The woman who urinates ALCOHOL: 61-year-old denied accusations she was an alcoholic

The woman who urinates ALCOHOL: 61-year-old denied accusations she was an alcoholic until doctors found her bizarre condition

• Unidentified woman, from Pittsburgh, put on a waiting list for a liver transplant  
• Had suffered cirrhosis and urine tests repeatedly came back positive for alcohol
• Specialists eventually able to diagnose her with bladder fermentation syndrome
• The 61-year-old is the first person in the world to have the bizarre condition 

By CONNOR BOYD HEALTH REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 22:00 GMT, 24 February 2020 | UPDATED: 07:52 GMT, 25 February 2020

+2

A woman who started urinating alcohol due to a never-before-seen condition was accused of being an alcoholic by baffled doctors (file)

A woman who started urinating alcohol due to a never-before-seen condition was accused of being an alcoholic by baffled doctors.

The unidentified 61-year-old was put on a waiting list for a liver transplant after suffering cirrhosis, a condition synonymous with alcohol abuse.

Two teams of doctors believed she was hiding an addiction when urine tests for the drug were repeatedly positive.

But she was eventually diagnosed with bladder fermentation syndrome after seeing  specialists at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 

They initially thought she was a secret alcoholic but changed their mind after blood tests for metabolites of ethanol were negative. 

Further examinations found high levels of Candida glabrata, yeast naturally produced by the body, were accumulating in her bladder when she ingested sugar. 

The yeast is similar to Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a fungus known as brewer's yeast because it's used by beer-makers to convert carbohydrates in grains into alcohol. 

Tests showed this conversion process was taking place inside the patient's bladder.

WHAT IS AUTO-BREWERY SYNDROME? 

Auto-brewery syndrome (ABS) causes sufferers to feel intoxicated and unable to perform simple tasks.

It usually occurs due to yeast accumulating in the intestines after the sufferer ingests sugar. 

But for the most recent patient, yeast had accumulated in her bladder. 

The syndrome occurs when a sufferers' yeast in their intestines grow out of control. 

ABS may also be caused by abnormal enzymes in the liver. 

Anyone of any age can suffer. 

ABS is so rare its prevalence is unknown. 

There is no cure. 

Avoiding sugar and carbohydrates may help to control symptoms, as well as frequently monitoring a sufferer's blood alcohol content.

Source: Gundry MD 

This was taxing on her liver which was forced to try and eliminate it from her body every time she ate certain foods.

To get rid of the yeast infection, she was prescribed oral antifungals.

The case report was revealed by medics from the University of Pittsburgh's Presbyterian Hospital in Pennsylvania.

They said it showed 'how easy it is to overlook signals that the syndrome may be present' in some liver transplant patients.

The medics have called for doctors to be aware of the condition so patients are not wrongly labelled alcoholics.

Writing in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the medics said: 'Acquiring all of the data necessary to evaluate a transplant candidate is complicated because of the high stakes, time constraints, and workload of the persons acquiring the data. 

'Proper processing of data is even more difficult— it is all too easy to order alcohol monitoring tests inconsistently, overlook discrepancies in the results, and allow bias to enter and persist in the decision-making process.

'Standardized guidelines for abstinence monitoring laboratory interpretation are needed.'

While the woman is the first to have bladder fermentation syndrome, a handful of people around the world have a similar condition known as auto-brewery syndrome, which occurs in the gut.

Last October,it was reported a man had been charged by police for drink driving due to the extremely rare condition.

The unidentified 46-year-old was pulled over in 2014 and a breathalyser showed he was five times over the drink-drive limit. 

He maintained he hadn't consumed anything alcoholic, but neither the police nor his family believed him.

+2

A 46-year-old man in the US is one of only five people in the world to have been diagnosed with auto-brewery syndrome (file)

The man was eventually diagnosed with auto-brewery syndrome (ABS) in 2017. He was found to have high levels of a fungus called Saccharomyces cerevisiae in his faeces. 

Every time he consumed carbohydrate-packed foods his blood alcohol level shot up, sometimes to as high as 400 milligrams per 100 millilitres – 11 times the drink-drive limit.

It is thought that the condition was triggered by a course of antibiotics that he was prescribed in 2011 for a thumb injury.

He told medics he had experienced mental fogginess, dizziness and memory loss since the injury.

The symptoms, which were repeatedly misdiagnosed as depression, forced him to give up his job. 

Dr Fahad Malik, a gastroenterologist at Richmond University who treated the man, believes the drugs disrupted the patient's balance of gut microbes.

This, he said, most likely caused the rapid growth of the fungus S. cerevisiae, which is normally present in low levels in the gut.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8037745/The-woman-urinates-ALCOHOL-61-year-old-denied-accusations-alcoholic.html


ALSO:

Doctors rejected a woman for a liver transplant because of drinking. Then they learned her bladder was brewing alcohol.

Food scandal fears after Chinese antibiotics seized at UK airport

Exclusive: drugs are suspected to have been heading for Northern Ireland poultry farm

Felicity Lawrence and Fiona Harvey

Fri 18 Oct 2019 18.29 BST

Amoxicillin is supposed to be administered only under veterinary supervision and only to sick animals Photograph: Alamy

A large consignment of Chinese antibiotics suspected to be destined for unregulated use on a poultry farm in Northern Ireland has been seized at a British airport, raising fears of a new food scandal.

The Guardian has learned that medicine, believed to be the antibiotic amoxicillin, was intercepted at a British airport this week. Enforcement authorities in Northern Ireland were alerted and have begun an investigation into a large poultry farm company.

The Northern Ireland Department of Health said: “A multi-agency operation was carried out on Thursday in the County Tyrone area in pursuance of offences under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. A number of items were removed for examination. An investigation is ongoing.”

The Food Standards Agency said it had become involved in the investigation because the farm allegedly linked to the shipment reared meat.

It said: “We are aware of the operation led by the Department of Health’s medicine regulatory group and are working with the authorities involved in the investigation to ensure there is no risk to the food chain.”

Amoxicillin is approved for use as a veterinary medicine in the UK. It is supposed to be administered only under veterinary supervision and only to sick animals. There are restrictions on its import.

Using antibiotics routinely as growth promoter in farm animals is illegal in the UK because it can lead to the development of germs that are resistant to even the strongest antibiotics used in human health.

The UK’s outgoing chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has said antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to human health. More antibiotics are used on farm animals around the world than on humans. In the UK, the poultry industry has reduced its use of antibiotics in recent years in a voluntary campaign.

A source told the Guardian that the poultry farm in question was a large supplier to Moy Park, a chicken slaughtering and processing company that is the largest employer in Northern Ireland.

Moy Park, which supplies most leading UK retailers with chicken, confirmed it was supplied by the facility but said it did not own it.

“This matter is being investigated by the relevant authorities,” a Moy Park spokesperson said. “Any breach of the strict regulation on the use of veterinary medicine is unlawful and completely unacceptable to us.”

The company said it believed that the investigation involved “an isolated incident at an independently owned, contract supply farm”.

The incident comes at a particularly sensitive time after Brexit negotiations over health and customs checks for goods moving between Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is likely to raise fresh concern in Europe about the safety of food supplies after the UK leaves the EU.

Investigators will want to establish whether the company has previously imported unregulated medicine, and if so how it was used on the farm and whether poultry containing antibiotic residues has been entering the retail food chain for a long time.

The UK are required to notify the European commission about incidents that affect food safety so that a rapid alert can be issued across all EU countries. EU safety authorities said they were not yet aware of the incident.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the regional government’s agriculture department directed questions on the incident to the health department.

It is understood that steps have been taken to ensure that any poultry affected in the incident will not enter the food chain.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/18/food-scandal-fears-after-chinese-antibiotics-seized-at-uk-airport

Inform Yourself About Pasteurized Milk

If you do your own grocery shopping or you’ve been to a supermarket recently, you’d be aware that pasteurized milk has monopolized the dairy section. Having been around since the late 1800s, pasteurized milk has been widely utilized by the population because of the “safety” it provides, as it’s said to minimize the risk of contracting milk-borne bacteria and diseases.

