Cancer, the disease that we cannot cure (ever?) but we CAN treat people!

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: TerryDon79

you are saying nothing cancertissue is more acid look it up.... I did not say BLOOD i meant cancertissue.

Cancer tissue is made up of mutated cells run amuk, they are not made out of acid,

Why don't you run off and dilute a single drop of vinegar to 10000gallons of water, shake it vigorously while screaming about good manners and sell some more magic tonic.

Edit: I'm an idiot, and also, could you kinda add more then a couple of scramble words rushed through, like make a full sentence explaining what you actually mean.

A doctor a hoaxer , and he is associated with PH. Then a lot of people that read things into that.
Research is done on the PH of cancercells. In this stadium the lower ph is used to identify them which is very usefull. More research has to be done 'PH is the key I think'. Then I dont deserve respect ? Look guys this is wrong! Wrong is so many ways. It's like saying that a single hoaxer is more inportant than investigating (by science) if PH is really the key...

a reply to: frenchfries

You don't read replies do you? Let me help.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE LAB. IT DOESN'T WORK ON HUMANS.

Can you read that?

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Again I did not say they were made out of acid. I said the PH is lower than normal tissue. AND THAT IS AN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

the only thing I said

You have no manners are no doctor

The extracellular pH in malignant tumors is known to be lower than in normal tissues and may therefore facilitate extracellular activation of secreted lysosomal cathepsins. We have tested the capability of human mammary cells (continuous cell lines and primary culture) to acidify their extracellular environment, using two techniques. By measuring pH changes through alterations of phenolsulfone phthaleine absorbance, we found that the more aggressive MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells were more active in acidifying a non-buffered balanced salt solution than the estrogen receptor positive MCF7 and ZR75 cell lines and than normal mammary epithelial cells in primary culture. Metastatic breast cancer cells from pleural effusions were up to 200-fold more active in acidifying their extracellular milieu than non-malignant mammary cells cultured in the same conditions, strongly suggesting that this difference also occurs in vivo. The use of inhibitors in the presence or absence of glucose showed that both lactate and an ATP-driven proton pump sharing some characteristics of the vacuolar H+ pump were involved. Bafilomycin A1, a specific inhibitor of the vacuolar (V-type) ATP-H+ pump inhibited part of the acidification by MCF7 cells, but not by MDA-MB-231 cells. We also used microelectrodes to measure extracellular pH, in close contact to the MCF7 breast cancer cells. The pH at the free surface of MCF7 cells was lower by 0.33 +/- 0.14 unit than that of the surrounding medium, while insertion of the microelectrode tip beneath the attached surface of the cells showed a greater lowering of pH from 0.3 to 1.7 pH unit as long as cell attachment on the substrate prevented H+ diffusion. We conclude that breast carcinoma cells have a higher capacity for acidifying their extracellular milieu than normal mammary cells, and that both a plasma membrane H(+)-ATPase, and lactic acid production are involved in this acidification. It is therefore possible that the aspartyl and cysteinyl pro-cathepsins secreted in excess by tumor cells may be activated extracellularly in vivo close to the basement membrane.

a reply to: TerryDon79

IT'S ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE LAB. IT DOESN'T WORK ON HUMANS.

ok show me the PDF and peer review

a reply to: frenchfries

"Why" should be the question. Solid tumors have poor internal circulation and in general tumors tend to lose control of their mitochondria so between the two they tend to use anaerobic metabolism, the end product of which is lactic acid.

So it's sort of expected that they'd be acidic. But that doesn't imply they're killed by a normal ph. Hell, they'd probably like it, as too acidic an environment is lethal to them as well.

Ask this...when YOU are operating anaerobically, say you're doing wind sprints, does taking bicarb kill YOU? Does it make sense that other cells using anaerobic metabolism would die in the same situation?

Your red blood cells use anaerobic metabolism like a tumor. THEY don't die when you take bicarb.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: TerryDon79

IT'S ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE LAB. IT DOESN'T WORK ON HUMANS.

ok show me the PDF and peer review

So you haven't researched it whatsoever?

If you had you wouldn't be asking for what's already out there.

Enjoy the read

a reply to: Bedlam

But that doesn't imply they're killed by a normal ph. Hell, they'd probably like it, as too acidic an environment is lethal to them as well.

indeed.... it might not be likely that they are killed.
But hey if they are placed in a more basicity environment it could slowdown their growth. Look it's all speculation here. I loved to speculate 'hey it reads medical issues & conspiracies forum' so I coined 'PH is the key' based on ongoing breastcancer research. not knowing that that was associated with hoaxers. If you feel offended by PH is the key just ignore that.

