On these 'repurposed' drugs used for cancer...

[AJMD429]

.
Gotta admit, I'm impressed...

Information on the new use of old drugs, added to enhance cancer treatment.

This is information I think should be shared with patients who either have cancer, have had cancer, or are at high enough risk for a particular cancer to consider a prophylactic regimen.

One of my favorite classes in Pharmacy School was Pharmacognosy – the study of the medicinal uses of plants or plant extracts. In today’s environment, this sounds antiquated, however most people are unaware that the majority of MODERN pharmaceuticals are still derived from plants. The only difference is that once the beneficial molecule is identified, it is usually easier to synthesize it (less impurities, more control over the strength), and if some changes to the molecule can be made to enhance the benefits or reduce the side effects, that is even better – and patentable.

Unfortunately the cost of engaging the regulatory system are great enough that once a drug is patented, the price skyrockets, then of course any competing product, including other drugs with expired patents, has to be stifled.

Keep in mind that molecules are like tools – they may be first discovered to have one use, but then later a completely different use may be discovered. A screwdriver can also pry off a lid, or be sharpened into a chisel, and the more complex the tool (or molecule) is, the more likely additional uses will be discovered. I bought my Leatherman Wave mostly for the plain knife and pliers, but soon realized I used the phillips screwdriver and fine file more often than the knife part. I hardly ever use my 3/4" 'breaker bar' for a socket, but I use it all the time (because the hole in the non-wrench end of the handle is the perfect size) to bend the wire of steer panels to make things.

In the past few years, several old drugs have been found to have potential benefit in slowing or stopping cancers of various types, even in cases where the cancer is advanced and/or metastatic.

When such a claim is made, of course you first have to look at whether the source has reason to mislead (profits, headline-seeking, malice), and then if there is some correlation, you have to determine if there is possible causation, versus coincidence. It helps if there is a plausible mechanism of action consistent with pharmacology and physiology. Even then, you have to look at whether or not the medication in question has proof of safety, and whether it shows any interactions with other medications the patient may be on.

Of course our ‘baseline’ with cancer treatment is the modern chemotherapy drugs, and they are indeed promoted by those with high profits as a motivator, and often even studies they fund show causation versus coincidence when it comes to benefits, but when it comes to advanced cancers, their benefits are expressed in ‘additional months of life expectancy’ versus ‘cure’, and as with most potent cancer medications, the side effect profiles include potential for severe and serious organ damage, as well as further immune suppression, plus all the unknowns associated with drugs we’ve only created within the past few years.

To be intellectually honest, we must compare this with the ‘repurposed’ older drugs, where virtually nobody is going to make big bucks selling them, as they are off-patent, and typically the people promoting their use are not even involved in the pharmaceutical industry. Older drugs tend to have far better established side-effect profiles, and in the case of the ones currently being examined for cancer, have less side-effects than the average course of antibiotics. Finally, in terms of their drug interactions, their metabolic pathways don’t appear to include major changes in the enzymes causing drug interactions, nor do their suspected mechanisms of action pose any interference with the standard-of-care chemotherapy or radiation or surgery regimens.

It would be one thing if the proponents of these repurposed drugs were saying “don’t do the standard-of-care – our treatment is better; just do it”, but nearly all the medical and pharmacologic literature supporting this recent crop of repurposed drugs is advocating ADDING them to existing regimens, NOT substituting them instead.

Now if a cancer is early and not aggressive, and the current standard-of-care has a 95% long-term cure rate, that ‘only’ means you have a 5% chance it will kill you, and that may not even happen for several years. In that case, deciding to add ‘something else’ to the regimen might be frightening, because you’d not want to have MORE side effects, or risk the added medication interfering with your standard-of-care regimen. But on the other hand, if you’re facing a metastatic or aggressive cancer, mostly hoping to delay the inevitable, the addition of an adjunctive medication to the regimen might be more appealing, especially if we’re dealing with low-side-effect medications that have been used for other conditions in many people for many years, without issues. If there is even a slight chance of dramatic success, it would certainly be worth considering.

Anyway, since most doctors probably don’t read much outside the medical journals (which are almost all sponsored by Big Pharma), and the conferences, and even specialty societies themselves, are often heavily influenced by Big Pharma, there is little reason to expect them to take the time out of an already-too-short visit to discuss something as unknown and theoretical as adjunct medications. As long as they follow the approved institutional protocol, the insurance companies will be kind to them, and their reputation will be fine.

