Thanks H,
very interesting re D6 and D7.

I was aware of the synthesis of Cholcalciferol into calcidiol and then in turn into calcitriol but the terms active and inactive would refer to its utilization by the body but I have not really pondered that way of looking at it.

They are chemically different forms of vitamin D₃ though.  The form of vitamin D found in plants and used in milk is inactive D₂ (ergocalciferol).  D₂ can also be produced by the body from a plant sterol.  Inactive D₃ can be formed by the conversion of D₂ in to D₃ or by the action of sunlight on 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin.  This leads to the production of a weak form of D₃ (cholecalciferol), which is then converted in to another form of D₃ (calcidiol) that is still considered inactive due to its weak effects.  Calcidiol then can be converted in to its active form, calcitriol, by the kidneys if functioning properly.

I would beg to differ on Ozone being the safest and most effective cancer therapy

Let's see.  Ozone destroys cancer cells through a variety of mechanisms, it also addresses the base causes of cancer, caner cells are unable to build up a tolerance to ozone, and cancer cells are killed on contact in a chain reaction.  Furthermore, a study did in Germany followed over 6.5 million injections with ozone and there were just over 30 adverse events recorded, mostly irritation near the injection site.  Again, I have yet to find any therapy with the effectiveness or safety of ozone therapy.

and where in my experience and research the Budwig protocol would be equally as effective.

I have not looked much in to Budwig.  From what I have seen on it so far I would not rely on it alone, and especially for an advanced cancer.

As you mention, lifestyle and dietary changes are paramount, but the Gerson &Oleander approaches are also vitally important.

We will definitely have to disagree on the oleander therapy.  I have addressed this a number of times.  The only study on effectiveness that can be found showed it to be ineffective for cancer.  The current phase 1 trials for safety were being touted recently as if they showed oleander was effective, but this was not the case.  I discussed this in this post:

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1834368#i

And when asked repeatedly for some of the studies claimed to exist proving oleander worked I was ignored repeatedly.  This tells me that the studies never really existed in the first place.

This is the exact reason I started the book on alternative cancer therapies.  There are too many unproven, and sometimes very dangerous, cancer treatments being touted all over the internet.  And much of this based on misconceptions like a lack of oxygen or acids cause cancer.  So I am doing a review of various cancer therapy claims as well as treatments and discussing the evidence, or lack thereof, of these treatments.  And I plan to rate them based on safety and proven effectiveness, not misguided concepts or unsubstantiated testimonials.

I also believe that a comprehensive treatment plan would be more effective as long as they are compatible and work in unison as you have also mentioned.
I expect you will list these bogus and unproven cancer therapies in your book, but perhaps you would be good enough to provide a tidbit of info as to what some of them are.?

Sure, for the ones proven to work I plan to include ozone, hyperthermia and other forms of radiofrequency therapy, betulinic acid, various herbs, etc.   As for the ones that lack evidence and/or do not have good safety records I intend to include oleander, cesium chloride, IV ascorbic acid, baking soda, etc.

I have been making a list of others that I may cover as well such as laetrile, mushrooms, Hoxsey, DMSO/MSM, colloidal silver, IP6, germanium, Essiac, DCA, alkaline waters, etc.  And I may cover some that may or may not really be considered as "alternatives" such as HCG vaccines, photodynamic therapy, hydrazine sulfate, etc.  

There are so many claimed cancer treatments out there that it is impossible to cover them all.  So I will have to focus on the ones that I have found evidence to that they work and the ones being touted most frequently as effective when there is no evidence to back the claims.  I can post a full list of which ones I cover in the book when it is finished.  So far I have the ones on IV vitamin C, and cesium chloride finished and am working on the chapters on baking soda and the cancer is Candida myth, as well as a chapter on the acid-alkaline myths and how they apply to touted cancer therapies.

Keep in mind that cancer is a very serious condition and can be deadly.   This is why people need to do their homework and not rely on unsubstantiated claims or testimonials as proof of anything.  There are claims being made that parasites cause all cancers.  And others claiming that it is fungus, or that it is always caused by nutritional deficiencies, or acids, etc.  Of course how can these claims be correct when they all claim to be the sole cause?  Yet people blindly follow these claims all the time just like how they blindly follow claims of cures with no evidence.  Then when the cancer continues to grow or the person dies alternative medicines get blamed in general and more restrictions get applied.  So if people really want to make claims about cancer causes or treatments then they should be willing to present some real evidence or actual scientific rationale behind the claims, not just what some website or book claims or unsubstantiated claims of cures.

Chrisb1.