Anybody used proto-cell?

I found some site that talk about Procel alternative treatment.

http://alternativecancer.us/protocel.htm

this site promotes Procel, has some very interesting info--needs to be taken every 4 hours, many supplements and Vits cannot be taken with it (especially Vit C, noted to be the biggest cause of Procel failure) and references to research, but I can't get to the original studies to read them myself.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/cam/cancell

this is the FDA site on Procel, says that ingredients have been tested and are not helpful, and notes that it is illegal to ship Procel across state lines.  I have noted that the FDA site states that all alternative treatments are not known to be effective (fancy way of saying they don't work). 

Based on what I'm seeing on their website, this is not a treatment that I would consider. Too many supplements/vitamins/foods that when taken with Procel cause "failure," which makes me suspicious that it does not work very often and the blame is placed on the consumer. 

That, however, is only my opinion.  I hope someone on the board has direct experience with it and can give us more information. 

"this is the FDA site on Procel, says that ingredients have been tested and are not helpful" 

Actually, the cancer.gov site does not say that.  On the summary page referenced, it says, "None of the common chemicals in these products is known to be effective in treating any type of cancer."  What NCI knows (or is willing to find out) does not impact what is actually true.

On the details of their report (not just the summary), they actually state the following:

"Thus, under these highly idealized conditions Cancell/Cantron/ Protocel may exhibit some mild inhibitory effect on the growth of some cancer cells, but it would not be expected to inhibit their growth completely or to kill them." 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cancell/HealthProfessional/page9 

If the worse that can be said by a site whose purpose is to discredit alternative treaaments is that Protocel does in fact, "exhibit some mild inhibitory effect on the growth of some cancer cells" then that to me speaks volumes.  The worse that NCI can say about Protocel is that it may be effective in inhibiting the growth of some cancer cells.  If it was "mildly" effective in the short days of their test, imagine what the results could have been had they continued testing?

The most revealing evidence against NCI in this is that they have refused to do any further testing.  Does that really make sense?  If their initial experiements show that Protocel is effective (even midlly), wouldn't that warrant additional testing in humans to prove conclusively whether it inhibits the growth completely or kills cancer cells in humans?  Instead all we are left with is their opinion that it would not be "expected" to be effective???  On the other hand, there are literally thousands of individuals who indicate they have been healed of cancer using Protocel. 

Wouldn't an altruistic organization dedicated to providing truthful, accurate, and comprehensive information on cancer treatments in order to save lives have an obligation to follow-up on treatments that are proven (by their own admission) to inhibit cancer cell growth?  More importantly, why would such an organization choose NOT to conduct such tests?

I don't mean to rant, but the more I look into this whole set-up, the sicker I get to my stomach. 

I will be starting Protocel next week and you can rest assured that I will post back here with updates.  I don't have the luxury of getting fat checks from the pharma companies for ensuring that chemo and radiation remain the only promoted options for cancer treatment.  I don't have the luxury of political expediency forcing me to tow the line.  I only have the luxury of trying to save my life and attempting to find the truth about what is really working for treating cancer.

Mia

Thanks Flalady!    Coming from you, that means a lot.

I saw a supercool quote today that I thought was so true, "Simply because something is unproven does not mean that it has been disproven."  I think this is important to remember. 

I really don't fault the pharama companies.  My husband has his own busines and I know that he makes careful consideration of how to make the business grow and to increase revenues.  Although he gets a lot of moral satisfaction in helping those he can, it is not a non-profit organization; he must make money to keep the busines going.

What bothers me is the lack of an "objective" voice in this dance.  Or worse, the fact that the government purports to be that objective voice when they are actually not.  In actuality, they are protecting the pockets of big business.

As long as the ones determining what is "approved" are simultaneously in profiting from the ones in charge of authorizing/ conducting the research, and then all impartiality is thrown out of the window.   It is a very real conflict of interest.

Have a blessed day,

Mia

IAmthankful, when you say:

•  
  • "... Wouldn't an altruistic organization dedicated to providing truthful, accurate, and comprehensive information on cancer treatments in order to save lives have an obligation to follow-up on treatments that are proven (by their own admission) to inhibit cancer cell growth?  More importantly, why would such an organization choose NOT to conduct such tests..."
• I thought I was the only one to be asking myself this question. I am sooooo happy to see that there are others wondering....Thank you. 

IMTHANKFULL!!!! ,

Wonderful news!  You are in my heart and prayers.  I hope to have my scans in a few weeks.  And hope to celebrate with you.

God is GOOD!

Flalady

Can you give me some additional information on Protocel,, My mother is on Ixempra and is doing well but seems the pain is back and not sure if the cancer is continuing to shrink or not.