> > I can't speak for those who may have died from quackery or ripoff
> > artists, but I am still alive and healthy and the facts strongly
> > suggest that the alternatives played an important part in my
success.
> > I was initially skeptical of alternatives, and that is part of the
> > reason I did not use them immediately. Any thinking person would
> surely
> > keep an open mind and check the facts. I did, and I'm glad of it.

> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.***.com/
> > Before you buy.

> Bob, I'm delighted to hear of the regression of your tumor.  My
> goodness - stage IV lung cancer!  May you keep well!!

> You know, medical researchers, and ESPECIALLY oncologists (cancer
docs)
> aren't snooty at all about trying ANYTHING that has the slightest
> glimmer of hope.  These go into what are called Phase I clinical
> trials.  If you were to look at the stuff that has been entered in
> Phase I trials, you'd be amazed at the number of alternative medicines
> tried.

> What they are good at is giving up on stuff that conclusively can be
> shown to NOT WORK.  I'd say that oncology is filled with 95% of trials
> that just showed no help.

<snip>

> But keep going and talking about essiac, Bob.  I've never heard of any
> studies on it in particular, and I sure hope it turns out to be of
> benefit - Stage IV lung cancer is a tough one, indeed.

> -----
> Good health to you!
> Doc Steve
> (These are just my personal impressions.
>  I'm not intending them as professional, expert advice.)

> >The timing in my case strongly suggests the alternatives played an
> >important role, but a delayed reaction of the chemo can not be ruled
> >out. I don't know if this is common. I would have to ask the oncologists
> >if it ever happens in stage IV lung cancer that after 12 weeks of
> >ineffective chemo, the tumors suddenly start shrinking and dissappear as
> >they did in my case.

> >Bob Karjala  http://essiac-info.org/Bob.html

> My own theory is:

> 1. That people are like snowflakes - - no two are exactly alike.

> 2. The same holds true for cancerous tumors - - the chemical structure of each
> tumor is unique - - no two are exactly alike. Some are very similar but none are
> exactly alike.

> For that reason, a chemical that works to combat a cancerous tumor in one
> person may or may not work on a similar cancer in another person. It is a trial
> and error situation at best and I personally will leave the trial and error choices
> up to those who study it and practice it as their chosen profession. It is risky
> to rely on professionals - - it is far, Far, FAR riskier to rely on amateurs such
> as those on a news group - - Paul B. Dennis being foremost among them.

> Your cancer  tumors may have shrank into oblivion due to a shift in your
> body chemistry that has NOTHING to do with any cancer treatment.

> ***********
> *S*******W*
> **C*****O**
> ***A***R***
> ****R*C****
> *****E*****
> ***********

> I concur with Doc Steve.....I am encouraged by your 'success' and hope
> that it remains such.
>  I have
> > personal knowledge of two remarkable successes with essiac, but high
> > levels of CoQ-10 have been documented to eliminate {*filter*} tumors
> > (Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., Mar. 30, 1994) An abstract of the
BBRC
> > article can be viewed by scrolling down to message #7 at:
> > http://www.***.com/

> The only notes and questions I have on the abbreviated abstract is
that
> only 6/32 showed any measurable effect.  That's slightly under 20%.
> What is the comparison effect with various chemotherapies on 'high'
risk
> (which I don't understand based on the limited discussion in the
> abstract).  Was it more or less then the 20%?

> > Similarly the anti-tumor effects of selenium are documented in a J.
AM.
> > Med. Assoc.(JAMA) article
> > at: http://www.***.com/
> > It is even possible that that the methyl sulfonyl methane(MSM) might
> > have potentiated one of the other factors by increasing cell
> > permeability.

> > The timing in my case strongly suggests the alternatives played an
> > important role, but a delayed reaction of the chemo can not be ruled
> > out. I don't know if this is common. I would have to ask the
oncologists
> > if it ever happens in stage IV lung cancer that after 12 weeks of
> > ineffective chemo, the tumors suddenly start shrinking and
dissappear as
> > they did in my case.

> The main reason I responded to this point is that it is quite clear
that
> there is some residual effect.  What I am interested in is the
> possibility that the 'residual' effect may actually have a component
> that is reflected as a faster recovery from the ill-effects of many of
> the chemo treatments.  I know that it took me approximately 5 months
> after chemo to recover my full pre-cancer treatment weight.  In
> addition, it took probably another 5 months before I felt like I could
> work at the same level as before the cancer.  If there is a
significant
> improvement in the post-standard treatment recovery, by use of various
> supplements, it is quite possible that the 'residual' effect may be
> partly a quicker recovery of a variety of physiological and
> immunological characteristics.  This might be the main benefit of
> pursueing 'alternative' methods in conjunction with conventional
> methods.

> > Recent communications from others duplicating my regimen have
included a
> > few cases where tumors have continued to shrink on the
> > alternative regimen after chemo has been stopped because it was
> > ineffective. Though anecdotal in nature, these people can be
contacted
> > and their stories verified. One of the most recent ones was a public
> > posting on the Mediconsult lung cancer support board on Oct. 7,
1999.
> > The board is at:

> Yes, but as most of us on this board agree, it is worth considering as
> long as the proper studies are used to dissect the important aspects
of
> possible changes in efficacy.

> > Is there anyone out there willing and able to do such a study?]

