Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 24, 2014 20:51 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
Parent article: A note from your editor

There was a report in New Scientist (the first edition of the New Year - 4th Jan iirc) that fever is closely associated with "miracle recoveries". So catching flu might be a good idea :-)

The BCG vaccine is apparently used as a cure for at least one cancer, presumably discovered serendipitously, and the article surmises this could be the mechanism.

But the gist of the article, basically, was that fever was seen as a cancer cure for many years, but not really used effectively. Then an American doctor investigated it round about 1850, and discovered that there was a very strong correlation with fever and cancer recoveries - 80% of people who recovered were sick with fever shortly before.

So this doctor deliberately got his patients feverish, and achieved a high rate of recovery, often of cancers that even today are considered near untreatable.

Unfortunately, this fell foul of the belief that "fever is harmful", and as so often happens the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. A drug gets banned even if the disease is worse than the side-effects of the treatment, if the side effects are seen as too bad.

Cheers,
Wol

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 25, 2014 2:02 UTC (Fri) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] (12 responses)

First, I too am very sorry to hear this and hope and pray for a quick and full recovery.

On the subject of "miracle cures".... I hesitate to mention this, but I am kind of reading this right now so it is definitely relevant. "World Without Cancer" by G Edward Griffin. http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Cancer-Story-Vitamin/...

His thesis is that cancer is by nature a vitamin deficiency like scurvy, rather than something inherently bad. It is at its root nature's way of healing injuries; the problem comes when the healing stops and the cancer cells are still there.

The solution? Vitamin B17, which is found in the seeds of many fruits and some grasses. Apparently it can both prevent and cure cancer.

The entire medical and government establishment says this is quackery. Mr. Griffin gives what I think is a pretty good amount of evidence in support. Perhaps the best are the tribes in Asia who eat a lot of apricots, including seeds, and have NEVER had a case of cancer - until Western food came in. Same with Eskimos, who got Vitamin B17 through musk ox meat. Why then do the "experts" reject it? Because it would kill the multi-billion dollar cancer cure industry overnight!

Other things to note.... the book has MANY positive reviews on Amazon saying in their experience it works. The few negative reviews don't make any serious attempt to rebut it. Also, this is the third edition; it was initially published in 1974. It apparently has some staying power. Also, Amazon sells B17 tablets which, themselves, have a lot of positive reviews!

I certainly don't want to make intrusive advice (especially if it could be quack), and don't want to make light of your situation. It is just something that may be worth thinking about. If I was in the situation, I can say that I am convinced enough that I would be seeking B17 rather than "traditional" cures.

And, I suppose I should subscribe again......

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 25, 2014 13:06 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (11 responses)

RationalWiki has the following useful information about the so-called "vitamin B17":

In practice, this has not been shown to happen; in fact, where laetrile breaks down into three substances (including cyanide) is in the small intestine, and several scientific studies have shown it useless as a cancer treatment. Laetrile fans often cite anecdotal evidence of individual cases where laetrile appeared to work, but in every case where a statistically significant sample size was studied laetrile has not been shown to be effective. Laetrile is still presented as a "suppressed" treatment by many conspiratorially-minded quacks.

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 26, 2014 14:52 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

I know of two ways to prevent cancer. One relatively reliable method that still fails from time to time is to be a naked mole rat (for reasons as yet unclear: the downside is that the causative factor appears to make you *look* like a naked mole rat). The other, totally reliable, is to be unicellular.

You may find both of these to be both difficult and undesirable approaches.

Cancer is a disease of multicellularity. If there were an easy way around it, if it were just a deficiency of some magic thing or other, we would already synthesise that magic thing and cancer would not happen (since it affects the young as well as the old, if at lower rates, and thus clearly puts cancer sufferers at a substantial selective disadvantage). We do not. Instead natural selection has built us a massive fortress of genetic defences and DNA repair mechanisms and controls on the cell cycle and even cancer-detecting assassin immune cells -- and *still* all this eventually fails. Thirty thousand nuclear DNA mutations per cell per day will eventually take their toll.

The only cure we have for all that accumulated damage is long-term cellular stasis and/or another round of natural selection, and unfortunately the only way to do that is to go back to single cells again and battle it out, best of umpty million sperm or ova win (yes, ova undergo a similar selection process, though at a different stage in the human lifespan). Of course, the result of that process isn't us any more -- it's our children, who will statistically be cancer-free -- and old age free, and mitochondrial damage free -- for N more years than we will.

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 2, 2014 20:37 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Doing my MSc, I came to the conclusion that sugar is a very nasty bioweapon. Fasting lets the body's repair mechanisms cut in and work - and could well allow those mechanisms to cut in and "cure" cancer. Or it might not - but fasting is a very good way of ensuring a healthy body and longevity. On the other hand, snacking and preventing your blood sugar levels from dropping is a sure-fire way of getting obese, diabetes, and heart/vascular disease. Adding cancer to that list is not much of a stretch.