The sources of this information vary – from obscure pharmacologic journals speculating on and identifying possible mechanisms-of-action (they are already past the point of ‘does it work’ but are at the point of ‘how does it work’), to secondary journal literature summarizing the primary journal literature findings, and podcasts by both physicians and laypersons who are trying to open up discussion of taboo topics (off-patent, and thus low-profit, drugs).

It doesn’t help matters any that one of the medications happens to be ivermectin, which the ‘news’ media thoroughly demonized during covid. Suffice to say that as a physician and pharmacist I found that ivermectin was indeed lifesaving during covid, and the pharmacologic mechanisms of action were consistent with the often rapid and impressive responses seen. The fact that the medical community at large mostly allowed politicians and bureaucrats and hospital administrators to dismiss and even prohibit its use, in order to blatantly seek profits and outright bonuses for using unknown, (and later determined to be ineffective, and unsafe) alternatives, AND kept doing so even after the evidence was clear they were harming and killing patients, is a stain on the integrity of physicians that should not be forgotten.

At this point, instead of considering any new or old drug from a rational, scientific, and pharmacologic viewpoint, most people just ‘pick a side’ – and if they are on the proper politically-correct side, they will follow every recommendation of the bureaucracy without question, so no point in sending them out this kind of information – but some do dare to think ‘outside the box’, and it is not right to deny them the information just because the rest might find it upsetting. I watched too many people die during covid because of things like pharmacists claiming that ivermectin wasn’t FDA-approved (a lie) or wasn’t for humans (a lie) or they didn’t feel it was appropriate for covid (that determination is the job of the physician).

Anyway, here are some things to read/listen to if you are facing cancer, and even if you decide not to try anything other than the standard regimen, at least you got the opportunity to decide. Those who would deny you that by censoring discussion, especially medical information, are far more dangerous to society than any ‘danger’ they allege medications like ivermectin (on the world’s top twenty medications used in humans list for many years) pose.

1. Fenben for cancer? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q5QjEPGNNg
(podcast by John Campbell – he has never been ‘fringe’ but started realizing that ‘mainstream’ medicine was ignoring clearly safe, sensible, and effective treatments for covid, and since then has been more apt to challenge others to read and think instead of just following institutional/insurance protocols)

2. Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug - PMC - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7505114/
(pharmacology journal article exploring the mechanisms of action of ivermectin)

3. Case Report: Metastatic Breast Cancer, 83 female - Fenbendazole resource - https://www.fenbendazole.org/case-repor ... -female-2/
(case report from a fenbendazole-advocacy group – some would say it is an ‘isolated instance’, but there seem to be quite a few ‘isolated instances’ cropping up like this, a plausible mechanism of action, and no real profit motive - unlike Big Pharma with their ‘alternatives’ to distort things)

4. Cancer, ivermectin thalidomide and vit D - YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9405FgR2Kik
(more discussion on several adjunctive medications that can impact cancer treatment – as Dr Dalgleish notes – they have already become ‘recognized’ by several other nations and added to treatment protocols)

5. Case Report: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Stage III - https://www.fenbendazole.org/triple-neg ... st-cancer/
(another very encouraging case-report, along with subsequent analysis that indicates the effect might be mediated by suppression of ITGβ4 – here’s the journal article supporting that conclusion - https://breast-cancer-research.biomedce ... 22-01591-3)

6. Cancer care in jeopardy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItJKbrbzGD8
(interesting on several topics, but one is a derivative of an old tuberculosis treatment, which years ago was noted to stimulate the immune system in positive ways – potentially against cancers)

7. Fenbendazole Enhancing Anti-Tumor Effect: A Case Series - https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/ ... s-P3SV.pdf
(even three years ago case reports turning up provoking interest in fenbendazole)

8. Fenbendazole and Cancer - 12 Anti-Cancer Mechanisms of Action - Dr William Makis (2024) - https://www.onedaymd.com/2023/10/fenben ... st-12.html
(a list of a dozen articles on the topic of adjunctive medications that have evidence of boosting response to cancer treatment)

Personally, I think if I had any type of cancer, I’d ask the oncologist what they knew about such adjunctive treatments, and unless they assured me they were familiar with them, AND that they had clear reason to think the risk outweighed any potential benefit, I’d insist on adding whichever appeared to be the best supported, and most available/affordable.

Here are some other articles on various anti-cancer supplements which seem to show potential.

