REMISSION WITH DIET CHANGE AND SUPPLEMENTS
Comments
-
And chemo doesn't work either...herdizziness said:RIFE doesn't work
It's a scam, period.
In pancreas, kidney,melanoma,prostate, bladder and uterus cancers.
At least that's what some oncologists found.
http://www.hopewelltechnologieslimited.com/5-year-survival.pdf
IT'S A SCAM PERIOD0 -
And this means....manwithnoname said:And chemo doesn't work either...
In pancreas, kidney,melanoma,prostate, bladder and uterus cancers.
At least that's what some oncologists found.
http://www.hopewelltechnologieslimited.com/5-year-survival.pdf
IT'S A SCAM PERIOD
We're to ignore complete scams such as the RIFE machine? I don't think so. Inferring that is a bit of foolishness. And as for chemo, saved my life so far, and as far as using a COMPANY (Hopewell Technologies Ltd.) that is SELLING alternative stuff as your backup PROOF, lesson 101, if it's selling something don't take their words as true of anything. But you know so much about scams anyway,(apparently the pharmaceutical is the biggest in your mind) lots of scams out there, no reason to be touting them as good on this, a site of vulnerable people.
Have you thought of going to the brain and childhood cancer sites? They could be a wealth of information for you.
I personally care for the hope, and if that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but my hope shouldn't be listening to someone tout obvious scams with conspiracy theories.
Winter Marie0 -
I've known several peoplemanwithnoname said:And chemo doesn't work either...
In pancreas, kidney,melanoma,prostate, bladder and uterus cancers.
At least that's what some oncologists found.
http://www.hopewelltechnologieslimited.com/5-year-survival.pdf
IT'S A SCAM PERIOD
with some of the cancers you mention, Tony (specifically uterine and melanoma), who were able to achieve surgery because chemo reduced their tumors to a resectable size. Had they not had the chemo, the surgery, and its potential for an actual cure, wouldn't have been available to them. There are a lot of pros and cons with chemotherapy, and I think most us know that chemo in itself doesn't cure, but it can be a supporting tool in achieving a cure...or at least prolonging life, if a cure isn't possible, as is the case for so many of us. I don't really think scam is the right word. I hope your son is doing well. Ann Alexandria0 -
Maybe your rightannalexandria said:I've known several people
with some of the cancers you mention, Tony (specifically uterine and melanoma), who were able to achieve surgery because chemo reduced their tumors to a resectable size. Had they not had the chemo, the surgery, and its potential for an actual cure, wouldn't have been available to them. There are a lot of pros and cons with chemotherapy, and I think most us know that chemo in itself doesn't cure, but it can be a supporting tool in achieving a cure...or at least prolonging life, if a cure isn't possible, as is the case for so many of us. I don't really think scam is the right word. I hope your son is doing well. Ann Alexandria
Scam might be too strong, but reducing size for surgery is surely different to saying chemo will give long term remission or even 'cure' when the data from these 3 Australian oncologists shows it has NO value and still it is being prescribed.
These people are having low quality life and given false hope. But still hope I agree.
BUT if you were shown data that showed chemo made no affect on longterm outcome would you still take it?
Our son is doing ok (thanks for asking) he is still getting virus daily + chemo, his balance and motor skills are still good and most important no headaches.0 -
You don't REALLYherdizziness said:And this means....
We're to ignore complete scams such as the RIFE machine? I don't think so. Inferring that is a bit of foolishness. And as for chemo, saved my life so far, and as far as using a COMPANY (Hopewell Technologies Ltd.) that is SELLING alternative stuff as your backup PROOF, lesson 101, if it's selling something don't take their words as true of anything. But you know so much about scams anyway,(apparently the pharmaceutical is the biggest in your mind) lots of scams out there, no reason to be touting them as good on this, a site of vulnerable people.
Have you thought of going to the brain and childhood cancer sites? They could be a wealth of information for you.
I personally care for the hope, and if that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but my hope shouldn't be listening to someone tout obvious scams with conspiracy theories.
Winter Marie
read anything I write do you.
