My choice in therapies

[Guest guest]

I did a combination of conventional and

unconventional treatments. After two months

(autumn of 2009) of researching everything I

could about my very aggressive and very advanced

cancer (research and clinical cancer journals,

international journals, state journals,

international patents and patent applications,

herbal strategies and systems throughout the

world), after consulting with many research

oncologist friends and friends in the arenas of

pharmaceutical and academic cancer research,

after surveying all meds (natural and artificial)

that I have on hand and all those that I can

extract or synthesize, and determined to avoid

chemo, radiation, and surgery if at all possible,

I went to China for almost six weeks. I had what

are among the top docs in China and the most innovative researchers.

I started on a course of photodynamic therapy

that is used in an effective innovative way that

is not available in the US. This was to be used

as part of a simple resection (an end-to-end

anastomosis of my rectum) that would avoid the

horrendous exenteration surgery that would have

me wearing bags for both urine and feces, and

extirpating any hope of normal sexual function --

I already was incontinent in bladder and colon

function. I was sexually impotent but that was

the farthest thing from my mind. I was

in extreme unremitting pain the likes of which I

have never experienced nor witnessed.

It was my intention to also do intra-arterial

infusions of hydroxyapatite and molecular

dispersions of select free fatty acids, but the

Chinese scientists who worked up the therapies

were not in China when I was, I did not have

access to my own lab, and the CT scan revealed

that the cancer had progressed too much to do the

intended protocol. I returned to the US.

I was far too sick to make the natural and

synthetic compounds that I had in mind. I could

use those that I had previously made for others

and had on hand. There were others that I wanted

to make but my energy level was zero. Chief

among the candidates was a med that was developed

and patented overseas. It was perfectly safe and

had no side effects, but it was unapproved by the

controlling government agencies. This did not

stop the scientists who invented it and they used

it on their own families' cancers with a

consistent curative effect. My lab was

well-equipped to make it, but again, I was far to sick.

Instead I reluctantly chose the chemo and

radiation route. This had the potential of being

curative of my kind of cancer -- metastatic

squamous cell carcinoma of the rectum. The mets

are to the bladder, the sphincter, the prostate,

both seminal vesicles, and apparently to the

lungs. It was expected that I would do the

pelvic exenteration after the chemo and

radiation. This I was not willing to do. I did

the chemo and, because I took various supplements

and self-made meds (CaPterin, dithiodinicotinic

acid) that I had on hand, I had no side

effects. I did the radiation, but I did not use

any of my own meds as I thought they would be too

powerful and cause an ulceration in my rectum: I

would then have no choice but the massive

surgery. The radiation was very painful as it

greatly inflamed the tissues inside and out.

I healed extremely fast and regained full pelvic

function -- no more Depends and no more

impotency. I am normal in every way except for a

bit of fibrosis in my rectum. The HMO still

wants to do the surgery, but I am holding off --

this is just not in my plan. I am currently

making the meds that I was too ill to make

earlier. I have retained the picc line in my arm for this purpose.

I also do hyperthermia saunas with

sensitizers. Many of these straddle the worlds

of the natural and the synthetic. For example, I

have pure " germanium sesquioxide " and I'm doing

an intense form of the Japanese-inspired

germanium bath and I'll probably hook up a

nebulizer for aerosolizing germanium along with

oxygen or carbogen in the sauna.

I do -- and I recommend -- those strategies that

mimic as closely as possible the way nature works

and this includes detoxification and diet. As to

the med that was curative on all types of cancer

that it was tried, I'll be doing an IV form

myself and a couple of people I'm worried about,

and then probably divide past program

participants into separate cohorts to try oral,

transmucosal, and transdermal forms. It is

natural enough to be lawful, but still I feel

very uncomfortable about violating any

patents. I'll probably just do it until I get a

cease and desist letter from an attorney.

Note to Sandy: Krishnamurti espoused a philosophy

that I very much like. It is called " creative

dissatisfaction. " For me it means that I see

little advantage to ever be pleased with any

therapy. I assume that there is always a way to

improve it. Sometimes these meds and strategies

are difficult for everyone to understand. I

don't recommend doing things that don't make

sense to you. This actually makes the selection

process much easier for you than for those who

have thousands of options. Perhaps you are to be envied.

I did not see my self as saying discouraging

things about the Budwig protocol. I agreed with

another list member ( Scheim) who is expert

in such oils and he commented that he saw

dramatic effects fewer than 10% of the time -- if

memory serves. This is about what I see. If

accurate this is far from discouraging

information. It immediately screams that one

should look for commonalities among those who did

get the dramatic effects. Is it dosage? cancer

type or grade? the remainder of the

diet? inclusion/exclusion of other

supplements? past use of chemo or

radiation? personality type? blood type?

age? gender? This can only be determined by

coding for all the pertinent variables and

perhaps doing a cluster or multiple regression analysis.

Unfortunately the Budwig protocol for some has

become almost a religion which ignores or feels

hostile toward those who don't succeed. It might

be a wonderful protocol, but as with everything

else, you want to pick the right tool for the right job.

Sincerely,

At 05:45 PM 6/4/2010, you wrote:

>

>Loretta, about ...all true but have you

>considered that others may be swayed because of

>V's experience or because he promotes it? I

>believe they will. My problem with is he

>speaks in a way the lay person may have a hard

>time understanding...no doubt you can but there

>is much he has said about certain tests and

>therapies I've never heard of before...maybe if

>he would dumb it down I would not have a

>problem. V has also said discouraging things

>about the Budwig protocol in which I totally

>disagree with. I hope others are not swayed away

>from using that very well proven alternative

>protocol. I realize most posters on this forum

>highly respect and that is their right

>just as it is mine to disagree with him...it does not mean I dislike him.

>

>As to conventional cancer therapies...you could

>not pay me to use them. I said what I did about

>them to be fair...sorry for any confusion on that part.

>

>Regards,

>Sandy

>

>

>

>From: Dr. Loretta Lanphier

><<mailto:drlanphier%40oasisadvancedwellness.com>drlanphier@oasisadvancedwellnes\

s.com>

>Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

><mailto: %40>

>Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 6:13 PM

>

>Â

>

>Just to be clear about . He is extremely

>knowledgeable and he is not using conventional

>treatment because of " someone's experience " or

>because someone promoted it. In fact, he has

>said that he is aware of some of the chances

>that are taken when using certain

>chemotherapies. 99% of people do not have the

>knowledge that he has and when doing

>conventional treatment rely on what the doctor says as gospel.

>

>Being a naturopath, I do not like most

>pharmaceutical, but that doesn't mean they

>should never be used. does promote a lot

>of effective alternatives and he does not like

>the antics of conventional cancer treatment any more than most on this list.

>

>It is *not* about poo-pooing all traditional

>cancer treatments, but about " warning " about

>what effects they can really have on the body.

>It is or should be about " promoting " natural and

>non-toxic ways to deal with cancer.

>

>Be Well

>

>Dr.L

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>Just to be clear, ar, there most certainly are

>posters on this forum who promote conventional

>cancer protocols/medicines. V. Gammill for one

>and used it for his own cancer which of course

>was his right but just as we should not poo poo

>all traditional cancer treatments we should also

>not discourage all alternatives either.

>

>JFYI

>

>Sandy