Chronology of Tom Van Flandern's illness

Details: Written by: Administrator; Category: Press Releases; Published: 11 September 2014; Hits: 522

Chronology of Tom Van Flandern's illness

from metasearch.org/messageboard

Tom Van Flandern

Printed from: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Topic URL: https://www.metaresearch.org/media-and-links2/press-releases/chronology-of-tom-van-flanderns-illness

Topic:

Topic author: MarkVitrone
Subject: Tom Van Flandern
Posted on: 29 Nov 2008 00:32:40

Message:

It is with great reluctance that I write this note to the active members of the MRMB and those who view the posts to keep up with Metaresearch. I was informed this weekend by Michael Van Flandern that Tom is very ill and will be stepping away from his science duties during his battle. He will be checking email from time to time as his treatment allows, but for now Larry and I will be monitoring the message board as usual so any concerns should be emailed to either of us. I am sure that I speak for all on the site when I say that Tom has been a scientific mentor and friend to us and our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family during this difficult time.

Mark

Replies:

Reply author: Alan McDougall
Replied on: 29 Nov 2008 01:14:25

Message:

I will pray for his quick recovery and return to vibrant health.

Send him my best wishes

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

Reply author: Pluto
Replied on: 29 Nov 2008 06:34:07

Message:

Tom has put me onto the right track to study cosmology.

He will not be forgotten.

Once in a while an Icon of a man lives in our presence.

Let us hope for his recovery.

Smile and live another day

Reply author :neilderosa
Replied on :29 Nov 2008 19:30:34

Message:

I too wish Tom and his family the best during this difficult time.

Neil

Reply author: shando
Replied on: 30 Nov 2008 18:43:01

Message:

I too am sad to hear of Tom's struggle. I hope to see him recover completely and wish him all the best.

Jim Shand

Reply author: greg87
Replied on: 30 Nov 2008 20:45:54

Message:

I will also pray for Tom and his family.

Greg Pike

Reply author: tvanflandern
Replied on: 01 Dec 2008 22:29:48

Message:

Tom Van Flandern will be out of the office until further notice.

On November 11th, 2008, Tom was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer under emergency conditions. Since then his condition has been stabilized and he has returned home, but he continues to be focused on the complications of fighting this aggressive disease. In the spirit of Meta Science, Tom is pursuing alternative medicine approaches with good track records to battle this otherwise fatal disease.

Tom's priorities right now are appropriately his medical issues and ordering his personal affairs. Regrettably he has little time for his normally important science issues at the moment. The Meta Research Board of Directors is tending to organizational matters. Meanwhile, Tom is checking email intermittently as his treatments and condition permit. Please limit messages sent to Tom's Meta Research email account to urgent science/Meta Research issues ONLY. If you have a truly urgent message send it marked 'high importance' to the regular Meta Research mailbox, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Otherwise please hold your correspondence until further notice. Tom hopes to return his attention to Meta Research matters if and when his health improves.

We've received many inquires about Tom's condition and warm wishes from friends and colleagues. Thank you. Please send future well wishes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. We value these emails and promise each will be read and passed on to Tom. Your support is important to him. We regret we will be unable to respond.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and assistance.

Mike Van Flandern (Tom's oldest son) for the Meta Research Board of Directors

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 04 Dec 2008 21:40:10

Message:

Both my wife and myself have had cancer and the long therapy. It can be successful. There is nothing humorous about this disease. Tom should concentrate all his mind and will on fighting this. I wish him success on a personal basis. He is the last intellectual mentor I have.

Gregg Wilson

Redmond, Washington

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: toothdust
Replied on: 06 Dec 2008 00:30:11

Message:

To a quick and healthful healing for Tom. Colon cancer can be nasty, but it is beatable.

His theories and approach to science in general have had a huge impact on my private studies into the sciences. His ideas were some of the first alternatives I ever came across.

My hat is off to you sir, for bringing a sound reasoning and questioning nature back to the astronomy paradigm.

To health and healing for you Tom.

Reply author: PheoniX_VII
Replied on: 06 Dec 2008 05:37:13

Message:

This is indeed sad news, Tom has been somewhat of a raw model for me when it comes to free thinking. Im sure though that he will be able to beat this and be back in good time to see the science start turning in his favor!

I wont send a personal email, I'm confident he will be able to read this right here when he gets back.

Fredrik Persson

Physics Student second year

Lund University, Sweden

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 09 Dec 2008 03:38:04

Message:

Tom, Both my wife and I wish you a speedy recovery. We enjoyed our meeting with you and your wife last July at your home. You have had such a great influence on so many here at this message board and in the world of astrophysics.

You might check out the Sanoviv.com resources. I have been on the nutritional supplements from Dr. Wentz and highly recommend them, also talked with several survivors of cancer that received treatment at the Sanoviv medical facility and they are now in remission. Please let me know if there is anything that we can do to help out, we are here for you. John

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 11 Dec 2008 22:14:49

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

One must distinguish between prevention of cancer and elimination of an existing cancer. Optimum diet and avoidance of, say, smoking or drinking of alcohol, may very well push off a potential cancer, but an existing cancer has to be killed. However "barbaric" - surgery, radiation and chemotherapy have a very high rate of success. Of seven persons who I know have had cancer - including my wife and myself - those five who went the route of surgery, radiation, chemotherapy have all survived. For years.

The two, who chose "alternative" therapies, died.

There is not a moral or ethical issue here. It is hard reality. One cousin died of lung cancer because she smoked all her life. The other cousin died of lung cancer because she never smoked. Getting cancer is very much like being struck by lightning. Being good or bad has nothing to do with it.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: mvanflandern
Replied on: 12 Dec 2008 23:26:29

Message:

My name is Michael Van Flandern, I'm the oldest of Tom's four children.

In my previous post I disclosed that Tom was exploring alternative treatments for cancer. I should clarify that Tom has met with 2 traditional surgeons and 2 traditional oncologists. All 4 experts told Tom the same thing. Tom's life expectancy without treatment is at most a few months. With chemotherapy and/or surgery his life might be extended for a few more months but surviving 3 years would be a major victory (put him on the far right of the bell curve). His chances of surviving 5 years are virtually nil. Radiation was also discussed and ruled out given the scope and location of his tumors (but Tom's has yet to see a radiation expert).

Personally, I agree with Gregg's assertion that cancer requires radical intervention once it develops. I also recognize that people are diagnosed with cancer all the time and survive. However, the key to sucess with conventional treatment seems to be catching the disease in time. In this case, unfortunately, that did not happen.

Most traditional treatments would significantly reduce the quality of Tom's remaining life without offering any significant probability of long term sucess. Under these circumstances, exploration of alternative treatments seems very appropriate. Tom and his family are under no illusions about the nearly certain outcome of this situation. If any traditional treatment offered a better prognosis the situation would obviously be different. Personally I still hold out hope that a combination of traditional medicine (such are targeted radiation) and alternative medicine might hold some promise. But it's unlikely Tom will pursue any treatment certain to reduce his remaining quality of life a without reasonable probability of success.

Well that's enough for now. The good news it that Tom is doing better at the moment that we would have thought possible. Next time I'll post a little more about the circumstances of his diagnosis last month and what's happened since.

Again thanks for your well wishes and messages. Tom is reading them and we all very much appreciate them. Thx -Mike

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 14 Dec 2008 20:53:38

Message:

To Michael

If conventional medicine doctors have concluded that they cannot offer a viable treatment, then obviously any combination of alternative therapies is warranted. I have been a patient of cancer, not a healer. And to put it mildly, my well of wisdom has run dry.

It is certainly not my position to advise someone on what he or she should do with the rest of his or life.

But I do hope that something will work. Only two persons have had a profound effect on my life. Ayn Rand and Tom Van Flandern.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 15 Dec 2008 01:10:24

Message:

Hi Gregg and Michael,

Please contact Sanoviv, they have a very comprehensive program that includes traditional medicine and surgery. The key is to look at a total program that also reinforces the bodies natural curative powers and looks into target specific programs for killing the cancer cells. Dr. Wentz has built a state of the art facility and has spent his entire life working with human cell cultures and immunological responses to curing disease. Sanoviv Medical Institute has a toll free number and a great staff, I have met Dr. Wentz personally and if anyone knows what the state of the art for creating optimum human health I would have to say it would be Dr. Wentz. The patient support is beyond anything I have ever seen, with a bank of experts in their respective fields---take a look at their website and listen to the testimonies. Like I stated before, one of my wife's students mother at Haulalai Academy was told that she only had months to live and now her cancer is in remission. I have met the mother and talked with her about Sanoviv---She is very thankful. I can tell you this, if I or my family were sick with a life threatening disease I would immediately go to Sanoviv.

