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

[MikeAparicio]

I assume you mean me. I stand by my statement that diet does not alter pH. I have linked to explanations for why this is so. If you choose to disbelieve it, then so be it. .

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

 

[Reality Check]

I might be wrong to conclude:
First, NaHCO3 was getting into my blood stream,...

Ohhhhh - this is a question that anyone with a knowledge of basic biology can answer !
You are wrong to conclude from saliva and urinary pH that any NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.

Your urinary pH changed because you ingested NaHCO3 and it went through your kidneys, bladder and was finally urinated. This is not evidence that that NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.

As pionted out - higher levels of pH in saliva are associated with high increased secretion of saliva. So it is likely that you tested your saliva when you were hungry. In any case this is not evidence that NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.

You need to do blood tests to find out how your blood pH changed.

P.S. Metabolic Acidosis Treatment & Management does mention oral administration of NaHCO3 to treat acidosis (i.e. restore pH to its normal level).

Oral NaHCO3 can be administered in some acute metabolic acidemic states in which correction of metabolic acidosis is unlikely to occur without exogenous alkali administration. Oral alkali administration is the preferred route of therapy in persons with chronic metabolic acidosis. The most common alkali forms for oral therapy include NaHCO3 tablets. These are available in 325 and 650 mg strengths (1 g of NaHCO3 is equal to 11.5 mEq of HCO3-).

No one is saying that bicarb DOES NOT alter blood pH. What is obvious is that bicarb DOES NOT alter blood pH OTHER THAN short term, small changes (Acid–base homeostasis).
You are ignoring the next step - showing that these short term, small changes in blood pH have any effect on cancers.

 

[Mojo]

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.

You can alter the pH of your urine, as your system works harder to maintain blood pH, but this is not the same as changing your blood pH. As you have already been told.

 

[jli]

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

I understand the confusion. Try and look at it this way:

When pH is normal the above described equilibrium is established. Adding acid or base (like for instance bicarbonate) will immediately be met with the mechanisms that works to maintain this stable pH. This is what a buffer does. If you add acid, it will react with base (in this case bicarbonate) keeping the ratio between acid and base (and accordingly pH) constant (or with minor variations within the normal narrow range.

At some point the bicarbonate will have been used up. This is when acidosis sets in. In this situation, addition of bicarbonate will help correcting the deficit, thus helping pH to return to normal.

 

[pgwenthold]

I understand the confusion. Try and look at it this way:

When pH is normal the above described equilibrium is established. Adding acid or base (like for instance bicarbonate) will immediately be met with the mechanisms that works to maintain this stable pH. This is what a buffer does. If you add acid, it will react with base (in this case bicarbonate) keeping the ratio between acid and base (and accordingly pH) constant (or with minor variations within the normal narrow range.

At some point the bicarbonate will have been used up. This is when acidosis sets in. In this situation, addition of bicarbonate will help correcting the deficit, thus helping pH to return to normal.

My friend who teaches biochemistry always laments on the lack of buffer solution understanding of the students, since so much of biochemistry is buffer solutions. I've never taken any biochem, so I wouldn't know, but that's what she tells me

 

[MikeAparicio]

Ohhhhh - this is a question that anyone with a knowledge of basic biology can answer !
You are wrong to conclude from saliva and urinary pH that any NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.

Your urinary pH changed because you ingested NaHCO3 and it went through your kidneys, bladder and was finally urinated. This is not evidence that that NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.
As pionted out - higher levels of pH in saliva are associated with high increased secretion of saliva. So it is likely that you tested your saliva when you were hungry. In any case this is not evidence that NaHCO3 was getting into your blood stream.

You need to do blood tests to find out how your blood pH changed.

P.S. Metabolic Acidosis Treatment & Management does mention oral administration of NaHCO3 to treat acidosis (i.e. restore pH to its normal level).


No one is saying that bicarb DOES NOT alter blood pH. What is obvious is that bicarb DOES NOT alter blood pH OTHER THAN short term, small changes (Acid–base homeostasis).
You are ignoring the next step - showing that these short term, small changes in blood pH have any effect on cancers.

