Cancer, Chemotherapy, and Exercise

Angela Wright said:I think it’s possible, but let’s not make this harder than it needs to be—maybe list one of those natural substances you have in mind and back it up with some actual study data.
Take Myko-san, for example. They use mushrooms containing the AHCC (active hexose correlated compound) complex and/or beta 1,3 Glucan, which have been used in Japan for ages to treat malignant diseases. There are studies proving they actually work; their immunomodulatory effects are well-documented for both infections and cancer patients in clinical trials, in vivo animal studies, and even in vitro. Myko-san just patented the process and packaged it nicely, now selling doses at 50 $0.00/mo. 😉.
You can also find beta 1,3 Glucan (the same compound) offered by various other companies in different packaging and combinations, usually for a slightly lower price.
And people buy both like crazy.

We're talking about well-known polysaccharides here. You're bringing up beta 1,3 Glucan, which is a proven, highly useful immunostimulant—you can't copyright that. Whatever Myko-san protected isn't the original chemical formula of any famous polysaccharide. That's exactly why more manufacturers are flooding the market. If it weren't, it wouldn't be legal, right? See? That's why prices will keep dropping, just like every other supplement ever. Everyone wins. 🙂
As for Myko-san's patent, it could be a dozen different things. Maybe they protected a specific ratio of polysaccharides (the recipe)—that's always allowed. Or maybe it's just a Trade Mark. But they definitely didn't protect the natural chemical formula of a single compound. That’s impossible.

My point still stands.

Angela Wright said:I think we basically agree. I was just explaining what I consider to be "exact."

Glad we're on the same page. 🙂

Rachel Brooks63 said:This just isn't true.

Paclitaxel is a heavy hitter in oncology. It’s a taxane-based chemo drug that works by messing with cell division—specifically by stabilizing microtubules so the cancer cells can't split and multiply. Basically, it freezes them in place until they die. It’s been around the block since it was originally isolated from the bark of the Pacific yew tree. Nowadays, most of what we use comes from synthetic or semi-synthetic sources because, let's face it, nobody wants to strip entire forests just to treat tumors. The big players like Bristol Myers Squibb have been instrumental in its development and distribution. You'll mostly see it used for treating breast, ovarian, and lung cancers. It’s effective, sure, but it isn't exactly a walk in the park; the side effects can be brutal. Is it a miracle drug? Not really. Is it a staple in US cancer treatment protocols? Absolutely. Just another tool in the kit.

Paclitaxel (better known as Taxol, which you see popping up more and more lately as a cancer treatment) comes from a plant found only in the Pacific Northwest. Bristol Myers Squibb grabbed the patents on it and made a killing. If you actually bother to follow the links on this page, you'll see that a tiny biotech firm also developed a totally new, original, and innovative formulation based on paclitaxel—and they made a massive profit back in 2009, too.

Let me repeat myself: famous expert You can't patent a substance that comes straight from nature. Period.

Just discovered something new. Of course you can patent a substance. That’s how the pharmaceutical industry works. That's where the real money is. It's so massive that they even try to push dual-use compounds into the market.

Why does this actually matter? Simple: you can't fund massive clinical trials to prove something works if there's no huge profit margin waiting at the end. And let’s be real—there’s zero profit if anyone can just swoop in and copy the formula. So, instead of just being a setback, it's a total tragedy that countless natural compounds never get official drug status. That's exactly why you can't just get them prescribed by a doctor.

velvetmarlin17 said:My point still stands, plain and simple.

Honestly, you’re just contradicting yourself here. You haven't managed to name a single specific substance to back up your claim, whereas Rachel Brooks63 and I have already provided actual examples.

But look, what we think doesn't really move the needle. What actually matters is that research keeps pushing toward smarter, higher-quality medications and that they remain accessible to everyone, regardless of their diagnosis.
The logistics of how to negotiate the best pricing while keeping costs down fall squarely on the shoulders of our governing structures. It’s their job to advocate for their constituents and go toe-to-toe with Big Pharma to secure the best possible deal for the public. Meanwhile, civil society—patient advocacy groups—exists to scream and apply pressure to both sides. It’s an endless tug-of-war, and everyone needs to be ready for it.

