214 replies to this topic

[mag1]

This is pyruvic acid.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[mag1]

Hi everyone, I have an idea that I want some input on.

 

Let's start a project to research 3-iodopyruvate and 3-astatopyruvate.

These anti-cancer compounds might be even more effective than 3-BP while being safer.

We could all be part of developing a cure for cancer.

 

A similarity search for pyruvic acid compounds was run on chemicalize.org. 779 compounds were found.

Of the 130 or so compounds that had more than or equal to 20 page links, many (possibly most) had research

claims supporting anti-cancer effects.

 

This is relevant to this thread because of these compounds 3-BP and MG came back as hits. It is quite impressive that

using the highly plausible idea of searching for pyruvate analogues using an unbiased approach so many high

quality hits emerged. It is likely that any randomly generated compound would not have produced so many anti-cancer hits.

 

This has got me thinking. Why not start a project to investigate 3-iodopyruvate and 3-astatopyruvate on Longecity? From the search

above it is quite clear that 3-IP and 3-AP would very likely have anti-cancer effects and should be even safer than 3-BP as

they would be less electronegative.

 

Neither of these compounds have received much, if any attention, by the scientific community. This might be a result of

the concerns raised with 3-BP (i.e. thousands of tons of 3-BP are made for industrial users at a production cost of

$1000 per ton). However, there is no current industrial production of 3-IP or 3-AP: even the chemical suppliers do not

supply them.  

 

We could run a project on this site and in parallel we could run an Indiegogo campaign in order to fund research into these

two new pyruvates. A company called scienceexchange.com that includes Johns Hopkins as a partner provides commercial 

science lab resources. Such a project could synthesize some of these compounds and run them against some cancer cell lines.

 

Any input by those on the thread would be welcome.

[niner]

This is how much pharmaceutical development is done.  They just look at a bunch of analogs, kind of like you are proposing.   That astato- analog is out, because astatine is an unstable short-lived radioactive element.  The iodo- analog might work, although iodine being a better leaving group than bromine might give you some reactivity trouble.  Did you consider the chloro analog?  If pharmacokinetics is a problem (it usually is), then esters of the type mentioned previously (the n-propyl ester) might be better things to look at.  Lots of different esters could be made.

[mag1]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the astatine (just wanted to put it out there for a first pass through the filter on the thread). I decided that Uus (ununseptium) would be too far out there.

 

It is disappointing that so little real effort has been put into developing the 3-BP concept. 3-Bromopyruvate has been researched in other contexts for

decades. The treatment that cancer patients are now receiving in cancer clinics around the world as 3-BP is a product that has largely not been

optimized in any way. I am worried that this might be an exercise in putting forward a product that will fail because no effort was made to put the

best foot forward.

 

MD Anderson made 3-bromo-2-oxopropionate-1-propyl ester (3-BrOP) which they call a third generation glycolysis inhibitor.

 

I thought perhaps the iodine being less electronegative might offer improved safety. I thought that the safety issues with 3-BP might arise from

the protruding bromine atom grabbing electrons along its path. Iodine would have less power to do so.

 

I am just disappointed that no effort has been put into 3-IP.

As was shown on another thread, these pyruvic acid similars are not some sort of 100 to 1 shot.

http://www.cancercom...65701,89.htm   (look at page 90 half way down for the list of pyruvic similars. Many members of this list are then noted in the next few pages of that thread as having anti-cancer properties.)

 

I find it hard to believe that this not been already been thought through. It does not make sense to me that cancer patients would possibly be given an inferior glycolysis inhibitor just because people couldn't be bothered to try something new. This project could simply go through the process of checking on 3-IP if it is found to be necessary.)  

 

I would think that it is almost certainly true that 3-IP would have anti-cancer effects.

The commercial lab (ah that would be Johns Hopkins i.e. the discoverers of 3-BP) could help us figure things out.