I hope also that something will work, my prayers go out to you and your family. John

Reply author: mvanflandern
Replied on: 18 Dec 2008 13:49:28

Message:

Folks,

Thanks for all of your referrals and recommendations, we're looking at everything. While Tom's energy is low and he easily fatigues, he is reasonably comfortable, is in good spirits and remains in full control of his faculties. One request Tom has at the moment... if anyone out there has either direct or indirect experience with colon stents he'd love to hear from you.

I promised a quick overview of the history so here it is. On Nov 11 2008 Tom went first to a doctor and then the hospital complaining of nausea and intense abdominal pain. A CAT Scan revealed a fist sized tumor on Tom's colon, 2 marble sized tumors in his liver, numerous abnormal growths lining his abdominal wall and ascites (excess fluid in the abdominal lining). The colon tumor was completely obstructing Tom's bowel causing distension and a great deal of pain.

The doctors were very grim and at one point Tom was told that while 'miracles do happen' the outcome on his situation was '99.99+%' certain. His life expectancy was set at 2-4 months. Because of the growths lining his abdominal wall the cancer was deemed inoperable and radiation was ruled out. An ileostomy (a surgical procedure in which the small intestine is attached to the abdominal wall in order to bypass the large intestine) was schedule to relieve the bowel obstruction.

Prior to surgery a second CAT scan was taken to look at Tom's lungs. Over 100 blood clots were discovered, including a full saddle embolism. These clots made very it unlikely Tom would survive any surgery. The ileostomy was called off and Tom's life expectancy was downgraded to less than a week.

Over the next 2 days Tom's condition deteriorated rapidly. Raising the head of Tom's bed even 8 inches caused his blood pressure to drop and he became faint. Tom no longer had the strength to even hold a pen. Talking more than a minute completely exhausted him. He was in constant pain from his enormously bloated belly, his lips cracked and his tongue swelled from being unable to drink and his throat was raw from the tube removing excess fluids from his stomach. The constant pain and lack of energy finally eroded Tom's will to live. We were told Tom could go at any time. Friends and family came to say goodbye and Tom made a few farewell phone calls.

At this point one of Tom's colleagues suggested we explore use of Thrombolytics, a class of drugs used to dissolve blood clots in heart attack and stroke patients. We discussed this treatment and the potential risks with the hospital doctor. Thrombolytics had never been used to treat a cancer patient at this hospital, there was a 3% chance of brain hemorrhage and because the drug dissolves clots there was an indeterminable risk of causing abdominal bleed out at his tumors. However, given the situation the treatment seemed like the only remaining option with a reasonable chance of success. We asked that the drug be administered and the hospital agreed.

Shortly after the Thrombolytics were applied blood filled the tube pumping Tom's stomach. The pump was turned off in the hope that eliminating suction would reduce the bleeding. A very long night vigil followed. Tom awoke about 3AM and announced he had rediscovered his will to live! The next morning Tom's bowel became partially unblocked. He sat up and had his first drink in a week. A new CAT scan showed nearly complete resolution of the clots in Tom's lungs.

Tom's improvement over the next week was simply amazing. At the end of the week he walked out of the hospital and went home. He's spent a good deal of quality time with his family and even recorded a few videos. He's still bloated and partially obstructed and his energy varies from day to day. Tom is taking regular injections of Lovenox (a Low Molecular Weight Heparin) to keep the hypercoagulation caused by his cancer under control. Next week Tom hopes to have a colon stent placed to alleviate the remaining bowel obstruction, reduce his bloating and allow him to eat more. Assuming that goes well then we will then turn our full attention to addressing the cancer.

Well that's it for now. I'll continue to post updates here periodically. Thanks -Mike

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 18 Dec 2008 14:11:34

Message:

Mike,

Thank you for the update. I knew Tom was a fighter. How coulld he be otherwise, given his chosen career path?

Reply author: PheoniX_VII
Replied on: 18 Dec 2008 14:16:33

Message:

Thanks Mike for letting us know the whole story, It must have been a very traumatic experience for all of you and I really appreciate the effort it must have taken you just to write all of this down.

Thank you for the update. I knew Tom was a fighter. How coulld he be otherwise, given his chosen career path?

And just as Larry said, Tom is a fighter for sure.

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 19 Dec 2008 19:01:19

Message:

Dear all,

As a layman I do not wish to interfere inappropriately in what is a private matter at this point. However, I am in regular contact with an "alternative" mainstream cancer researcher of some standing, and I'd like to post a popular article followed by his personal observations without further comment in the hope that it contains clues that can be useful to someone at some point. Best wishes.

By Bill Sardi and Timothy Hubbell

October 2008

It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later. That is how researchers describe the most convincing cancer cure ever announced.

The weekly injection of just 100 billionths of a gram of a harmless glyco-protein (a naturally-produced molecule with a sugar component and a protein component) activates the human immune system and cures cancer for good, according to human studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients, producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein cure is totally without side effect but currently goes unused by cancer doctors.

Normal Gc protein (also called Vitamin-D binding protein) , an abundant glyco-protein found in human blood serum, becomes the molecular switch to activate macrophages when it is converted to its active form, called Gc macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF). Gc protein is normally activated by conversion to Gc-MAF with the help of the B and T cells (bone marrow-made and thymus gland-made white blood cells). But, as researchers explain it themselves, cancer cells secrete an enzyme known as alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase (also called Nagalase) that completely blocks conversion of Gc protein to Gc-MAF, preventing tumor-cell killing by the macrophages. This is the way cancer cells escape detection and destruction, by disengaging the human immune system. This also leaves cancer patients prone to infections and many then succumb to pneumonia or other infections.

The once-weekly injection of minute amounts of Gc-MAF, just 100 nanograms (billionths of a gram), activates macrophages and allows the immune system to pursue cancer cells with vigor, sufficient to produce total long-term cures in humans.

Nobuto Yamamoto, director of the Division of Cancer Immunology and Molecular Biology, Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, says this is "probably the most potent macrophage activating factor ever discovered."

Once a sufficient number of activated macrophages are produced, another Gc-MAF injection is not needed for a week because macrophages have a half-life of about six days. After 16-22 weekly doses of Gc-MAF the amount of Nagalase enzyme fell to levels found in healthy people, which serves as evidence tumors have been completely eliminated. The treatment was fool-proof - - - it worked in 100% of 16 breast cancer patients and there were no recurrent tumors over a period of 4 years, says a report in the January 15 issue of the International Journal of Cancer. [International Journal Cancer.2008 January15; 122(2):461-7]

In another startling follow-up report by Dr. Yamamoto and colleagues, published in the upcoming July issue of Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy, Gc-MAF therapy totally abolished tumors in 8 colon cancer patients who had already undergone surgery but still exhibited circulating cancer cells (metastases). After 32-50 weekly injections, "all colorectal cancer patients exhibited healthy control levels of the serum Nagalase activity, indicating eradication of metastatic tumor cells,"said researchers, an effect that lasted 7 years with no indication of cancer recurrence either by enzyme activity or CT scans, said researchers. [Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy Volume 57, Number 7 / July 2008] Published in an early online edition of this journal, this confirming report has received no attention by the new media so far, despite its striking importance.

Gc-MAF treatment for cancer has been agonizingly slow to develop. Dr. Yamamoto first described this immuno-therapy in 1993. [The Journal of Immunology, 1993 151 (5); 2794-2802]

In a similar animal experiment published in 2003, researchers in Germany, Japan and the United States collaborated to successfully demonstrate that after they had injected macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF) into tumor-bearing mice, it totally eradicated tumors. [Neoplasia 2003 January; 5(1): 3240]

In 1997 Dr. Yamamoto injected GcMAF protein into tumor-bearing mice, with the same startling results. A single enzyme injection doubled the survival of these mice and just four enzyme injections increased survival by 6-fold. [Cancer Research 1997 Jun 1; 57(11):2187-92]

In 1996 Dr. Yamamoto reported that all 52 cancer patients he had studied carried elevated blood plasma levels of the immune inactivating alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase enzyme (Nagalase), whereas healthy humans had very low levels of this enzyme. [Cancer Research 1996 Jun 15; 56(12):2827-31]

In the early 1990s, Dr. Yamamoto first described how the human immune system is disengaged by enzymes secreted from cancer cells, even filing a patent on the proposed therapy. [US Patent 5326749, July 1994; Cancer Research 1996 June 15; 56: 2827-31]

Activated Gc protein has been used in humans at much higher doses without side effect. This Gc macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF) has been shown to be effective against a variety of cancers including breast, prostate, stomach, liver, lung, uterus, ovary, brain, skin, head/neck cancer, and leukemia.

Although GcMAF is also called Vitamin-D binding protein, the activation of macrophages does not require Vitamin D.

It cannot be said the Gc-MAF cancer cure has gone unheralded. Reuters News covered this developing story in January. But the news story still did not receive top billing nor did it fully elucidate the importance of the discovery, actually made years ago, that the human body is capable of abolishing cancer once its immune system is properly activated.

