saved lives, and he wanted to save lives, not let half his patients die.

But that's not how you draw scientifically valid conclusions. Why not use animals for a study then? Lots and lots of cancers can be induced in lab animals.

And "following the patients a few years" -- 7 years is "just a few years"?

Which patients were followed for 7 years?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

46. I've already seen this ploy.

Woman appears on Oprah with a panel of cancer "experts". Conventional treatments didn't 'cure' her.
She sought alternative treatment. Cancer is gone. "Experts" say she must never have had cancer in the first place!
Ergo, she went through chemo for NOTHING? How is that better?

I call BOGUS. Those treatments do not cure, and certainly not at some later date AFTER having received alternative care.
I can't believe some people call themselves "rational".

[Celebration]

43. NO CONTROLS!!!!

Oh NO. Isn't that something? The placebo effect probably accounted for the great results in this case. We know how powerful that is.

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

44. Actually, yes, it is quite a deal of something.

Without controls you can't make a comparison of what would have happened without treatment. This is basic, basic science (not to mention common sense). You don't have to jump right into snark.

[Why Syzygy]

51. Bit of a conundrum

because "control" groups in cancer studies are those limited to receiving established treatments.
In this case, they had already received established treatment.

[trotsky]

52. Yes, that is a conundrum, and that makes it impossible to draw any conclusions.

This is why larger sample sizes and actual control groups are necessary to make valid conclusions. You're dangerously close to "getting it."

[Tartiflette]

18. Promising, but no proof for a "cure"

This seems like an avenue for future research, and future clinical trials on a larger scale. There are problems with overreach in these claims, as there was no real control group to compare with, there was no direct measuremnt of any tumour (indeed the primary tumours appears to have been removed prior to this treatment, if my cursory reading of this is correct) and in the work undertaken thus far the treatment was used in combination with traditional therapies. The mechanism also appears to support prevention of remission rather than a cure per se. Note the debunking mentioned above does not try to totally discredit the research, nor Prof (?) Yamamoto's credentials or motives, rather focuses on some of the limitations of the work taken to date.

There are numerous treatments out there that have shown promising results on a limited scale, but have not proven to be effective (Or more effective than current therapies) when tested in a large scale clinical trial under controlled conditions. I would stay firmly on the fence on this one, and wait for more details to emerge from larger trials.

[Why Syzygy]

21. It isn't "debunking" at all.

Which suggests more of a turf war than debunk.

And many Cancer Research UK-funded scientists are also working in this field. For example, Professor Fran Balkwill and her team are working on ways to trick macrophages and other immune cells into attacking cancer cells.

[Tartiflette]

22. Yes, you're right (n/t)

[Nay]

29. So, since this is a simple glycoprotein, is it possible for a doc to buy

it straight from the producer for last-ditch use in some of patients? Or does the FDA have to approve it first?

[janet118]

32. If it sounds too good to be true . . .

it just might be.

Here's an article in the Science Blog by Dr. Kat Arney.

"Cancer Cured for Good?"

Although this particular approach isn’t all it’s hyped up to be, harnessing the power of immune system could be a very potent way to treat cancer. We’ve blogged many times already on high-quality research into immunotherapy.

And many Cancer Research UK-funded scientists are also working in this field. For example, Professor Fran Balkwill and her team are working on ways to trick macrophages and other immune cells into attacking cancer cells.

The advent of the internet has led to a wild proliferation of stories of ‘miracle cures’ for cancer – virtually all of which are based on shaky (or zero) science.

Cancer is an extremely complex disease. In fact, it is more than 200 distinct diseases, each requiring different treatment. And the success of treatment depends on many things, including the genetic make-up of the tumour, the stage of diagnosis, and how aggressive the cancer is.

To suggest that there is a ‘magic bullet’ that cures all cancers is simplistic in the extreme.

[Why Syzygy]

47. Redundant.

Care to read the thread?

[janet118]

49. True . . .

But, not completely redundant. I did include a blockquote from the summary of the previously cited Science Blog article that contained information pertinent to the discussion. So I hope the post didn't annoy you too much.

[cosmik debris]

35. IF this was true

It would bring fame and fortune to its inventors.

But after years of peer review, it is still not proven.

Hell, it's not even probable.

It's just another trick to sell hope to suckers.

[trotsky]

36. Peddling false hope to the sickest and most desperate among us.

Despicable, but there's a lot of money to be made, and it's a hell of a lot easier than actually having to prove your treatment works.

[JMDEM]

40. Who has made money?

Who has made money?
Who has made money?

Nobody.

Your greed theory is crap.

