To The Cancer Patient

[Guest guest]

I really enjoyed the essay which began this thread.

However, there is one thing I am scratching my head over. The part

about blood pH. I do not contest that people with cancer tend to

have a low blood pH. But is the low pH a cause of the cancer, or

just a symptom?

 

Let me give a silly example here: It can probably be

demonstrated that most people get dog bites from dogs with 4 legs,

with progressively fewer dog bites from dogs with less legs. If we

remove several legs from all dogs, is that a good prevention for

dogbites?

 

As I have stated many times on this list, I am a very strong

advocate of taking large amounts of ascorbic acid per day. Others

have stated that taking large amounts of ascorbic acid will lower

blood pH. No way for me to prove this, but I am willing to bet my

life that increased ascorbic acid intake is a cancer preventative,

rather than a dangerous habit which will lead to cancer because it

lowers my blood pH.

 

Of course, I am no doctor, and not a medical researcher

either. But it seems to me that linking lowered blood pH in people

who do not suffer from cancer is just as erroneous as using blood

cholesterol levels as a marker for possible other diseases.

 

Alobar

 

 

-

" JoAnn Guest " <angelprincessjo

 

Sunday, August 03, 2003 4:17 PM

To The Cancer Patient

 

 

 

TO THE CANCER PATIENT

- Tim O'Shea

[Guest guest]

-

" Wayne Fugitt " <wayne

 

Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:18 PM

To The Cancer Patient

 

 

> Evening Alobar,

>

> >> No way for me to prove this, but I am willing to bet my

> >life that increased ascorbic acid intake is a cancer preventative,

> >rather than a dangerous habit which will lead to cancer because it

> >lowers my blood pH.

>

> You make many good points, and I agree with all of them. Did

you read

> the recent article about

> " love your liver " ? If so, it made a point about Vitamin C, (

large

> amounts ) protecting the liver.

 

Yes, I saw that. I pretty much ignore my liver because it

seems to work. I do realize I should care for it well to keep it

working.

>

> In my studies about cancer, I read that most people who survive

cancer, die

> within 5 years from liver disease.

>

> The liver is very important. I had a liver function test, but

still have

> doubts that my liver is as good as it was when I was half as old as

I am

> today. So........ I will continue to study this and worry about it

a bit.

>

> I am about ready to do a liver flush and see what happens.

 

Let us know how your liver goes. I have been contemplating

the coffee enema, but I real fear attempting that unless I can figure

out some way to lay down someplace which won't be a disaster if I

have an oops. In & out enemas while sitting on the toilet ar no fun,

but I can deal with those. I am thinking I can arrange a bunch of

slats ovetr the bathtub & lay on those.

>

>

> > Of course, I am no doctor, and not a medical researcher

> >either.

>

> You are a researcher but have only one guinea pig like me.

<grin>

 

Well yea, you are right there, Wayne. What I meant was I

have no fancy lab equipment to check out what I am guessing might be

going on.

 

>

> >But it seems to me that linking lowered blood pH in people

> >who do not suffer from cancer is just as erroneous as using blood

> >cholesterol levels as a marker for possible other diseases.

>

> We have to keep in mind that most studies have been done with

sick people.

> Even if a study had the goal in mind to use healthy people, where

would

> they find them?

>

> The larger the study, the more likely a large percent of the

subjects

> were sick in some way.

 

Very good points. I have had similar thoughts, myself.

>

> I think most of us are skeptical of studies, especially large

> ones. Unless we know who funded them, we are gambling to accept

them 100

> per cent.

>

> Hold the Fort !

>

> Wayne

 

I have been way too busy on things related to work &

protecting my job from the city bureaucrats. Hopefully I can spend

more time on this list for the next few months.

 

Alobar

[Guest guest]

First of all, I want to say I really think this is a very

good article which I am passing around because it could save lives.

 

That said, I feel I also need to speak out about some things

I find to be questionable. Now, I have been out of school for 35

years, so if I am not getting my facts straight, I sure hope someone

corrects me. I re-reading this article, what stuck out earlier is

the description of fermentation.

 

> Even more favorable for cancer is a setting of fermentation. That's

a

> big word for half-digested carbohydrates (sugar). Every bootlegger

> knows that as sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are the

oxygen

> leaving.

 

Well, as I remember things from college 35+ years ago, the

bubbles are carbon dioxide, not oxygen. Sure the carbon dioxide

molecules contain oxygen, but carbon dioxide forms from the break

down products of the carbohydrate, not oxygen removed from the

solution (blood, in this case). The pH goes down in a ferment

because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, it is carbonic

acid, which is acid. Which implies to me that low blood pH is not

the cause of cancer, but a result of fermentation.

 

Now this may seem like nit-picking. So let me explain

further. There is a lot in the essay which is beyond my present

knowledge. I seems right, but I am basing that on feel rather than

what I know. So when I come upon something which I believe to be

wrong, it makes me suspicious of the parts of the essay I do not have

enough background to properly evaluate.

 

Again, I think it is a good essay. But when fermentation is

talked about as releasing oxygen from the fermenting solution, I

worry if there are other errors I might be missing altogether.

 

Alobar