You may remember that I posted previously about DDW and the diet. One of the leading experts on DDW is Dr Gabor Somlyai. He has a book out 'Deuterium Depletion: A New Way in Curing Cancer and Preserving Health'.
He also did a recent vid, this time more specific to cancer. If watching youtube videos aren't your thing, just search pubmed for deuterium. There's quite a few articles about it.
There's nothing in that article that shows that DDW is a scam. If you read the pubmed articles they don't indicate that either.The book by Gabor Somylai explains why and how it works. Not sure how much more people want. You might want to read about it in depth than doing a quick scan. Maybe you can show us why this research is fraudulent scientifically.
But, if in doubt, don't try it. Maybe this isn't for you.
Thing is, I don't mind people poo pooing it. If someone can show why it's a waste of time, I'd actually welcome it. In this boat, time isn't something we really want to waste. But I want to see proper reasoning why scientifically it's not correct. Not someone opinion.
I’m new here, but am very skeptical about “articles” or YouTube videos that promote hokum “cures.” Show me a peer-reviewed medical journal, and maybe we could have a discussion. I’m less inclined to be tolerant of people citing randos on the internet since my diagnosis. Life is too short for that.
I mean, we’d all like a miracle cure that would remove our cancer, but Deuterium Depleted Water is not it. Nor are unipolar magnets, ivermectin, or holy water.
If this gives you some comfort… then… fine. But keep it to yourself. Promoting malarkey to desperate people is not cool.
Maybe you could look in pubmed on all ddw related articles and show me what you are saying is incorrect.
By the way: But keep it to yourself. Promoting malarkey to desperate people is not cool.
If I think that something is beneficial, I'm going to share it. Regardless of any opinion. Why would I want to keep something to myself if I think it can help others. You don't believe it? Thats fine with me.
If not, show me the reasoning you believe the entries in pubmed are fraudulent.
It’s pretty clear if you read the article cited by MarkS. Tons of red flags.
But more importantly, can you cite any peer-reviewed medical study that shows the benefits of DDW? Like I said, until you do, we can’t have a rational discussion regarding this nostrum.
So basically you're saying that you can't give any reason why you think the articles in pubmed are fraudulent, otherwise you'd have stated them. You know what though, you should note that this is an adjunct therapy. Noone is giving false hope or asking people to change their existing treatments.
That article with the 'red flags' is an opinion. There's no evidence in there that scientifically proves anything. Just an opinion. I don't share that opinion.
Peer review means reviewed by their peers. Medical folks reviewing research by medical folks. But I’ve got better things to do than continue to engage with you. Life is too short.
This board, like other forums does have plenty of posters who use and/or explore alternatives. I do it myself, although I've never advocated doing them instead of standard treatment. Each person has to choose his own path with this terrible disease.
There are many papers on DDW. It’s very much at the research stage. There’s no money in it for big pharma so it may well stay as an academic phenomenon. Here’s an abstract from a fairly recent paper.
Anticancer Effect of Deuterium Depleted Water - Redox Disbalance Leads to Oxidative Stress*
Despite the convincing empirical evidence that deuterium depleted water (DDW, 25–125 ppm deuterium) has anticancer effect, the molecular mechanism remains unclear. Here, redox proteomics investigation of the DDW action in A549 cells revealed an increased level of oxidative stress, whereas expression proteomics in combination with thermal profiling uncovered crucial role of mitochondrial proteins. In the proposed scenario, reversal of the normally positive deuterium gradient across the inner membrane leads to an increased export of protons from the matrix to intermembrane space and an increase in the mitochondrial membrane potential, enhancing the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). The resulting oxidative stress leads to slower growth and can induce apoptosis. However, further deuterium depletion in ambient water triggers a feedback mechanism, which leads to restoration of the redox equilibrium and resumed growth. The DDW-induced oxidative stress, verified by traditional biochemical assays, may be helpful as an adjuvant to ROS-inducing anticancer therapy.
There is also a version of enzaludtamide called Deutenzalutamide which my understanding is ADDS Deuterium to the basic drug. It supposedly has better outcomes than the original drug! Like usual my head is spinning trying to figure these things out. An invitro study is "Blocking the Increase of Intracellular Deuterium Concentration Prevents the Expression of Cancer-Related Genes, Tumor Development, and Tumor Recurrence in Cancer Patients" Dr. Somlyai is one of the authors. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
Yep, if people read the summary of the article,It actually states exactly what Gabor S is saying. There's more in there like that.
Once the d/h ratio is lowered, it increases the survival because it affects the gene expressions and cancer grows at a slower rate.
