I am not splitting hairs and I don't know about you but to me using PROPER definitions is extremely important.  For example, if someone wants to use chromium for their diabetes then they better know the difference between trivalent and hexavalent chromium since one will kill the person.  So to use a claim like I am splitting hairs over definitions is simply ridiculous.  Using redefined definitions in health only puts people's health at significant risk.

Another reason we need to be specific on definitions is because same named substances can also have different effects.  For example, oxygen as O has different effects than oxygen as O₂.  Again, when dealing with people's health in particular close, but not accurate, definitions can be dangerous or deadly.  Tell me, would you advocate a patient getting a drug just because it sounds the same as the drug they need?  I hope not.  Again accuracy is essential in medicine.  Changing definitions to fit a wishful idea is no more safe than giving someone a similar named drug.

make claims that aren't supported with data while criticizng other claims that you feel need support of data.

LOL!!!  So the medical abstract links I have posted so many times are not supporting data?!  For example in this post:

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1523717#i

Is that your excuse for not supplying evidence to your claims?  How many times have you claimed that what you are stating has been proven or backed up by all sorts of research, yet I have yet to see you provide even one piece of this evidence that supposedly exists.  Yet you ask me to provide you studies.  What is that you were saying about double standards?

Double standards are psychotic or they are ulterior in their applications.

Then why your double standard of wanting studies but refusing to provide them yourself.  What does this double standard say about you according to your own definition?

You are not psychotic and you are almost a genious and extremely bright. Why on Earth would you carry a consistently applied double standard on a website. Must be ulterior motive.

As pointed out above, the double standard is yours, not mine.  I have posted medical abstracts to back my claims in numerous posts.  All you have to do is look.  So why do you keep refusing to post the evidence to back your claims since you claim that it has been backed by so much research?  If this is the case then you should have no problems providing this evidence.  In fact nobody should even have to ask for it in the first place if you really want to back your claims.

Do you sell products? I do not.

Whether or not I sell products is irrelevant.  I recommend ozone for advanced cancer since it is the safest and most effective cancer therapy available.  Yet I do not sell ozone units or make money from anyone else's sales.  I did do a post though telling people how they can build their own, and that information is free.  Furthermore, I do not sell an herbal cancer formula either, but again my cancer write, which again is free, tells people how to make their own anticancer herb formula.  So again, whether or not I sell products is irrelevant and to bring that up is nothing more than a desperate attempt to discredit my character since you cannot discredit my research.

I actually negotiate with manufacturers to provide cheaper products for cancer patients. Silver, aloe vera, essiac, pau de arco, cesium are all purchased from manufacturers at a cheaper price for my clients using our organizational name. Hence the word advocate. I ship nothing and seek to lower costs for cancer patients.

Cheaper is not better if it does not work.  You could sell people beach sand all day long for their cancer for pennies per pound.  Is this a benefit to them?  I have seen no evidence that silver works for cancer, very limited evidence on aloe that has other issues though, limited evidence on Essiac, quite bit on pau d' arco but only for blood cancers and the research I have seen on cesium chloride shows limited benefit and risks of other problems such as heart issues, and again I posted the studies for this:

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1523795#i

First of all let's get something straight so these poor curezone readers don't become overwhelmed by all the nonsense.

By "nonsense" to you men the facts that I present with the medical abstracts to back it up or the incorrect or unfounded claims supposedly backed by science such as the claim that mineralized water holds more oxygen, which was proven untrue?

All elements carry a charge, possitive or negative, they can be measured electronically. Oxygen for example carries negative charge and binds quickly to possitively charged minerals. Those charges and potentials are measurable and can be found on almost any chemistry website, however molecules are not so generally reported on with respect to their overall potentials and charges and strength of those charges

Even though it is well known that all elements carry a charge this really has nothing to do with the discussion so I will ignore expanding on this any further.

Ozone is not dipole but it carries a charge, what charge does it carry? Here i'll give you a hint,...it's not a possitve charge. So there is a range based upon oxidation.

You may want to read this since it says just the opposite:

http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/faq/faqozone.htm

"Ozone is a molecule that consists of three oxygen atoms (O₃), with a delta negative and a delta positive electric charge."

And:

http://www.lenntech.com/ozone/ozone-properties.htm

"The symbols δ+ en δ- show, that ozone molecules are short of electrons on the locations where these signs occur. This means that ozone is a dipolar molecule."