Lesson 101 read the paper....0 -
Oh well....annalexandria said:I've known several people
with some of the cancers you mention, Tony (specifically uterine and melanoma), who were able to achieve surgery because chemo reduced their tumors to a resectable size. Had they not had the chemo, the surgery, and its potential for an actual cure, wouldn't have been available to them. There are a lot of pros and cons with chemotherapy, and I think most us know that chemo in itself doesn't cure, but it can be a supporting tool in achieving a cure...or at least prolonging life, if a cure isn't possible, as is the case for so many of us. I don't really think scam is the right word. I hope your son is doing well. Ann Alexandria
In all fairness.....
The idea that using chemo to shrink a tumor to a size that the tumor
can be surgically removed, is presently being argued among the
Oncologist's groups.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day, that shrinking the
tumor does not remove the small cancer cells around the tumor.
Surgically removing the balance leaves behind the individual cells,
and they do continue to grow as they did before.
Chemical therapy was not designed to isolate and kill individual
cancer cells; it was designed to knock down tumors before the
tumor got too large, invaded an important organ, and ended a life.
So knocking down a tumor does indeed leave some cancer cells
laying around behind. The concept of it all was wonderful, but not
what it is being presented to be, by today's cancer industry.
I may believe that the imported Chinese herbs have been a major
contributing factor for my existence today, but I have no absolute "proof".
Likewise, those that feel that "chemo" has been the saviour for their
life and soul, also have absolutely no proof.
The fact that a tumor has shrunk, does not mean a thing. The fact
that the patient now might have a second cancer developing due
to the carcinogenic chemicals injected into their system, or
serious neurological problems that may be permanent, also
have no bearing to the toxic chemicals value to mankind.......
Or does it?
A lot of things to consider, and not all that much time to do so,
once the diagnosis is cancer comes in.
Education can be difficult, unless old prejudices are purged
and fear takes the back seat to good old common sense.
Best wishes for everyone!
John0 -
I actually made an effort to read through that article...manwithnoname said:Maybe your right
Scam might be too strong, but reducing size for surgery is surely different to saying chemo will give long term remission or even 'cure' when the data from these 3 Australian oncologists shows it has NO value and still it is being prescribed.
These people are having low quality life and given false hope. But still hope I agree.
BUT if you were shown data that showed chemo made no affect on longterm outcome would you still take it?
Our son is doing ok (thanks for asking) he is still getting virus daily + chemo, his balance and motor skills are still good and most important no headaches.
And it was really difficult to understand. Seemed a certain amount of "apples vs oranges" going on. I would have preferred it if they had parsed out in the charts which patients had chemo only vs surgery with mop-up chemo vs chemo followed by surgery, if they had shown how many patients fell into each category, etc. The detail given seemed incomplete and very disparate to me, so I didn't necessarily agree (or disagree) with their conclusions. On a personal note, I wish that I would have skipped chemo, as it did nothing in my case except leave me with some nasty long-term side effects, but I've seen too many people who have gained a lot from doing chemo to consider it false hope. And I've never had a single doc tell me that chemo alone could cure me, and it seems like when I read the stories on these forums, very few doctors (at least in the world of crc) are making that claim. Even surgery has its flaws, as it can spread cells. So when I see people touting machines or substances that somehow cure all diseases, I begin to feel very suspicious about their motives. Glad your son is doing reasonably well...no headaches must make life much more fun for him!
PS No quarreling with Winter please...you both have enough on your plates without adding the stress of an online battle.0 -
I agree with mostJohn23 said:Oh well....
In all fairness.....
The idea that using chemo to shrink a tumor to a size that the tumor
can be surgically removed, is presently being argued among the
Oncologist's groups.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day, that shrinking the
tumor does not remove the small cancer cells around the tumor.
Surgically removing the balance leaves behind the individual cells,
and they do continue to grow as they did before.
Chemical therapy was not designed to isolate and kill individual
cancer cells; it was designed to knock down tumors before the
tumor got too large, invaded an important organ, and ended a life.
So knocking down a tumor does indeed leave some cancer cells
laying around behind. The concept of it all was wonderful, but not
what it is being presented to be, by today's cancer industry.
I may believe that the imported Chinese herbs have been a major
contributing factor for my existence today, but I have no absolute "proof".
Likewise, those that feel that "chemo" has been the saviour for their
life and soul, also have absolutely no proof.