Iodine shows some potential to reduce risk for, or even treat, breast cancer - https://jeffreydachmd.com/iodine-treats-breast-cancer/
Magnesium shows potential reduction in cancer risk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FhKbsGhWU
Turkeytail mushroom shows potential benefit for cancer treatment -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890100/
Another Turkeytail article - https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/c ... 60056.html
Intermittent Fasting helps the body use apoptosis to kill cancer cells - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQjlsemLlxE&t=2340s
Intermittent Fasting may have specific benefits for Women - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqMO1zeGltY

I hope this information is helpful.

AS ALWAYS - since I don't know your past deeds and consequences (health history), haven't seen you naked (examined you), and am not your physician - you should NOT act on these bits of information alone - consult YOUR physician (and if yours isn't open to such things, consider finding another)...

[Grizz]

It's a good article Doc, thanks for posting it.

[Paladin]

Thanks for the additional info. I have two of the studies and I am being treated for one of the cancers now. I am lucky enough to have a Naval Flight Surgeon (who used to be my SF Medic) who writes my subscriptions for the Ivermectin. He gave me a script for Ivermectin during COVID-19 which made me recover in two days. In the 90 days of my use of the cancer dosage, it has lowered my PSA count by 1/3.

[gcs]

The docs with the FLCCC alliance have been adamant about the efficacy of Ivermectin and vit D among other add ons, to the point they've been threatened with loss of license.
I read about fenbendazole several years ago and the good results using it against cancer, I'm sure there are older protocols that work, or assist treatments but there's no money in it.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I don't think the big medical industry is that interested in curing cancer because of the massive profits from current treatments... they claim to, so why attack other doctors who are thinking out of the box...???

[earlmck]

Whoo boy, thanks for all those links Doc. A good friend of mine is just starting chemo for a sudden-onset turbo lymphoma (fully vaxed and boosted wouldn't you know). I had given him the John Campbell FenBen link but he (or more likely the retired-RN wife) was not impressed. Maybe all this additional material will persuade him to add in a little extra to the chemo.

If there are any MD's in this area who would prescribe anything not blessed and approved by the hospital administrators they are keeping a low profile. In the case of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole they are available at the local feed store in handy syringe-looking dispensers for horse de-worming that are easy to adjust to squeeze out a people-sized dose from. That's how I did my Ivermectin for the Covid and also laid in some FenBen in case I get the "Big C" diagnosis sometime. The things we gotta' do when the family doc isn't copacetic.

[ollogger]

Thank you Doc,!! Been taking 9mg, of iver, 2 X a day for a month, yep colin cancer found out 3 weeks ago, surgery in 2 weeks, they are sure they can get it with 5 in. removed, ive noticed
the stool looks alot better with the iver. its a head banger trying to figure this out
BrightWork has some good reading also,

[1972RedNeck]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

[COSteve]

Thanks doc. I forwarded your article to a friend who's mother has lung cancer.

[AJMD429]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

Yep. I'm reading Thomas Seyfried's book now ("Cancer as a Metabolic Disease - on the Origin, Menagement, and PRevention of Cancer"0, and so far not finding any credibility issues at all. Wish I'd read it when first published...!

As an example of the BS that we see in the 'mainstream' medical journals, it will be reported that "Vitamin D fails to show a benefit in reducing cancer" - yet the so-called 'studies' should not have even made it past the editorial board...! The 'control' group will be given either nothing, or placebo, and the 'treatment' group will be given somewhere between 400 units and 2,000 units of D3 daily. Most of the time there is NO MENTION of the attained blood levels, or they are mentioned, but results not stratified by level - just by dose.

That would be the equivalent of doing a 'study' to see if home-delivered CPR improved myocardial infarct survival, and the 'treatment' group was simply mailed out a pamphlet on CPR, with no verification that they even read it, or understood it. ONLY the latter would be able to validate (or refute) the notion that home-delivered CPR had a potential to affect MI survival.

That, plus the fact that vitamin D exists in at least half a dozen forms, each with a different spectrum of effects, and all of them in the 'sterol' chemical family (choleSTEROL derivatives used as hormones - aldosterone, estradiol, estriol, estrone, progesterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, and many others), so they have the typical 'steroid' spectrum of overlapping effects at a multiplicity of sites in a multiplicity of tissues, means that even if we measure levels, it is difficult to compare patients physiologically even if their 25-OH-Vit D levels are identical. But at least that is a start. Then the cascade of forms that the Vitamin D moves through involves CYP2R1, CYP27A1, CYP27B1, and CYP24A1 enzymes which all are vulnerable to single nucleotide polymorphisms ('SNPs' are genetic variations that alter the function of enzymes or receptors slightly, or even majorly), so it is an area requiring much more than just passing out a subtherapeutic dose of 2,000 units to everyone and assuming that they are all now "ok".