The main thrust of the New Scientist article, however, was that they think the immune system DOES recognise cancer cells. The problem is, there is a cascade needed to fire up the immune system and, because you're not "unwell", your immune system is trying to fight off the cancer while it's on a "peacetime" footing.

That's the whole point behind the fever, or as I suggested, "catching flu". The immune system fires up in full force, and as a side effect of firing up to fight the flu, the cancer-fighting cells get fired up too. Which is why BCG is apparently used for some cancers - as a vaccine it triggers a feverish immune response.

Cheers,
Wol

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 6, 2014 22:39 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The essence of that article (assuming it's the same recent one I'm thinking of) is that cancers evolve to suppress the immune system. The relevant bits of the immune system do indeed recognize that something is wrong (after all, the cancer cells are displaying all sorts of weird crap on their surfaces, likely including a pile of foetal proteins that should *never* be displayed to a mature immune system), so it starts to sound the alarm, and then gets suppressed, and wham, the signalling cascade is blocked before it starts.

Obviously, as with everything else cancer does, this suppression is a reuse of things the body does in other conditions, which are then desirable: it's part of a crucial general defence mechanism against immune hyperactivity -- you can't really call it "autoimmune disorders" because autoimmune disorders are never this bad. Mice bred with immune systems that lack the receptor for that suppressor die in days.

Everything I've read about the fever thing suggests that it messes up cancer cells both by generally firing up the immune system (making it that bit harder to suppress) and *also* by raising body temperature: cancers, like virally infected cells though for different reasons, are notably worse at dealing with elevated temperature than normal cells.

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 26, 2014 14:58 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (6 responses)

Oh gods I just looked at that. They're trying to use a cyanide against cancer cells? Cyanides work by stalling the electron transport chain in mitochondria (almost literally a sort of cellular suffocation, since the net effect is that oxygen is no longer usable as an electron acceptor: the rest of the chain still works fine but is clogged with electrons with nowhere to go); cancer cells live in relatively hypoxic conditions and are strongly selected for use of fermentation instead. It is not unheard of for cancer cells to have entirely dysfunctional mitochondria, which not so coincidentally suppresses apoptosis as well, also something beneficial to a cancer cell. Such cells wouldn't even *notice* a nice dose of cyanide.

So if this thing worked it would preferentially poison *normal* cells and leave cancer cells largely untouched: just what you don't want.

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 26, 2014 23:56 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (3 responses)

Hm. I thought cyanide worked by replacing oxygen in the red blood cells (due to similar geometry) but not being able to be removed thereby causing asphyxiation. Or is this just a second way cyanide kills?

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 27, 2014 2:07 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

Carbon monoxide will bind with haemoglobin sufficiently strongly to prevent oxygen from binding, which sounds like what you're thinking of

Miracle Cure?

Posted Apr 27, 2014 4:59 UTC (Sun) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] (1 responses)

That, or a confusion with methaemoglobin. That one *does* bind cyanide, but that's actually a mechanism of an antidote, not poisoning (amyl nitrite leads to conversion of hb to methb and methb binds cyanide stronger than cytochrome c).

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 2, 2014 18:40 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I can't remember exactly what it is, but when working with cyanide people usually have a simple antidote to hand. Iirc, it's two simple solutions which, when mixed, form some ferrOUS chemical. You can't keep it pre-mixed because it oxidises to ferrIC.

Swallow that, and it preferentially binds cyanide and takes it out of circulation for you.

Cheers,
Wol

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 8, 2014 0:38 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't understand all the biology of it, but Griffin's claim is that there is an enzyme that releases the cyanide *right at the point of* the cancer cells, and another enzyme that prevents it from killing other cells.

Very fascinating, if true ...

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 8, 2014 3:10 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Which enzyme? We know quite a lot of them pretty well by now and it'll take a very unusual enzyme to reversibly bind cyanide ions and release them in tumor cells.

Besides, tumor cells are much less sensitive to cyanide (it's even sometimes used in lab to kill healthy cells in cell cultures) because they preferably use anaerobic metabolism.

Normal cells are pretty much hardened against cyanide and can de-toxify in one hour a dose that can be lethal if administered momentarily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiosulfate_sulfurtransferase enzyme is used for it and it's rate-limited by the availability of sulfurous acceptors.

Miracle Cure?

Posted May 8, 2014 0:34 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link]

That is certainly the view of the scientific establishment. I think careful attention needs to be paid to Griffin's book, however -- he gives a pretty wide variety of well documented evidence to support his claims.

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure he's right, as I'm not a scientist or an investigator of this type, but I do think it is highly plausible.