June 02, 2017

But while this may seem like a plausible idea, pasteurization has been observed to lower or even extinguish the nutrients found in milk. Aside from this, toxins and other harmful chemicals have also been introduced to conventional pasteurized milk, which compromises your health instead of providing a better choice.

Continue reading to learn more about pasteurized milk, the detrimental effects it may have on your body and why raw milk is a better choice.

What Is Pasteurized Milk?

Pasteurization was first introduced in the late 1800s, and was pioneered by Louis Pasteur after his study on the fermentation process of both wine and vinegar. After discovering the difference in the microbes in both substances, he developed the process, determining the exact time and temperature microbes die.

Pasteurization was first applied to dairy products after the spread of numerous milk-borne infections in the population.1 It refers to the heating of milk to a temperature higher than the boiling point, and then rapidly cooling it.

This process supposedly removes the bacteria and other harmful particles found in conventionally produced milk. However, what government health agencies have left out is that pasteurization renders essential enzymes and nutrients inactive.2

Conventional Milk May Also Be ‘Ultra-Pasteurized’

In addition to this, milk producers have also devised another process for milk production, a process called ultra-heat treatment (UHT), which produces ultra-pasteurized milk. Nowadays, you’ll notice that most milk, including organic milk, bear the label “UHT.” Milk that is labeled as such is thermally processed at or above 280 degrees Fahrenheit, in contrast to pasteurization, which heats the milk at about 161 degrees Fahrenheit. This prolongs its shelf life under refrigerated conditions.

While a small amount of bacteria can survive the process of pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization produces a nearly sterile milk product. This means that ultra-pasteurized milk can last from 30 to 90 days when unopened, which is good news for milk producers because they can ship to a larger population without the risk of spoilage.3

But is ultra-pasteurized milk good for you? No, it isn’t. Because of the extreme process, ultra-pasteurized milk contains fewer nutrients than pasteurized milk, and even fewer when compared to raw milk. Researchers and microbiologists have also said that ultra-pasteurization is extremely harmful to milk, as it was found to flatten milk molecules and cause immune responses in the body when digested.4

Raw Milk Versus Pasteurized Milk: Which Is Safer and Healthier?

The debate between raw milk and pasteurized milk has plagued the public for numerous years because of both safety and health issues on both sides. Processed milk advocates claim that the pasteurization is essential to avoid the recurrence of milk-borne diseases such as brucellosis, listeriosis and typhoid fever. They also claim that aside from preventing bacterial infections, pasteurization can lengthen the shelf life of milk.5

But although pasteurized milk is highly recommended and advertised by both the CDC and FDA, the talks of its safety are questionable. While raw milk enthusiasts are commonly lambasted because they supposedly “expose themselves to a higher risk of milk-borne bacteria,” pasteurized milk consumers actually have a higher chance of ingesting chemicals and other toxins from conventional dairy factories.

Because of pasteurization and other filtering processes, factory milk producers are allowed to raise cows in unhealthy, cramped environments, where they are fed an unnatural diet of grains and corn. This is mainly because they are dependent on pasteurization’s ability to kill off pathogens or filter antibiotics that may have leaked into their milk products.

But while they claim that this is entirely safe, the nutrient content and the overall quality of these milk products may be compromised.6 Pasteurization removes the essential nutrients and compounds that are beneficial to the human body. Studies show that this process deactivates the enzymes that are necessary for the human digestion of milk, kills off the good bacteria that may be beneficial to the human body, alters the calcium content and removes most of the vitamin C in raw milk.

By switching to raw milk, you ensure that you get a whole food filled with minerals, proteins, vitamins and beneficial bacteria that assist digestion and metabolism.7

The only issue that is often held against raw milk is that it supposedly increases your risk of ingesting pathogens or harmful bacteria, but this can easily be dealt with by locating and sourcing your raw milk from trustworthy producers. Organic, pasture-raised dairy cattle guarantee that you get safe and high-quality raw milk, in contrast to the antibiotic-treated cattle used in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Possible Side Effects and Dangers of Pasteurized Milk

Due to the numerous chemically manipulated components of pasteurized milk, it may pose numerous threats to your health. This includes the hidden exposure to pesticides, drugs and other harmful chemicals that may have seeped into the milk. The other dangers of the consumption of pasteurized milk include:

•Exposure to hormones and antibiotics. A 2011 research tested various milk products for chemicals that may have contaminated the product.8 It showed that conventionally sourced milk had high amounts of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, natural hormones, anti-malaria drugs, steroid hormones, and anti-fungal drugs. This is probably because of the exposure of the cattle to these chemicals inside CAFOs.

