h a l f b a k e r yIs it soup yet?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I almost died of CO poisoning but I came through unscathed (hopefully). The thought occurred to me that maybe bringing the CO levels up in a controlled manor (frequent blood gas analysis) and then beginning chemotherapy at a lower dose might facilitate faster results. If the greedy cancer cells are hogging
resources and blood supply, maybe the CO would weaken the cancer cells to the point that less toxins would be required to kill them. Shred away!
Some scientists are working on H2S (info at 16:00)
http://www.youtube....watch?v=3lYN_lXU9PA
This reminds me of a TED talk I watched not long ago. [Bootbuckles, Aug 22 2010]
Biological functions of nitric oxide
http://en.wikipedia...ons_of_nitric_oxide
Who'd have thought it, eh ? [8th of 7, Aug 22 2010]
Warburg effect
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Warburg_effect
As 19thly said. A ketogenic diet, on the other hand... [bungston, Aug 23 2010]
[link]
|
| |
They tend to have more efficient anaerobic respiration, so i think this would be
counterproductive. |
|
| |
It might effectively lower the metabolic rate; less active cells would then be less vulnerable. But the same effect might be achievable by cooling. |
|
| |
Doubtful if the cancer cells would be specifically affected, though. |
|
| |
That's an issue with cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy in any case. I once deliberately used a dodgy gas fire to help me sleep, incidentally. It was a pretty stupid thing to do but i was quite self-destructive at the time. |
|
| |
Doesn't [MaxwellBuchanan] live in one of those? |
|
| |
Part of the time, yes. Although he seems to prefer the term "Feudal" to "controlled"; best go along with him, or he will instruct his serfs will put you in the pillory. |
|
| |
Actually we hardly use the pillory at all these days. |
|
| |
The idea is interesting, but it's hard to know if it would
work. As several annotators have suggested, the question
is whether the cancer cells would be preferentially hit by
the CO or not. |
|
| |
My guess is that there are other agents which would be
more cancer-cell-biased than CO, but who knows? (Chemo
works by targeting fast-replicating cells). |
|
| |
A tentative [+], not because I think it will work but
because it's an interesting idea. |
|
| |
// we hardly use the pillory at all these days // |
|
| |
Only since we gave you the Iron Maiden for your birthday ... |
|
| |
// it's an interesting idea // |
|
| |
Indeed. Only recently has the role of, for instance, Nitric Oxide, begun to be understood. Quite a few very simple and common molecules may act as powerful intermediates and signals in yet-to-be-discovered paths. |
|
| |
I know that tumors develop large blood supplies because of their very high metabolic demands. So I was just thinking that aggressive tumors would be more affected by the lack of O2, therefore weaker and more vulnerable to the chemo poisoning. |
|
| |
No, because they do better than ordinary cells when oxygen is low. CO is a messenger molecule, possibly a vasodilator. |
|
| |
I know that hemoglobin preferrs CO to O2 which renders it useless. My assumption was because cancer cells are agressive and therefore require more resources (especially O2) that they would be weakened to a greater extent than normal growth cells. If I get cancer I will try this on myself and let you know. :) |
|
| |
That would be in an admirable tradition, [mhuppertz], and if i hadn't already got plans for that eventuality, i might try that myself. |
|
| |
There are two "movements" of thought in this (as opposed to schools!). A mainstream one maintains that cancer cells survive better with a poor oxygen supply because the anaerobic phase of respiration is more efficient than that of non-cancer cells. Another opinion, popular in CAM circles but apparently discredited elsewhere, is based on an early twentieth-century view in orthodox medicine that cancer cells are more vulnerable to the deprivation of oxygen. This is the basis for the use of substances which produce cyanide when digested and absorbed, which inhibit aerobic respiration in internal respiration. I've looked into this in some depth, being perceived as an alternative therapist myself, and my conclusion was that it either didn't work or the reason it worked was not connected to anaerobic respiration. Either the theory is wrong or it doesn't work. |
|
| |
Your suggestion is to do the same thing at an earlier point, by depriving cells of oxygen before the actual process of internal respiration. I would expect this to increase the progress of cancer because it seems to be less vulnerable to low oxygen conditions than other cells. |
|
| |
But, i could of course be wrong. |
|
| |
//Only since we gave you the Iron Maiden for your birthday// - that was a great box set - next birthday you'll have to get him some new speakers |
|
| |
You'd be better off breathing 100% oxygen. CO is a cancer promoter. Breathing CO might be a way for cancer to get rid of its host. |
|
| |
Wouldn't it be better to introduce ozone (O3)? |
|
| |
Ozone, meet ed. Ed, Ozone. |
|
| |
Kill the patient and you kill the cancer too. |
|
| |
Now why didn't anybody think of that before? |
|
| |
By the way its spelled manure not manor. |
|
| |