Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb? It's only a fungus!

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Dr. Jli:

It was not the Nobel committee who revealed Johanna Budwig nominations. It was the nomination letters she kept and were presented to public AFTER she passed away! (Unexpected possibility... Right?)

Anyone can be nominated for the Nobel prize. It doens't really matter if she was nominated or not. There is no way of knowing if these letters were forwarded to the Nobel Comittee or not. Hitler and Stalin were (verifiably) nominated for the Nobel peace prize, but they didn't win (and they didn't deserve it).

Quote:

I ask you to read your own response lines. My wife is a lawyer. Invariably she responds by either formulating another question or by reversing the concept bouncing it back to me. Just an observation. No pun intended.

I am not a lawyer. I am trying to understand your reasoning, and try to explain why I think you are wrong.

Quote:

Would you give me your thoughts on this.

I can't give much useful input on this. I would have to review the microscopy slides myself. But sometimes, the biopsy is not representative (does not contain tumour tissue). This could explain a negative biopsy from a visible lesion. There is no way of knowing this - even if I see the pathology report.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

What are you trying to prove Sherman?
I had one open biopsy from the metastatic tumor (pubic area). Then doctor wanted to do "another biopsy", this time from left kidney.
What is the mysterious "sneaky" thing you want to find in my words?

Why don't you take some sodium bicarb if you think Simoncini is so wise?

[Giordano]

MikeAparicio,

Clearly your original diagnosis was very confused and left many loose ends. It must have been a frustrating, scary experience. I am thrilled that you no longer have signs of disease, but in the absence of knowing exactly what you had, it is hard to know what resolved your problem.

No matter the cause and effect, congratulations and good luck!

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Q. If people spent 32 billion greens in Altmed, assuming it does NOT work, if each person spent $5000.00 there would be 640,000 frustrated "victims".

Why? Whereas people will always complain if their conventional treatment does not give any results, there is a lot more acceptance that alternative medicine does not result in anything. Besides, most conditions go away by themselves even when not treated, and this would be counted as a "success" for altmed.

The altmed industry is also careful to put the blame on the shoulders of the patients. Apparently, "holistic" often means that it only works if you believe in it, and if it did not work, it was because the patient did not believe sufficiently in the treatment. Homoeopaths regard failures as successes, by claiming these "aggravations" are normal reactions on the way to a cure, and are proof that the remedy is working!

Besides, there are in fact lots of complains that alternative treatments do not work. The members of this forum have often been "converted" to skepticism by the realisation that their treatments were just quackery.

Finally, those who actually die by their alternative treatments will rarely complain afterwards on the internet! But it is not too difficult to find stories about this happening in the media.

by the way, Steve Jobs was not killed by altmed, but he was certainly treated, and he was not healed.

[MikeAparicio]

@Sherman: Did I EVER said Simoncini is "so wise"? Please point at my phrase.
I said Simoncini is Italian hence his way of expressing ideas is very different from English culture. I did not say he is right or wrong, wise or stupid as it is so easy to hear in forums.
About Bicarbonate: Please write to Minnesota University and ask them why "they dare to study and try bicarbonate, if you think that is stupid"

Thanks

[MikeAparicio]

Dear Giordano!

Thanks for your humanistic concern! Certainly my diagnostic was very confusing and imprecise. Take into account it was not done by "quacks" but done by "noquacks", real doctors! With all their expertise, machines, test tubes, rays and magnetic fields!

As a matter of fact, it is not I have no more signs or evidence of everything is good. I would hope so! The good news are no metastasis has developed, the tumor shrunk appreciably, I feel very well and I still have the problem with mobility. Like the tumor caused a lysis partial fracture of my pubic bone, with slight damage to the femoral joint I am still limping and using a cane. I might need surgery to remove the rest of the tumor and try to fix the bone.
Dilemma comes from having to decide if asking traumatologist to do the surgery now, because I don't feel, neither my wife does to get into chemo and radio just to "prevent" something actually unknown.
True I am doing a triple "supportive" protocol (note I do not use the sinful word "alternative", which awakes people's desire to insult me and others), which definitely has something to do with my recovery, but I will NOT mention those, as I would be immediately banned from the forum, accused of promoting "illegal" treatments, insulted as a moron or admiring my "stupidity".
Thanks again for being a very comprehensive person!