GcMAF is a naturally made molecule and is not patentable, though its manufacturing process is patent protected. There is no evidence of any current effort to commercialize this therapy or put it into practice. Should such an effective treatment for cancer come into common practice, the income stream from health-insurance plans for every oncology office and cancer center in the world Would likely be reduced to the point of financial insolvency and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be eliminated.

The National Cancer Institute estimates cancer care in the U.S. costs ~$72 billion annually (2004). Furthermore, about $55 billion of cancer drugs are used annually, none which have not significantly improved survival rates throughout the history of their use. If a typical cancer patient had to undergo 30 GcMAF injections at a cost of $150 per injection, that would cost ~$4500, not counting doctor's office visits and follow-up testing. For comparison, gene-targeted cancer drugs range from $13,000 to $100,000 in cost per year and produce only marginal improvements in survival (weeks to months). [Targeted Oncology 2007 April, 2 (2); 113-19]

Up to this point, the National Cancer Institute is totally silent on this discovery and there is no evidence the cancer care industry plans to quickly mobilize to use this otherwise harmless treatment.

Addendum: Sadly, the treatment you have just read about is not available anywhere. Its inventor is attempting to patent a version of it to profiteer off of it even though there is no need to improve upon the GcMAF molecule - - it worked without failure to completely cure four different types of cancer with no long-term remissions and without side effect. While GcMAF is produced by every healthy adult, there are no centers available to extract it from blood samples and inject it into patients with malignancies. Hopefully, someday, doctors will write protocols to do this and submit them to institutional review boards so GcMAF treatment can be performed on an experimental basis. GcMAF is a naturally-made molecule that cannot be patented. This article was written to reveal that there are proven cancer cures that go unused. Of interest, not one oncologist has requested information about GcMAF since this article was written, while I have been barraged with inquires from cancer patients, their families and some interested physicians who are not cancer doctors.

-Bill Sardi

Dr. Andrew Maniotis' comment (via Email thus the at times informal tone and less than perfect punctuation and syntax):

Dear Claus, Sam,

Again, and consistent with my experience, experiments, and arguments, the experiments and human trial successes using GcMAF, and perhaps a wide array of other similar non-toxic glyco-protein molecules may also show in the future if this approach is ever allowed to be pursued by the cancer establishment, it may all be due to the fact that the "poison" injections disrupt the tumor biofil(s) microenvironment created and controlled by these molecules, and at the same time activate the toll receptors buried in the slime so that "a danger signal" is received by the body, and the trapped inflammation can be seen by the immune system and rejected.

Moreover, the reactions to micro-quantitities of GcMAF described here are at a minimum reminiscent of the approaches Wilhelm Busch and Coley had first described independently and published as anecdotal reports describing their tumor rejection patients and their successes, the ignored experiments that Yarkoni and Rapp had shown years ago at the NCI using things such as squalene and mineral oil which are vaccine adjuvants that caused nearly 100% tumor rejection in hamsters and other animals, and which also paradoxically induced autoimmune diseases when injected
directly into the bloodstreams of experimental animals or Gulf War I
veterans who tested positive for squalene after the squalene-containing anthrax (or "HIV") vaccine experiments on them were conducted (pushed forward once again by our friend Edmond Tremont-see Gary Motsumoto's book, Vaccine A). The approach and chemical nature of this molecule is consistent with what we have found by defining, describing, and exploiting the vasculogenic mimicry tumor biofilm as I have called it, in the reversions of breast cancer and melanomas.

That this class of simple glyco-protein molecules, that fibronectin,
laminin, and antibodies against them all have such potential, that
bacteria bind to fibronectin, that toll receptors associate with toxins of micro-organisms- all suggest that Nature operates by using Her efficient tissue-building materials and designs in a plethora of different contexts as diverse as microbial biofilm mats, embryonic tissue building and its consequent ability to block any and all implanted tumors despite the most deranged aneuploidy or mutation, in the experiments of breast cancer or melanoma reversion and killing using antibodies against the gel-binding domain of fibronectin (to get rid of the gas fueling the tumor) or with excess laminin (which acts as a break and stops tumor growth), or as in
these elegant experiments described here by Bill Sardi and Timothy
Hubbell.

Alas, 'tis a pity to keep toxically poisoning or radiating patients, as has been going on for a century. But Ewing at Sloan Kettering with his foot on Coley's neck, supported by John D. Rockefeller and the greed of the fledgling radium industry, and due to the myopia of allopathic "killing" approaches that have been supported ever increasingly by the industrial power of the American petrochemical and pharmaceutical greed and control of our national cancer
foundations (ACS and NCI-who were not even allowed to vote on The Clean Air Act because of the power of the cancer funding influences), there is little hope that things will change soon. Even some of the grant program administrators of the NCI I've talked to are aware of these issues, but nobody in the U.S. can change the practice of these increasingly toxic, multiple cocktail approaches that are so lucrative to the petrochemical and pharmaceutical giants that continue to pollute our world, generate cancers, and then provide toxic "cures" for them that will never work, and which never made any sense in the first place. I've been working with Sam Epstein and his organization, Stop Cancer Before It Starts, and was a signer of his book of that same name a few years ago. In it, is a breathtaking compilation of the conflicts of interests and corporate stakeholders who continue to impede the implementation of the approaches shown here
(http://www.preventcancer.com/).The book is free and available on the Internet. . .

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 19 Dec 2008 22:12:07

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Claus

Being only a patient, I don't have professional knowledge about the "alternative" approach described in the previous e-mail. Though, if the regimen considers cancer cells to be foreign entities, not cells of the patient, this is a bit suspect. Tumors are extremely common but the high majority are not cancerous. And they are not routinely rejected by the human immune system.

More troubling is the above claim that "mainstream" cancer drugs are not effective. This is patently not true. My wife was given cancer drugs immediately after surgery and has survived for sixteen years without any recurrence of the breast cancer. Her mother has the same success record for colon cancer. I have survived for four years with absolutely no evidence of any remaining thyroid cancer cells even at the microscopic level. They are easily detected by the administration of radioactive iodine followed by a radiation scan. A cousin shows no recorrence of leukemia after seven years.

The implication that there is a conspiracy against a successful cancer therapy - as described in the above email - does not seem plausible.

There is no question that oncologists may very well have tunnel vision, so alternative therapies should be investigated.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Alan McDougall
Replied on: 19 Dec 2008 23:29:11

Message:

Claus

I really have an open mind about alternate treatment, I went to the suggested link but could not find the free ebook, could you give me more specific directions?

My sister who I love dearly is a cancer sufferer and I want to research every avenue to help her

Regards

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 20 Dec 2008 14:27:59

Message:

Dear Gregg,

I have no idea how you read into this that the regimen is grounded on the belief that cancer cells are foreign entities (i.e. originating outside the body)

As I understand it, what the immunological approaches to cancer are struggling with is, simply put, how to teach the "immune system" (in itself a fairly unknown and unexplored thing) to recognize and attack cancerous cells, one of the problems being that they are "self".

Perhaps you are objecting to the word "rejecting" the tumour, as in rejecting foreign matter as happens for instance in organ transplants. I've already mentioned that this was a popular article and an informal Email, so all terminology is not explained, perhaps not strictly adhered to either. However, if you find several referenced peer-reviewed papers, as well as named well-published specialists, seemingly making such a basic mistake, perhaps it is worth re-reading before jumping to conclusions.

Of course the body or "immune system" has ways of dealing with "self" cells that are pathogenic or mutating out of control. This is what the alternative approaches are about: How can the natural healing processes be radically augmented or enhanced once they've failed?

The statement that the cancer drugs are not effective is a sweeping statistical claim, not an anecdotal one. As someone mentioned further up, the success of any cancer drug is highly dependent on an early diagnosis and good drug tolerance by the patient. The main successes we've had in cancer treatment come from better diagnostic tools, not from the evolution of the drugs.

Of course there will have been some sort of learning curve, but please understand, Nixon's war on cancer is 40 years old, funding has run into the gazillions, shouldn't we expect a bit more if they had really been on the right track all these years?

For those who continue to believe that the research into diseases, their causes and cures is guided by "pure science" rather than entrenched vested interests (no need for a conspiracy here) should take just an ounce of the skepticism with which they view NASA and apply it to the most lucrative and self-contradictory of all industries: the medical-industrial complex.

Dear Alan,

I think we have all had experiences with cancer directly or indirectly - unfortunately. Through my work (as an editor) with Dr. Maniotis and others, I have been exposed to a lot of stuff about cancer which was only half comprehensible techno-babble to me. All I wanted to do was point to specific, related approaches, which make sense in theory and have shown good results when tested with the rigour of mainstream science.

I do think this is a fight we have to fight for ourselves. We cannot wait for the medical establishment to fumble its way through institutionalized conflicts of interest and the cult of bio-tech, while our loved ones are dying.

I cut the mail short because I didn't want to come across as trying to sell something (although it's free). The book mentioned is about the corruption of cancer research, not necessarily a guide to a cure. I will ask for a link that works and hopefully return with it if you are still interested.

