Loading...

Jcancom's Message Board Messages

Loading...
Showing 1 - 10 of 1723

Page 1 of 173

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.     

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300523/

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.

https://www.cmocro.com/news_detail/Ministry+OKs+P1+Trial+Into+Haim+Bio%26%23039%3Bs+Metabolism+Antica/413309/index.html

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

JohnnyP, yes there was a modest response reported by anca in the first reply on that thread. Strangely, we have not had many posters on D's forum discussing cachexia, so I will follow your exploration of this aspect of cancer management carefully.

Your post has sparked an interest in how we could use upgrade our thread to help people more effectively locate information. This is somewhat in reference to my reading about how the Korean language came into being. Apparently, on January 1st, 1500 sometime around 9:00 AM everyone in Korea started speaking Koeran. Basically those in authority declared that this was the way it had to be and the people went along with it.

The linkage I see to our ongoing exploration of cancer is that we (or I guess more formally ME) could change our posting habits in order that the valuable information on our forum and on D's forum and possibly elsewhere could easily extracted by introducing particular formatting.

Here's the way it could work for your hydrazine, cachexia idea. We could format it perhaps as                 (hydrazine(!?), cachexia, Jcancom(2)). What that is saying is hydrazine as a possible treatment for cachexia with 1 exclamation mark and 1 question mark, suggested by (or in this instance seconded) by Jcancom.

How would this help making finding information on the thread easier to locate? Well, I have tried out some webcrawlers on this site which I could use to upload the contents of the thread to my computer or alternatively we could also upload the content to the wikia for 3-BP. Once we have the content to work with then the formatting would be an efficient way to locate relevant information from the thread (e.g. find (Hydrazine).)

One of the big problems that everyone confronts is the sheer scale of the research literature on cancer. It is this vast ocean of research that is completely unmanageable. With the codings that I have suggested one could easily located the gems on our thread and elsewhere with not much exertion. That really should be the driving passion of the thread: make it easier for others who are struggling with the same massive research dataset that we are struggling with.

critic mentioned E260 as a selective OXPHOS agent awhile back. I would probably give that one at least four exclamation marks! What do you think of this idea?

Best Wishes, Jcancom     

JohnnyP, I am sorry to hear this. By muscle spasm, might you be refering to a seizure? Interestingly, strict ketogenic diets have been one treatment approach that have been found to be relatively successful in preventing them. How do you understand the weight loss (that is, it is perhaps related to appetite loss, etc)?

You are doing such a great job as a caregiver. As time moves forward one can become emotionally exhausted in that role, so it is always a good idea to step back for some me time.

To counteract the fear, there is so much online research to consider. D's site has an increasing number of accessible treatments that seem to be helping those on forum. I continue to have the impression that we are moving closer and closer towards a broad metabolic treatment that will be beneficial to patients.

I understand that this is a very difficult time for you and I send you my best wishes as you cope with the challenges, J 

JohnnyP, this is very exciting! We are seeing treatment after treatment posted to D's forum. I wanted to stay somewhat neutral about your comment about statins because I was not sure whether your treatment was the latest with statins. D's post that you noted gives us the latest along with a stage IV patient who was able to control their cancer with this new protocol. We are building up an impressive team of metabolic treatments that one could cycle through in order to find something that would be effective. Some on D's forum might be going around the clock with these various therapies. 

JohnnyP, this is overwhelmingly exciting! This has to be an all time high for the thread. With whatever authority I might have to make such a pronouncement, I do declare it.  

40 billion KRW to move a 3-BP candidate to phase 2? Finally we are talking in terms of the resources needed to move this forward. To me, this feels like the first relevant action ever taken to effectively manage the cancer epidemic.

Once clinical trials with 3-BP are decisively begun, then a range of other complementary treatments could fill in the ecological niche created (e.g., perhaps chitosan paracetamol etc.).

As all on thread are all to familiar with the biology of 3-BP, it should be highly expected that some cancer subgroup will be identified by PET scan (e.g. acetate PET scan) who would be 3-BP super responders. {I was able to find this one PMID:25569102 again! Without OXPHOS, how would ccRCC cells withstand 3-BP? Finding even one such subgroup with large expected responses could end the discussion about 3-BP's effectiveness.} 

It is difficult to imagine how such a magical ability to predict those patients who will respond to  treatment before treatment is even given could result in any other outcome than 3-BP approval. Of course, the near immediate symptomatic benefit experienced by reported patients to date, with no side effects, and very large short term reduction in tumor metabolism would be notably at odds with most other available cancer treatments. 