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...
Isn't it through the circulatory system? (Do I have to prove it?)

Or is it a connection straight from stomach or intestines to kidneys I never heard about?
Or is it we, the people from Latin America have a different anatomy and our kidneys still work the "old fashion way" or filtering the blood?

In our case, intestines absorbe by means of minute blood vessels which in turn incorporate the substance being absorbed into the blood stream. While they circulate they pass through the different organs and each organ performs a very complex, far complex than you want to accept, chemical works on the substances.

But of course this is our own anatomy and physiology. You guys have developed a STRAIGHT path from intestines to kidneys...

Wonders of mutation!

 

[MikeAparicio]

I understand the confusion. Try and look at it this way:

When pH is normal the above described equilibrium is established. Adding acid or base (like for instance bicarbonate) will immediately be met with the mechanisms that works to maintain this stable pH. This is what a buffer does. If you add acid, it will react with base (in this case bicarbonate) keeping the ratio between acid and base (and accordingly pH) constant (or with minor variations within the normal narrow range.

At some point the bicarbonate will have been used up. This is when acidosis sets in. In this situation, addition of bicarbonate will help correcting the deficit, thus helping pH to return to normal.

Pretty cool Dr. jli!

But be sure I know how acid a and base reacts. When I was 12 I was already trying to do Nitroglycerin but lucky enough something failed...

It is not the point of my confusion Jli....

It is the arguments so far, against base reaching the tumors is not clearly substantiated.
If blood is, at intestinal absorption point, mixed with bicarbonate, it MUST circulate through the system, nevertheless later it will be acidified again during kidney process. Buffering will occur but there will be a remnant after instant buffering. This remnant will eventually filtered out by kidney labor.
Yes?

Blood circulation brings radioactive glucose into the tumors. Why not bringing glucose bind to bicarbonate to the same place? I understand bicarbonate will be flushed out eventually, but my tests showed it took time to flush it all out via urination. It was not a zapper action! Took time, as anything else takes withing the physiological process.

I am only discussing this aspect at this point. I am not discussing "if the bicarbonate will do something to the tumor", although it should.

I am going point by point.

Remember I am my own Guinea Pig, not matter the "horror, compassion, worry, and ridicule" it might awaken among fellow posters!

Hoffman did something similar, but he got a super-trip with the ergotamine trials!!!!!

 

[Daylightstar]

...
In our case, intestines absorbe by means of minute blood vessels which in turn incorporate the substance being absorbed into the blood stream. While they circulate they pass through the different organs and each organ performs a very complex, far complex than you want to accept, chemical works on the substances. ...

So, explain please what happens to items in your special diet and your flax oil and your cottage cheese in the intestines, with special attention to digestive liquids and enzymes.

Thank you.

 

[MikeAparicio]

You can alter the pH of your urine, as your system works harder to maintain blood pH, but this is not the same as changing your blood pH. As you have already been told.

Oh! I've been "told"...

But... If the systems works "hard" to "maintain" the pH, it means the pH has changed after all. That is why it has to be brought back to normal.
Might be a short time but it has to go higher. If not how would the system try to find bicarbonate to fix it?

I "tell" you man... I "tell" you!....

 

[Mojo]

But... If the systems works "hard" to "maintain" the pH, it means the pH has changed after all.

See the stuff about buffering.

 

[dlorde]

But... If the systems works "hard" to "maintain" the pH, it means the pH has changed after all. That is why it has to be brought back to normal.

The ph of the blood does change, but if it drifts outside the range 7.35 to 7.45, a number of fast-acting mechanisms act to return it within that range. This is part of physiological homeostasis, the collective activities that keep your body's various systems within their, often narrow, operating ranges. If blood ph is outside the normal range for a significant time, you become very ill. Attempting to change blood ph outside the normal range is a fools errand.

If you were really interested in understanding this stuff, it wouldn't take much time or effort to look it up.

