#192

There are lots of uncertainties. I have things in my protocol which I believe have an anti-cancer effect, but it is not clear how broad the effect is.

In the end there is a certainty of the outcome without taking actions to prevent cellular deterioration. There is no certainty as to what can be achieved, but it is worth trying to improve cellular health. Hence one needs to consider all the evidence.

4 Likes
#193

25% of lung cancers do present with brain metastases at diagnosis and 50% spread to brain.
So it is really common for lung cancer to spread to brain and using brain metastases as predictor of rapamycin effectiveness is not really useful.
IMO if rapamycin is really protective agains cancer it must be that slowing new growth and vascularization of new growth and enhancing immune response might the key for its effectiveness in preventing cancer. Autophagy might be another channel. ATM I find evidence that it may help with cancer more compelling than that it would worsen cancer, but I will certainly keep my eyes open for new evidence. I don’t think rapamycin is a miracle cure all drug, a lot needs to be done besides rapamycin…

10 Likes
#194

Thank you @scta123 . I think we all need to keep our eyes open for anything regarding a link between Rapamycin and cancer.

2 Likes
#195

FWIW

This is just my thoughts and what I would do to “treat myself” if I was diagnosed with the same. As there are not many choices, the end point is the same, you expire prematurely.

Do nothing. - not for me

Follow “recommend/standard of care” - NO

Treat myself with my own method/methods.- what I would

Starting with increasing rapamycin in brain area/tissue.

This has been discussed{delivery methods] in other threads, my choice to start rapamycin DMSO solution via intranasal. This simple method will increase rapamycin levels inside the brain area/tissue.

Would also be doing many other self treatment very few would be “standard of care”.

2 Likes
#196

Well, the deal with lung, similar to pancreatic, is that we didn’t have a decent screening tool until lately. So by the time we recognize these cancers they’ve been growing for a long time to the point, sadly, of metastasizing. That doesn’t mean that they’re quick to metastasize.

3 Likes
#197

I reviewed the results on my own and searched for any red flags.

I initially found out about this from an article years ago by Peter Attia. He evaluated it, tried it out, and recommended it. I took a look myself and was very impressed. Especially since I’m not in love at present with the more traditional screening tools. Even colonoscopy is coming under some fire of late.

2 Likes
Strategies to avoid the grim reaper of Cancer - Part I: Colon Cancer
#198

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.487

image
image1326×1386 130 KB

3 Likes
#199

Again kidney transplant patients are already sick and taking a much more immune-suppressing dose than the people in this forum. IMO the leading cause of the association between increased cancer rates among kidney transplant patients is the prolonged suppression of the immune system.

8 Likes
#200

Why to increase rapamycin if it’s suspected in contributing to metastases? Could you explain?

1 Like
#201

I think these kind of scans makes perfect sense. I had a CAC score a few years ago and while my score was zero I found out that I have a small aortic aneurysm, which my father also had and was recently operated on for. It turns out that it’s genetic, but at now I’m able to track it.
Personally, I believe these type of scans should be the standard of care for anyone over 40. While false positives are a concern, it seems like a weak argument for not getting one. An undiscovered positive that leads to something catastrophic sounds a lot worse to me.
I just wish that it wasn’t so expensive. Hopefully, these scans will find their way into our healthcare system soon.

7 Likes
#202

Then this written by Dr B not sure which way to turn we simply don’t know-

2 Likes
#203

In support of your explanation:
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), also known as renal cell cancer or renal cell adenocarcinoma , is the most common type of kidney cancer.

Usually, RCC primarily metastasizes to lymph nodes, lungs, liver, and bones, while metastasis to other sites is rare.

Rare metastatic sites of renal cell carcinoma: a case series

#204

Sobering stuff. The most common, lung and prostate, go up, whereas the less commonly seen, kidney and sarcoma go down. The one we care least about, nmsc, also down. Lymphoma, nasty, also up.

3 Likes
#205

Cancer is constantly trying to take hold in our bodies and generally speaking our immune systems deal with it before it can get established.

Hence the compromised immune systems of transplant patients and those who take massive Rapa doses will be susceptible to cancer.

I’m staying on the Rapa at a dosage level that doesn’t take my WBC’s etc below the normal acceptable ranges. (For me that is 1mg per 10kg body weight fortnightly).

5 Likes
#206

As some paper state the opposite

Re posting;

As I stated on my above post;

Would also be doing many other self treatment very few would be “standard of care”.

FWIW

Would be review Dr. Robert Nagourney testing work.

Now called Nagourney Cancer Insitute (formerly Rational Therapeutics)

In my view Nagourney consumer book titled “Outliving Cancer” from 2012 is worth reading.

He also has some good Podcast’s

https://www.amazon.com/Outliving-Cancer/dp/B08K589Z9F

3 Likes
#207

Unfortunately the paper you referenced was written by Dr. Blagosklonny. Unfortunately, given the situation I believe we have to discount his papers speaking about the hypothetical protection from cancer. Most of his papers are derived from his theories which may be flawed

4 Likes
#208

dated 2015, Is there anything more recent for the comparison?

1 Like
#209

You{and some other, maybe] have "discounted his paper.

I think the majority do not.

3 Likes
#210

Argue/rebuttal his theory.
Not based on his personal diagnosis{N=1]

4 Likes
#211

Most of the arguments and rebuttals have already been discussed, but here are some from the paper you referenced:

Rapamycin (sirolimus) and other rapalogs (everolimus) are anti-cancer

While this is true for some cancers such as skin cancer, it appears to be false for others such as lung cancer as referenced in the graph above by RCTs.

Data on the use of rapamycin and everolimus in organ-transplant patients are consistent with their cancer-preventive effects.

Again, this comment by Dr. B is skewed. In some cases, it prevents, and in some cases it promotes cancer. In science, you should not cherry-pick your results to fit your worldview.

The statements about cancer prevention in humans that he makes are all correct. However, Dr. B fails to state the other side which we have started doing here. Yes, skin cancer and kidney cancer risks decrease, but lung and prostate cancer chances increase. The results have been cherry-picked by Dr. B. It’s time we stopped looking through Dr. B’s rose-colored glasses and start taking a more pragmatic approach.

You shouldn’t make decisions about your health without considering both sides of the equation. IMHO, Dr. B has been focusing on the positive side only. I have been guilty of that as well up until this point. I think it’s now time to equally balance both sides of the equation.

What is the point of preventing skin or kidney cancer if you end up with metastisized lung or prostate cancer?

4 Likes