And:

Ozone Dipole Diagram

http://chemistry.about.com/od/factsstructures/ig/Chemical-Structures---O/Ozon...

By the way, ozone is not an element, it is a molecule since above you said all elements carry a charge.

All this shows why people should not simply take someone's word for something, especially when it comes to their health.  People need to research ALL claims made, especially here on Curezone since there is a lot of nonsense posted here.

Dr. Keith Brewer has identified the polarity of cancer cell membranes and for this reason was able to prove how oxygen and minerals can or cannot enter the cancer cell.

And again, oxygen does not kill cancer cells or stop cancer as I have already pointed out.  So regardless of how oxygen can or cannot get in to cancer cells is irrelevant.

You have now stated three different mechanisms for ozone over the last two years, one being peroxide formation inside the cancer cell,(which is true)

First of all there are more than 3 mechanisms by which ozone fights cancer.  And the peroxide formation you are referring to IS NOT inside the cancer cells.  Ozone reacts with the cell membranes, thus the OUTSIDE of the cell forming the peroxides that then enter the cancer cells causing them to burst.

and thus ozone can cause hemolytic anemia, results from peroxide buildup,

Hemolytic anemia can occur from a number of things.  But yes, ozone can cause hemolytic anemia, but only in concentrations higher than are used therapeutically.  So your statement is very misleading.  Another way to look at this is too much water can kill someone, so does this make normal, recommended water consumption dangerous?

another theory you have used being increased oxygen inside the cancer cell which inhibbits fermentation, a statement written to "Karenlaw", but herein contradict, and now you are professing a membrane change but wont identify the kinetics by which this occurrs.

The reaction of ozone on the membranes of cancer cells has been explained plenty of times.  As far as getting oxygen in to the cells, yes this will inhibit, but not stop fermentation.  This getting oxygen in to these cells does not stop cancer growth.  Cancer cells, just like all other living cells requires oxygen.  This is why cancer cells within a mass when they start out eventually become hypoxic and necrotic from a lack of oxygen  as I pointed out previously.  This in turn stimulates the release of tumor angiogenic factors, which stimulated blood vessel growth, which in turn gets oxygen to the cells so they can survive and thrive.

It's a dominoe affect you say but can't explain what changes occurr in that membrane. For someone as demanding as you to provide accurate and detailed information, this vague hypothesis is a little curious.

LOL!!!  Again, I have explained this mechanism over and over in various posts.  But I am not here to spoon feed information to someone that does not even understand the basics of chemistry.  Trying to go in to details about this with you would be like me trying to teach someone medicine when they only speak Chinese since I don't speak Chinese.  If I am going to explain something about the chemistry about a protocol in more detail with someone then they need to have at least a good grasp of basic chemistry.  Based on claims such as ozone not having a dipole structure and mineralized water holds more oxygen than nonmineralized water, both of which have been proven false, I have not seen that basic understanding of chemistry in you.  Therefore, my recommendation is that you learn some organic chemistry then research ozone therapy so you can understand its numerous mechanisms.

All I have done was recommend that people augment ozone or any oxygen therapy with heavy minerals. Period. You have spent countless energy and time with that posting and yet you cannot say or prove the heavy minerals don't help cancer patients although everytime I have posted something about heavy minerals you have intervened butted in without offering any laboratory studies to support your claim.

Again, I have posted the evidence as evidenced with my earlier post linked above about the ineffectiveness and dangers of cesium chloride.  So where are your studies I keep requesting and you keep ignoring me about?  Do they even really exist?

When i post the proof you will try to discredit that laboratory evidence as this has already happened.

What proof?  I have asked you numerous times for these studies you claim exist and you have yet to provide even one study.

What if heavy mineral salts reverse cancer? Then you have harmed anyone who views your nameless postings as truth.
YOu have hurt cancer patients if heavy minerals reverse cancer.

And what if they don't stop cancer very well and they have dangerous side effects?  Oh wait, I posted all sorts of evidence to that with cesium chloride in my link above!  This is why I research claims about cancer claims before recommending cancer therapies to anyone.  There is just to much hype over ineffective and dangerous cancer "therapies" such as cesium chloride.

Then you have turned around and demanded lab studies from other posting parties but cant do the same on your end at times.

