Vitamin C And Doxycycline Highly Effective Against Cancer Stem Cells

yurt

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
23
"Researchers found that a therapy involving the antibiotic Doxycycline and ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, was up to 100 times more effective for killing cancer stem cells (CSCs) than 2-DG, a molecule currently being tested as an anti-cancer agent in clinical trials."

Combining vitamin C with antibiotics destroys cancer stem cells

Vitamin C and Doxycycline: A synthetic lethal combination therapy targeting metabolic flexibility in cancer stem cells (CSCs)
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317902.php

See also:
Tetracyclines (and A Few Other Antibiotics) As A Cure For Cancer


 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Ascorbic acid will never get praise here because Peat believes its toxic. Sure toxic enough that it literally brings people back from the dead. (sepsis cure)
 
Last edited:
OP
yurt

yurt

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
23
would any vitamin c work?

Sodium ascorbate delivered intravenously in very large doses (75g of more per day) is often used for cancer treatment. Some evidence suggests that oral liposomal sodium ascorbate can be almost as effective, and a combination of both even better - although I might be wary of ingesting large amounts of lecithin (used to make the liposomes) over the longer term.

Google Thomas Levy, Hugh Riordan and Steve Hickey to learn more.
 
OP
yurt

yurt

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
23
so sodium ascorbate is better than ascorbic acid?

There is some disagreement about which form is better when taken orally; I find sodium ascorbate to be a little easier on the stomach. Ascorbic acid cannot be used IV (unless buffered) because its pH is too low.
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,671
There is some disagreement about which form is better when taken orally; I find sodium ascorbate to be a little easier on the stomach. Ascorbic acid cannot be used IV (unless buffered) because its pH is too low.
which product do you use and what about peats opinion that synthetic vitamin C is often high in heavy metals etc.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Get a certificate of analysis for the batch you buy of anything. Each batch is different. By most C on the market now has less than 10 ppm heavy metals.
 
OP
yurt

yurt

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
23
which product do you use and what about peats opinion that synthetic vitamin C is often high in heavy metals etc.

A healthy person might be better off eating vitamin C-rich fruits every day rather than regularly supplementing with vitamin C, because synthetic vitamin C will be contaminated with industrial chemicals to a variable extent. Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain if a product is "safe enough" or not for life-long consumption.

However, when used short-term for acute illnesses -- even in massive doses -- vitamin C might well save your life.

As I'm unable to get enough in my diet (due to various food intolerances), I use a little every day and hope that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Sodium ascorbate powder
Quali-C ascorbic acid

Oral vitamin C might be more effective (meaning less needed) when consumed with orange juice.
 
OP
yurt

yurt

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
23
What is "Liposomal" Vit C?

The Wiki page is quite informative.

There seems to be quite a war going on with competing liposomal nutrient products. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if a product's active ingredient is really liposomal encapsulated. I've seen good reports about LypriCel.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I'm using Livon Labs lipo c
 

GAF

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
789
Age
67
Location
Dallas Texas
Has science proven that liposomal is "better"? Or, is it just marketing BS?
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,671
There is some disagreement about which form is better when taken orally; I find sodium ascorbate to be a little easier on the stomach. Ascorbic acid cannot be used IV (unless buffered) because its pH is too low.
Isn't sodium ascorbate just bicarb of soda with ascorbic acid?
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,671
Has science proven that liposomal is "better"? Or, is it just marketing BS?
No it definitely does work. Same for liposomal glutathione. Take one of those during a hangover and it's gone!
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA

EndAllDisease

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
195
Forget doxycycline and vitamin C, the idea that cancer cells need to be 'killed' is the elephant in the room.

Cancer cells are not monsters, this is a fairytale told to you by an industry selling weapons as 'treatments'.
They're cells that have been injured and are in need of repair. The stem cells that scientists think we need to 'target' for cancer therapy are on their way to the area to repair damage, but the conditions they're met with surrounding the tumor - called the tumor microenvironment - injure them and don't allow for repair to occur.

From my book Cancer Cured:
When conditions surrounding an injury are defective, incoming stem cells are immediately injured and recruit additional stem cells which also become injured. As this chronic influx of stem cells and high rate of cell death continues, cells - both living and dead - begin to accumulate within the injured region, forming what is commonly referred to as… a tumor. “Wounding recruits these cells from the follicle to the wound site,…giving rise to superficial BCC [basal cell carcinoma]-like tumors. These findings demonstrate that BCC-like tumors can originate from follicular stem cells and provide an explanation for the association between wounding and tumorigenesis,” wrote scientists from the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the University of California in 2011.[451]

These fairly recent discoveries - that a constant flux of stem cells are responsible for tumor formation, growth and metastasis - have been confirmed so thoroughly[452-458] that even the cancer establishment has acknowledged them; except they’ve adapted them to fit in with their imaginary ‘mutant boogeyman’ theory of cancer, claiming that “cancer stem cells” are the true “villains” that need to be “eradicated” during cancer therapy. The fact that scientists would actually suggest killing the body’s repair cells as a treatment for cancer exposes an astonishing lack of understanding about the disease.[459-474]
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Forget doxycycline and vitamin C, the idea that cancer cells need to be 'killed' is the elephant in the room.

Cancer cells are not monsters, this is a fairytale told to you by an industry selling weapons as 'treatments'.
They're cells that have been injured and are in need of repair. The stem cells that scientists think we need to 'target' for cancer therapy are on their way to the area to repair damage, but the conditions they're met with surrounding the tumor - called the tumor microenvironment - injure them and don't allow for repair to occur.

From my book Cancer Cured:
When conditions surrounding an injury are defective, incoming stem cells are immediately injured and recruit additional stem cells which also become injured. As this chronic influx of stem cells and high rate of cell death continues, cells - both living and dead - begin to accumulate within the injured region, forming what is commonly referred to as… a tumor. “Wounding recruits these cells from the follicle to the wound site,…giving rise to superficial BCC [basal cell carcinoma]-like tumors. These findings demonstrate that BCC-like tumors can originate from follicular stem cells and provide an explanation for the association between wounding and tumorigenesis,” wrote scientists from the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the University of California in 2011.[451]

These fairly recent discoveries - that a constant flux of stem cells are responsible for tumor formation, growth and metastasis - have been confirmed so thoroughly[452-458] that even the cancer establishment has acknowledged them; except they’ve adapted them to fit in with their imaginary ‘mutant boogeyman’ theory of cancer, claiming that “cancer stem cells” are the true “villains” that need to be “eradicated” during cancer therapy. The fact that scientists would actually suggest killing the body’s repair cells as a treatment for cancer exposes an astonishing lack of understanding about the disease.[459-474]
Good post! Yeah I feel so bad for a friend she developed gangrene appendicitis and then later developed cancer at the site of surgery. She has been through non stop "treatments" chemo, surgery, radiation, TPN because her intestines are not working... And she's is slowly dieing. They just keep doing more CT scans, giving her more false hope they can kill the cancer still growing at the surgery site.
 

homyak

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
48
Forget doxycycline and vitamin C, the idea that cancer cells need to be 'killed' is the elephant in the room.

Cancer cells are not monsters, this is a fairytale told to you by an industry selling weapons as 'treatments'.
They're cells that have been injured and are in need of repair. The stem cells that scientists think we need to 'target' for cancer therapy are on their way to the area to repair damage, but the conditions they're met with surrounding the tumor - called the tumor microenvironment - injure them and don't allow for repair to occur.

From my book Cancer Cured:
When conditions surrounding an injury are defective, incoming stem cells are immediately injured and recruit additional stem cells which also become injured. As this chronic influx of stem cells and high rate of cell death continues, cells - both living and dead - begin to accumulate within the injured region, forming what is commonly referred to as… a tumor. “Wounding recruits these cells from the follicle to the wound site,…giving rise to superficial BCC [basal cell carcinoma]-like tumors. These findings demonstrate that BCC-like tumors can originate from follicular stem cells and provide an explanation for the association between wounding and tumorigenesis,” wrote scientists from the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the University of California in 2011.[451]

These fairly recent discoveries - that a constant flux of stem cells are responsible for tumor formation, growth and metastasis - have been confirmed so thoroughly[452-458] that even the cancer establishment has acknowledged them; except they’ve adapted them to fit in with their imaginary ‘mutant boogeyman’ theory of cancer, claiming that “cancer stem cells” are the true “villains” that need to be “eradicated” during cancer therapy. The fact that scientists would actually suggest killing the body’s repair cells as a treatment for cancer exposes an astonishing lack of understanding about the disease.[459-474]

Yeah, but could this therapy not be used while correcting the underlying cellular/epigenetic environments; more or less as a way to slow the progression of cancer?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom