Re: IV OZONE and IV CESIUM CHLORIDE

 After 10 years of doing this advocacy for integrated medicine, I have come to the ultimate conclusion that IV cesium and IV ozone should be standard, baseline interventions for any cancer.

I agree with the use of ozone, which deals with cancer in a variety of mechanisms (kills cancer pathogens, increases SOD, stimulates cytokine formation, directly destroys cancer cells through a peroxide overload, oxidizes carcinogens, blocks the glucose-lactic acid cycle, etc.).  But it does not need to be IV administered in most cases.  Having to do it IV just benefits the practitioners that are going to charge for the administration and it will limit the number of treatments.  There are various ways to administer ozone, and which way is best will depend a lot on the cancer.  For example, with brain tumors the ozone can be administered through ear insufflation.  This method is non-invasive ozone readily crosses the tympanic membrane and enters the brain, eyes, nasal cavity and bloodstream.  I have seen this method work personally for various brain tumors.  Rectal insufflation is another good option for most cancers.  The ozone will be absorbed quickly in to through the capillaries in the colon wall going straight in to the bloodstream without the risk of IV or IA injection. If the ozone generator can keep the concentration down to therapeutic levels at a flow rate of 1/10lpm even better.  After several treatments this way the colon becomes more accustomed to the ozone and no more bloating occurs.  This allows the person to safely do longer treatments to really saturate the tissues in a way that IV and IA injections cannot do. The other big advantage of these application methods is the fact that the person can do this at home with their own machine, which allows them to do multiple treatments throughout the day.  This is extremely important in cases of advanced cancers, certain persistent infections and in with syndromes such as AIDS.  It also saves the patient a lot in cost. The ozone unit and oxygen set up should cost $1500 or less to get started.  It does not take many trips to the practitioner to meet and exceed that cost.  And being that most people do not turn to alternatives until after they have exhausted most of their money on mainstream therapies that failed I see this as another major advantage.  In some cases the ozone is best injected directly in to the tumor.  This of course if more specialized since a glass syringe is required as well as the knowledge of how to do this correctly.  But it is fast and effective destroying large amounts of cancer cells within seconds of contact.  Ozone can also be applied through other means such as subatmospheric applications for cancer associated fungal tissue damage, commonly seen in basal cell carcinoma.  I have also seen it frequently in cases of breast cancer.  IV ozone is not going to address this damage.  Even externally it is hard to eradicate with ozone because of the moisture and the fact the wounds are open.

As for cesium chloride this I disagree with.  As I have posted in the past the studies have shown that it is not that effective.  And the whole premise seems to be based on the myth that acids cause cancer.  Acids do not cause cancer though, the acid is a byproduct of the cells fermentation.  But the acid causes cancer myth stems from another myth that states that Nobel Prize winer Otto Warburg claimed that cancer is caused from a lack of oxygen.  If people read his work then they would see that this IS NOT what Warburg claimed.  I have discussed these claims in the past:

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1474178#i

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1441684#i

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1525662#i

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1522742

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1531694#i