You are really sounding like a broken record on this claim.  Again, I have posted the studies time and time again.  So why do you keep putting this back on me when you are asked to do the same?  You clearly stated several times that what you are claiming has been heavily backed by research, yet you have failed to provide even one study to back your claims despite numerous requests to do so.  Is this because these studies do not really exist, or they do not really show what is being claimed?

Well, for all those confused souls searching for a treatment for this monster of a disease, I will post those highly technical reports explaining minerals relationship to oxygen concentration and membrane polarity.

We will see.

Never mind that the first review study of heaviest of minerals boasted a 100% response rate. How does any credible person discredit 100% of anything. Well, first time I posted the research paper, that's exactly what you did.

First of all I don't recall you ever posting any research.  What post specifically are you referring to? Please provide a link.  Secondly, a response does not mean a cure.  If a person has a bullet in their chest and they are given morphine for the pain then they have response in the form of less pain.  This does not mean the bullet has been removed or that the damage has been treated.  So claiming a "100% response rate" is very misleading.  Especially if you are referring to cesium chloride, which as the studies show that I posted do not have anywhere near that kind of success rate.

As if taking heavy minerals was going to kill them!

Uranium ore is a heavy mineral, does this mean it is safe?  And what about the heart issues caused by cesium chloride?  Or do you just ignore the dangers?

But if you feel a need to chime in on every single posting I make on curezone, please then don't complain about all the time you have to spend defending yourself and answering logical, basic, questions that your postings then raise.

My responses are merely pointing out the discrepancies of redefined, instead of actual, definitions, incorrect chemistry claims, and other false and misleading claims that keep being made.  As far as defending oneself this sounds like what you are doing.  You are not trying to present a case with any evidence, but instead keep making up your own version of science in an attempt to make it appear you know more than you do.

Again, the manipulative nature of your ulterior motives all come out in the wash and sooner or later the chickens have to come home to roost. You are distributing products off this web site. You are selling them. See, there is truth in medicine.

LOL!!!  Again you give us an example of how you are defending yourself by making misleading statements.  What are my ulterior motives?  As I pointed out above I do not sell ozone units nor make any money from anyone else's sales, and I do not sell any cancer formulas.  Yet I do have a post telling people how to make their own ozone units and their own herbal cancer formula that is all posted publicly and 100% free.  You on the other hand post a phone number for people to call you after posting a bunch of BS on cancer therapies.  Why is that? Do you try to sell them something or on something you are associated with when they call you?  So who really has the ulterior motive here?

I use many terms loosely here on curezone as we are dealing with lay persons.

Like yourself?

If you have an issue, just make the observation or ask for clarity or just ask for the data,

I have asked for the evidence backing your claims over an over without ever getting anything other than more BS claims and misleading statements about myself from you.

if you diagree just say you disagree then post your data. You really don't have to sell yourself as the only expert or do you.

Again, when dealing with people's health it is important to be accurate, not making up assumptions like fish in pure water suffocate from a lack of oxygen and other proven false claims.

But as you are asking of me to post data to the contrary if I disagree I expect the same of you.  If you disagree post your evidence to the contrary as I have done over and over.  The more I have to ask you to post evidence without results the more it looks like the research you claim exists does not.

Intelligent people see through the salesmanship.

So how many unintelligent people have actually called your phone number you keep posting?

I have had clients of mine come here on curezone and post messages on my behalf just to protect these proven therapies from one person,...one! that person is you.

Whatever.

They have come here and stated their story they have tried to post contact information about heavy minerals being combined with oxygen therapies, so that others can call or email them about their experiences, and apparently this threatens your business and marketing on this very website because as of today, you have not listened to a single one them.

Again, I do not have a conflict of interest since I do not sell ozone units or herbal cancer formulas that I recommend for cancer.  So you can quit repeating this lie, it is just making you look more desperate.

I will be posting the Warburg, Koch, and Brewer research here once again in a new thread just for those on this website that may think you are the only expert.

Again?  When did you post it the first time?

I often wonder why you sometimes contradict yourself and now I figured it all out.

When did I contradict myself?  Please provide the exact posts.  If you cannot then everyone will once again know you are making up your "facts" to fit your needs.

