Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Hello , There are no stupid questions. What do you mean by a " blood purifier " ? Mike Saturday, August 8, 2009, 7:03:02 PM, you wrote: NG> Mike, NG> This may be a stupid question, but with a very vascular cancer, NG> could a good blood purifier help this at all? NG> -- NG> ________________________________ NG> From: Mike Golden <goldenmike@...> NG> Bret Peirce < > NG> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2009 10:21:55 PM NG> Subject: Re[6]: [ ] Re: Urine Ph NG> Hello Bret, NG> I neglected to finish my thoughts on lactate/ lactic acid. They are NG> essentially the same thing in biological systems. Lactate is NG> ionized by being in solution. The following is an abstract which NG> will substantiate that tumors increase lactic acid levels in the NG> blood serum. Your reference to only the proton being dumped and the NG> ion of lactate staying behind in the cytoplasm is misleading. Tumor cells that NG> have adequate oxygen levels can use lactate as a fuel. Tumors with NG> low oxygen levels cannot. This lactic acid is dumped and recycled NG> in the body by the liver. This also has an immune suppressive NG> effect as the paper points out. The Abstract is from the medical NG> journal BLOOD. For those who are interested I'm posting this link NG> to a paper describing the use of proton pump inhibiters to block the NG> creation of an acidic microenvironment around tumors: NG> NG> http://pharmalicensing.com/public/outlicensing/view/3750/proton-pump-inhibitors-\ in-cancer-therapy NG> And, finally, as a point of clarification....The terminology NG> " proton pump " was originally applied to proteins in cell membranes NG> that move H (proton) from one side of the membrane to the other. NG> The most classic example would be the mitochondrial proton pumps. NG> In oncology " proton pump " has been borrowed to refer to any NG> mechanism the cancer cell uses to remove chemotherapy drugs before NG> they can have effect. This is obviously more than just moving NG> protons and is technically misleading. It is, however, the way NG> oncologists talk about this. NG> Mike NG> Abstract NG> Blood. 2007 Jan 25. NG> Inhibitory effect of tumor cell derived lactic acid on human T cells NG> Fischer K, Hoffmann P, Voelkl S, Meidenbauer N, Ammer J, Edinger M, Gottfried E, NG> Schwarz S, Rothe G, Hoves S, Renner K, Timischl B, Mackensen A, NG> Kunz-Schughart L, Andreesen R, Krause SW, Kreutz M NG> Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. NG> A characteristic feature of tumors is high production of lactic acid due to NG> enhanced glycolysis. Here, we show a positive correlation between NG> lactate serum levels and tumor burden NG> in cancer patients and examine the influence of lactic acid on NG> immune functions in vitro. Lactic acid NG> suppressed the proliferation and cytokine production of human NG> cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) up to 95% NG> and led to a 50% decrease in cytotoxic activity. A 24 h recovery NG> period in lactic acid-free medium NG> restored CTL function. CTLs infiltrating lactic acid-producing NG> multicellular tumor spheroids showed NG> a reduced cytokine production. Pre-treatment of tumor spheroids with an inhibitor of lactic acid NG> production prevented this effect. Activated T cells themselves use glycolysis and rely on the NG> efficient secretion of lactic acid, as its intracellular NG> accumulation disturbs their metabolism. NG> Export by monocarboxylate transporter-1 (MCT-1) depends on a gradient between cytoplasmic and NG> extracellular lactic acid concentrations and consequently, NG> blockade of MCT-1 resulted in impaired NG> CTL function. We conclude that high lactic acid concentrations in the tumor environment block NG> lactic acid export in T cells thereby disturbing their metabolism and function. These findings NG> suggest that targeting this metabolic pathway in tumors is a promising strategy to enhance NG> tumor immunogenicity. NG> PMID: 17255361 NG> ____________ NG> NG> 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.