Could Quilamine Chelators Conquer Cancer

[ironjustice]

Polyaminoquinoline Iron Chelators for Vectorization of
Antiproliferative Agents: Design, Synthesis and Validation.
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Aug 8.
Deniaud D, Corcé V, Morin E, Guihéneuf S, Renault E, Renaud S, Cannie
I, Tripier R, Lima L, Julienne K, Gouin SG, Loreal O, Gaboriau F.
Abstract
Iron chelation in tumoral cells has been reported as potentially
useful during antitumoral treatment.
Our aim was to develop new polyaminoquinoline iron chelators targeting
tumoral cells.
For this purpose, we designed, synthesized and evaluated the
biological activity of a new generation of iron chelators, which we
named Quilamines, based on an 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ) scaffold
linked to linear polyamine vectors.
These were designed to target tumor cells expressing an overactive
polyamine transport system (PTS).
A set of Quilamines bearing variable polyamine chains was designed and
assessed for their ability to interact with iron.
Quilamines were also screened for their cytostatic/cytotoxic effects
and their selective uptake by the PTS in the CHO cell line. Our
results show that both the 8-HQ moiety and the polyamine part
participate in the iron coordination. HQ1-44, the most promising
Quilamine identified, presents a homospermidine moiety and was shown
to be highly taken up by the PTS and to display an efficient
antiproliferative activity that occurred in the micromolar range.
In addition, cytotoxicity was only observed at concentrations higher
than 100 µM.
We also demonstrated the high complexation capacity of HQ1-44 with
iron while much weaker complexes were formed with other cations,
indicative of a high selectivity.
We applied the density functional theory to study the binding energy
and the electronic structure of prototypical iron(III)-Quilamine
complexes. On the basis of these calculations, Quilamine HQ1-44 is a
strong tridentate ligand for iron(III) especially in the form of a 1:2
complex.

PMID:22873526


Who loves ya.
Tom


Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/634q5a


Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/4rq595


DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

[John H. Gohde]

Post by ironjustice
Polyaminoquinoline Iron Chelators for Vectorization of
Antiproliferative Agents: Design, Synthesis and Validation.
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Aug 8.
Deniaud D, Corcé V, Morin E, Guihéneuf S, Renault E, Renaud S, Cannie
I, Tripier R, Lima L, Julienne K, Gouin SG, Loreal O, Gaboriau F.
Abstract
Iron chelation in tumoral cells has been reported as potentially
useful during antitumoral treatment.
Our aim was to develop new polyaminoquinoline iron chelators targeting
tumoral cells.
For this purpose, we designed, synthesized and evaluated the
biological activity of a new generation of iron chelators, which we
named Quilamines, based on an 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ) scaffold
linked to linear polyamine vectors.
These were designed to target tumor cells expressing an overactive
polyamine transport system (PTS).
A set of Quilamines bearing variable polyamine chains was designed and
assessed for their ability to interact with iron.
Quilamines were also screened for their cytostatic/cytotoxic effects
and their selective uptake by the PTS in the CHO cell line. Our
results show that both the 8-HQ moiety and the polyamine part
participate in the iron coordination. HQ1-44, the most promising
Quilamine identified, presents a homospermidine moiety and was shown
to be highly taken up by the PTS and to display an efficient
antiproliferative activity that occurred in the micromolar range.
In addition, cytotoxicity was only observed at concentrations higher
than 100 µM.
We also demonstrated the high complexation capacity of HQ1-44 with
iron while much weaker complexes were formed with other cations,
indicative of a high selectivity.
We applied the density functional theory to study the binding energy
and the electronic structure of prototypical iron(III)-Quilamine
complexes. On the basis of these calculations, Quilamine HQ1-44 is a
strong tridentate ligand for iron(III) especially in the form of a 1:2
complex.
PMID:22873526
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!http://tinyurl.com/634q5a
Man Is A Herbivore!http://tinyurl.com/4rq595
DEAD PEOPLE WALKINGhttp://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

No! Of course Not!