In summary, we suppose the membrane transport activity leads to a modified D/H ratio and this change triggers distinct molecular processes. Our studies revealed that a modified D/H ratio simultaneously strongly modifies the expression of hundreds of cancer-related and kinase genes with roles in cell-cycle regulation. Most genes were found to respond to an elevated D/H ratio, which is consistent with our former data that elevated D-concentration stimulates cell growth. Our animal studies proved that DDW, in the form of drinking water, inhibits cancer development after exposure to a chemical carcinogen. Presumably, this is by preventing the cells from increasing D/H ratio to the threshold necessary for inducing gene expression. Similar results were obtained in our follow-up study of 204 DDW-consuming cancer patients then in remission. The extremely low death rate (11 deaths out of 204 patients within the 1024 years cumulative follow-up time) confirmed that maintaining a D-concentration at sub-natural levels can prevent relapse of cancer patients who are in remission.
Just to try to summarize a few things - first the TL;DR version:
The healthy skepticism expressed by several of us in this post are all reasonable: again, let’s see more than a book or a youtube video. RCTs are needed to support any claims of medical efficacy.
And now for my brain-dump written in haste:
— if DDW (or any other “cure”) had legs, we’d be hearing a lot more about it; not just books someone is trying to sell or youtube videos by randos. Not hearing about doesn’t mean there’s some conspiracy by big pharma, Bill Gates or the establishment to suppress medical information. If DDW (et. al.) were a cure, there’d be a gold rush to get it to market.
— Jpburns has it right: “Peer review means reviewed by their peers. Medical folks reviewing research by medical folks.” Once we see that type of scrutiny applied and the hypothesis makes reliable predictions, then we go to randomized clinical trials to establish certainty and confidence levels.
— just having a writeup in pubmed does not automatically confer legitimacy. That’s a logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority”. You might consider this quote: “PubMed has been reported to include some articles published in predatory journals” … published in an investigation done by none other than PubMed: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
— you’ll also see this disclaimer at the top of PubMed articles: “As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.”
— the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, without obligation from skeptics to prove it wrong. Telling some posters here that “if you have skepticism, then you need to show why these claims are wrong” …that’s the tail wagging the dog. Most of us here don’t have the medical expertise, nor the time or inclination, to debunk a never-ending parade of random claims. Again, that’s why we rely on peer review and RCTs.
Sure thing.First I'm not making any claims. I'm merely pointing out something I think people should be aware of. I you require proof I suggest you contact the guy direct.
Yes there are controversial items in pubmed. Some are better than others. There is no appeal to authority there.
But my question still remains - 'what part of the articles in pubmed are people considering incorrect or fraudulent'?
To make a claim like it being a scam requires evidense to why that's the case. If you can show it, great. If not, what exactly are you basing your decisions on?
IMO, THAT is where the burden of proof lies because to have that claim you should have a reason to justify it.
Yes, if DDW was the panacea, everyone would be cured. But isn't that the case for every treatment? It's a very strange argument IMO. You can take have it both ways.
This is the opposite of "light water" nonetheless it immediately reminded me of a episode of Hogan's Heroes:
A heavily protected secret German shipment of heavy water arrives at the camp and, to destroy the supply, Hogan gets Klink to drink it by convincing him it's a youth potion.
Ha, actually makes you wonder what happens to all the heavier deuterium water produced by making the reduced. Maybe it does end up in Goulash or curry 😆
How about asking yourself, do doctors sell chemo? Basically making money by taking a percentage. Where's the comments protesting about that? Is that snake oil?
But, that aside, please explain why you've come to that conclusion? Why do you beleive it's snake oil? Is there anything in the literature that suggests it is?
The Skeptical Inquirer quoted in the first reply on this thread cherry picked non-persuasive evidence: "The only other human clinical study I found was a double-blind phase 2 trial in Hungary that found a greater decrease in prostate volume in prostate cancer patients randomized to drink DDW. They concluded that DDW “can act as a highly effective tool in cancer therapy,” a conclusion that goes way beyond the data".
Looking at that phase 2 trial, I don´t think the authors have gone way beyond the data: "In the prospective trial seven patients in the treated group and one patient in the placebo group achieved partial response (p = 0.046). In the treated group, ...... urination complaints ceased at a higher rate (8 vs. 0 patients, p = 0.0041), and the one-year survival rate was also higher (2 vs. 9 deaths; p = 0.034). The 91 retrospectively evaluated patients achieved an MST (median-survival time) of 11.02 years, despite the fact that 46 of them suffered from distant metastasis".
That said, I get my water mainly from 1.5 daily kilos of veggies, berries and fruit...... less than one liter from plain water. So a maximum 40 % reduction of deuterium were I to try this.... which would need research....
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Fighting Prostate Cancer with Exercise and Diet (Part 1)
Zytiga with or without food .... again.
RyfeMax machine
My 28 Days Water Only Fasting Experience and IVCs
Advice welcome 
