Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind.

[PixyMisa]

I haven’t looked into side effects of excessive bicarbonate intake

Adverse reactions to the administration of sodium bicarbonate can include metabolic alkalosis, edema due to sodium overload, congestive heart failure, hyperosmolar syndrome, hypervolemic hypernatremia, and hypertension due to increased sodium. In patients consuming a high-calcium or dairy-rich diet, calcium supplements, or calcium-containing antacids such as calcium carbonate (e.g., Tums), the use of sodium bicarbonate can cause milk-alkali syndrome, which can result in metastatic calcification, kidney stones, and kidney failure.

but I bet you have since you are testing yourself and have a safe regimen implemented.

How much?

 

[dlorde]

This quote from one of Skeptiquette's links should clarify the status of blood (& systemic) ph in bicarbonate buffering, which has local effect:

The simulations show that increased concentration of serum bicarbonate can decrease intratumor and peritumor acidosis without altering blood pH. This might, at first, seem paradoxical, but we point out that this treatment is not ‘‘alkalization’’ but rather treatment with a physiologic buffer. The effect of the former is to produce a generalized increase in pH. By contrast, the effect of increasing the concentration of a physiologic buffer is to drive the entire system toward a normal pH (i.e., 7.35–7.45). Thus, regions that are at normal pH (such as blood) will not be affected although regions at abnormal pH (either acidic or alkaline) will tend toward physiologic values.

 

[jli]

I found the answers I was looking for, thanks to Skeptikette posts and delicate help searching for the information I needed. Dr.jli also had expressed his points of view, and tried to help me, but still convinced I am basically in error.

And the links by Skeptiquette support what I said. Here is a quote from one of the articles:

Blood pH from prolonged or chronic acidogenic diets is reported to be near the lower physiological range (7.36-7.38) rather than the higher end (7.42-7.44). Specifically, persistent acidogenic diets have the potential to cause small decreases in blood pH and plasma bicarbonate, but not beyond the normal physiological range.

I have previously mentioned the findings of one of the experiments carried out by the same author.

To recapitulate: It is about pH-altering therapy in mice implanted with cancer cell lines.

Here are a few highlights of the results:

1) Neither bicarbonate, DCA or a combination of these did anything to the primary cancer => This is not going to be a cure of all cancers.
2) The body’s pH didn’t change (Figure 1B), but the urinary pH did (Figure 1A).
3) None of the treatment modalities were able to completely prevent metastasis.

 

[MikeAparicio]

A new start up!

Mike, do you really think that posts consisting entirely of rants and sarcasm are the best way to make your case? It may be different on other boards, but on this one the way to make a case is to present logical arguments supported by verifiable facts, and then address the valid points raised in response. On the rare occasions you have done the former you have failed to do the latter, which is why most people have lost patience with you.

Well Pixel: I admit having used sarcasm in some posts and also admit some rants happened.
I am apologizing for such but I also want to explain why this happens.
At the beginning of this thread, I started getting annoying responses, accusing me of being a "promoter of "woo" or whatever scams".
A strong tendency to consider "Alt Med" as a single thing. A single, only one, BAD thing.
No matter how I tried to dissolve the attitude, responses were very persistent. It is obvious the concept cannot be generalized that way, as I intended to open a discussion on theories and not on "clinical trial" approvals, or FD endorsements, etc.
But the attitude persisted as to, sarcastically try to reduce my standing into a "peddler" , which in turn made me upset with the consequent acid responses and sarcasms.
I did not started using such resources, but the problem was unchained by the intolerance exhibited, asking me to "present proofs" while I was only pretending to discuss the theories and not to prove or disprove anything.

I don't see the point of forcing the presentation of acceptable proofs. A theory is in seek of proofs. Holding proofs for something means it is not a theory any more but a proven fact, which is different.

I think it is possible to discuss theories without proofs, but all kind of proofs, if presented would contribute to the discussion.

There should be no fear or intolerance to discuss things, mainly when they seem to break "strong beliefs" from the responding parts.

So, after apologizing I want to propose a truce!

As Skeptikette, Jli, and Daylightstar and Mojo have tried to get this straightened up, and I also did my best effort to get into the subject without any more tantrums and ironies, I do not understand why Pixel bounced back to keep claiming my "detestable" way of arguing!

I don't think Pixel wants to keep deviating our sane intentions to get into the subject the way Skeptikette, Jli, Moho, me and somewhat Daylightstar are wanting to do.