What I wonder is why people here on Curezone keep making up their own versions of science such as more minerals in water means more oxygen the water can absorb or that ozone does not have a dipole structure even though both claims have been PROVEN incorrect.  At least I know why you sent me that threat back a while ago.  I was a interfering with your business since I was exposing the quackery of things like cesium chloride.  Same reason you are getting nastier and nastier on these posts as I keep exposing your false and misleading statements.

You are selling and shipping products using curezone. If you do not contradict or try to discredit information by other qualified professionals you cannot make yourself look like the KNOW ALL and BE ALL. You have competition! That threatens your income.

You are not threatening my income at all.  If anything you have been helping it since people see how little you really know about science and medicine, things I spend a great deal of time researching.  But Curezone is not about sales for me.  If you knew what you were talking about then you would know that I do not push my products on Curezone.  My products are there if people want them, but I have helped people how many times in designing their own custom formulas in competition with my own products?  And I have told them how many times what they can buy from the local health food stores? And it was over year with my forum before anyone even knew I had a business and I was not the one that posted that fact.  I was not going to say a word, especially after you sent me that threat wanting to know where I live!!!  

I thought I smelt something fishy but then I see two years of your tactics. Isee people are buying stuff from you.

So how do you make a living?  You said you help people get things cheaper, which does not mean free.   And you post your phone number with your post trolling for customers here on Curezone.  Yep, you smell something fishy alright, and it is right where you are at.

Blocking people who disagree or take offense to your ways, banned from your Truth In Medicine but then we watch you flaiming Curezone when you get banned from their forums. Hmmm! Here come the chickens to the roost.

Oh gee, I banned someone who sent me a threat and keeps making stuff up about me as an alternative to providing evidence to their claims.  Why on Earth would I even ban someone acting like that?!!!

This forum is for open discussion and sharing of information and not for people to push their own agenda's using double standards and opositional postings.

What agenda and what double standard?  Seems like you are the one with the agenda since I am not selling any ozone units or herbal cancer formulas, and therefore have no conflict of interest.  You on the other hand said you help people in obtaining certain herbs, supplements and products like cesium chloride, which has been shown to be dangerous and ineffective.  Sounds to me like sales.  You are obviously making a living somehow, and you stated earlier that these things you are helping people get are not free.  So this is not only an agenda, but again a double standard.  And it is a double standard that you want to me provide research which I have done over and over, but you refuse to do the same.

The fact that you keep trying to attack my character instead of providing the research to back your claims says it all.  Either the research does not exist or it does not show what you claim.  So all you have to come back with are your false and negative attacks on my character.  People should be calling your number and telling you to get a life!!!

Any study you don't agree with you should post contradictory study but you do not because you can not,

LOL!!!  So all those studies I posted proving things like cesium chloride is quackery was simply a figment of your imagination?!!!  This also brings up the question again about why your double standard of wanting others to provide research when you refuse to do the same despite multiple requests?

but you can say and have said that studies are often ''mischaracterize'. One of those studies I have given you and now you are asking for it again showing just how salts change polarity and increase oxygen perfusion. I sent you that study by a person with DR. as a title, a library named after him, and you discreditted it by saying it's old or mis characterized but did not present any contrary laboratory information. Just your opinion from a faceless nameless person over the internet.

When did you send me that study?  The only thing I recall you sending was that threat.  If this supposed study does exist then post it here so it can be reviewed by everyone here and they can form their own opinions based on the evidence.

I venture a guess that had those studies I posted served your agenda you would have easily remembered them and used them today.

Again, I have yet to see you post even one study. Please provide links to these posts where you claim to have posted these studies previously.

I have not contradicted anything in my posting

Of course not.  You are not going to contradict yourself on incorrect information like pure water will cause a fish to suffocate or that ozone is not dipolar.  The only way you would contradict these proven false claims is if you were to admit you were wring to begin with.  And this has yet to happen despite the evidence being presented that you were wrong.

but since you are so intent on discreditting and not learning, you have missed the whole point,

More projection.

Cancer cells as they approach a ph of 6.0 become very hot and risk becoming too acidic and too hot, this allows calcium to enter and maintains ph homeostasis, when cancer becomes more alkaline and slows down the membrane cools and calcium cannot enter once again. Sorry I had to repeat myself.