[MikeAparicio]

@Dr-Jil
OK Dr.! About the Nobel thing: WE have some nobel prices in Guatemala. Of those I agree some should never being given!!!!
I also know some folks here who think Stalin deserved one! Nuts everywhere!

I understand your position to give some analysis without enough information. What I mainly was asking is about the assertion: "Upon microscopic examination, WE FIND NO MALIGNANCY PRESENT".
IF this is supposed to be a metastatic tumor, should it HAVE MALIGNANCY PRESENT, or is it possible the metastasis carried some cells which are not malignant in itself?

Another question: Is it possible this was not real metastasis but cell migration from a near gland or tissue?

Third possibility: It was metastasis from a "weak" tumor, somehow destroyed by apoptosis, which let some migration of the same weak cells, causing a secondary tumor with no metastatic power?

I think you could clear this questions without need for data or samples!

Thanks for taking the bother!

Thanks again!

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Sherman: Did I EVER said Simoncini is "so wise"? Please point at my phrase.

Your obeisance to this quack speaks louder than your posts.

Quote:

I said Simoncini is Italian hence his way of expressing ideas is very different from English culture.

Italian science is no different from Spanish, English, or Klingon science, and that is a really stupid excuse for believing an obvious charlatan. Does it ever occur to you that he might be wrong?

Quote:

About Bicarbonate: Please write to Minnesota University and ask them why "they dare to study and try bicarbonate, if you think that is stupid"

When Minnesota University publishes a peer-reviewed paper that agrees with Ex-Doctor Simoncini that sodium bicarbonate can cancer, I will be sure to sit up and take notice. Please let me know the minute that happens.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Please write to Minnesota University and ask them why "they dare to study and try bicarbonate, if you think that is stupid"

Um, aside from the fact that there is no "Minnesota University" (it's UofMinn), I am wondering, what are you talking about?

A quick search of University of Minnesota and bicarbonate brings up only this article,

International Journal of Food Microbiology. Volume 109, Issues 1-2, 25 May 2006, Pages 160-163. Virucidal efficacy of sodium bicarbonate on a food contact surface against feline calicivirus, a norovirus surrogate Yashpal S. Malik and Sagar M. Goyal. Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota.

Which is on the use of bicarbonate as an anti-viral agent, and not about cancer. Moreover, even as an anti-viral it apparently isn't great because you need to use it with something like hydrogen peroxide.

I have no doubt that bicarbonate in hydrogen peroxide would make a great surface anti-viral, but I don't see what that has to do with cancer. It's great to know, though, that when I use the bicarb-containing cleaner to clean my stovetop, it is also killing any norovirus.

I searched the website for the Masonic Cancer Center at the UofMinn, but found nothing about bicarbonate.

So what research are you talking about, Mike?

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

So what research are you talking about, Mike?

IANMike, but my guess is it is this item.

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

When Minnesota University publishes a peer-reviewed paper that agrees with Ex-Doctor Simoncini that sodium bicarbonate can cancer, I will be sure to sit up and take notice. Please let me know the minute that happens.

Just to correct a mistake of mine of the typo persuasion, that should have read "...that sodium bicarbonate can cure cancer...

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

IANMike, but my guess is it is this item.

I saw that, and that is where I got the reference to the article I posted (it's reference 11). So regardless of what that web page says, that article does not refer to the University of Minnesota using bicarbonate for cancer.

It looks to me like a veterinarian question of whether using bicarb to clean their exam tables is an effective way to get rid of any norovirus.

I want to know where researchers from the U of Minn have said anything about using bicarb for cancer.

