Why do cells mutate into cancer cells?

[
That's not entirely true. I can't speak to the biological or cellular aspects, but the electrical ones presented are sound.

No, the electrical concepts were not true. Cells do not fluctuate through a 40mv range, they do not move to -15mv resting potential in disease state and hover there, and they are not hyperpolarized by making them MORE positive (the opposite is actually true, which can be verified by a quick google search if you don't believe me).

Also, Universities DO go through godawful contortions to get patent rights on things they can claim even a remote connection with. My first wife was a researcher, and knowledge of THAT, I'm privy to.

No one has said anything to the contrary. He is not affiliated with a university, and thus would not have to go through the red tape of government funding. If you hire out a patent lawyer for a couple of hours, it's insanely easy to attain a private patent.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

[
That's not entirely true. I can't speak to the biological or cellular aspects, but the electrical ones presented are sound.

No, the electrical concepts were not true. Cells do not fluctuate through a 40mv range, they do not move to -15mv resting potential in disease state and hover there, and they are not hyperpolarized by making them MORE positive (the opposite is actually true, which can be verified by a quick google search if you don't believe me).

You probably read too fast. I clearly stated that I can't speak to the biological or cellular aspects. The ELECTRICAL ones presented are sound. You may have a Nobel prize in cellular structure for all I know, but I harbor serious doubts that you have ANYTHING to teach me concerning electricity or electronics.

Also, Universities DO go through godawful contortions to get patent rights on things they can claim even a remote connection with. My first wife was a researcher, and knowledge of THAT, I'm privy to.

No one has said anything to the contrary. He is not affiliated with a university, and thus would not have to go through the red tape of government funding. If you hire out a patent lawyer for a couple of hours, it's insanely easy to attain a private patent.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Universities are legally not allowed to claim or file patents on anything not discovered with university funds and in university facilities, especially not when presented with third party data. I've signed similar agreements with every university I've worked for/been a student at.

Care to try another fabrication that's not so easily destroyed?

Now, if you're wrong on those two points, it calls into question your opinions on the rest.

You appear to be far more interested in arguing your point, and throwing around your massive intelligence than you are in discussing the issue. EVERY post you've made so far is to attempt to call someone on the carpet. No one has said anything right yet. We get it. You're a genius.

Now if you don't mind, I'll take my humble, ignorant self out of here, and get to researching more weighty matters than your IQ.

I bid you good day.

You probably read too fast. I clearly stated that I can't speak to the biological or cellular aspects. The ELECTRICAL ones presented are sound. You may have a Nobel prize in cellular structure for all I know, but I harbor serious doubts that you have ANYTHING to teach me concerning electricity or electronics.

Maybe I'm missing what you're referring to. Which electrical concepts has Dooper stated which ARE true? Please point them out, I truly may have missed them, to be honest.

Now, if you're wrong on those two points, it calls into question your opinions on the rest.

You appear to be far more interested in arguing your point, and throwing around your massive intelligence than you are in discussing the issue. EVERY post you've made so far is to attempt to call someone on the carpet. No one has said anything right yet. We get it. You're a genius.

Now if you don't mind, I'll take my humble, ignorant self out of here, and get to researching more weighty matters than your IQ.

I bid you good day.

Of course I've spent most of my time "calling people onto the carpet". That is standard practice in scientific analysis. Someone produces a theory, and you demand they defend it with evidence. Dooper has done nothing by dance around his claims, changing the subject each time he is cornered. The number of things he has claimed and facts he has mistated number in the dozens at this point.

reply to post by dooper


I just dont understand your thinking....

If you have access to such a great technology and you are unable to patent it or make a profit, why dont you disclose it to the public, for the benefit of the whole mankind? In the internet age, there are hundreds of ways how you can do it anonymously without exposing yourself (sites like liveleak, overunity.com, dozens of amateur overunity research and alternative science sites, even serious science sites and universities - just say you cant figure out whats "wrong" with the device design, if its really overunity, they will figure it out sooner or later...). Use as much channels as possible, use inet caffees, proxies, anonymizers, and you are safe.. When many people will build it and see that it works and it starts to spread, just sit back and enjoy the show..

If you have the opportunity and wont do this, you are no different than those oil companies and free energy supressors...
Thats ofcourse, if I assume you are not just making all it up..

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Maslo]

reply to post by Maddogkull


Here's a theory: The body could be viewed as made of two different, related parts (or two that matter here). The physical body and the vibratory body. Both are sources of information, energy, and frustration to the cell. Any organism is made of cells, at least loosely speaking. When the cells retain their physical (Material or Yin) connection to the organism, but lose or misinterpret their vibratory(Spirit or Yang) connection to the organism, they become cancer.

