Hmmm. . . . . cancer and baking soda

bump

I've heard about people using it to clear out cancer cells (since they are always in our body) and read about it's great preventative measures. It would not surprise me if there are people out there using it in more serious, maybe even terminal, cases. Not to mention baking soda can be used for like everything- and it costs nothing. Of course I'm one of those crazy people that believes nutrition can cure anything (and that's based on testimonies of people who have used nutrition to cure their sicknesses). Pair that with a good.clean purifier and it would give your body some solid tools to get rid of the bad stuff. Wouldn't it be great if we attacked diseases with both nutrition and some of the great medical discoveries we've made in this century and previously!

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense.

The medical establishment is not a single entity. The health-care industry includes physicians, nurses, other health professionals, insurance companies, private consumer organizations, universities, government agencies (such as the FDA), hospitals, HMOs, other managed-care organizations, professional organizations (such as the AMA), pharmaceutical companies, and other private corporations. These groups may have competing interests; and, within each group, individual members may also have competing interests, and many have no financial stake in patient care. Some private physicians get paid for each patient they see, but others do not. Most who work for HMOs or other managed-care organizations are either salaried or capitated (receiving a fixed monthly sum per patient not per service). Those who pursue an academic career may be salaried and/or obtain money from research grants. For physicians on fixed incomes, more patients means more work, but not more money. Some physicians dedicate their career to public health and do not see patients at all. And if an expensive cancer treatment could be replaced by something much less costly, insurance companies would embrace it.

The medical professionals most likely to know about a new cancer cure would be those in academic medicine and research. New potential treatments are usually discovered by basic scientists who do laboratory research on the underlying mechanisms of disease. Their findings then suggest possible treatment strategies for those diseases. Drug companies or research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Cancer Institute (NCI), then fund clinical research to see whether the potential new treatment works—first on animals and then on humans. The final arbiter of such new treatments is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which decides whether new treatments are safe and effective for their intended purposes. Most cancer treatment is administered by surgeons, radiologists, and cancer specialists who administer chemotherapy. The majority of doctors don't treat patients for cancer.

What about scientists who discover new treatments? If they can demonstrate effectiveness, publishing their data will bring them fame and fortune. The benefits could include research grants, academic promotion, enhanced research facilities, speaking invitations, honors, awards, and other career opportunities. Even scientists who are selfish and greedy would have much to gain by making their information public—and so would the institutions in which they work.

What about drug companies? Won't they simply abandon a new drug that threatens their existing drugs? This scenario is also far-fetched. Drug companies are continuously looking for new drugs, because existing drugs have patents that will run out. Also, any company that can market a new drug that is effective against cancer will come out billions of dollars ahead, even if existing drugs become obsolete. Some conspiracy theorists claim that drug companies ignore "natural" substances that cannot be patented and therefore cannot be profitable. However, if a natural substance is found useful, drug companies can develop related chemicals that are more effective.

Even if a short-sighted drug company executive decided to suppress a new drug because it was too effective, the scientists involved might still go public with the information, for the general good if for no other reason. Among the dozens of people who have inside knowledge, someone is likely to have a conscience. The need for drug company support could be eliminated by obtaining a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Also, if the treatment really worked, other researchers would eventually be able to demonstrate to the world that the treatment did in fact cure cancer. This has never been done for any supposedly "suppressed" cancer cure.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that if a simple and inexpensive replacement for today's treatments were found tomorrow, all U.S. medical schools would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, because cancer treatment is such an important part of their income. This assertion has several flaws:

A "simple and inexpensive" replacement for today's treatments is very unlikely. Cancer is not a single disease, but group of more than 100 different types. No single treatment has proven effective for every cancer, and no such "magic bullet" is likely to be discovered in the near future. Even if a magic bullet could be found, it would not be available soon and extensive testing would be required before standard treatments could be ethically abandoned in its favor. The necessary research would take many years, giving hospitals and medical schools time to adapt. Physicians and researchers would not be put out of work by any such innovation. If the new treatment results in an oversupply of cancer specialists, fewer physicians-in-training would choose this specialty, and some oncologists would retrain for another type of practice. Some researchers might need to change the focus of their research, but their basic skills should make that simple. Widespread adoption of a quack cancer treatment would actually be the biggest threat its promoters could face, because competition would cause the price to drop.

