- Barry wrote: does baking soda alkalise the digestive system or the blood? or both?
J R Fibonacci Hunn Let’s start simple. Every pancreas on this planet (in every animal that has a functioning pancreas) makes baking soda (NaHCO3- which is in the picture above is in the bottom left in the blue text).
It is released in to the very top of the small intestine to neutralize the intense acidity that is present when the contents of the stomach are releasedin to the small intestines (which SHOULD contain a lot of HCl- hydrochoric acid). The acidity of HCl and the alkalinity of the baking soda mix to produce NaCl (salt) and H2O (water).
For more info, see: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/how-much-salt-and…/
J R Fibonacci Hunn Baking soda is commonly used (typically, when moistened with water) on the skin for countering any type of acidic inflammation, such as from a bee sting. It is also used in foot baths or full-body bathing.
Consuming baking soda in a liquid may or maynot be favorable depending on the person and the dosage. (For instance, since cancer is basically a label for the effects of an acidic pH in a particular tissue or region, baking soda has been used orally to treat cancer, but solutions – liquids- with baking soda have also been directly injected in to acidic areas to neutralize the acidity and discontinue the effects of the acidity- which can be labeled “cancer”).
For more info, see: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/…/baking-soda-cures…/
J R Fibonacci Hunn Taking baking soda orally is typically the method that people have used to excess, leading to reducing the acid levels of the stomach to the point of causing a huge cascade of negative effects resulting from incomplete digestion of proteins. The acidity of the stomach is THE mechanism for digesting proteins and if it does not happen there, then undigested proteins beyond the stomach are likely to be attacked as foreign proteins.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Another term for that is “an allergic reaction to the proteins in food.” Compromising the digestive process by raising the pH of the stomach so much that the stomach acid is ineffective… can be disastrous.
Also, given that the masses of people consume so little seafood or other food rich in iodine, the massive deficiencies of iodine lead directly to a deficiency in stomach acid, and that means that even small amounts of baking soda added orally can be quite unfavorable because the organism’s digestive function is already so compromised.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, even though there is an intense emotional hysteria regarding baking soda and salt amongst certain “alternative health” enthusiasts, that is the logical equivalent of the mainstream paranoia about cholesterol [which I address in detail in the previous blog], saturated fat, or unpasteurized mammary fluids (milk). Human bodies make these things for a reason. Discard the mainstream religions of hysteria (if relevant, one hysteria at a time).
J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is a picture again showing NaHCO3 (baking soda) in the pancreas ready to be released in to the upper small intestines. Keep in mind the simplicity of the issues here.
J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, here is a news item about $2 million of funding in 2012 for baking soda as a cancer treatment at University of Arizona. I have criticized the ignorance of the PhDs (directly to them) in their use of terminology like this:
“… acid destroys surrounding tissue, which allows the tumor to grow, invade surrounding areas, and metastasize to other organs in the body.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn They are still talking about cancer from a model of 19th century demon worship. Yes, acids rips apart molecules and destroys tissue, then that accumulation of non-functioning matter can increase in size- but it is not ALIVE, so it does not GROW. Acidity is not a living creature (a demon) that INVADES other areas.
If enough acidity is present in a tissue, that will destroy the tissue and lead to the accumulation of the waste that has not yet been removed. That can be labeled a cancerous tumor.
Cancer is not alive. Cancer is not a demon. Most MDs are just unaware of the lack of scientific credibility in their “religion.”
J R Fibonacci Hunn Valerie, it is understandable to sometimes have an orientation of resolving problems. However, such a “remedial” model (which is “against problems” as in “allopathic”) will never produce the efficiency of a holistic model.
People who are seeking remedies operate in a very different “wavelength” than those simply focused on promoting health. They suppress symptoms and manage symptoms. That is one way to proceed but can eventually produce catastrophes.
So, anyone appraoching health with an exclusive emphasis on diet or nutrition is not operating from holism. Anyone focusing on biochemistry is missing the much more efficient realm of electromagnetics (physics), which includes the issue of pH / acidity / voltage.
Voltage is a scale that measures electromagnetic charge. So is pH. They are like fahrenheit and celsius. The vast majority of people do not comprehend the simplicity and basics of physics, and so they argue about biochemical remedies (dietary changes) and so forth.
That could be like building a house with your eyes closed. Sure, it can be done, but it can be confusing and frustrating. Why not open your eyes while building a house? Why not set aside the inefficiencies and confusions of a biochemical, remedial orientation?
One issue is that there is so much social reinforcement (including the propaganda of public schools and so on) that promotes the use of models developed in the 19th century. (Many of those models were also discarded by leaders in their fields within that same century, but how many people today know that?)
