Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
There are times when I get really depressed writing this blog. It's not because I don't enjoy it, although like any long term hobby my blogging does occasionally feel like more of an obligation than a hobby. That's only part of the time, though. Most of the time I really do enjoy what I do. That doesn't mean that it doesn't get to me from time to time, however. After all, how much quackery, pseudoscience, and woo can a plastic box of blinking multicolored lights stand on a daily basis for five years. I would submit to you that Orac is made of quite stern stuff indeed. Still, it's depressing to see just how far a physician will go over to the dark side.
Such a physician is Dr. Joe Mercola, whose site rivals Mike Adams' NaturalNews.com for the title of biggest repository of medical woo on the Internet. There are differences, of course. For instance, Dr. Mercola comes across as seemingly reasonable as he promotes the worst forms of quackery while Mike Adams comes across as unhinged...as he promotes the worst forms of quackery. And, make no mistake, quackery much of it is. The latest example is yet another instance of Mercola taking advantage of the H1N1 pandemic to promote the rankest pseudoscience to an unsuspecting world in an article entitled Overlooked 150 Year Old Household Cleaner a Remedy for Swine Flu? It's hard to find a more clearly fallacious set of arguments. In fact, this time around Mercola makes Dana Ullman's support of homeopathy seem almost reasonable.
Well, not really, but Mercola sure does try. Basically, he tries to convince his readers that baking soda will cure H1N1. First, he references a woo-filled article that claims:
In today's modern world of medicine the FDA just will not let companies that sell products make medical claims about them unless they have been tested at great expense and approved as a drug. But this was not always the case and as we can see in the information in this chapter, which is from a 1924 booklet,[1] published by the Arm & Hammer Soda Company. On page 12 the company starts off saying, "The proven value of Arm & Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda as a therapeutic agent is further evinced by the following evidence of a prominent physician named Dr. Volney S. Cheney, in a letter to the Church & Dwight Company:"In 1918 and 1919 while fighting the 'Flu' with the U. S. Public Health Service it was brought to my attention that rarely any one who had been thoroughly alkalinized with bicarbonate of soda contracted the disease, and those who did contract it, if alkalinized early, would invariably have mild attacks. I have since that time treated all cases of 'Cold,' Influenza and LaGripe by first giving generous doses of Bicarbonate of Soda, and in many, many instances within 36 hours the symptoms would have entirely abated. Further, within my own household, before Woman's Clubs and Parent-Teachers' Associations, I have advocated the use of Bicarbonate of Soda as a preventive for "Colds," with the result that now many reports are coming in stating that those who took "Soda" were not affected, while nearly every one around them had the "Flu."
Amazing, isn't it? Doesn't it remind you of the claims of homeopaths that homeopathy routinely produced better results treating the flu during the 1918 influenza pandemic than "conventional" medicine? This was a claim derived from a story that homeopaths relate of W.A. Dewey, MD, who allegedly reported that among patients treated by homeopaths there was a mortality rate of just over 1%, which is less than half the reported case fatality rate observed during the pandemic. Of course, in the story it's not mentioned that the real case fatality rate was around 2.5% for the pandemic; homepaths claim it was their woo producing a 1% death rate versus a 30% death rate among those treated by conventional doctors.
Much like Dr. Dewey, if you Google Dr. Volney S. Cheney virtually all you will find is various quack-friendly websites citing this same story. Moreover, it's hard not to point out that this physician's claims appeared in promotional literature for Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. Arm & Hammer was trying to sell a product, and it could produce no studies that suported its claims for its baking soda. It's just a friggin' pamphlet. Woo-meisters fallaciously claim that modern medicine isn't supported by evidence, but here they cite a nearly 90 year old pamphlet published before there were laws in place to require that advertisements claiming a health benefit due to a product have evidence to back them up.
Dr. Mercola then goes on to comment on his own. Hilariously, he warns that "many believe" that Arm & Hammer Baking Soda is "contaminated" with aluminum (and so what if it is?) and asks for more information before promoting baking soda as in essence a cure-all. In this, he is no different from "alkalinization master" Robert O. Young. Dr. Young even claims that "alkalinzation" with sodium bicarbonate will cure cancer. However, Mercola didn't choose to cite Young. Why, I don't know. He would seem to be the perfect go-to guy for this sort of thing. On the other hand, Mercola seems to prefer his own variety of acid-base quacks, guys like Dr. Tullio Simoncini and another one I hadn't heard of, Mark Sircus, Ac, OMD, who buys into the same woo. He also clearly doesn't understand basic physiology:
Cancer is, fundamentally, a relatively simple oxygen deficiency disease and the use of bicarbonate increases oxygen carrying and reaching capacity.
Um, no. Not really. It's true that increasing the pH of the blood causes hemoglobin to "hold onto" oxygen more tightly, but the problem with that is that oxygen doesn't do the cells much good unless it can be delivered to the cells, which doesn't happen as well in regions of high pH. There's a perfectly good physiological reason for this. Tissues lacking oxygen turn to anaerobic metabolism, and when they do they generate lactic acid, which lowers the pH. Hemoglobin "lets go" of oxygen more easily when the pH is low (acidic).
Mercola is then stupid enough to reference this video by Dr. Simoncini, which I deconstructed before as being so hopelessly ignorant of the science behind cancer. Remember, Simoncini is the guy who thinks that cancer is a fungus because, according to him, cancer is white and fungi are white. Apparently he's never heard of melanoma or other pigmented cancers or the many varieties of quite colorful fungus. Ignorance this deep is truly an art. A black art, but an art. Sadly, Sircus tries to outdo even Simoncini:
In his book Winning the War on Cancer, Dr. Sircus writes:"Sodium bicarbonate is the time honored method to 'speed up' the return of the body's bicarbonate levels to normal. Bicarbonate is inorganic, very alkaline and like other mineral type substances, supports an extensive list of biological functions.Sodium bicarbonate happens to be one of our most useful medicines because bicarbonate physiology is fundamental to life and health."
Many chemotherapy treatments actually include sodium bicarbonate to help protect the patient's kidneys, heart and nervous system. It's been said that administering chemotherapy without bicarbonate could possibly kill you on the spot.
The stupid, it burns! Much like dropping some concentrated sodium hydroxide to "alkalinize" your skin would burn, actually. The reason that sodium bicarbonate is provided as part of a chemotherapy regimen is not to treat the tumor, but to protect the kidneys. Some chemotherapy regimens cause massive tumor cell lysis, and alkalinization of the blood with large doses of sodium bicarbonate helps prevent uric acid from tumor cell lysis from precipitating in the kidney and causing renal failure if urine pH can be kept above 7.0. Indeed, the syndrome has a name: Tumor lysis syndrome. Moreover, Tumor lysis syndrome doesn't occur unless the chemotherapy has been very successful in killing tumor cells. Sircus is also apparently unaware that there has been some rethinking of whether alkalinization of the urine is as beneficial as once thought; it's not as routinely done as it used to be. Maybe sodium bicarbonate isn't so great after all.
Of course, that doesn't keep Sircus from leaping to this claim:
Could it be that while mixing chemo poisons with baking soda, any improvements seen are the result of the baking soda, and not the toxic poisons? Dr. Sircus believes that may be the case."There are no studies separating the effects of bicarbonate from the toxic chemotherapy agents, nor will there ever be," he says.
