Re: Re: High-dose FSO strategy

May 19, 2010

,

Budwig's response to your question was consistent with reputation of

being quite snappish, but then it could also be definitional: if the

treatment didn't work then they weren't doing her protocol. Hulda

was also this way.

Many cancer patients doing alternative protocols have, with great

difficulty, weaned themselves from coffee. Now they are being told

that it is their new best friend. I can certainly understand if they

wince. Personally, I recommend CNS stimulants to help deal with the

ANS dysfunction commonly associated with cancer. A hundred years ago

strychnine was used for this purpose -- and quite successfully.

Most cancer patients don't have the stamina to do the recommended

exercises with this proposed protocol. I see too many people who are

wheezing as they totter along with a walker. I am not going to tell

them that they must do 90 minutes of power walking or 30 minutes of back flips.

Your estimation that fewer than 10% of FSO/CC users see dramatic

benefit is probably a fair guess. It is unfortunate that those who

have the money and power to do follow-up research to characterize the

winners are not interested in doing so. It is equally unfortunate

that the true believers so often discourage the use of other

therapies when the FSO/CC strategy appears to falter.

Like you, I do believe that the use of super-high doses of FSO would

work by a different mechanism than that of the Budwig strategy. I

think that the Budwig strategy corrects a cultural dietary distortion

that contributes to the dumbing down of our cellular immune function

by our overuse of omega-6 vegetable oils and trans fatty acids. I

think that the Budwig protocol is less effective in today's world

that in was several decades ago. This is because of loss of

integrity of the cell membrane from our overuse of artificial

surfactants, detergents, quaternary ammonium compounds, and sundry

plasticizers and other endocrine disruptors. Additionally, I think

that we see increased cell-mediated anergy from halides, ionizing

radiation and other sources of free radicals that create overwhelming

numbers of systemically delivered, durable antigenic targets. Much,

much more can be said, but this is not the right forum.

The proposed high-dose FSO strategy has one aspect I very much like

-- the use of fasting. This morning's local newspaper highlighted

the wonderful treats in store for attendees of the Del Mar Fair: the

four-lb. " Bellybuster Burger " with fried Pop Tarts.

At 08:07 AM 5/19/2010, you wrote:

>

>Hi - Just to be clear, this is not a diet, any more than a 3-day

>regimen of the high dose antibiotic Cipro is a " diet " . This is an

>investigational protocol based on new scientific findgs, e.g., see the

>Das, Leaver, , and other papers cited in the web site, and some of

>the other articles reviewed in the second and third cited papers.

>These findings indicate that very high doses of UFAs are needed to kill

>tumor cells, and when that concentration thresshold is reached, dramatic

>tumor kill occurs. The fasting, exercise and caffeine used constitute a

>biological trick to convert inert, albumin bound form of serum free

>fatty acids to unbound, active form (see the cited papers on up to

>8-fold boosts of unbound serum free fatty acids using this combination.)

>The postulated mechanism of action for tumor kill at these high doses

>appears to be very different than that considered in previous scientific

>studies for UFA effects at lower doses and different than the theories

>of Johanna Budwig. (By the way, I called her some 15 years ago and

>asked her what percentage of patients using her approach were cured.

>She told me " all of them, " which clearly is not true, from my experience

>tracking complementary cancer treatments over the years. Omega three

>fatty acids at lower doses have well established general anticancer

>effects, but the percentage of cancer patients who have gained dramatic

>benefits from lower dose ongoing ingestion seems more like 5-10%, from

>my experience.) In summary, this is a protocol based on emerging

>results in a niche field of science that, anomolously, can be carried

>out through available dietary agents. It is really important to read

>the underlying scientific results before assessing this. -

May 19, 2010

I'd be interested if you could share your backup material for stating that

'fewer than 10% of FSO/CC users see dramatic benefit is probably a fair

guess'.

I was under the impression that the 'cure' rate was over 90% when I chose

this alternative protocol. Now after reading your statement here I am a

little discouraged, to put it mildly. That is not too much higher than the

conventional methods.

I believe it's true that times and the environment including our food supply

has changed drastically since Dr. Budwig discovered her protocol; it was the

same with the Essiac formula. What worked back then may not be able to

handle all the changes we face today.

But it seems that if the theory is correct, getting oxygen into the cells to

kill the cancer cells, our bodies work the same as they did back then

physiologically, and so it should still hold true that this should work.

Maybe we need to just intensify it or be more committed.

But I hope it's right for the sake of so many that are suffering and placing

their hopes on it.

Sanr