Jcancom's Message Board Messages

Showing 1 - 10 of 1727

Page 1 of 173

Ragnar, thank you for reactivating the thread!

There have been a fair number of 3-BP patients that have been mentioned from various sources over the last number of years.

Dayspring Cancer Clinic has reported ~20 3BP patients. However, it is not entirely clear the full extent of their treatments with 3-BP as some of the patient reports do not specifically mention 3BP; nontheless they consider 3BP to be their power treatment, so perhaps even those who are not explicitly declared as have being treated with 3BP, actually received it.  Go to the Wayback machine and type in dayspringcancerclinic.com .

It is fascinating to watch their website evolve through time. For example, click on the timeline on the top and find the December 2014 Dayspring homepage. No mention of 3-BP. Click forward to the March 2015 Dayspring website. While the Dayspring home page does not appear to mention 3-BP, the treatment section reads:

"Dayspring Cancer Clinic is now making available the product 3-Bromopyruvate (3-BP)to patients with all types of cancer, not just liver cancer. Dayspring has an IRB accepted proposal to make this compound available to patients. 3-BP far surpasses targeted therapiesas targeted therapies are quickly made obsolete by intratumoral heterogeneities (the cancer cells are too varied for a targeted therapy to have a long lasting effect). But 3-BP works on all PET scan positive cancer cells ...".

Scroll forward to May 2015, 3BP is now prominently displayed on the top line click bar. It is notable that they were able to start producing successful patient reports not long after they began treating with 3BP. This is a feature that we have seen often: even early patients treated with 3-BP reported strong results. The implication is that while the numerator of successes might be 1, so too might be the deonominator in the early reports.       

After 5 years of treating with 3BP have they given up on it? (Often times there is a constantly chasing after the next big thing largely because all the previous next big things have flopped and it is best not to dwell on the past.) No! Here is Dayspring's current characterization of 3-BP:

"We believe 3BP may be the most effective alternative cancer treatment available today. 3BP works on all PET scan positive cancer cells."

They should know as they are perhaps the world's most active 3-BP clinic. 

When you read through the many patient reports with successful treatment outcomes, it is highly notable that many of these patients are quite advanced and have typically went through a range of other traditional therapy. Currently, people do not seek out alternative medicine earlier, but later. More of our attention should be directed to these testimonials from patietns with serious tumor burdens. Anecdotal evidence does need to be carefully interpreted and we are only given short term followup of selected patients, though resetting the cancer burden as was done with the reported patients might be of considerable benefit to them. 

What I also find quite striking about the Dayspirng archive on the Wayback, is how responsive they were to the 3BP newsflow. The big 3BP landmark event was the publication of the melanoma patient in July 2014.

This was a truly startling article. I came across it near the end of August and I could hardly sleep for about a week. The first article with the liver patient clearly set the stage for the next article, yet TACEing 3BP directly into the tumor is quite different from merely running an IV. The IV approach opened up the potential for widespread access in a variety of less medically intense settings. This was a watershed moment. Importantly, a point that is often overlooked when people scan the melanoma article is that LDH level went ~2,000 to ~10 on the second 3BP paracetamol treatment. Typically people do not even notice the near zero reading on the far right of one of the figures. The LDH almost went to zero. For me I think I would have highlylighed this finding in red neon. The entire tumor mass simply stopped being metabolically active. 

From the Wayback timeline this is exactly how Dayspring appears to have understood the melanoma patient. December 2014, no 3BP; March 2015, 3BP present. This was actually a remarkably fast turn from very early clinical research to open clinic access. Being granted an IRB is quite likely not pro forma; I would expect that considerable documenation would be required. If clinical trials had then been started instead, then we probably would have accumulated less patient results than has been accumulated through clinics such as Dayspring.

While the above patients have not been described formally in the scientific literature, it is reasonable to say that 3BP has more patient information than an n=2 drug.

RE: Anyone used 3bp (3-bromopyruvate)?

by Jcancom - November 26 at 2:24 AM

This thread has become completely unmanageable! Over 5000 posts! It is not possible to find anything. What can we do to make this better able to communicate the ideas that we have developed over the last number of years? We have learned about cancer and developed important insights that could be of help to others, though the sheer bulk of the posts obscures these insights. This thread is buckling under the stress caused from its success.

One idea that we are currently working on is using the RSS feed as a mechanism of retrieving the posts, processing them, uploading them to a dormant RSS drop box and then posting the url to this thread. If the technique were simple enough anyone could help us to make this thread more manageable.

Fortunately, the settings on Cancer Compass allow for the entire RSS field to be downloaded in an XML file format text file. You can make this download by clicking on the RSS symbol above (the orange box with the radio waves drifting outward (top of the page on the right)) and then clicking file (top left in Firefox) and save. This text file could be edited and then possibly submitted to a website.

This is an exciting development as it would allow us to be more effective in communicating the ideas that have accumulated over the years in a more concise manner.
Those coping with difficult illnesses such as cancer need easily appliable knowledge. The idea with RSS could help.  

Any technical suggetions on how we might achieve this desired result would be greatly appreciated.


RE: Anyone used 3bp (3-bromopyruvate)?

by Jcancom - October 18 at 12:02 AM

The Nobel prize in medicine has been awarded for 2019 -- that was about a month ago. I heard about the announcement within a day or so and all that I was able to process was that it was something about oxygen levels and perhaps something about HIF-alpha and that it was possibly related to cancer. It was quite vague so I went about my business.