If the chat is going to continue let's agree on discussing:

1.- Themes related to the major adjuvant protocols Flax Oil and Bicarbonate-Glucose treatments.

2.- Let's leave alone testimonials as they are infuriating for the board.

3.- Take from a start point both excellent posts by Skeptikette.

4.- Let me explain why I think the arguments in Skeptikette posts lead to my proposition of Adjuvant Protocols for Natural Remission of tumors.

5.- Avoid accusations of ignorance, or ridiculing expressions.

Sounds OK?

 

[MikeAparicio]

And the links by Skeptiquette support what I said. Here is a quote from one of the articles:



I have previously mentioned the findings of one of the experiments carried out by the same author.

To recapitulate: It is about pH-altering therapy in mice implanted with cancer cell lines.

Here are a few highlights of the results:

1) Neither bicarbonate, DCA or a combination of these did anything to the primary cancer => This is not going to be a cure of all cancers.
2) The body’s pH didn’t change (Figure 1B), but the urinary pH did (Figure 1A).
3) None of the treatment modalities were able to completely prevent metastasis.

Well Dr. Jli; Those are very partial results.
We know nothing of the experimenter, or if he-she is involved with any pharma company or in other words, if the experiments were unbiased by the need to prove there is nothing behind the idea.
We must take into account there are tendencies to "produce" results according to a certain line of interests. I do really hope there would be absolute honesty in those tests. But this are only hopes.
But as we read in Skeptikette links it seems the ineffectiveness is NOT the case.

I would consider negative experiments, as those cited by Dr, Jli, incomplete and tendentious. I think of myself much more complex both biochemically and biologically than a little mouse.

The idea behind the bicarbonate-glucose binding protocol is to -Carry bicarbonate INTO the cells by means of their glucose voracity-
Dichloroacetate (DCA) was used in those tests. Not the same.

Plain bicarbonate or a dicholoracetate+NAHCO3 binding is not the theory hypothesis, either poured over a few cells or given to a little mouse or mice is not a true simulation of the protocol.


Proof is not what I am seeking about. It is a clear reasoning on the pros and cons of the idea, as deep as possible.

One enlightening element is point 3 where it says:"None of the treatment modalities were able to completely prevent metastasis."

We are not seeking for "completeness" but actually on what happens and why. Incomplete means there is SOME effect...

 

[MikeAparicio]

It is NOT blood pH the correct protocol description

One of the misleading assertions from bicarbonate based protocols is "Taking bicarbonate will raise blood pH and consequently disrupt tumor growth and metastasis".

It is certainly wrong as the fellowship here has demonstrated with many cites and observations.

So it is definitely a mistake to assume "raising the blood pH" will have therapeutic or preventive effects.

It is not simple like that. Once homeostasis has taken place, upon bicarbonate intake, blood is quickly balanced back into normal pH. But, the forgotten part of the reasoning is there will be a remnant of bicarbonate or bicarbonate bindings, which will travel the circulatory system and reach most of the body organs.

Kidneys will eventually reduce the bicarbonate and excrete it into urine but it is not a fast process so it takes time. During this time the homeostasis process must be recurrent, doing constant minute adjustments to properly keep blood as it should.

If bicarbonate is closely tied to a form of glucose, cancerous cells will unavoidably absorb the bicarbonate and disrupt it's internal acid environment.

Articles cited by Skeptikette tells us about the effect of such absorption in malignant cell metabolism.

At this point we are not saying the bicarbonate effect will destroy the tumor, but certainly will favor restoration of programmed cell death. If a patient has possibilities for natural remission, which is the case for a healthy person, or is under an effective conventional treatment, then the probabilities are considerable, according to the same articles cited.

We must consider if the conventional treatment, when applied, is not destroying the health system and diminishing natural apoptosis, or even worse inducing more genetic distortion.

That is the main reason, advocates for this protocol, recommend abstaining from the conventional treatment as possible.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh! I am sorry to say you might need to get some anatomy book and check how is it kidneys get the bicarbonate or WHATEVER they have to purge out of the system...

Whoops you are right, I made a mistake eek:!) - the kidneys process blood and are actually responsible for the maintenance of acid–base balance of blood in combination with the general buffering that plasma has.

This has nothing to do with the pH of your blood in general.
The blood going to your kidneys comes from your intestines, as we both know. Blood leaving your kidneys has been balanced as I know: acid–base balance

The kidneys are slower to compensate, but renal physiology has several powerful mechanisms to control pH by the excretion of excess acid or base.