 

[shuttlt]

I knew nothing about this really before reading the thread, but if I understand this correctly, if your blood PH is much outside the range mentioned then something is very broken. It may be that steps have to be taken to reduce the PH to buy time to address the underlying issue. If your PH is normal and all this buffering is working then it is going to take heroic efforts to overwhelm homeostasis and cause any sustained change in PH.

Have I understood correctly?

 

[Skeptiquette]

Hello Mike,

There is some evidence that the tumor acidity facilitates invasion into surrounding tissues and that bicarbonate supplementation can modulate the pH of the tumor and inhibit the effects from the acidic microenvironment. Also there seems to be evidence that supplementation with bicarbonate increases the efficacy of weakly basic chemotherapeutic agents, by means of alkanization of the tumor environment.

Here are a few citations (2 of them free to the public) that support this

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, I have added Pubmed ID’s where needed instead of citing normally. Just copy paste these numbers into pubmed search and you will get the article abstract or article if it is open access.

Anyway, the other discussion about acidosis from the diet is also interesting and there is a decent amount of literature available to interrogate the subject.

One of the things that I picked up from the literature is that acidosis or alkalosis refers to the tendency towards acidemia or alkalemia, which refer to the state below or above the normal pH(7.35-7.45), respectively.(Intro to Acid base Disorders Chapter 9)(20003625)

The terms acidosis and alkalosis refer to the pathophysiologic processes that cause net accumulation of acid or alkali in the body(Intro to Acid base Disorders Chapter 9)

It is also argued that an acidogenic diet can result in subclinical metabolic acidosis that is detrimental to many different aspects of health, including bone health (PMID:19954569, PMC3114717 does not support this argument), cardiovascular health(PMC3155690) and cancer(PMC3571898). It is also pointed out that this is difficult to look at because it is a slow process of degradation of health that requires long term observation, nonetheless there are studies that do look at acidity of diet and outcomes for various diseases.( 2148150)( 23380803)( 18394215)( 20003625)( 19209185)

One of the other key facts that I found repeated in the literature is that there is a natural decline in renal function with age which predisposes ageing and elderly people to acidosis (8997384),( 18808599)

None of these studies looked at the genetic side of any of this, which would be, what type of CNV’s, SNP’s or other genetic differences or mutations could affect how diet induced metabolic acidosis progresses?(23114896, this citation looks at some genetic causes but not in light of diet induced MA.) There are obviously genetic profiles that would be more sensitive to an acidogenic diet or certain genetic aspects that could potentiate various sequelae of an acidogenic diet. This would be interesting to see more basic research into these genetic underpinnings which could be used to further stratify cohorts in larger epidemiological studies, thus linking more genetic and environmental data together.

Putting this together: It seems logical to me that you would want to supplement with bicarbonate and eat a diet high in green leafy vegetables and flax oil with lower consumption of animal protein

(side note: in all the literature it was never recommended to drastically reduce protein as this can also lead metabolic acidosis, but rather increase the ratio of plant based protein if possible, because interestingly plant based protein isn’t acidogenic (23079747).)

This would hopefully increase the tumor microenvironment from an acidic state to a more basic pH and reduce the tumors tendency to invade local tissue and metastasize.

Synopsis: theoretically this seems like a sound approach and there certainly is no harm in the diet portion of your regimen, I haven’t looked into side effects of excessive bicarbonate intake, but I bet you have since you are testing yourself and have a safe regimen implemented. However, I couldn’t find any real clinical data, but based on the recent findings in the preclinical model from the first abstract link above, I would bet they are going to be forthcoming (that is if Big-Parma doesn’t get in the way; sorry, big Parma was from a thread a long time ago and it popped into my head, had a little laugh…)

I actually have quite a few more citations than I provided above. Somebody should make a t-shirt that says “Got Pubmed”… I would rock it!

stay positive my friend!

sincerely,

Skeptiquette

 

[Skeptiquette]

If you were really interested in understanding this stuff, it wouldn't take much time or effort to look it up.

the irony in this is great...

 

[Pixel42]

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.

