9 replies to this topic

[sentrysnipe]

beta-lapachone lapachone lapachol

Some interesting recent studies.
http://www.google.co...arco OR taheebo

I'm not sure if the Korean experiment used an isolated form but I read somewhere that it would not yield the same efficacy unless the whole tree bark source was used. I am not ready to fall for Dr. Hulda Clark's theory that cancer is caused (among other causes) by certain bacterial, viral overgrowth but it is compelling or rather interesting that this particular extract from the tree has antibacterial antiviral and antifungal properties.

I was curious as how this came about - http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=7764878

So while we're waiting for an exponential breakthrough in nanotechnology, this might do for now, as possible CURE (and prevention, of course)! there were accounts in curezone.com posted by the patient themselves of having been cured of their advanced cancers. One of them noted that the doctor was surprised since he/she have not been on chemo for like less 6 months i think, and was ruled as spontaneous shrinking of the tumor. it was in the liver if i remember right.

shapeshifter might have provided the truth, after all. This is abundant in Brazil I think. I wonder if any more new plant species in the amazon have the same benefits we have yet to tap.

You might want to take a look, too, at an intensive Japanese research on 1-3 1-6 beta Glucans polysacharides specifically derived from the mushroom Coriolus || Trametes versicolor http://www.mushroomscience.com/

Edited by sentrysnipe, 10 December 2005 - 04:56 AM.

[buck1s]

Sentry, I'm sorry but I missed a lot of what you're driving at with respect to Pau d'Arco and quackery. I guess it must be that I don't know the backstory.

On the corporate front, Arqule (ARQL) is using beta-lap and has some amazing preclinical outcomes using beta-lap alone and in conjunction with gemcitabine. Not that preclinical results usually matter a whole heck of a lot. Their drug is designated ARQ-501. It is still in Phase 1 for monotherapy in a range of cancers and phase IIa for pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine.

[sentrysnipe]

Sentry, I'm sorry but I missed a lot of what you're driving at with respect to Pau d'Arco and quackery.

http://www.quackwatc.....ry=Pau d'Arco from the post http://www.imminst.o...t=0

[scottl]

http://www.pdrhealth...gs/102140.shtml

[Mind]

Knowing what we do about cancer, you wouldn't think anti-bacterial or anti-fungal agents would have an effect on it. The viral theory of cancer was pursued for over 20 years. It was a wasted effort...to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. The theory was that viruses invaded cells and somehow dirupted/changed the DNA to make the cells cancerous. It is a novel theory, but has had very little success. I think only one type of cervical cancer and feline Luekemia have been positively correlated with viruses. In any case, even if the theory was true for cancer, it would make no difference AFTER THE FACT. Anti-viral and anti-fungal agents would only work toward prevention, not a cure. Once a cancerous cell takes hold in the body it spreads by division, not infection. Perhaps there are other properties within beta-lapachone lapachone lapachol that disrupt cancer cell division.

[xanadu]

How has "hundreds of billions of dollars" been spent on researching viral/cancer links? I don't think even hundreds of millions were spent on that let alone hundreds of billions of dollars.

[eternaltraveler]

How has "hundreds of billions of dollars" been spent on researching viral/cancer links? I don't think even hundreds of millions were spent on that let alone hundreds of billions of dollars.

that's what nixon's whole war on cancer was all about. Which prevaded the whole cancer research mindset for 20 years.

[xanadu]

Justin, that may well be but that doesn't mean "hundreds of billions of dollars" were spent let alone wasted on cancer research. Has it been disproven that viruses can cause cancer? I don't think all research went into that area. It's just that when someone says an herb used a long time is quackery without proving it I start to wonder. Then when I see statements that hundreds of billions of dollar were wasted it starts to sound exaggerated. It may well be true, I'm just asking where is the evidence of those things.

[eternaltraveler]

Death rates from cancer really havent changed since 1971.

200-300 billion dollars have been spent.

Less than .5% of that was spent on researching metastisis, which is how cancer kills. There are lots of drugs that shrink cancer size, but unfortunately that hasn't really translated to more people being cured.

Oh there have been some improvements in survival rates from some specific types of cancer, but overall it's been flat.

Personally I'd demand to see more for my 200-300 billion dollars.

[xanadu]

I agree that little progress has been made on cancer cures. I didn't know 200 to 300 B had been spent on the area. The guy said that much had been spent just on research into viral and bacterial causes of cancer. I would still say that statement was very exaggerated. That was really my only point.

I think diet and excercise play a huge role in avoiding cancer. Way too much of our research dollars and efforts have been directed toward cures for diseases and relatively very little on prevention. As they say, an ounce of prevention...