 

Doing a run through on this would not be a massive project with a huge budget.

It could be quite modest.

It appears that such research would be original.

 

 

The chemicalize search of pyruvic acid similars found a few tri-fluoropyruvates.

 

Anything fluoro would be way beyond my comfort level.

DCA is used to treat cancer and it could be thought of as roughly a di-chloropyruvate. DCA, though, does have some safety issues.

The clear safety  trend on the halogens that I saw was fluoro (No way), chloro (OKish), bromo (fine): I thought maybe iodo would give more of a

safety margin while maintaining  effectiveness.

 

It would not be a tremendous stretch to then do some combinatorial chemistry: so for example, 

3-iodo-2-oxopropionate-1-propyl ester (3-IOP) has a certain ring to it.

[niner]

It is disappointing that so little real effort has been put into developing the 3-BP concept. 3-Bromopyruvate has been researched in other contexts for

decades. The treatment that cancer patients are now receiving in cancer clinics around the world as 3-BP is a product that has largely not been

optimized in any way. I am worried that this might be an exercise in putting forward a product that will fail because no effort was made to put the

best foot forward.

 

MD Anderson made 3-bromo-2-oxopropionate-1-propyl ester (3-BrOP) which they call a third generation glycolysis inhibitor.

 

I thought perhaps the iodine being less electronegative might offer improved safety. I thought that the safety issues with 3-BP might arise from

the protruding bromine atom grabbing electrons along its path. Iodine would have less power to do so.

I find it hard to believe that this not been already been thought through. It does not make sense to me that cancer patients would possibly be given an inferior glycolysis inhibitor just because people couldn't be bothered to try something new. This project could simply go through the process of checking on 3-IP if it is found to be necessary.)  

 

Doing a run through on this would not be a massive project with a huge budget.

It could be quite modest.

It appears that such research would be original.

 

Anything fluoro would be way beyond my comfort level.

DCA is used to treat cancer and it could be thought of as roughly a di-chloropyruvate. DCA, though, does have some safety issues.

The clear safety  trend on the halogens that I saw was fluoro (No way), chloro (OKish), bromo (fine): I thought maybe iodo would give more of a

safety margin while maintaining  effectiveness.

 

Well, maybe 3BP is already pretty good.  It's likely that the ester is an improvement.  It would be sad if 3BP was distinctly bad, and could be improved upon greatly, but that may or may not be the case.   Synthesizing a bunch of analogs and testing them is a lot of work, and would be pretty expensive.  It would help a lot if you have a simple assay that was easy to do.  You also have to consider how it works in vivo, where pharmacokinetics becomes very important.

 

The safety trend actually runs in the other direction, with fluorides typically the safest, and iodides the most hazardous.  Organic fluorides are typically quite stable and well behaved.

[mag1]

Exactly! It really does not seem that much effort has been put into working this through.

 

They simply took a compound that had been used for decades for other reasons and started giving it to people.

Agreed! 3-BrOP is likely better.

 

I thought we could think about exploring around this space (perhaps with computer models).

Obviously one could assume that this has all been done, though when you read the patents for 3-BP etc.

you get the impression that no one really has any idea of what specifically an optimized compound would be. The patents

make claims to very broad ill-defined chemical space. It appears that they do not know.

 

Pharmaceuticals are generally not researched like that. 

Pharmaceutical companies might screen through hundreds of analogues before finding the optimal one.

That obviously would start to cost large money.

 

3-BP has not been developed by a pharmaceutical company. For the last 15 years this has been developed mostly through a university and related biotech company.

 

The evidence suggests that 3-BP is quite an impressively effective and safe compound for treating cancer.

I just thought others might be interested in a People's Chemistry Project to see if we could do better.

3-IP would very likely have anti-cancer effects.

 

Comments by thread members would be very much appreciated.

If the idea seemed to have merit, we could move it forward. The commercial lab (i.e. at Johns Hopkins) could help double check our thinking.