Angela Wright said:I think you're contradicting yourself since you didn't actually name a single specific substance, even though Rachel Brooks63 and I both gave examples.

Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Vitamin B-6
Vitamin B-12
EPA
DHA
CLA
GLA
Phytosterols
Phenolics
Polyphenols
Anthocyanins
EGCG
TMG
Silymarin
Echinacea
Curcuminoids
Ginkgoflavoneglycosides
Astragalus membrane
Panax ginseng
Green tea
L-arabinose
Diindolylmethane
Rhodiola rosea
Maitake d
L-glutathione
Coenzyme Q-10
Lipoic acid
Lycopene
Ellagic acid
Quercetin
Acetyl-L-carnitine
Resveratrol
Probiotic blend
Exclzyme enzymes
Lactoferrin
Piperine
Graviola
Cinnamon bark
Bilberry extract
beta 1,3 Glucan
Lutein
Luteolin
Zeaxanthin
n-Acetylcysteine
Fucoidan
Gymnema silv
Vinpocetine
protein whey Thiamin
Thiamin
riboflavin
niacin Folate
Folate
biotin
Pantothenic acid
L-carnosine
aloe vera
Trimethylglycine
bovine cartilage
Tocotrienols
Lecithin
Calcium-d-glucarate
MSM
Stevia leaf
IP6 inositol hexa
L-theanine same citrus
SAMe
Citrus bioflavonoids
Benfotiamine

and plenty more... 🙂

Some of these are just groups of compounds or biological sources.

velvetmarlin17 said:Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Vitamin B-6
Vitamin B-12
EPA
DHA
CLA
GLA
Phytosterols
Phenolics
Ployphenols
Anthocyanins
EGCG
TMG
Silymarin
Echinacea
Curcuminoids
Ginkgoflavoneglycosides
Astragalus menbran
Panax ginseng
Green tea
L-arabinose
Diindolylmethane
Rhodiola rosea
Maitake d
L-glutathione
Coenzyme Q-10
Lipoic acid
Lycopene
Ellagic acid
Quercetin
Acetyl-L-carnitine
Resveratrol
Probiotic blend
Exclzyme enzymes
Lactoferrin
Piperine
Graviola
Cinnamon bark
Bilberry extract
Beta 1,3 Glucan
Lutein
Luteolin
Zeaxanthin
N Acetylcysteine
Fucoidan
Gymnema silv
Vinpocetine
Protein whey
Thiamin
Riboflavin
Niacin
Folate
Biotin
Pantothenic acid
L-carnosine
Aloe vera
Trimethylglycine
Bovine cartilage
Tocotrienols
Lecithin
Calcium-d-glucarate
MSM
Stevia leaf
IP6 inositol hexa
L-theanine
SAMe
Citrus bioflavonoids
Benfotiamine

and plenty of others... 🙂

Some of these items are actually groups of compounds or biological sources of compounds.

I had no idea Vitamin A was a cancer cure. Can you back up any of those compounds with an actual study proving they treat cancer?

Angela Wright said:I had no idea Vitamin A was a cancer cure. Can you actually back up any of those compounds with a study proving they treat cancer?

And who said every single thing on that list is being used against cancer? That list was just an answer to your previous question.

Putting words in my mouth isn't a great look.

velvetmarlin17 said:And who exactly said that every single compound on that list is being used to fight cancer? That list was simply an answer to your previous question.

Putting words in someone else's mouth isn't a great look.

Look, friend, we are discussing cancer and the medications specifically designed to treat malignant conditions, yet you’re acting like an Occupational Therapist. This whole misunderstanding was born from your own interpretation, which clearly stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Cancer isn't just one single disease; it's a massive collection of biologically and cellularly distinct malignant conditions. There is no magic "silver bullet" natural compound out there capable of wiping out a malignant cell regardless of its specific type or structure while simultaneously halting the further divisions and mutations that make the job so difficult. To actually get results, you need compounds that function as sophisticated, intelligent mechanisms designed to disrupt those specific biological systems. In that light, whether some trivial compound found in nature can be patented or not is completely irrelevant. What actually matters—what Big Pharma fights over and makes their billions on—is the patenting of complex chemical cocktails.