Looks like I have to repeat myself that you have yet to provide proof of this.  I also have to repeat myself that this does not have anything to do with anything since you linked this to oxygen going in to the cell, which DOES NOT cure the cancer. So even if this was true this has NOTHING to do with curing cancer.  I also have to repeat the fact from my other post "Studies I have looked at don't show this, especially with breast cancer, and extracellular calcium can increase breast cancer cell proliferation by antagonizing 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin".  Seems to me that you are trying to impress people with a bunch of big fancy scientific words, which you have no clue what they mean or how they even apply.

By the way, it has been known since ancient times that malignant tumors produce more heat that surrounding tissue.  This is why the precursor for the use of thermography for cancer dates back to the ancient Greeks.  This would apply mud over the body and look for areas that dried abnormally fast.  It was not until modern research though that it was found that the reason for this is because the cancer cells have a much higher metabolism than healthy cells and cannot dissipate heat as efficiently.  This is also why hyperthermia was being used back in the 60s to cure cancer.  Since the cancer cells could not dissipate heat as efficiently as healthy cells the cancer cells would literally be cooked while healthy cells remained uninjured.

You stated ozone causes a domino effect at the membrane and that may be true, but I have a license and I use my real name on my postings,

There is a reason I did not use my real name on posts.  There are a lot of nutcases out there attacking my and sending me threats like you know who.  I would be a fool to use my real name with nutcases like that out there.  Same reason most people here on Curezone do not use their real names.  They are not stupid.

I have a not for profit organization,

"Not for profit"?  Like the American Cancer Society (ACS), who makes billions of dollars each year by scamming people?  Not for profit does not mean squat in my eyes.  People sell stuff all the time under the guise of "non-profit" yet still make a nice living off of the sales or donations.  Look at the executives of the United Way who were busted for giving themselves outrageous salaries and using company money for other personal things.  Therefore, it seems to me you are yet showing another of your double standards as you complain about my sales while not being open about your own sales.  Difference is that I do not make my living off of selling overpriced and over hyped cancer therapies like you apparently do.  You even said earlier that you help people get pau d' arco cheaper.  Let's see, pau d' arco is about $8 a bottle or about $16/lb in bulk n health food stores.  Less than the price of one dinner.  So how much does your organization charge for this herb?  And being that it is so cheap why don't you just have people go to the health food store to get this?  Why do they have to go through you?  Is this why your agenda is to keep attacking my character since I am exposing facts like this?

I can't justify recommendations to people who are dying and support that position without knowing what those dominoes are.Is it oxidation of that membrane? If so that's all you needed to say.

Again, it has been explained numerous times.  Sorry if you do not understand the basics of chemistry to understand this concept nor the many other ways ozone helps to fight cancer.  Again, maybe you should learn some chemistry basics first, then research the posts I have done on ozone that explain all this in layman's terms so you can get up to speed.

So, in your reply to my posting you have added now a third theory on ozone kinetics, you have criticized postings by asking once again for the research, then offered your own theories without having done the same. How sad.

I have given more than three means by which ozone fights cancer, and I have posted studies on ozone and cancer.  How sad you do not understand how to read research abstracts.  Even sadder that this double standard of yours exists where you want others to post the research for you when you are unwilling to do the same despite multiple requests.  You spend all this time attacking my character because I have discredited your claims so bad with real chemistry and research abstracts.  In that time you have spent attacking my character you could have posted numerous studies to back your claims IF those studies really existed.  The fact that you have spent all that time attacking me instead of providing the research as you are demanding of other speaks volumes.

By the way some of your answers are fundamentally wrong above but I don't want to discredit you,

LOL!!!  You must make your real living as comic.  If you recall right I posted something called "PROOF" that your claims were wrong.  So now everyone who really understands chemistry is wrong in your eyes?

if it deals with cancer and surviving I will speak up, and any person with highschool chemistry can see you are wrong. No problem. I have been wrong, this isn't exact Science yet.

Please, go ahead and try to prove I was wrong.  You have already discredited yourself to the point of complete shame so you have nothing left to lose.

But when you say you cannot give me the half-life of ozone in the blood stream,...well my friend, that's a bunch of horse hair. Every molecule has a half life in the blood stream. Every single one, no matter how it got there, once it is there, it has a half life and this is an average.