 

This could be a fun way to collectively involve people with investigating related compounds to 3-BP.

Edited by mag1, 25 May 2015 - 03:09 AM.

[mag1]

An interesting idea has emerged in how to translate 3-BP treatment from the lab to the patient.

 

There has been some frustration expressed online (including on this site) that 3-BP has largely been ignored by

mainstream medicine and society.

 

Even though a web site is proclaiming We have a Cure! https://www.facebook.../TheCancerCure , few would believe it

or have even heard of 3-BP. Cures for Cancer generally receive more media coverage. Why has there been so little interest in

3-BP? The few published reports that have appeared in the 15 years after its discovery have obviously slowed things down.

 

At the same time, several cancer clinics are now offering this treatment. The idea that has emerged is simply crowdfund cancer patients to

receive treatment in exchange for the medical reports that emerge from their treatment. Dayspring Cancer Clinic has agreed in principle to

accept this challenge (even for patients with end stage cancer). However, it would probably be best to crowdfund patients with less than end 

stage cancer as such patients could require expensive supportive medical care that could go well beyond the expense of simple 3-BP care.

Also patients with extensive brain mets would also not be ideal as 3-BP is not thought to penetrate the BBB.

 

 

Such patient reports would exceed the value of the published reports because

they would be prospective. It is not clear with the reports to date what clinical characteristics were used to select the patients nor whether only

patients with good treatment outcomes were selected for publication.Crowdfunding could help get around these problems.

 

It is also notable that patients on crowdfunding sites can generate considerable amounts of donated money. Perhaps if these patients were introduced to 

3-BP treatment research they might want to expend some of their donations on 3-BP treatment. 

[aribadabar]

Would 3-BP be a good idea for primary prevention/prophylaxis or it must be used only if you already have an aggressive cancer that needs treatment?

[mag1]

I am not completely sure.

 

All the human research has been in patients with extreme tumor burdens.

 

Some of the research into 3-BP has found that the tumor environment gives 3-BP an edge.

For example, a recent article found that the acidic context found surrounding tumors allows 3-BP to enter cancer cells more selectively than normal cells. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/25641640 Such an acidic environment would likely not be present in a precancer context.

 

The nature of any glycolytic changes that might occur with disease progession would also need to be considered. If advanced cancer are more glycolytic, than 3-BP might work better in more advanced cancers.

 

The problem is that this is all quite speculative. After 15 years, we still do not have a human clinical trial even in those truly end-stage patients who would likely derive

benefit from 3-BP. Possibly oral methylglyoxal might be a better cancer preventative (especially for the GI tract) considering it is already consumed in quantity

as Manuka honey.

 

 

[mag1]

Another clinic (this one in Toronto, Canada) apparently has been offering 3-BP treatment (this time intra-tumorally) ... for years.

 

 

http://cancerimmunot...s.com/index.php

[mag1]

A seriously ill cancer patient is seeking crowdfunding for 3-BP treatment. Anyone interested in donating for a possible cure for cancer?

Perhaps we could make this forum project?

 

http://www.gofundme.com/wkaphk

[mag1]

There are quite a few comments on one of the cancer forums discussing 3-BP concerning what appears to be considerable censoring of 3-BP content. 3-BP has been an emerging story now since November of 2001. Many forums have posts for the early non-human research, though posts noting the impressive responses by terminally ill cancer patients have been deleted.

 

There has been a considerable shift in the clinical status of 3-BP over the last 2 to 3 years (especially in the last year). 3-BP has largely bypassed the regulatory process and is already available at several clinics. It is not entirely clear how 3-BP was able to sidestep clinical trials, though it is one of the few medicines that is straddling conventional and alternative routes to market.

 

This censorship of cancer forums is especially troubling because many of the noted posts were for terminally ill pancreatic , and liver / intra-hepatic bile duct cancer patients who often have no available treatment options. The FDA granted orphan designation for 3-Bromopyruvate for pancreatic cancer (04-29-2014) and for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer (03-05-2013). The question certainly arises: What are these forums trying to hide?