Antibiotics are usually given to cattle to treat mastitis, but this eventually seeps into the milk produced by these cattle. The consumption of this type of milk eventually leads to you to acquire these harmful chemicals that aren’t even supposed to be in milk.

•Ingestion of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a chemical component of Roundup, a pesticide and herbicide that is usually applied to genetically engineered crops, which are then fed to the cattle. Aside from the possibility of glyphosate contamination in the milk that these cattle produce, you are also exposed to the altered composition of the milk because of the unnatural way that these dairy cows are fed.

•May increase asthma risk. Studies show that pasteurization alters the composition of commercially available milk. Instead of preventing the development of asthma by stabilizing mast cells and preventing inflammation, pasteurized milk destabilizes the mast cells and triggers the release of histamines, causing inflammation and eventually, asthma.9

•May lead to bone wasting or osteoporosis. Milk has always been packaged as the primary source of calcium, helping preserve bone density and skeletal health. However, pasteurization has been observed to destroy phosphatase in milk, an enzyme that is crucial for the absorption of calcium. This renders the calcium in milk indigestible and basically useless.10

While pasteurization was initially done to protect the population, the process has allowed dairy corporations to hide unnatural and chemically-based milk production processes. Instead of providing a healthier and safer choice for people, pasteurized milk has become a lesser version of what milk is supposed to be, endangering the public and simultaneously depriving people of vitamins and minerals that are absolutely essential for your body.

Instead of consuming pasteurized or UHT-labeled milk, consider switching to raw milk to ensure that you get all the nutrients and enzymes that are supposed to be in dairy. This will guarantee that you’re getting whole and healthful milk, in contrast to its sterile counterpart.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Pasteurized Milk

Q: When did pasteurization of milk start?
A: Before pasteurization was developed by Louis Pasteur, William Dewes proposed the heating of milk before feeding infants during the prevalence of milk-borne diseases. It was only knowingly applied to milk in the late 1880s by dairy producers.11

Q: Is organic milk pasteurized?
A: Unfortunately, most brands of organic milk in the United States are still pasteurized. But although most of the organic milk available still undergoes this damaging process, studies show that it is still a better choice compared to conventional homogenized or pasteurized milk.

Q: Is cultured milk pasteurized?
A: Yes. According to the regulations that are enacted by the FDA, the production of cultured milk requires the addition of microbial culture to pasteurized or homogenized milk.12

Q: Is pasteurized milk sterile?
A: Not entirely. Pasteurization kills off a significant amount of the pathogens found in milk. There are instances where a small amount can survive this process. UHT, on the other hand, processes the milk to the point that the milk is virtually sterile.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe to drink?
A: Despite claims of its safety, pasteurized milk can expose you to different harmful toxins that may have seeped into the milk, especially if the pasteurized milk comes from conventional dairy farms. It should be noted that pasteurized milk contains a lower concentration of the beneficial components found in unprocessed and raw milk.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe during pregnancy?
A: Because of the possible chemical components of pasteurized milk, its consumption may cause different repercussions for both you and your unborn child. Consider drinking raw milk from trustworthy distributors so that you can get the whole array of nutrients and enzymes in milk, without the risk of exposing yourself to possible toxins in conventional milk products.

Q: Is raw milk better than pasteurized milk?
A: Yes raw milk is the highest quality milk you can get. Nutritionally, raw milk contains active enzymes, vitamins and minerals, which are deactivated in pasteurized milk. Consumption of raw milk also ensures that you do not unknowingly expose yourself to possible harmful components found in pasteurized milk.