There's a reason for that: It isn't the bicarbonate that's causing massive tumor cell lysis. It's also unethical to give a patient bicarbonate alone without chemotherapy, which is the only way to "separate the effects" of bicarbonate from those of chemotherapy. The reason it's unethical is because it's unethical to deny effective treatment to a patient with cancer. In any case, Sircus is just as ignorant as Simoncini; he's confusing an adjunct use of chemotherapy in a supportive role to try to prevent the complications of killing tumors with chemotherapy with using it therapeutically to treat cancer. I suppose I should be happy that he hasn't claimed that cancer is a fungus. Little things like that save my sanity.
Dr. Mercola tries to represent himself as a "reasonable" booster of "alternative medicine" in contrast to all those quacks out there. However, given how he clearly buys into (or cynically sells) acid-base woo to his readers, I'm hearing a quacking sound, and it's emanating from Mercola. He's promoting quackery for H1N1 in this instance, and he's promoting cancer quackery from Sircus and Simoncini.
You know, I'm starting to like Mike Adams better. At least he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.
Medicine & Health
Comments
If this is true, why isn't Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (the manufacturers of Arm & Hammer) along with stores like Wal-Mart pimping out this knowledge to what would be their conceivable benefit?
Posted by: History Punk | December 16, 2009 3:30 AM
If nothing else, this post is good food for thought. What possibly led someone to thinking baking soad is a cure? Job well done.
Posted by: Storytellerdoc | December 16, 2009 4:36 AM
And it also makes a great 7th grade science fair project when you mix it with vinegar!
Posted by: superdave | December 16, 2009 4:40 AM
I always thought there was a good word to describe a patient with a blood pH of 8.0:
Dead.
Seriously, give me a break! A 10 second search leads to a wiki giving the normal pH range of blood as 7.35 to 7.45. What can baking soda do here? There are so many buffers and competing reactions to keep the pH in line that a reasonable amount of baking soda does nothing, while a large amount of baking soda results in death.
But hey, if the woo-meisters can build a whole modality around water, why should I be surprised when they make baking soda an elixer?
Posted by: spudbeach | December 16, 2009 6:03 AM
Isn't Mercola the quack that promotes Hamer's Germanic New Medicine on Youtube?
Posted by: Johannes9126 | December 16, 2009 6:50 AM
To be fair, I've found baking soda to be the one true cure...for grimy surfaces. For H1N1, I'll stick with the CDC's recommendations.
Posted by: Jojo | December 16, 2009 8:10 AM
My homemade buttermilk pancakes have baking soda in them, and I have yet to contract H1N1. Coincidence?
Posted by: Mandrake | December 16, 2009 8:25 AM
Sodium bicarbonate can be used (in reasnoable doses!) to make the teeth whiter. Add a teaspoon to a gallon of water, water your potted plants with the solution, and it will fight the fungal attacks they may have.
Well, actually, all I can say is that it seems to work. Molds don't seem to like alkaline water. but any scientific arguments would be welcome.
As for the flu remedy aspect: seems to me that the 1918 Spanish Flu caused people to desperately look for cures, which they sometimes believed they had found. Another case is Oscillococcinum. Just as crazy as baking soda, actually. And suffering from the same confusion between "cold" and "flu". Not quite the same, is it?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 16, 2009 8:35 AM
In today's modern world of medicine the FDA just will not let companies that sell products make medical claims about them unless they have been tested at great expense and approved as a drug. But this was not always the case and as we can see in the information in this chapter, which is from a 1924 booklet,[1] published by the Arm & Hammer Soda Company.
To be fair, he is correct. It was indeed not always the case that companies had to prove their claims before selling the products as drugs. In 1924, they could say anything they damn well pleased. Lysol was being sold as a douche, for goodness sakes. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Arm & Hammer really did make these claims. It's pretty astonishing that somebody who normally rails against the marketing excesses of Big Pharma would take them at their word, though.
But then, consistency was never Mercola's strong point.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | December 16, 2009 9:16 AM
I have it on excellent authority* that a box of Arm & Hammer baking soda, when placed at the bedside of wooists like Mercola, will soak up ignorance overnight, leading to low levels of woo-stupidity (at least to begin the day). Absorbs Candida and toxins too.
*Hey, my unsupported contention is as good as anyone else's.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | December 16, 2009 9:38 AM
"in many, many instances within 36 hours the symptoms would have entirely abated" - Right, but isn't that generally the case with flu? Even with cold, but the time someone bothers to see a doctor about it aren't they likely to be within 36 hours of it running it's course?
Posted by: Gus Snarp | December 16, 2009 9:50 AM
The lead in sounds very similar to one about Onions preventing H1N1. I'm sure that is a recapitulation of Medieval beliefs. I recently ran across a story to reinforce this opinion, about serbs preferring garlic over vaccines to combat the flu. Serbs were digging up and "killing" the undead into at least the 1920s!
Posted by: David N. Brown | December 16, 2009 10:11 AM
Mercola is in an interesting position: unlike the WildBoyz of Woo(Adams and Null),he has a medical degree(a DO) but still takes advantage of the "Fear Big Pharma/FDA/Allopathy" theme.He is telling potential patients,"Don't trust the 'orthodoxy'",but then if they are uncertain, he can always say,"I *am* a real doctor!".Opportunism is a common thread in Woo-world: Mercola is able to sniff out the fear of illness,medical procedures,and the "unknown" that most people experience, and rather than counseling and educating them (as his professional training would require), he starts up his sales spiel. This opportunism (and the manipulation that follows)enable the aforementioned idiots to instantaneously become experts in whatever is worrying people: (e.g.) because I manage money, I *need* to know where the economy "is going"(so I can take remedial action),over the past 2+ years,I've been closely watching and *simultaneously* observing Adams' and Null's reactions to the financial crisis: both have become economic "experts", prognosticators, and financial advisors,creating "courses","methods", and "documentaries" to "help" people deal with these very serious issues.And their advice is truely abysmal, on par with their medical indiscretions; in short, they capitalize on fear. When uncertainty reigns, Woo steps in.
Posted by: Denice Walter | December 16, 2009 10:30 AM
meh. They will promote almost anything, as long as it's useless for its purported use. Sometimes they will even promote the very same chemical with one name, and decry it's use in medecine by another name. Or promote one chemical by one route of admistration and then say that another route is teh evil (ex.: squalene/lanosterol, coffee).
None of it has to make sense - when you're uneducated in the science and sure you know everything of importance, there's very little chance of you finding out that what you're being told makes no sense. So pretty much anyone can make you swallow anything. You could sell them mercury enemas and they would buy them.
The thing I was most surprised about was to hear that some people rubbed themselves with DMSO - an industrial solvent. WTF ? I used to wear gloves when manipulating that crap, to avoid it taking every shit dissolved in it through my skin. And we used USP grade. I wouldn't be too sure that what's sold in health food stores is that pure.
Posted by: Kemist | December 16, 2009 10:37 AM
It'd be nice if such quackery did help to go some way in chlorinating the gene pool.
Posted by: Gil | December 16, 2009 10:51 AM
I believe that Baking Soda would have done well against the Andromeda Strain, too.
Posted by: KeithB | December 16, 2009 11:11 AM
#12: "The lead in sounds very similar to one about Onions preventing H1N1."
Why, I'm wearing one on my belt right now! Height of fashion.
Posted by: Jay K. | December 16, 2009 11:46 AM
@#17
"You couldn't get white onions, because of the war."
Posted by: Berner | December 16, 2009 11:57 AM
In today's modern world of democracy the US gov't just will not let someone become leader of the country unless he or she has campaigned at great expense and been elected president. But this was not always the case as we can see in the information in this chapter, which regards brutal oppression by hereditary monarchies...
Posted by: James Sweet | December 16, 2009 12:42 PM
It's disappointing that you refuse to accept anything that does not fit into your narrow-minded "scientific" view of the world. There are thousands of people benefiting from non- traditional therapies that you refuse to acknowledge. Here for example is a link to a miracle spring water that can cure cancer, heal the lame, end drug addiction and create financial abundance. The testimonies of those experiencing the miraculous benefits derived from this water are far more convincing than your own self-described skeptcism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXZoJ9d3pDs&feature=related
Posted by: Sid Offit | December 16, 2009 12:43 PM
Is Sid being sarcastic or does he really mean that?
Because if I was trying to write a gag post trying to sound like a woo-pusher I would have written it just like that. Ignore the content of the post, talk about narrow-minded views, testimonials as proof, an apparent cure-all treatment. Exactly what I would include. But of course, it just seems so real as well.
Posted by: Travis | December 16, 2009 1:01 PM
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
-Carl Sagan
Posted by: Kemist | December 16, 2009 1:38 PM
"Bicarbonate is inorganic, very alkaline and like other mineral type substances, supports an extensive list of biological functions."
Bicarbonate is inorganic? It's been a while since I took high school chemistry, but isn't the definition of an organic compound that it has carbon in it?
Posted by: Chris | December 16, 2009 2:16 PM
Chris - bicarbonate reactivity is a lot more like that for inorganic salts, and so I wouldn't quibble if someone called it inorganic. Just having carbon in it is not always the only thing to consider. For example, iron carbonyl has carbon in it (5 in fact) but isn't organic, or even considered organometallic. Bicarbonate is a little more complicated (doesn't have a central metal), but still, it's not worth arguing about. I also wouldn't object if someone considered it an organic salt.
Posted by: Pablo | December 16, 2009 2:29 PM
I once used baking soda to cure hunger. Does that count?
Posted by: Rene Najera | December 16, 2009 2:44 PM
Chris
In fact, as an organic chemist, I would most object to "very alkaline" in the description of soda than I would object to it being called inorganic - presence of carbon wouldn't suffice to describe something as organic in my book - I wouldn't think of diamonds or graphite as organic, for instance.
But describing soda as "very alkaline" is a very good demonstration of one's ignorance of chemistry - soda is quit feeble as bases go.
I reserve the term "very alkaline" to stuff like, I don't know, butyllithium. If they want to use this stuff in their "medicine", well, they'd better have their funerals arranged already.
Posted by: Kemist | December 16, 2009 2:44 PM
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. Would it be correct to say all organic compounds contain carbon, but not all carbon-containing compounds are organic? I'm guessing over the years that got whittled down to organic = carbon in my head.
Posted by: Chris | December 16, 2009 2:48 PM
What Kemist said, except to add that I still consider hydroxide to be pretty alkaline. Carboxylates? Not so much.
Posted by: Pablo | December 16, 2009 2:51 PM
Was it perchance used in a formulation containing flour, butter, eggs, sugar and chocolate chips as non-medicinal ingredients?
Posted by: Kemist | December 16, 2009 2:51 PM
I don't know. For example, I could easily envision ammonia as part of the series of amines: Me3N, Me2NH, MeNH2, NH3
So I wouldn't consider it huge stretch to categorize ammonia as organic. Then again, I wouldn't complain if it weren't.
Actually, by this same argument, water could even be considered part of the organic alcohol series, although I think that bulk water is unique in many respects that make it less so. I can tell you that in the gas-phase, however, the properties of water are far more consistent with what you would project based on the trend of organic alcohols
Posted by: Pablo | December 16, 2009 3:22 PM
I thought it was Windex that did that?
(@~4:40sec in)
Posted by: becca | December 16, 2009 3:48 PM
Baking soda is white, cancer is white, like cures like...
...really, not a giant leap. ;-)
Posted by: Daniel J. Andrews | December 16, 2009 4:33 PM
Orac: "You know, I'm starting to like Mike Adams better. At least he doesn't pretend to be something he's not."
And speaking of Mike Adams, the King of Natural Nooz has recently featured the wondrous baking soda cancer cure on his website, courtesy of one of his armada of "citizen journalists". The article contains the story of a guy named Vernon, who beat stage 4 prostate cancer by using baking soda and molasses. There are even comments by Drs. Simoncini and Sircus:
"Dr. Mark Sircus in his September 2009 newsletter stated: "My overall treatment philosophy for cancer is to trap the cancer in a deadly crossfire and beat the crap out of it with safe concentrated nutritional medicinals and solid health practices including plenty of sun exposure, exercise, touch via massage, and breathing techniques that you can see on Vernon`s site. But, as Vernon`s case demonstrates, the sodium bicarbonate is the lead . . . power . . . itself"."
Shouldn't that be "lead powder"?
My favorite part of the article is when it gloats about there being more than 400 alternative cancer cures that the Medical Mafia hasn't been able to suppress. It's confusing though...if baking soda and alkalinizing your body will beat the crap out of cancer, why do you need 400 other alternative cures? Hell, if I can get my pH up to 9 or so, no cancer/fungus/liver fluke will ever be able to infest me.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | December 16, 2009 4:35 PM
With all this "alkalize your body" stuff, I'm just waiting for the day these doofuses finally get their hands on pH paper and start experimenting like preschoolers on all kinds of things as "remedies".
How long till one of them proposes the "soap cure", with its super-powered version, the soap enema, because soap, it's magical 'cause it's alkaline, and of course everyone knows everything is so much better when you stuff it up there.
I'm tempted to start an email chain with this as the for-everything-that-ails-you cure that Big Pharmer has supressed, but I just know that with there exist people ignorant, stupid and gullible enough for it to backfire when I finally admit that it was a hoax. And other people cynical enough to start selling it as a cure to the former.
Sigh.
Posted by: Kemist | December 16, 2009 5:48 PM
What I don't understand is if:
A) Cancer actually was so easy to cure
B) Cures for cancer just fell out of trees (in some cases, literally)
C) There's over 400 cures
D) So many people know the "secrets" that big pharma want to repress
Why are there still folks dying of cancer?
Given that a percentage of all folks who have cancer will try at least one of these alt-med 'cures', it should be detectable in the data for cancer diagnoses and cancer survival. Yet I don't see the headlines. I don't see the legions of cured cancer patients lining up to tell their stories (with documented diagnoses, of course).
I know, I'm just making a point, badly. I just can't see why a rational person would think that there is a genuine cure for one of the toughest diseases facing humanity right now in "common household cleaners" and "nutritional supplements". If it worked, it'd be the biggest news in ages.
It amuses me that the alt-med folks tout their products and regimens as 'cures' more often than not. Always going for the brass ring, eh? I don't see them claim "our magic elixir will prolong your life an additional 6 months if you have cancer!". Nope, it's "it'll cure you!!!111!!OMGBBQ"
Sigh.