The fact that a tumor has shrunk, does not mean a thing. The fact
that the patient now might have a second cancer developing due
to the carcinogenic chemicals injected into their system, or
serious neurological problems that may be permanent, also
have no bearing to the toxic chemicals value to mankind.......
Or does it?
A lot of things to consider, and not all that much time to do so,
once the diagnosis is cancer comes in.
Education can be difficult, unless old prejudices are purged
and fear takes the back seat to good old common sense.
Best wishes for everyone!
John
of what you say John, however relieving the 'tumour burden' might just swing the balance for the immune system to clear up the remainder.
If the immune system can 'see' the cells that is.0 -
Hmmm, interesting.John23 said:Oh well....
In all fairness.....
The idea that using chemo to shrink a tumor to a size that the tumor
can be surgically removed, is presently being argued among the
Oncologist's groups.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day, that shrinking the
tumor does not remove the small cancer cells around the tumor.
Surgically removing the balance leaves behind the individual cells,
and they do continue to grow as they did before.
Chemical therapy was not designed to isolate and kill individual
cancer cells; it was designed to knock down tumors before the
tumor got too large, invaded an important organ, and ended a life.
So knocking down a tumor does indeed leave some cancer cells
laying around behind. The concept of it all was wonderful, but not
what it is being presented to be, by today's cancer industry.
I may believe that the imported Chinese herbs have been a major
contributing factor for my existence today, but I have no absolute "proof".
Likewise, those that feel that "chemo" has been the saviour for their
life and soul, also have absolutely no proof.
The fact that a tumor has shrunk, does not mean a thing. The fact
that the patient now might have a second cancer developing due
to the carcinogenic chemicals injected into their system, or
serious neurological problems that may be permanent, also
have no bearing to the toxic chemicals value to mankind.......
Or does it?
A lot of things to consider, and not all that much time to do so,
once the diagnosis is cancer comes in.
Education can be difficult, unless old prejudices are purged
and fear takes the back seat to good old common sense.
Best wishes for everyone!
John
Very different from my experience, as I've never had a tumor grow back in the same area. Is that what the studies are showing happens, John? Do you have any links? As a person who relies on surgery for continued survival, I'm curious to read what's being said in this area. AA0 -
As far as I understoodannalexandria said:I actually made an effort to read through that article...
And it was really difficult to understand. Seemed a certain amount of "apples vs oranges" going on. I would have preferred it if they had parsed out in the charts which patients had chemo only vs surgery with mop-up chemo vs chemo followed by surgery, if they had shown how many patients fell into each category, etc. The detail given seemed incomplete and very disparate to me, so I didn't necessarily agree (or disagree) with their conclusions. On a personal note, I wish that I would have skipped chemo, as it did nothing in my case except leave me with some nasty long-term side effects, but I've seen too many people who have gained a lot from doing chemo to consider it false hope. And I've never had a single doc tell me that chemo alone could cure me, and it seems like when I read the stories on these forums, very few doctors (at least in the world of crc) are making that claim. Even surgery has its flaws, as it can spread cells. So when I see people touting machines or substances that somehow cure all diseases, I begin to feel very suspicious about their motives. Glad your son is doing reasonably well...no headaches must make life much more fun for him!
PS No quarreling with Winter please...you both have enough on your plates without adding the stress of an online battle.
All of the patients had prior surgery, this was purely to see the benefit to chemo.
"Aims: The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients." note the word 'curative'
On another note, that study checked data from the early 90's since then many new drugs have appeared and also more targeted and also gene/immune therapies.
I imagine the response would be higher now across the board.
I promise I won't fight ;-)0 -
stem cellsJohn23 said:Oh well....
In all fairness.....
The idea that using chemo to shrink a tumor to a size that the tumor
can be surgically removed, is presently being argued among the
Oncologist's groups.
It is becoming more and more apparent each day, that shrinking the
tumor does not remove the small cancer cells around the tumor.
Surgically removing the balance leaves behind the individual cells,
and they do continue to grow as they did before.
Chemical therapy was not designed to isolate and kill individual
cancer cells; it was designed to knock down tumors before the
tumor got too large, invaded an important organ, and ended a life.
So knocking down a tumor does indeed leave some cancer cells
laying around behind. The concept of it all was wonderful, but not
what it is being presented to be, by today's cancer industry.
