Bicar for cancer

[Thaiexpat]

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/07/02/why-oncologists-dont-like-baking-soda-cancer-treatment/

 

 

Interesting article about the positive effects of baking soda on cancer patients. Some clarification is needed, however, before you start wolfing-down pounds of the stuff thinking you will prevent cancer.

Studies do show some benefit for those WITH cancer already.

Studies DO NOT show any benefit to taking bicarb if no cancer is present.

Orally can work, a bit very slowly. (Measuring saliva and urine Ph is NOT accurate, so don't believe that)

Using bicarb in IV is effective. We use it to buffer high doses of Vitamin C (25-50, 75 grams or more).

Cancer makes its OWN acidic environment not BECAUSE OF. Here the story is misleading. Your blood Ph is tightly controlled. Acid formations develop from a breakdown in cellular respiration. TD has written excellent articles on this subject. Google "Warburg Effect" if you need more details.

Some medicine we use in cancer therapy will work ONLY in an acidic environment, so make sure if you are doing both sides of the aisle you ask the doc about this. It doesn't mean you have to take their advice (it will probably be 'WTF. Why waste you time?!?!"), but, at least, you can make sure you are not stopping the effectiveness of their medicines with bicarb.

Bicarb is great for headaches. 1/2 tsp in some water every 15 mins. We do a LOT of detoxification on all our cancer patients. Detox is a must and side-effects are usually experienced. Bicarb is safe and easy to help them adjust.

Finally, ANY cancer therapy must include DIET, detox (physical and mental) and an overall change in life-style. Paleo-diet ideas (NO GRAINS) have been shown in long-term studies to provide benefit (much better than just taking Bicarb), so you must CUT OUT THE SUGARS. Simple as that.

To your health.... Cheers

 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

 

How would this fit into a regimen of H202 -  3x daily....?     

[Thaiexpat]

Sure, just make sure they are taken separately, so there is no neutralization chances at all. or between whiskeys! hahahaah

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Martinis, but okay, DOC thanks !   

[tankdude]

Good Morning ThaiExpat - long time no see.
 
Here is an interesting article.  It appears that Dr. Warburg's theory is once again being looked at in favor. http://margotbworldnews.com/News/Apr/Apr12/redox.html

It appears to bear out some of the things we have discussed before - so I'm feeling pretty darn vindicated about my views on redox signaling and the importance of cellular homeostasis to support mitochondrial health.
 
This is a fairly technical article by Dr Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, Insititute of Science in Society, UK , but for those who understand some of the intricacies of metabolism, it has some interesting conclusions.

"Cancer cells are universally disturbed in their electronic energy balance, an understanding that potentially revolutionises cancer therapy and prevention"


two opposing approaches to cancer therapy

"By all accounts we are losing the war on cancer. The long-tried practice of targeting specific cancer gene mutations does not work, and for good reasons. Not only are the mutations remarkably diverse, differing between individuals and between parts within a single tumour, cancer cells soon become resistant to new drugs.

There is growing realization that cancer is not primarily a genetic disease, but an epigenetic response to chronic stress. Redundancy in diverse signalling pathways means that many different ‘adaptive’ mutations can enable cells to survive and multiply, predisposing them to malignant transformation.

One approach to cancer therapy is the much touted ‘personalized medicine’ that tailors the cure to key genes that have gone awry, but genetic heterogeneity poses a considerable, if not insurmountable hurdle.

The other approach is to target the most general characteristic of cancer cells and tumours distinct from normal cells, and that is becoming popular. Cancer cells typically have an abnormal energy metabolism, prompting some researchers to suggest that cancer is a metabolic disease.

I prefer to call cancer a redox disease, as explained later, to distinguish it from the usual 'inborn errors of metabolism' that underpinned the hypothesis of 'one gene one enzyme' of biochemical genetics.

cancer a mitochondrial disease

The abnormal energy metabolism of cancer cells was discovered by German physiologist Otto Heinrich Warburg in the 1920s. Normal cells obtain energy by breaking down the 6-carbon molecule glucose into two 3-carbon pyruvate molecules in a series of reactions – glycolysis – that does not require oxygen, followed by oxidation reactions in the mitochondria in which oxygen is needed.

Cancer cells, however, depend heavily on glycolysis to obtain energy, even though plenty of oxygen is present. This phenomenon – aerobic glycolysis subsequently known as the Warburg effect - prompted Warburg to propose that mitochondrial dysfunction was the primary cause of cancer.

As glycolysis is much less efficient in extracting energy from glucose, cancer cells are voracious for glucose, and that is how tumours are detected by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in which glucose uptake is measured by means of a radioactive analogue, flourodeoxyglucose.

Aerobic glycolysis is a robust hallmark of most tumours; it involves a high uptake of glucose with lactate production in the presence of oxygen, lactate being the by-product of pyruvate, even in those cancer cells that appear to have working mitochondria. The reason seems to be that cancer cells need glycolysis to generate carbon skeletons for the synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids to support rapid cell proliferation; and blocking glycolysis does appear to inhibit cancer cells (though it would also affect normal cells).

Warburg’s idea fell into disfavour as the view of cancer as a metabolic disease was gradually displaced with one of cancer as a genetic disease caused by mutations in specific cancer related genes, or oncogenes.

In recent years, the idea that cancer is a metabolic disease has become fashionable again. Some commentators remark that 'molecular biology is re-discovering biochemistry'; it is more important than that.

Cancer is a disease of electronic energy imbalance, and electronic energy is the life-wire that animates cells and organisms, as the father of biochemistry Albert Szent-Györgyi had discovered three quarters of a century ago...

conclusion

Emerging evidence suggests that cancer cells are more oxidized relative to normal; they do not have enough electrons. This is consistent with other indications that cancer is a redox disease, a state of  electronic imbalance. Rational therapy and prevention should start from here."

[Thaiexpat]

Imagine that! What Dr Warburg discovered n the 1920's and reaffirmed in the 60's being supported YET AGAIN! Cancer is a METABOLIC DISEASE, folks. screw-up the way a cell makes energy and you might develop cancer. Within a single cancer cell there can be hundreds of variations of DNA mutation and yet, the cancer INDUSTRY continues to promote the "gene-theory" to cancer formation. Why? Looking the right direction might find you a CURE. Chasing your tail about leads to MORE FUNDING!

Good find, TD (As ALWAYS). Been busy working a Chinese medical group to open integrative medical clinics there. The world is changing-SLOWLY

Cheers and to your health