Here's another: Cancer is when the cells of an organism become distant from each other, or from the organism, and turn against it. This is perhaps illustrative of mental or spiritual parts of the organism which have themselves become distant, and have begun a battle with the over-arching mental or spiritual segment of the main organism. Related may be the issue of governments becoming distant and turning on populaces, or of humans turning against their gods or societies.

Here's another: Cancer is when something goes wrong with the reproduction of the important data of a cell while it's replicating, AND THEN the cell manages to take hold in the organism, with a misfated attempt to split off and create a new organism, or merge with and overtake the existing organism. A mutiny, in other words. Cells mess up all the time when reproducing, but normally the physical body can eliminate the offending cell (as in the U.S. government eliminating the commune at Waco).
Also the not-so-physical body can correct (entrain) the offending cells to have them rejoin the whole.

Cancer can hit absolutely anyone under any circumstance ie smoker all your life and no cancer at 80 years old vs fitness fanatic who gets cancer and dies at age 25.I don't know the exact cause,but it is definitely on the rise and like i said can hit anyone no matter how healthy you try to be.What i do think though is that it is on the rise by a very large margin,the amount of people who have died in my small village due to cancer over even the past 15 years is astonishing to say the least.Then again i do live half a mile away from a glaxosmithkline factory which has had two problem(explosions) in my short life.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Solomons]

If it is acceptable, there may be a method to see of I'm FOS or you are.

I propose two Mods view the documents, and report only the Results of the Tests and the date.

Independently, they can look up the Laboratory to see if as I say, they are in fact a big engineering laboratory, and do in fact conduct forensic engineering work.

The Mods must agree that this is for eyes only, and after making a determination of the unity of wattage results, the data must be destroyed. They cannot share the name of the lab, only the net test results and the dates.

I'll likewise send them a couple photographs and a few other test data analysis graphs. Upon them making their determination, if they'll agree to destroy the material, I'll forward it to them by regular Email.

They may not understand what they're looking at, but anyone can read the results under the columns, "Unity of Wattage." After all, that's the Holy Grail of physics.

Physics say 1.00 unity of wattage absolutely, positively cannot be reached because of heat loss, friction, impedance and the like.

Anything above a 1.00 is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

I'll let them tell you what the results read.

Since I see Seagull is monitoring this thread, I ask you if you'll be one of those to make a determination.

There's another more recent Mod - GreeneyedLeo, and I would ask her if she would likewise agree.

Then we can put this to bed.

Originally posted by dooper
If it is acceptable, there may be a method to see of I'm FOS or you are.

I propose two Mods view the documents, and report only the Results of the Tests and the date.

Independently, they can look up the Laboratory to see if as I say, they are in fact a big engineering laboratory, and do in fact conduct forensic engineering work.

The Mods must agree that this is for eyes only, and after making a determination of the unity of wattage results, the data must be destroyed. They cannot share the name of the lab, only the net test results and the dates.

I'll likewise send them a couple photographs and a few other test data analysis graphs. Upon them making their determination, if they'll agree to destroy the material, I'll forward it to them by regular Email.

They may not understand what they're looking at, but anyone can read the results under the columns, "Unity of Wattage." After all, that's the Holy Grail of physics.

Physics say 1.00 unity of wattage absolutely, positively cannot be reached because of heat loss, friction, impedance and the like.

Anything above a 1.00 is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

I'll let them tell you what the results read.

Since I see Seagull is monitoring this thread, I ask you if you'll be one of those to make a determination.

There's another more recent Mod - GreeneyedLeo, and I would ask her if she would likewise agree.

Then we can put this to bed.

Without seeing evidence of the device in use, to verify that no energy is being input that would offset the wattage, your results are useless. Like the poster above said, there are a million and one venues for you to anonymously reveal this information while still retaining ownership.

I'm also still awaiting your answers to about ten questions above.

What were the names of the MIT scientists you claim were "murdered'? When were they "murdered"? What departments did they work in? What was their research?

I you're going to make extraordnary claims, we require extraordinary evidence.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

So the certified results from a forensic engineering laboratory aren't sufficient to indicate what I claim?

I don't know who you are, but that's the end of this conversation.

You're typical of academia.

You don't know your business, which was learned by rote, you won't accept empirical evidence, and just like those German engineers, you wouldn't believe the results if you found them yourself.

You guys remind me of horses with blinders on.

Just too damned sure of yourself, even when all evidence indicates you're on the wrong road.

You and folks like you, are exactly why we can't advance.

Everyone wants to see firsthand for themselves, and when you show them, they still don't know that they've seen.

This is apparently way over your head.

Too bad for you.

