About 17 months ago, I wrote an article called “Baking soda cures demonic possession by cancer,” in which I poked fun at certain presumptions that are commonly made when people talk about diagnostic labels like “an incurable cancer.” A primary “target” of my criticisms (whom I selected simply for convenience, since I could have picked thousands of similar examples) was a researcher at the University of Arizona. Today, nearly 17 months later, he publicly replied on the blog (although back when I wrote the article, I emailed it to his co-worker Steve Delgado to forward to him and I got no reply to that). The original article (and Marty’s reply) is here: http://wp.me/punib-5VO
I also will put his reply further down in this publication, as well as my public reply back to him. First, here is a little background on him and where he works:
Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry & Biochemistry, and Medical Imaging
Bio Highlight: Dr. Marty Pagel developed MRI methods to evaluate anti-cancer therapies.
In his reply, Marty copied this portion from the original content:
“JR wrote: Changing the pH does not [JUST] make the drugs effective. Changing the pH ends the effect of cancer.
another correspondent wrote to JR: You could design an experiment to determine if that was the case.”
Marty writes to JR:
We did this experiment. Changing the pH did not end the effect of the cancer, although it temporarily slowed its growth. Changing the pH AND treating with a pH-dependent chemotherapy had a much greater therapeutic effect.
I suggest that you should design and perform your own experiment instead of make stuff up.
Also, I took physics with calculus. I also took quantum mechanics at UC Berkeley. Again, get your facts straight before making stuff up.
—Marty Pagel, University of Arizona.
Hi Marty, I do not often review the comments submitted but I thought I recognized your name… and I was right! Anyway, thanks for your reply and your interest. I did not keep up with your ongoing research lately and I would be glad to be updated on it. As for the prior content, I want to “retreat” a bit and then “try again” with a few questions.
I get that a particular pH-based intervention might produce a favorable outcome (of whatever magnitude), plus that a particular chemotherapy intervention could be more or less effective depending on a variety of factors including pH. So yes, changing the pH in a particular way could logically be interpreted as “making something else work better” with that factor than without it. I was not questioning the specific results. I was raising a distinct point, which you did not address, so I will re-state it, but differently. In brief, I was questioning the conceptual models that guides how different people might describe the same effect.
When we observe some phenomenon over time, we can see a pattern of changes. We can measure the electromagnetic charge (such as pH) of various areas and fluids. We can even cut someone open and see with our naked eyes “growths” of varying size. Or we can measure the size of a tumor through other methods that do not involve an incision.
So far, there is no controversy. But then I raise a point of curiosity (not really a controversy).
Is there such a thing as a cancer, as in a living thing? Does it “grow?”
Or, did someone just MAKE UP that terminology / idea? When a pile of clothes in a laundry basket gets larger over time, is the pile alive? When plaque builds up in someone’s mouth, is the plaque “growing?”
We do know that it is reasonably easy to produce the effect called cancer. in particular, bombarding living tissue with certain forms of radiation can create measurable effects not only in humans and rats, but in plants and bacteria. The “ionizing” of tissue is entirely an electromagnetic effect, right? (I assume that you are generally familiar with many decades of research establishing the detrimental effects on living tissue of of various kinds of radiation and radio-active waste:http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-cancer.html )
So, in an experiment, we could turn up the intensity of radiation, causing the effects to increase. We could turn off or turn down the radiation, causing the effects to “change from a malignant demon that has possessed the organism and has been eating it… in to a benign cancerous growth that is no longer growing.”
Why would some organisms have less damage? The short answer is “their electromagnetic health.”
Why would some organisms be especially vulnerable to damage from radio-active waste? Again, while you may not be familiar with any research on that subject, I am.
So, can altering the electromagnetic integrity of an organism (even a plant) improve it’s “resistance” to the potential damage of ionizing radiation? Of course. Just as lead provides protection, there are many other possible protective factors.
An interesting example that might be uncontroversial involves damage to the thyroid gland in particular. What happens when iodine is exposed to ionizing radiation? If there is a deficiency of iodine (which I consider extremely common), then a significant portion of the iodine in an organism can be “made in to” radio-active iodine. That iodine will then damage various organs.
These instructions from the CDC indicate that “KI (potassium iodide) is a salt… that can help block radioactive iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid gland, thus protecting this gland from radiation injury…. It only protects the thyroid, not other parts of the body, from radioactive iodine.”
Is it simple to produce thyroid damage? Is it simple to even produce “thyroid cancer?”
Below is a quote from Time magazine. First, in the same article, there is a reference to the damage that can result from consuming dairy products that contain radioactive iodine.
”When thyroid cells absorb too much radioactive iodine — either through the air or through contaminated food — it can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, says the American Thyroid Association [ATA]. ”
And here is a paragraph from the ATA:
WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT KI WORKS?
After the 1986 nuclear accident at Chornobyl (formerly called “Chernobyl”), shifting winds blew a radioactive cloud over Europe. As many as 3,000 people exposed to that radiation developed thyroid cancer over the next 10 years. Most victims had been babies or young children living in Ukraine, Belarus, or Russia at the time of the accident. The region of excess risk extended up to a 200 mi radius from Chornobyl. Poland, immediately adjacent to Belarus and Ukraine, distributed KI to >95% of their children within 3 days of the accident and does not appear to have had an increase in thyroid cancer.
One of the benefits of a diet high in iodine is that iodine can act as a donor of an electron. Electron donors are also called “anti-oxidants,” which means iodine can help to prevent or heal oxidation / combustion / inflammation / acidity. Below is a quote of a study detailing the fact that high iodine levels correlate to low cancer rates:
Seaweed is an important dietary component and a rich source of iodine in several chemical forms in Asian communities. Their high consumption of this element (25 times higher than in Western countries) has been associated with the low incidence of benign and cancerous breast and prostate disease in Japanese people.
….In animal and human studies, molecular iodine (I2) supplementation exerts a suppressive effect on the development and size of both benign and cancerous neoplasias….
In other words, certain electromagnetic conditions create an effect called cancer. Distinct electromagnetic conditions (AKA “health”) prevent the damage that would be otherwise caused by radiation poisoning.
Again, I am familiar with the specific of how different plants, animals, and humans will experience different results from the same causal factors. I can predict exactly where tumors will form in an organism, when it will not arise at all, and so on.
Cancer does not EVER “spread.” However, the effects of certain electromagnetic conditions can show up in a predictable sequence. Electromagnetic vulnerability in one region can cause a voltage drain on other tissue. These voltage drains are predictable.
Tumors can be predicted to show up in one place, then later in certain other places, but yet they are not alive. Cancer is not alive. Cancer is not a demon that possesses anyone. Even though people may worship the demon that they call cancer, it is just a diagnostic label that someone made up.
I could share some research showing “very high correlations” (100%?) between certain “causal variables” and the effects commonly labeled “cancer.” Again, changing the electromagnetic properties of a tissue or cell (as in pH) can produce predictable effects.
Strong acids will burn through bone. Lightning bolts can cause muscle contractions that cause bones to splinter. Those are [effects of electromagnetic causes].
One can change the pH of a tissue- not just by adding a bit of “pH 8.3 Baking soda”- but actually resolving the short circuit that has produced an electromagnetic draining of that tissue’s voltage. What effect would predictably result from a very precise alteration of the electromagnetic properties of a tissue (or organism)?
If you stop producing the effect called cancer, then the effect called cancer is no longer present. Prior accumulations of tumor can be eliminated (as in removed from the organism by the processes of a normal, healthy organism).
Changing the pH *PROPERLY* will end the production of the effect called cancer. Promoting the electromagnetic functionality of the organism (human, cow, bush, etc) will promote elimination of any accumulations of “diseased or dead tissue.” Further, when electromagnetic conditions are optimal, an organism can withstand significant exposure to otherwise damaging radiation and yet have no detrimental effect.
If you got this far, Marty, then congratulations on your tenacity. In the case that you are interested in corresponding further, please be aware that I found your prior response to be disrespectful. If you want my attention further, I am willing to consider offers of large amounts of money. 😉