CSN Login
Members Online: 19

Anybody tried maple syrup/baking soda (Na Bicarb)?

tachilders's picture
Posts: 315
Joined: Jun 2012

Just read about this and there appears to actually be a few doctors using catheter delivery of Na Bicarb to treat cancer. The explanation for how it works is that cancer cells take up 15X more sugar than normal cells (why PET scans work), and then the Na Bicarb causes the cells pH to get really high which kills the cancer cells. Extremely simple, cheap to try, and very likely not to cause any harm. I'm thinking of giving this a try. I previously posted about ursolic acid, and have instituted a policy of eating at least one to two apples a day (ursolic acid is found in apple peels).


Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

Interesting. I'd be interested in knowing which doctors are trying this....and what are the outcomes.
Won't be trying it myself :)

PhillieG's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: May 2005

Is it "which doctor" or "witch doctor"?
Hey, you never know what will work...

Posts: 114
Joined: May 2012

Can you just eat it or does it have to be a cath? I'm new to this whole cancer thing. I worked in sales and about a year ago a man was telling me about baking soda/cancer..before I knew I had cancer.

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

First thing to be wary of is claims like the soda, many people will tell you about the latest thing they've heard that works. A lot of times it's a myth, may have started from a cancer trial that failed, or what one would call an old wives tales, so and so said that this works "it's on the internet", just remember because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true. Be wary of claims, and ask your onc about it Baking soda with the maple syrups is just one of many myths out there.
Winter Marie

Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

"The explanation for how it works is that cancer cells take up 15X
more sugar than normal cells (why PET scans work), and then the
Na Bicarb causes the cells pH to get really high which kills the cancer cells."

Normal cells that are in the process of healing, uptake as much,
or more glucose than a cancer cell. Cancer -tumors- may more often
uptake more glucose, but that is not always the case. The higher
uptake of glucose is not a "test", or qualifier for the identification
of cancer.

A cancer cell that has metastasized to an area where normal cells
grow faster than the area where the cancer cell came from, often
makes addressing the cancer cell nearly impossible using methods
that rely on glucose uptake for it's targeting means.

Understanding that fact, should cause one to question the reasoning
of that initial statement! Under most normal circumstances, using
"Na Bicarb" in the manner suggested would cause the death of
more good cells than cancer cells. A little counterproductive,
I'd say....

Our bodies work very hard to keep our PH level within a very tight
tolerance, since a small change can cause severe health problems,
including death. Attempting to change one's PH level only taxes
our renal system and immune system, neither of what we should
be looking to do when we're already fighting to stay alive.

There are other safer options to most of these unproven "alternative remedies".

Please don't allow fear to drive you down the wrong path.

Better health to you!


Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

"Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases"


Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007


"Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases"

Yes, if it is injected directly into the tumor, or directly into it's blood supply.
What happens in a test-tube is not proof of much of anything.

Remember back in the 60s, when they found that "Coca Cola" killed
the AIDS virus? You bet! In a test-tube (They forgot the important part).
It ended up that anything can kill the virus in a test tube.

Reality may be a PITA, but if we don't face it, we can't fight the
real enemy with any success.

Be well,


Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

To clean our toilet.... but this study was oral administration to mice. (did you read it?)

"An equivalent dose in a 70-kg human would be 12.5 g/d" I imagine that dosage would make you quite ill if done too long.

"In the 30-day experiment, pooled data showed that the bicarbonate-treated mice had a total of 147 metastatic lung lesions, whereas the control group had 326 lung lesions"

50% reduction from bicarbonate! lots of protocols don't get that response.
Of course we need double blind yada yada yada never happen trials.

Still, it's interesting. (to me)

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

As Ted says, if there really are doctors doing this via "catheter", then technically they are doing what John says will kill the tumor.....by putting it directly into the blood stream.

Ted....still curious did the article name doctors doing this. Are you able to post a link. Was it an old article?

