Re: Methylglyoxal

[Guest guest]

,

I don't recommend methylglyoxal for general use. There is too much

of a risk of formaldehyde in the manufacturing process, it is easily

oxidized, and it can be toxic. It does have its uses and I

occasionally use it -- maybe 10% of the time. It is not curative, it

is expensive, and there are many instances in the animal model

research that show risk to the heart, retina, and pancreas -- all

high-value real estate. I occasionally use mitoguazone which is a

derivative of methylglyoxal. If used several days before IPT it

seems to kick up the therapy.

At 08:36 AM 3/17/2008, you wrote:

>Hi

>

>I was just going through old emails and came across this one. Are

>you in a position yet to recommend any publically available source

>for methylglyoxal? I'm not sure I understand what a 0.45M solution

>of methylglytoxal is.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

Your comments are very interesting. You say it isn't curative. What about Prof

Ray's first human trial which first reports said that 70% of the terminal

patients had recovered? Also she did not seem to have toxicity with it - or did

she?

VGammill <vgammill@...> wrote:

,

I don't recommend methylglyoxal for general use. There is too much

of a risk of formaldehyde in the manufacturing process, it is easily

oxidized, and it can be toxic. It does have its uses and I

occasionally use it -- maybe 10% of the time. It is not curative, it

is expensive, and there are many instances in the animal model

research that show risk to the heart, retina, and pancreas -- all

high-value real estate. I occasionally use mitoguazone which is a

derivative of methylglyoxal. If used several days before IPT it

seems to kick up the therapy.

[Guest guest]

,

Always keep in mind that there is a prescreening process going

on. You don't want to accept those patients for methylglyoxal who

don't seem to be good candidates, and that is most of them. There

are many reasons including: acute pathologies even if incipient

(e.g., DVT, pneumonia), volume of distribution issues in

decompensation of any essential organ system or with

ascites/effusion, chemical and strategic incompatibilities, cancers

in which it has been shown to ineffective or less effective (many

lymphomas, squamous, sarcomas, leukemias, etc.), use in patients

which with preexisting pathologies in organs that would be placed in

greater risk with methylglyoxal use (e.g., heart, kidneys, liver,

pancreas, eyesight).

Both Manju Ray and I have had success with patients who are good

candidates, but the patients must continue taking it. If

discontinued, the cancer can be expected to return as evidenced by

all tests with animal models and informal tests with humans. When

Manju last stayed out our retreat center in Del Mar, California she

said that she had one patient who stopped taking the methylglyoxal

for a year and it had not yet returned. I have used more

methylglyoxal than anyone in the western hemisphere and I have seen

stabilization of disease in many patients who are good candidates. I

have not seen any complete remissions in any patients who used it as

a standalone.

Methylglyoxal is less useful if there is drug resistance. It

can be quite useful post radiation if chemotherapy was not used. If

used wisely methylglyoxal can be quite helpful. I think knowledge of

its best use is still in its infancy. We will know much more in 5-10 years.

At 05:40 AM 3/19/2008, you wrote:

>Hi

>

>Your comments are very interesting. You say it isn't curative. What

>about Prof Ray's first human trial which first reports said that 70%

>of the terminal patients had recovered? Also she did not seem to

>have toxicity with it - or did she?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>VGammill <<mailto:vgammill%40adelphia.net>vgammill@...> wrote:

>,

>

>I don't recommend methylglyoxal for general use. There is too much

>of a risk of formaldehyde in the manufacturing process, it is easily

>oxidized, and it can be toxic. It does have its uses and I

>occasionally use it -- maybe 10% of the time. It is not curative, it

>is expensive, and there are many instances in the animal model

>research that show risk to the heart, retina, and pancreas -- all

>high-value real estate. I occasionally use mitoguazone which is a

>derivative of methylglyoxal. If used several days before IPT it

>seems to kick up the therapy.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

This is altogether less effusive than the first reports. Also I note that 2

methylglyoxal products are offered at www.gethealthyagain.com. Any comments on

these?

VGammill <vgammill@...> wrote:

,

Always keep in mind that there is a prescreening process going

on. You don't want to accept those patients for methylglyoxal who

don't seem to be good candidates, and that is most of them. There

are many reasons including: acute pathologies even if incipient

(e.g., DVT, pneumonia), volume of distribution issues in

decompensation of any essential organ system or with

ascites/effusion, chemical and strategic incompatibilities, cancers

in which it has been shown to ineffective or less effective (many

lymphomas, squamous, sarcomas, leukemias, etc.), use in patients

which with preexisting pathologies in organs that would be placed in

greater risk with methylglyoxal use (e.g., heart, kidneys, liver,

pancreas, eyesight).

Both Manju Ray and I have had success with patients who are good

candidates, but the patients must continue taking it. If

discontinued, the cancer can be expected to return as evidenced by

all tests with animal models and informal tests with humans. When

Manju last stayed out our retreat center in Del Mar, California she

said that she had one patient who stopped taking the methylglyoxal

for a year and it had not yet returned. I have used more

methylglyoxal than anyone in the western hemisphere and I have seen

stabilization of disease in many patients who are good candidates. I

have not seen any complete remissions in any patients who used it as

a standalone.