Angela Wright said:Look, man, we're talking about cancer and actual oncology here, and you're just an OT. This whole misunderstanding is on you because you clearly don't get the science. Cancer isn't just one single disease; it's a massive collection of biologically and cellularly distinct malignancies. There isn't some magic "natural" combo that can just wipe out a malignant cell regardless of its type and structure while simultaneously stopping all the mutations and divisions that make this job so hard. You need compounds that function as smart mechanisms to disrupt those specific systems. In that light, whether some trivial natural compound can be patented is totally irrelevant. What actually matters—what Big Pharma fights over and makes their billions on—is the patenting of complex compound cocktails.

Maybe try checking your ego at the door for once. And learn how to handle different perspectives.👎

velvetmarlin17 said:Maybe you should try managing your ego a bit. And learn how pluralism works. 👎

😁
Honestly, it doesn't feel like my ego is the issue here.
Pluralism is practically part of my DNA. That’s exactly why I work for a non-profit dedicated to the very subjects this thread is dissecting.

I just got back from a ten-day trip to Washington, D.C., and honestly? It blew my mind how little I saw anyone actually moving. Not even a brisk walk in the parks. I’m talking specifically about the older crowd—the folks who would benefit the most from staying active. Instead, it’s just a sea of people sitting in cafes, sipping coffee, grabbing bites, and basically staying glued to their seats.

Why hasn't someone launched a massive public health campaign to get people moving more?

urbanorca said:I just got back from Washington, D.C., after spending 10 days there, and I was honestly shocked that I didn't see a single person exercising—not even walking in the parks. I’m thinking specifically about older folks, who would benefit immensely from staying active: instead, people are just sitting in cafes, sipping coffee, eating, and basically living life completely sedentary.

Why isn't there some kind of massive campaign to get people moving more?

There actually is one, organized by an obesity prevention association. We actually collaborate with them on our own initiative to encourage people to get screened, focus on prevention, and educate high school students. (It's part of a mrak campaign.)
I don't know exactly what time of day you were out or which parts of D.C. you hit, but if you head to spots like the waterfront, the local parks, or the big greenbelts, you'll find recreational enthusiasts everywhere. Plus, the hiking trails near the outskirts are a total paradise for retirees 😉. You can even find people out in the small neighborhood parks constantly. On top of that, there is a ton of cycling happening all over the city.
In my opinion, the residents here are much more health-conscious than people in smaller towns.

Ivanica, sorry, I wasn't actually at any of the spots you mentioned this time around, but I've spotted some recreational runners before over by Jarun, Bundek, or the riverbank. Just mostly older folks!

urbanorca said:Prof. Dr. Robert Thomas, a leading oncologist in the United Kingdom, points out that there is substantial evidence—backed by significant research—suggesting that patients who maintain an exercise regimen have much higher odds of preventing cancer recurrence and generally feel far better than those who rely solely on chemotherapy.

Dr. Thomas even goes as far as to suggest that exercising for more than two hours a week can have an impact on the disease comparable to chemotherapy itself, which would imply that chemo might not even be strictly necessary (not to mention its myriad brutal side effects).

It’s almost hard to wrap your head around!

What are everyone else's thoughts?

Read more on my blog:

http://zdravljeinfo.blogspot.com/

I am inclined to agree. One of the most effective forms of exercise is Qi Gong. In China, it is recognized as a legitimate therapeutic practice alongside Western medicine; in fact, for years now, it has been covered by health insurance providers in Germany as well. Personally, following my surgery, I practiced for about two to three hours every single day for eighteen months. Nowadays, I stick to about two hours on the weekends, though when I'm on vacation, I make it a daily habit. I also supplement my diet with various organic supplements.👍