Best regards

Claus

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 20 Dec 2008 14:35:27

Message:

Hi Tom and Friends, Thankful to hear that there is a positive improvement in Tom's health. I wanted to share some thoughts regarding a diet regimin and some areas of research for beating this cancer. I would go to Costco and purchase the large box of oatmeal, get almonds, maybe walnuts, raisens, crushed flax seed-omega oils, cinnamin-regulates blood sugar, box of fresh strawberries if available or frozen blue berries. I eat a large bowl of oatmeal every morning with a cup of coffee. I would also purchase several containers of dark blue or red grapes with seeds-resveratrol is an antioxidant that will reverse aging in cells.
Dr. Wentz has partnered with the Linus Pauling Institute on a long term study on Resveratrol. [Although resveratrol can inhibit the growth of cancer cells in culture and in some animal models, it is not known whether high intakes of resveratrol can prevent cancer in humans. (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/resveratrol/)

I would eat a ton of dark grapes crushing the seeds.

While at Costco I would also purchase a juicer if you do not already have one. Read about detoxying body, the entire program at Sanoviv is organic and vegetarian during detox. They focus on gourmet live food which preserves compounds. Costco---buy a large bag of carrots and juice them regularly.

I would stay away from processed foods I think it was Jack Lalainne that said that statement. Look at his juicing books for advice, but again Sanoviv has the science based technical knowledge regarding why live foods and detox works.

I eat costco organic peanut butter and their multigrain bread with raisens for lunch. I do a lot of hard labor, I am building a new rental and recording and video production studio with control room/office. I also do a lot of surfing for hours and so that keeps me strong at 62 years of age.

Go for Salmon/steelhead from costco for protien. I would cut into small cubes and let maronate in fresh squeezed lemon, honey, ginger, pepper, and then simmer until cooked in sauces. Serve with large fresh salad and red potatoes. That is my favorite. I stay away from bacon, and fried food.

Some of my other favorites, black beans, barly is excellent side, and brown rice. Fresh steamed yellow and summer squash.

Now, this is my regimin and may not be appropriate for present condition. I would approximate all responses take it easy, but diet is part of the healing process and it is extremely important that this is well thought out.

Here are some other areas that I think need to be adressed: Nutritional Supplement Regimin-maintain high level of antioxidants in blood stream at all times --- supplement requirements for optimimun cellular regeneration, Heat treatments- get advice on this-heat kills cancer but does not kill normal cells, Oxygen treatments breathing-oxygen required for optimum cellular processes, Excersize go slow but pick up steam-short then long walks, I know that the standard medical establishment does not have a wholistic approach because they are ran by the pharmacuetical companies [push products on them] so my thoughts regarding their procedures are that they may be able to kill the cancer but do not have an intelligent science based cellular level support program to maintain optimum health. Some one in the family should contact Sanoviv-it is expensive but they may be of help at least as a resource and could assist in gaining greater understandings regarding potential for getting the cure. I would rather be at a health spa positive environment that has state of the art technologies and looks at the big picture, is science based, and is a world class research center then at a cold hard pharmaceutical supported medical center with cafeteria style food preparation and zero consideration for nutrition.

Thank God for the support of your family, and I sure wish you a wonderful Christmas. Please keep fighting, John

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 20 Dec 2008 14:46:17

Message:

Ok, there are two books by Sam Epstein, a major one called "Cancer Gate", obviously the one dealing with corruption, and another one available on the Internet called "Stopping Cancer Before it Starts", dealing mostly with the idea that cancer is caused by environmental pollutants. I don't know how relevant it is in this context, but you can have a quick look:

http://www.stopcancer.org/pdf/bgpaper.pdf

Here's one of the claims:

Forty years ago, one in four Ontarians was diagnosed with cancer, while one in five died from the disease. In 1999, the odds have worsened: one in three of us will get cancer at some point in our lifetime - one in two if we count non-melanoma skin cancers - and one in four will die from it.

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 23 Dec 2008 22:04:53

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Claus

Of course the body or "immune system" has ways of dealing with "self" cells that are pathogenic or mutating out of control.

This is news to me. Why doesn't the body reject benign tumors then?

Gregg

Originally posted by Claus

[/The statement that the cancer drugs are not effective is a sweeping statistical claim, not an anecdotal one. As someone mentioned further up, the success of any cancer drug is highly dependent on an early diagnosis and good drug tolerance by the patient. The main successes we've had in cancer treatment come from better diagnostic tools, not from the evolution of the drugs.

Based on my personal experience and that of several relatives, the above is not true at all. I will stick with experience.

Gregg

Originally posted by Claus

The medical-industrial complex? What industry? The slow down in the progress of medicine is with the government, not the market. I am not a fan of "conspiracies" because it gives way too much credit to the presumed conspirators. Try dogmatic, stubborn stupidity. The "not invented here" complex.

The government constitutes a monopoly. An open market is competitive. Pharmaceutical companies compete against one another. When one of them makes a major mistake, it costs them.

Gregg

Best regards

Claus

The correlation I have observed, over and over again, is that certain family (genetic) lines are highly vulnerable to cancer. Others are not. My direct family line has not had cancer in four generations, until it happened to me. Explanation: I worked in a plutonium mill and was chronically exposed to radioactive iodine, which goes only to the thyroid. My exposure to government environmentalism. Ho hum.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 24 Dec 2008 19:40:15

Message:

Dear Gregg,

I admit I have not focused much on benign tumors, but a guess would be that the body does catch most of them before they become a problem, and that only occasionally does something, benign or malignant, develop beyond a certain point.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enHK211HK211&q=tumor+rejection

What is perhaps more interesing here is that so-called spontaneous remission/regression also happens in advanced cases. I simply googled "cancer spontaneous remission", and picked this one from the first page.

Spontaneous remission of cancer (SR) is defined as a complete or partial, temporary or permanent disappearance of all or at least some relevant parameters of a soundly diagnosed malignant disease without any medical treatment or with treatment that is considered inadequate to produce the resulting regression. We report the case of a 61-year-old man who presented with extensive metatastic disease five months after pneumonectomy for poorly differentiated large cell and polymorphic lung cancer. A vast metastatic tumour mass of the abdominal wall was confirmed histolologically and there was clinical and radiographic evidence of liver and lung metastases. Eight months later, the patient was operated on for a hernia, which had developed in the inguinal biopsy scar and the surgeon confirmed complete clinical SR of the abdominal wall metastases. Again five months later there was no longer any radiologic evidence of liver and lung metastases. Complete remission has persisted more than five years. Histology of the primary and of the abdominal metastases were reviewed by several independent pathologists. SR is an extremly rare event in lung cancer. This is the first documented case of clinically evident visceral metastases of a bronchiogenic adenocarcinoma developing after complete resection of the primary and then showing complete SR. The epidemiology of SR is reviewed and possible mechanisms involved in SR are discussed

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/anno/1997/00000008/00000010/00148262

This article, which I found referenced on Keith Laney's forum, explains nicely why there is little knowledge of the extent and circumstances of SR

A significant portion of invasive breast cancers may regress on their own without treatment, a new study that is bound to provoke controversy suggests.

The study, published Monday in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, suggests breast cancer screening may be leading to over diagnosis of cancer, with upwards of 22 per cent of cases likely to resolve themselves without treatment.

Once a breast cancer is found, it wouldn't currently be considered ethical not to treat. So if the theory is correct large numbers of women may be having surgeries, radiation, chemotherapy and other treatments that would never have been needed if their cancers hadn't been detected.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/11/24/breastcancer-study.html#socialcomments-submit

-----------------------------------------------

I said "NO NEED FOR CONSPIRACY (THEORY)", so I believe we agree on
your "dogmatic stubborn stupidity" point. This, however, is Libertarianism of the naive sort:

The government constitutes a monopoly. An open market is competitive. Pharmaceutical companies compete against one another. When one of them makes a major mistake, it costs them.

Try a real world analysis instead. Companies compete within certain parameters, those that tend to perpetuate the raison d'etre of the industry they represent. That is but one convergence of interest between competitors. They will all attempt to create practical monopoly in their area. In the medical industry's case, they will attempt to influence funding and validation procedures, promote laws and regulations that protect their industry against competition from alternative approaches; they will make research prohibitively expensive, shape public perception through their marketing efforts - which might give you the illusion of competing choices between two different chemotherapies - involve themselves with "charitable" efforts carried out by the likes of WHO etc. etc.

Thus, as with the two competing political parties, determining the parameters of political discourse, Merck may take a hit on Vioxx, and GSK or Roche might show bigger returns that year, but the thinking, the development, the philosophy, the business interests the products offered, the overall agenda are basically the same regardless. If you represent an approach with far less capital, political influence and profit potential, good luck to you in trying to get through with it.

