I would now like to "put forward in a few paragraphs a rather comprehensive answer":
First of all, although I am currently working on an institute that primarily focuses on oncology, I am not really oncologists myself. My original profession was actually a "craft" = neurosurgery whose success lies, in addition to specific theoretical knowledge, on manual labor. For almost ten years after my injury to radiation surgery (radiation neurosurgery), I co-got the "oncology" oncology, but I still find myself in the oncology issue as a very layman. However, because the urgency of my wife's illness forced me to search for "solution" as quickly as possible, "surf" the Internet, and if I find something interesting there, I try to intuitively separate "weed". One of the means I have not yet hinted at is also the wife of a daily spoonful of hotly prepared blends of maple syrup and edible soda. There are a few things I do not "fit", but on the other hand, I feel that consuming the mixture should not "go wrong". The source from which I drew, I attach. In addition to adjusting the pH (and mixtures of maple syrup / soda), I have also come across other "guaranteed" types of cancer, and I am, for example, amygdalin. So I also include another of my information sources, where other methods are taken over. If you ever write to me what you think about them, they certainly will not be offended.
MUDr. Martin M.
HER2 + breast cancer 3:
Ad maple syrup
Note that I ( in my previous answer ) avoided the criticism of maple syrup / sap, but I have just added blueberries, birch sap, and Inonotus obliquus . Maple sap is not without effect and may help a bit against tumors ( Legault2010aai ). The "Bicarbonate Maple Cancer Treatment" document you sent me for review is but a pile of pseudoscientific fantasies and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of maple syrup actually does not say anything at all. You probably feel yourself, and I confirm.
Ad amygdalin / laetril / vitamin B 17
Amygdalin is a simple molecule that is nothing but a source of cyanide. It serves to avoid eating apricot seeds but discarding and leaving other apricots to grow. Of course, the idea is that we can selectively poison the cancer cells by cyanide. But this is not possible because cyanide has the ability to selectively kill only some cells at all. The mitochondria, which they eliminate, are backed up by glycolysis. The cyanide kills the whole body with a global lack of energy. This is exactly the same situation as it is not possible to starve a certain undesirable village by blowing up a local supermarket because the villagers bring food around. Until the overall food shortage in the state would be effective, but we do not want it.
Any attempts to use more glucose, energy, etc. in the fight against cancer cells, that they have higher metabolism, are useless because they do not differ fundamentally from healthy cells. The brain, the heart, the kidneys, the liver, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the liver ... The charlatans around these treatments are perpetuum mobile inventors: stubborn, often themselves victims of their tough ideas, but with the advantage of often finding desperate patients willing fantasy to share and finance. Pharmaceutical empires are also scolding.
You will not miss the moon by the stone
The concept of attack on cancer cells despite its high metabolism is weak, scientifically unacceptable. It's like trying to hit the moon with a stone. This is theoretically possible, but practically not. If the Little Prince's asteroid had a magnitude of magnitude similar to the size of the Little Prince, the Little Prince would have the chance to enjoy stunts in addition to watching the sunrise. But the idea of throwing stones from Earth to the Moon is, as you know, pointless. We are able to judge this intuitively because we have practical experience with stones. Such a plan would not be sold to us. But when we move from the world of stones to the world of molecules, we are no longer sure whether cancer cells can or can not be destroyed by feeding a source of cyanide. Maybe I've spent much of the space here in the streaming of the stones, but I'm demonstrating that even nonsense can be written in a mundane way. And that's my comment on the second document you sent about amygdalin and laetrile, incorrectly called "vitamin B 17 ".
You need a rocket
If you do not want to surrender to the will of fate, and all you want to do is touch the moon, I have a tip for you: Combine this trastuzumab with an alpha emitter. Compared to plain trastuzumab, it would have the advantage that those neighboring cancer cells that are not expressing the HER2 receptor would be affected. Such a conjugate is not commonly sold, so it is either to be ordered from one hand or manufactured separately. This is not easy, but unlike amygdalin treatment, it is not entirely impossible. So if you want to spend it.