They haven't, as far as I can tell. And so Mike's comment about "Ask Minnesota University about bicarbonate" is a complete non-sequitor in this thread, and so bloody typical of cancer woo. Seriously, somehow "bicarbonate works as a topical agent to kill viruses on surfaces" gets turned into support for bicarbonate is a cure for cancer?

I'd like to see Mike contact those "Minnesota University" researchers listed in the publication above and ask them directly what they think of the idea that their research supports the possibility of bicarb curing cancer. I would be surprised if they answered, they wouldn't even take it seriously.

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Dr-Jil
What I mainly was asking is about the assertion: "Upon microscopic examination, WE FIND NO MALIGNANCY PRESENT".
IF this is supposed to be a metastatic tumor, should it HAVE MALIGNANCY PRESENT, or is it possible the metastasis carried some cells which are not malignant in itself?

A metastasis always have malignant cells present. A hallmark capability of malignant cells is the ability to spread to other locations.

I can think of the following reasons why a suspected metastasis would show no malignancy in a biopsy:

1) It isn't a metastasis, but a benign condition that resembles a metastasis on a scan.
2) The biopsy needle missed the metastasis, rendering the biopsy not representative.

Quote:

Another question: Is it possible this was not real metastasis but cell migration from a near gland or tissue?

It is more likely, that the cells forming the suspected lesion are made from the cells of the tissue where the lesion is located (Situation 1 above) .

Quote:

Third possibility: It was metastasis from a "weak" tumor, somehow destroyed by apoptosis, which let some migration of the same weak cells, causing a secondary tumor with no metastatic power?

There may be extensive necrosis within a metastasis (as well as in a primary cancer). But if this was the case, it should be mentioned in the pathology report.

[jli]

I should have realised that it was the Arizona group and not Minnesota Mike was thinking of.

The article mentioned is more a news media article than a research article. Anyway - The article does not suggest that Sodium Bicarbonate can cure cancer. All it suggests is, that it might help making them more sensitive to chemotherapy, and that it might reduce metastasis.

If quoted correctly, the enigneer is wrong when she says that

Quote:

Patients can actually change their body's pH....... it can be as simple as drinking baking soda --

That this is wrong is also shown in research by Ian Robey's group, who they are collaborating with. See for instance figure 1 in this article.
It shows an increase in urinary pH, and a stable serum pH. This is a result of the pH regulatory mechanisms that keep the body's pH (can be expressed as serum pH) stable.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
I never, never, never said Bicarbonate "cures" cancer. ...

You certainly appear to want to advance Simoncini's unevidenced position that Bicarbonate cures cancer.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
Are you Cancer affected? Is anyone cracking down on me affected by cancer?
...

Are you?
Only effective claim really remaining appears this:

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

... tumor has shrunk ...

[MikeAparicio]

@Daylightstar

Yes. I am affected by cancer. I am NOT doing Simoncini's protocol neither am I a follower or defender. I am against "ad hominem" attacks.
Yes my tumor has shrunk. Thanks God. Yes I am doing some alternative protocols. You are not interested in hearing it. It is your right. I am NOT interested in telling about it either.
Why many posts are so obstinate and persistent attacking something of your own imagination?

You said "appears".... Your ideas against what I am supposed to say are only against "appearances"...

It "appears" to me, there is a lot of stubbornness flocking around!....

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Daylightstar

Yes. I am affected by cancer. ...

How do you know?

[MikeAparicio]

@DaylightStar

Taking your interest as valid: By X-ray. further MRI scan. Open biopsy near pubic area. Tumor chunk removed for tests. Further Full body CAT scan, Colonoscopy, Gastroscopy and prostate echography shows no primary. Histochemistry shows neoplastic cells. Primary unknown.
So.... Doctors say "I have cancer"....
I still don't believe them..... At least, anymore!