[John H. Gohde]

Post by ironjustice
Polyaminoquinoline Iron Chelators for Vectorization of
Antiproliferative Agents: Design, Synthesis and Validation.
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Aug 8.
Deniaud D, Corcé V, Morin E, Guihéneuf S, Renault E, Renaud S, Cannie
I, Tripier R, Lima L, Julienne K, Gouin SG, Loreal O, Gaboriau F.
Abstract
Iron chelation in tumoral cells has been reported as potentially
useful during antitumoral treatment.
Our aim was to develop new polyaminoquinoline iron chelators targeting
tumoral cells.
For this purpose, we designed, synthesized and evaluated the
biological activity of a new generation of iron chelators, which we
named Quilamines, based on an 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ) scaffold
linked to linear polyamine vectors.
These were designed to target tumor cells expressing an overactive
polyamine transport system (PTS).
A set of Quilamines bearing variable polyamine chains was designed and
assessed for their ability to interact with iron.
Quilamines were also screened for their cytostatic/cytotoxic effects
and their selective uptake by the PTS in the CHO cell line. Our
results show that both the 8-HQ moiety and the polyamine part
participate in the iron coordination. HQ1-44, the most promising
Quilamine identified, presents a homospermidine moiety and was shown
to be highly taken up by the PTS and to display an efficient
antiproliferative activity that occurred in the micromolar range.
In addition, cytotoxicity was only observed at concentrations higher
than 100 µM.
We also demonstrated the high complexation capacity of HQ1-44 with
iron while much weaker complexes were formed with other cations,
indicative of a high selectivity.
We applied the density functional theory to study the binding energy
and the electronic structure of prototypical iron(III)-Quilamine
complexes. On the basis of these calculations, Quilamine HQ1-44 is a
strong tridentate ligand for iron(III) especially in the form of a 1:2
complex.
PMID:22873526
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!http://tinyurl.com/634q5a
Man Is A Herbivore!http://tinyurl.com/4rq595
DEAD PEOPLE WALKINGhttp://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

No! Of course Not!

Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
than Quilamine Chelators or a million other @#$%^&* things reported to
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks.

Just thought that you morons might want to get a life!

[Just Wondering]

Post by ironjustice
Polyaminoquinoline Iron Chelators for Vectorization of
Antiproliferative Agents: Design, Synthesis and Validation.
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Aug 8.
Deniaud D, Corcé V, Morin E, Guihéneuf S, Renault E, Renaud S, Cannie
I, Tripier R, Lima L, Julienne K, Gouin SG, Loreal O, Gaboriau F.
Abstract
Iron chelation in tumoral cells has been reported as potentially
useful during antitumoral treatment.
No! Of course Not!
Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks.

Vitamin D-3 substantially reduces the risk of contracting many kinds of
cancer, inhibits the growth of some cancers, and can reduce some
tumors. It is perhaps the most effective and cost-effective precaution
you can take against cancer. Most people are actually D-3 deficient and
should be taking supplements. Up to 20,000 IU a day can be taken safely
by most people. I personally take between 5,000 and 10,000 IU a day
primarily as a precaution against cancer.
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!

Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

[Just Wondering]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass. The 3,000+ published research papers
already has proven it a hundred times over. It is about time that you
figured it out.

I have better things to do with my time. I am in the process of
downloading / installing a GNU WindowsXP/Visa/7 compiler to compile
the GNU Spicebird source code email program. Once I get it work, I
will start changing the interface on this Thunderbird based GNU email
program, as well as give it a new name. This will mark a refreshing
return to my programming roots, as well as more rational thought
processes to dwell on.

All the little people should see DINOMIT Model Of Cancer Development,
as well as the two other articles written by me on preventing cancer
with vitamin D.

http://tinyurl.com/86lrrm7

[Just Wondering]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors). If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug. If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs. I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself. But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again. It is wrong on
so many different levels. :(

Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

[BruceS]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view. I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic. JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it. JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

[Just Wondering]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors). If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug. If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs. I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself. But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again. It is wrong on
so many different levels. :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view. I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic. JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it. JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

You obviously won't get all the facts here. An internet search on
"vitamin D-3 cancer" will be a good start, and should be enough to
convince most reasonable person to give it a shot.

Here's a start for you:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/

One thing (OK, a few things) I would consider; Even though the human
body produces vitamin D-3 on exposure of the skin to sunlight, a
majority of people are actually D-3 deficient. If you are D-3
deficient, the RDA isn't nearly enough, a therapeutic dose may be 5,000
to 20,000 IU daily. Your body needs D-3 for many things, not just to
fight cancer. Vitamin D-3 supplements are very inexpensive. There are
no adverse effects at dosages at or under 20,000 IU a day.. D-3 will
definitely provide much benefit, not just in fighting cancer but in many
other ways as well.

