The "Cost" of Cancer

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

That didn't address my question. I'm not understanding why the reposting nor is there any studies or confirmation of treatment in those links.
This was the question (regarding the trials):

What has happened when the doses have been larger? Has it even worked on people?
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

seahawks2884 wrote:[url]https://abc7chicago.com/health/repurposed-drug-gives-woman-with-cancer-the-gift-of-life/3633457/[url]
Just the facts. People are alive alive because of a repurposed drugs. With very minimal side effects. Here are John Hopkins DOCTORS!!! Quote
Searching the literature, they found reports that fenbendazole had been shown to inhibit cancer growth.
John Hopkins doctors!!!!! QUOTE ------We screened a lot of drugs in this family of compounds, and it was mebendazole that worked best,” says Gallia. “This is what we’d been looking for. Mebenzadole the human form of the drug Febenzadole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clinical trial now underway!!! Gonna be hard to debunk this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can`t wait!!!!
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/publications/doorways_to_discovery/files/sebindoc/o/i/E20FF6E7CB00F25F1ED9927C2946478F.pdf
White shiny lab coats and everythin. !!!!!!!
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

So no information about results of any clinical trial - gotcha
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

So apparently some drugs are being used along with some type of radiation treatment. Sounds familiar and expected.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

You know why there is no dosage amount published ! Big F buries most if not all promising cancer cures!It never gets to that stage
of developement. Big F don`t want a cheap cure for anything! John Hopkins doctors and researchers are doing a clinical trial right now as I`ve shown . We will see if gets approval from Big F. If I was given only months to live I sure the hell would not be going the conventional newest Big F drug route. I would sure give this mans Joe Tippens and others like him anti cancer regiment merit. The "Dosage" he uses is written in his documentation.https://www.mycancerstory.rocks/single-post/2016/08/22/Shake-up-your-life-how-to-change-your-own-perspective You will have to read it to find it. I have asked you numerous times to tell me or anybody else------ WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ANY DRUG OR TREATMENT CURRENTLY IN USE BY MAINSTREAM MEDICINE??????????? answer please?????
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

seahawks2884 wrote: answer please?????

lol - I'm still waiting on the answer to this:
drug has already gone through human clinical trials
If the drug has gone through the trials already why hasn't anything been published?
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

Mebenzadole same as Febenzadole drug deemed safe and approved by the FDA. 60 + years now. I posted this. Find it! You don`t or won`t read? Clinical trials underway NOW. You can read that right?
?????????????????? Why is the BIG F Cancer industry to be trusted??????????????? WHY???? ---You can read this CORRECT??? Y/n?
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

Doesn't appear fenbendazole and mebendazole are exactly the same.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
36Drew
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2675
Joined: Mar 29th, 2009, 3:32 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by 36Drew »

Fancy wrote:Doesn't appear fenbendazole and mebendazole are exactly the same.


Correct, while related they are chemically different.


Fenbendazole - C15H13N3O2S
Mebendazole - C16H13N3O3

Some interesting links for you:

https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00643
https://www.drugbank.ca/indications/DBCOND0060280/clinical_trials/DB00643?phase=1&status=active_not_recruiting
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01729260 - probably the clinical trial that Seahawk doesn't know how to find.

Brief Summary:
The purpose of this study is to find the highest dose of mebendazole (MBZ) that can be safely given to people with malignant brain tumors in combination with the current standard of care (temozolomide) without causing severe side effects. We also want to find out if MBZ can slow the growth of the brain tumor. The study doctors have found that MBZ is effective against malignant brain tumors in the laboratory and animal models of brain tumors.


This appears to be confirmed by one of Seahawk's previous links https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/publications/doorways_to_discovery/files/sebindoc/o/i/E20FF6E7CB00F25F1ED9927C2946478F.pdf

..by trial and error, they determined that the related drug mebendazole...might also hold potential for stalling glioblastoma


So... "might" and "stalling" - as in the effects are being studied, and the drug might slow or stop the spread of cancer cells. So far, it doesn't sound like a "cure" nor like it would be a complete treatment either.
I'd like to change your mind, but I don't have a fresh diaper.
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

Let us see why Mebenzadole may never see the light of day! It seems you would be quite happy to kill and bury a potentially remarkable discovery because it won`t make a whole lot of CASH. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/03/31/how-big-pharma-is-slowing-cancer-research/ Here is a .gov review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096024/ We need organizations like https://www.cureswithinreach.org/. And Doctors like Dr. Maxwell.
https://www.askdrmaxwell.com/2015/08/mebendazole-from-antiparasitic-to-cancer-cure/ People would only have one option you guessed it BIG F. They deserve a BIG F . Repurposing drugs for Cancer may be the only way to circumvent the BS.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

You do realize that these drugs have been looked at for years and there is zero reason to change current treatments until others are proven to be more beneficial.

We do traditional research in the laboratory and translational research with patients, and we look at how we provide counselling and support and clinical trials, in which patients have the option to try new therapies.

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/our-research/ ... r-research

Those struggling with this disease should know the different options they have for treatment and discuss with their doctors those options and what is available. There are targeted therapies that work now and should not be discarded for internet possibilities when one doesn't know the risks.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

Quote:Why is it that 80% of oncologists, when asked, would not give the standard medical treatments for cancer to their family or themselves, which they give to their patients? Let logic prevail, a 2.3% survival rate after 5 years, last time I checked, 2.3% is not a success rate. That’s why!
Quote:He joins many others, including former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, in showing this corruption. He shows too how the industry has bought doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient organisations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians. These are the methods of the mob.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/09/10/richard-smith-is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-like-the-mafia/
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

National institute of Health website.gov
Quote screening of compounds for activity against colon cancer cell lines also identified MBZ as a candidate molecule in work by Nygren and colleagues [20]. The authors set out to screen 1600 existing drugs for activity against two well-established colon cancer cell lines (HCT 116 and RKO) and found 64 candidate drugs, including a cluster of benzimidazoles (albendazole, mebendazole, oxybendazole and fenbendazole). Of these, further analysis was performed on MBZ and albendazole because, in the words of the authors, ‘they are registered pharmaceuticals for clinical use in humans, thus easily accessible for clinical testing’.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096024/
Your Doctors need to do more research! Why aren`t they? Is it a cross border issue?
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

You are repeating a link - no need.

seahawks2884 wrote:Quote:Why is it that 80% of oncologists, when asked, would not give the standard medical treatments for cancer to their family or themselves, which they give to their patients?
I just read oncologists/hematologists - 64.5% would take chemotherapy.
Conclusions
Three conclusions can be drawn from these data with reasonable certainty. First, the number of medical oncologists who would choose chemotherapy has at least doubled and may have quadrupled. This suggests that these informed consumers have recognized the enhanced clinical benefit and reduced clinical toxicity of chemotherapy today and are making choices consistent with national clinical practice guidelines.

https://www.cancernetwork.com/lung-canc ... ung-cancer

And that was back in 1998 - there have been improvements.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

seahawks2884 wrote:a 2.3% survival rate after 5 years, last time I checked, 2.3% is not a success rate.

You need to check your figures:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ted_States
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat

Return to “Health”