Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There is a very interesting book around the metabolic route for treating cancer. It's called "Starving cancer" by Jane McLelland. It talks about using over the counter drugs and supplements that have been studied for their metabolic blocking properties for cancer, as well as changing the diet to reduce as much as possible the nutrients that cancer craves the most according to their metabolic phenotype. Most of the times it's glucose or glutamine, but the trick is to block as many metabolic pathways using the drugs so that mutation is prevented. Most of these drugs have their patents expired and are quite cheap. The author had a very aggressive form of cancer with less than 5% statistic survival rate and were able to survive and go back to NED (no evidence of disease). It's not exactly a substitute for standard therapy such as chemo, but there's many people who also went to NED just with her protocol. I tried this back when I had cancer, and even though my survival rate was very high just on standard care, my tumor markers went way down almost to normal on the first cycle combined with Jane's protocol. Unfortunately, the cancer industry and pharmaceutical industry won't really invest much money on clinical trials for expired patent, or even existing drugs in their portfolio. There are a couple of independent clinical trials going on, so far, with good results AFAIC. Another very controversial, but interesting treatment for cancer that will probably never see the light is Chlorine Dioxide. And don't you dare write that on Facebook or YouTube because it'll be outright banned or deleted for "spreading misinformation". I have friends and persons I know that went to NED just on chlorine dioxide and diet. Having used it myself for many months with no negative effects, and, after chemo, I can't help but cringe every time someone tells me that it's "very toxic". Oh lord, you should have seen what chemo was like. Now, that was toxic.

If something is flagged by YouTube, it must be a really bad idea.

Chlorine isn’t too bad in terms of toxicity, or it wouldn’t be added to drinking water and freely sold for all sorts of purposes.

But there’s absolutely no reason to ingest it (or any other route of administration).

I guess it’s exactly because of it’s ubiquity that those of a conspiratorial mindset like it so much: it fits with the idea that there are obvious and easy answers suppressed by that mighty cabal of Bill Gates/Soros/some other Jews.

Chlorine sucks. It's added to water because the other major way of disinfecting water (ozone) is too transient to last all the way through the water pipelines. Nonetheless, they're often used in combination, to minimize the amount of chlorine needed. The only thing worse than chlorinated water is the diseases you catch by not having chlorinated water.

This is exactly my point. If anything, the effects of chlorine dioxide seem minimal or barely noticeable compared to chemo, and of course, much better than dying of cancer. I'm not saying that cancer patients should skip chemo, though!

I don't think you should get health advice from banned YouTube videos.

In fact for the average layperson, figuring out what's good information and what's bad information on YouTube or the internet in general is probably beyond their abilities. I know my dear mother, who I love, can't do it. I like to think I can, but I'm the least qualified person to judge that. I'm also not average.

But I want to point out that one of the main treatment options for cancer is Chemo, which is basically injecting/ingesting toxic substances in the effort to weaken or kill the cancer before killing the host. So chlorine could well work in the vein, but I wouldn't want to use myself as test subject A in an unregulated pre-clinical trial.

I think it really depends on your statistical survival rate. If you're almost guaranteed to die, there's less of a concern in using yourself as a test subject.

I don't agree with trusting YouTube blindly. I trust my friends and colleagues that have cured their cancer better. Also note that chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypoclorite. It's like comparing salt (which also contains chlorine) with sugar.

>chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypoclorite

I wasn't sure what to make of what you said until you dropped this common fallacy used by MMS cultists.

All forms of oxidising bleach (chlorine gas, hypochlorite solution, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, etc) take effect by taking electrons from other matter. These reactions are able to "bleach" because pigments are often complex organic molecules which tend to decompose in presence of strong oxidizers.

The toxicity of chlorine dioxide is very well studied. Guess what, once absorbed it acts as a bleach/oxidizer in your blood, rupturing red blood cells and may lead to kidney failure as haemoglobin is released into the plasma.

The reaction is caused by the inhibition of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase which is probably the tenuous link between consuming bleach and cancer treatment. While the enzyme is indeed a drug target that people have looked into, it is very unlikely to work by oral dosing because many healthy issue also rely on the enzyme to survive.

This, of course, has not stopped the MMS cult from claiming that their panacea cures every single ailment under the sun which has no medical basis whatsoever.

