pH kills cancer and an update on my father-in-law who killed his cancer in 3 weeks!

Robert Young fell victim to his own enthusiasm, and that messenger was surely shot. The message however, lives on.
cancerres.aacrjournals.org...
www.medical-hypotheses.com...

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I'm going to post this entire blog post from Donald J. Porter, google him, cuz he also cured his own cancer using the baking soda protocol. Here is a link to the blog page curecancer73-don.blogspot.com...

This post was just made on February 14 of this year.

ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP -SO KILL INSTEAD
ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP
February 13th, 2016
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments. Although chemotherapy is toxic to all cells, it represents the only measure that oncologists employ in their practice to almost all cancer patients. In fact, 9 out of 10 cancer patients agree to chemotherapy first without investigating other less invasive options. CHEMO KILLS NOT the Cancer !
Drs and pharmaceutical cos make money from Chemo.
That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not
because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or
diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it KILLS.
Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term
mortality rates and oncologists know it.
A few years ago, Univ of Arizona Cancer Ctr member Dr. Mark Pagel received a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda cancer treatment for breast cancer. Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate, that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues. Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis. Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned drs such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease. The Whitaker protocol uses 12 g (2 rounded teaspoons) of baking soda mixed in 2 cups water, along with a low-cal sweetener of your choice. (It’s quite salty tasting.) Sip this mixture over the course of an hour or two and repeat for a total of three times a day. One man claims he has found a cure for cancer using baking soda and molasses and actually successfully treated his own disease by using baking soda.

When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold. It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere. Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with baking soda results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.

And there's more yet...

So anyone taking regular antacids should never get cancer?

a reply to: Rezlooper

Your first reply claims you arent an expert and your second post is saying I'm 'pretending' to be intelligent as a facade.

This post wasn't rocket science, buddy it's not an act.

Baking soda allergies are real. You shouldn't just nilly-willy recommend people substances without being their doctor.

Unless you want to be responsible for the many dangers of baking soda, not just the miracles.

Without a shadow of a doubt you cannot even prove that baking soda did anything, you've done no case studies, no research, just 1 personal instance where it made a difference? Finding another case with no facts isn't research btw, researching a case is research. You know, where someone has a controlled experiment, like giving 100 cancer patients baking soda and seeing what happens.

The obvious question is how do you know it was even the baking soda and not something else? You don't. Can baking soda be harmful? Yes, not to everyone, but yes. The connection to not tell everyone to DO this verses the connection of telling everyone ABOUT this should be plain and obvious, and the main details that makes you look like a fraud with an agenda. You're willing to risk others safety to prove some greater point about medicine. There is no greyline here, you shouldn't be prescribing/recommending people medication as a nonexpert. If you really care about this story you would contact scientists, not the internet and media.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I'm going to post this entire blog post from Donald J. Porter, google him, cuz he also cured his own cancer using the baking soda protocol. Here is a link to the blog page curecancer73-don.blogspot.com...

This post was just made on February 14 of this year.

ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP -SO KILL INSTEAD
ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP
February 13th, 2016
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments. Although chemotherapy is toxic to all cells, it represents the only measure that oncologists employ in their practice to almost all cancer patients. In fact, 9 out of 10 cancer patients agree to chemotherapy first without investigating other less invasive options. CHEMO KILLS NOT the Cancer !
Drs and pharmaceutical cos make money from Chemo.
That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not
because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or
diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it KILLS.
Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term
mortality rates and oncologists know it.
A few years ago, Univ of Arizona Cancer Ctr member Dr. Mark Pagel received a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda cancer treatment for breast cancer. Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate, that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues. Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis. Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned drs such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease. The Whitaker protocol uses 12 g (2 rounded teaspoons) of baking soda mixed in 2 cups water, along with a low-cal sweetener of your choice. (It’s quite salty tasting.) Sip this mixture over the course of an hour or two and repeat for a total of three times a day. One man claims he has found a cure for cancer using baking soda and molasses and actually successfully treated his own disease by using baking soda.

When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold. It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere. Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with baking soda results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.

And there's more yet...

So anyone taking regular antacids should never get cancer?

There would be evidence by now, so no.

There would be evidence of the baking soda reducing cancer risk, because people take baking soda pills.

There isn't.

Mods, shouldn't this thread be in The Grey Area as this is not a thread just about "medical issues & conspiracies" but instead about an actual claim that cancer can be cured in a specific way, yet it is backed not by evidence but only anecdotes?

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I'm going to post this entire blog post from Donald J. Porter, google him, cuz he also cured his own cancer using the baking soda protocol. Here is a link to the blog page curecancer73-don.blogspot.com...

This post was just made on February 14 of this year.

ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP -SO KILL INSTEAD
ONCOLOGISTS DON’T LIKE BAKING SODA CANCER TREATMENT BECAUSE IT’S TOO EFFECTIVE AND TOO CHEAP
February 13th, 2016
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments. Although chemotherapy is toxic to all cells, it represents the only measure that oncologists employ in their practice to almost all cancer patients. In fact, 9 out of 10 cancer patients agree to chemotherapy first without investigating other less invasive options. CHEMO KILLS NOT the Cancer !
Drs and pharmaceutical cos make money from Chemo.
That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not
because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or
diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it KILLS.
Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term
mortality rates and oncologists know it.
A few years ago, Univ of Arizona Cancer Ctr member Dr. Mark Pagel received a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda cancer treatment for breast cancer. Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate, that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues. Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis. Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned drs such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease. The Whitaker protocol uses 12 g (2 rounded teaspoons) of baking soda mixed in 2 cups water, along with a low-cal sweetener of your choice. (It’s quite salty tasting.) Sip this mixture over the course of an hour or two and repeat for a total of three times a day. One man claims he has found a cure for cancer using baking soda and molasses and actually successfully treated his own disease by using baking soda.

When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold. It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere. Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with baking soda results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.

And there's more yet...

So anyone taking regular antacids should never get cancer?

There would be evidence by now, so no.

There would be evidence of the baking soda reducing cancer risk, because people take baking soda pills.

There isn't.

I know.
I was being a devil's advocate.

a reply to: Pardon?

I gotcha. But it's #ing pathetic that isn't mentioned until this page, or at all mentioned in some sort of disclaimer. Like people just DON'T regularly take baking soda, and this is AMAZING because it's unknown what would happen if you did.

Crock of #. Not only do lots of people take baking soda, it's been tested already and the scam hit university level.

uacc.arizona.edu/node/4187

Supposedly dr. Mark pagel got 2 million from Arizona to study this.

Only 1 website that reports(of 3.) even has comments:

"My dad drank baking soda every night before bed and died of lungcancer..."

Damn Arizona should have just asked Facebook :-(

Ok wow...I finally cleared page 12

OP you have really got to understand some things here

1. You are on a conspiracy site where things get fact checked relentlessly.

2. Being on this site, in which people believe in, debunk, and/or look into conspiracies, you posted a very lofty statement about a cancer cure and seemed to ask that we simply accept it because "testimonial" despite many other potential factors being involved that were never checked. I have no reason to believe you are lying but consider that the body is an exceptionally complex mechanism with parts and pieces that can do exceptional things. We have an organ that takes toxins in your body and filters them out. We don't even have to ask...it just happens all day.

anyway...

3. The part that bugs me the most is you and the supporters on this thread are all about Big Pharma and the conspiracy. Now...I do not personally believe it is a global pharmacy conspiracy BUT I absolutely DO believe in two big factors
a. Medicines have indeed passed muster without the most stringent checking and have indeed killed.
b. Doctors do certainly over-prescribe
The problem I have is that while everyone cries Big Pharma and the pill conspiracy, that nobody seems to be crying Big Homepathy and the “natural” conspiracy which is indeed…to make money. And they make MASSIVE amounts of it. Over 6 billion dollars in 2013 alone and plenty of money in Europe

www.1023.org.uk...

The problem is that a great deal of these products are utter bull honky. They either don’t contain but a few ppm of the actual product or just don’t have any active effect.

I certainly see a few things worth taking. Vitamins for people who have an actual deficiency and not just feeling a little ill. That’s a wonderful idea. Eating a good and healthy diet as recommended by naturopaths is really good. But guess what…MD’s can, and do, offer this advice over and over and don’t get listened to.

The danger is that people have serious illnesses and turn to BS products and spend tons of money out of pocket for them. If the “experts” mentioned in this and other threads want to help and want so badly to destroy the “Big Pharma conspiracy,” then I have a really burning question…

Why is your advice available for $29.99? Why didn’t you pull a Jonas Salk and just make a 40 dollar per year website on how you cured cancer?

Also…did you approach colleges with these amazing devices and cures? Believe me, I know people can be hard headed but if I were a med science or biochem graduate department head and someone came to me with beginning evidence of a new and natural cancer cure, I’d be grabbing that research in a second and making my college the new Harvard or MIT.

The conspiracy, if it exists, is certainly in the homeopathic world as well. At least in their case, it’s more evident when labs test a bunch of caplets and find next to, or no, amount of the supposed substance.

I am glad your FIL was well. I really am. Of course I, nor others arguing against want him or anyone else to suffer or die. A lot of folks are just very cautious and concerned that such advice (cancer or otherwise) can delay well-researched and proven coping or cures for serious illnesses.

That’s all…I have nothing against the story…just want to add caution

a reply to: KyoZero

I wasn't directly reading a lot of OP replies and this post sheds the most light.