I have patients who require 'horrific' doses of Vitamin D to get a level even remotely adequate, so of course none of them would 'benefit' from some arbitrary and too-low-for-them dosage.

I know the topic was repurposed microtubule-inhibitors ('horse paste') drugs, but I use the Vitamin D topic to illustrate just how lousy our medical journals are at 'investigating' anything.

[1972RedNeck]

A little research into the "Warburg Effect" and ketosis may be worthwhile for anyone concerned about cancer.

Yep. I'm reading Thomas Seyfried's book now ("Cancer as a Metabolic Disease - on the Origin, Menagement, and PRevention of Cancer"0, and so far not finding any credibility issues at all. Wish I'd read it when first published...!

As an example of the BS that we see in the 'mainstream' medical journals, it will be reported that "Vitamin D fails to show a benefit in reducing cancer" - yet the so-called 'studies' should not have even made it past the editorial board...! The 'control' group will be given either nothing, or placebo, and the 'treatment' group will be given somewhere between 400 units and 2,000 units of D3 daily. Most of the time there is NO MENTION of the attained blood levels, or they are mentioned, but results not stratified by level - just by dose.

That would be the equivalent of doing a 'study' to see if home-delivered CPR improved myocardial infarct survival, and the 'treatment' group was simply mailed out a pamphlet on CPR, with no verification that they even read it, or understood it. ONLY the latter would be able to validate (or refute) the notion that home-delivered CPR had a potential to affect MI survival.

That, plus the fact that vitamin D exists in at least half a dozen forms, each with a different spectrum of effects, and all of them in the 'sterol' chemical family (choleSTEROL derivatives used as hormones - aldosterone, estradiol, estriol, estrone, progesterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, and many others), so they have the typical 'steroid' spectrum of overlapping effects at a multiplicity of sites in a multiplicity of tissues, means that even if we measure levels, it is difficult to compare patients physiologically even if their 25-OH-Vit D levels are identical. But at least that is a start. Then the cascade of forms that the Vitamin D moves through involves CYP2R1, CYP27A1, CYP27B1, and CYP24A1 enzymes which all are vulnerable to single nucleotide polymorphisms ('SNPs' are genetic variations that alter the function of enzymes or receptors slightly, or even majorly), so it is an area requiring much more than just passing out a subtherapeutic dose of 2,000 units to everyone and assuming that they are all now "ok".

I have patients who require 'horrific' doses of Vitamin D to get a level even remotely adequate, so of course none of them would 'benefit' from some arbitrary and too-low-for-them dosage.

I know the topic was repurposed microtubule-inhibitors ('horse paste') drugs, but I use the Vitamin D topic to illustrate just how lousy our medical journals are at 'investigating' anything.

What are your thoughts about low density lipoprotein levels and heart disease? Or levels of all lipoproteins for that matter?

[AJMD429]

.
This on DMSO is interesting. I'll have to read more on the topic.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/hund ... transforms

[AJMD429]

.
There are several ways to assess risk of atherosclerosis, or whether it is actually present in a patient (two different things).

Look at the blood:
- markers of risk of having plaque
- - fat metabolism
- - - cholesterol total (mostly worthless)
- - - lipid panel (LDL, HDL, Trigs) - mostly worthless, although the Trig/HDL ratio is useful (should be <2 really bad if >4)
- - - LDL PARTICLE count - a surrogate for oxidized LDL based on the shrinkage as the particle circulates longer, losing content, and oxidizing
- - - ApoB - this is a more direct assessment than the LDL-P, althougn either seems adequate
- - - LDL-Ox - if you can get a lab that runs them and get the specimen to them properly - the concern is that transport/collection may render inaccurate
- - - Lp(a) - no drugs or supplements or diets that fix it, but it helps assess risk, and thus how hard to push the controllable risk factors
- - - Omega-3 Index (Boston Heart Labs) - this is a great test and I think Omega-3 issues are under-recognized because no 'pharmaceuticals' address it well
- - carb metabolism
- - - fasting sugar - not all that helpful but should be normal. if high yet other carb numbers ok, may indicate sleep apnea or other disturbance
- - - A1C - should be normal of course - averages your last three months of sugars, basically
- - - fasting INSULIN - the most important of the 'carb' measures practically available - should be <8 (in my opinion)
- - endocrine markers
- - - free/bioavailable testosterone - failure to keep levels at the 'normal' (for a 35 year old) level lead to the elevated insulin and lipid issues
- - - free/bioavailable estrogen(s) (estrone and estradiol) - need to keep UP in females and DOWN in males to avoid multiple metabolic and cancer risks
- - - progesterone - we know maintaining adequate progesterone in women nearly eliminates uterine cancer and likely reduces breast cancer - speculation in males it might affect/reduce prostate cancer, but nobody knows yet.
- - - caveats - ONLY bioidentical hormones should be used, never use oral estrogens or testosterone, estriol seems important to include for females, DHT in males is of uncertain benefit/risk, and omitting testosterone in females is a terrible thing - condemns many of them to frailty, increased cardiac risk, and increased risk of dementia
- - - thyroid - just checking a TSH is seriously useless; check free T3, free T4, and reverse T3 also - AND correlate with thorough physical examination
- - - caveat - some 'by the book' doctors will see a patient with low TSH and say they are 'over-medicated', yet their resting heart rate will be 58, they have zero ankle or knee reflexes, sparse lateral eyebrows, pretibial edema, and despite good diet are gaining weight. You check and the free T3 is low, or the reverse T3/free T3 ratio is way over 5 - such a patient may have a low TSH, but they are STILL under-medicated, not over-medicated.