Go to the library and borrow Bioconjugate Techniques . You will find page 783, chapter "Antibody Modification and Conjugation", and you will see the corner. You sit down behind the keyboard to find out which cells in the body, under physiological conditions, express the HER2 receptor and at what concentrations. You will concentrate on the three most important populations of these cells. For them, do you want to solve this problem: What can be the maximum concentration of the alpha emitter with a short half-life in a given tissue to survive 90% of the cells at its complete disintegration? The three concentrations of α-emitters that come out in this way will be divided by three concentrations of HER2 receptors in the given tissues and you will select the smallest of these three. This number should not be too small, certainly not much smaller than 1, but it should not be too large.
In the next step, select the appropriate radionuclide. It should be a pure alpha emitter with a short half-life. The shorter half-life is better from the therapeutic point of view, but again, such isotopes are less well manipulated. For example, radium 223 ( 223 Ra, Nilsson2005fce ) has a half - life of 12 days and is almost pure a radiator: 223 Ra - α (12 days) => 219 Rn - α (instantly) => 211 Pb - β (30 minutes) => 211 Bi - a immediately => 207 Tl - β (instantaneous) => 208 Pb (stable). You have four wounds α (β not count, you are extra) so the number you have previously calculated is divided by four. The result will give you the number of radio atoms 223 that you need to attach to each molecule of HER2 of the antibody (trastazumab). To select another radionuclide, the number of particles may be different. According to Dadachova2010ctw, consider, for example, bismuth 212 ( 212 Bi), bismuth 213 ( 213 Bi), actinium 211 ( 211 Ac) what you get.
Book the Bioconjugate Technique book where the bend is curved and select a suitable method to capture the calculated number of nucleotide atoms per trastazumab molecule. If there are too many, you have to make a tassel. But so many of them may not be. Order the required linkers, under the aegis of an authorized Nuclear Laboratory, which is certainly not far away from your workplace, order the selected radionuclide, stuff it in the test tube with the antibody, mix well, let it react, clean the column from unreacted liners, uncontaminated nuclides and other trash, dissolve in physiological saline and you can drink. Do not forget to eat ginseng to reduce radiation damage to normal cells.
Then describe your success to Current Radiopharmaceuticals, whose No. 3 of September 2008 was just a method of targeting a radiological attack on HER2-positive cells dedicated to and confirming the effectiveness of this strategy, find it there. Here, in Sweden ( Tolmachev2007rth ), those HER2 antibodies again tested adhesive luteum 177 ( 177 Lu). Otherwise, somebody is getting rich on the radio (they call it Alpharadin, Liepe2009a2a ), but it is unlikely that your patient cared for you to stick it to trastuzumab because of her, they could go to jail.
That is all.
It takes only a few days to absorb new knowledge and to find out how to respond to them. However, I would be wondering if the pure alpha-emitter linked to trastuzumab should be applied multiple times or only once. Trastuzumab should be infused for 3 weeks until the baseline progression. I see this as a problem because the cavaly catheter has been canceled (the wife has completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy) has been aborted, for the increased extremity vulnerability of the upper limb on the mastectomy / axenal side of the axilla should not be given any infusion, the vessels of the opposite the side has a "miserable" + environment, where it should. treatment with trastuzumab, I find it problematic even from a psychologist. aspect.
Regards, MUDr. Martin M.
Tastuzumab works by targeting the target cells to destruction by the immune system of the host. Another mechanism of action may be that the cells adhering to the surface on the surface will interfere with the growth of the adherent antibody. In any case, this antibody restricts / kills only those cells that HER2 is carrying on their surface. Not far from all. Finally, in the event of unsuccessful trastuzumab therapy, it becomes lawful that cancer cells learn HER2 to not express and help without it.
The advantage of targeted radiotherapy would be that radiation would hit a range of hundreds of microns around HER2 clusters expressing cells. However, you have come across a major problem that I completely neglected in my half-serious manual, and that is dosing. For the correct dose, it would be necessary to accurately estimate the amount of HER2 receptor expressed in the body, and the antibody combined with the alpha emitter would ideally be given in stoichiometric amounts. It would be ideal to give it exactly one dose and calculate the radiation dose exactly so that the radionuclide completely fired cells undergoing mitosis in the vicinity of HER2-positive tissue and did not completely destroy the tissues expressing HER2 naturally. Doing it almost twice makes no sense, because if it does not destroy the cancer cells for the first time, then in the second attempt, the survivors will be more. It's like spending cockroaches - once and for all.
In addition to HER2, it would be especially advantageous to find other receptor-specific receptors for which cancer cytotoxic therapy could be used. But this is not realistic in this case. We can continue to communicate by phone.