I may believe that the imported Chinese herbs have been a major
contributing factor for my existence today, but I have no absolute "proof".
Likewise, those that feel that "chemo" has been the saviour for their
life and soul, also have absolutely no proof.
The fact that a tumor has shrunk, does not mean a thing. The fact
that the patient now might have a second cancer developing due
to the carcinogenic chemicals injected into their system, or
serious neurological problems that may be permanent, also
have no bearing to the toxic chemicals value to mankind.......
Or does it?
A lot of things to consider, and not all that much time to do so,
once the diagnosis is cancer comes in.
Education can be difficult, unless old prejudices are purged
and fear takes the back seat to good old common sense.
Best wishes for everyone!
John
When researchers find a way to target cancer stem cells, then it makes sense that we can get to a real cure.
I have read over and over that chemo can kill cancer cells, but not stem cells. Therefore, when a person has surgery, if the stem cells are removed, they probably will have a tremendous outcome. Even if there are millions of cells still floating around, chemo can supposedly kill them. But if a stem cell floating around attaches to an organ, then you have a metastasis.
Getting to the stem cells is what has to happen (and only surgery can do that right now).
I would think that is common knowledge among oncologists.....but maybe not.
No oncologist has ever told me this. I think that is a terrible.
I want to find a clinical trial that targets stem cells. I don't know how difficult that will be.
When people here banter back and forth......well one person may have had a very successful surgery to get them to NED......and they are very, very lucky. If I happened to be so lucky, I think that I would think twice about saying what is the "absolute".
One more thing.......people have very different perspectives depending upon if they are NED, or, if they are on chemo #45 and on the last line of chemo, CEA is rising and a new "spot" lights up on the PET. If you haven't experienced the latter.......let me tell you it becomes very scary and you start looking for other treatments. This is the time to put yourself in to others' shoes......be empathetic, be supportive. This is not the time to scold them. Thanks for reading this. I think this is very important.
Blessings to all.0 -
Sincemanwithnoname said:You don't REALLY
read anything I write do you.
Lesson 101 read the paper....
it was from a company "Hopewell Technologies" I won't be reading it. The problem as I stated above is, they are ADVERTISING their product and most use any means to push their product forward and try to point out to everyone anything else is bad. Next time, try and use something not off an advertisers web site it you want people to read it, and respect the opinion of those they read.
Thank you very much.
I read most stuff you write, the encouraging, nay may I say pushing Pete to try that dog serum, and any other quacky things he or you came up with (Pete, not to say you didn't come up with a couple good things, but most...). There's just a point where one feels that you are full of it, and best to ignore what you write, until again, you start up trying to act like rife is a good thing, if only of course, you could use it properly...what hack, when in fact it is a scam or quackery, use either word that you like.
Winter Marie0 -
manwithnoname -manwithnoname said:I agree with most
of what you say John, however relieving the 'tumour burden' might just swing the balance for the immune system to clear up the remainder.
If the immune system can 'see' the cells that is.
Re:
"relieving the 'tumour burden' might just swing the balance for the
immune system to clear up the remainder"
There's quite a bit of merit to that comment!
Apparently when -anything- dies, it expels a whole bunch of things
that it ordinarily does not expel in such great abundance.
The Immune system can become sensitized to those elements,
and become very aggressive towards those same substances!
That concept is not only being studied and noted, but it is the basis
for many of the "Immunotherapy" treatments that have been
developed lately.
Killing a large tumor can work wonders for the entire body,
-if- the entire body has not been compromised by excessive
doses of very harsh chemicals that manages to destroy the very
thing that can save us........the immune system.
A lil' knowledge can work wonders, if one follows the path.
Best of health,
John0 -
annalexandria -annalexandria said:Hmmm, interesting.
Very different from my experience, as I've never had a tumor grow back in the same area. Is that what the studies are showing happens, John? Do you have any links? As a person who relies on surgery for continued survival, I'm curious to read what's being said in this area. AA
Re:
"I've never had a tumor grow back in the same area. Is that what
the studies are showing happens, John? Do you have any links?"
Not necessarily in the very same spot.... the cells can drift, and
be transplanted to other areas. Leaving cancer cells behind is
a problem, but the real problem isn't that; the real problem is why
our immune system in not removing the "bad cells" the way it does
in individuals that never seem to get cancer regardless of their lifestyle.