Valerie Steinfeld J R, you just identified 5 factors that help to form a bigger perspective from which to look and improve health and life. I believe we are saying the same thing. I was giving you a compliment. I hope that came through in my communication. Improvement comes with an increase in understanding and awareness. The more understanding and awareness, the greater the improvement. You are adding to understanding and awareness with your insight and information. I appreciate you. I do feel that there are problems that come up in life and in living to resolve. Resolving them effectively leads to happiness. How is that remedial? I agree with you that allopathic approach is a tunnel vision approach. It is difficult for me to tell sometimes whether you are disagreeing with what I am saying or simply making another point! Have a good Sunday! Val
J R Fibonacci Hunn “Tunnel vision” has many forms. That was my point (distinct from yours, but related).
Anything that is not a holistic model that studies how a healthy organism functions will never provide the efficiency of that perspective. So, we can be skeptical about the way that the researchers at the Univ. of Arizona report their findings. Their findings are useful as evidence, but of what?
If they base their conceptual model on what I am calling 19th century demon worship, which they clearly do, then that explains why their results show only a tiny fraction of the effectiveness of the actual trail-blazing researchers in health. They may have results maybe 500 times as efficient as chemotherapy. So what? That is 1/100th of what is easily available. (10 years ago, I would have been excited by that, but today that seems trivial.)
What will get publicity? The U of A research.
What will not get publicity? The research of folks like Jerry Tennant, MD (for instance) who in two minutes could dispel 90% of the pseudo-scientific presumptions of the mainstream model of demon worship [and a fair amount of my comments on the issue of cancer are abbreviated paraphrases of his comments and findings].
Further, the chemotherapy lobbyists are not going to just suddenly disappear. Their interest is profit, not health. No government agency is every going to approach the scientific efficiency of leading independent researchers. Bureaucracies cannot operate with that degree of flexibility.
Isn’t it fascinating that the U of A researchers (among millions of others) continue to speak of cancer as a living entity that spreads and grows and “attacks?” To me, that is remarkable.
Valerie Steinfeld Fascinating…but honestly words and their nuances of meaning can be an infuriating way to communicate especially when you cannot see someone and I feel that we are distinct ships passing in the night. I am not sure that counts for real communication!!!! I am not certain how the University of Arizona comes into play here, but you possibly posted something about it earlier in the thread? Don’t know.
I acknowledge and understand what you are saying. To simplify: Problems present themselves. A wholistic view is best to carry forth resolution. If I am inaccurate or not using the correct words, forgive me, but I do intuit we are in agreement!Barry, I hope you have gotten some answers that are helpful to you!
J R Fibonacci Hunn One point was that the research at any university (such as U of A) will typically get more publicity than the results of a single practitioner (or even a group). It could be important to realize that the mainstream media (and mainstream schools) are not primarily vehicles for promoting intelligence, but for promoting the special interests of those who form those organizations and fund their operations. The media will typically be unreceptive to “independent researchers” (especially research that would “offend” their advertisers) and will only publicize things like university research, plus only in certain cases and only in certain ways.
(Also, Valerie, yes I posted a link way back there to research at U of A establishing that drinking water with baking soda has been documented as reversing a variety of forms of cancer.)
J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, I have been offering a holistic view. An example is this: someone contacts me and says that they have a list of problems.
I say “let’s focus instead on what promotes health” and then go through a hierarchy of issues, asking them what they are doing or not doing. In many cases, one or two very basic changes can resolve a huge list of medical complications with a single method.
To a mainstream medical practitioner, they would see arthritis, bursitis, leaky gut syndrome, GERD, fibromyalgia, bone cancer, and skin cancer. They might have 7 different treatments to inefficiently address each diagnostic label independently.
To me, I would see 7 forms of one thing: inflammation. What causes inflammation? Acidity reliably causes inflammation, like if you dip your hand in some battery acid briefly, your skin will AT LEAST get inflamed, right?
Acidity at a joint causes joint inflammation, which is labeled “arthritis.” (Note that when a TV ad says “arthritis causes joint inflammation” that is like saying “heat causes a high temperature.”)
Acidity in the upper small intestines causes inflammation of the intestinal wall (AKA leaky gut syndrome). Each various location of acidity (like acidosis of the blood etc) will get a different label by an MD as if there is something fundamentally distinct about that inflammation from the rest of the inflammatory symptoms in the patient.
J R Fibonacci Hunn So, the MD’s conceptual model may be “reductionist” and therefore their treatment methods tend to be complicated and inefficient (as they “attack” each symptom as if it is an isolated thing). In a week, I can produce results that they might not produce in a decade.
How? Stop contributing to ANY inflammation and start countering ALL of the inflammation… very efficiently.
I do not get confused by the diagnostic labels like MDs seem to be. I do not relate to arthritis as a mysterious cause. I relate to it as an incidental label for a [predictable] effect.
How a holistic model avoids the confusions of reductionist medical “demon worship”