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

I wrote this treatment off as 'woo' a long time ago, but Im open minded, and what made me curious was that 3 serious universities decided to study this.

That to me means the principle is sound, or the university board would have laughed them out of the room.
But what works in mice does not necessarily work in humans, and this will NEVER go to trial.

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

It seems anything alternative ManWithoutColonCancer is interesting to you, whether it works or not, you like to make sure that colon cancer victims try it to satisfy some need in your mind.

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

I pray you never, ever, run out of chemo options. Some of us have and let me tell you it is agony. I am not as strong as you.

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

You have to understand, that things like baking soda are not going to fix or cure or stop your cancer, it isn't a method that is going to work, plain and simple. When people purport that something like this should be tried or works, then it is only HURTING those without chemo options. There are alternatives out there that have better chances of helping then baking soda. We all would be on baking soda if it worked, our oncologists aren't evil pharma men, that saw baking soda and maple syrup worked and said, Geez, we better not let out dying cancer patients know about this, and now we only have HONEST people out there feeding us this crap about baking soda and we are to believe. It is a false hope, so Janie, I'm not going to stay silent when something like baking soda is touted as a cure. And dear if I run out of chemo options, I will not be doing baking soda and maple syrup, it is a fallacy. And Janie, anyone with stage IV colon cancer is an agony, whether they have chemo or not, they never know if the chemo will work etc., we are all in agony, but it is no reason for us to spread or go for things that DO NOT work, that only hurts us in the end, there is so much so called "alternative" stuff out there touted as a cure that simply isn't, it's just there to give you false hope or take away your money. There are things that do help, like milkthistle, I think some of John's TCM works, but baking soda curing you? No. Do not shoot the messenger Janie, baking soda isn't going to cure you plain and simple.
Winter Marie

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

" There are alternatives out there that have better chances of helping then baking soda"

Now name them please, with checkable peer reviewed studies behind them. I'll be here anxiously waiting.

Also did ANYONE mention 'cure' or are you making things up? read this thread again and only YOU seem to mention it, be careful with that word...

BTW you need to get a dictionary out and look up the word 'placebo'.

Do you know that in the 1960's doctors that used 'chemo' were called 'the lunatic fringe' look it up dear.

Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

(I'll post my rant to your post, since you know me best!)


In the "blog" section of my profile page, I list the very inexpensive
imported medicinal strength Chinese herbs I had taken.

Each herb listed includes a brief description of what that herb
can do biologically.

Each of those herbs have been used for thousands of years.

With the average cost of those herbs at $5.00 per pound,
the first two listed alone, can work in amazing ways.

Those first two are used together, by the way. Alone, they
will not work as well, if at all.

One pound lasts for almost a month and a half.

I can't understand why so many individuals would rather spend
a large amount of money on "alternatives" that do not have the
history of use that Chinese herbs have.

I wish someone can offer a reasonable explanation to me.....

It's frustrating to want to help, but get side-lined by things
like "apricot seeds" (they have pits), and Bicarb with Maple syrup.
(have you priced maple syrup lately?)(can I use generic Log Cabin?)

Good grief.


Best wishes to all for better health,


Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

it would take for you to show up with your personal attacks, seems to be when ever your opinion is questioned....it's just your opinion, please don't let science or facts distort it.

Yeah, I forgot to mention I own a bicarbonate factory....

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

I'll try this one more time. I thought I was halfway intelligent, but maybe I now have chemo brain.

I am only speaking for me........I do NOT plan to treat myself with "baking soda and maple syrup".

I am interested in research. I am a factual person. I was asking Ted if he could perhaps share that link. I do not believe it hurts to read.

At the time of my diagnosis, my first oncologist said "chemo will mop up any cancer cells floating around after surgery".
So, i wasn't quite in the "agony" back then (only 1.7 years ago), that I am in now. I (not talking about anyone else), have been through all the chemo regimes except the last 2 new ones, and, the one that TaraH has been kind enough to say has been working for "her", Gemzar.
Gemzar was also used by Lisa42.