But if as Gohde claims, "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer", no one would
need surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy. There would be no
need for mammograms, colonoscopies, or prostate exams. There would be
no worries about overexposure to solar radiation causing skin cancer.
You wouldn't even need any cancer diagnostic or treatment tools. Hell's
bells, everyone could just start popping D-3 and cancer would disappear
from the earth in a matter of months. That would be nice, but it just
ain't so.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

You obviously won't get all the facts here.  An internet search on
"vitamin D-3 cancer" will be a good start, and should be enough to
convince most reasonable person to give it a shot.
Here's a start for http://youtu.be/TQ-qekFoi-o
One thing (OK, a few things) I would consider;  Even though the human
body produces vitamin D-3 on exposure of the skin to sunlight, a
majority of people are actually D-3 deficient.  If you are D-3
deficient, the RDA isn't nearly enough, a therapeutic dose may be 5,000
to 20,000 IU daily.    Your body needs D-3 for many things, not just to
fight cancer.  Vitamin D-3 supplements are very inexpensive.  There are
no adverse effects at dosages at or under 20,000 IU a day..  D-3 will
definitely provide much benefit, not just in fighting cancer but in many
other ways as well.
But if as Gohde claims, "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer",  no one would
need surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.  There would be no
need for mammograms, colonoscopies, or prostate exams.  There would be
no worries about overexposure to solar radiation causing skin cancer.
You wouldn't even need any cancer diagnostic or treatment tools.  Hell's
bells, everyone could just start popping D-3 and cancer would disappear
from the earth in a matter of months.  That would be nice, but it just
ain't so.

Gee, there might be hope for you yet!

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I could that your above comments make you a posturing fool. And,
to think I do NOT possess ESP.

Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

[Just Wondering]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors). If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug. If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs. I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself. But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again. It is wrong on
so many different levels. :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view. I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic. JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it. JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I could that your above comments make you a posturing fool. And,
to think I do NOT possess ESP.
Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

If there was a positive correlation between intelligence and cancer, you
would already be dead. You can be thankful that there's no connection
between the two.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I could that your above comments make you a posturing fool.  And,
to think I do NOT possess ESP.
Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer.  And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

If there was a positive correlation between intelligence and cancer, you
would already be dead.  You can be thankful that there's no connection
between the two.

You are one of those ass-holes who have bought into the lies of
conventional medicine, hook, line, and sinker. How can you blame
physicians for ripping off their patients when their typical customer
is so bloody ignorant and just plain stupid?

Health care is for people who get sick. Think about it, moron.

[Just Wondering]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors). If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug. If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs. I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself. But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again. It is wrong on
so many different levels. :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view. I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic. JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it. JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I could that your above comments make you a posturing fool. And,
to think I do NOT possess ESP.
Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

If there was a positive correlation between intelligence and cancer, you
would already be dead. You can be thankful that there's no connection
between the two.

You are one of those ass-holes ...

If your mother read that, she'd be ashamed of you.

Health care is for people who get sick. Think about it, moron.

That's a stupid statement. When you take vitamin D-e supplements, you
are practicing health care. If healthy people practiced health care in
the first place, fewer people would get sick.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I could that your above comments make you a posturing fool.  And,
to think I do NOT possess ESP.
Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer.  And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

If there was a positive correlation between intelligence and cancer, you
would already be dead.  You can be thankful that there's no connection
between the two.

You are one of those ass-holes ...

If your mother read that, she'd be ashamed of you.> Health care is for people who get sick.  Think about it, moron.
That's a stupid statement.  When you take vitamin D-e supplements, you
are practicing health care.  If healthy people practiced health care in
the first place, fewer people would get sick.

What a rube!

Health Care is going either to your physician directly or to a
hospital for medical care, primarily because you are too clueless to
cure yourself.

I have personally cured myself a number of times. Being in a car
accident is about the ONLY that I would ever need health care.

Just thought that you might to know just how incredibly ignorant you
really are.

Self-care by definition is NOT health care.

[unknown]

"Self-care by definition is NOT health care."

'15 Cancer Symptoms Men Shouldn't Ignore'

This article speaks of this and how it bears on denying what could be
cancer symptoms. 15 symptoms are given, best the self curing guru know
them that the appropriate action might be taken. And it ain't dubling down
on some vitamin.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/features/15-cancer-symptoms-men-ignore?src=RSS_PUBLIC

[John H. Gohde]

Post by unknown
"Self-care by definition is NOT health care."
'15 Cancer Symptoms Men Shouldn't Ignore'
This article speaks of this and how it bears on denying what could be
cancer symptoms.  15 symptoms are given, best the self curing guru know
them that the appropriate action might be taken.  And it ain't dubling down
on some vitamin.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/features/15-cancer-symptoms-men-ignore?sr...