So your urine has a higher pH because your kidneys have excreted the excess to maintain blood pH.

Now look at the mistakes that you are continuing to make - blindly believing that your blood ph has increased when you have not tested your blood eye-poppi!) and the fantasy that increasing the pH of blood will magically cure cancer !

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23288510
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/10/5216.full.pdf+html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/6/2677.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556057

Great post Skeptiquette!

But before MikeAparicio, gets too exicted we should point out these are (as far as I can see) hypotheses about the acidic environment of solid tumors being a mechanism for invation and metastasis. The suggestion is that tumor alkalinization could be a part of future conventional antitumor strategies.

These are not clinical trials trying to even control tumor growth with just doses of bicarbonate.
ETA: Acidity generated by the tumor microenvironment drives local invasion does mention " In support of the functional importance of our findings, oral administration of sodium bicarbonate was sufficient to increase peritumoral pH and inhibit tumor growth and local invasion in a preclinical model, supporting the acid-mediated invasion hypothesis".
MikeAparicio this means animal trials.

 

[jli]

We know nothing of the experimenter, or if he-she is involved with any pharma company or in other words, if the experiments were unbiased by the need to prove there is nothing behind the idea.

We know that he is the one who is collaborating with the Arizona bioengineering group, which you in a previous post found credible.

I would consider negative experiments, as those cited by Dr, Jli, incomplete and tendentious. I think of myself much more complex both biochemically and biologically than a little mouse.

The author is not biased against bicarbonate as an element in cancer treatment. And you did accept his review referenced by Skeptiquette. I think it is important to notice that the results are consistent with what we know about human physiology/biochemistry.

The idea behind the bicarbonate-glucose binding protocol is to -Carry bicarbonate INTO the cells by means of their glucose voracity-
Dichloroacetate (DCA) was used in those tests. Not the same.

Plain bicarbonate or a dicholoracetate+NAHCO3 binding is not the theory hypothesis, either poured over a few cells or given to a little mouse or mice is not a true simulation of the protocol.

Proof is not what I am seeking about. It is a clear reasoning on the pros and cons of the idea, as deep as possible.

.
Physiology tells us that you don't need a vector to transport bicarbonate into cancer cells. There are transport mechanisms in the cell membranse for glucose as well as bicarbonate. You can argue that fast bicarbonate transportation is essential for cancer cells, because this helps cancer cells eliminate the acid produced as a result of metabolism.

You should also remember that eating molasses with "glued" bicarbonate does not mean that it is absorbed as glued glucose and bicarbonate. The bonds between glucose and fructose molecules etc. are broken before absorbtion even takes place. Furthermore, bicarbonate and glucose are not co-transported. They use different membrane transportation systems.

We are not seeking for "completeness" but actually on what happens and why. Incomplete means there is SOME effect...

If you want to use something as a stand alone cancer treatment with curative intent, you need completeness. And you want something that actually damages cancer cells. Not something that just slows down its progression.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Great post Skeptiquette!

But before MikeAparicio, gets too exicted we should point out these are (as far as I can see) hypotheses about the acidic environment of solid tumors being a mechanism for invation (SIC) and metastasis. The suggestion is that tumor alkalinization could be a part of future conventional antitumor strategies.

These are not clinical trials trying to even control tumor growth with just doses of bicarbonate.
ETA: Acidity generated by the tumor microenvironment drives local invasion does mention " In support of the functional importance of our findings, oral administration of sodium bicarbonate was sufficient to increase peritumoral pH and inhibit tumor growth and local invasion in a preclinical model, supporting the acid-mediated invasion hypothesis".
MikeAparicio this means animal trials.

Well Realitycheck: I appreciate you address your observations specially to me. I had previous understanding to what "pre-trials" are.

I want to suggest what we are doing here is to expand as possible understanding on the possibilities behind these two particular protocols, based on bicarbonate-glucose binding and Flax Oil-sulfonated protein binding.
Both used in sequence or together as complementary protocols which take advantage of a mutual synergistic effect.

 

[MikeAparicio]

We know that he is the one who is collaborating with the Arizona bioengineering group, which you in a previous post found credible.

The author is not biased against bicarbonate as an element in cancer treatment. And you did accept his review referenced by Skeptiquette. I think it is important to notice that the results are consistent with what we know about human physiology/biochemistry.

How do we know that?

Physiology tells us that you don't need a vector to transport bicarbonate into cancer cells. There are transport mechanisms in the cell membranse for glucose as well as bicarbonate. You can argue that fast bicarbonate transportation is essential for cancer cells, because this helps cancer cells eliminate the acid produced as a result of metabolism. I do!
You should also remember that eating molasses with "glued" bicarbonate does not mean that it is absorbed as glued glucose and bicarbonate. The bonds between glucose and fructose molecules etc. are broken before absorbtion even takes place. Furthermore, bicarbonate and glucose are not co-transported. They use different membrane transportation systems.

It would be interesting some precise literature on this.

If you want to use something as a stand alone cancer treatment with curative intent, you need completeness. And you want something that actually damages cancer cells. Not something that just slows down its progression.

Not exactly, as follows:

As I understand, tumor cells have a particular voracity for glucose, almost 15 time more than normal cells. We also add the fact both protocols, rely on a strict diet where ALL fats (except Flax oil) and ALL sugars and starches (except molasses) are suppressed from the diet.

The idea of glucose-bicarbonate molecular binding has to be further searched as to accept it is effective or it is not necessary because digestive process destroys it. I am not so sure about that, first as I have seen no articles on the subject and secondly because personal experience (I am my own Guinea Pig) tells different as I will explain in another post.

About cell destruction, let me say it is NOT the aim of the combined protocols. That is why these protocols are good as a recommended support protocol for patients under conventional treatment and Pakeha will do good telling his friend about it.

The Flax Oil protocol aims to restore cell health by normalizing the electrical potential at membrane levels. It should work at the tumor peripheral cells, preventing further growth, while natural apoptosis takes care of actually reducing the tumor. If appropriate conventional therapy is applied, (without endangering the body immune system or weakening apoptosis) the adjuvant protocols can make a difference in treatment.

Of course, the same case applies for patients beyond conventional treatment failure or abstention. In those cases, again if natural defense systems and programmed cell death processes have not been altered or destroyed, the carefully balanced diet and the strict following of the protocols will favor natural remission, which as we understand can happen.

I would question the way clinical trials are executed, giving to patients conventional therapy with a certain treatment or placebos to establish a differential. Why not including in those trials (if it is true,"trial sponsors are not interested in biased results"), using the Flax and or Bicarbonate adjuvants ?

When this happens I will be more accepting of the way clinical trials are conducted.

 

[MikeAparicio]

SOme elaboration needed

Maybe some of our highly illustrated participants could elaborate on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-transport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-9NvqENyWg

An interesting part of the whole study:

Role of Intestinal Gluconeogenesis and Control of Feeding Behaviors

Intestinal Gluconeogenesis
The gut, in particular the small intestine, plays a critical role in the uptake and delivery of glucose from the diet. As such, the gut plays a central role in the overall regulation of glucose homeostasis. Glucose uptake from the lumen of the gut and transepithelial transport to the portal circulation had been shown to occur via action of two distinct glucose transporters. First, glucose is taken up from the intestinal lumen through the action of the sodium-dependent glucose transporter-1 (SGLT-1) then it is transported into the portal blood via the action of the facilitated glucose transporter GLUT2 present in the basolateral membrane. Evidence has also indicated that GLUT2 present in the apical (luminal) membrane of enterocytes was involved in glucose uptake. However, GLUT2 is not present in the apical membrane in the absence of a glucose load. The mechanism of GLUT2 presentation in the apical membrane involves a glucose-induced translocation of GLUT2 to this membrane. Thus, glucose uptake by the small intestine enhances additional uptake by promoting presentation of an additional transporter in the apical membrane.

The small intestine also utilizes glucose, obtained from the diet or from the blood, for energy production. Recently it was shown that the intestine is able to utilize glutamine for energy with the same efficiency as glucose. Indeed, glutamine has been considered to be a major energy substrate for this organ.

 

[Mojo]

Maybe some of our highly illustrated participants could elaborate on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-transport

What do you think it has to do, specifically, with cancer?

 

[MikeAparicio]

What do you think it has to do, specifically, with cancer?

It has to do with the bicarbonate transportation into the tumor. Dr. Jli sustains glucose does get split fro bicarb. upon digestion, but we are looking for articles on the subject. This one is very revealing.
Remember this are all pieces of a bigger puzzle.

 

[Mojo]

It has to do with the bicarbonate transportation into the tumor. Dr. Jli sustains glucose does get split fro bicarb. upon digestion, but we are looking for articles on the subject. This one is very revealing.

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with bicarbonate. Your quotation (which, BTW, doesn't appear to be from either of your links) is about glucose transport into the gut, which involves cotransport of sodium ions.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Hey Dr. jli. I would never offend you with distrust ore disbelief!

I understand you express your way very well, although it is your own belief of biochemistry which demonstrates good knowledge. You are also a good mathematician and I loved your equations. I notice in the excellent math analysis you kindly offered us there is no consideration to T, time.
There are other factors that concern me, based on my own testing as my own Guinea Pig.

I am not arguing with you, which would be foolish but I do not follow parts of the process you mention.

First: During past month's experience with the NaHCO3 (1gm) plus C6H12O6 (10 gm), which I was ingesting three times a day at 6 hour intervals I carefully kept track of my saliva and urinary pH values.

First day, as you explain, NaHCO3 was excreted very fast, but not so fast, in about 2 hours after each take. It was manifested by an increase in urine pH of about 1 unit from 6.4 to 7.4.
Next day, having tested urine has returned almost to original value of 6.5, I repeated the protocol and found one hour later urine was starting to go higher and at 2 hours it was reaching almost 7.6 pH. This value was maintained during the whole day, showing kidneys were working at full speed but it was taking longer to excrete the NaHCO3.
Day after, urine pH was 6.9 near 7.0. Protocol started and after an hour urine pH has gone beyond 8 to about 8.2 or 3! The oscillation of urine pH was now less evident, showing kidney process was constantly getting Bicarbonate from blood and excreting it.
Next two days the situation persisted until the urine readings were getting really high, I was feeling a strong oxygenation sensation (like pure oxygen breathing), so I started climbing down the H2CO3 down to 500 mg.
Nevertheless, the strong feeling remained and the urine pH remained almost nailed to 8.0.
It took me another two days at 500 mg, to start getting pH going down very slowly, so when it reached 7.6 I stopped the protocol.
Next day urine pH was down to near 6.2.

I might be wrong to conclude:
First, NaHCO3 was getting into my blood stream, no matter the stomach acidity, in enough quantities as to raise urine pH, understanding kidneys were taking the Bicarbonate out of my blood.
If there was so much bicarbonate in my blood how could be the blood pH would remain fixed at normal levels? Was it? Too bad I had no means to test blood pH.
Second, If the bounce effect in urine pH levels was getting progressively reduced, to the point of attaining a steady level, how can we say blood H2CO3 was normal? How could this be? Would kidneys be excreting into the bladder so much bicarbonate if there would be no excess bicarbonate in blood?

I already understand you are not in USA as I can see in your signature. But the same trash food eaten in USA is eaten everywhere, thanks to the McDonald, Burger King "conspiracy" lol

Why, when doctors diagnose acidosis, (apart from going into putting HCO3 injections into the blood stream they recommend a high pH diet? (Of course if they are good!)

All this is very confusing Dr. jli!

P.S. I was just reading Wikipedia on the subject and what they say is so close to what I've been hearing at this forums, it makes the subject rise a lot of suspicions. Also Wiki is frequently cited here!
Might it be JREF fans trust too much Wiki and even have "faith in it?

Also found this interesting article which might contradict the notion of bicarb NOT altering blood pH:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/242975-treatment

Mike,
The article to which you link describes two specific serious conditions where treatment with bicarbonate may be necessary. The first is the condition of extreme metabolic acidosis where the normal buffering system in blood is already overwhelmed (note the blood pH described as 7.2). This is a very serious illness and further drop in blood pH will occur quickly and will probably be lethal. Therefore intravenous bicarbonate is given to restor the buffering capacity of the blood to compensate for the uncontrolled acidosis.
The second instance is a condition where the buffering capacity of the blood is nearly overwhelmed, and soon will be. Here again, intravenous bicarbonate can be lifesaving.
These are immediately life threatening conditions caused by severe metabolic acidosis. I will venture to guess that you do not know the difference between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, or alkalosis, and I do not have the time to provide a free on-line physiology course.

The normal blood buffering system prevents deviation of blood pH very far from 7.4, as many have told you in this thread. Deviations of blood pH can occur, are serious illnesses, and can cause serious harm.
Consuming small amounts of Na bicarbonate orally will not significantly deviate the blood pH because of the buffering system, and the excess bicarbonate you eat will be degraded and excreted to maintain balance.

However, the result of consuming too much oral sodium bicarbonate can be not good:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164162

Please be careful with your own homespun remedies. Medicine and physiology are extremely complex, and that is why physicians train for many years. Your misunderstanding of simple acid-base physiology should be a warning to you that, while intelligent, you do not have the appropriate background to fully comprehend the complex issues involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment. If you do have cancer, then you need an oncologist to help diagnose and treat you.

 

[MuDPhuD]

It has to do with the bicarbonate transportation into the tumor. Dr. Jli sustains glucose does get split fro bicarb. upon digestion, but we are looking for articles on the subject. This one is very revealing.
Remember this are all pieces of a bigger puzzle.

Your understanding of cellular physiology and metabolism is extremely rudimentary, leading you to misunderstand what you are reading, and misapply the meaning to your problem. If you want to understand cells, metabolism and physiology better, please get a basic text on the subject and read it cover to cover before attempting to interpret the primary literature.

Try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Physiol...id=1363634891&sr=1-9&keywords=cell+physiology

 

[jli]

How do we know that?

Because he publishes papers on how bicarbonate might be useful as part of cancer treatment.

I do!

That is not what I see in your writings. You argue that transportation of bicarbonate into cancer cells is damaging them - not helping them survive.

It would be interesting some precise literature on this.

Looks like you already found literature on glucose transport across cell membranes. No need for me to repeat those.

Here is one you should try and get from your library. Figure 3 illustrate quite nicely how cancer cells eliminate acid (H⁺), including the use of bicarbonate, which is transported into the cell through its own transport system, and not alongside/bound to glucose.

As I understand, tumor cells have a particular voracity for glucose, almost 15 time more than normal cells.

It is a bit more complicated than that. I'll try and simplify things a bit. It has to do with the Warburg effect (Sometimes glucose is not fully degraded in spite of presence of oxygen, resulting in production of lactic acid instead of CO₂ and H₂O). This effect is prominent in many/most cancers. It is because of this effect that sugar uptake is useful in detecting cancers through PET-scans.

Here are a few examples of what complicates things a bit:
1) Cancer cells don't metabolise glucose through the Warburg effect only. There is evidence that some cancer cells also use citric acid cylus and oxidative phosphorylation.
2) Sometimes the warburg effect takes place in normal cells which are part of the cancers, providing molecular building blocks for the cancer cells.
3) The Warburg effect may also take place in normal cells.

The idea of glucose-bicarbonate molecular binding has to be further searched as to accept it is effective or it is not necessary because digestive process destroys it. I am not so sure about that, first as I have seen no articles on the subject

But have you read articles demonstrating a chemical reaction between glucose in molasses and bicarbonate resulting in a chemical bond?. Since writing the post I am responding to, you have read about glucose transporters (The GLUT's). And you may have already started looking into bicarbonate transporters. This should enable you to look critical at the claim that glucose is chemically bound to bicarbonate, and this compound is then transported by the blood to cancer cells etc.

and secondly because personal experience (I am my own Guinea Pig) tells different...

We are all susceptible to self delusion. And self delusion is a powerful convincer. This is why controlled experiments are necessary.

Why not including in those trials (if it is true,"trial sponsors are not interested in biased results"), using the Flax and or Bicarbonate adjuvants ?

When this happens I will be more accepting of the way clinical trials are conducted.

Here are trials on flaxseed and cancer registered on clincaltrials.gov.

And here are some where bicarbonate are part of the experimental treatments.

 

[Reality Check]

I want to suggest what we are doing here is to expand as possible understanding on the possibilities behind these two particular protocols, based on bicarbonate-glucose binding and Flax Oil-sulfonated protein binding.

You are wrong in 2 ways:

• We are not expanding knowledge of anything. The information already exists out there in PubMed and other sources.
• There are no such protocols: Medical protocol.

What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil .

You are wasting everyones time with looking at the trivial fact that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - thus its occasional use in treating acidosis. Intravenous bicarbonate is the preferred method.

 

[Reality Check]

However, the result of consuming too much oral sodium bicarbonate can be not good:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164162

Please be careful with your own homespun remedies.

That is something that I have been wondering about. MikeAparicio seems to be experimenting on himself presumablely without medical supervision since he is not even having his blood pH monitored (the whole point of the experiment !). Luckily he may have done this short-term (a couple of days?).

Typical cancer treatments though extend over periods of weeks or months. MikeAparicio is advocating a treatment that would have patients in a state of alkalosis over that period with the associated health problems as in your citation. So the question becomes, what will kill the patient first - the cancer or the treatment !