 

 

[niner]

This censorship of cancer forums is especially troubling because many of the noted posts were for terminally ill pancreatic , and liver / intra-hepatic bile duct cancer patients who often have no available treatment options. The FDA granted orphan designation for 3-Bromopyruvate for pancreatic cancer (04-29-2014) and for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer (03-05-2013). The question certainly arises: What are these forums trying to hide?

 

People have accused Longecity of censoring posts, with all manner of nutty conspiracy theoretic reasoning behind it, when such censoring never actually occurred.  In some cases posts get moved to a more appropriate forum, or occasionally posts are removed because they are spam or are otherwise in violation of the user agreement or other forum rules, but I can't think of any censoring that's every happened here because we were trying to keep something secret.  If I could think of a single reason why a cancer forum would want to suppress a promising compound, I might be willing to consider that it's happening, but this sounds like the oldest cancer conspiracy theory in the book-- the claim that the "cancer industry" is suppressing "the cure for cancer" so that they can make more money selling conventional chemotherapy.  If such a cure existed, there would need to be scores if not thousands of people in on the conspiracy to suppress it.  Any one of them would likely be interested in the fame and fortune that would come their way if they released "the cure" to the world. 

[mag1]

Yes, that is generally true. However, 3-BP posts have been deleted on all the major cancer forums.

 

Often there are even traces left that make this provably true. For example, some of these posts will show up in part on search engines, though are not present on the site to which they were actually posted. Also some forums have deleted posts though have left response posts that quote the original post. There can be no doubt that this is happening with the 3-BP posts.

 

It is especially disturbing, though, that these deleted posts have been removed from sites where terminally ill cancer patients have given up on all future treatment. There is no clear reason why suggesting 3-BP to such people would be considered wrong.

 

3-BP appears to be gaining ground and those who feel it necessary to remove these posts seem to have a weak hand and are worried.

[niner]

Worried about what?  Are you sure that the posts that were removed adhered to the forum's rules for posting?  These could include not giving out medical advice or posting the name of a commercial enterprise.  You're implying that there is a conspiracy to keep people from using 3-BP, and I can't for the life of me think of any reason for that to be the case.  Do you believe in the phony conspiracy about the pharmaceutical industry suppressing the "cure for cancer"?

[mag1]

Yes, it is true that conspiracy theorists generally do not capture much of my confidence either. However, the 3-Bromopyruvate and the wider pyruvate analog story has forced me to consider the possibility.

 

There are some quite startling established facts that do raise some troubling issues. For example, the anti-cancer effects of 3-BP were first established in November of 2001.

 

The researchers at Johns Hopkins were unable to publish any human patient reports during the next ten years. A patient report was finally published in 2012 -- from Germany.

The liver cancer patient at the time treatment began was considered medically hopeless. There were no conventional therapies that could be offered to him.  3-Bromopyruvate treatment resulted in a curative response in this patient.

 

The melanoma patient was also medically hopeless. A curative response was also achieved with this patient. There was also a stage IV lung cancer patient, a stage IV breast cancer patient, 2 other liver cancer patients, and a stage IV pancreatic cancer patient.

 

The book Tripping over the Truth makes some very astonishing allegations about the development of 3-BP.

 

Such irregularities are not confined to 3-BP. Another pyruvate analog methylglyoxal has been understood to have potential as a cancer therapy over the last several decades. Yet, it was always thought to be toxic. Recently, this has been shown to be untrue. A form of honey called Manuka honey has large amounts of MG without toxicity issues being noted. A recently published clinical trial found that cancer patients treated with MG did quite well.

 

Both 3-BP and MG are very simple molecules that can be purchased cheaply online.

[niner]

The researchers at Johns Hopkins were unable to publish any human patient reports during the next ten years. A patient report was finally published in 2012 -- from Germany.

Why were the Johns Hopkins guys unable to publish?  Is it because they didn't feel like writing anything up?  Because they were too busy with other stuff?  Because they didn't have anything worth writing up?  Because their department was preventing them from publishing?  Because they couldn't get a paper through peer review?  Because the journals were rejecting their papers out of hand?  When you say "unable to publish", it sounds like you mean they wanted to publish but someone was stopping them.   Is there any evidence of that, or do you just mean that they didn't publish, for reasons unknown?

[mag1]

There appears to be quite a bit of a background story for 3-BP. Lawsuits, attempts to steal the original research...

It is also interesting to note that the scientific credentials of the researchers behind 3-BP are extremely impressive.

 

My comment about the Johns Hopkins researchers being unable to publish anything was unclear.

 

Johns Hopkins did eventually publish a patient report... 10 years later in Germany.

 

The researchers have still not published a single patient report with an American in America.

The liver patient was actually treated with guidance from the Johns Hopkins researchers.

The melanoma patient was treated in Egypt.

 

Johns Hopkins gave up on America ever allowing 3-BP treatment to occur on American soil. One of the researchers

sent an open letter to the President. They must have finally realized that the politico-regulatory system in

America simply would not allow it.

 

America has still not allowed publication of a 3-BP patient on American soil.

[niner]

 

Johns Hopkins gave up on America ever allowing 3-BP treatment to occur on American soil. One of the researchers

sent an open letter to the President. They must have finally realized that the politico-regulatory system in

America simply would not allow it.

 

America has still not allowed publication of a 3-BP patient on American soil.

 

Were they unable to get the study approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board?  I find it extremely hard to believe that the United States of America has a position on 3-BP or the publication of information about it.  Is this an FDA problem?  An Intellectual Property problem?  I don't think the US government would prevent the publication of scientific or medical results unless there was a national security concern, and I don't see that here.

[mag1]

It is difficult to untangle what has happened during the last 15 years since 3-BP was found to have very powerful anti-cancer effects.

However, it is clear that the researchers have been determined to try and help cancer patients.

 

These efforts were unable to result in a single published patient report from America during these last 15 years.

It does seem somewhat paranoid to suggest that the nation of America has obstructed the development of 3-BP, though no other obvious alternative explanation leaps to

mind.

 

Apparently, even the cancer clinics in America that are now treating with 3-BP have a whole set of legal barriers to their publishing results with their own patients.

Other writers on the internet with more detailed understanding of the regulatory and legal environment in the United States have also proposed a conspiracy view with regards to 3-BP.

 

I thought for a while that this was an FDA problem, though from my understanding now, the FDA has actually played a very constructive role with 3-BP. They authorized a phase 1 trial to

start in January of 2013 (This trial has not yet started). The FDA granted orphan designation for 3-Bromopyruvate for pancreatic cancer (04-29-2014) and for liver and intrahepatic

bile duct cancer (03-05-2013). They seem to be indicating that patients with these difficult to treat cancers might be especially good candidates for 3-BP treatment. Oftentimes there are no

viable treatment options for these patients when they reach the terminal stage.

 

The big commercial concern with 3-BP is possibly that it is such a simple molecule. MD Anderson has an analog of 3-BP and they have obtained very strong results with their product, though

they have also not moved it into the clinic yet. It has also been in development for many years.

 

It would be very helpful for patients if at some point a disclosure could be made concerning what is currently known clinically about 3-BP. Regulatory agencies probably now have a significant amount of information that 

should be disclosed to the public.  Such a disclosure could help define the safety and effectiveness of 3-BP.  

Edited by mag1, 27 June 2015 - 05:23 AM.

[resveratrol_guy]

While I agree with niner that I don't think there's a conspiracy to suppress "the cure", it's obviously the case that a lot of potentially useful dirty data anecdotes get deleted because somewhere in the middle of a post there is an advertisement or other posting violation. Mods have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they just don't have time to slice-and-dice posts into compliance (and shouldn't, because that would distort avatar personalities). Personally, I'd rather have 10X as much baloney in exchange for 10X as much information. I know how to read and filter for myself. But I realize that I'm not going to win a consensus on this.

 

So let me suggest that people use the Wayback Machine if they want to find deleted posts. It won't cover every website, but it will certainly expose some deleted posts on various forums, depending on the exact code used to implement the forum interface.

 

As to 3-IP, while optimization is always desirable, I think it would be much more productive to find a form of 3-BP which crosses the BBB. For that matter, I could imagine a dual 3-BP protocol which involves the usual form in the morning and the BBB-crossing form at night, for cases of brain mets or brain cancer mets to general circulation.

 

I'm under no illusion that a 3-BP analog of any kind would be cheap to push all the way through stage 3 clinical trials. Nonetheless, I agree that some useful petri dish science could be done with Kickstarter-ish funding. But again, why not take niner's suggestion to try an assay of hundreds of analogs all at once? (I wonder how cheaply all these analogs could be synthesized, presumably using well established pharmacological delivery molecules, e.g. chloride, gluconate, etc.)

 

As to methylglyoxal, Wiki says that it's a product of glycolysis. This goes back to my tumor welfare theory: give the tumor its glycolysis products for free, so it evolves to be more dependent and less aggressive, not unlike the effects of overdone social welfare. Do you have any suggested reading?

 

Edited by resveratrol_guy, 14 July 2015 - 03:08 PM.

[mag1]

The Stage IV pancreatic cancer patient who Dayspring described as having "Very Poor Short Term Prognosis" was the only pancreatic cancer patient treated by Dayspring with 3-BP!

This is extraordinary!

 

Any alternative clinic could treat 1000 patients and report on the 1 patient who had a good response.

I would expect that a placebo could do as well.

It is somewhat different when there is only a sample of 1. There is no selection.

 

However, fair enough there might have been 1000 patients with other forms of cancer that they chose not to report on.

It still seems quite impressive. Metastatic pancreatic cancer is widely known

to be a very difficult cancer to treat,

Thus, this patient report is encouraging.

 

http://www.dayspring....com/3bp-cases/

 

 

I am interested in the chemical side of 3-BP.

 

What reactions would 3-BP be expected to undergo?

For example, how might the bromine be displaced for 3-BP?

One would not want bromine gas to be produced, so might there be a reaction that would produce a solid chemical containing bromine as a product?

 

This would be of especial importance when attempting to analyze a sample of 3-BP for purity and contaminants.

 

 

Anyone on the thread with a background in chemistry would be welcomed to respond to these questions.

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 07 August 2015 - 02:12 AM.

[mag1]

I am still thinking about the analytical chemistry side of 3-BP. This is important because people might want a quick check on the purity of their 3-BP.

 

Is there a simple way to determine the pH of a solution of 3-BP?

For example, if one were to put 100 mg into 500 ml of water what would the calculated pH of this solution be?

 

Anyone with a chemistry background would be welcome to chime in. 

[mag1]

This thread is celebrating its one year anniversary today! Happy anniversary everyone!

 

It has been quite a year for 3-BP. Clinics have opened to treat with 3-BP and there has been some anecdotal successes.

The clinical trial has still not yet started, though maybe it will have for our next anniversary. 

[resveratrol_guy]

This thread is celebrating its one year anniversary today! Happy anniversary everyone!

 

It has been quite a year for 3-BP. Clinics have opened to treat with 3-BP and there has been some anecdotal successes.

The clinical trial has still not yet started, though maybe it will have for our next anniversary. 

 

Perhaps 3-BP should be combined with GcMAF therapy, a completely different experimental approach which ostensibly features similar broad-spectrum advantages.

 

Care to list the names of those clinics (assuming that one is Day Spring)? At some point, a cancer patient is going to coming browsing through here and might want to contact them. Waiting for clinical trials may not be an option for them.

[niner]

I am still thinking about the analytical chemistry side of 3-BP. This is important because people might want a quick check on the purity of their 3-BP.

 

Is there a simple way to determine the pH of a solution of 3-BP?

For example, if one were to put 100 mg into 500 ml of water what would the calculated pH of this solution be?

 

Anyone with a chemistry background would be welcome to chime in. 

 

You can't determine purity by looking at the pH of a solution.  Probably the best thing you could do at home (and it would still take a bit of trouble to rig up an appropriate apparatus) would be to get a melting point.  You'd have to know the exact chemical form-- Is it bromopyruvic acid, a salt, or an ester?  You'd probably need it to be the acid or ester to do a m.p.   Otherwise, I think you'd need to send it to a lab and have them run an HPLC and maybe get an IR spectrum, NMR or MS to verify identity.

[mag1]

Hey res_guy. Yeah, GcMAF has been noted on the Compass thread.

 

The 3-BP story is now maturing. Many people would not have even considered 3-BP a year ago as

3-BP was a largely unknown quantity. However, the story has been unfolding and the sense of novelty and

risk for being an early adopter are fading. Even still, it will be a great relief when there is finally a high quality

clinical trial that can be referenced. Amazingly the clinical trial with Prescience has still not even started!

There are now quite a few anecdotal reports of some level of success with 3-BP. Admittedly, there are also 

a fair few non-responders. Having a predictive test for 3-BP response would obviously make all the difference

in helping those most likely to benefit from the treatment to actually seek out 3-BP treatment.

 

 

 

It is quite possible that there are still some dangers associated with 3-BP treatment for people of unusual genotypes.

For example, if someone were to have a rare mitochondrial variant or a variant in a cellular respiration gene,

then it is at least possible that shutting down cellular respiration in cancer cells (and possibly other cells) with

3-BP might be dangerous. A genome scan might help identify those with such risks and in such instances 3-BP

treatment might be inadvisable. 

 

 

There is a certain amount of fluidity with the treating clinics using 3-BP.  

It is not entirely clear what the current situation is with the German clinic listed as number 4 in the below url.

 

My overall impression is that global access to 3-BP through clinics has been increasing.

There are unofficial clinics offering it in Mexico, Germany, among other nations.

 

There is also a clinic in The Philippines and we have recently had reports from Bangalore, India.

The Indian reports have mentioned positive responses with 3-BP TACE.

It is now been shown several times that directly injecting 3-BP into the blood supply of the liver

using the TACE procedure can have profound effects on liver tumors.

 

It is very exciting to see that India has picked up on 3-BP, as the potential for mass scale roll out and

moving down the price point could finally bring 3-BP into the spotlight.

 

Once the momentum were to begin with 3-BP, then there would be many positive developments that could be expected.

For example, much of the basic investigational clinical research has not been done with 3-BP. If a better understanding

of the genetics of response, effectiveness of co-treatments, proper selection of patients etc. were known, then the true

potential of 3-BP could be made more evident. There appears to be quite a bit of 3-BP treatment power that is still lurking.

This was dramatically shown with the melanoma patient when only 2 combined 3-BP and paracetamol (acetaminophen)

treatments resulted in a near curative response.

 

It is already known (in mice) that treating with a cyclo-dextrin formulation of 3-BP is safer and more effective.

Several other reformulations have been proposed and they also appear much more effective and safer than straight 3-BP.

 

 

It has been a great first year in the introduction of 3-BP treatment. It will be very interesting to see what developments will occur

in year 2.

 

 

http://3bromopyruvat...s_Offering_3-BP

Edited by mag1, 12 October 2015 - 06:55 PM.

[Hope47]

Hey res_guy. Yeah, GcMAF has been noted on the Compass thread.

