Thanks a lot res_guy!
From what I understand one of the protocols uses sodium bicarbonate, though this might not be optimal.
Yet, one of the patents mentioned that potassium was specifically avoided as a buffer due to possible toxicity.
".. potassium has been shown to exhibit toxicity (hyperkalemia) in some human studies"
"In addition, by using a non-potassium containing buffer, e.g., a sodium phosphate buffer, potential heart and other problems related to potassium toxicity are eliminated."
Not sure whether this applies in this instance.
https://www.google.c...d=0CCMQ6AEwATgK
Will need to consider this further.
Thank you also for asking about the gall bladder patient.
I believe I actually mislabeled the patient in a post two or three back.
This patient had bile duct cancer and the clinical prognosis was desperate.
Her doctors explained that chemo would almost certainly not be helpful.
This patient's report has almost disappeared from the internet.
From what I can make out, a crowdfunding campaign raised quite a bit of money and she went to Dayspring for treatment.
After only about 2 weeks of treatment, she needed to be rehospitalized.
It is not clear how many or any treatments of 3-BP were given to her.
However, as I recall the crowdfunding site noted that after the treatment her markers had decreased by about 5%.
The patient did not survive beyond much more than a month after being rehospitalized.
The Cancer Compass thread has attracted quite a few of the leaders in the 3-BP community.
The pancreatic cancer patient stopped by and seemed to be doing fairly well.
There is also an invitation for the bladder cancer patient to make an appearance.
Anyone else interested in hearing how someone with cancer so severe that even Dayspring briefly considered
that the patient was untreatable has apparently now made a recovery?
This patient is tipping the balance for me.
I do not see how it can be considered reasonable anymore not to consider Dayspring if no options are forthcoming.
I do not think it is reasonable to wait until the last minute.
Dayspring has updated some of the patients, though I suppose there is always the tendency of the healthy patients to be
lost to followup. I would tend to think that patients who initially had good responses would be in contact with Dayspring if
there were set backs.
At the same time I certainly understand how we would all like more transparency.
3-BP is a nearly entirely opaque treatment.
Science is not based on anecdotes or unreferenced claims.
Probably a large part of the problem is that finding a sustainable business model for 3-BP is likely more of a challenge than
the actual science. Dayspring has staked out an approach that has allowed them to offer 3-BP treatment without fully disclosing
the details of their approach. Such a strategy has allowed them to protect their intellectual property even while 3-BP, the chemical,
itself might have certain patent challenges.
Edited by mag1, 09 May 2016 - 04:23 AM.