Paul Saladino· MD
what you're doing here is not in replacement of the traditional cancer therapies you're looking to augment those therapies and make people more robust when they're doing those therapies
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
what you're doing here is not in replacement of the traditional cancer therapies you're looking to augment those therapies and make people more robust when they're doing those therapies
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so it the whole idea is you just combination everything so you're slowing down the cancer cell and it's only the only reason you need something there is the ones that are open the DNA that's openness and that's to kill the others are gonna go with the apoptosis and the immune systems gonna take out right
The majority it sounds like that all of these patients you described did conventional cancer therapies whether it was radiation chemotherapy debulking etc but they were doing it from the in the context of a deuterium depletion they were doing deuterium depletion as they were doing this
in our clinic now we use one tenth to one twentieth of the fraction of chemo and get better results so by using this combination of deterring depletion and chemo now you can use Western medicine and make it safe so you can use lower doses of chemotherapy in combination with deuterium depletion and get an adjective effect get a better effect