- markers of actual plaque existing
- - homocysteine - should also bd <8 - most elevations due to poor methylations or MTHFR enzyme issues - fix is MethylGuard Plus or similar Rx (homocysteine elevation if unaddressed will increase risk of cardiac events, stroke, many cancers, and dementia).
- - other inflammatory markers (HS-CRP, LpPLAC, etc) - not really sure how often they are useful but they can assess progress of treatment

Look at the Vessels:
- carotid intimal thickness (fancy ultrasound protocol) - some don't think it is helpful but it DOES detect earlier disease than regular carotid ultrasounds
- coronary calcium scoring (CT of heart) - false positives and negatives need considered, but can verify if actual plaque is forming or not
- heart cath - too invasive and risky to use as screen, but helps locate potential stent or bypass sites if patient has clear obstrucions to deal with

Look at the Oxygen Delivery
- CPET (medical version of Met-Test) - the BEST at detecting early disease (even before any visible plaque - just endothelial dysfunction)
- Nuclear Treadmill - good for patients with symptomatic disease but not sensitive enough to pick up early disease - female breasts complicate imaging
- Stress Echo - similar to nuclear treadmill but no radiation, and better at detecting pump failure or valvular issues

Overall, I think the Boston Heart Fatty Acid Balance test is a HUGE step in assessing risk, along with using the LDL-P, the Trig/HDL ratio, the Lp(a), and fasting insulin. In both sexes keeping the sex hormones maintained seems vital. (I shudder to think of how many women died of ASHD, complications of hip fracture, had premature Alzheimer's, or died of breast cancer, because everyone got 'estrogen-derangement-syndrome' a couple decades ago, and we have perhaps lost a bunch due to 'statin-derangement-syndrome' as well - the evil statins are neither great nor awful - some lives are saved and some people suffer side effects, but there is no one-size-fits-all approach).

Sadly, without large-breasted drug reps bringing us pizza, most physicians consider everything else 'witchcraft', and then there is the other side - patients and physicians who assume anything 'natural' is ok and desireable, and if it is 'pharmaceutical' that is by definition poison.
I should post my 'dissertation' on the topic of 'natural' versus 'pharmaceutica' drugs - the insight gained from pharmacy school definitely gives me a viewpoint I realize most patients and physicians haven't been exposed to, but is chemically sensible.

[1972RedNeck]

.
There are several ways to assess risk of atherosclerosis, or whether it is actually present in a patient (two different things).