I guess you also need a lesson in something called "COMMON SENSE"!!!  Actual half life and an average are not the same thing and they can vary widely.  As I pointed out there are various factors on the half life of substances entering the bloodstream depending on a number of factors.  As an example, look at the difference in half lives between oral consumption of cocaine vs. snorting it:

http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v27/n3/abs/clpt198052a.html

For that matter look up the half life of cocaine in general from different sites and see how many different half life times are listed.  Why these variations?  Simple, because there are many variables.  One of those variables, yes I am repeating myself for you AGAIN, is the route of administration.  Ozone can be given by IV, IA, ozonephoresis, major or minor AHT, subatmospheric applications, hyperbaric, bagging, different forms of insufflation, etc.  Each of these will yield a different half life.  Even a first year chemistry student would understand such a simple concept.  Secondly there is body temperature since ozone is temperature sensitive.  Then there is the factor of how much actually ends up entering the bloodstream from each method of application since it is so reactive and readily breaks down.  For example, if put in to an IV saline solution it will not survive long enough to make in to the bloodstream.  If given rectally by insufflation it can react with bacteria, feces, gases, etc. breaking down most of the ozone before being absorbed.  If given by bagging the ozone can react with oils, moisture, ammonia, etc. on the skin again breaking down much of the ozone before it enters the bloodstream.  Even once in the bloodstream there can be numerous compounds the ozone is able to react with.  Therefore, depending on what is present there will be different half lives.  Again this is not rocket science, it is very basic chemistry and common sense.  So if you want to keep embarrassing yourself keep challenging me and I will be happy to provide the evidence you are wrong.  I actually see it is as a public service as people will be more wary of you the more they see how little you know.  And the more you attack my character in lieu of providing evidence to back your claims the more you prove how little you know.

BTW, oxygen and carbon dioxide enter cells via perfusion and diffusion is more commonly associated with minerals accross a concentration gradient.

Perfusion is the delivery of nutrients, such as oxygen, though arterial blood.  So this brings up a couple of questions for you based on your comment.  Is carbon dioxide a "nutrient"?  If not then it does not go in to cells by perfusion.  Secondly, why would carbon dioxide move in to cells?  Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of energy production WITHIN cells.  So if these cells are already producing carbon dioxide why would they require the movement of more carbon dioxide in to the cells as you claim?

Oh, and by the way perfusion as I pointed out is only the delivery of nutrients through arterial blood.  So oxygen is delivered by perfusion, but enters the cells through diffusion.

Yes, it is sometimes used in conjunction with gases and so, u say tomatoe I say Tomatto. Why would I even waiste time splitting that hair if I wasn't selling myself for profit? This is what you do.

Again, having a not for profit company does not mean that you are not making a living from the sales of products.  As pointed out earlier the American Cancer Society is non-profit.  Have you seen the outrageous salaries the executives at the ACS pay themselves out of donations and other financial sources?  So again why are you deliberately misleading people by attacking my character while you clearly make a living off of selling cancer "treatment" products?

Saying that oxygen inside a cancer cell offers no results and no effects that it may increase proliferation would be an insult to all cancer patients who are looking death in the face. I take huge offense to that statment. It is fraudulent and dead wrong.

What I pointed out is that getting oxygen in to cancer cells does not cure cancer, which has been proven over and over.  As I pointed out hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) works by increasing the pressure on the cells that contain water.  Laws of physics tell us that the ability of oxygen to enter in to water is dependent on several factors including temperature and PRESSURE.  As pressure increases so does the amount of oxygen entering the cells, thus supersaturating the cells with oxygen.  Although, if the partial pressure increases beyond a certain point then oxygen toxicity can result, which is why HBOT does not normally exceed the equivalent of 60fsw.  So here we have  a method of supersaturating cancer cells with oxygen, yet it DOES NOT cure cancer.  So if you are promoting this nonsense to your clients then you are doing them a major disservice.

