Revisiting the ALA/N protocol for people with pancreatic cancer

[Celebration]

Journal Abstract/Pubmed

The authors, in a previous article, described the long-term survival of a man with pancreatic cancer and metastases to the liver, treated with intravenous alpha-lipoic acid and oral low-dose naltrexone (ALA/N) without any adverse effects. He is alive and well 78 months after initial presentation. Three additional pancreatic cancer case studies are presented in this article. At the time of this writing, the first patient, GB, is alive and well 39 months after presenting with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with metastases to the liver. The second patient, JK, who presented to the clinic with the same diagnosis was treated with the ALA/N protocol and after 5 months of therapy, PET scan demonstrated no evidence of disease. The third patient, RC, in addition to his pancreatic cancer with liver and retroperitoneal metastases, has a history of B-cell lymphoma and prostate adenocarcinoma. After 4 months of the ALA/N protocol his PET scan demonstrated no signs of cancer. In this article, the authors discuss the poly activity of ALA: as an agent that reduces oxidative stress, its ability to stabilize NF(k)B, its ability to stimulate pro-oxidant apoptosic activity, and its discriminative ability to discourage the proliferation of malignant cells. In addition, the ability of lowdose naltrexone to modulate an endogenous immune response is discussed. This is the second article published on the ALA/N protocol and the authors believe the protocol warrants clinical trial.

[trotsky]

1. This paper is three years old. You've also posted it before.

Do you have a follow up, or a reason for repeating old and still unsupported information?

[Celebration]

2. Hopefully we will get updates soon on this

He speaks at the NCI early next year and is preparing papers for publication.

I don't recall posting anything on this subject for at least several months. There is quite a bit of turnover in people who read this group.

[trotsky]

4. Yeah, a thread was just locked on the same topic, as I'm pretty sure you are aware.

The paper was published in a fringe alt-med journal. There is little to no actual evidence backing up any of this, and posting/promoting it as if it were scientifically proven is irresponsible and against the rules of this group.

It's been 3 years. Yet still, nothing to back any of these claims up. It's following the pattern of every other alt-med miracle cure so far.

[Celebration]

8. Pardon me

I was certainly unaware that posts in the health group had to pass the standards of some fictional juried scintific publication.

[trotsky]

9. Yes, your history has demonstrated quite clearly you are unaware of the rules in this group.

That's a pity.

[Celebration]

11. My history?

You must be aware of hidden posts of mine that I have no knowledge of. Would you care to share?

[trotsky]

12. Nah, I'm not your errand boy.

And besides, not all rule-breaking posts are deleted. I prefer to counter bullshit with facts, for instance.

[Celebration]

15. no, you just like to make unfounded accusations

There is nothing in this group stating that posts must only contain information that is confirmed in blinded studies. That would make for a pretty boring group, anyway.

[trotsky]

19. Of course you would rather just attack me than defend what you've done

and are doing. It's not only about lacking "blinded studies," which I suspect you knew but said anyway for the snark effect.

I will counter your posts, and any alt-med posts in here, with facts and science, whether you like it or not. Sorry. You aren't going to silence me.

[Celebration]

22. Nobody is trying to silence you

You are being paranoid. Stop implying that I am somehow breaking rules when I am not.

[trotsky]

25. Your personal attacks are not appreciated,

but they are expected given your history. I always point out when you break the rules, and I counter your misinformation with facts, which is why you attack me.

[Celebration]

26. And yet

You can't even point to a single instance where I broke some rule, nor will you identify the so called rule that I broke. Here is your opportunity. You attack ME and I can't even defend myself, because you only attack without any specificity or merit to what you say. Meanwhile I have had no threads locked or posts removed. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Your attacks are completely illogical. When I defend myself you call that an attack on you. All I am trying to do is figure out exactly what you are talking about. You refuse to supply any evidence for my supposed rule breaking. It's just plain weird.

[trotsky]

28. It is not attacking to point out that you've broken the rules.

And you don't have to get a post hidden to have broken the rules. In this group, I prefer not to alert, but counter with actual information. What's weird is why you have to launch into me for simply pointing out facts. I can bear your attacks though, and you won't silence me.

[Celebration]

29. what? when?

WHAT RULE?

WHEN AND WHERE DID I BREAK IT?

If you fail to answer I will take that as an admission that your accusations are unfounded and false.

[trotsky]

30. If I fail to answer it's because I'm not going to be bullied by you.

Feel free to go back through this group's archives, both here and on DU2, to see where I've replied to you and corrected your facts and admonished you for breaking the rules. I'm not your errand boy, and I won't be silenced by you.

[Celebration]

31. Lol, thanks!

I thought so! Your non answer is very telling.

[trotsky]

32. I could point to the previous thread about chelation...

where you called me names, questioned my mental health, and accused me of being a liar. Those are all personal attacks.

I thought it was pretty obvious to you but whatever. You won't bully or silence me no matter how much you attack!

[Celebration]

33. oh yeah, the one where you said this

"Yeah, I'm challenging you to see if you will change your mind based on evidence presented. I don't think you will. Care to prove me wrong, or will you stand by this treatment you are promoting to heart patients?"

As in this case, you were making an unfounded statement about me. Nowhere in the thread did I "promote" the treatment. I simply gave the results of a study. I knew I hadn't promoted the treatment, and you would not and could not support that statement, and I wondered where in the heck THAT came from.

I think I gave a choice on that one--either you were a liar or in lala land. Again. You. Would. Not. Support. Your. Unfounded. Allegations. Against. Me.

Lala land was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because if you really thought I promoted that treatment, you MUST have been in an alternate universe.