It has only been in the last day or so that clarificaiton has emerged; Specifically that one of the three winners of this year's Medicine Nobel was a coauthor on a significant 3-BP paper (the pancreatic cancer one that used a beta-cyclodextrin formulation of 3-BP).The results using systemic cyclo-3-BP in pancreatic cancer in vivo were impressive.

We talked a great deal about this article on the thread over the last 5 years and our working guess is that Cage wants to brings this formulation to clinical trials. It is frustrating, though, that after all these years a better formulation likely could be devised, yet at some point people want to move something forward; it would probably take years more research to optimize the existing formulation. 

The relationship between the Nobel and the article is very unclear, and it will not be made any more clear for about 50 years until the deliberations are released. Nonetheless, the ongoing thread speculation that 3-BP will feature prominently on the Nobel podium appears to have already occurred. Perhaps this is a subtle nod by the Nobel committee to 3-BP. It would obviously have been interesting to have watched a 3-BP market security respond to this news, though such a 3-BP proxy is yet unlisted.     


RE: Anyone used 3bp (3-bromopyruvate)?

by Jcancom - October 04 at 12:37 AM

JohhnyP, sorry for my absence from the thread. D's forum has been quite active of late, since he posted a comprehensive list of treatments. Such a list should help people out a great deal as cancer can be so overwhlemingly too much information when people initially receive a diagnosis. People want something to get started with right away and often they get sidetracked with a great deal of research without much clinical followthrough. D's list could help people feel comfortable earlier. Cancer treatments truly are everywhere.

The big interest with D seems to be with Feb, more than syro.This might relate to the price mentioned in the low thousands range from Switzerland, though your mention of Chinese suppliers is a new one to me. We have seen how effective  OXPHOS-glycos dual combos can work in the past, and met+syro is within this treatment universe.

I am somewhat disappointed that I have not heard of formulations for Feb and syro etc.. I think we might be drifting more towards such formulations for metabolics because they offer such a large enhancement in treatment power.

While I have pulled back lately from posting, the excitement is clearly building in metabolics. I had been unsure whether even one 3-BP clinical trial would make forward motion, though now there might be as many as 3 3-BP clinical trials in preparation. Once the process begins to unfold perhaps even more formulations could emerge. I even start to wonder whether we might yet see 3-BrOP join in. Perhaps a company could buy the intellectual property and then formulate it. It has been dormant for so long that I start to wonder; how long do these patents last for? On a newly created 3-BP site for the clinical application they mentioned that 3-BP would stay on patent until ~2030. I am not sure whether that is truly fair. My thinking is that there should be an FDA roll-forward of patent rights if a drug were to be somewhat moving through trials especially for companies developing drugs such as 3-BP which have found it difficult to attract major pharma interest for 20 years. Why don't they start the clock when the drug is approved and not when it is filed?  

RE: Anyone used 3bp (3-bromopyruvate)?

by Jcancom - September 18 at 2:06 AM

On Sep 16, 2019 12:38 PM JohnnyP wrote:

Table 1 of US Patent 8,993,587 B3 shows the cancer types that have been tested with the syro/metformin.

Nearly all types tested show response, but a few did not.  MD-231 (triple negative) breast cancer is one of the non responders.

I'm pretty sure my wife's is ER+.

critic, thank you very much for the correction. It has been difficult trying to make it through the translations. D directed me to the Glab website in America. They have listed a large number of cancer indications that they they intend at some time to clinically test with KAT (which is in fact 3-BP). I am not entirely sure whether or not Korean trials will also be brought forward. There is of course Cage Pharma, that you also alerted the therad about.


RE: Anyone used 3bp (3-bromopyruvate)?

by Jcancom - September 11 at 10:37 PM

JohnnyP, I wonder whether a chitosan formulation would be helpful. When methylglyoxal was formulated in chitosan,NanoMG, there was a dramatic escalation of efficacy.

Very startling news!

KDA has approved the 3BP phase 1 and apparently they are all set to dose next month? This thread has waited all these years to see this happen. It is such a blessing that someone is finally going to move this into a proper clinical trial.


Laura, I am sorry to hear of your loss.

After several years of our efforts, we are beginning to see a number of responses to metabolic approaches (especially on D's forum). The building momentum behind this strategy would seem undeniable. Once a 3-BP formulation were firmly in clinical trials my guess would be that an entire ecosystem of synergistics would rapidly materialize: Almost anything would likely have a chance at efficacy in combination with 3-BP.

Sending kind thought to you, Jcancom

JohnnyP, always great to hear great news from you! I am so glad that you continue to find new treatment possibilities. Standing still is clearly not a strategy one want to try with cancer.

It really is an enormous frustration when these prescription roadblocks cause a traffic jam on the freeway. How much clearer does the democratic process have to be than the Right to Try nationwide mandate? This allowed drugs that had only completed a phase 1 trial! I do not see how a legal challenge would rule in any way other than to accept off-label prescribing for FDA approved medications. There are a range of Right to Try sequels that might need to be embraced by grassroots activists.

I have not heard of any formulations for Feb and syro, though I suspect that they could add yet more potency and specificity.

Best Wishes, J

Showing 1 - 10 of 1727

Page 1 of 173


About Jcancom

Jcancom has not shared any information about themselves. Send them a message to tell them you'd like to find out more about them or add them as a friend.

We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.