Look at the blood:
- markers of risk of having plaque
- - fat metabolism
- - - cholesterol total (mostly worthless)
- - - lipid panel (LDL, HDL, Trigs) - mostly worthless, although the Trig/HDL ratio is useful (should be <2 really bad if >4)
- - - LDL PARTICLE count - a surrogate for oxidized LDL based on the shrinkage as the particle circulates longer, losing content, and oxidizing
- - - ApoB - this is a more direct assessment than the LDL-P, althougn either seems adequate
- - - LDL-Ox - if you can get a lab that runs them and get the specimen to them properly - the concern is that transport/collection may render inaccurate
- - - Lp(a) - no drugs or supplements or diets that fix it, but it helps assess risk, and thus how hard to push the controllable risk factors
- - - Omega-3 Index (Boston Heart Labs) - this is a great test and I think Omega-3 issues are under-recognized because no 'pharmaceuticals' address it well
- - carb metabolism
- - - fasting sugar - not all that helpful but should be normal. if high yet other carb numbers ok, may indicate sleep apnea or other disturbance
- - - A1C - should be normal of course - averages your last three months of sugars, basically
- - - fasting INSULIN - the most important of the 'carb' measures practically available - should be <8 (in my opinion)
- - endocrine markers
- - - free/bioavailable testosterone - failure to keep levels at the 'normal' (for a 35 year old) level lead to the elevated insulin and lipid issues
- - - free/bioavailable estrogen(s) (estrone and estradiol) - need to keep UP in females and DOWN in males to avoid multiple metabolic and cancer risks
- - - progesterone - we know maintaining adequate progesterone in women nearly eliminates uterine cancer and likely reduces breast cancer - speculation in males it might affect/reduce prostate cancer, but nobody knows yet.
- - - caveats - ONLY bioidentical hormones should be used, never use oral estrogens or testosterone, estriol seems important to include for females, DHT in males is of uncertain benefit/risk, and omitting testosterone in females is a terrible thing - condemns many of them to frailty, increased cardiac risk, and increased risk of dementia
- - - thyroid - just checking a TSH is seriously useless; check free T3, free T4, and reverse T3 also - AND correlate with thorough physical examination
- - - caveat - some 'by the book' doctors will see a patient with low TSH and say they are 'over-medicated', yet their resting heart rate will be 58, they have zero ankle or knee reflexes, sparse lateral eyebrows, pretibial edema, and despite good diet are gaining weight. You check and the free T3 is low, or the reverse T3/free T3 ratio is way over 5 - such a patient may have a low TSH, but they are STILL under-medicated, not over-medicated.

- markers of actual plaque existing
- - homocysteine - should also bd <8 - most elevations due to poor methylations or MTHFR enzyme issues - fix is MethylGuard Plus or similar Rx (homocysteine elevation if unaddressed will increase risk of cardiac events, stroke, many cancers, and dementia).
- - other inflammatory markers (HS-CRP, LpPLAC, etc) - not really sure how often they are useful but they can assess progress of treatment

Look at the Vessels:
- carotid intimal thickness (fancy ultrasound protocol) - some don't think it is helpful but it DOES detect earlier disease than regular carotid ultrasounds
- coronary calcium scoring (CT of heart) - false positives and negatives need considered, but can verify if actual plaque is forming or not
- heart cath - too invasive and risky to use as screen, but helps locate potential stent or bypass sites if patient has clear obstrucions to deal with

Look at the Oxygen Delivery
- CPET (medical version of Met-Test) - the BEST at detecting early disease (even before any visible plaque - just endothelial dysfunction)
- Nuclear Treadmill - good for patients with symptomatic disease but not sensitive enough to pick up early disease - female breasts complicate imaging
- Stress Echo - similar to nuclear treadmill but no radiation, and better at detecting pump failure or valvular issues

Overall, I think the Boston Heart Fatty Acid Balance test is a HUGE step in assessing risk, along with using the LDL-P, the Trig/HDL ratio, the Lp(a), and fasting insulin. In both sexes keeping the sex hormones maintained seems vital. (I shudder to think of how many women died of ASHD, complications of hip fracture, had premature Alzheimer's, or died of breast cancer, because everyone got 'estrogen-derangement-syndrome' a couple decades ago, and we have perhaps lost a bunch due to 'statin-derangement-syndrome' as well - the evil statins are neither great nor awful - some lives are saved and some people suffer side effects, but there is no one-size-fits-all approach).

Sadly, without large-breasted drug reps bringing us pizza, most physicians consider everything else 'witchcraft', and then there is the other side - patients and physicians who assume anything 'natural' is ok and desireable, and if it is 'pharmaceutical' that is by definition poison.
I should post my 'dissertation' on the topic of 'natural' versus 'pharmaceutica' drugs - the insight gained from pharmacy school definitely gives me a viewpoint I realize most patients and physicians haven't been exposed to, but is chemically sensible.

Dang, I wish you were a couple states closer. You sound like a doctor I would actually go to.

Sadly, I have found YouTube to be more help than my local doctors.

[gcs]

x2

[AJMD429]

.
This shows that even the 'medical' media is slowly accepting the reality that 'large double-blind, placebo-controlled, studies' are NOT any more predictive of safety or efficacy than 'observational studies'.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24782322/

I remember when as a medical resident, the term "evidence based medicine" came out - I pretty much immediately wrote it off as a corporate catch-phrase, and yet the masses gullably started using it as the litmus test for 'real' data.