> I don't know which oncology department would most likely be
interested,
> but certainly, MD Anderson is one of the institutions that has
received
> quite a bit of funding to study alternatives.

> Regards and congratulations....

> MJK

> Shanti (and thanks :-)
> -d

> How high were the increased doses of CoQ-10?  Are there any side effects from
> taking this much Co-Q10.  Any particiular brands recommended?  as Co-Q10 is
> rather expensive, are the cheaper brands as effective as the more expensive
> brands?  What might be the difference?

> Shanti (and thanks :-)
> -d

>  The 6/32 referred to the group on only 90mg of CoQ-10 per day.
> > What I found most interesting was the 1/32 where the dose of CoQ-10 was
> > increased and complete tumor regression occurred. The high dose CoQ-10
> > also had the same effect on an additional patient with documented post
> > surgury residual tumor.

> Hi Mark, The 6/32 referred to the group on only 90mg of CoQ-10 per day.
> What I found most interesting was the 1/32 where the dose of CoQ-10 was
> increased and complete tumor regression occurred. The high dose CoQ-10
> also had the same effect on an additional patient with documented post
> surgury residual tumor.

> I think you may be confused on the timing of my treatments. I want to
> clarify. My initial chemo was 3/31/98. 12 weeks later, prior to my 5th
> chemo in June, 1998, I added the complete alternative regimen. I
> continued with BOTH the chemo and alternatives, until the tenth chemo in
> early Oct., 1998. During the entire time on the alternatives I had hair
> loss and lowered white cells, but had no discomforting side effects from
> the chemo. I lived a normal life, worked full time, and gained some
> weight. I can't prove it, but after hearing of the difficulties others
> have had with chemo, I think the vitamins and herbs may have had a
> protective effect in my case. An interesting speculation is that the
> high levels of anti-oxidants I used actually neutralized the chemo and
> the alternatives were 100% responsible for tumor regression. Another is
> that something like the MSM potentiated the chemo. These are just two of
> many possibilities, and illustrate the need for good controlled studies.

> > MJK

> Thanks for your support.

> > > Bob Karjala  http://essiac-info.org/Bob.html

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

> > Hi Mark, The 6/32 referred to the group on only 90mg of CoQ-10 per
day.
> > What I found most interesting was the 1/32 where the dose of CoQ-10
was
> > increased and complete tumor regression occurred. The high dose
CoQ-10
> > also had the same effect on an additional patient with documented
post
> > surgury residual tumor.

> Still these are pretty small fractions.  I am interested in the
> comparison of the rates.  Obviously more studies need to be done to
> ascertain what is causing what effect.

> > > The main reason I responded to this point is that it is quite
clear
> > that
> > > there is some residual effect.  What I am interested in is the
> > > possibility that the 'residual' effect may actually have a
component
> > > that is reflected as a faster recovery from the ill-effects of
many of
> > > the chemo treatments.  I know that it took me approximately 5
months
> > > after chemo to recover my full pre-cancer treatment weight.  In
> > > addition, it took probably another 5 months before I felt like I
could
> > > work at the same level as before the cancer.  If there is a
> > significant
> > > improvement in the post-standard treatment recovery, by use of
various
> > > supplements, it is quite possible that the 'residual' effect may
be
> > > partly a quicker recovery of a variety of physiological and
> > > immunological characteristics.  This might be the main benefit of
> > > pursueing 'alternative' methods in conjunction with conventional
> > > methods.

> > I think you may be confused on the timing of my treatments. I want
to
> > clarify. My initial chemo was 3/31/98. 12 weeks later, prior to my
5th
> > chemo in June, 1998, I added the complete alternative regimen. I
> > continued with BOTH the chemo and alternatives, until the tenth
chemo in
> > early Oct., 1998. During the entire time on the alternatives I had
hair
> > loss and lowered white cells, but had no discomforting side effects
from
> > the chemo. I lived a normal life, worked full time, and gained some
> > weight. I can't prove it, but after hearing of the difficulties
others
> > have had with chemo, I think the vitamins and herbs may have had a
> > protective effect in my case. An interesting speculation is that the
> > high levels of anti-oxidants I used actually neutralized the chemo
and
> > the alternatives were 100% responsible for tumor regression. Another
is
> > that something like the MSM potentiated the chemo. These are just
two of
> > many possibilities, and illustrate the need for good controlled
studies.

> I understand but I think my comments could also apply to commensurate
> treatment with conventional chemotherapy as well as doing the 'right'
> types of diet while on chemo.  There are actually some pretty good
> websites on dietetics during treatment for cancer.  I'll have to track
> some of them down.

>http://www.mediconsult.com/mc/mcsite.nsf/conditionnav/lung~supportgroup

> I'll look it up.  I, however, have been usually disappointed at the
> quality of the evidence with respect to the claims of the altmed

> > Also see John Primo's story at http://essiac-info.org/Bobstory2.html

> > > Regards and congratulations....

> > > MJK

> > Thanks for your support.

> We're all on the same waters....just sometimes in different types of
> boats.

> MJK

> > > > Bob Karjala  http://essiac-info.org/Bob.html

> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.

> are there any herbs that contain or promote the production of CoQ-10?
 I have
> read that organ meats and seafoods contain the largest amounts of
CoQ-10
> naturally.  How about vegetables/fruits?