[trotsky]

42. Who makes the "glyco-protein"?

Do they give it away for free?

[JMDEM]

38. Who's selling anything?

This scientist hasn't made a penny off of this yet.

Your "private profit" theory is bullshit, as the proof shows.

[cosmik debris]

48. He "hasn't made a penny off this yet" because it doesn't work. n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

57. Cancer is not a single disease. Over 100 different diseases are generically called "cancer".

The notion that they would all be cured by a panacea potion shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what cancer is and in my humble opinion, anyone marketing something as a single entity cure for all forms of cancer is selling bottled unicorn poop and fairy kisses.

It would be the equivalent of taking an antiviral that cures AIDS, influenza, the common cold, viral hepatitis, genital warts, herpes, rabies, ebola, dengue, smallpox, rubella, yellow fever and a hundred other viral diseases.

[uppityperson]

59. yup. Add to that the fact that we all die, eventually, and here we are.

Thank you for your post.

[wuvuj]

60. Prevention is the cure?

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/feb2007_report_vitamind_01.htm

"Vitamin D has far-ranging effects on the immune system. Dangerous flu virus strains stimulate white blood cells to produce inflammatory cytokines associated with severe illness, while vitamin D protects against this effect. Vitamin D enhances the production of antimicrobial peptides, which are proteins that protect organisms from infection-causing microbes such as viruses. Vitamin D also activates essential infection-fighting immune cells known as macrophages."

"In the past few years, several independent researchers have shown that vitamin D significantly enhances the genetic expression of antimicrobial peptides in human monocytes (precursors to macrophages), neutrophils, and other immune system cells.15,16 These antimicrobial proteins help to destroy invading infectious microbes. With their broad-spectrum activity, they are capable of killing everything from bacteria to viruses. They have been shown to be an important part of the respiratory tract’s defense against invaders, and likewise show promise in fighting the influenza virus."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. Vitamin C IVs. Baking soda IVs.

I do not know if these treatments work, nor do I know anyone who has had them. Just throwing them out there for study.

This has been around a long time:

http://www.infusionclinic.com/infusions-ascorbic.html

Vitamin C has already been extensively and unequivocally documented to readily cure a wide range of infectious diseases, including many viral syndromes considered incurable even today (Stone, 1972; Smith, 1988, Levy, 2002). In reviewing a great amount of this information, it becomes apparent that for most infectious diseases, especially viral ones, the only clinical failures of vitamin C appear to occur when a large enough amount of vitamin C cannot be effectively delivered to the invading microorganisms.

With this in mind, then, a more effective dosing and/or delivery system of vitamin C to the various tissues of the body should further improve the clinical efficacy of this agent. In cancer, Riordan et al. (1995) demonstrated the likelihood that vitamin C was an effective anti-tumor therapy as long as high enough concentrations of it could be achieved inside the tumor(s). These researchers also concluded that oral vitamin C supplementation was unlikely to produce blood levels of vitamin C high enough to have a direct killing effect on a given tumor. Later, in studying a certain line of cancer cells and the ability of vitamin C to kill those cancer cells, Casciari et al. (2001) elegantly demonstrated this point. They showed that the rapid intravenous infusion of vitamin C as sodium ascorbate in combination with alpha lipoic acid was effective in reaching vitamin C levels that were toxic to the cancer cells. They also showed that a fat soluble analogue of vitamin C, phenyl-ascorbate, was able to kill cancer cells effectively at a dose roughly three times lower than seen with unaltered vitamin C.


=================
Treating cancer with intravenous baking soda:
http://www.cancerisafungus.com/
Dr. Tullio Simoncini

[cosmik debris]

62. "extensively and unequivocally documented" ???

Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide links to that extensive and unequivocal documentation.

The link in your post only leads to a sales pitch from a charlatan. Do you have any real evidence?

[trotsky]

63. The whole "cancer is a fungus" / body pH crap has been totally debunked.

Please don't spread such irresponsible health hoaxes.

[uppityperson]

68. IV sodium bicarb would throw your body's ph way off.

As would sodium ascorbate.

"the only clinical failures of vitamin C appear to occur when a large enough amount of vitamin C cannot be effectively delivered to the invading microorganisms." Yeah, like the only clinical failures of pickles appear to occur when a large enough amount of Pickle cannot be effectively delivered to the invading microorganisms.

And then, are you seriously saying cancer is an invading microorganism?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

64. you might want to read these.