> [...] which has no medical basis whatsoever.

I'm not a doctor, but there seems to be some medical basis in some pathologies. If you are a doctor or scientist perhaps your input would be greatly appreciated in the following papers:

In vivo evaluation of the antiviral effect of ClO2 in chicken embryos inoculated with avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.13.336768v1

Subchronic toxicity of chlorine dioxide and related compounds in drinking water in the nonhuman primate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7151767/

Mechanistic aspects of ingested chlorine dioxide on thyroid function: impact of oxidants on iodide metabolism https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3816729/

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of a Chlorine Dioxide Solution https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28327506/

Also, CDS is not MMS.

The chicken embryo study is interesting but chlorine dioxide is already known to be less toxic to birds. And your other sources clearly state that chlorine dioxide and chlorites suppress thyrioid function and haematopoesis in primates and humans. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

>Also, CDS is not MMS.

Out of curiosity, do you acidify the ClO2 solution before quaffing it? It's a ritual very well associated with MMS proponents but probably does more harm than good if the goal is to deliver chlorine to the body.

The results in monkeys seem to suppress thyroid function, but:

> No evidence of thyroid effects were detected in the serum of human volunteers who ingested approximately 1 mg/l. of ClO2 in drinking water as a result of routine use in the community water treatment process.

I don't acidify the ClO2 solution.

You are conflating very low background exposure to delibrate self-medication with a much larger dose. The latter act has a proven risk for no apparent gain, hence my doubts.

I'm not a doctor but have a background in biomedical research. Just to point out that there are countless fringe medical theories and therapies out there with varying degrees of anecdotal and scientific evidence backing them up. However it's quite telling that many claim the same benefits whilst instructing people to do the exact opposite things. Even the more promising ones (resveratrol and fructose toxicity are the ones I have actually spent time working on) eventually turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking and sometimes just bad science. I wish you the best of health but at the end of the day, what seems to have worked for you does not mean that it will work for everybody else.

Thank you for spending the time to write so far and for wishing me good health. I really appreciate it. I could tell about your background in your writing.

> what seems to have work for you does not mean that it will work for everybody else.

I agree with you on this. I just hope there was more funding or incentives for scientists studying this which, so far, has helped me and many people I know.

I didn't know anything about MMS before this thread, but I will point out that "don't eat that; it's poisonous" is a poor argument in a cancer debate, since the major treatment for cancer (chemotherapy) is intentional strong poisoning.

A company named Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals created a drug named NP001. NP001, a pH-adjusted IV formulation of purified sodium chlorite, is a novel molecule that regulates inflammation in vitro and in vivo.

It was used in a phase II clinical trial for ALS, and a subset of patients did not have any progression during the 6 month trial [0]. Something highly improbable.

Unfortunately this was not confirmed in a following phase III trial.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396529/

Very interesting. Thank you.

The people who didn't cure their cancer aren't your colleagues.

About the conspiratorial mindset, as you call it, for example, if YouTube censors “共匪” (“communist bandit”), then it must be a really bad idea, right? In which cases do you think it's reasonable not to trust YouTube blindly.


Hi - as the person you replied to noted, you were a cancer researcher. I recently had a much beloved dog lose her fight with cancer (specifically, she had mass cell tumors that started on her leg and grew). All of her oncologists (we spent close to ten thousand dollars keeping her as healthy and happy for as long as we could) kept telling us that mass cell tumors in dogs are "very nasty" and pretty much told us on the outset that even amputating her leg probably wouldn't save her. So my question is, what about mass cell tumors makes them nasty and, as a follow up question, why is it that the tumors became resistant to each line of treatment that we used? We went through I think 6 different drugs until we ran out of options, and then kept her on prednisone for about a year to keep the growth slowed down until she started showing signs of declining.

What is "cancer industry"?

It's a conspiracy theory saying that we know natural and effective cures to cancer, but those are ignored or shammed by Big Pharma and scientific world because they are conspiring to instead produce drugs that are costly and require taking for long periods of time because thats more profitable to them.

I didn't mean that. Simply, pharmaceutical companies don't have incentives to invest in drugs that they won't profit from. Expired patent drugs come off first on that list.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact