Guest guest Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Hello Bret, Geez,.....last time I looked lactate and lactic acid were the same thing. And it is, in fact, pumped out of cells. This is how cachexia happens. Lactate (same thing as lactic acid) is dumped, recycled to the liver, converted to pyruvate and glucose, then back to the cancer cell which preferentially uses gluces. Where are you getting that sodium business? Sodium is pumped out of cells to maintain a 10 to 1 ratio on the outside vs. the inside. Potassium is pumped in to maintain a ratio of 14 (inside) to 1 (outside). I never said anything about sodium in this thread. In other threads I've stated exactly what I just said. And, by the way, Acids are PROTON donors and antioxidants are ELECTRON donors. These are two entirely different concepts. You've stated in a recent thread that antioxidants work by giving up a H. They don't. That's called an acid. Antioxidants work by giving up electrons. They are reducing agents. Also, oxygen which drives cellular respiration is almost entirely derived by downloading from oxyhemoglobin. It is not derived from covalently bonded oxygen in biochemical compounds. You've stated otherwise. All of these other alternative therapies (Budwig, etc.) have their failures. That is an unfortunate fact. The difference between them and cesium chloride is that they are unlikely to put a person in the emegency room with an erratic heart beat. I've seen this happen twice. These people were following the rules, too. (Blood potassium, correct dosing, etc). These two also ended up dying of cancer. The cesium protocol did nada. Any protocol can fail, but they should not be dangerous. Warburg got his Nobel Prize by describing the metabolism of cancer cells. This had nothing to do with Brewer and his cancer treatments. Warburg's work was groundbreaking, but there is a tremendously larger body of knowledge around this now. All of science is based on the work of previous generations of scientists. It keeps moving forward. Einstein's work (since you mentioned him) led to the current working models of quantum mechanics. Einstein had no knowledge of String Field Theory, for instance. Warburg had no idea that the pH in cellular cytoplasm was compartmentalized. And, by the way I wasn't wrong in anything I said about pump mechanisms. I teach cell biology in a college. I also teach anatomy, physiology and pathology. I don't like it when people wave scientific sounding terminology in front of an audience that might be misled. Being misled, in a group like this, can result in dire consequences. Very few people in this forum are trained in science. They are doing the best they can. I admire that. If I see " word waving " I tend to respond. I feel very protective of people in these forums. I've become friends with a number of them. I am happy for the cancer patient who seems to be improving. I would like to know what else she is doing and whether improvement is subjective only or is it backed up by scans and/or tumor markers. Mike Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:04:51 PM, you wrote: BP> Thank you Mike: BP> BP> This will be the last posting I make in this thread,...don't want BP> to belabor technicalities,...if a therapy works, that is what is important. BP> BP> Although I disagree with a couple of technicalities, I will say this,... BP> BP> I have watched people die on budwig, vitamin c infusions, BP> Gersons, cesium chloride, dmso, and such,...I have also seen BP> people respond to similar therapies as well, right now cesium and BP> dmso together are providing me with immediate results in most case, especially pain. BP> BP> A little bit of cesium chloride will not affect cancers and may BP> even help cancer grow faster,...too low of dose of cesium has been BP> proven to keep cancer in it's preferred ph range. So, by taking BP> sub therapeutic doses of cesium you do not change the internal BP> environment enough to cause cancer atopsis. This would not BP> indicate that cesium helps cancer grow faster, sub therapeutic BP> doses are ineffective. This was addressed years ago. BP> BP> Brewer's paper scientifically tested all Warburg's theories BP> with spectronomy, flouresncent assays so these theories were BP> infact substantiated scientifically, and once something is BP> substantiated, timing is of little consequence, and I know you BP> know this, Warburg was also substantiated with clinical outcomes and back up testing. BP> Pretty firm results and the data is hard to refute,...and nobody BP> does refute them scientifically. Instead they sound just like