 

[MikeAparicio]

@Skeptiquette

@Skeptiquette:

Oh! Dear friend! Thanks so much!
I have been struggling, thinking the group of participants would actually help, putting their "knowledge" in a basket and do a little research, which was not the case.

The information you pointed at, and the access you provided is INVALUABLE!

I actually have no words to express my appreciation and I am truly very thankful for your contribution and care.

There were some things I could not understand regarding the negation on the basics about pH, tumors and blood transportation of pH raising compounds to the tumor areas.

The audience has a tendency to consider everybody's experience and personal findings as undeserving any consideration, which is a mistake if someone really wants to know the truth about anything.

As it is said: "There is no more deaf than who does not want to hear".

Probably there will follow a series of attacks against what you posted, and you will see how much disconcert it will plant in the audience, who is effectively strongly biased towards a certain way of seeing and understanding things, ignoring scientific concepts and findings are usually contradicted later and ignoring the human subtleties which make biochemistry, biology and physiology a non exact science.

Thanks again SKEPTIKETTE!

 

[MikeAparicio]

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.

Thanks Pixel. I don't see the "rants" while I see a lot of sarcasm in others posts towards me.

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.

That is the kind of support I would expect from a group of people supposedly within the intellectual circles, but it seems excessive skepticism has lead the participants into thinking they are "always right" and there is nothing to say, except what confirms their own thoughts, ideas and rigid concepts.

AS you are giving me advise, I would also do the same, recommending the most frequent participants in this forums to b more open, less discriminating intellectually, and accepting the words of a famous philosopher who said: "I only know I know nothing".

Thanks to all. At this point I consider my questions answered except for the Flax Oil related discussion.
I know Flax oil application in favoring spontaneous apoptosis, expressed by Dr. Johanna Budwig is sound and correct.
The fact Pharma or Pharma advocates strongly deny it, does not mean a thing, because there are hundreds of people who has seen for themselves the benefits of applying the protocol in the fight against cancer.

I will now take care of many deeds requiring my attention!

 

[dlorde]

the irony in this is great...

You don't agree with what I said ?

 

[PixyMisa]

AS you are giving me advise, I would also do the same, recommending the most frequent participants in this forums to b more open, less discriminating intellectually, and accepting the words of a famous philosopher who said: "I only know I know nothing".

Alternative physician, heal thyself.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks Pixel. I don't see the "rants" while I see a lot of sarcasm in others posts towards me. ...

Well, that looks like cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Mike, your posts are practically textbook examples of bluster. Maybe this goes over well in a tertulia, but it doesn't really do your ideas justice in this arena.

...
Putting this together: It seems logical to me that you would want to supplement with bicarbonate and eat a diet high in green leafy vegetables and flax oil with lower consumption of animal protein

(side note: in all the literature it was never recommended to drastically reduce protein as this can also lead metabolic acidosis, but rather increase the ratio of plant based protein if possible, because interestingly plant based protein isn’t acidogenic (23079747).)

This would hopefully increase the tumor microenvironment from an acidic state to a more basic pH and reduce the tumors tendency to invade local tissue and metastasize.

Synopsis: theoretically this seems like a sound approach and there certainly is no harm in the diet portion of your regimen, I haven’t looked into side effects of excessive bicarbonate intake, but I bet you have since you are testing yourself and have a safe regimen implemented. However, I couldn’t find any real clinical data, but based on the recent findings in the preclinical model from the first abstract link above, I would bet they are going to be forthcoming (that is if Big-Parma doesn’t get in the way; sorry, big Parma was from a thread a long time ago and it popped into my head, had a little laugh…)

I actually have quite a few more citations than I provided above. Somebody should make a t-shirt that says “Got Pubmed”… I would rock it!

stay positive my friend!

sincerely,

Skeptiquette

Skeptiquette, thanks so much for a great post. I really appreciate the time and effort you've taken to research the subject and have sent this post to a dear friend battling cancer.
Would you say these dietary guidelines in themselves are a cure for cancer or do you consider them as a part of a conventional therapy ?