References:

• 1 Science: How Stuff Works, How Pasteurization Works
• 2 Food Policy For Thought, The History of Raw Milk and Pasteurization
• 3 Cornell University, Pasteurized versus Ultra-Pasteurized Milk – Why Such Long Sell-By Dates?
• 4 Food Renegade, Just Say No To UHT Milk
• 5 U.S. Food &Drug Administration, The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
• 6 Daily Mail Online, It’s Worth Paying Extra for Organic Milk…Not Just For Your Health But For The Sake Of The Cows
• 7,10 Global Healing Center, Pasteurized Milk vs. Raw Milk: Which One is Healthier for You and Your Family?
• 8 PubMed.gov, Simultaneous determination of 20 pharmacologically active substances in cow’s milk, goat’s milk, and human breast milk by gas chromatography-mas spectrometry
• 9 A Campaign for Real Milk, The 15 Things That Milk Pasteurization Kills
• 11 World Organization for Animal Health, Milk pasteurization and safety: a brief history and update
• 12 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

https://foodfacts.mercola.com/pasteurized-milk.html

Dirt Cheap Drugs Outperform Trumpeted New Treatments - MUST READ

Doctors tend to push these expensive new entries instead of older, cheaper drugs that work just as well.

By Lee Euler / November 25, 2018

It costs over a billion dollars and takes more than a decade to bring a new cancer drug to the marketplace. Even then, it may be relevant to only a small patient population and extend life by just a few months – and that’s being optimistic. The hope for a few extra months assumes you can trust the cherry-picked test data the big drug companies use to gain FDA approval.

All the same, doctors tend to push these expensive new entries instead of older, cheaper drugs that work just as well.

Now, I know some readers have a fit if I even mention a drug in a favorable way. But many readers or their loved ones do opt for chemo, for a variety of reasons.

If they’re going to do that, they should at least try to avoid spending themselves into bankruptcy. A good place to start is to be skeptical of the latest cancer wonder drug.

Instead, consider drugs whose patents have expired, and drugs already prescribed for other health conditions but not licensed for the treatment of cancer. Many of these “off-label” medicines have great potential in cancer therapy.

Organization devoted to cheap but effective drugs

The Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDo) Project is a US and European collaboration between two not-for-profit organizations that include doctors and scientists. They look for effective therapies that aren’t being explored because Big Pharma can’t profit from them.

ReDo has identified over 250 drugs prescribed for a wide range of conditions that have anti-cancer activity, yet are not used by conventional oncologists.

The most interesting ones have been in widespread use for many years, are low in toxicity, have an anti-cancer mechanism that makes sense, and strong evidence to support them.

In London’s famous Harley Street, the private Care Oncology Clinic (COC) is pioneering the use of four of these drugs. They are prescribed in addition to conventional treatments, which their patients usually receive under the National Health Service (NHS). Oncologists working within the NHS usually have no objections and are willing to share patients’ clinical records with COC.

Four off-label drugs of choice

The cost of the drugs is just £400 ($520) a year. The four drugs are metformin (diabetes control), atorvastatin (cholesterol lowering), doxycycline (antibiotic) and mebendazole (Vermox) (anti-parasitic).

Established in 2014, COC has now treated over 1,500 patients with a wide range of cancers from stage 1 to stage 4. Audited data on 95 of these cases has recently been analyzed. All were suffering with the most common and aggressive type of brain tumor (glioblastoma).

The results are very encouraging, with a substantial improvement in expected survival times. Under usual protocols – “standard of care” – people live an average of 14.8 months, but this almost doubled to 27.1 months in those taking the four drugs. The two-year survival rate rose from 28.7% to 55.8%. These results are far better than the new, much hyped, hugely expensive immunotherapy drugs.

It pays to target metabolism

COC focuses on the metabolic approach to treating cancer.

Tumors have unique metabolic characteristics that can be targeted while doing little or no harm to healthy cells. One factor unique to cancer cells is an increased uptake of nutrients such as glucose (blood sugar) and glutamine. As we’ve said many times, for many years, cancer cells are gluttons for sugar.

Healthy cells take up glucose too, of course, but cancer cells take up more and they use it in a different way. They convert glucose into energy using biochemical pathways that don’t require oxygen (The Warburg Effect).