So I naturally thought you had could have conjured that up in your mind. Or, just plain lying, one or the other. Nothing else could explain it, because my posts in that thread had zero to do with promoting a treatment, which you accused me of, and, yes WOULD have been against the rules, had it been the case.

At least you are now not trying to say that I promoted the chelation treatment. Obviously you read through that thread and realized you had no grounds for that unfounded accusation.

[trotsky]

34. Yeah, the one where you attacked me and my mental health.

Vicious, nasty, totally unwarranted. You posted about the chelation treatment, you stated false information, made false comparisons to existing treatments. You promoted it, and there's no way around that.

Your attacks will not deter me. You will not bully me. You will not silence me.

[Celebration]

35. "lala land" or lying

I gave you a choice!!

Never promoted it. That is against the rules, and like here, you falsely accused me of that. I DO NOT RECOMMEND MEDICAL TREATMENTS. PERIOD. You are inventing this out of your head, reading my so-called "promotion" into everything that I post. It does sound a little delusional, but, if not, then you are purposely lying.

I am the person wronged here, so you can stop the "bully" meme. Defending myself has nothing to do with bullying. You follow me around, talk about my so-called "history", and my history is the following: never a post removed.

[trotsky]

36. I wasn't lying, so you attacked my mental health.

Once again, I'm not going to be bullied. You will not silence me. I'll repeat it as much as needed. You are not a victim. You have been trying to bully me.

[Celebration]

37. absurd

I have ZERO posts removed. Anyone here could have reported me for breaking rules. You are the ONLY person here who interpreted my posting a study as being a promotion. The problem is with you, not with me. And by referring to my so-called (non) history in the group, YOU ARE THE BULLY. Jeez, stop lying.

[trotsky]

38. As I pointed out, it isn't about posts removed.

It's about rule breaking. If a post isn't alerted on, it won't get deleted. You have broken the rules. I prefer not to alert but confront with facts, as I have said. You respond by attacking me, and your attacks just keep continuing. I must be striking a chord. No wonder you feel the need to bully and silence me.

[Celebration]

39. you aren't the only person here!

You are being prosecutor, judge and jury, LOL. You can claim whatever you like because you choose not to turn me in. What power you have!! You don't report me because you know I am not breaking the rules! Nor did anyone else report me. You act like you are the only person in the group.

Lala land is *such* a bullying term, after lying about me.

Go on and get the last word. Done with this stupidity!!

[trotsky]

40. There's only one person on this thread, and previous threads, who has been all about attacks.

Questioning my mental health.

Calling me a liar.

Calling me stupid.

You are the one doing name-calling, the attacking, the bullying, no matter how much you try to turn this around and attack me.

I much prefer to leave all the evidence out in the open so that everyone can see who's breaking the rules, and who isn't.

You will never silence me, no matter how much vitriol and nastiness you throw my way.

[2on2u]

14. a whole three years old..... let's see if there is anything "new" out there on planet quackwatch.

Why yes, yes there is. I absolutely love this line, it speaks volumes.

These four compounds are all known to target the cellular metabolism not its DNA. The efficacy, the apparent lack of toxicity, the long clinical track records of these medications in human medicine, all points toward the need for a clinical trial. The dramatic efficacy of treatment suggests that cancer may simply be a disease of dysregulated cellular metabolism.

Tumor regression with a combination of drugs interfering with the tumor metabolism: efficacy of hydroxycitrate, lipoic acid and capsaicin. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22797854

Lipoic acid prevents liver metabolic changes induced by administration of a fructose-rich diet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085069

[trotsky]

20. Congrats on bringing up unrelated articles!

You need to support the claims made by the 3 year old article. Start a new thread about liver metabolic changes, because that isn't the same as cancer.

[2on2u]

23. A properly functioning body that isn't suffering from undue unrecognized, undiagnosed

subclinical inflammation, a body that isn't suffering from a oxidative stress and rampant ROS production, generally in my opinion isn't a garden that cancer will grow in.

[trotsky]

24. Perfectly healthy people can get cancer, too.

And they do.

To blame the victim here as you are doing, that somehow it's a sick person's own fault if they're sick, is putrid and disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Your opinion means jack shit to cancer.

[2on2u]

27. Yes yes you are absolutely correct. Read into what you will. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. ALA is great stuff

I believe it's the most powerful antioxidant available as a supplement. Did you know that in Germany, it's sold as a prescription drug (known as thioctic acid there, I believe)? It's over-the-counter here.

[BuddhaGirl]

6. very powerful indeed

my 80 year old father takes it for diabetic neuropathy, as recommended by his M.D.

[trotsky]

7. Neuropathy is actually one condition in which ALA has been studied and shown to work.

Ya know, SCIENCE. Not so for cancer treatment. That's the problem.

[BuddhaGirl]

13. in your opinion it's a problem

and you're certainly entitled to it

[trotsky]

21. I guess if you don't have a problem with whether a treatment is actually shown to work or not...

so be it!

[Celebration]

10. Wonder if it would work even better

If it was given IV for that purpose.

IV vitamin C Can get the blood levels higher than by mouth. I wonder if the same might be true with ALA?

[BuddhaGirl]

5. thank you for posting this, very interesting info!

Ridiculous that the other thread was locked

[2on2u]

16. Maybe, but I feel that I stepped over that invisible line in the drugstore. Mea culpa on that

one.

[Celebration]

17. Your locked post did remind me of this very important work!

I'm get pretty excited about case reports for diseases that are considered "incurable", particularly when there are multiple cases. That is a first step towards more research.

Of course, there isn't much money in the treatment, so people aren't jumping up and down trying to fund the research.

[2on2u]

18. Read the first link in my sig.... it is priceless. n/t