It is ironic though that you like to quote Warburg, yet you ignore his research in which he found that cancer cells will ferment REGARDLESS of how much oxygen is present.  For your information this is why getting oxygen in to cancer cells, including with HBOT, DOES NOT cure cancer.  I cannot explain this concept any simpler for you.  But I did find this site explaining the Warburg effect and that also states the same thing I have been telling you that cancer cells ferment regardless of the amount of oxygen present.  And they even provide little cartoon drawings to help you follow along:

http://nutritionaloncology.org/cancerCellMetabolism.html

And for those who did not require little cartoon figures:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/2/632.full

"Glycolysis, the transformation of glucose to pyruvate, is a key step for the acquisition of ATP in all mammalian cells, including cancer tissues. Glucose transporters are commonly overexpressed in human malignancies enhancing glucose influx in the proliferating cancer cells ( 1). In well-oxygenated normal cells, pyruvate enters the mitochondria where, by the enzymic activity of pyruvate dehydrogenase, it is transformed to acetyl-CoA, the substrate for ATP production through the Krebs cycle ( 2). Suboptimal oxygen availability switches on cellular metabolism to anaerobic pathways for ATP production, which occurs through pyruvate transformation to lactic acid via the catalytic activity of lactate dehydrogenase 5 (LDH5 isoenzyme; ref. 3). Certainly, the hypoxic tumor environment favors the intensification of anaerobic metabolic pathways in cancer cells. Nevertheless, for reasons rather unclear, cancer cells have an inherent tendency to turn to anaerobic glycolysis even in the presence of high oxygen tension, a phenomenon first described by Otto Warburg (Nobel Prize 1931; ref. 4). "

Increased proliferation of cancer cells when exposed to oxygen is not supported by any useful lab data that is credibly obtained. Anybody who admits cancers exploit fermentation in one breath and then state increased oxygen helps cancer proliferates doesn't know cancer and is speaking out both holes.

LOL!!!  Looks like you need another SIMPLE science lesson.  Let's start with what we all learned back in high school science regarding the definition of life.  All living things require the presence of oxygen, even if they are anaerobic cells.  Just because anaerobic cells can live in a depleted oxygen atmosphere this does not mean they can live in a total absence of oxygen.  This is why studies have shown that even cancer cells die in the absence of oxygen.  As I pointed out already and you cannot seem to comprehend, initial cancer cells still receive oxygen by diffusion of oxygen across the cell membranes.  But malignant tumors when they are first starting out do not have their own blood supply to get the small amounts of oxygen they need for their survival.  Therefore as the tumor grows the tumor becomes too thick (around 2-3mm) for oxygen to diffuse in to the mass to reach the inner tumor cells.  So they cells become hypoxic then die (necrosis) from the lack of oxygen.  In response, the cancer cells start releasing tumor angiogenic factors, primarily vascular endothelial growth factor, which stimulates the formation of blood vessels that will provide oxygen and glucose to the tumor so it can grow larger instead of being limited in size due to oxygen diffusion inhibition.  This is also why angiogenesis inhibitors are used in cancer treatment.  They cut off the oxygen and glucose supply to the tumors to stop their growth.

Maybe if you spent less time trying to sell people your cancer "treatments" you would have more time to learn something about actual cancer chemistry and physiology.

This statement requires a retraction. Oxygen never has, never will, and can never ever increase cancer cell proliferation.

And once again, if you spent less time trying to sell people your cancer "treatments" you would have more time to learn something about actual cancer chemistry and physiology.  If cancer cells can survive completely without oxygen then explain to everyone here why hypoxic cancer cells die. So no retraction is required on my part, but clearly you have a lot to learn about human and cancer chemistry and physiology.

I have had to defend that very notion against a huge medical establishment when I posted a critique on Amazone and even the board of nursing got involved, in the end, biochemistry saved my ass.

Maybe they just got tired of proving you wrong like I am.  After seeing some of your ludicrous chemistry claims I am certain that you did not save your ass with biochemistry.

A PhD biochemist saved my ass because you know that Fermentation and oxygen do not share a mutual co existnce and can never be synergistic in that co existance. Implying fermentation and oxygen are synergistic is like saying gasoline puts out fires. What a crock, it is fraudulent and it is very wrong.

I already explained why you are wrong about this above and in other posts.  But apparently you are a masochist and do not know when to throw in the towel.  So to satisfy your masochistic tendencies here goes:

https://www.medical-library.net/content/view/82/index.html

"It is interesting to note that cancer cells use sixty percent anaerobic metabolism. Anaerobic conditions may be a significant risk factor for cancer. The fact is, in normal cells both types of metabolism are going on at all times, but the experience of vital, normal health requires that aerobic metabolism predominate. That is where TNAS comes in."

So what do you think the rest of the metabolism is?  Magic metabolism?  No, it is called aerobic metabolism, WHICH REQUIRES OXYGEN.