you! BP> BP> So, when an article is written, it is not very good reason to BP> invalidate it's contents using time or when it was written. This BP> would mean the Oppenheimers theories were no good. BP> BP> Einstein's theories are old now as well, so are Isaac BP> Newton's...nobody argues this point with their research as the BP> argument of age is devoid of factual back-up. Nobody goes here. BP> BP> The argument that Brewer's paper went nowhere is not a testiment BP> to anything. Much of his findings are echoed today in many BP> different research articles. Even AMA and Pharma sponsored ones. BP> BP> Many papers published today carry forward and apply those very BP> facts that Warburg and Brewer have validated for us already. The BP> relationship between ph and oxygen have been repeatedly echoed in BP> subsequent research. Even the latest PPI study borrows these facts. BP> BP> Many, studies today, even one's published by pharma sponsored BP> studies all indicate that cancers are grown in ischemic BP> environments and acidic environments in vitro. Why? BP> BP> There really should not be any controversy. BP> BP> Koch's papers went nowhere too, many other alternative research BP> studies don't even get published here in the united states and BP> every single alternative practitioner has been censured, BP> harrassed, injunctioned, and attacked with no scientific findings, BP> just inuendo and banter. Does this invalidate their work? Not hardly! BP> . BP> Their papers have gone nowhere too. This means nothing. BP> BP> German medicine is based upon Koch's research, they didn't care BP> he wrote his articles back before WWII even started! Validity and BP> facts remain such, as facts, and transcend time. BP> BP> Also, BP> You are incorrect about several pump mechanisms as well BP> BP> Sodium is pumped out of cell not into cell. If it were pumped into cells they would lyse. BP> BP> Proton pump is usually applied to orgnanelles, moving H+ from BP> cytomplams to inner membranes. It is ATP active process. BP> BP> True, H+ pump has also been found to exist at the extermal cell BP> membrane and this pumps H+ externally. BP> BP> Lactic acid inside cancer cells usually break down into lactate, BP> (which is burned,) and H+. This H+ is then theorized pumped out BP> through the exchange with potassium via the Na+/K+ ATPase mechanism. BP> BP> It is also established as the primary mechanism for exchanging K+ BP> for H+ and does have regulatory effect upon cancer homeostasis, BP> and is why PPI have shown to cause atopsis in cancer cells by BP> inhibbitting the influx of K+ (a carrier of glucose,) and retention of H+. BP> BP> Cancer cells have narrow ph parameters in both directions, you BP> can try to lower the ph past their tolerances or you can try to BP> raise their ph past their tolerances. BP> I prefer the high ph method, others may want to try low ph BP> method. It depends upon their cancers. BP> BP> Any mechanism that interferes with these pumps will actually have anti cancer effects. BP> Glycosides, PPI's, and the rest all demostrate activity in cell lines. BP> BP> Also the Na+/K+ ATPase mediated pump does not dump lactate. BP> Lactate isn't even an acid. It isn't pumped,... H+ is however. BP> BP> So, it is fact....Cancers have narrow ph parameters and BP> targetting this narrow range can be therapeutic in either BP> direction. This does not invalidate one another's position it BP> supports both positions. Either seek to go lower or higher than it can tolerate. BP> BP> One thing is for certain,....the email I just got from Stage IV BP> lung cancer patient loves cesium chloride and her husband is BP> willing to talk to anybody who has something to say about cesium. BP> BP> He has asked me to post his email address for anyone wanting to BP> ask about his protocol and his wife. She was only coughing up BP> blood three months ago,...today she is off pain meds, back to BP> work, instead of lying in a coffin with plastic flowers over her corpse. BP> BP> Miracle? Not really! I just listen to Nobel Prize Winners and BP> so did they! She did cesium, dmso, chlorophyll, juicing, and omega BP> III. I still don't believe it either,...but man what a success story. BP> BP> BP> Sincerely BP> Bret BP> BP> ps. Chase also has emailed me a clincal testing on his BP> wife, waived hisk/her rights to privacy and want me to shove these BP> clinical studies in people's face who think they have done nothing BP> special with terminal lung cancer. I wish more people would take this stance. BP> -- Best regards, Mike mailto:goldenmike@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.