Alkaline/Acid Debate Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
I addressed this myth 5 months ago when it was posted previously:
Except for the fact that the guy does not have a clue of what he is talking about. For example a quote from Andreas' Moritz book: "By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an anaerobic surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular metabolic waste products." First of all the definition of cancer goes way beyond an anaerobic cell. Cancer cells have a much different morphology that healthy cells. Here is a list of some of the differneces: http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/viruses-and-cancer/characteristics-of-ca... Pay special attention to the last part: "It is possible that the high energy requirements of actively dividing cancer cells may result in the cell adapting anaerobic glycolysis as a supplement to normal aerobic respiration" More evidence that cancer cells do not show complete anaerobic acitivty: "Hela cells (also called Hela) are highly stable immortalised cancer cells widely used in scientific research. This cell line was isolated from a cancer of the cervix of Henrietta Lacks uterine who died of cancer in 1951." Now read the quesiton and answer here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/974586 A lot of this myth has to do with the misquoting of Otto Warburg who said that cancer cells will ferment rather than respirate REGARDLESS of whether or not oxygen is present. He NEVER claimed that cancer was caused from a lack of oxygen as many people claim he said. As far as the claim that cancers will not lead to the death of the body, but rather that it is from a lack of nutrition, again this is false. Cancerous growths can kill the body through organ damage. Consider a brain tumor that basically crushes the brain. Or a cancer that causes a patient to bleed out. Or that causes so much damage to the liver that the liver fails. Here is another ridiculous statement from his book: "The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to guarantee the much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading of the cancer cells." The body is not stimulating the growth of those blood vessels. The tumor itself secretes those growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) so it can feed itself, just like a parasite. The tumor also secretes small amounts of angiogenesis inhibitors to suppress the growth of secondary tumors, survival f the fittest. This is why when the primary tumor is removed the secondary tumors start growing faster. The angiogenesis inhibitors have been removed. "It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover of 30 billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a build up of toxins, congestion and emotional stress." More garbage. First of all the body does not produce cancer cells every day. Cancer cells have very little in common with healthy cells or even benign tumors. Cancer is generally defined as an uncontrolled growth of cells. So by definition if the immune system is controlling the excess cells then it is not cancer. Secondly, any overgrowth of cells is not cancer. A wart is an overgrowth, but it is benign. And the immune system does not do a very good job of finding and destroying cancer cells because the cancer cells can hide from the immune system. Cancer cells use the same trick as the human fetus, which is a foreign protein to the mother's immune system due to the male DNA present. Both secrete human chorionic gonadotrophic hormone (HCG) as a shield to prevent detection from the immune system. The body is not aiding the cancer cells to help destroy itself. Cancer is a disease, not a survival mechanism. If you do the research you will find that the vast majority of cancers are caused from viruses. I would put it at about 95%. In fact all of the so-called "hereditary" cancers, such as breast cancer, have been shown to be caused by viruses. No human oncogenes have ever been found that I have heard of. All of the oncogenes have been found to be viral. Other cancers can be from bacteria, fungi, parasites (extremely rare), radiation damage, and possibly carcinogens. Although I feel carcinogens are more growth promoters than causes. The body is not going to allow infection by viruses, or bacteria, of fungi, or parasites, or allow itself to be deliberately irradiated to produce cancer as a survival mechanism. That is totally ludicrous!!!!
This is true but it is only a short term example. If you have enough CO2 in your blood to make it just slightly more acid than normal, your immune system slows down, allowing cancer to grow over time. Cigarette smokers have more CO2 in their blood than others hence the greater risk of cancer.
Wrong. If this was true people who exercised would be more prone to cancer because any activity would, under your explanation, make them acidic and victims of cancer. We know that the opposite is true. People that exercise are LESS prone to develop cancer. The explanation PZ puts forth does not hold true.
Cigarette smokers are more prone to cancer because of the nearly 6000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke, many well known carcinogens like Benzene.
I wonder if anyone else has had the impression that you like to be contradictive. It is best that we include documentation with our claims otherwise we are engaged in endless circles of discussion.
Your claim struck me as not making sense. I think that people who exercise properly have better oxygen absorption capacities than those who don't. Also exercise helps rid the body of toxins.
It also does not address the fact that the reason cigarettes are so toxic is due to the chemicals you directly inhale with every puff. It is not CO2 as PZ suggest
Add This Forum To Your Favorites!
Challenge the message and not the messenger!
The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate!
Personal attack is often the best indication that the writer knows his logic is flawed and therefore tries to deflect attention by attacking the opponent, instead of attacking the arguments of the opponent.
Forum Stats:
forum viewed 5,773,519 times
8,254 messages
1,056 topics
topics per page limited to: 8
average number of messages per page: 63
132 pages
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com
Copyright 1999 - 2024 www.curezone.org