Your red blood cells use anaerobic metabolism like a tumor. THEY don't die when you take bicarb.

Right blood is a 'buffer' for base and acid. PH is constant I know.. I'm not saying that that one can change ph blood. But what if locally (near the cancer ph is changed)....

a reply to: TerryDon79

So you haven't researched it whatsoever?

I did research ,out there ??
I'm still waiting for you to give me the PDF.

a reply to: frenchfries

See the link I posted.

It backs up EVERYTHING I said.

a reply to: frenchfries

Actually it's the bicarb system that's the ph buffer. Your blood metabolizes glucose like a tumor. It turns its environment acidic if given a chance. And it doesn't die in lower ph environments, within the range of ph that would be survivable by you.

There have been a lot of therapies that tried to change the environment around a tumor. Mostly they don't work because your body's going to move whatever you're doing to the tumor into the rest of your body. Diathermy comes to mind.

So here I am , I just said 'PH is the key' then people start to attack. What's the point.
Well this is an experiment (PH research indeed has been done on breastcancer). An experiment to see how people would react. So far someone with no manners that reads things that arent there and another one that said that people like me dont deserve any respect , calling me an idiot.... I just saying my opinion. This isn't a court nor an scientific debate. this is just a conspiracy forum. I am human and you too.

a reply to: frenchfries

That's because PH isn't the key.

It's been investigated and found not to be viable as it would end up killing you.

I don't know about you, but if the cure for cancer is death, I'd rather have the cancer.

a reply to: Bedlam

There have been a lot of therapies that tried to change the environment around a tumor. Mostly they don't work because your body's going to move whatever you're doing to the tumor into the rest of your body. Diathermy comes to mind.

Thanks for the info. Indeed I see. That's also the great problem. and that is why alkaline therapy doesn't work. One has to 'bombard' the tumor again and again to make it less acidic. But than it's still the question if the tumor growth is stopped. More research has to be done in that direction (my opinion)

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's been investigated and found not to be viable as it would end up killing you.

You're not 'giordano bruno' I guess ... it's still being investigated....

a reply to: Agartha


Small, slow moving packages.

Americans bitch about it because it looks like an F'in wam bam thank you mam, only once removed form 50 years ago treatment for all the money, time and talk.

As well american medicine in known to "soak" a case for every dime running needless and redundant tests and treatments to extend the life to take advantage of every dime that can be made.

And no we just don't trust socialist medicine as well. More of the same for other reasons. Again back to no expectations much, to much a burden to the system, make them comfi as we can, certainly not killing themselves to find a cure going to die anyway vs american keep them alive as long as possible for max effect and BOTH systems find little value in major breakthrough.

a reply to: TerryDon79

n contrast, NaHCO(3) therapy significantly reduced the formation of hepatic metastases following intrasplenic injection, suggesting that it did inhibit extravasation and colonization. I

so... 'colonization inhibited' do I read this right ? Not a therapy but some effects.. thats why I coined PH is the key

a reply to: frenchfries

I am familiar with what you are trying to say and am familiar with the work of Otto Warburg who got the Nobel prize in 1931 the alkaline diet you speak of is well documented however in any medical thread on this website there are viscious defenders of the official narrative,thats ok they can use traditional medicine and they can die in short order.This is no place to mention alternative medicine.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: TerryDon79

n contrast, NaHCO(3) therapy significantly reduced the formation of hepatic metastases following intrasplenic injection, suggesting that it did inhibit extravasation and colonization. I

so... 'colonization inhibited' do I read this right ? Not a therapy but some effects.. thats why I coined PH is the key

Yes, in mice. Not humans.

a reply to: khnum

the alkaline diet you speak of is well documented

Sorry I didn't speak of an alkaline diet reread all my post please and dont read into things I didn't say.

If any I mean the change the ph in someway by well proven methods.
Mentioning PH doesn't mean I'm into alternative medicine. Cancercells are more Acidic and don't do well in alkaline environment that's a fact , a scientific fact. Also fact is that the mere mention of PH invokes associations with 'alternative medicines'. If this ATS forum is vaguely resembles the reasoning of scientists searches for alternatives in combatting cancer then I pitty science. Luckily regular mainstream science and research is more open minded than this forum in which the mere mention of PH in relation with cancer is not possible and leads to insults (not by you but other members).

Just curious were is one allowed to mention alternative medicine ?