Anything can cause cancer, if you happen to be vulnerable to cancer.
It really is that simple!
Best hopes for you,
John0 -
Anecdotal spontaneousmanwithnoname said:Rife machines
Ok, I have read quite a bit about Rife and I am 100% convinced that the patients treated in some of his 'trials' had their cancer regress.
I am not 100% sure that it was his machine that did it. Placebo is very powerful too.
No 'Rife' machines produced today equal the power of his original machine, if they did you would need a licence to use them as they interfere with radio broadcasting and other channels.
The 'theory' is quite sound, using vibration does actually work. Google HIFU, if you vibrate things they generate friction which generates heat, heat kills tumours.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2130824/Sound-wave-treatment-zaps-prostate-tumours-debilitating-effects.html
Anecdotal spontaneous remission is a known occrrance in all cancers. it is, however, at best very very rare and impossible to study.
The fact is that "Rife machines" are based at best, on a misunderstanding of what their functional principles are (supposed to be) and at worst are a deliberate attempt to befuddle people with pseudoscience.
The theory is complete BS and comparing HIFU to a Rife machine is like claiming you could land on Mars with your 3-year-olds tricycle.
Its a scam. End of.
P.S. Gotta love the "rifemachines.com" website for redefining "Quackery" so that they arent ;-)0 -
Good nightherdizziness said:Since
it was from a company "Hopewell Technologies" I won't be reading it. The problem as I stated above is, they are ADVERTISING their product and most use any means to push their product forward and try to point out to everyone anything else is bad. Next time, try and use something not off an advertisers web site it you want people to read it, and respect the opinion of those they read.
Thank you very much.
I read most stuff you write, the encouraging, nay may I say pushing Pete to try that dog serum, and any other quacky things he or you came up with (Pete, not to say you didn't come up with a couple good things, but most...). There's just a point where one feels that you are full of it, and best to ignore what you write, until again, you start up trying to act like rife is a good thing, if only of course, you could use it properly...what hack, when in fact it is a scam or quackery, use either word that you like.
Winter Marie
"since it was from a company "Hopewell Technologies" I won't be reading it."
LOL....
"pushing Pete to try that dog serum" WTF?
"you start up trying to act like rife is a good thing" er...read it again..see where I said 'PLACEBO'
How about we just keep out of each others way? don't attack me and I won't respond, easy.0 -
I agree all Rife machines sold today are probably fake.pog451 said:Anecdotal spontaneous
Anecdotal spontaneous remission is a known occrrance in all cancers. it is, however, at best very very rare and impossible to study.
The fact is that "Rife machines" are based at best, on a misunderstanding of what their functional principles are (supposed to be) and at worst are a deliberate attempt to befuddle people with pseudoscience.
The theory is complete BS and comparing HIFU to a Rife machine is like claiming you could land on Mars with your 3-year-olds tricycle.
Its a scam. End of.
P.S. Gotta love the "rifemachines.com" website for redefining "Quackery" so that they arent ;-)
Until you have a look at what happened back in the 30's 'trial' you can't dismiss the possible placebo affect, or the possibility that his machine 'may' have worked.
http://rifevideos.com/dr_rife_and_cancer_a_realistic_view.html
Actually you can compare HIFU to Rife as both use frequency's to get a response, and I believe very few people actual understand the science that R.R.R PHD was talking about, the man was an exceptional thinker and his microscope was years ahead of it's time.
He certainly cannot be dismissed as a 'quack'
Lots of people/sites are regurgitating the same rubbish about Rife and his technique to make a buck, including lying about what he actually said, do a bit more digging.
Now you can read this; http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1756-9966-28-51.pdf I would love to hear your 'critique'0 -
In view of your accusing ofmanwithnoname said:And chemo doesn't work either...
In pancreas, kidney,melanoma,prostate, bladder and uterus cancers.
At least that's what some oncologists found.
http://www.hopewelltechnologieslimited.com/5-year-survival.pdf
IT'S A SCAM PERIOD
In view of your accusing of others not reading the paper, perhaps you should read it. Nowhere does it say in that paper that chemo or cancer treatment is a scam. All they say is that in their meta-review, chemo seems to be (alone) responsible for a very small increment in overall survival and so they recommend assessing very closely whether cost /effectiveness is justified. I cant assess their data sources and dont know if they were looking at chemo alone, chemo as a way to surgery or what. If chemo worked really really well, noone would die. It doesnt, they do, big news.