1. I didn't know it was for sale, but I didn't realize OP didn't realize where he was(I thought troll with backup lol. Opps.). I was calling him out for 'free'. I also didn't read all the content, I was searching more or less one question at a time.

2. This Harvard/MIT example is perfect. There would even be the many options of free. The question is, you had free and Billionaire, and you choose $29.99? Why? Outside of you know...all the stuff we know about what numbers con-artists choose.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: charolais
I have a question... did the cancer/tumors physically disappear? Do you have any PET scans or MRI results you could share? I'm really curious how the cancer could just go away seeing as cancer is physically present (tumors, masses, etc.) as opposed to something like a virus. I don't understand how it can just go away without cutting the tumors out. There's still going to be a tissue mass or something of that nature.

Yes, there was a hard rock-like mass and four weeks later when he went to the doctor, his first our of three, the doctor did a physical exam and said the mass was no longer hard, it was soft.

Was the mass ever biopsied?

Diagnosing cancer by the hardness of a lump is far, far from conclusive?

Maybe you explained this already...checking back through posts now.

a reply to: imjack

Rezlooper posted his experiences with alternative treatments. Some of us are actually interested in the first hand accounts of others that have had success.

Rather than insinuating that he is a liar, and insulting him, why can't any of the so called experts actually contribute to why this particular cure worked? There has been ample first hand accounts provided of others that have beat cancer with this same protocol.

There really are no experts in this discussion. There are folks that have witnessed a simple cure, the folks that are interested in that simple treatment and those that fear it. The later could just be people working from a script, waiting for their next check that buys their next box of depends.

Rezlooper, you have done a great service in documenting your father-in-laws recovery. I thank you.

Anywho, I am forging on with this whole idea of candida overgrowth being the link to many cancers. Makes sense that the end result would be a fungal growth that would respond to an alkaline treatment.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: charolais
I have a question... did the cancer/tumors physically disappear? Do you have any PET scans or MRI results you could share? I'm really curious how the cancer could just go away seeing as cancer is physically present (tumors, masses, etc.) as opposed to something like a virus. I don't understand how it can just go away without cutting the tumors out. There's still going to be a tissue mass or something of that nature.

Yes, there was a hard rock-like mass and four weeks later when he went to the doctor, his first our of three, the doctor did a physical exam and said the mass was no longer hard, it was soft.

Was the mass ever biopsied?

Diagnosing cancer by the hardness of a lump is far, far from conclusive?

Maybe you explained this already...checking back through posts now.

That's a really good point Indigo.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: imjack

Rezlooper posted his experiences with alternative treatments. Some of us are actually interested in the first hand accounts of others that have had success.

Rather than insinuating that he is a liar, and insulting him, why can't any of the so called experts actually contribute to why this particular cure worked? There has been ample first hand accounts provided of others that have beat cancer with this same protocol.

There really are no experts in this discussion. There are folks that have witnessed a simple cure, the folks that are interested in that simple treatment and those that fear it. The later could just be people working from a script, waiting for their next check that buys their next box of depends.

Rezlooper, you have done a great service in documenting your father-in-laws recovery. I thank you.

Anywho, I am forging on with this whole idea of candida overgrowth being the link to many cancers. Makes sense that the end result would be a fungal growth that would respond to an alkaline treatment.

Fear it? LOL

Experts cannot explain how it worked because there is no proof it did. Also, if you knew basic physiology, you would know that ingesting bicarbonate does not change the PH of extracellular fluid. Or maybe your or the OP can explain the process here (and I can predict you will not be able to).

Also: cancer is not a fungal growth....do you even know what a fungus is?????

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: charolais
I have a question... did the cancer/tumors physically disappear? Do you have any PET scans or MRI results you could share? I'm really curious how the cancer could just go away seeing as cancer is physically present (tumors, masses, etc.) as opposed to something like a virus. I don't understand how it can just go away without cutting the tumors out. There's still going to be a tissue mass or something of that nature.

Yes, there was a hard rock-like mass and four weeks later when he went to the doctor, his first our of three, the doctor did a physical exam and said the mass was no longer hard, it was soft.

Was the mass ever biopsied?

Diagnosing cancer by the hardness of a lump is far, far from conclusive?

Maybe you explained this already...checking back through posts now.

Of course it was biopsied and there have been numerous times throughout this thread referring people to go check out the original thread from three year ago where the entire story is documented even with photo posts of his doctor reports after the treatment plan. I know its a lot to read, but it does have the entire history of this miraculous cure of cancer with an all-natural treatment plan which included baking soda and molasses, turmeric, dandelion tea, coconut oil, aloe vera juice, lemons, limes and avocados, Raw Meal, high-alkaline water, and of course, the cancer-killing vegetables like broccoli, asparagus, kale, garlic and onions, and others.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: KyoZero

I wasn't directly reading a lot of OP replies and this post sheds the most light.