I'm glad you have a good oncologist and they have been perfectly upfront with you, and honest. I have not been that fortunate.

And yes, I know that everyone with stage 4 is in agony, and I shouldn't be so self-centered. I only said it because for me, and me alone, I wasn't AS scared at the time of diagnosis than I am right now. I, in no way, expect anyone to feel exactly the way I do, or "when" I feel like
I do. My apology for being selfish and whiney. I have really tried here to offer more support, than to give a blow by blow what is going on with me.

My hopes for the Kanzius machine that MD Anderson will begin in human clinical trials, either this year yet (or next) is that it will be very successful in treating this hideous disease.
Have you read about it WM? It is quite a fascinating story. It utilizes radiofrequency waves, and gold particles. Sounds bizarre, I know, but every invention, treatment, etc. that is in use, probably seemed bizarre in the early stages. Everything does.
To think.... that a mainstream research hospital will be doing human clinical trials using radiofreqency and gold particles......

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Is a wonderful tool, it's saved a lot of lives. And yes, mold and the miracle of penicillin, who would have thought, the research world is fantastic. They find things that work, they find things that don't.
My greatest hero's are those brave souls that participate in clinical trials, not knowing if they receive the placebo or the real thing, not knowing if the "real" thing is going to work, and yet they bravely go on.
Look at Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, countless lives saved. May they some day find some scientific miracle for those of us with cancer.
And Janie, we're all in this together, we all have hope of living, we all have moments of hopelessness and why me, we dust ourselves off, and we all do the best we can, we keep moving forward, hoping for that NED or at least an extension of our lives, hope is really a good part of our lives once we're diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer. It's making sure that we don't go off the abyss in searching for quackery cures that should keep us wary of baking soda and maple syrup claims.
And Janie, my first post titled "Janie" was ONLY in response to your "praying" for me not to run out of chemo options, you know, the one above my first post, not anything else you posted, just that one, I apparently forgot to mention how kind of you that was, to pray for me not to run out of options. So one chemo head to another, I have no idea what most of your post was in response to, but that's probably as I said, just my chemo head not understanding.
Winter Marie

jr2012's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: Aug 2012

haha will start my bicarb from ur factory...

I was doing soda whenever i have acid reflux - takes a little longer to settle me down - but due to the taste, hvnt done for sometime... instead im doing flaxseed and basil these days

look em up cuz I dont want to say anything or I will be attacked for promoting scams here

Posts: 1195
Joined: Aug 2012

Tedd - are you doing chemo? Have you mentioned this to the doctor yet?

My husband is just starting - 4th treatment this Friday, but I think any alternatives, that are not harmful are worth a try. If for no other reason, to make you feel like you've tried everything and have not given up.

thxmiker's picture
Posts: 1214
Joined: Oct 2010

The adding Baking Soda came from a Max Gerson, MD diet. There are many addendums to the Original Gerson Diet that added a lot of studies and a lot of science.

The lowering of the bodies Ph is actually the reduction of SALT and the addition of Potassium. This will change the Intestinal Ph to more alkali. It is not a great variance, yet less sugar and salt in the intestinal tract promotes good bacteria, so, less bad bacteria and better digestion. (Also Potassium is for good brain and nervous system health. Anyone whom has done Chemo, Potassium is a good thing.)

This is thought to help the body heal itself. The Maple syrup and baking soda is in the Juicing Diet to promote good bacteria health and is not recommended for cancer because of the sugar. Worse case the food you add the baking soda will be spritzy and taste bitter, best you will have better health. Kind of a low risk thing to try.

I am still reading about juicing and doing it at home. I have learned a lot and still have a lot to learn I am sure. If someone has different or additional information, I would love to read it.