And pardon me if I don't respond any further. I don't mind stupidity, but I don't have to continue paying attention to it, so you're only the second one to go on my ignore list.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by dooper]

Whoops - double post, sorry. See below.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

So the certified results from a forensic engineering laboratory aren't sufficient to indicate what I claim?

I don't know who you are, but that's the end of this conversation.

You're typical of academia.

You don't know your business, which was learned by rote, you won't accept empirical evidence, and just like those German engineers, you wouldn't believe the results if you found them yourself.

You guys remind me of horses with blinders on.

Just too damned sure of yourself, even when all evidence indicates you're on the wrong road.

You and folks like you, are exactly why we can't advance.

Everyone wants to see firsthand for themselves, and when you show them, they still don't know that they've seen.

This is apparently way over your head.

Too bad for you.

And pardon me if I don't respond any further. I don't mind stupidity, but I don't have to continue paying attention to it, so you're only the second one to go on my ignore list.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by dooper]

If you give your "device" to a forensic lab for testing and they can produce verified data showing what you claim, of course that's enough. What you were proposing is to give them YOUr data, collected under YOUR conditions, which shows absolutely nothing, as we have no way to prove the conditions the data was collected under.

You honestly expect a scientist to believe your data when you won't even show how it was collected? What back alley school did you attend that taught you such a horridly twisted version of scientific principles?

Dooper, just curious, was your non-response to Maslo's question,

"If you have access to such a great technology and you are unable to patent it or make a profit, why don't you disclose it to the public, for the benefit of the whole mankind?"

indicative that indeed you are withholding treatment for millions of people suffering from cancer because you haven't yet figured out a safe way to make money off of it/them?

reply to post by seekerdetruth

One little side effect.

Anything that can heal, can kill.

A minor modification, and you have a weapon that can kill a cat at fifty feet at only 50 watts.

No way.

reply to post by dooper


Still waiting...

What were the names of the MIT scientists you claim were "murdered'? When were they "murdered"? What departments did they work in? What was their research?

If you're going to make extraordinary claims, we require extraordinary evidence.

I would be fine with a PM on the matter, as well.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
DevolutionEvolvd: All cells use glucose as their primary fuel source. It's the basis for the citric acid cycle and glycolysis, as well as anoxic pathways in your muscles.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Otto Warburg, in the early 1900's, demonstrated that cancer cells survive without oxygen and generate energy by fermentation rather than respiration(The Warburg Effect). The process of fermentation is less efficient than respiration and therefor tumors may burn up to 30 times more blood glucose than normal cells.

The hypothesis that restricting blood glucose can effectively shrink tumors and inhibit cancer cell proliferation was later corroborated by semi-starvation studies which demonstrated increased lifespan and inhibitory effects on cancer.

Cancer epidemiologists in Africa have also provided corroborating evidence that strongly suggests most cancers are caused by sugar and easily digestible carbohydrate consumption. This hypothesis was supported by the observation of indigenous villages where cancer was, in many cases, nonexistent until the introduction of the westernized diet(sugar, flour, easily digestible carbs).

Insulin, a hormone directly affected by sugar and carbohydrate consumption, provides fuel and growth signals to cancer cells. However, insulins role in cancer growth may come from it's effects on IGF(Insulin-like Growth Factor).

High insulin levels will stimulate IGF receptors. Shutting down these IGF receptors in mice has shown strong inhibition and sometimes total suppression of tumor growth.

What all this means is blood sugar, both through it's direct effects and through it's effects on insulin levels, has a huge impact on cancer formation and prevention.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Ah, ok. Now we're on the same wavelength. Yes, theoretically, starving the cancers would slow growth. However, the only way to starve them would be to essentially starve ALL of your cells, as you can't consciously decide where certain fuels are directed. Therein lies the problem.

The effects observed by the semi starvation studies aren't directly attributed to lack of nutrients, but rather a lack of glucose and insulin. Albert Tannenbaum quickly attributed the observed effects as being caused by the Warburg Effect.

-Dev

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Ah, ok. Now we're on the same wavelength. Yes, theoretically, starving the cancers would slow growth. However, the only way to starve them would be to essentially starve ALL of your cells, as you can't consciously decide where certain fuels are directed. Therein lies the problem.

Starving all the cells isn't necessary but a change in diet may be in order. The body needs glucose, true, but how the body is getting its glucose makes a difference when it comes to "feeding" cancer cells.

Sugar in the Body and Diet
Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall. When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in blood-glucose levels. If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising blood-glucose levels. In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood: levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of diabetic health problems.

The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 126 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal. Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL. Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions.

Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer. The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato. This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer patients.

source

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Orion65]

reply to post by Orion65


I agree one hundred percent. Nearly every foodstuff contains glucose, some are just better sources than others. High fructose corn syrup-containing products, not very good. Whole grains and lean meats, wonderful.