1. I didn't know it was for sale, but I didn't realize OP didn't realize where he was(I thought troll with backup lol. Opps.). I was calling him out for 'free'. I also didn't read all the content, I was searching more or less one question at a time.

2. This Harvard/MIT example is perfect. There would even be the many options of free. The question is, you had free and Billionaire, and you choose $29.99? Why? Outside of you know...all the stuff we know about what numbers con-artists choose.

ahh, what?

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: imjack

Rezlooper posted his experiences with alternative treatments. Some of us are actually interested in the first hand accounts of others that have had success.

Rather than insinuating that he is a liar, and insulting him, why can't any of the so called experts actually contribute to why this particular cure worked? There has been ample first hand accounts provided of others that have beat cancer with this same protocol.

There really are no experts in this discussion. There are folks that have witnessed a simple cure, the folks that are interested in that simple treatment and those that fear it. The later could just be people working from a script, waiting for their next check that buys their next box of depends.

Rezlooper, you have done a great service in documenting your father-in-laws recovery. I thank you.

Anywho, I am forging on with this whole idea of candida overgrowth being the link to many cancers. Makes sense that the end result would be a fungal growth that would respond to an alkaline treatment.

You are so very right Witness. They will continue to berate, harass, make their false claims, but oh well. People like you and I know better and can't be brainwashed by the powers that be.

How can any of these people on here claim to know anymore than I, or you, or anyone else for that matter. They can't prove baking soda doesn't work anymore than I can prove it does. I am eyewitness testimony to the fact it does work and I saw it work on my father-in-law and, unless they are calling me a liar. If so, I have no more time for these fools. I never made any claims to be an expert. I never made any attempts to sell anything. I have no reason to benefit from this other than the good feeling of knowing maybe this formula will save lives. I know it saved my Father-in-laws and it wasn't any thing at all other than an incredible conviction to his organic vegetable diet to cleanse out all the toxins and get rid of the acids in his body while pumping himself full of oxygen, hence, baking soda, high-alkaline water, lemons and limes. Anyone can do it and I sure hope people have enough sense not to listen to these shills! Think for themselves and investigate it, research it and know the truth... there are other options. The truth is out there, don't listen to these paid shills. They have a clear agenda, some have even admitted they work for the pharmaceutical or health care industry, so yes, they have vested interests, unlike me. I have no vested interest, only hope for others after what I witnessed in our family.

a reply to: Agartha

Perhaps the attitudes of those who practice corporate medicine are the reason we see a growing distrust in it.

Isolation of Fungi from Transplanted, Chemically Induced and Spontaneous Tumors

cancerres.aacrjournals.org...

a reply to: Rezlooper

I take it back your not lying at least not about all of this, no you are just showing a dangerous disregard for your poor father in law's health. lets take a look at this post.

there was a hard rock-like mass and four weeks later when he went to the doctor, his first our of three, the doctor did a physical exam and said the mass was no longer hard, it was soft. The next doctor said the same thing.

That means nothing just means that the mass has changed its also quite a subjective observation on the doctors part so you would not say the condition is improving based on this alone.

But this is the part that really concerns me.

The next doctor said the same thing. A third doctor a couple months later, we tricked, and G only went in for an exam of his enlarged prostate, which 90% of 73-year old men have, and never mentioned he was diagnosed with cancer. After the exam my wife and I went in to discuss some issues with the doctor and all was fine until i said, "Well, what about the cancer?" and the doctor immediately got defensive and asked, "What cancer?" and I told him about the diagnosis

So you tried to trick the doctor, this alone proves on thing, you were complicit in deliberately misleading a doctor of "G's" past medical history. That might not seem like a big deal to you but no wonder the doctor stormed out of the room. Thats like going to the mechanic and telling him your car won't start, I don't know why and all the while knowing you have removed a spark plug. Its basically stupid.

When it comes to health care not only is it stupid but its totally irresponsible.

Now you go on to say that....

the doctor came back in, swung his chair to be directly in front of G's face and said, "Let me tell you this, you did not kill your cancer." yet he couldn't find any sign of cancer.

You failed to disclose information to him!!!

The doctor thought he was feeling up a enlarged prostate not a cancerous mass you cannot just feel the difference.

I would guess during this conversation the doctor was encouraging him to go get more conventional treatment.

I honestly believe that if you are being honest about this the poor old G still has cancer you have just brainwashed him into thinking you are some kind of hero.

a reply to: Witness2008

An exploratory study from 67 years ago with only 6 citations in that time and no conclusive follow up studies?

And that's supposed to be compelling?

Cherry picking at its finest.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
They can't prove baking soda doesn't work anymore than I can prove it does.

You can? You conveniently avoided this question:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
How did it affect the blood pH levels?