Orthomolecular Oncology Review: Ascorbic Acid and Cancer 25 years Later
By Michael J. González, Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Edna M. Mora, Angelik Guzmán, Neil H. Riordan, Hugh D. Riordan, Joseph J. Casciari, James A. Jackson, and Angel Romá-Franco, from Integrative Cancer Therapies 4(1); 2005 pp.32-44

Intravenous Ascorbic Acid: Protocol for its Application and Use
By Hugh D. Riordan, Ronald E. Hunninghake, Neil H. Riordan, James A. Jackson, Xiao LongMeng, Paul Taylor, etal, from Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal (2003) 22:3, 287-290

The Effect of Alternating Magnetic Field Exposure and Vitamin C on Cancer Cells
By N. Mikirova, J.A. Jackson, J.P. Casciari and H.D. Riordan, from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2001) 3, 177-182

Cytotoxicity of Ascorbate, Lipoic Acid, and Other Antioxidants In Hollow Fibre In Vitro Tumours
By J.P. Casciari, N.H. Riordan, T.L. Schmidt, XL Meng, J.A. Jackson and H.D. Riordan, from British Journal of Cancer (2001) 84:11, 1544-1550

Clinical and Experimental Experiences with Intravenous Vitamin C
By N.H. Riordan, H.D. Riordan, J.A. Jackson and J.P. Casciari, from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2000) 15:4, 201-213

Different Fatty Acid Composition Between Normal and Malignant Cell Lines
By X.L. Meng, N.H. Riordan, H.D. Riordan, J.A. Jackson, et al, from BioMedicina, (1999) 2:4, 5-7

Rethinking Vitamin C and Cancer: An Update on Nutritional Oncology
By M.J. Gonzalez, E. Mora, N.H. Riordan, H.D. Riordan and P. Mojica, from Cancer Prevention International (1998) 3, 215-224

Intravenous Ascorbate as a Chemotherapeutic and Biologic Response Modifying Agent
Bio-Communications Research Institute (1997)

Intravenous Vitamin C in a Terminal Cancer Patient
By N.H. Riordan, J.A. Jackson and H.D. Riordan, from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (1996) 11, 80-82

High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C and Long-Time Survival of a Patient with Cancer of Head of the Pancreas
By J.A. Jackson, H.D. Riordan, R.E. Hunninghake and N.H. Riordan, from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (1995) 10, 87-88

Intravenous Ascorbate as a Tumor Cytotoxic Chemotherapeutic Agent
By N.H. Riordan, H.D. Riordan, X. Meng, Y. Li and J.A. Jackson, from Medical Hypotheses (1995) 44, 207-213

Case Study: High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C in the Treatment of a Patient with Adenocarcinoma of the Kidney
By H.D. Riordan, J.A. Jackson and Mavis Schultz, from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (1990) 5:1, 5-7

[cosmik debris]

65. Posting the titles of studies is not helpful

If these studies support your position, please post a link to them or quote the conclusion of the study.

Like this: http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/11/1969

"Conclusions: High-dose i.v. ascorbic acid was well tolerated but failed to demonstrate anticancer activity when administered to patients with previously treated advanced malignancies."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

66. You might want to look them up at orthomolecular.org

These papers are all available for download at orthomolecular.org, in PDF format. I cannot cut and paste from a PDF. I only posted the link to two of them.



The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 12, 3rd Quarter 1997

ABSTRACT

The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

MJ Gonzáles; NH Riordan, MI Matos; M Argüelles

Antioxidants and Cancer: A Brief Discussion on Controversies, Contradictions and Paradoxes

LINK:
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1997/abstracts/1997-v12n03-p145.shtml

Antioxidants have been associated with cancer prevention. Since this association was established, a plethora of controversies, contradictions and paradoxes have arisen. In this article we will try to provide an insight into the complexity involved with antioxidants, pro-oxidants and cancer in the free radical biology area.

================

The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 15, 4th Quarter 2000

ABSTRACT

Clinical and Experimental Experiences with Intravenous Vitamin C

N.H. RIORDAN, PA-C; H.D. RIORDAN, M.D.; J.P. CASCIARI, Ph.D.

LINK:
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/abstracts/2000-v15n04-p201.shtml

For the purposes of this paper reference to ascorbic acid or vitamin C refers to sodium ascorbate. All in vitro studies described herein used sodium ascorbate. All intravenous vitamin C references herein refer to the use of vitamin Cfbr injection produced by Steris Laboratories, or American Regent, laboratories; both are ascorbic acid buffered to a pH range of 5.5 to 7.0 by sodium hydroxide and/or sodium bicarbonate.
======

[cosmik debris]

67. Can you link to ANY studies done on live humans

That show that Ascorbic Acid will help cancer?