Interesting that you pulled it of off a quack-cure site that states all over that their products are "peer-reviewed" but never actually quote a study to support that and yet tehy have good access to a study that doesnt quiet state that chemo doesnt work.0 -
Not really sure what you are on about.pog451 said:In view of your accusing of
In view of your accusing of others not reading the paper, perhaps you should read it. Nowhere does it say in that paper that chemo or cancer treatment is a scam. All they say is that in their meta-review, chemo seems to be (alone) responsible for a very small increment in overall survival and so they recommend assessing very closely whether cost /effectiveness is justified. I cant assess their data sources and dont know if they were looking at chemo alone, chemo as a way to surgery or what. If chemo worked really really well, noone would die. It doesnt, they do, big news.
Interesting that you pulled it of off a quack-cure site that states all over that their products are "peer-reviewed" but never actually quote a study to support that and yet tehy have good access to a study that doesnt quiet state that chemo doesnt work.
"Interesting that you pulled it of off a quack-cure site"
I have the original doc. on my hard drive, I looked online for a clickable link, THAT was the first one, there are others, and it's the content that is important NOT where the file is hosted. Obviously.
"I cant assess their data sources" why not? they are all listed in the references.
I find it REALLY interesting that any kind of 'cancer cure' ONLY 10 years away makes it to first page news, BUT anything that shows the system is flawed gets nothing. Not a peep.
"Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival"
Seems that is not news to some people, and funny that in over 8 years no one has challenged their findings...wonder why that is.
I said it was a scam, not the 3 oncologists, it's all there in black and white.0 -
Hi Joanjanie1 said:stem cells
When researchers find a way to target cancer stem cells, then it makes sense that we can get to a real cure.
I have read over and over that chemo can kill cancer cells, but not stem cells. Therefore, when a person has surgery, if the stem cells are removed, they probably will have a tremendous outcome. Even if there are millions of cells still floating around, chemo can supposedly kill them. But if a stem cell floating around attaches to an organ, then you have a metastasis.
Getting to the stem cells is what has to happen (and only surgery can do that right now).
I would think that is common knowledge among oncologists.....but maybe not.
No oncologist has ever told me this. I think that is a terrible.
I want to find a clinical trial that targets stem cells. I don't know how difficult that will be.
When people here banter back and forth......well one person may have had a very successful surgery to get them to NED......and they are very, very lucky. If I happened to be so lucky, I think that I would think twice about saying what is the "absolute".
One more thing.......people have very different perspectives depending upon if they are NED, or, if they are on chemo #45 and on the last line of chemo, CEA is rising and a new "spot" lights up on the PET. If you haven't experienced the latter.......let me tell you it becomes very scary and you start looking for other treatments. This is the time to put yourself in to others' shoes......be empathetic, be supportive. This is not the time to scold them. Thanks for reading this. I think this is very important.
Blessings to all.
Believe me I am also looking. I have read hundreds, maybe thousands, of documents concerning cancer, new drugs, clinical trials etc.
I consider myself a pretty good researcher (for an amateur) this is what I found that kills cancer stem cells, some have only been tried in petri dishes, some in animals and a few in humans.
Metformin - diabetic drug
VP-16 (etoposide) - chemo drug
Thioridazine - Psychiatric drug
Reovirus
Newcastle virus
(probably all oncolytic viruses)
DAB/IL2 - (probably, this activates an immune response)
Metronomic Cyclophosphamide (CTX) depletes T-reg, activates an immune response.
Parthenolide - (extract of feverfew)
Sulforaphane - best source = 3 day old broccoli sprouts.
I will update this when i remember more.
There are other drugs but only researchers can get their hands on them for now.
When the immune system can 'see' them it will kill them all, this is the 'cure' we all want.
We are using VP-16, NDV, and soon metronomic CTX, stopped Metformin (not sure if it's good for brain tumours)
At the minute Im looking at low dose Naltrexone (again) I think it can help with the immune response, to me this is the key, I really want him to see a TCM practitioner... and eat more veg ;-)
Take care0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 396 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 538 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards