Re: A brief Descriiption of Body Chemistry BTI style:

You are definitely the king of misdirection and misinformation!!!

For someone with supposedly so much schooling you obviously know very little about some of the basics of the human body. For instance you still do not understand the fact that the pH of blood can be altered. Do you even know why certain acids MUST BE PRESENT in the blood for our survival? Apparently not!

And picking on my phrase of "wipe out" is the best you can do. Wipe out means to destroy, and yes bicarbonate destroys the stomach acid. All the terms lead to the same thing. So if that is the best you can do then I can see your desperation in trying to prove me wrong.

As for all your claims about hydrochloric acid, again you are unaware of a VERY important fact. Stomach acid naturally declines with age. It is this lack of stomach acid that leads to many of our aging problems because of the inability to absorb nutrients properly. For example declining silica levels due to acid declines leads to problems like osteoporosis, diverticulitis, emphysema, aneurysms, heart disease, wrinkles, etc. Lack of stomach acid leads to lowered absorption of B12, folate and B6 can greatly increase the risk of heart disease by increasing homocysteine levels. Using your own games, have you warned the FDA or Arm and Hammer about these dangers? Have you contacted the makers of Tums? I suppose you think that heart attacks are less dangerous than cancer again according to your reasoning. Do you see how stupid your games and reasoning are?!!!

Not to mention that lowering stomach acid allows for pathogens to survive that can cause cancer. Need an example? How about Helicobacter pylori? Do you know why this cancer causing bacteria releases ammonia in the stomach? If you can answer this then you will see that your hypothesis is way off base!

>With cancer I have repeatedly stated that baking soda is not so effective for
>cancer as the possitive ion sodium does not cross over into cancer cells.

Why do you think that sodium cannot readily enter cancer cells. Maybe you need to contact the medical establishment with your AMAZING finding because they disagree with you:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9216787


J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1996;15(2-4):65-73.

Potassium, sodium, and cancer: a review.

"Agents known or believed to be carcinogenic decrease the concentration of potassium and increase the concentration of sodium in the cells. Anticarcinogenic agents have the opposite effect."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3527413?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.P...


Cancer Detect Prev. 1986;9(3-4):171-94.

Geographic cancer risk and intracellular potassium/sodium ratios.

"A number of independent studies showed that the concentration of intracellular potassium was negatively correlated to cancer rates, whereas the concentration of intracellular sodium was positively correlated to cancer rates. "

You can check Medline for more proof you are wrong again.

And you keep referring to oxygen not being able to enter cells if the cellular pH is acidic. Do you even have a basic clue what the role of oxygen is in maintaining proper pH? Or did they not teach you that in your pseudoschool? Speaking of which are you aware of all the other ways the body regulates its pH. Let's see how many of these ways you can name.

>Whether cancer loves acid or produces acid, whether the acid is byproduct or >intentional, whether cancer hates oxygen or is indifferent to oxygen one thing we >both agree on that it ferments glucose! This, producing acid. It's been proven >lower ph prevents O2 absorbtion, this has been proven.

Any scientific proof of this causing or contributing to cancer? Or is this just more unproven hypothesis? If you ever get around to answering my question about the role of oxygen with pH you will see why your hypothesis is severely lacking!

>If you were going to discover a cure for this disease, how would you capitolize >upon this fact, cancer ferments glucose?

Let's see, I could block the lactic acid cycle. This has already been done though with drugs like hydrazine sulfate, but it is not 100% effective. So I would probably ignore this tactic, and rely on cancer's fundamental flaw, which is a peroxide intolerance. Thus I prefer ozone therapy.

>IT has been proven,...I mean proven that high doses of citrate stops, prevent, >halts, forbids glycolysis and fermentation.

Again scientific proof in human studies? Or just conjecture? By the way, what is wrong with glycolysis? Without it we would all be dead. Or didn't your pseudoschool teach you that fact?

>You are right that it forms- MG(OH)2, in water. In stomach acid it doesn't! It >carries out the same acid base reaction that buffering agents do.
>Do you know what you get when you mix MGO with HCL? Oh yeah!

Oh yeah, that is ASSUMING that you have enough stomach acid to convert all the MgOH. As I already pointed out though stomach acidity DECREASES with age. So once again your ignorance has lead to a very misleading conclusion!

>People drink oral peroxide. Isn't it caustic? You bet it is! Poor it on your skin! >Why aren't you jumping up and down about H202.