Here is another article for you to read that discusses the utilization of oxygen by cancer cells:

http://www.tarosan.de/Coy_science_p53_mitochondrien.pdf

And another one:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/2/632.full

"In contrast to tumor-associated fibroblasts, the newly formed endothelial cells expressed GLUT1 well above the levels exhibited by mature colon vessels, suggesting active uptake of glucose from the blood stream, ready to be used aerobically for energy production. The oxygen, diffused through the tumor-associated vasculature, seems to be necessary for the survival of intratumoral endothelium and stroma but is unlikely to have a major contribution to energy production for cancer cells, as it is indicated by the low PDH, high PDK1, high LDH5, and high GLUT1 cancer cell reactivity."

Here is another really interesting scientific study that backs what I have been saying:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/27/6_Part_1/1020.full.pdf

You may find this statement from this link particularly interesting:

"The experimental procedure showed very clearly that the 3 tumors studied were able to remove oxygen from blood as well as or better than non-neoplastic tissues. This would not be expected to occur if any impairment of the ability to utilize oxygen did involve the neoplastic cells in vivo. A deficiency of oxygen produced by hypo-oxygenation was unable to induce an appreciable increase of blood flow through the tumor. From our data, one would expect that in vivo the tumors will compensate for a deficiency of oxygen by an increase of the oxygen removal ratio rather than by an increased blood flow."

So why would malignant cells be so much more efficient in removing oxygen if that oxygen was not necessary for their survival?

And more on glycolysis by cancer cells in the presence of oxygen:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/2/632.full

"Thompson et al. showed in a recent study that activation of a single oncogene, Akt, is sufficient to stimulate aerobic glycolysis in tumors ( 5)"

And:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/11/3892.abstract

"Cancer cells frequently display high rates of aerobic glycolysis in comparison to their nontransformed counterparts"

Then there is this study backing what I have been saying all along that getting oxygen in to cancer cells, even with HBOT, does not cure cancer:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360301686901525

"These data suggest that activation of the Akt oncogene is sufficient to stimulate the switch to aerobic glycolysis characteristic of cancer cells and that Akt activity renders cancer cells dependent on aerobic glycolysis for continued growth and survival."

Oops, your ass just got a major scientific whooping!!!

Since you are marketing products, making that kind of statement does and will expose you to legal troubles.

ROTFLMAO!!!!  Don't make me give you a major legal whooping now!!!  You clearly know less about legal than you do medical, which is very little to begin with.

So, stay tuned for all those wonderful laboratory studies that prove that oxygen and mineral concentrations share a direct proportional relationship. How this affects membrane polarity.

I have been waiting for a while for you to provide evidence to your claims despite multiple requests.  This is why it makes me wonder if you even have any evidence.  But it has already been proven that mineralized water DOES NOT allow more oxygen to enter water as you incorrectly claimed.  And I can care less about membrane polarity since it has already been shown that increasing oxygen levels within cancer cells does not cure cancer.  But if you have any evidence that increasing oxygen levels in cancer cells cures cancer in vivo this is what I and I am sure a lot of other people here would love to see.

As with ozone. I stand by its benefits but if you don't take heavy mineral salts with it and in the correct dosage you are fighting a war that can kill you and choosing to leave the Navy out of that war.

ROTFLMAO!!!!  How ludicrous!!!  ozone has been used to cure cancer for a lot longer time than dangerous compounds like cesium chloride have been around.  How long has cesium chloride been used this way?  Ozone therapy has been around since 1892!!!

Leaving out a branch of the military is no way to win a war that may kill you.
Using ozone as a single bullet is no way to survive a deadly disease.

You clearly have no understanding of how ozone works or other cancer therapies for that matter.

Sure, you might win! Go ahead leave out other weapons!

I don't leave out other "weapons".  I also recommend certain herbs and even Rife units using the 666hz frequency, both of which can be quite effective and safe.  But they still are not as effective as ozone, especially when it comes to advanced cancers.

What I don't promote are dangerous therapies that have shown little success rates such as cesium chloride.  Nor would I recommend silver, Essiac or aloes.  Pau d' arco is a great herb for blood and lymphatic cancers, but should be combined with other herbs such as chaparral and andrographis, especially for non blood and lymphatic cancers.