Other aspects of metabolism are also altered in cancer cells because, besides their hunger for sugar, they need greatly increased amounts of protein, nucleic acids and lipids to support their high rate of growth.

Justin Stebbing, professor of cancer medicine and oncology at St George’s Hospital, London, is one of several top cancer specialists associated with COC.

He believes targeting metabolism can make a “big difference” to cancer treatments, saying, “it will be increasingly relevant as we think outside the box and understand cancer in different ways.”

The “right” theory of cancer is finally winning

COC focuses on the metabolic approach to treating cancer.

Cancer Defeated has been a longtime advocate of the metabolic theory of cancer, and we’re delighted to see more and more mainstream doctors jump on the bandwagon.

Dr. Padman Vamadevan, scientist and oncology consultant at COC, said, “When we started, not many oncologists were familiar with treating the metabolic features of cancer, so they were skeptical, but now patients report that their doctors are genuinely interested in this research as they see the apparent benefits.”

Pan Pantziarka, Program Director for Drug Repurposing and coordinator of the ReDo Project, explained that modern cancer drugs are aimed at very specific targets in cancer cells.

“But these older medicines are known as ‘dirty drugs’ because they have multiple targets, interfering with more than one protein or signaling pathway at a time. Used in combination they could be very effective.

“If these medicines were coming out today, some would be blockbuster cancer drugs.”

The four-drug cocktail

Metformin: Potentially this old diabetes drug has multiple metabolic mechanisms for inhibiting cancer development and growth. For instance, it reduces the release of sugar from the liver to lower blood sugar, and lowers circulating insulin levels to decrease insulin signaling in cancer cells. It activates an enzyme (AMPK) which decreases glucose uptake, protein synthesis, cell proliferation and cell cycle progression.

The relationship between diabetes and cancer has been recognized for over 100 years. A review of studies found that among diabetics taking metformin compared to non-users, incidence of total cancers was down by a third, colorectal cancer was lowered by 32%, there was a 33% reduced risk for lung cancer and the risk of death from all cancers was lowered by more than a third — 34%.

In September, researchers from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, found patients taking metformin had a substantially reduced rate of liver cancer compared to patients taking an alternative anti-diabetes drug.

Dr. Jonathan Stegall, who specializes in integrative oncology and heads The Center for Advanced Medicine in Atlanta, uses metformin in almost all his patients. He describes it as very safe, well tolerated and “one of the best tools in our toolbox.”

He explains that metformin disrupts a particular pathway called mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) which cancer cells use to grow. Even better, it destroys the cancer cells that help kick off cancer development, growth, spread and recurrence- – cancer stem cells. Dr. Stegall describes this as “a huge deal.”

I agree with Dr. Stegall, in spades. Killing cancer stem cells is the holy grail of cancer treatment.

Statins: have anti-inflammatory properties, benefit the immune system, and block the enzyme HMG CoA Reductase in the liver to reduce cholesterol, which cancer cells use for energy. A recent study covering 197,048 women with breast cancer found statins cut the risk of death by 27%. I’m not a big fan of statins for cholesterol, but I’ll keep an open mind on their uses for cancer. It does seem they are an effective anti-inflammatory.

Doxycycline: obstructs mitochondrial function. A trial published in October found breast cancer patients taking this antibiotic had a sizable reduction in cancer stem cells, making cancer recurrence much less likely.

One of the study authors, professor Michael Lisanti from the University of Salford, England, said, “…to find a drug that is effective, readily-available and costs just 10 pence (13 cents) per patient per day is highly significant, particularly as around two-thirds of cancer deaths occur due to recurrence after initial treatment.”

His colleague, professor Federica Sotgia, explained how the drug works: “What we infer here is that the stem cells selectively over-express key mitochondrial-related proteins, which means that if we can inhibit mitochondrial function we can disrupt the stem cells.”

Mebendazole: helps to block glucose uptake and targets a protein that disrupts the energy supply to cancer cells. It also impedes microtubules which have important roles in cell division and intracellular transport. It’s also been shown to slow angiogenesis – the formation of blood vessels cancer cells need in order to spread.