I have recently been offered a promising investment opportunity in a new biotech company. Unique selling point: Drug Rescue, specifically cancer drug rescue.

When a cancer drug has failed because of too high toxicity profile, this company can go in and determine the genetic profile of the guinea pigs, so the company can reintroduce the failed drug, now targeted to those who seem genetically best equipped to tolerate it. The various companies can thus look forward to mutually lucrative competition for "rescue" of their expensive poisons. No need to go in new directions the next decade. This perverse form of inertia constitutes innovative thinking in the brave new biotech world.

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 25 Dec 2008 12:55:32

Message:

Companies are neither inherently good or bad, and they will act in their own perceived self interest, which can include falsification of drug results. My point is that if competition exists, then that tends to weed out the incompetent. If there is an imposed monopoly, the incompetent can remain in business. Much of your perception of monopoly effect in medicine comes from the association of companies with the government. The FDA is not noted for its truthfulness or competency.

But back to the specific subject of colom cancer. Counting on spontaneous remission - admitted to be very rare - is not a good regimen.

Have talked with two doctors about the matter. They stated that the "cutting edge" in treatment is to try to goad the immune system into attacking cancer cells in the following manner:

1) The cancer cells may have a far higher number of cetain receptor sites because they are growing and multiplying rapidly.

2) If the introduction of such receptor sites on a literally foreign "molecule" - being introduced into the patient by ingestion or injection - can activate the immune system because of the foreign "molecule" - then the immune system produces antigens which tie up these receptor sites on the foreign molecule. Not being "awake" or understanding anything, the antigens will also combine with the receptor sites on the cancer cells. This puts the cancer cells "out of business" and they die. However, such receptors on normal cells will also be tied up.

3) The hope is that the immune system will destroy the cancer before it will kill the patient.

4) This idea is long on theory and there are apparently little or no results on such clinical testing.

5) It runs the risk of progressing into auto-immune disease.

The above algorithm is exactly the same as conventional chemotherapy. My being given radioactive iodine for thyroid cancer was a "slam, dunk" because the iodine only goes to the thyroid cells. The cause of the disease was used as the cure of the disease. My harm from the radiation was un-noticable.

I have no intimate knowledge of drug company "politics" but the oncologists are only interested in success. They weed out failed regimens.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 25 Dec 2008 15:02:07

Message:

4) This idea is long on theory and there are apparently little or no results on such clinical testing.

Gregg, look, I dont think there's any point in continuing if you keep pretending I haven't posted the references I have posted.

The thing about anecdotes and personal conviction is you can't rationally argue against either, so, you know, if you say so and you're happy with it, good for you.

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 25 Dec 2008 17:52:16

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Claus

4) This idea is long on theory and there are apparently little or no results on such clinical testing.

Gregg, look, I dont think there's any point in continuing if you keep pretending I haven't posted the references I have posted.

The thing about anecdotes and personal conviction is you can't rationally argue against either, so, you know, if you say so and you're happy with it, good for you.

The purpose of this thread is to present any workable theory for combating cancer, if it is new and not generally known. If you have one, post the mechanism and the clinical results.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Claus
Replied on: 26 Dec 2008 09:36:11

Message:

Gregg, Please re-read my first post in this series which does just that. All my references go back to peer-reviewed scientific literature, showing remarkable clinical results. I have checked that every paper referred to in the popular articles actually exists. I am sorry but I fail to see how else I can deal with your objections and anecdotes. This is after all a scientific forum, no?

Claus

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 26 Dec 2008 09:36:1126 Dec 2008 15:10:37

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Claus

Claus

Okay, since your life and my life are not on the line, restate your case of something activating the immune system, so that it attacks cancer cells. I don't perceive this but then I am not an oncologist. Put it layman terms so that a reader can grasp the potential of the method.

If the oncologists working with Tom have come up with a viable program, then we are not doing any good, and perhaps, doing harm. If they have "given up" then whatever you first posted is worth investigating.

Please don't make references to conspiracies or spontaneous remission. They have no utility to Tom Van Flandern.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: marsrocks
Replied on: 26 Dec 2008 19:57:43

Message:

My prayers go out out to Tom and his family. I am very encouraged about Tom's desire to fight and overcome this!

I also regularly read Keith Laney's message board where there are several threads about alternative cancer treatments.

One thread involves the one Claus has already posted and the results claimed are phenomenol. Huge success rate after thorough testing, but not publicly available because the chemical is natural and not patentable. According to the article, the process for making the Gc-MAF is patented, but instead of making it available to the public, they are continuing research to try to make a patentable chemical before releasing it. If there is any way Tom could get the Glycoprotein Macrophage Activating Factors, that would be terrific. Maybe Claus' friends or others could help Tom get into such a study, or get a doctor with access to it to prescribe it.

Other methods discussed include injections of baking soda into the tumor, with huge and quick success (I think this one claims six days the tumor clears). Again, not available to the public, because baking soda injections are not patentable and therefore not profitable.

Another is from a European doctor who abandoned old methods in favor of the use of ground flax seed, flax seed oil and greek cheese, which has had major success in clearing cancer. The thought behind this one is that the body is not deficient in radiation, but in nutrients of specific types available in these substances.

Another is a method discussed at length in youtube videos where a guy has reduced marijuana to an oil, which is clearing cancer with a huge success rate in a couple of months.

Here is a link to the one talking about Gc-MAF, and includes the full text of the patent describing how this substance is produced:

http://keithlaney.net/TheHiddenMissionForum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10857&start=0

This one is called the budwig diet:

http://keithlaney.net/TheHiddenMissionForum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10961

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 27 Dec 2008 16:02:59

Message:

Hi Guys,

I know your hearts are in the right place. All of us would be everjoyed if any one of us were to stumble across The Thing That Cured Tom.

I'm not going to ask you to stop talking about these things, but I would like for you to consider a few points:

EVERYTHING works on at least a few people.
NOTHING works on everybody.

So if someone posts something that you know is BS, just let it go. And if someone questions something you posted, assume their intent is other than critical, even if it seems to be. No one has the resources to try everyting, so when well intended bystanders offer suggestions they will either be considered or they won't.

===

Who knows, maybe all the good vibes generated by this group wishing they could help, will actually help. We each express this desire in different ways, and writing about some encouraging news, even if it is just an anecdote, is one of those ways.

===

We are all going to hurt a bunch if

we lose Tom

Regards,

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 27 Dec 2008 22:00:44

Message:

This is a real stretch:

What if some agent could instigate progeria in the cancer cells. The cancer cells are unusually susceptible to chemotherapy because they place the highest demand on nutrients. Possibly such an agent - entirely hypothetical - would be taken up first by the cancer cells.

The fast replication of cancer cells indicates that they rapidly exhaust whatever DNA portion enables and allows only a finite number of cell divisions.

One has to think in terms of mechanism: cause and effect.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 27 Dec 2008 23:40:13

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by marsrocks

Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3. Humans ingest macroscopic amounts of NaCl and Na+ ion is prevalent in blood, lymphatic fluid, all cells. Metabolism "burns" food with the resulting end products of H2O and CO2. CO2 in blood, in cells, exists as H2CO3 - HCO3+ - CO3=. At the pH of human cells, the high majority of dissolved CO2 is in the form of HCO3-, the bicarbonate ion. So, "baking soda" actually exists in all our cells in its solvated form: Na+ and HCO3-. The only possible effect that sodium bicarbonate can have in cellular fluid is to change the pH. But the pH of NaHCO3 is 8, which almost identical to natural cellular pH. So, it is extremely unlikely that NaHCO3 would have a lethal effect on cancer cells.

The big problem with cancer is that it spreads at the cellular level. That is why you can't chase it with a scalpel - or an injection syringe.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Pluto
Replied on: 28 Dec 2008 04:29:14

Message:

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Great news I hope and hope that it stays good news.

Smile and live another day

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 28 Dec 2008 15:51:344

Message:

Folks,

Thanks for the suggestions, they are ALL appreciated. As Larry said, rather than get into a debate about the merits of each recomendation it would be most helpful if each proposal included 1) a summary of the treatment 2) links to a specific protocol and 3) any relevant journal articles. I recognize it not always easy to find this information but my time is pressed and packaging the infomation makes it easier for us to evaluate each proposal. Clinical recommendations backed by clinical trials and controlled studies obviously carry greater weight but all suggestions are being vetted.

Here's a quick update on Tom's status:

Last Monday (12/23/08) Tom went to Swedish hospital in hopes on having a colon stent placed. Tom's colon has remained partially blocked since November, limiting him to a liquid diet. As his appointment approached Tom's blockage reached near 100% causing him to become extremely bloated (he literally looked 8 months pregnant) and he stopped eating altogether. Typical treatment for this condition is an ileotomoy (bringing an exit port for the small intestine to the surface of the abdomen and bypassing the colon). However we found some research papers that showed a stent placed in the colon at the tumor site had more positive long term results (and had the added benefit of avoiding sugery).