3-BP is not a typical drug in clinical development. It has been researched and researched some more and given to patients in various official and less official circumstances for almost 20 years. It has already demonstrated effectiveness in  essentially hopeless patients (e.g., the melanoma patient, also an unpublished stage IV lung cancer patient, etc.). Given this prior, I will pull for a parallel process in which medically hopeless patients ineligible for 3-BP clinical trial treatment be given compassionate access to treatment alongside the 3-BP clinical trials. Given our present knowledge about the effectiveness of 3-BP, it is not ethically defensible to pretend that somehow we do not have such knowledge of its effectiveness; we do. One might only imagine that if a series of such non-medically viable patients were to recover, then nothing short of a panic might emerge to open up 3-BP more broadly. This is as it should be! If evidence is found that it is effective, then the only morally acceptable outcome is that others in need be made aware of these results and be allowed to respond accordingly. We have already waited too long.

One of the Korean articles talked of how the company wanted to demonstrate that 3-BP is not "fake technology". I was sufficiently satisfied on this question from the melanoma patients report when his LDH fell by 99.7% after combo  3-BP and paracetamol. If the company were to prospectively replicate this result, though its potential could be more widely appreicated.  

It is possible that the 40 billion might also include some room for exploration of the 3-BP chemical space. Up till now 3-BP has been the standard chemical considered out of the 3-BP analog universe, though other similar drugs might offer potential advantages ( in terms of safety, effectiveness etc.). If some searching were done (ethyl bromopyruvate etc.), then an even better candidate might emerge. It is somewhat of a tricky call: Go with what you know, or find something better. We'll have to wait and watch to see how they approach this question. 

There are quite a few articles that are reporting on this from  Korean online sources. The translations are quite good, though it would be helpful if they were even clearer. It will be great having some help translating from your granddaughter! Also her reach into Korean internet space could be quite valuable. I am not sure whether outsiders are given the same search results as locals. I am very interested in knowing whether 3-BP treatment has entered Korean "alternative" clinics as we have seen emerge in several other nations.

New Zyrap, New Jip Lab, possibly other variants. I have made admirable process in learning Korean, so I realize that "r" could actually be spelled "l", and "p" could be "b", I'll have to double check whether "z" could be "j". Might you be able to clarify the name of the KOSDAQ company involved with 3-BP development? 

There are a number of other uncertainties for me. Have they already treated stage IV patients and had extended reponses, as suggested in the quote below?

"??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????."

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u

"New Zyrap Pharma "Clinical Launch in 2021 .. Goal of listing on Nasdaq in 2023" "

"New Jip Lab is an expert in the field of metabolic anti-cancer medicine to make a new drug development for metabolism cancer drug. It is composed of the research team of the New Jipap Pharma science advisory committee. It is a pre-clinical study of rat and pigs, radiological studies, liver cancer, melanoma, bladder cancer, lung cancer, We conducted experiments on patients. In particular, patients with stage IV neuroendocrine carcinoma have been healthy for over 10 years."

I am anxiously awaiting an English language disclosure of everything that is now on the table. If it is intended to move this to NASDAQ over the next few years, then having American transparency right from the start seems reasonable.

JohnnyP, I am glad that you are willing to explore these alternative treatments. One idea that emerged from discussion on D's forum was complexifying treatment. Cancer thrives when the same challenge is presented to it in the same way time after time. Be complex! D's forum has generated excitement for silver nanoparticles and Fenbendazole.

It is not clear to me how increasing the prices of these generic drugs could be understood as being legal. Going by the rule of thumb that law is what the reasonable man on the street thinks is fair, I would favor the interpretation that it is not legal. "Jcancom, do you think it reasonable that the price of a generic drug could be increased by a factor of 10 or more by a company not exposed to development risk?"   "No. Next question."

Price, though, can be used as a mechanism to create the perception of value. If it costs a great deal of money, then presumably it must have at least some value (though even this is not always clear with some cancer therapies). I do not want to think about how much a treatment such as 3-BP might ultimately cost if price were set at a profit maximizing level. 3-BP wouldn't merely create a perception that it was effective, it should indeed be highly effective for pre-specified patients.   

We continue to see positive results from D's patients, so the metabolic approaches that we have long advocated for and I encourage you to consder truly do seem to be helpful. Yet, the answers are still somewhat elusive and require ongoing struggle and effort.

Best Wishes, Jcancom

Showing 1 - 10 of 1723

Page 1 of 173

Loading...

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.