Culture studies show mebendazole slowed lung cancer cell growth five-fold compared to controls and also inhibited breast, ovary, colon and bone cancers. Arrest of tumor growth and spread has also been demonstrated in mice. Last year a research team from New York suggested mebendazole should be used routinely to treat brain tumors.

Other drugs of interest

The antacid cimetidine (Tagamet), the anti-fungal itraconazole, the acne drug isotretinoin (Accutane), and the antidepressant clomipramine (Anafranil) all look promising candidates for drug repurposing. I’m not a fan of any of these for their original purposes (except maybe the anti-fungal), but cancer is a four alarm fire. If we can confirm these drugs will help, they may be worth a try.

Dr. Stegall also uses aspirin and propranolol.

He prescribes aspirin for his cancer patients because research showed a baby aspirin taken every day for five years reduced the risk of colon cancer by almost a quarter. Those already suffering cancer had a 20% reduced risk of death, and the cancer was less likely to spread.

Pretty good for a drug introduced in 1899 and costing mere pennies. And I bet even your hidebound conventional cancer doctor will let you take it.

Aspirin also hinders the hijacking of blood platelets that cancer cells need in order to grow; lowers the possibility of blood clots, which is at increased risk in cancer patients; and may also inhibit cancer through its anti-inflammatory effects.

As for propranolol, it’s a beta blocker prescribed for high blood pressure, but it also works on a receptor that lowers stress. Dr. Stegall says that because cancer patients are under a lot of stress “they really feel like a weight has been lifted off their shoulders once they’re on this medication.”

A COC success story

When 19-year-old Henry Searle was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor in 2015, he was given 14 months to live. After chemo and radiation, his mother Vicki asked the consultants whether natural therapies would help.

She describes their response:

“I was shocked and surprised at how negative the consultants were whenever I asked if diets or supplements could help his immune system…they just said there was no evidence for any of them and that he was getting the gold-standard treatment.”

Ignoring their advice, she put her son on an organic sugar-free diet and added supplements including zinc and selenium. Following this, blood tests showed his low functioning immune system improving week by week.

She then ignored objections from Henry’s oncologist and visited COC, where the doctors are receptive not only to unconventional uses of drugs but to natural therapies, too.

The COC treatment showed evidence it was working after only a month, with the tumor shrinking. Two years later Henry’s NHS consultant wrote to say there was “no evidence of active disease.”

The latest update, in March, 2018, finds him still taking COC’s drug cocktail and his condition remains stable.

Professor Justin Stebbing had this to say:

“As a profession, we can be cruel to cancer patients, giving them treatments that are horribly toxic, with minimal benefits. I find it very frustrating when my colleagues are dismissive of patients who want to try other things that are non-toxic and may extend their lives.”

Oncologists reluctant to prescribe

Although doctors are entitled to prescribe drugs “off label” if they believe they could be beneficial, in practice oncologists are reluctant to consider this option for several reasons.

Researchers have not conducted final stage cancer trials on them, and probably won’t because their patents have expired and no billion-dollar payday is likely. The drugs may also interfere with conventional treatment or have unforeseen side effects. There may also be consequences for the doctor personally or professionally, as Angus Dalgleish, another professor of oncology at St George’s, found out.

He prescribes repurposed drugs for his patients and liaises with their family doctors.

“I’ve had a lot of hassle for that,” he says. “There’s no room for freedom to do the best thing for your patients, just because someone hasn’t put up millions of pounds to do a big drugs trial.

“I call it creative compassion because it’s not in the rule book, but it’s what I would want for myself if I were in the same position. I wouldn’t want to just be told to go and see the palliative care person [essentially hospice].”

References:

1. http://www.redo-project.org/
2. http://careoncologyclinic.com/
3. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033411
4. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06285.x
5. http://news.vumc.org/2018/09/14/diabetes-drug-may-prevent-cancer/
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28432513
7. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-antibiotic-effective-breast-cancer-clinical.html
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28386621

https://www.cancerdefeated.com/dirt-cheap-dirty-drugs-outperform-trumpeted-new-treatments/

ALSO READ:  MUST READ - Could £400-per-year drug cocktail be the key to beating one of the most-deadly cancers? Henry was given 14 months to live now his cancer is stable thanks to his four everyday medicines