We found a doctor in Seattle who specialized in colon stents. The tumor was at the top of Tom's colon so the procedure was expected to be a little tricky. Unfortunately his attempts to place the stent were completely blocked by a second tumor pressing Tom's colon shut a mere 8 inches in. Tom was admitted to the hospital and scheduled for surgery asap to resolve his blockage.

On 12/24/08 at about 5:30PM the on call surgeon operated on Tom. A CT scan showed massive tumor involvement with both the left and right end of Tom's colon, 7 small tumors in his liver and cancer lining his abdominal wall. The plan was to a perform an ileostomy and if possible remove Tom's colon and 'debulk' as much of the cancer as possible. When the surgical team opened Tom they found a thick wall of fused tumor. They were able to perform the ileostomy, decompress his bowels and drain 6 liters of ascites (malignant fluid). They also took a small biopsy but were not able to remove any more of the tumor.

Tom is now in the hospital recovering from the surgery and its resulting complications (need to restart full kidney and bowel function, resolve edema and of course heal his abdominal incision). He's been in a great deal of pain but does seem to be mending. Monday we meet with the oncologist and discuss biopsy results.

On a small positive note Tom has been taking an aggressive alternative treatment for a couple of weeks and did see a 10% decline in his last CEA score. While CEA levels can measure cancer progress, the most recent result came from a different lab and therefore cannot be reliably compared with the prior result. Nonetheless, any port in a storm...

Thx -Mike

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 28 Dec 2008 21:51:15

Message:

My father just came out of Swedish Hospital with a "life saving" surgery completed just as he turned 91. You have the best hospital and surgeons at hand there.

No matter what the alternative treatment is, I am glad it is being done aggressvely.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: glittle
Replied on: 30 Dec 2008 03:52:32

Message:

Best wishes to you, Tom.

You've touched a lot of lives - my children naturally think of gravity as pushing on us, because of you!

I hope you are able to overcome the damage to your body, and share more ideas with us.

Glen

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 30 Dec 2008 08:53:55

Message:

Update: Tom's developed a post operative complication referred to as fluid third-spacing. His protein levels are extremely low from prolonged malnutrition (prior to surgery Tom was unable to maintain adequate food intake and was particularly struggling with protien due to his colon blockage). Low protein combined with potassium loss after surgery is causing reduced osmotic pressure in his blood. Most of his water is consequently leaking from his vascular system into his tissue. A lot of it has found its way back to his abdomen, replacing the 6 liters of drained ascites, and the rest of it is causing severe edema.

Tom's taking IV nutrition (TPN) in an effort to rebalance his fluids but his response has been slow. Intermittent large infusions of IV Vitamin C provide temporary relief but the C escapes his vascular system over several hours and the problem quickly returns.

We're waiting for the TPN to do its job and get his blood Albumin back to a healthier level. Until then we're just keeping Tom as comfortable as possible. Thx -Mike

Reply author: lyndonashmore
Replied on: 30 Dec 2008 15:20:53

Message:

I met Tom for the first time at the CCC2 conference in September and what amazes me is how he managed to put that together with all these medical problems going on in the background! It was superbly organised and an experience I will never forget.
Give him my thanks, wish him all the best for me and here's to a full recovery.
Best regards, thinking about him,
Lyndon

lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 02 Jan 2009 00:26:02

Message:

Well we made it to 2009! Still lots of things to be worried about including a test earlier this week that indicated Tom's kidneys were starting to fail and a possible bladder infection. Thankfully subsequent blood tests are showing good kidney function.

Tom's started a mild diuretic (Bumex) to alleviate some of the ascites. We've also added a feeding tube to try to get more protein into his system. Good news is there's evidence of progress, his albumin precursors were at 6.4 and now measure 8.7 (target =20). If we can get enough protein in his blood we might stabilize his vascular leaking and give him a lot more energy. Both would go a long way toward making him more comforable.

Everything remains in triage mode, just trying to get him stabilized and comfortable post surgery. Making it to the new year was one of his goals. Now he'd like to see the upcoming historic Presidential inauguration. His family and the folks at Swedish are working hard to give him a shot at enjoying it. Thx -Mike

Reply author: evolivid
Replied on: 02 Jan 2009 03:35:24

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by tvanflandern

Tom Van Flandern will be out of the office until further notice.

Tom's priorities right now are appropriately his medical issues and ordering his personal affairs. Regrettably he has little time for his normally important science issues at the moment. The Meta Research Board of Directors is tending to organizational matters. Meanwhile, Tom is checking email intermittently as his treatments and condition permit. Please limit messages sent to Tom's Meta Research email account to urgent science/Meta Research issues ONLY. If you have a truly urgent message send it marked 'high importance' to the regular Meta Research mailbox, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Otherwise please hold your correspondence until further notice. Tom hopes to return his attention to Meta Research matters if and when his health improves.

We've received many inquires about Tom's condition and warm wishes from friends and colleagues. Thank you. Please send future well wishes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We value these emails and promise each will be read and passed on to Tom. Your support is important to him. We regret we will be unable to respond.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and assistance.

Mike Van Flandern (Tom's oldest son) for the Meta Research Board of Directors

I have heard some really good things about "Chlorine Dioxide" neutralizing low ph tissue like cancer , I volunteer at a veterans hospital when ever I can,.. and so I use it often so I dont get sick being around any one there , It will kill anthrax too here is some info on it..........
A number of products are marketed as "stabilized chlorine dioxide" (SCD). Most of these solutions do not actually contain chlorine dioxide but consist of solutions of buffered sodium chlorite. A weak acid can be added to SCD to "activate" it and make chlorine dioxide in-situ without a chlorine dioxide generator. Stabilized chlorine dioxide is used as a broad spectrum disinfectant and anti-microbial[citation needed]; This form of chlorine dioxide is currently being used against bacterial and viral outbreaks including MRSA, Legionella, and Norovirus The use of SCD is effective when the demand for chlorine dioxide is low and when impurities, such as small amounts of sodium, can be tolerated

this is what I use you have to mix the sodium chlorite( 2 drops) with citric acid (5 drops per 1 drop of sodium chlorite)
in a dry glass and let it sit for at least 3 minutes then add water 6 ounces and then wait another 3 minutes.
and if you have malaria use 15 drops (*5 citric acid drops)will cure you!

MARX

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 02 Jan 2009 15:53:48

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by evolivid

MARX

This is insane. Chlorine dioxide is unstable and cannot be stored or purchased. A chemical reaction must create it exactly at time of use. It is a moderately strong oxidizer, which is totally non-discrimatory in its "biocide" or oxidizing effect. It is specifically a contact biocide, not a systemic biocide. There is no way it would survive the pH in a human stomach and, somehow, pass into the bloodstream. Anyway, oxygen in the bloodstream is not free oxygen but is combined with hemoglobin. Chlorine dioxide is in no way "intelligent" - knowing only to attack "bad" bacteria or "bad" cancer cells.

However, if you want the full effect at low cost - buy bleach at the grocery store.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 04 Jan 2009 13:52:53

Message:

[Gregg] "This is insane"

Probably. We have a pretty good percentage of (active) posters here that don't really understand things. Or perhaps they just can't express themselve in an understandable way. As a consequence much of what they post is ... odd. Even by the standards of a kook Website.

I'm reluctant to ban such BS for a number of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that the line between them and us is not as well defined as we might like it to be. They mostly talk to each other, although it might be more accurate to say they talk past each other. Simultaneous monologs, as it were.

They process an enormous amout of data, produce a small amount of knowledge, and (so far) no understanding. But as long as they stick to talking about ideas and not about each other I say let them have their little circle jerks. (I haven't always felt this way, but times change.)

From time to time I try to correct a few of the more obvious errors (mostly not balancing units). I'm not sure if they really understand - sometimes they say "oh yeah thanks", and then make the same mistake on their next post.

But I see signs of growth in some of them, and you never know when that growth (or just some old fashioned good luck) will lead to something interesting. Or even important.

Gold is where you find it,

Reply author: neilderosa
Replied on: 04 Jan 2009 16:31:01

Message:

Since we have been given the go-ahead to talk about cancer on this website, I would like to chime in with a couple of remarks. First of all though it is painful to discuss or contemplate, I think I agree with those who say that once you get it, conventional treatment has the best track record and is the best bet. Though there may be new treatments that are effective. I really can't say not having studied the subject thoroughly.

But it goes against my way of looking at science to think it stops there. I have long thought there is something wrong with science in general, especially at the level of theoretical research. Right or wrong, mainstream theories, (i.e. those favored by the powers that be), get all the attention and all the funding. This leaves little room for the future correct theory to emerge and be tested, and this is detrimental to the future of science.

One such possibility that I have come across is the work of Peter Duesberg. No, he does not have a cure for cancer, but he may be on the right track for discovering the true cause of cancer, and this is a necessary first step in finding real cures. Duesberg believes that aneuploidy, or an error in cell division caused essentially by various substances and poisons which act as carcinogens, is the real cause of cancer. This is a theory he has been working on for several years and he has several falsifiable predictions to test his hypothesis.