[slimster]

Doc, thank you so much for this timely thread! Something told me I needed to spend less time on the new fangled soc media and get back to the real friends on the best all around forum ever. I recently retired and now have more time so I'll try to hang around more again. Anyway, after 60+ years of general health I suddenly started peeing "tomato juice" three years ago. after an initial diagnosis of "a vicious UTI and a course of antibiotics all was well for about a month. Then wham, hello tomato again. no infection found this time. took several months to get to see a Urologist, and a cystoscopy revealed a tumor in my bladder. after surgical removal of tumor diagnosis was non invasive, and all was well for a year. then a routine cyto showed a recurrence and repeated surgery was called for followed by a year of bladder chemo. still no issues so far, but dont want to go through that again. will definitely look into preventative measures to avoid further surgeries and that dreadful chemo. Once again, THANK YOU!!!

[stretch]

Thanks for the post, Doc!

My PCP doesn't even know about most of this stuff.

In the reading I'm doing, Omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin D are apparently super-important for general health.
Never been tested for either, but I'm thinking I oughta be. Omeage3/6 ratio is quite important, as are Vitamin D levels.

I've been diagnosed as a type-2 diabetic, and I've never been tested for most of the blood test components
listed in your post. That's because the average doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is not well-schooled
in nutrition or pharmacology, among other things

Their solution for EVERYTHING is to reach for the prescription pad.

This kinda stuff is very helpful.

-Stretch

[AJMD429]

.
This is one of the little blurbs I give patience to try to explain why repurpose drugs can be so useful, and maybe why those without a background in pharmacology (or more specifically, pharmacognosy) seem to think that claims of efficacy for repurpose drugs amount to some kind of snake oil salesmanship.

- - -

One way to think about called ‘natural’ drugs versus ‘pharmaceutical’ ones is that the natural ones basically represent chemicals or mixes of chemicals found (usually in plants) in the natural world. The pharmaceutical ones are what happens once we figure out what chemical seems to produce the benefit, and we produce that chemical synthetically.

There are many legitimate reasons to do that, sometimes simply because the plant is scarce, or growing conditions may affect the ingredient we seek. Growing conditions may also introduce undesirable toxins. That could be addressed by growing the plant commercially in many cases, and sometimes that is done. Still, you have the problem of having to extract the chemical you need, while avoiding others that may be undesirable in the same plant. Also, that process has many steps where contaminants can be introduced, from herbicides and pesticides, even fertilizers, and certainly the processing has a lot of steps to isolate what you want from the plant. Then you still have to do assays to see if the concentration per capsule or tablet is proper, and adjust it if needed.

Part of the motivation to do all of the synthetically instead is that it may be less expensive to produce, and you MAY wind up with a product that is less likely to contain contaminants and more predictable and performance.

Appropriately enough, the additional motivation to do that work is because if you can patent a process, you can mark a product exclusively for a while, and in many cases, you may be able to find a similar chemical that is more potent, better absorbed, stays in the body longer, or has less side effects.

So ‘natural’ products are NOT always better than ‘synthetic’ products.

However, synthetic products often result from figuring out which part of a large natural molecule is providing the benefit, and synthesizing that part alone, stripping off parts of the molecule, which may cause undesired effects. That MAY reduce the number of other things that molecule could have done if left in the original form.

Think of it like this. If human beings were some kind of machine, to grow and repair and reproduce ourselves, we would need lots of parts. Where would we get those parts? We could go to the mountains and dig for mineral ore, refine the ore, and make our own engines or chassis or wrenches, or whatever. However, it might be better to go to a hardware store or auto parts store and get some things that have already been made for us that we can use as is, or modify. Maybe scavenge old cars or factories for complex parts we can’t easily build ourselves.

Think of plants as that kind of store, where they have already done the work of making a whole bunch of things that may or may not be useful to us. Just like we might find out that the hardware store down the road has really nice drills, we might find out that a certain plant has something in it that helps us keep up our vigilance against infection or cancer.

To put the science of pharmacognosy, which is part of the field of pharmacology, in more visible terms versus molecular ones, imagine that you need a knife, so you go out into the woods to find a plant that has a knife dangling from one of its branches. It’s a big fat handle with a folding out knife. You notice it has red scales and a little white shield and cross on it. You take it home and find it’s just the thing for opening letters or cutting the ends off of your cigars or whatever.

Meanwhile, your neighbor is looking for a file because he has some rough edges he needs to file down on one of his kids toys. It turns out he found the same plant, with the same thing hanging from the branch, and figured out it has another use. In fact, over the years, the more people that use what you thought was just a knife, the more other uses they find for it. They can open bottles and cans and poke holes and things so they can stitch them up, they can insert and remove various types of screws, remove splitters, and even pick their teeth…!

Now in the real world, somebody would say “...Oh that makes sense because that’s a Swiss Army knife…!”

But in the third-party-funded, government-industry-complex controlled world of healthcare, with patents and profits at state, the company that made that knife, even if it has all those other features, doesn’t want you to know about them once the patent is off. Because they also now make a different tool that has a file on it that they want you to buy.

I’m not sure why physicians I have a hard time understanding the concept that molecules, especially large ones like are often found in nature, typically have a lot of different portions with varying shapes and charges, just like that Swiss Army knife has a bunch of different blades that are quite different. I’m not even sure if most pharmacists get trained in pharmacognosy these days, or if they’re just true preoccupied playing cop in the ‘war on drugs’. Or perhaps they are just intimidated by the egos of physicians and marketing pressure from big Pharma.

There is one potential that natural products may have versus the synthetic ones, in that once we find a plant has a certain molecule that does something beneficial, if we are going to synthesize it, we tend to find the part of the molecule that does what we want, and often strip off the rest in the design, for ease of manufacturer, and to reduce potentially unwanted side effects. The latter reason is certainly a good thing, and their former reason is at least reasonable. However, it is often the modified original product that is the more complex molecule, and the more likely it is to have features we only find out about later.

Anyway, when you hear self proclaimed experts claiming that advocacy of repurposed drugs to treat things like Covid or cancer is some sort of quackery, give some thought as to who’s being funded by what. Drugs like ivermectin are not only inexpensive and not very profitable, but being off patent, there’s not really a way to get rich by spending a bunch of time or money advocating for their use, because other people down the street will be able to produce the product the same as you, only they didn’t have the overhead cost of promoting it or proving it useful.

On the other hand, you would at least think the physicians and the news media would share the public skepticism of big Pharma, who clearly DOES get rich pushing their drug, and dismissing all the competition. However, big Pharma has learned how to flatter physicians egos in their marketing, and of course, funds academia and the required continuing medical education programs for physicians and pharmacists. They also ‘contribute’ to hospitals (who employ all but the few remaining ‘independent’ physicians), extensively. They are careful to avoid legal traps in doing so, but often give hospitals many millions of dollars in so-called ‘rebates’ for using their product exclusively, or maybe ‘only’ for 90% of cases. On top of that nearly all drug research is somehow tied to ‘grants’ that originate from big pharma.

Even much of cancer treatment is done via participating in ‘clinical trials’, which sounds reasonable, however participation requires exclusion of other interventions (even diet or vitamins) aside from the patented drug itself. Quite often a treatment success is attributed solely to the drug when that particular patient may have also done a daily 16 hour fast, cycled through zero-carbs, added sulphoraphanes (from broccoli), or added fenbendazole or ivermectin - sadly that data never gets collected.

So since the profits don’t enable the ‘evidence-based’ large-scale, double-blind, placebo-controlled’ studies now considered the ‘only’ way to prove anything (which is absurd), off-patent drugs will remain mired in only those uses found and marketed before the patent expired.

So the company that makes knives that happen to be found in the handle with the red scales and the white shield and cross, will go to great lengths to dismiss anyone who claims that you can use that tool as a file or a can opener.

We would all see how foolish that was, even if Victorinox decided to market a separate file, because we can all see with our own eyes that the original product serves just fine for that purpose.
Unfortunately, when it is a molecule too small to see, and the pharmacologic properties require at least some science background to fully understand, it is easy to pray on patients fears, and physicians egos, and push new products that have very poor evidence of safety or efficacy in favor of old products, even when they do demonstrate incredible safety, and adequate, if not better efficacy.

[Oldncrusty]

Fabulous info Doc. Glad to see this many topics in one place. Not sure how I missed it first time around. Mucho thanks

[Paladin]

Thanks DOC

[oldAG]

I got interested in the topic of "off-label/repurposed drugs" when I stumbled upon this article https://www.canceractive.com/article/is ... r%20killer .
There seems to be too many "coincidences" to out of hand reject the positive outcomes for people who have rejected "big-pharma" grossly priced "approved" medicine/s, and now live normal lives, some without detectable signs of cancer.