I am all for dubling down on some vitamin, as long as it is the right
one.

"Cancer Symptom in Men No. 9: Persistent Cough

Coughs are expected, of course, with colds, the flu, and allergies.
They are also sometimes a side effect of a medication. But a very
prolonged cough -- defined as lasting more than three or four weeks --
or a change in a cough should not be ignored, says Ranit Mishori, MD,
assistant professor and director of the family medicine clerkship at
Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C. Those
cough patterns warrant a visit to the doctor. They could be a symptom
of cancer, or they could indicate some other problem such as chronic
bronchitis or acid reflux."


Funny how I was to cure a very, nasty persistent cough with vitamin A.

http://tinyurl.com/9qj4hdh

The vitamin A did away with this COPD cough almost instantly. :)

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

You are probably one of those morons that fell for the lies of
convention medicine, and believes everything their doctor tells them.

Your stupidity has my condolences.

[The Doughbelly Pillsboy]

Post by John H. Gohde
Your stupidity has my condolences.

Johnny Gohnad speaks to stupidity.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Time for an outsider's view.  I'm a cancer survivor, an empiricist,
and a skeptic.  JW appears to be a reasonable person, whose pro-
vitamin D stance makes me interested enough to look into it.  JHG
appears to be a posturing fool with no understanding of how science
works.

Gee, I am of the opinion that your above comments make you a posturing
fool. And, to think that I do NOT even possess ESP.

Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

[unknown]

"Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future."

I hope you are right. Just one small flaw in your hopes. Every day we
have errors in cell duplication that are a cancer cell in the making. When
that cell duplicates you have cancer. Hopefully one's immune system will
continue to spot and remove these cells. You have cancer now.

One doesn't have mental control, however bright one might be, over cancer.

[John H. Gohde]

"Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer.  And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future."
I hope you are right.  Just one small flaw in your hopes.  Every day we
have errors in cell duplication that are a cancer cell in the making.  When
that cell duplicates you have cancer.  Hopefully one's immune system will
continue to spot and remove these cells.  You have cancer now.
One doesn't have mental control, however bright one might be, over cancer.

Hopefully nothing! I take 5,000 - 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D while
maintaining my blood levels in the 100 ng/mL range for approximately
two years to prevent cancer, among other things.

Not everybody is a complete moron, like you.

[unknown]

"Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. =A0And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future."
I hope you are right. =A0Just one small flaw in your hopes. =A0Every day

=
we

have errors in cell duplication that are a cancer cell in the making.

=A0=
When

that cell duplicates you have cancer. =A0Hopefully one's immune system

wi=
ll

continue to spot and remove these cells. =A0You have cancer now.
One doesn't have mental control, however bright one might be, over

cancer= .

"Hopefully nothing! I take 5,000 - 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D while
maintaining my blood levels in the 100 ng/mL range for approximately two
years to prevent cancer, among other things."

Hopefully it will work, but such hope is not based on research. The vit. d
and cancer research do not speak of such absolutes of prevention but of
levels of risk reduction. There is no 100 percent in any research result.

It appears you are usin vit. d in some form of magical token to bolster
hope against your fear of cancer.

"Not everybody is a complete moron, like you."

I hope you don't get full blown cancer, but as posted before you do have
cancer all the time but controlled by the immune system. Genetics has much
to do with some forms of cancer too.

[unknown]

This might help alleviate some of John's concerns about cancer.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/features/15-cancer-symptoms-men-ignore?src=RSS_PUBLIC

[The Doughbelly Pillsboy]

Post by John H. Gohde
Personally, I was NEVER dumb enough to come down with cancer. And, I
am smart enough, NOT to get it in the future.

[Robert Miles]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho. :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer. So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors). If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug. If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs. I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself. But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again. It is wrong on
so many different levels. :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Then you wouldn't object if we gave you a few dozen types of cancer
at once so you could show that vitamin D-3 conquers all of them?

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Robert Miles

Post by Just Wondering

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Just Wondering
However it is incorrect to flatly say that vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Yawn!
Spoken like a Science Psycho.  :(

OK, you're the proponent of the statement that vitamin D-3 conquers
cancer.  So prove it.