Here is a link to read more about it.
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/labs/duesberg/research.html

quote:

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institute of Health.

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 04 Jan 2009 17:00:46

Message:

I am opposed to censorship and would not normally complain. But this is a distinct issue. Persons who have cancer and believe they will probably die because of it, are understandibly desperate and are willing to try anything.

When a posted "cure" for cancer has absolutely no objective basis, then I have complained. It is a dis-service to post such claims - as it has been for sodium bicarbonate and chlorine dioxide. I haven't commented on such items as marihuana oil, etc, because I don't know if they have potential or not.

I have been through the terrifying experience of probably fatal cancer with my wife and other relatives(not myself). If I knew that I had a cure for Tom's cancer, I could be over to his hospital in 30 mintes. Literally. Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief because I don't have an answer. And I admit it.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 09:41:13

Message:

[neilderosa] "Since we have been given the go-ahead to talk about cancer on this website, ... "

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. ;-)

===

The "go-ahead" is actually a little less expansive than that. This thread only, and try to keep the focus on helping Tom rather than on a general discussion.

This is an astronomy and cosmology Website. We do tolerate loosly related discussions (our definition, subject to change), and from time to time we make special exceptions.

Regards,

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 13:16:37

Message:

[Gregg] "Since we have been given the go-ahead to talk about cancer on this website, ... ""Persons who have cancer and believe they will probably die because of it, are understandibly desperate and are willing to try anything."

And this behavior is wrong because ... ?

One of the bigger problems we have in the good old US of A is that our government frequently stands between a terminally ill individual (with days to live, in lots of pain) and an experimental treatment of some sort. So what if it has only "worked" in one case? Or in none. If I'm about to die, I don't care.

Now - that does not mean I'm going to jump at everything someone suggests. I still have the ability to reason. I'm going to use what I know to help filter out the things I will try from all the things I hear about. Either for me, or for a loved one. I'll reject most suggestions for the same obvious reasons you would. But I still want to think about them for a second or two before I don't give them a try.

Suppose someone makes a wild suggestion. It looks wrong, probably even dangerous, on the surface. But I just happen to have another piece of knowledge that allows me to use this suggestion with relative safety.

Food for thought,

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 13:24:44

Message:

[Gregg] "I am opposed to censorship and would not normally complain. But this is a distinct issue."

evolivid's suggestion sounds potentially harmfull to me too. But see my previous post. Perhaps an appropriate comment, in this context, would be to limit your response to pointing out the specific dangers of another poster's suggestion. That is information Tom and his family can use to help assess a suggestion.

===

Technically only a government can censor stuff. All I can can do is exercise editorial discression.

What's the difference? A government can prevent you from publishing your idea everywhere, or put you in jail if you manage to get around them. I can only prevent you from publishing it here, or delete it if you manage to get around me.

Regards,

Reply author: Larry Burford
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 13:34:48

Message:

The purpose of making this special exception to the rules about subject matter is to see if there are any real world "treatments" that have not already been considered.

Talking about treatment in a theoretical sense, or discussing or arguing about theories of treatment or cause are not exactly what I had in mind. But to avoid arbitrarily suppressing a piece of information that turns out to be important I'm ready to let them pass.

If you see a post that has dangerous ideas in it, just point out the dangers. Be blunt, but be civil. All of your efforts, or at least the intent behind them, are appreciated.

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 13:40:27

Message:

Grape Seed Extract Kills Laboratory Leukemia Cells, Proving Value of Natural Compounds
by News Release : Jan 4, 2009 : Newswise/American Association for Cancer Research

"What everyone seeks is an agent that has an effect on cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone, and this shows that grape seed extract fits into this category."

An extract from grape seeds forces laboratory leukemia cells to commit cell suicide, according to researchers from the University of Kentucky. They found that within 24 hours, 76 percent of leukemia cells had died after being exposed to the extract.

The investigators, who report their findings in the January 1, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, also teased apart the cell signaling pathway associated with use of grape seed extract that led to cell death, or apoptosis. They found that the extract activates JNK, a protein that regulates the apoptotic pathway.

While grape seed extract has shown activity in a number of laboratory cancer cell lines, including skin, breast, colon, lung, stomach and prostate cancers, no one had tested the extract in hematological cancers nor had the precise mechanism for activity been revealed.

"These results could have implications for the incorporation of agents such as grape seed extract into prevention or treatment of hematological malignancies and possibly other cancers," said the study's lead author, Xianglin Shi, Ph.D., professor in the Graduate Center for Toxicology at the University of Kentucky.

"What everyone seeks is an agent that has an effect on cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone, and this shows that grape seed extract fits into this category," he said.

Shi adds, however, that the research is not far enough along to suggest that people should eat grapes, grape seeds, or grape skin in excess to stave off cancer. "This is very promising research, but it is too early to say this is chemo-protective."

Hematological cancersleukemia, lymphoma and myelomaaccounted for an estimated 118,310 new cancer cases and almost 54,000 deaths in 2006, ranking these cancers as the fourth leading cause of cancer incidence and death in the U.S.

Given that epidemiological evidence shows that eating vegetables and fruits helps prevent cancer development, Shi and his colleagues have been studying chemicals known as proanthocyanidins in fruits that contribute to this effect. Shi has found that apple peel extract contains these flavonoids, which have antioxidant activity, and which cause apoptosis in several cancer cell lines but not in normal cells. Based on those studies, and findings from other researchers that grape seed extract reduces breast tumors in rats and skin tumors in mice, they looked at the effect of the compound in leukemia cells.

Using a commercially available grape seed extract, Shi exposed leukemia cells to the extract in different doses and found the marked effect in causing apoptosis in these cells at one of the higher doses.

They also discovered that the extract does not affect normal cells, although they don't know why.

This is a natural compound that appears to have relatively important properties," Shi said.

http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=6215

I was forwarded this article by a friend so thought I should pass it on. Footnote: I would be eating a ton of dark grapes with seeds. Natural Organic costco peanut butter also has resveratrol in it the same compound that fights cancer from grapes. Also, you can purchase grape seed extract at health food stores. John

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 21:41:27

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Burford

[Gregg] "Persons who have cancer and believe they will probably die because of it, are understandibly desperate and are willing to try anything."

And this behavior is wrong because ... ?

Food for thought,
LB

The behavior is not wrong. But, when someone posts something that blatantly has no connection to cancer nor any chance of killing cancer, I will comment on it when it involves simple chemistry.

You have no argument with me over the FDA, government restrictions, etc. If I were a champion of the status quo, I would not be on this message board.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 21:43:13

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Burford

[Gregg] "I am opposed to censorship and would not normally complain. But this is a distinct issue."

===

Technically only a government can censor stuff. All I can can do is exercise editorial discression.

Regards,
LB

I am not complaining about "censorship" on your part.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 05 Jan 2009 21:50:27

Message:

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

Grape Seed Extract Kills Laboratory Leukemia Cells, Proving Value of Natural Compounds
by News Release : Jan 4, 2009 : Newswise/American Association for Cancer Research

.................

I have no argument with this but the burden is proof positve, not proof negative. If I were dying of cancer (and I wasn't), I would be gobbling down grapes. But I would not be ingesting bleach!!!!

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 06 Jan 2009 00:11:30

Message:

Another stretch:

Presumably a cancer tumor would enlarge because of an enhanced blood vessel network leading to it and perhaps "demanded" by it. What if a "superglue" could be injected into the proper region, which was thin and slow setting. Perhaps the "superglue" would flow along the blood vessel pathways towards and into the tumor.

When I have used "superglue", I can spray it with an accelerator after it has spread. The "superglue" instantaneously sets up. This cyanoacrylate material is primarily non-toxic. It has been used in surgeries to quickly seal shut tissue which has been bleeding. Large scale surgery may not be needed in such an algorithm. The tumor would simply starve to death.