Best Always, mike

lepperl's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: Jul 2012

It is simple and cheap and I do believe an increased Ph will kill cancer but will your body let you pull it off? The body constantly strives for optimal Ph. Its not a very negotiable number. Arterial Ph is 7.35-7.45. Your body will keep restoring your Ph to this number. You may be able to get it up for a short time but a working body will get it back to normal. I too have tried the Ph thing but I am cautiously skeptic. I have used cesium Chloride under the care of a doctor to do this. I only do this during chemo breaks. Chemo and cesium do not mix for me. I hope it works for you but just be careful and let your Dr. know. He may think the stress on your body as it tries to restore you to normal may be too much. Good Luck. Simple sodium bicarb ( pure baking soda) will raise your Ph but for how long? Please keep us posted. I will be very interested to see if this works.

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
Posts: 3915
Joined: Nov 2010

In another life, I used to make sensaional pancakes with real maple syrup, whole meal flower and some baking soda so they would rise. this is a tired and tested formula for pancakes.

now I think the catheter is the key, its just like what I had done a few days ago to kill the peritoneal mets. a catheter up your femeral artery, guided to the branch that feeds the mets or mets and zap. their goes chemo, no I imagine bicard could work just as well if delivered directly.

I will ask these far out doctors here if they have heard of or tried this, but its a touch primitive for these guys I suspect. here they favour direct injection into tumour arterial supply using the most biologiclly targeted chemo agents at the highest localised doses. see the dr vogel papers on my blog if your interested.


ps hey tony, a new friend here with GBH is having dendretic cell vacine with NDV being made right now. they are optimistic for her chances, she is also having the latest cyberknife to clean up her brain met. I mention this for the record that I now personally have friends who are being treated with NDV, I could explain the science behind these therapies to help them. as we went through it in detail only a few months ago. these alternatives are sometimes the only option for some, I have so much compassion for those using these relatively untried therapies, she is the bravest grandmother I know.

what we need is hope, not doubt. but thats just my opinion. hugs as always.

pps jeff this is an interesting thread, but the whole acid / alkali thing is like the liberal/labour arguments. like all things, moderation is the key, thats what i have never said before. a little alkaline is where I have my bets placed, but its not something to get stressed over. Our immune system is to important. being overly alkaline is almost as bad as being to acidic

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

Wow---this has gone full circle.

Yes, the key word from the very beginning was "catheter". That is why I was wanting to personally read the article myself. I believe that is what Tony was thinking, also. Is that right, Tony?

***** To anyone new to this.......Do not use maple syrup and baking soda on your own and think this will help. It will NOT.
What a couple of us were interested in was the bit about using a catheter......or, meaning, hitting the "target" directly. That is the part that we are interested in.......NOT ORALLY taking the syrup and the baking soda. When I first became diagnosed, I knew NOTHING. It does take a while and endless reading to only begin to understand some of the complexities.
I lean toward paying attention to anyone who does a lot of research and who has been at this battle for a while.

As manwithnoname said, he had already written this off (maple syrup and baking soda). BUT he (like I), just happened to be interested in the "catheter" part. That is a different ballgame, so to speak. We just wanted to see what was written.

If cancer weren't so deadly and horrible, this thread otherwise would make me smile.... it reminds me of "Who's on Base?" Remember that?

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Of course, it's our scientist's/researcher's faults, Soda has been touted for years, and still they haven't stuck needles in our tumors and pushed the baking soda into them and CURED us. My goodness, I guess it's because it's too darn cheap. Conspiracy; obviously to keep the cheap baking soda from us and save us from cancer. It's all sooo SIMPLE!!! Yep, it's a whole different ball game and yet they still refuse to go main stream and cath it into our tumors. It all makes sense!! My fault, I apologize. Bad, bad researchers!! And here, now I realize I don't need radiation on my tumors in my lungs, no, I just need baking soda cathed into my tumors there, what a relief, now where can I find an onc to do that? All those years of research when baking soda was staring at them in the face all these years, amazing, absolutely amazing. Think we should run down to the research labs with pickit signs letting them know we're on to them and we demand our baking soda???