I do NOT have to dumb-ass.

There you go, shaming your mother again.

Post by John H. Gohde
The 3,000+ published research papers already has proven it a hundred times over.

No, those papers show that D-3 can substantially decrease the risk of
certain (but not all) cancers, and can be highly instrumental in
reducing some (but not all tumors).  If D-3 was a drug, it would be
called a wonder drug.  If it could be patented, the patent holder could
charge and get 100 times what it costs.  I think what it offers is
wonderful, and take it myself.  But I challenge you to identify a single
medical study that concludes "vitamin D-3 conquers cancer."

Now, don't go trying those SCIENCE lies on us again.  It is wrong on
so many different levels.  :(
Go waste somebody else's time playing your stupid little games,
Science Psycho.

Then you wouldn't object if we gave you a few dozen types of cancer
at once so you could show that vitamin D-3 conquers all of them?

Unless caused by a virsus (which is pretty uncommon) cancer is NOT a
communicable disease.

Good going Robert Miles, you have shown yourself to be quite the Arse
this morning.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by ironjustice
Polyaminoquinoline Iron Chelators for Vectorization of
Antiproliferative Agents: Design, Synthesis and Validation.
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Aug 8.
Deniaud D, Corcé V, Morin E, Guihéneuf S, Renault E, Renaud S, Cannie
I, Tripier R, Lima L, Julienne K, Gouin SG, Loreal O, Gaboriau F.
Abstract
Iron chelation in tumoral cells has been reported as potentially
useful during antitumoral treatment.
Our aim was to develop new polyaminoquinoline iron chelators targeting
tumoral cells.
For this purpose, we designed, synthesized and evaluated the
biological activity of a new generation of iron chelators, which we
named Quilamines, based on an 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ) scaffold
linked to linear polyamine vectors.
These were designed to target tumor cells expressing an overactive
polyamine transport system (PTS).
A set of Quilamines bearing variable polyamine chains was designed and
assessed for their ability to interact with iron.
Quilamines were also screened for their cytostatic/cytotoxic effects
and their selective uptake by the PTS in the CHO cell line. Our
results show that both the 8-HQ moiety and the polyamine part
participate in the iron coordination. HQ1-44, the most promising
Quilamine identified, presents a homospermidine moiety and was shown
to be highly taken up by the PTS and to display an efficient
antiproliferative activity that occurred in the micromolar range.
In addition, cytotoxicity was only observed at concentrations higher
than 100 µM.
We also demonstrated the high complexation capacity of HQ1-44 with
iron while much weaker complexes were formed with other cations,
indicative of a high selectivity.
We applied the density functional theory to study the binding energy
and the electronic structure of prototypical iron(III)-Quilamine
complexes. On the basis of these calculations, Quilamine HQ1-44 is a
strong tridentate ligand for iron(III) especially in the form of a 1:2
complex.
PMID:22873526
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!http://tinyurl.com/634q5a
Man Is A Herbivore!http://tinyurl.com/4rq595
DEAD PEOPLE WALKINGhttp://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

No! Of course Not!

Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
than Quilamine Chelators or a million other @#$%^&* things reported to
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks.

Just thought that you morons might want to get a life!

[Happy Oyster]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT), "John H. Gohde"

Post by John H. Gohde
Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.

Wrong.

[unknown]

"Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
than Quilamine Chelators or a million other @#$%^&* things reported to
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks."

Correction, vit. d modifies the risk of getting some cancer. It has not
been shown to cure cancer once underway.

[John H. Gohde]

"Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer.  To say anything else is a disservice to
the public.  The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks."
Correction, vit. d modifies the risk of getting some cancer.  It has not
been shown to cure cancer once underway.

Read what I posted, again.

[unknown]

"Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. =A0To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. =A0The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks."
Correction, vit. d modifies the risk of getting some cancer. =A0It has

no=
t

been shown to cure cancer once underway.

"Read what I posted, again."

Ok, yup, there it is "cure for cancer is here now".

[John H. Gohde]

"Vitamin D-3 conquers cancer. =A0To say anything else is a disservice to
the public. =A0The cure for cancer is here, and it is vitamin D-3 rather
have SLIGHT effects on cancer routinely reported by Zombie Science
Geeks."
Correction, vit. d modifies the risk of getting some cancer. =A0It has

no=
t

Now, don't go trying those brain farts on us again.