 

The 3-BP story is now maturing. Many people would not have even considered 3-BP a year ago as

3-BP was a largely unknown quantity. However, the story has been unfolding and the sense of novelty and

risk for being an early adopter are fading. Even still, it will be a great relief when there is finally a high quality

clinical trial that can be referenced. Amazingly the clinical trial with Prescience has still not even started!

There are now quite a few anecdotal reports of some level of success with 3-BP. Admittedly, there are also 

a fair few non-responders. Having a predictive test for 3-BP response would obviously make all the difference

in helping those most likely to benefit from the treatment to actually seek out 3-BP treatment.

 

 

 

It is quite possible that there are still some dangers associated with 3-BP treatment for people of unusual genotypes.

For example, if someone were to have a rare mitochondrial variant or a variant in a cellular respiration gene,

then it is at least possible that shutting down cellular respiration in cancer cells (and possibly other cells) with

3-BP might be dangerous. A genome scan might help identify those with such risks and in such instances 3-BP

treatment might be inadvisable. 

 

 

There is a certain amount of fluidity with the treating clinics using 3-BP.  

It is not entirely clear what the current situation is with the German clinic listed as number 4 in the below url.

 

My overall impression is that global access to 3-BP through clinics has been increasing.

There are unofficial clinics offering it in Mexico, Germany, among other nations.

 

There is also a clinic in The Philippines and we have recently had reports from Bangalore, India.

The Indian reports have mentioned positive responses with 3-BP TACE.

It is now been shown several times that directly injecting 3-BP into the blood supply of the liver

using the TACE procedure can have profound effects on liver tumors.

 

It is very exciting to see that India has picked up on 3-BP, as the potential for mass scale roll out and

moving down the price point could finally bring 3-BP into the spotlight.

 

Once the momentum were to begin with 3-BP, then there would be many positive developments that could be expected.

For example, much of the basic investigational clinical research has not been done with 3-BP. If a better understanding

of the genetics of response, effectiveness of co-treatments, proper selection of patients etc. were known, then the true

potential of 3-BP could be made more evident. There appears to be quite a bit of 3-BP treatment power that is still lurking.

This was dramatically shown with the melanoma patient when only 2 combined 3-BP and paracetamol (acetaminophen)

treatments resulted in a near curative response.

 

It is already known (in mice) that treating with a cyclo-dextrin formulation of 3-BP is safer and more effective.

Several other reformulations have been proposed and they also appear much more effective and safer than straight 3-BP.

 

 

It has been a great first year in the introduction of 3-BP treatment. It will be very interesting to see what developments will occur

in year 2.

 

 

http://3bromopyruvat...s_Offering_3-BP

 

 

My Mother has been diagnosed with Stage IV Gall bladder Cancer which has been metastasized to the liver and lymph system. My question is,  "Do you know where I can get my Mom treated with 3-BP in India?"  Please help me.

 

Edited by Hope47, 17 April 2016 - 08:09 AM.

[mag1]

Dear Hope47, best wishes to you at this very difficult time.

People on the Compass thread might be able to offer you assistance.

 

Looks like you found the 3-BP lounge.

Cancer Treatment Centers of America sent one of their stage IV gall bladder cancer patients for treatment at Dayspring with 3-BP.

This patient was severely ill and though she did not attain long term survival, her markers actually improved over the course of 2 weeks of treatment.

 

 

https://cancercompas...d=663598#663598

[mag1]

Another Stage IV patient who has had a significant response to 3-BP has been posted to the Dayspring website.

There are now a range of cancer types (all stage IV) posted to their site who have responded to 3-BP.

 

Up to this point I had thought perhaps that there might be something unique to the posted patients that might

have allowed for them to respond to 3-BP. Now that a stage IV bladder cancer has been described, this line of

skepticism no longer seems reasonable.

 

http://www.dayspring....com/3bp-cases/