I cannot believe that I have to explain something so basic to someone that supposedly has such a college background. Whether or not peroxide is caustic all boils down to concentration. A spill of 100% peroxide will set asphalt on fire. Getting 35% on the skin can cause some damage to tissues, but not near as much as 100% peroxide. The common 3% peroxide sold in stores will hardly cause any damage to healthy tissues, but can still make someone vomit if ingested. The amount of peroxide naturally found in rainwater will not harm the tissues at all, and if the rainwater is ingested we will not vomit from the peroxide. And the amount of peroxide generated in the body from the NK cells, SOD, and the flora again have no damaging effects on healthy tissue. I guess in your case desperation just leads to stupidity!

>Never mind that all have clinical, laboratory studies supporting their efficacy. >Albeit some of it is indeed animal and invitro data, I must admit.

"Some of it"? Let's see any verified clinical studies to back your claims about baking soda and cancer.

>,....you imply that vitamins are more dangerous than killer diseases.

Are you really that stupid?!!!! Where did I say vitamins were dangerous? Yes, some like vitamin A can be, but that is not what we were talking about. We are talking about baking soda, which IS NOT a vitamin!!! Do you even know what the definition of a vitamin is? How do you fit baking soda in to that definition?

> Has lab data supporting efficacy or Has a licensed expert promoting its efficacy >(especially Nobel Prize Winning scientists)

Who are these scientists? What were their prizes for? And what exactly did they say about these therapies, and what was their basis. I noticed you have a tendency to keep referring to Noble Prize winners and studies, but never provide a clear basis for these. This is a common tactic I have seen numerous times on other debate boards from people that did not have a clue what they were talking about. So they made up lies to sound more impressive, but could not or would not provide any evidence to their claims. So I am calling you on your claims right here, right now. If you cannot provide the evidence then we will all know who is using as you said "conjecture, exaggerations, mischaracterizations, assumptions, and loosely connected facts". Please be specific in your evidence, and make it verifiable.

>But if it makes you feel any better,....I still love ozone!!!

Good, because it has a lot higher success rate that what you have claimed for baking soda, and it is much safer!!! Oh, by the way for all your talk about oxygen it does not sound like you understand the fact that oxygen therapies and peroxide therapy ARE NOT the same as oxygen, NOR do they have the same effects. Ozone and peroxide can do many things that oxygen CANNOT do. And they are not pH dependent to work either.

>I'll say a prayer that you do not burn in hell for stearing people away from >alternative therapies

Oh no!!! Not another one of those hell, fire, and brimstone religious freaks!!! Please, keep your religion out of these debates. I cannot stand those God hating, religious zealots that choose to believe what they want to believe so they can justify their illegal and immoral actions!!! If they really loved God then they would not spend so much energy showing how much they hate God's creations (other people)by ignoring God's law to not judge. So keep your hypocritical religious comments to yourself!

by implying the therapy could be more dangerous than the disease itself!!

I did not imply that. That is your exaggeration and misreading in an attempt to win a debate over a subject that you obviously know very little about! What I was pointing out is that there are risks not being discussed. And I have pointed out that there are safer and considerably more effective therapies out there, like ozone, with some actual evidence behind them.

>Aren't you the same guy who stated 20,000 mg of oral ascorbates are dangerous even >though they are infusing people with 80,000 to 100,000 mg intravenously in just >about every state in the union?

Aren't you the same guy that was never able to refute that fact? Are you really claiming that the medical establishment and all the award winning scientists are wring when they pointed out that high dose vitamin C could among other things cause kidney stones? And that vitamin C can be a pro-oxidant? And that people going off cold turkey could develop rebound scurvy? Or any of the other known dangers for this practice?

And by your argument we can say that Aspartame and ibuprofen are perfectly safe because they are FDA approved, and sold in EVERY state in the Union, as well as other countries. So do you think Aspartame is safe? Again, according to your faulty reasoning it is. And do you think ibuprofen is safe even though it killed 2 dozen people during clinical trials from ibuprofen induced hepatitis? Again by your own reasoning it has to be safe. Just goes to show how just a little ignorance can lead to great problems.

>No wonder you wont reveal your identity or background! I wouldn't either if I were >you.

I have to people here that need to know, and that I trust. I don't trust nutcases, especially when they are determined to find out who I am. No telling what kind of things these nutcases will do, especially religious zealots like those that feel it is OK to kill in the name of God!!! Not that this is you. I don't know you well enough to know if you are one of these nutcases. By the same token though I don't know you well enough to know if you are not one of these nutcases. At least I see you are not trying to impress people anymore with your so-called credentials. That is a good start.

>ps
>I'll see you in heaven.

Yes, I will be there. You? Well maybe. Don't worry, I will put a good word in for you.
Tweet