Date:   11/7/2012 3:14:37 PM ( 12 y ago)
Hits:   5,325
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2004218

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

I believe there is much truth in what Marc Swanepoel has theorized.

The obvious and logical question that always arises when talking about causes of cancer is this...what came first chicken or the egg.

Studies have shown that cellular hypoxia causes a very specific gene mutation where an Allele group attaches to specific gene.

Well, if this mutation happens all the time...is so specific they can identify it as first sequence in a domino effect....then maybe it's not even a mutation but a cellular response.

The key factor is cellular hypoxia in this study which I am trying to find for you, and when talking hypoxia of course mitochondria becomes topic of discussion and then comes glutathione.

We can identify many causes of cellular hypoxia and get bogged down in this discussion but what is known is that inflamation leads to cellular hypoxia, period. A thickened cell membrane will cause hypoxia. Infection, carcinogens, injury, mechanical stress, oxidative stress are inflamatory.

So, if a cell has normal mitochondrial function it will still become hypoxic if stressed. It will still have gene alteration, start to ferment glucose, and hyperplasia mechansim may get switched on even if glutathione is normal.

So, attributing all cancer to mitochondrial defect or depletion of Glutathione is quite a leap...albeit...with some evidence to support that leap...but Marc's theory itself starts to unravel under this notion that simple inflamation will cause cellular hypoxia with or without glutathione issue. Not to say hypoxia is never a mitochondrial issue because some hypoxia can be mitochondrial defect.

I have seen patients who received glutathione in IV's and it did absolutely nothing. But still there is much evidence that it should be beneficial. Again we come back to dosing and augmentation in this discussion on glutathione...it also can be given in activate form or pre activation form and this may impact results as well. So we will get back to glutathione in a bit.

Many plant alkaloids also promoted by Marc, are weak bases containing oxygen...Most alkaloids are nitrogen based phenols which are characterized by high absorbtion ratios. This means they absorb fast and are alkaline and may be pro oxidant. So naturally they would have some anti cancer activity in vitro. But the minute a person states cancer is caused by Glutathione deficiency so take Glutathione...then why must we start adding other things to this protocol? If its just a glutathione issue then why the addition of other substances to a glutathione based cancer theory? Is it glutathione or isn't it?

So this tells us that the theory is not that solid and that results now have become skewed for if the protocol works...was it the glutathione or was it the alkaloids?

Since Marc is promoting a strategy that appears to be pro oxidant and alkaline we should see that this theory falls right into line with many,many other cancer theories and treatments. That Marc is on the right path and has some validity in what he is saying.

In conclusion we must uderstand that cancer therapies should not be narrow but broad...that we should combine alkaline therapies with pro oxidant therapies, (which one single alkaloid can start to do and may in fact fit that scenario and strategy.) We should also see that we must change our diets as well and also focus on adding substances that up-regulate the immune system.

We support the use of Glutathione and Oleandrin and will never tell anyone NOT to do these therapies...what we will say is test your ph, test your lactic acid...and if you aren't seeing your ph going up and your lactic acid going down...then it's time you crank up pro oxidant mechanisms and alkaline salts above and beyond what you are doing. By testing lactic acid you can see very early in your treatments if you are impacting cancer's metabolic activity. Since the earliest indicator is lactic acid production why wouldn't you want to test this in two weeks...why would you wait months for PET scan or tumor markers?

Peace
Bret Peirce
American Cancer Advocates






 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2004218