Posted by: MIke Weaver | December 16, 2009 5:55 PM
[Quote]Simoncini is the guy who thinks that cancer is a fungus because, according to him, cancer is white and fungi are white. Apparently he's never heard of melanoma or other pigmented cancers or the many varieties of quite colorful fungus.[Endquote]
And apparantly he never thought of the possibility of verifying his hypothesis err.... checking out his idea with a quick glance in a microscope.
Posted by: jli | December 16, 2009 6:01 PM
Khemist wrote: With all this "alkalize your body" stuff, I'm just waiting for the day these doofuses finally get their hands on pH paper and start experimenting like preschoolers on all kinds of things as "remedies".
My sister-in-law is into this, to a small degree. She subscribes to the notion that our diet is too acidic and it's making us sick. We need more alkaline foods for good health.
I tried discussing the Ph regulation of the body, etc, but I finally just said: "If the Ph of your food can cause that much of an impact on your health, shouldn't an antacid tablet be much more powerful?"
I mean, if you think that you need to eat more alkaline foods to balance your acidic diet, just have a Tums (tm) after the meal, no?
Oh and cut all that nasty vitamin C...
Posted by: Mike Weaver | December 16, 2009 6:03 PM
Hmmm...Did Orac really use "like" and "Mike Adams" in the same sentence?
Posted by: Joe Schwarcz | December 16, 2009 6:31 PM
In addition to the acid-based theory of disease, a lot of woo is predicated on the idea that Mom (or Grandma) Knows Best -- better than those fancy doctors or so-called experts with their book-leaning and high-falutin' degrees. Thus, baking soda as cure for the common cold (and cancer!) fits neatly into both categories. It's the sort of simple home remedy a mom would use -- and science is struggling to catch up with her natural folk wisdom.
Coming soon -- cancer is caused by going swimming less than an hour after you've eaten.
Posted by: Sastra
| December 16, 2009 6:33 PM
When I read the comments of "Dr. Volney S. Cheney":
I immediately was struck by two things.
First was the eerie similarity to the plot of The Andromeda Strain (already noted above).
Second was the thought that if someone was "thoroughly alkalinized", they would be in a clinical state known - even today - to be highly resistant to viral infection.
That "state" is, of course, the dead state. Dead people are known to be highly resistant to developing symptoms of influenza (especially fever).
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | December 16, 2009 6:55 PM
C'mon. Everyone knows CHUCK NORRIS cures cancer! Sheesh!
Posted by: The Domestic Goddess | December 16, 2009 7:16 PM
#14, kemist --
DMSO is approved for veterinary use, either to carry other topical medications or on its own as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic. animal studies back in the '60s conducted for purposes of human investigation were mixed, and i can't find any online, but it's fairly commonly used and prescribed by vets, and it's commercially available in medical-grade.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3510103
http://www.elephantcare.org/Drugs/dimethyl.htm
Posted by: kidlacan | December 16, 2009 7:26 PM
The most cynical guy in my med school class had a "nutri-ceutical" business, and was only after the MD to add weight to his specious claims. He was all about what the letters after his name could do for his company.
I was the idealistic evidence-based-medicine girl with the loud mouth, and I swear they used to put the two of us in the same group regularly just to watch the sparks fly.
Posted by: redrabbitslife
| December 16, 2009 9:35 PM
"And, make no mistake, quackery much of it is."
How come when I read this, I heard Yoda saying it?
Posted by: dooflotchie | December 16, 2009 9:39 PM
So the cure to everything is cookies? YAY!!!!
Actually, if we're supposed to be making our bodies more alkaline, maybe another Christmastime tradition 'round these parts would be appropriate. I'm of Scandinavian extraction, and for mysterious reasons, our immigrant farmer ancestors retained a passion for a particular food item long past the time that refrigeration had made it obsolete. It is widely eaten by Scandinavian-descended families at Christmastime around here (Minnesota). I am speaking, of course, of lutefisk.
Oh lutefisk, ah lutefisk,
How fragrant your aroma
Oh lutefisk, ah lutefisk,
Ya put me in a coma
You smell so fine, you look like glue
You taste yust like an overshoe
Oh lutefisk, come Saturday,
I tink I'll eat you anyvay
Posted by: Calli Arcale | December 16, 2009 10:58 PM
(I still like lutefisk, really, I do... I am part Norwegian)
The alkaline part of lutefisk is that it is fish cured with lye (you rinse it out before cooking, hopefully not down to glue). Here is an explanation on a Lutefisk Eating Contest. I usually like it with a nice white sauce and allspice (it really does not have much of a flavor).
Posted by: Chris | December 16, 2009 11:20 PM
Oh, Calli, I've given up trying to get my more Dutch/French Canadian kids to warm up to fattigman and sandbakkal cookies, so the only traditional cookie I am doing is rosettes. Because everything is better when it is deep fried, even if there is no baking soda.
Posted by: Chris | December 16, 2009 11:27 PM
"...Much like dropping some concentrated sodium hydroxide to 'alkalinize' your skin would burn, actually..."
...and much like using sodium hydroxide to straighten your hair to reduce the amount of discrimination you face burns your scalp, right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010501864.html
"...Hair relaxers generally fall into two categories: lye and no-lye. Lye relaxers contain sodium hydroxide, which is also used to make soap and strip paint. Most no-lye relaxers contain calcium hydroxide, which is also used to treat water and sewage, and guanidine carbonate, which is also used for hair removal..."
Posted by: Leslie | December 17, 2009 1:40 AM
Leslie
eeeeouch !
The only sodium hydroxide burn I got in my life was on my fingers. The skin kept shedding and shedding, until I was left with no fingerprints on the burned fingers for about a month. It taught me to be extra careful with bases. I just can't think of the conequences of that stuff running in somebody's eyes. Extreme pain and irreparable cornea damage, most probably.
It bizarre for them to use such a harsh method. Curling or straightening hair is all about breaking and forming protein disulfide bonds. For that you need a reducer and a capping agent. There are tons of more gentle reducers than sodium hydroxide which work just as fine without killing your scalp's skin.
Posted by: Kemist | December 17, 2009 9:01 AM
Kemist,
The context of hair straightening is pretty important when considering why lye became a key ingredient. This is something that was largely practiced by uneducated, scientifically literate (through no fault of their own) people with access to limited resources.
Historically, most hair straightening preparations were homemade. Lye was cheap and widely available (sold in grocery stores, I believe) and it's possible that other reducers were hard or impossible to come by.
Commercial preparations likely used lye because it was expected, by the time commercial preparations were available. The relative cost of lye may have also been a factor - this is a product heavily marketed to low income people.
Posted by: Natalie | December 17, 2009 9:39 AM
Chris, the fattigman my mom makes is deep fried too, just like rosettes (although it frankly soaks up a lot more grease). Maybe you could try cooking them that way. ;-) Because you're right: everything IS better deep fried! Except maybe a triple bypass. :-P
I'm hoping to find the time to bake a kransekake this year. (Think giant, conical, almond macaroon.) I usually do. But events are coming fast and furious this year, so I'm not sure I'll manage it. :-( My French blood wants me to make a bouche de noel, but if I don't have time for kransekake, I probably don't have time for that either.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | December 17, 2009 10:35 AM
In addition to the acid-based theory of disease, a lot of woo is predicated on the idea that Mom (or Grandma) Knows Best -- better than those fancy doctors or so-called experts with their book-leaning and high-falutin' degrees. Thus, baking soda as cure for the common cold (and cancer!) fits neatly into both categories. It's the sort of simple home remedy a mom would use -- and science is struggling to catch up with her natural folk wisdom.
Coming soon -- cancer is caused by going swimming less than an hour after you've eaten.
Posted by: Sastra | December 16, 2009 6:33 PM
Thank God my mom and grandma are into acid based cures, I guess. Hot tea with lemon and honey really do help make a sore throat feel better, and the heat and caffeine do help relieve a bit of congestion too. It tastes a lot better than baking soda too.
Posted by: military wife | December 17, 2009 11:02 AM
Calli Arcale:
So is our family recipe. The kids just don't like the cardamom. (aside: My daughter has a friend who lives in Norway, and she has never heard of any of these cookies!)
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2009 11:06 AM
If you google "alkaline and acid foods",the first site you get is "energiseforlife.com": according to their list- lemon,lime,grapefruit, and tomato are..... alkaline! (I have no idea how that get that categorization, but I have run across it previously in other woo-lit).
Posted by: Denice Walter | December 17, 2009 11:21 AM
Supposedly the idea that citrus fruits (for example) are alkaline relates to the idea that they are metabolized in a way that results in a net alkaline product.
The only way I know of that eating an "alkaline" diet might make sense, relates to the argument that consuming an overly acid diet results in excessive calcium leaching from bones and hence promotes osteoporosis. This remains an unproven theory and I'm not sure how eating things far less acid than gastric juices could significantly alter calcium homeostasis.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | December 17, 2009 12:51 PM
What I find even more fascinating than Mercola is the people that follow him. I've been watching his facebook fan page (50,000+ "fans")and the comments to his posts are hilarious and a little frightening. They scramble to find out the proper dose and the various other uses of whatever supplement or remedy he is recommending. My favorite was his post on capsaicin and diabetes in mice (12/4). Anyone here see it? (I'm having trouble finding the link on my phone - FB is blocked here!)
Posted by: woofighter | December 17, 2009 2:25 PM
"The only way I know of that eating an 'alkaline' diet might make sense, relates to the argument that consuming an overly acid diet results in excessive calcium leaching from bones and hence promotes osteoporosis. This remains an unproven theory and I'm not sure how eating things far less acid than gastric juices could significantly alter calcium homeostasis...."
Also, the BART diet for temporary nausea and diarrhea discourages more-acidic and spicier foods in order to be very gentle to one's throat and esophagus, but I've never been told to stay on that for more than a week or two.
Posted by: Leslie | December 18, 2009 1:57 PM
Aaaayyyyyyy...
...it really is depressing how often this "alkalinize your body " crap re-surfaces. As someone pointed out on an earlier Respectful Insolence thread (linked by Orac above - it's the one about the King of "pH Woo", Robert O Young) the only place where an "invading organism" was impeded by your blood pH was in the late Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain.
My own take on the amazing staying power of pH Woo in the Alt.Reality-verse is that it sells nicely; the reasons being:
(i) lots of people have vaguely heard of pH; but
(ii) very few of them understand it; and
(iii) even fewer of them understand it in the context of the body (i.e. the physiology of pH).
Result - an easy sell of all kinds of stuff you don't need (plus, of course, The Fear) to the Worried Well.
Posted by: Dr Aust | December 18, 2009 3:52 PM
I've read the above mentioned mercola article, and a number of his other articles. It's too late at night and i really couldn't be stuffed going back to it right now, but my recollection is that he didn't at all promote bicarb soda as a remedy to cancer, just notified that others have done so. In regards to H1N1, I think his concept is that trying the old fashioned home remedy is a safer option than tamiflu and vaccination. I totally agree. An untested vaccination will not be given to me, my wife or my three kids because I, like many people don't trust big pharma.
My understanding of mercola is that he generally promotes a healthy lifestyle with organic food and exercise, with a few suggested enhancements (krill oil, probiotics - all valid and well tested to be beneficial). From about 10 articles regarding H1N1,the things he promotes to avoid issues is sunlight (vitamin D) and good diet. I guess we'll see who comes out better off in the end - Doubting I'll see any sign of Flu. I haven't so far in 34 years of life.
On a final thought what is the subscription numbers for this blog compared to Mercolas? just wondering if a positive outlook on life is more or less popular than the apparently sarcastic and critical outlook of Orac.
Posted by: Tony | December 19, 2009 7:23 AM
Mercola promotes rank quackery in many instances, the above included. This is not the first article he's written shilling for Tullio Simoncini, who is about as obvious a quack as you can possibly imagine, given that he thinks that tumors are caused by a fungus because, according to him, tumors are white and fungi are white. He also thinks bicarb is a cure for cancer.
Perhaps Mercola will take the disingenuous "Oprah" defense and claim that he's just "providing information" to allow readers to "decide for themselves."
Posted by: Orac | December 19, 2009 8:49 AM
I love Simonicini's argument:
Tumors = white
Fungal hyphae = white
Therefore, TUMORS = FUNGUS, OMGQED!!!!!!eleventy1!!!
Wait a minute....
Coffee = brown
Poop = brown
Therefore, Coffee = Poop..... could THIS be the clearly-infallible logic that lead someone to believe COFFEE ENEMAS were a good idea???
Posted by: Perky Skeptic | December 19, 2009 10:53 AM
Tony:
Why would he do that, other than to point and laugh? - because YOU don't trust big pharma? Does your wife have any part in this decision? Fixed that for you.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 19, 2009 10:54 AM
"...Isn't Mercola the quack that promotes Hamer's Germanic New Medicine on Youtube?..."
He is.
Posted by: Beatis | December 19, 2009 12:59 PM
Tony:
You think Mercola is POSITIVE? You're kidding, right? He uses fear and mockery of traditional medicine. Warns you about formula increasing your child's risk of death, fluoride in the drinking water lowering your IQ. Those are just 2 that immediately come to mind. He suggests that capsaicin from chili peppers can cure diabetes, then remains silent as his followers clamor for a dose of chili peppers to eat (the article he vaguely refers to reports the scientists INJECTED the capsaicin into the nerves around the pancreas of the lab mice). He also SELLS many of the products he recommends - while at the same time accusing allopathic physicians and "Big Pharma" from having financial conflicts of interest. On what planet is snide, incorrect, overly simplistic and hypocritical medical advice "positive"?
Posted by: woofighter | December 19, 2009 10:55 PM
Tony,
You do know that the H1N1 virus is fundamentally no different from your typical flu virus: it just contains a different strain of virus?
Posted by: Nightshadequeen | December 20, 2009 5:31 PM
so , how much sodium bicarb, per dose per person?
Posted by: joe | March 18, 2010 6:13 AM
I have cervical cancer. If you've never had cancer then you are not really interested in finding a cure. After consulting with Dr. Simoncini, I douched with baking soda once a week for three months. In that time frame I also did 5 weeks of a low dosage of cisplatin chemo, once a week along with 25 days of radiation. The Dr. wanted me to have 6 treatments of breakie therapy, which is the most barbaric treatment of them all. I had one treatment. The Dr. discovered when they went inside of my cervix/uterus and inserted the 8" metal rod to radiate my organs, that the cancer had CONPLETELY DISAPEARED. The Dr. called a meeting with my entire family and we were told that NEVER IN HIS 20 YRS. OF PRATICE, with the exception of one other case, in which the woman died of a massive heart attack, did he ever see CANCER DISAPEAR IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. HE CALLED ME A "TEXT BOOK CASE". He also stated that if I would have any other Dr. examine me that would swear that I NEVER EVEN HAD CANCER. So, go ahead and think what you want. But, my advise to you is IF you ever get cancer, RUN to Dr. Simoncini's office for help.
THIS WEBSITE IS FOR THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND! NOT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING DECIVED BECAUSE OF THE GREED THE FDA AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS IN SURPRESSING THIS VITAL INFORMATION. CHEMOTHEARPY IS A TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUSINESS PEOPLE, WAKE UP. THEY ARE LOVING THE FACT THAT SO MANY WON'T LOOK FOR AN ALTERNATIVE! HOW IGNORANT ARE YOU?
Madeline
Florida
Posted by: Madeline | May 18, 2010 12:02 PM
I have cervical cancer. If you've never had cancer then you are not really interested in finding a cure. After consulting with Dr. Simoncini, I douched with baking soda once a week for three months. In that time frame I also did 5 weeks of a low dosage of cisplatin chemo, once a week along with 25 days of radiation. The Dr. wanted me to have 6 treatments of breakie therapy, which is the most barbaric treatment of them all. I had one treatment. The Dr. discovered when they went inside of my cervix/uterus and inserted the 8" metal rod to radiate my organs, that the cancer had CONPLETELY DISAPEARED. The Dr. called a meeting with my entire family and we were told that NEVER IN HIS 20 YRS. OF PRATICE, with the exception of one other case, in which the woman died of a massive heart attack, did he ever see CANCER DISAPEAR IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. HE CALLED ME A "TEXT BOOK CASE". He also stated that if I would have any other Dr. examine me that would swear that I NEVER EVEN HAD CANCER. So, go ahead and think what you want. But, my advise to you is IF you ever get cancer, RUN to Dr. Simoncini's office for help.
THIS WEBSITE IS FOR THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND! NOT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING DECEIVED BECAUSE OF THE GREED THE FDA AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS IN SURPRESSING THIS VITAL INFORMATION. CHEMOTHEARPY IS A TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUSINESS PEOPLE, WAKE UP. THEY ARE LOVING THE FACT THAT SO MANY WON'T LOOK FOR AN ALTERNATIVE! HOW IGNORANT ARE YOU?
Madeline
Florida
Posted by: Madeline | May 18, 2010 12:05 PM
Madeline--
That you no longer have cancer is great. But don't assume that only current and past cancer patients care about a cure: lots of other people care, if only because their relatives or friends are in that boat.
From what you say, you had three treatments more or less simultaneously: radiation, cisplatin, and baking soda. It's possible that any of the three cured you, or some combination. There's not enough here to determine which. Or you may have had a spontaneous remission: they do happen.
Also, given what your doctor said, you might want to check with a cardiologist and see how your heart is and whether there are any precautions you should be taking. It's likely that the other patient's heart attack was unrelated, but it's also possible that whatever got rid of her cancer is also what cured yours, and stresses the heart as a side effect. (An EKG is completely painless; I found a "stress test" not difficult; and 81 mg/day of aspirin is well tolerated by most people, if it turns out you need that.)
Posted by: Vicki | May 18, 2010 12:18 PM
My Doctors have been treating multiply patients with the exact same dosage/treatments that they were given me with the exception of the dosage being according to your weight/height. I recently sat next to a woman named Bobbie, who's cancer started where mine started, in the cervix. She had the exact same treatments with the exception of the baking soda and is now on her third phase, she had the 5 weeks of chemo/radiation and endured the 6 treatments of the unGodly breakie therapy and is still getting more chemo/radiaion today because the cancer has spread into her lympnoids just below her collar bone. When I told her what happened with me, she said she wished she had known. Like I said, the Dr. is the one who couldn't believe it had totally disapeared. He is the one who said I was a Text Book Case. I don't think it had anything to do with his treatments. I truly believe the baking soda did the trick. Chemo has been known to cause heart attacks. Chemo/radiation treatments are so stressful. I know that if I would have continued and did all 6 of the breakie treatments I probably wouln't be here to talk about it. Bobbie almost cried when I mentioned how painful they were. They do that proceedure while your awake. It is like giving birth with no pain meds. Twice a week for 3 weeks...no thank you! It's truly barbaric and it didn't work for Bobbie, nor did the chemo/radiation.
Madeline
Posted by: Madeline | May 18, 2010 12:48 PM
I was almost coming to the conclusion that birds of a feather really do stick together. It IS mostly true, and is demonstrated by the number of posts siding with the author's viewpoint about quacks. I had to skim over the last half because of time (I'm still at work). But seeing the last post by Madeline (because it is still on the screen as I reply) I see there are a few ducks in with the chickens.
Quacks?? No doubt they abound. Stupid and ignorant? No doubt many are. Arrogant and narrow-minded? No doubt many so-called "scientists" and "physicians" are. I've been a patient and colleague of quite a few. You see, when you or a friend has had an experience that goes against conventional wisdom, because of the smaller numbers, it is labeled "anecdotal" which has become synonymous with "probably not true".
I have had success with "alternative" treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis... not your typical success story in standard medicine's anals -- oops, I meant annals.
I would be willing to bet that most of the naysayers (blog author included) have never really worked with people who are using alternative methods or tried any themselves.
So please, disagree with non-mainstream alternative health treatments, if you wish, but leave off the arrogance. It leads to pretending you know things that you do not.
Posted by: Al | May 19, 2010 6:32 PM
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Posted by: Chris | May 19, 2010 6:43 PM
Hmm? I came back to add one comment and see that the last poster may need glasses. Anecdotal (ending with the letter "l" pronounced "el")is a word. It wasn't anecdota!, which is obviously how the poster read it. Look more closely. (By the way, that's the type of arrogance I'm talking about. I've seen intelligent posts by people that contain typos and realize that typos happen -- just not in this case.)
Now, I've forgotten what I was going to add. Oh well, it will come to me... or maybe it wasn't that important in the second place. ;)
Posted by: Al | May 19, 2010 6:53 PM
The point is that piling up several anecdotes on top of each other doesn't serve as credible scientific data. Which it doesn't.
"Anecdotal" is NOT considered synonymous with "probably not true." It is considered synonymous with "not reliable evidence of truth." And very correctly so.
You would lose that bet.
Very ironic, given that all of alternative medicine is nothing more than pretending to know things at, at best, they do not. In many cases, it's pretending to know things that are demonstrably false.
Posted by: Scott | May 19, 2010 6:59 PM
Al, your little story is an anecdote, and is not data.
I would dare say that you trying to redefine words is very arrogant. But, perhaps that is because you are not familiar with this blog or how science actually works.
But that is neither here nor there. What you can really tell me is why you found imperative to comment on a five month old blog entry? Why not on the more recent entries like Knowledge versus certainty in skepticism, medicine, and science that Orac posted last Friday, or Dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer: Déjà vu all over again that was posted on Monday?