Because standard medicine is based largely upon science and evidence, medical practice is constantly changing. New treatments, procedures, and avenues of research are created as our knowledge expands. Every time a new treatment is discovered, an older treatment becomes obsolete, or at least less important. Progress strengthens the health-care industry and is not a threat to it. Half a century ago, tuberculosis (TB) was widespread and incurable, entire hospitals were dedicated to the care of chronic cases. After antibiotics became available, the TB hospitals were emptied and TB specialists were rarely needed. The new TB treatments were not suppressed because of the impact they would have. Instead, the hospitals were converted for other uses and the specialists changed their practice.

Remember, too, that physicians, basic scientists, and even pharmaceutical company executives are people, with family and loved ones of their own. Many of the supposed conspirators are likely to be affected by cancer—either themselves or within their family and friends. It is difficult to imagine that anyone could be greedy and short-sighted enough to condemn their loved ones—and even themselves—to a premature death from cancer, no matter what the possible gain.


-Dr. Novella, a member of Quackwatch's advisory board, is Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and president of the The New England Skeptical Society.

http://www.bamboo-delight.com/download/Cure_Cancer_with_Baking_Soda.htm


I heard that there was a study going on about cancer being CURED by baking soda, I did not believe it!! I typed it " cancer baking soda" into my search engine on the web and WHAM!!! There are a sights that support this doctor of out Italy who has treated people with baking soda to cure cancer. Some of it makes sense, other parts of it are hard to believe. Is it true???? that 400 people who had cancer are now cured??? Does anyone know about this?? Any info on this is welcomed!! Thanks

There is a huge amount of garbage and patently false information on the internet.

I don't trust the big pharm companies after working in the medical field. It's easier to make money by keeping you sick for the rest of your life than it is to cure you. They've also already found that food grade hydrogen peroxide can cure cancer too.

In a petri dish.

Almost anything an kill cancer in a petri dish, including oxygen.

Biology is unfortunately not nearly as simple as people seem to think it is.

^^^ This, exactly! Why do people insist on believing that "big Pharma" is out to do nothing but make money by keeping people sick? If there was a pill that would make us live a viable, healthy life, to the age of 200, "big Pharma" would market it for all it's worth to sell it, even if people never got sick again. Why? Because they could make a profit! That's why they're in business, you know. Same way McDonald's is. And if water was such a magical cure all against the evils of soda/artificial sweeteners/junk/toxins, people 200 years ago would have lived to the ripe old age of 100. Not an average age of 35. Life span has gotten longer BECAUSE of the medical establishment. Not in spite of it. Really, a modicum of study of the hard sciences would illuminate a lot of minds.

it's said that EVERYONE with cancer has a very low pH level (acidity level).

By whom? This isn't true.

i started testing my alkaline with pH strips that i bought from the pharmacy. it's said that EVERYONE with cancer has a very low pH level (acidity level). do you know what the absolute WORST food/drink you can put into your body? artificial sweetener and soda. so if you drink diet soda, thats a big no-no. it takes about 8-10 glasses of water to flush out a cup of soda. why bother drinking it?? the best two foods for an alkaline level is lemons and watermelon.

i also think the pharmacy companies run a money racket, its horrible.

I rarely comment on these sort of threads, but I fail to see out Lemons can improve Alkaline levels, when they are one of the citrus fruits with the highest levels of Citric Acid.

I don't trust the big pharm companies after working in the medical field. It's easier to make money by keeping you sick for the rest of your life than it is to cure you. They've also already found that food grade hydrogen peroxide can cure cancer too.

today on the doctor oz show it talked about big pharm companies and how our nation is over medicated. check out his website, very informative.

There is no money in curing cancer. Therefore there will never be a cure.

i thought the same thing and asked my son who is a chemical engineer. Lemon water can stabilize your pH level and blood sugar, helping your body naturally detoxify. Though lemons are often thought to be acidic, they actually have a pH level higher then seven, which means they have an alkalizing effect on the body. This will cancel out some of the excess acid stored in the body.