Methylglyoxal is less useful if there is drug resistance. It

can be quite useful post radiation if chemotherapy was not used. If

used wisely methylglyoxal can be quite helpful. I think knowledge of

its best use is still in its infancy. We will know much more in 5-10 years.

[Guest guest]

,

I discussed methylglyoxal with the owner of the company two years

ago. I tried to discourage him from selling this without thinking it

through. I have not seen homeopathic versions work and I thought

that the higher strength versions would present problems. The most

likely problem would be that someone's health would plummet (e.g.,

blindness), methylglyoxal would appear to the culprit, the FDA would

ban it, and all research would come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that methylglyoxal is a natural toxin produced by the

body. We have a whole system of glyoxalase enzymes that protects our

bodies from the advanced glycation end products associated with the

sugar metabolites such as methylglyoxal. The incautious use of

methylglyoxal would certainly increase the risk of rapid aging.

I would be very concerned about combinations with other

meds. Methlyglyoxal will undermine certain other strategies such

that neither would work (e.g. those that encourage cellular

respiration) and it will be additive with other strategies such that

its toxicity is greatly intensified (e.g., ATP decoupling agents).

Methylglyoxal is one of literally thousands of distortive

therapies. I have never seen benefit from the willy-nilly use of

such agents. They do occasionally have great value if carefully

selected from among these thousands of possibilities. Use the right

tool for the right job. You might call the internet company that

markets methylglyoxal and ask them how many of the customers who

bought it a year ago are still buying it or are even still alive. My

guess is that the company will tell you that all their customers are

alive, cured, and merrily dancing in the streets. I am very happy

for all of them.

At 12:08 PM 3/19/2008, you wrote:

>Hi

>

>This is altogether less effusive than the first reports. Also I note

>that 2 methylglyoxal products are offered at

>www.gethealthyagain.com. Any comments on these?

>

>

>

>

>VGammill <<mailto:vgammill%40adelphia.net>vgammill@...> wrote:

>,

>

>Always keep in mind that there is a prescreening process going

>on. You don't want to accept those patients for methylglyoxal who

>don't seem to be good candidates, and that is most of them. There

>are many reasons including: acute pathologies even if incipient

>(e.g., DVT, pneumonia), volume of distribution issues in

>decompensation of any essential organ system or with

>ascites/effusion, chemical and strategic incompatibilities, cancers

>in which it has been shown to ineffective or less effective (many

>lymphomas, squamous, sarcomas, leukemias, etc.), use in patients

>which with preexisting pathologies in organs that would be placed in

>greater risk with methylglyoxal use (e.g., heart, kidneys, liver,

>pancreas, eyesight).

>

>Both Manju Ray and I have had success with patients who are good

>candidates, but the patients must continue taking it. If

>discontinued, the cancer can be expected to return as evidenced by

>all tests with animal models and informal tests with humans. When

>Manju last stayed out our retreat center in Del Mar, California she

>said that she had one patient who stopped taking the methylglyoxal

>for a year and it had not yet returned. I have used more

>methylglyoxal than anyone in the western hemisphere and I have seen

>stabilization of disease in many patients who are good candidates. I

>have not seen any complete remissions in any patients who used it as

>a standalone.

>

>Methylglyoxal is less useful if there is drug resistance. It

>can be quite useful post radiation if chemotherapy was not used. If

>used wisely methylglyoxal can be quite helpful. I think knowledge of

>its best use is still in its infancy. We will know much more in 5-10 years.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this - I have been able to amend my otherwise favourable account

of methylglyoxal in the book I am just now preparing for press.

VGammill <vgammill@...> wrote:

,

I discussed methylglyoxal with the owner of the company two years

ago. I tried to discourage him from selling this without thinking it

through. I have not seen homeopathic versions work and I thought

that the higher strength versions would present problems. The most

likely problem would be that someone's health would plummet (e.g.,

blindness), methylglyoxal would appear to the culprit, the FDA would

ban it, and all research would come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that methylglyoxal is a natural toxin produced by the

body. We have a whole system of glyoxalase enzymes that protects our

bodies from the advanced glycation end products associated with the

sugar metabolites such as methylglyoxal. The incautious use of

methylglyoxal would certainly increase the risk of rapid aging.

I would be very concerned about combinations with other

meds. Methlyglyoxal will undermine certain other strategies such

that neither would work (e.g. those that encourage cellular

respiration) and it will be additive with other strategies such that

its toxicity is greatly intensified (e.g., ATP decoupling agents).

Methylglyoxal is one of literally thousands of distortive

therapies. I have never seen benefit from the willy-nilly use of

such agents. They do occasionally have great value if carefully

selected from among these thousands of possibilities. Use the right

tool for the right job. You might call the internet company that

markets methylglyoxal and ask them how many of the customers who

bought it a year ago are still buying it or are even still alive. My

guess is that the company will tell you that all their customers are

alive, cured, and merrily dancing in the streets. I am very happy

for all of them.