I am simply casting for possibilities, not proclaiming miracles.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 06 Jan 2009 18:14:13

Message:

Being in Hawaii we eat a lot of fruit that I grow in my yard such as payayas, grapfruit, and oranges. I would not drink bleach under any condition, but my wife and I go to costco about once a week and was there yesterday so I looked for grape seed extract and they had bottles of it near the pharmacy. I usually get a flat of strawberries and grapes, I think that in Tom's case that a juicer could help. I would get apples, carrots, and make a lot of juice that would help cleanse the body and heal the cells. I have not done a ton of research on this subject, but loading the body with antioxidants and the resveratrol compounds [take extra grapes seed extract tablets along with juices and eating grapes/raisens] might as suggested in the study help. I would sure contact Sanoviv and take a look at the research that is out there regarding these compounds that are found naturally in fruits and vegetables. I have heard of grape fasts and actually had a yoga friend that was vegetarian (I am not never could since always have been too muscular surfer construction hard labor type)and remember seeing him with a crate of dark grapes and that was all he was eating. That was down in Cardiff, good surf in Southern Cal. But, the point is that I think a radical natural cure certainly needs to be looked at, even if you just approximate and look at results. Again I would contact SANOVIV and the USANA HEALTH SCIENCES products are awesome which is also owned by Dr. Wentz. Their science based pharmaceutical grade nutritional supplements contain high (have patents on Olival) levels of antioxidants and are not toxic, they only use precursors and no iron, always rated number one with highest five star rating by Nutritional Comparative Guide. Dr. Wentz is a scientist [has a partnership with scientists from the Linus Pauling Institute-they were friends, at University of Oregan-where he gave them five million to study Resveratrol], owned Gull Labs creating viral test kits, grew billions of human cells so he knows how the cell responds to antioxidants/nutrition. My wife and I take USANA am/pm health pak100 (has resveratrol in paks) keeps immune system strong and helps you avoid getting sick. John

Reply author: Gregg
Replied on: 06 Jan 2009 21:54:42

Message:

Cancer tumors in the liver are normally considered "inoperable" because the liver can bleed massively and is one of a kind. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation all tend to be "sledge hammers" hitting an ant.

I hope alternatives to ridding the liver of cancer are looked at, including a transplant of a liver. One can lose a great deal of the liver and it will still function.

Just thoughts.

Gregg Wilson

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 07 Jan 2009 03:45:36

Message:

Update: The tissue surrounding Tom's lungs are now so full of fluid that Tom frequently panics and hyperventalates when conscious. He simply feels like he can't breath even though he's on oxygen and his O2 levels are normal. As a result he's now almost continuously sedated.

A fluid specialist was called in a few days ago and assumed management of fluid problem. When Tom arrived at the hospital he weighed 169lbs. After draining 6 liters of the malignant ascites fluid Tom was postoperatively profused with fluid until his weight reached 213lbs. In addition to causing extreme Edema he now feels like he's drowning. The fluid specialist is doing a good job turning things around but progress is necessarily slow and new complications continue to impede progress. Tom's sodium levels briefly exceeded 150 recently (a very dangerous condition) before returning to more normal levels. Tests are also being done to determine if some hidden heart damage might have resulted from November's PE episode.

In short Tom's making slow progress but he is miserable when conscious, so he's usually sedated. It's clear at this point that the cancer is going to win, the only question is how much, if any, quality time Tom has left. He's has high ambitions and would like to make some progress on his second book before passing. We're trying to give him that opportunity.

PS I want to reiterate that Tom's condition has been repeatedly been diagnosed as incurable by numerous specialists specifically because of the extensive peritoneal metastases. Life expectancy was set at 2-4 months in early November. If Tom ever does recover from surgery there are more aggressive treatments to be tried, but at this point we're mostly talking about palliative care.

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 09 Jan 2009 19:11:54

Message:

At 8:54AM on Friday January 9, 2009 Tom Van Flandern passed on. I cannot begin to express what this man meant to me. I'll write more later as there is so much I want to say about my father, Tom. But right now I and the rest of his family just needs some time to grieve.

I do take some solace in knowing we did everything possible to maximize Tom's quality time once he was diagnosed. Also, Tom was well sedated and died peacefully.

Tom was a great man and lived a very full life. Tom told me recently that he'd just wanted some measure of understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe, even if he couldn't share that knowledge. He believed he'd accomplished that and was happy. It's unclear how much of the many contributions Tom made to science will pass the test of time, reach critical mass or will be lost and need to be rediscovered. But by any measure Tom was brilliant, well educated, hard working and prolific.

Tom was also a remarkable father and role model. He and his wife Barbara raised 4 remarkable and very unique individuals. Tom was the most principled man I've ever met and his imprint on my life and future generations of Van Flanderns is indelible.

Goodbye Dad, I love you so much. -Mike

Reply author: shando
Replied on: 09 Jan 2009 21:22:26

Message:

My condolences Mike. This is a very sad day for us all. He will be sorely missed.

Reply author: Stoat
Replied on: 10 Jan 2009 02:41:15

Message:

I'm so sorry to hear that Mike, my thoughts go out to your family. He put up a brave fight and he'll be sorely missed.

Reply author: neilderosa
Replied on: 10 Jan 2009 14:07:29

Message:

I reminisced today by watching the U-Tube presentation Tom gave in New York in 2001 on artificial structures on Mars. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2901932981144033755

I finally got the chance to meet him this past September at the CCC2 conference, and Im glad I did. Tom was an amazing person, always remaining calm, courteous and professional no matter how hostile or obnoxious his scientific opponents became.

There have been very few men or women in history with his combination of character, integrity, honesty, courage and genius. It goes without saying that he will be missed. Science needs people like him, now more than ever.

My condolences to Tom's family.

Reply author: MarkVitrone
Replied on: 11 Jan 2009 02:03:06

Message:

Mike,

I am deeply saddened - I have been all week as the inevitable crept up. I take some comfort that Tom feels no more pain and perhaps has moved to a deeper understanding of those mysteries that were his life's work. I feel I speak for others when I thank you for your pointed and candid updates on Tom's condition and I speak for myself when I say that I hope his legacy will carry on both in the world of science and in you and your families hearts. He will be deeply and profoundly missed. I will always hold dearly my memories of blocking the moon with the mountains of Wolf Laurel and seeing a meteor shower that only he was confident would appear in Asheville, I remember his look when he noted that most other observers were sitting in Mongolia seeing nothing. His competitive spirit was a foundation of his science.

Mark

Reply author: cosmicsurfer
Replied on: 11 Jan 2009 13:26:11

Message:

Mike,

Mike, I feel such gratitude that I was fortunate to have met Tom and Barbara. I will always cherish the memory of that afternoon that my wife and I spent in Tom's home this last July. Tom was truly a great man, considerate in every way, and even in our heated discussions I always felt a deep respect for Tom's pioneering spirit, intellect, and deep reality thinking about how gravity works in our Universe. We love you Tom and you will be missed, your work has had such a huge impact on my life. My wife and I both send our love and wish the best for your family. John

Reply author: PheoniX_VII
Replied on: 13 Jan 2009 16:29:45

Message:

Mike,

This is tragic news indeed, Tom was indeed a great man. standing up against the bigger part of the cosmology community proved that. The Ideas he had and tried to pass on to us trough his books and this site will not be forgotten I'm sure of it, they may have lost their front line champion but I assure you they will not be forgotten. The universe Tom lived in was a simple, understandable one based on a few rules alone and that made it beautiful.
Even if Toms theories never become anything more then meta-science, they did menage to make me more open to the science overall, to interpret data on my own and draw my on conclusions, not base them solely on someone else's words.

I feel a bit egoistic but I really hate that I never got to meet this man, I was actually thinking about inviting him to my future Master of Science disputation, even though I doubt he would come all the way to Sweden just for that.

Tom won't be forgotten, and I feel deeply for all of you who were left behind as he passed on.

/Fredrik Persson
Second year Physics student
Lund, Sweden.

Reply author: mikevf
Replied on: 13 Jan 2009 23:28:36

Message:

Because several folks have inquired about Tom's funeral I'm posting the details here:

-There will be a small memorial service at the Sherwood Village lodge in Sequim Wednesday 1/14/09 3:30PM-6:30PM
-Tom will be buried 1/15/09 in a private ceremony for immediate family
-At a date TBD (late Spring or early summer) the family will host an event to celebrate Tom's life in Cincinnati, Ohio. We hope that friends, colleague and extended family will be able to attend this event and share their stories about Tom.

Thx -Mike

Reply author: creator
Replied on: 16 Jan 2009 19:25:07

Message:

I was very saddened to learn just today of Tom's illness and passing, as I much admire his work, especially that on the speed of gravity.

I am also distressed because I would have liked to share this information from the start (had I known,) rather than now. Nevertheless, for others who may be or may have been or who may know others in like circumstances, please investigate http://cancertutor.com for an extremely comprehensive compendium of the most effective treatments.

Respectfully, and with great admiration for Tom's ability to think "outside the box,"
-Dann McCreary (aka creator)
http://subarcsec.com - http://flyinghouse.com

Reply author: msheakc
Replied on: 25 Jan 2009 22:23:18

Message:

I have been following the work of TVF for years. He was one of the first of what is now many "maverick" scientists I am interested in. Tom was a rare scientist who had the courage to stand up against the scientific aristocracy and point out that the evidence no longer supported their "well-established" theories. I have to thank Tom for opening my eyes to the possibility that much is what is today considered iron-clad scientific fact is just plain wrong.

Those of use who think science is more about questions than answers need to follow Tom's example, and work to open the eyes of mainstream science and the public at large to the new scientific world view that has begun to open up, in no small part thanks the work of Tom Van Fladern.

Michael E. Shea