Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by evolivid</i>

I have heard some really good things about "Chlorine Dioxide" neutralizing low ph tissue like cancer , I volunteer at a veterans hospital when ever I can,.. and so I use it often so I dont get sick
being around any one there , It will kill anthrax too here is some info on it..........
A number of products are marketed as "stabilized chlorine dioxide" (SCD). Most of these solutions do not actually contain chlorine dioxide but consist of solutions of buffered sodium chlorite. A weak acid can be added to SCD to "activate" it and make chlorine dioxide in-situ without a chlorine dioxide generator. Stabilized chlorine dioxide is used as a broad spectrum disinfectant and anti-microbial[citation needed]; This form of chlorine dioxide is currently being used against bacterial and viral outbreaks including MRSA, Legionella, and Norovirus The use of SCD is effective when the demand for chlorine dioxide is low and when impurities, such as small amounts of sodium, can be tolerated

this is what I use you have to mix the sodium chlorite( 2 drops) with citric acid (5 drops per 1 drop of sodium chlorite)
in a dry glass and let it sit for at least 3 minutes then add water 6 ounces and then wait another 3 minutes.
and if you have malaria use 15 drops (*5 citric acid drops)will cure you!

MARX
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is insane. Chlorine dioxide is unstable and cannot be stored or purchased. A chemical reaction must create it exactly at time of use. It is a moderately strong oxidizer, which is totally non-discrimatory in its "biocide" or oxidizing effect. It is specifically a <b>contact </b>biocide, not a systemic biocide. There is no way it would survive the pH in a human stomach and, somehow, pass into the bloodstream. Anyway, oxygen in the bloodstream is not free oxygen but is combined with hemoglobin. Chlorine dioxide is in no way "intelligent" - knowing <b>only</b> to attack "bad" bacteria or "bad" cancer cells.

However, if you want the full effect at low cost - buy bleach at the grocery store.

Gregg Wilson

[Gregg] <b>"This is insane"</b>

Probably. We have a pretty good percentage of (active) posters here that don't really understand things. Or perhaps they just can't express themselve in an understandable way. As a consequence much of what they post is ... odd. Even by the standards of a kook Website.

I'm reluctant to ban such BS for a number of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that the line between them and us is not as well defined as we might like it to be. They mostly talk to each other, although it might be more accurate to say they talk past each other. Simultaneous monologs, as it were.

They process an enormous amout of data, produce a small amount of knowledge, and (so far) no understanding. But as long as they stick to talking about ideas and not about each other I say let them have their little circle jerks. (I haven't always felt this way, but times change.)

From time to time I try to correct a few of the more obvious errors (mostly not balancing units). I'm not sure if they really understand - sometimes they say "oh yeah thanks", and then make the same mistake on their next post.

But I see signs of growth in some of them, and you never know when that growth (or just some old fashioned good luck) will lead to something interesting. Or even important.

Gold is where you find it,
LB

Since we have been given the go-ahead to talk about cancer on this website, I would like to chime in with a couple of remarks. First of all though it is painful to discuss or contemplate, I think I agree with those who say that once you get it, conventional treatment has the best track record and is the best bet. Though there may be new treatments that are effective. I really can't say not having studied the subject thoroughly.

But it goes against my way of looking at science to think it stops there. I have long thought there is something wrong with science in general, especially at the level of theoretical research. Right or wrong, mainstream theories, (i.e. those favored by the powers that be), get all the attention and all the funding. This leaves little room for the future correct theory to emerge and be tested, and this is detrimental to the future of science.

One such possibility that I have come across is the work of Peter Duesberg. No, he does not have a cure for cancer, but he may be on the right track for discovering the true cause of cancer, and this is a necessary first step in finding real cures. Duesberg believes that aneuploidy, or an error in cell division caused essentially by various substances and poisons which act as carcinogens, is the real cause of cancer. This is a theory he has been working on for several years and he has several falsifiable predictions to test his hypothesis.

Here is a link to read more about it.
mcb.berkeley.edu/labs/duesberg/research.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institute of Health.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am opposed to censorship and would not normally complain. But this is a distinct issue. Persons who have cancer and believe they will probably die because of it, are understandibly desperate and are willing to try anything.

When a posted "cure" for cancer has absolutely no objective basis, then I have complained. It is a dis-service to post such claims - as it has been for sodium bicarbonate and chlorine dioxide. I haven't commented on such items as marihuana oil, etc, because I don't <b>know</b> if they have potential or not.

I have been through the terrifying experience of probably fatal cancer with my wife and other relatives(not myself). If I <b>knew</b> that I had a cure for Tom's cancer, I could be over to his hospital in 30 mintes. Literally. Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief because I don't have an answer. And I admit it.

Gregg Wilson

[neilderosa] <b>"Since we have been given the go-ahead to talk about cancer on this website, ... "</b> ===

The "go-ahead" is actually a little less expansive than that. This thread only, and try to keep the focus on helping Tom rather than on a general discussion.

This is an astronomy and cosmology Website. We do tolerate loosly related discussions (our definition, subject to change), and from time to time we make special exceptions.

Regards,
LB

[Gregg] <b>"Persons who have cancer and believe they will probably die because of it, are understandibly desperate and are willing to try anything."</b>

And this behavior is wrong because ... ?

One of the bigger problems we have in the good old US of A is that our government frequently stands between a terminally ill individual (with days to live, in lots of pain) and an experimental treatment of some sort. So what if it has only "worked" in one case? Or in none. If I'm about to die, I don't care.

Now - that does not mean I'm going to jump at everything someone suggests. I still have the ability to reason. I'm going to use what I know to help filter out the things I will try from all the things I hear about. Either for me, or for a loved one. I'll reject most suggestions for the same obvious reasons you would. But I still want to think about them for a second or two before I don't give them a try.

Suppose someone makes a wild suggestion. It looks wrong, probably even dangerous, on the surface. But I just happen to have another piece of knowledge that allows me to use this suggestion with relative safety.

Food for thought,
LB