[Daylightstar]

As far as I understand, you've relayed in your writing a changed but unconfirmed cancer suspicion.
Much like not having actually received a proper diagnosis.
In your previous post you appear to conclude that they formed a diagnosis. Have you ever really received a proper diagnosis for cancer?

[George 152]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@DaylightStar

Taking your interest as valid: By X-ray. further MRI scan. Open biopsy near pubic area. Tumor chunk removed for tests. Further Full body CAT scan, Colonoscopy, Gastroscopy and prostate echography shows no primary. Histochemistry shows neoplastic cells. Primary unknown.
So.... Doctors say "I have cancer"....
I still don't believe them..... At least, anymore!

So you are going to die, slowly and painfully, your denial will allow you to reject pain medication and your family will be left with the task of nursing you with all that that implies.
Cancer is NOT a matter of belief

[MikeAparicio]

I will be sorry for not having any more exchange with Jil.
I am quitting now this thread as I find the audience insensitive, crude, hard heart and self paid.
I don't need to exchange my problematic with imposing persons.
Bye now!

[pakeha]

Hard-hearted because we question your apparently self-diagnosed cancer'

[MikeAparicio]

Hey "Pakeha":
Why you say that? TWO DOCTORS HAVE SEEN ME! Oncologist and Internist!
It amazes me how bad readers can assist to forums!

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Hey "Pakeha":
Why you say that? TWO DOCTORS HAVE SEEN ME! Oncologist and Internist!
It amazes me how bad readers can assist to forums!

But:

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

... Have you ever really received a proper diagnosis for cancer?

[MikeAparicio]

@Daylightstar and Pakeha:

Please guys! What are you trying to prove?

Again: Internist referred me to Oncologist. They DID a Biopsy (open, big chunk) and tissue analysis reported a finding of Adeno-Carcinoma of Metastatic origin.
Doctor the ordered FULL blood tests (PSA and all markers), RMI and some hip X-rays.
Tumor was confirmed on pubic bone.
They DID a Biopsy (open, big chunk) and tissue analysis reported a finding of Adeno-Carcinoma of Metastatic origin.
Further CAT scan, Endoscopy at both channels, Prostate and Kidneys ultrasound.
Later, as they cannot confirm presence of a primary tumor, they order an Histo-Chemistry tissue tests.
Pathology reports: "Although neoplastic cells are found, the is NO EVIDENT MALIGNANCY.
"It is not possible to define which is the primary origin" !
Would you think they did or they "did not" diagnose a cancer?
Apparently they did! Or not?.....
But the metastatic secondary "seems" to have lost it's malignancy...
That is the situation. I cannot afford more doctors, tests as we have no free Medical Insurance in my country.

What really molests me is the implication, done by some here, that I would be "faking my cancer and data" just to prove alternative measures are working!

It is really annoying. Can someone really help, or is this only an "anti Simoncini" club?
Notice: I DO NOT ENDORSE SIMONCINI'S THEORIES, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ALTMED TO CONSIDER.

[Professor Yaffle]

I can't quote the relevant part, as I am on my phone, but if you go to the following link and read the section "metastasis and primary cancer" in the pathophysiology section, and you might find a bit more about the situation you have found yourself in.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_cancer#section_2

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

It is really annoying. Can someone really help, or is this only an "anti Simoncini" club?
Notice: I DO NOT ENDORSE SIMONCINI'S THEORIES, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ALTMED TO CONSIDER.

This is the "Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb?" thread - that would explain the critical views of Simoncini's ideas...

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

They DID a Biopsy (open, big chunk) and tissue analysis reported a finding of Adeno-Carcinoma of Metastatic origin.......

Quote:

Later, as they cannot confirm presence of a primary tumor, they order an Histo-Chemistry tissue tests.
Pathology reports: "Although neoplastic cells are found, the is NO EVIDENT MALIGNANCY........

I don't think you are a cancer faker. But it seems that you have been given conflicting information. The immunohistochemistry was done on the same tissue samples that the original malignant diagnosis was made on. The fact that it was examined by three pathologists suggests that it was difficult to classify. If I understood you correctly, these three pathologists agreed that it was not cancerous based on the immunohistochemical examination.

As I said earlier, I cannot form an opinion on who is right without seeing the slides for myself.

You have the right to get it sorted out with the physician who ordered the biopsy, or to get a second opinion if you have lost trust in him/her.

Quote:

.......is this an "anti Simoncini" club?

This whole thread is about Simoncini and his idea. So this is in focus. I suppose a discussion about pH and cancer is closely related enough to be seen as on topic here. But if you want to discuss other alternative treatments of cancer, it might be more practical to start a new thread. But we will challenge claims put forward.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Hey "Pakeha":
Why you say that? TWO DOCTORS HAVE SEEN ME! Oncologist and Internist!
It amazes me how bad readers can assist to forums!

Why shout, Mike?
The following post shows it's far from clear you've received a diagnosis of cancer

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Daylightstar and Pakeha:

Please guys! What are you trying to prove?

Again: Internist referred me to Oncologist. They DID a Biopsy (open, big chunk) and tissue analysis reported a finding of Adeno-Carcinoma of Metastatic origin.
Doctor the ordered FULL blood tests (PSA and all markers), RMI and some hip X-rays.
Tumor was confirmed on pubic bone.
They DID a Biopsy (open, big chunk) and tissue analysis reported a finding of Adeno-Carcinoma of Metastatic origin.
Further CAT scan, Endoscopy at both channels, Prostate and Kidneys ultrasound.
Later, as they cannot confirm presence of a primary tumor, they order an Histo-Chemistry tissue tests.
Pathology reports: "Although neoplastic cells are found, the is NO EVIDENT MALIGNANCY.
"It is not possible to define which is the primary origin" !
Would you think they did or they "did not" diagnose a cancer?
Apparently they did! Or not?.....
But the metastatic secondary "seems" to have lost it's malignancy...
That is the situation. I cannot afford more doctors, tests as we have no free Medical Insurance in my country.

What really molests me is the implication, done by some here, that I would be "faking my cancer and data" just to prove alternative measures are working!

It is really annoying. Can someone really help, or is this only an "anti Simoncini" club?
Notice: I DO NOT ENDORSE SIMONCINI'S THEORIES, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ALTMED TO CONSIDER.

I'm not the only one to think so

Originally Posted by jli

I don't think you are a cancer faker. But it seems that you have been given conflicting information. The immunohistochemistry was done on the same tissue samples that the original malignant diagnosis was made on. The fact that it was examined by three pathologists suggests that it was difficult to classify. If I understood you correctly, these three pathologists agreed that it was not cancerous based on the immunohistochemical examination.

As I said earlier, I cannot form an opinion on who is right without seeing the slides for myself.

You have the right to get it sorted out with the physician who ordered the biopsy, or to get a second opinion if you have lost trust in him/her...

Unless, of course Professor Yaffles' idea is correct

Quote:

I can't quote the relevant part, as I am on my phone, but if you go to the following link and read the section "metastasis and primary cancer" in the pathophysiology section, and you might find a bit more about the situation you have found yourself in.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_cancer#section_2

All the best, Mike.

[jli]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Unless, of course Professor Yaffles' idea is correct

Yes - Professor Yaffle's link is very good, and well worth a read.
As far as I can see there are two possibilities here.

1) A diagnosis of metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin. The last paragraph in Yaffle's link explains this concept.
2) A benign condition that was initially misclassified as a metastatic adenocarcinoma.

If I understand Mike correctly, 2) is a distinct possibility.

[MikeAparicio]

Oh! Thanks Dr. Jil and Pakeha!

I DO appreciate you've taken the effort of considering the possibilities. I find your explanations very according to the problem, Also Dr. Yaffle's article is very illustrative.
My personal impression, if it can account to some degree, is effectively it is a BAD diagnostics. I would take Yaffle's possibility where he says a tumor might metastasize later regressing. It seems the same has happened to my metastatic tumor on the pubic bone. Three pathologists really say "They find NO MALIGNANCY"!
I other words, the tumor does contain cells from epithelial tissues which "should not be there" but also do not sow a route to metastasis.
You can understand my reluctance to aggressive chemo.
I find it difficult to get more exams at this point do to pecuniary conditions.
My best shot at this point is to do "careful dieting", increase my intake of omega 3 and 6 fats, (edible by mixing with sulfonated protein), eat mostly high pH food and little acid one and avoid all things listed as cancer promoting.
Of course, although some might object, I have to TRUST GOD and see what comes further....
Thanks folks!

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Please, see I am NOT attacking anyone. I am asking. If there is some GOOD literature about contradicting Dr. Johana Budwig concepts on Cellular Membrane alterations and repair by using Omega 3 and 6 fats I would appreciate the links

I consider Dr. Budwig a crackpot and I doubt that I am alone in that assessment. Even if EFA's were the miracle substance that some think they are, flax seed oil enemas would hardly be a reasonable (much less effective) way of getting them into your body.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

A Dr. being nominated 7 times for a Nobel Prize has some merit. Does she not?

What does that even mean? Give me an e-mail address for the Nobel Committee. How many times do you want me to nominate you?

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

A second Altmed concept is based on the same principle used for PET scan. Glucose hungry neoplastic cells!
Why it is taken so seriously and well accepted the fact irradiated glucose goes directly to live tumor regions while keeping away from the same necrotic tumor parts? I guess it is because it has been clearly show by the x-ray plates!
The question is: If glucose can carry radiation into the tumor, why could it not be used to carry metabolic alterations to it, in fact disturbing the tumor growth, reverting lost apoptosis and inducing shrinkage?

The Altmed protocol using glucose (molasses) and bicarbonate to reach the tumor inner, bringing a strong alteration of the internal tumor pH (Not its environment but its interior) has strong possibilities including some personal evidence.

Are you trying to tell me that you are treating what you believe to be a metastasis (prostate cancer primary? I believe you brought up PSA???) by taking baking soda in molasses under the belief that the fact that the baking soda is going to be delivered directly into your tumor because you are taking it with Molasses?

Edited to add: I see that there's a reasonable possibility of misdiagnosis.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Um, aside from the fact that there is no "Minnesota University" (it's UofMinn), I am wondering, what are you talking about?

Actually, you are wrong. At the very least there is a Minnesota University at Mankato (I should know --although I attended there before the name change).

Maybe he might be talking about the link someone posted to some proposed studies at the University of Arizona.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Sherman: Did I EVER said Simoncini is "so wise"? Please point at my phrase.
I said Simoncini is Italian hence his way of expressing ideas is very different from English culture. I did not say he is right or wrong, wise or stupid as it is so easy to hear in forums.

Sorry, but "cancer is a fungus" is not meant as a metaphor. It's a literal statement. We are not looking at a language or temperament issue here. It's just another demonstrably ignorant quack. Nothing more.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by jli

Here is a link with some information on what it is about: http://engr.arizona.edu/news/story.php?id=429
The idea is not to cure cancers with baking soda alone, but to make them more sensitive to chemotherapeutics. And also to reduce spread.

I do find this quote disturbing:

Quote:

"Patients can actually change their body's pH to make their cancer drugs more effective -- it can be as simple as drinking baking soda....

I could imagine a situation where oral absorption could be affected by pH and doing something like taking a drug with a buffering agent could enhance absorption (I have no idea if this is ever done --I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly plausible). Taking baking soda to change one's blood pH, on the other hand, would not work and I too find that to be a rather surprising quote.

I do find other items there more disturbing/interesting. For instance:

Quote:

Drinking baking soda has been proven to reduce or eliminate the spread of breast cancer to the lungs, brain and bone, but too much baking soda can also damage normal organs.

I'd love to see the references for that (even on a press release). If true I assume this would be widely known by oncologists. If true and not widely known by oncologists, it should be widely known by oncologists.

I also find this statement interesting:

Quote:

Just as people feel the burn from lactic acid produced in their muscles during rigorous exercise, tumors also produce lactic acid when they are actively growing, Pagel said. This acid destroys surrounding tissue, which allows the tumor to grow, invade surrounding areas, and metastasize to other organs in the body. "The acid also provides resistance to common chemotherapies," Pagel said.

I'd love to learn:

• Whether this is actually true (again, pathophysiology references supporting this effect would be very nice here).
• What sort of a mechanism would account for such pH related necrosis to be able to selectively kill cells surrounding a tumor while sparing cells in the growing tumor mass (even at what would be an even lower pH). I do understand that tumor cells may sometimes have very high mortality (as long as more cells don't die than are formed you still will not have a shrinking tumor) and maybe this could account for that?
• Whether this is just a (I suspect very bad) hypothesis which has yet to be tested?

I mean, the notion of a technology using magnetic resonance to somehow take a remote pH reading deep in tissue is kind of cool but I wonder if this avenue of inquiry is likely to be productive. Maybe it's a case of a technological means of providing an answer seeking the right question.

[jli]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

I'd love to see the references for that (even on a press release). If true I assume this would be widely known by oncologists. If true and not widely known by oncologists, it should be widely known by oncologists.

The quoted statement is rooted in experimental animal models like for instance this one. As interesting as it is, I am not convinced that it is clinically relevant. It may teach us a thing or two about an aspect of metastasis. But we don't know if it is equally effective in metastasis prevention as traditional adjuvant therapy. At the start of adjuvant therapy, the tumour has usually been surgically removed, so there is nothing left to prevent from spreading. When sodium bicarbonate is used to treat tumour lysis syndrome, it has already spread.

Quote:

I'd love to learn:
[*]Whether this is actually true (again, pathophysiology references supporting this effect would be very nice here).

It is true that cancers show an increase in what is called "Aerobic glycolysis", which means that glucose is degraded to pyruvated, which in turn is converted to lactate in spite of sufficient oxygen for further degradation into CO2 and H20. This is called the Warburg effect, and it is being heavily abused by alt medders to promote their ideas on why (and how) altering body pH is usueful as anticancer treatment. Here is a fairly recent review on the subject. This one is a bit older, but the full text is available for free.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
Apparently they did! Or not?.....
...

Mike, I don't know. I am however quite willing to accept that you have been examined in the context you mentioned. Another issue I noticed concerns you relaying your situation:
Initially you stated:

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
Then... I get enlightened: "No thanks. No more. No thanks". Doctor looks at me and says: I am sorry to tell you if we do not take care of this ASAP you might not be here very soon.
I go out, get ready for alternative Johana Budwig Diet Protocol and some PH protocol I will not mention because I would start hearing "quack, dummy, quack" again......

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

but later you stated:

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

... I cannot afford more doctors, tests as we have no free Medical Insurance in my country. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
and

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
You can understand my reluctance to aggressive chemo.
I find it difficult to get more exams at this point do to pecuniary conditions. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

Either could be 'true', but I can't really tell which because you relay your situation slightly different across different posts.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

... Can someone really help, ...

What kind of help were you after, Mike?
It seems that you're pretty happy concluding that it's a case of the doctors were wrong, considering your conclusion "BAD diagnostics".
It appears to me that now you think you have convinced yourself that the doctors are wrong, and that your so called alternative approach is the only and therefor best approach.

Have you read the link Professor Yaffle provided, properly? I mean, beyond the regression part? The later appearance of a possible primary?

Although your story leaves much to be desired in the way of clinically meaningful information, it seems that, from your point of view*, you should cautiously fear the appearance of an actual primary tumor at some time.

Continuing with your so called alternative approach might cause you to loose sight of what's really going on inside you*.
Because it makes you look the other way.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by jli

The quoted statement is rooted in experimental animal models like for instance this one. As interesting as it is, I am not convinced that it is clinically relevant. It may teach us a thing or two about an aspect of metastasis. But we don't know if it is equally effective in metastasis prevention as traditional adjuvant therapy. At the start of adjuvant therapy, the tumour has usually been surgically removed, so there is nothing left to prevent from spreading. When sodium bicarbonate is used to treat tumour lysis syndrome, it has already spread.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by jli

It is true that cancers show an increase in what is called "Aerobic glycolysis", which means that glucose is degraded to pyruvated, which in turn is converted to lactate in spite of sufficient oxygen for further degradation into CO2 and H20. This is called the Warburg effect, and it is being heavily abused by alt medders to promote their ideas on why (and how) altering body pH is usueful as anticancer treatment. Here is a fairly recent review on the subject. This one is a bit older, but the full text is available for free.

Yes, I get that part. Thus the investigation of DCA (though it doesn't sound like it's been very promising?). What I wonder about is the selective killing of surrounding tissue. Normally this would not happen because the lactate would be cleared away. In tumors of a certain size which have not yet vascularized you would not expect lactate to be cleared that fast and the pH might drop significantly enough to affect cell survival. However, what I'd expect to see in that scenario is for cell death to happen in the core of non vascularized tumors when they reach a certain size (which I know actually does happen) rather than in the normal cells surrounding the tumor. I was wondering if the cell death around the tumor due to a lowered pH, while leaving tumor cells unaffected, really does happen. The paper you linked to has references which seem to show enhanced invasiveness & metastatic potential but not through a mechanism of directly killing neighboring cells*.



* Another mechanism I can think of by which low pH could selectively trigger cell death in healthy cells while leaving cancerous cells unaffected is if it served as an apoptotic trigger. Cancer cells being generally resistant to many apoptotic signals might thus selectively survive the more acidic environment.

[MikeAparicio]

Independently of Dr. Johanna Budwig defamation campaign, her basic proposition of fatty oils in remission and prevention of cancer, has been considered by many scientists and highly informative tests have been and continues to be done.
Some links:

American Heath Foundation article on Omega fat acids

Europe PubMed Central - Colon Cancer and Omega fats

Mechanisms of omega-3 fatty acid-induced growth inhibition in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells

Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio
and genetic variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases


Docosahexaenoic acid regulated genes and transcription factors inducing apoptosis in human colon cancer cells.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids attenuate breast cancer growth through activation of a neutral sphingomyelinase-mediated pathway

I can and will publish some more links.

Notice in this articles, most speak of using Omega 3 for post-surgery treatment and for metastasis prevention.

There is no reason why the same ideas can't be applied to alternative methods of treatment in cases where chemo-radio have a limited scope of action. For instance treatment of persons older than 70 years. In old age situations, many oncologist doctors recommend a "watchful coadjuvant process" rather than immediate treatment, because of the collateral effects of conventional treatment, which can contribute to overall patient degradation.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

A Dr. being nominated 7 times for a Nobel Prize has some merit. Does she not?
Her mistake for NOT getting the prize was precisely trying to convey her cellular concepts into Cancer therapy notions. There she touched the devil. There she encountered ferric detraction.

Originally Posted by jli

This is another claim that should raise your suspicison that something might not be entirely truthful. The Nobel Prize commitee only reveals who won the prize. They do not reveal the names of those who were nominated, not even to those who were considered.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

It was not the Nobel committee who revealed Johanna Budwig nominations. It was the nomination letters she kept and were presented to public AFTER she passed away! (Unexpected possibility... Right?)

Originally Posted by jli

Anyone can be nominated for the Nobel prize. It doens't really matter if she was nominated or not. There is no way of knowing if these letters were forwarded to the Nobel Comittee or not.

According to these sites she was nominated seven times for the "alternative Nobel Prize".