Posted by: Chris | May 19, 2010 7:09 PM
Al:
Orac is a practicing surgical oncologist, specializing in breast cancer. Earlier this month he re-posted a pair of articles on The Deadly Power of Denial. Read both articles. Also read his classic article The Orange Man.
Also, "trying it yourself" is just doing an experiment with an N=1. Essentially worthless. Especially when there is no scientific reason for the "alternative" to work.
Also, a wee bit of advice that some of us have garnered since the days of Usenet. When you go to a forum, blog or newsgroup lurk for a while. Read previous posts, and get a feel about how people relate. Learn what kind of discourse and evidence is commonly used. It is very important that you actually learn about the owner of the blog and/or forum. That way, you would not make arrogant and erroneous pronouncements on what he has or has not done.
Posted by: Chris | May 19, 2010 7:22 PM
To Chris and Scott (and other readers):
I apologize if my posts seemed arrogant and/or ignorant. But please ackknowledge that many of the comments posted at the end of Orac’s blog/article could have easily used a “snickering” emoticon. (Ex.: My homemade buttermilk pancakes have baking soda in them, and I have yet to contract H1N1. Coincidence?) I do not want to impugn Orac’s character, knowledge, or reputation.
Chris, you ask why do I comment on a 5-month old blog? I had no time to lurk. My wife is battling colon cancer as we speak. I had been sent info. about Dr. Simoncini from a well-meaning friend. I DO know how science works. I work in a university research group that develops Mass. Spec. instrumentation for Proteomic research and also conducts Proteomic research. So instead of taking his (Simoncini’s) story at face value I decided to do some “research”. Orac’s blog is one of the articles I came across in my search. I started not to even post but it was the tone of the article and many comments that prompted me to. I also found a paper entitled: “Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases”.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/6/2260
The authors expressed “concerns” but the conclusion: Notwithstanding these concerns, however, the dramatic effect of bicarbonate therapy on the formation of breast cancer metastases in this model system warrants further investigation.
I agreed in my original post that there is a lot of nonsense associated with “alternative” medicine. I don’t like seeing people mislead either. So there should be no debate there.
Having read the referred to “Orange Man” I concur. When it comes to cancer “ineffective alternative therapies” have stark consequences. But “real” clinical trials of many “so-called” alternative and “natural” therapies is very lacking and in many cases non-existent. That is not the fault of the public looking for alternatives. I wish there was good, solid and fair research on every kind of treatment. And even when some are done they may be designed to fail from the start – not intentionally but due to lack of awareness sometimes. Vitamin C trials are, IMO, one such example. So far I haven’t read any disparaging remarks about Dr. Thomas Levy – and maybe I just haven’t found them yet. But his book about Vitamin C (“Curing the Incurable") recounting Dr. Fred Klenner’s work describes the deficiencies in many Vitamin C research trials. Dr. Levy does take the time and trouble to cite research that more closely follows Dr. Kenner’s protocol.
I don’t know the HTML tag for placing a quote, so I’ll just italicize: Chris, you said, Also, 'trying it yourself' is just doing an experiment with an N=1. Essentially worthless. Especially when there is no scientific reason for the alternative to work. And you also referred to your little story. Do you think that is going to elicit a friendly response? In my case, or “little story” as you refer to it. There was good scientific basis for my alternative therapy to work for my RA. And as it so happened it did.
The point I was trying to make is that there IS dogma in orthodox medicine. How long were ulcers treated as being caused by too much acid? Not all “alternative” medicine theories fit the current scientific understanding. Can you prove that they are wrong? Or are you willing to say, maybe some things work and we just don’t understand how yet? That’s all I’m looking for is a little willingness to admit that none of us knows everything. Modern Physics does allow for some pretty “magical” hypotheses. Probably few, if any, will proven – or DISPROVEN – in my or yours lifetime.
I couldn’t help note the following statement made in Orac’s article, “Knowledge versus certainty in skepticism, medicine, and science”:
Quote: On a strictly anecdotal level, I've seen this time and time again in the alt-med movement. A particularly good example is homeopathy. How many times have we seen homeopaths, when confronted with scientific evidence finding that their magic water is no more effective at anything than a placebo, claiming that their magic can't be evaluated by randomized, double-blind clinical trials (RCTs).
So, anecdotal may not be data but it CAN be relevant and true, just not proven yet.
I have literally run out of time to write anymore. I am about to leave work to get some things for my wife.
Science can be VERY good when it doesn’t become dogmatic.
My best wishes to Orac, and you Chris and Scott... and all here. I would love to come back in the future and report that something “alternative” worked for my wife. We’ll see.
Posted by: Al | May 20, 2010 7:03 PM
Good luck to you and your wife.
Posted by: Chris | May 20, 2010 7:53 PM
I read the lead article and am perplexed. This is such a complicated subject and to trash anything but the prescribed Western medicine ideas is beyond ignorant. People are individuals and one method for all is ludicrous. When speaking of baking soda, it sounds like snake oil for sure, yet we're talking body chemistry. I don't know that baking soda can turn cancer cells into healthy cells, since they are damaged, but baking soda's function is to balance a system that has become too acidic. As we age, we become more acidic and are more prone to diseases as it has been proven that bacteria thrive in an acidic environment and die in an alkaline environment. Can oxygen be pumped into cells? I'm sure it can. When we exercise we become more alkaline and many symptoms of allergies disappear, and immune systems function better, unless we're already sick. This prevents disease. So by calling it woo medicine and quackery, you are putting out a blanket indictment on baking soda. Vinegar on a sunburn helps because it's acidic. The skin needs to be more acidic, but inside we need to be more alkaline to be balanced. It's all about balance. If we're balanced, we can have a stronger immune system and fight off anything.
Posted by: Gayle Bacon | July 2, 2010 2:40 PM
"it has been proven that bacteria thrive in an acidic environment and die in an alkaline environment."
Putting on my microbiologist hat, let me say that this is a profoundly ignorant and uneducated statement.
Burkholderia thailandensis, for example, does not tolerate acid environments. When grown in media with glucose without glycerol or buffer, the pH rapidly approaches ~4, the OD600 doesn't get above 3 and after 2 days, it is very difficult to isolate viable cells. When grown in the presence of glycerol, the pH remains ~7, the OD600 rises above 20 (but it quits correlating to increasing cells at ~6) and viable cells can be isolated for over 7 days. (JohnV, unpublished results, 2008)
Speaking of balance, there's some science to balance your woo.
Posted by: JohnV | July 2, 2010 3:08 PM
It doesn't take Gayle long to jump from "individuals are individuals and one method for all is ludicrous" to generalizing about not merely all individual humans, but all species of bacteria. Which is about like making an announcement about "animals," as if humans, fish, dragonflies, and sponges all needed the same environment.
A "stronger immune system" is far from the whole answer. Not only are there limits to the human immune system, but sometimes strength is the problem. It seems likely that the reason H1N1 disproportionately affected younger people (now, and especially in the 1919 epidemic) is because a strong immune response to the virus harmed people. (Autoimmune disorders are nontrivial in general, but not particularly relevant here, I think.)
Posted by: Vicki | July 2, 2010 3:29 PM
I BEAT Stage IV metasicized prostate cancer (diag. 4-07)I utilized a Kushi/Varanoa Macrobiotic diet to build immune system- then used Baking soda molases/maple syrup. NO CHEMO or radiation My PSA has been 0.1 for 10 mos It was 39.6 @ diadnosis with 3+ years to live Cancer ALL GONE.
We are the sickest country in the world - WHY ?
We spend more for healthcare that almost all other combined WHY ?
Everything is polluted & not a word from the deadliest Ind in human history! Sickened-maimed-killed hundreds of millions & some self serving parasitic scum defend the American sickness ind - Drug cos-Drs- AMA etal
Posted by: Donald J. Porter | July 12, 2010 12:46 PM
Evidence please.
Evidence please.
Explanation of relevance please.
Rant-to-English translation please.
Posted by: Scott | July 12, 2010 1:21 PM
The argument for and against ph as a way to control cancer just has not been thoughtly tested. One must conclude as I do that simply said "if this protocol truly works the hospitals, phamasutical companies and doctors would take a large hit in income". This is frequently the allegations of all of us that believe that there is a good reason to believe that this protocol works.
I have a t4 n1 diagnosis and have had maximum external beam radiation (79.2 rads), am on Lupron ( 4 rounds of 3 month injections ) and have done three rounds of baking soda / molasses. For those unfamiliar we are talking prostate cancer gleason 9 and has spread to external bladder.
My PSA has dropped from 11, 3.2, .2, .1 and most recently less then .1, which is considered to be undetectable. So what is working for me is unclear but the extra step with the baking soda and diet might be the key. Simply said: my oncologist, radiologist and I don't know.
What is clear is that this subject is worthy of a pure scientific study since there simply is no money in baking soda; ph as a way to control or cure cancer. I have always believed that if you follow the money many times you find the answer. Cancer treatment not cancer cure is big business. Even Drs that believe it is an additional form of treatment / cure are scared to promote this for fear of ridicule and sanctions.
It is time for truly independent assessment of this subject with and by scientists that don't have their hand on my insurance companies wallet or mine.
Therefore my simple advise is if you find yourself told, as I was to expect to live 24 - 30 months on average, that you consider adding baking soda and diet modification to existing medical therapies. So far things look better then predicted but only time will tell if I will survive this. Win or lose my battle I will shout out the results. One result doesn't make a study!
Anyone that is or has used baking soda and wishes to communicate their experiences can email me with good or bad news. Email leedavidmiles@gmail.com
As for those of you that are not afflicted, yet, why don't you let those of us who have our lives on the line currently express our point of view and experience since you don't know what it's like to be in this situation. The fact is that if baking soda doesn't work it won't be the thing that kills me.
We need more people like myself to come forward and say, before they die "it did not work for me" or "it saved my life".
Posted by: Lee Miles | September 15, 2010 10:20 PM
Interesting discussion, so I ask that IF in fact PLANTS either survive or don't on the pH of the soil they are growing in, why is it not the same for humans? For instance, an acid soil will kill some plants, and others need it to survive. So if our body acidity is wrong because of whatever factors (and WHAT changes that but the food and water we ingest?) then why would the wrong acidity level NOT affect our health? Please explain.
Thanks, Rod
Posted by: Rod G | July 8, 2011 8:27 AM
Threadomancy is very bad form.
But the answer to your question is that the human body is able to control its own pH very, very, precisely. It simply does not happen (barring certain special and well-understood cases having nothing to do with this subject) that "our body acidity is wrong." Measure the pH of (for instance) blood, and you'll find that it just doesn't vary the way the fraudsters claim.
A plant cannot similarly control the pH of the soil in which it is growing (scale alone would make it impossible, though there are other reasons too).
There isn't much similarity at all between the situations.
Posted by: Beamup | July 8, 2011 9:19 AM
Simpler answer - plants don't have kidneys or lungs.
Posted by: Krebiozen | July 8, 2011 11:49 AM
Although the connection from there to Rod's question isn't necessarily obvious without the additional observation that the body uses the kidneys and lungs to control its own pH.
Posted by: Beamup | July 8, 2011 12:07 PM
If there was a cure for cancer to fall on the planet on 10/21/2011, all cancer related research would become irrelevant. All cancer related professionals (oncologists, radiologists, pharmicutical CEO's, and their office administrtors, and secretaries would need to go out and find a job. The "War on Cancer" is a big buisiness. The medical establishment will never allow the war on cancer to alter their income or lifestyles. There will never be a cure, only more, and more expensive treatments !!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rick | October 20, 2011 6:47 PM
Hey, "Rick," have you met "David"?
Posted by: Narad | October 20, 2011 7:01 PM
Rick the Necromancer (#89) claims:
Of course, since "cancer" isn't a single disorder, "a" cure for cancer is about as unlikely as said "cure" falling on the planet tomorrow.
Perhaps. Certainly, the "Cure for all Cancer" industry is big business. And let me ask, just for the record: which "business" makes more money - one that has to produce extensive animal and human research showing that their product works and is safe or the one that packages inexpensive "herbs", vitamins and "minerals" (not to mention overpriced sugar pills and water labeled "homeopathic") and sells them at tremendous markup?
As I mentioned above, "a" cure for cancer is exceedingly unlikely because cancer isn't a single disorder. In that sense, "Rick" is correct: there will never be "a" cure for all cancers. On the other hand, we've already got a number of treatments that are effective for specific cancers, some of which are even "curable".
So, "Rick" seems to say that, since we'll never have a single treatment that will be 100% curative for all cancers, we should just give up and send our money to bullshit artists.
Is that what you meant to say, Rick?
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | October 20, 2011 7:05 PM
Rick, like so many others, you don't seem to understand that there are a lot of countries in this world outside the U.S. and even outside Europe. Most of them do not like America or Europe. They have no incentive to suppress cancer cures so that oncologists, radiologists, pharmaceutical CEOs and their employees can continue to remain employed. Indeed, they have every motive to present such cures themselves so that they could not only take care of their own people without sending their hard currency to America or Europe, but also receive hard currency from desperate cancer patients worldwide. You may object that many of these countries are very poor, and they are, but some (OPEC countries) could easily afford to fund such research. Do you really think Saudi Arabia is deterred from developing a cancer cure by the medical establishment?
Even within the U.S. and Europe, who pays for medical treatment? Usually either insurance companies or governments, neither of whom are generally accused of refusing to pay for less expensive treatment and forcing patients to accept more expensive treatments.
Paranoia doesn't stand up well to the most elementary knowledge of the world.
Posted by: LW | October 20, 2011 7:07 PM
Apparently you have never heard of Edgar Cayce. Do a bit of research, and you'll find that there are many homeopathic remedies that do indeed cure. I'd also suggest you drop your egotistical, know-it-all attitude.
Posted by: Hey | November 13, 2011 12:29 PM
Homeopathic remedies that really cure?
Tell me all about it and provide good evidence with it.
Edgar Cayce was a sightseeer, not really someone I would turn to if I had a serious disease.
Posted by: Renate | November 13, 2011 12:47 PM
Apparently you have never heard of Edgar Cayce. Do a bit of research, and you'll find that there are many homeopathic remedies that do indeed cure.
Since you've surely done your research, why not just drop your egotistical, know-it-all attitude and provide some of this Cayce-related homeopathic proof?
Posted by: Narad | November 13, 2011 2:55 PM