Show me the research (or is it being covered up by the big pharmaceutical companies??????)

There is no money in curing cancer. Therefore there will never be a cure.

Complete and total bull****. There is a TON of money in it, and a TON of research going on as we speak.

I wish people would THINK about what they are preaching. Seriously.

i thought the same thing and asked my son who is a chemical engineer. Lemon water can stabilize your pH level and blood sugar, helping your body naturally detoxify. Though lemons are often thought to be acidic, they actually have a pH level higher then seven, which means they have an alkalizing effect on the body. This will cancel out some of the excess acid stored in the body.

Pseudo science at it's best.

A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I am going to say as someone with a DX of cancer. I would be willing to try almost anything and that is where some of these things come from. People are more desprate then I am to stay alive and not suffer. I have eatting more asparagus, taken asprian, and now just sticking with the excersizeing and watching what I eat. I dont think there is any magic cures. So I am no longer trying all the crazy stuff I hear about. I Pray others dont either.

^^^ This, exactly! Why do people insist on believing that "big Pharma" is out to do nothing but make money by keeping people sick? If there was a pill that would make us live a viable, healthy life, to the age of 200, "big Pharma" would market it for all it's worth to sell it, even if people never got sick again. Why? Because they could make a profit! That's why they're in business, you know. Same way McDonald's is. And if water was such a magical cure all against the evils of soda/artificial sweeteners/junk/toxins, people 200 years ago would have lived to the ripe old age of 100. Not an average age of 35. Life span has gotten longer BECAUSE of the medical establishment. Not in spite of it. Really, a modicum of study of the hard sciences would illuminate a lot of minds.

Actually, to be fair, the ability to drink lots of water safely is a consequence of modern sanitation. Beer, wine, etc used to be much more typical drinks because they were safer than water.

Also, the average age was pulled down tremendously by the tendency to die in childhood. Benjamin Franklin, for example, lived to be 84 years old. That wasn't outlandish even at the time.

If you could change nothing whatsoever about the lifestyles of people 200 years ago other than giving them good sanitation and access to modern antibiotics (which the drug companies aren't working terribly hard on trying to develop more of, btw, because they're not as profitable as developing another cholesterol drug), we would probably see a very different average lifespan in that time period than we did.

I don't intend any of this to mean that water IS a miracle cure that will fix absolutely everything. However, I do think that you should hold off on talking about how other people need a "modicum of study" when your own information is so poor.

The reality is that the big pharmaceutical companies actually are, as a whole, out to do nothing but make as much money as possible. If they make people sick in the process, that's something that they're clearly prepared to live with based on all of the evidence that has come out over the years about them doing things like hiding serious known dangers of their drugs and continuing to sell them. For example, there was the $3 billion settlement Glaxo had to pay to make the investigations go away into the fact that they were illegally marketing Avandia, paying off doctors and manipulating medical research to push its use, in spite of the fact that it was known to cause heart problems.

There are also good things that come from the pharmaceutical companies, but that's not because they're benevolent and want us to be healthy. They're out to get all of the money they can, and it's healthy to exercise a certain amount of skepticism about anything they say because they have a track record of knowingly selling things that were likely to harm the people who took them (and sometimes trying to prevent people from being aware that the risk existed).

Perhaps you want to reread my post. I clearly said pharma companies are out to make profit. However, they aren't holding back cures to keep you sick. That was my point. Also, if you recall, I was noting that water is not a cure all, and that modern science (sanitation, antibiotics) is extending the lifespan of the current population. Of course people drank other liquids, please don't convolute my words to make your own dig. I was trying to make a short, concise rebuttal, not develop a thesis. You can cherry pick any report or statistic to prove your point, but the reality is, we don't have to rely on simple word of mouth or what "everyone" says. A little research goes a long way. Shall I now look for benevolent pharma stories to dispute your claim? Actually I'd prefer people showed a little skepticism and did some research on reliable sources. You seem to have made basically the same points I was making while throwing caustic remarks about my lack of study into the mix. I can assure you, that is not the case.