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

I don't know if you are attacking me now.

If you read what Pete wrote above me, he said "catheter", and that is what I was referring to.

Also, no one that I can tell is talking about baking soda being a CURE, only you bring up CURE.

And, what is wrong with reading about research?

You say something about Chinese herbs, that some of those may be ok. What is going on?

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Of course not, I'm as sincere as your prayers for me are, which I am positive are very sincere. Yes, I know amazing that Pete is out there getting chemo shot directly in his tumors, yet our researchers aren't doing that to us with this wonder soda! I'm shocked at our research community keeping this from us.
Why in the world would you think I was attacking you? In what way? By going along with the soda cath theory? And what other reason would you want to do the soda? If not for a CURE, just for the heck of it? That doesn't make sense, to do something that's going to do nothing. Seems to me, that going for the cure is what makes sense, so if you think the cath soda theory would work, work doing WHAT if not a cure? And by the way, the web is nothing but FULL of claims that the maple syrup soda can cure you. But of course, maybe you all are more sensible then me, and believe the soda will do something else, what else exactly if not a cure? You had me going there for a minute, I was blaming the researchers for no cure, and now you say, it isn't a possible cure, then my blonde head just cannot understand exactly what do you expect the soda to do?? You attack me if I disagree, then attack me if I agree, goodness, what do you want?

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

"WHAT if not a cure?"

Disease stabilisation.
Life extension.

Glad to clear that up for you WM...

Also, maybe you don't get it, but NO doctor, no matter how much you beg, will treat you with a drug that has not been approved, bicarbonate has NEVER been approved for treating anything as far as I know, and probably never will be.

My own stance on this is I see it as interesting BUT I will not be giving it to my son, or recommending it to ANYONE until I see more data on it.
The PDF I posted was ORAL administration to MICE, no maple syrup or HUMANS involved.

*UPDATE* from Oxford (some of you might have heard of it) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22382688 this clarifies things for me.

For anyone having trouble deciphering the paper; It's dangerous. Medical supervision necessary.

Posts: 753
Joined: Apr 2011

For the third and final time.
I like to read. Thankfully so do others. And some are very considerate in providing links.
For the second time. I make decisions based on facts as much as humanly possible.
Opinions are just that.......opinions.......just like.......what is a person's favorite color.....that would be an opinion.
Winter, I wish you would take the time and go to the top and re-read every word of this entire thread.
I know I can' t force you, but you have missed something. I also said from the very beginning i won 't be doing any baking soda and maple syrup. This is incredible. And, i did ask......what is wrong with reading?
Go ahead and have the last word.
I dont want to waste any more time.

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Yes, I guess I did Janie, you still haven't told me what you expect the baking soda to do.
And Janie, I think the Majority of us like to read, it's one of my favorite past times, now how you can turn this into an accusation of hatred against reading from me, is BEYOND my comprehension.
And Opinions, I just give my opinions and you attack my opinion's, although I appreciate you taking the time to inform me what an opinion is, perhaps you should take a second look at your definition of opinions and see that OTHERS have them as well, myself included, and that's all they are...opinions.
Winter Marie

Posts: 836
Joined: Apr 2004

Getting back on the topic I thought the main basis that alkalinisation was promoted historically was the dubious claim that cancers arise from fungal, especially candida, infections. Had a look around and there is no decent evidence to support it scientifically but it is used including arterially into vessels leading to tumours. The main advocate I see is dr simoncini whose website is worth reading with a critical eye http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/

One of the best balanced bits of info on bicarbonate I found was this acs site at http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/sodium-bicarbonate

Not something I would consider I've or arterially. Orally I have no doubt is entirely homeopathic as the body is too good at regulating ph to make a difference.


Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

The body may regulate PH but can the tumour? this to me was never about 'fungus' more about the 'environment'.

The Italian doc was struck off years ago.

I stand corrected, Dr. Marty Pagel, PhD, from the University of Arizona Cancer Center is actual doing a study on this, not a clinical trial per se, but more than I would have expected.

@ Steve, see my link from Oxford. that summary from cancer.org is 4 years out of date BTW.

Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

"Not something I would consider I've or arterially. Orally I
have no doubt is entirely homeopathic as the body is too good at
regulating ph to make a difference"

Well said.

It's scary to read comments like this:
"....there appears to actually be a few doctors using catheter delivery of Na Bicarb to treat cancer.....
... Extremely simple, cheap to try, and very likely not to cause any harm. I'm thinking of giving this a try....."

Pumping Bicarb (and/or maple syrup?) into one's veins just does not
seem like a very good idea to me. I hope Tedd re-thinks this.

My best,


tachilders's picture
Posts: 315
Joined: Jun 2012

Wow, went away for a day or two and came back to quite a firestorm with this post. The doctor that is/was using catheter delivery of Na Bicarb for cancer is Dr. Simoncini in Italy. Guy could be a quack for all I know. However, I did just find this article, whcih may lead to more real info.


Apparently, this doctor will be doing a real clinical trial in humans using oral delivery of baking soda/Na Bicarb to treat breast cancer.

Sorry that my post caused so much trouble....

FTR, I am taking FOLFOX + Avastin (8 treatments in) and had tumor reduction after only 5 tx based on CT results. I will take 4 more, and then get more scans. Always looking for alternative/supplemental treatments....

Lovekitties's picture
Posts: 2933
Joined: Jan 2010

This whole thing about baking soda got me looking at the net where I found tags saying that a doc in Arizona had been given a $2 million dollar grant to do a clinical trial.

Well I could not find anything "official" from NIH as to what exactly this grant was for.

From what I read, in a number of places, it sound more like there is new MRI equipment which is supposed to be able to measure the changes in the acidity level of breast cancer tumors before any treatment is started.

The following from AARP was the one article which made the most sense to me...as a lay person:

Mark Pagel, associate professor of biomedical engineering, has been given a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, as well as private support from local cancer foundations, to research the effectiveness of baking soda cancer therapy.

“There is outstanding evidence that baking soda treatments reduce tumor growth and eliminate metastases, but the evidence is limited to mice,” Pagel told AARP.

Pagel and a team of researchers at the university’s cancer center are developing a way to measure the acidity level of tumors using MRI technology before cancer treatment begins.

Tumors produce acid when they are growing, which destroys the surrounding tissue, allowing the tumor to spread.

By measuring the amount of acidity in the tumor, patients could be given a specially formulated baking soda solution to drink that researchers believe would counteract the specific acidity of their tumors.

Because humans are more sensitive to baking soda — long-term use can lead to kidney and bladder damage — Pagel and his colleagues “want to ensure that a patient is using the right dose amount and timing so that the tumor is affected by the baking soda, without also affecting normal tissue,” he explains.

Knowing the acidity level of a tumor could also help predict which chemotherapy will work best for a patient, Pagel says. He calls it a way to “personalize medicine” so that treatment is optimized for each individual.


Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

Myths, stories, and fabrications, oh my.

No firestorm here! Just people attempting to help people!

Here's some reading material:

"More recently, the CIS has fielded questions about a myth that
all cancers are caused by a fungus and that baking soda is the

"People ask what the research shows about a particular topic, but
often there is no research related to the question at hand," said
Susan Church, who responds to public inquiries at the CIS.
"Sometimes, all we can do is explain what we know to date about
the biology of cancer.""

"The myth of the baking soda starts with a man named Tullio
Simoncini, who practiced in an alternative clinic in the
Netherlands. In October 2007, charges were laid against Simoncini
when a patient 50 years of breast cancer, he was treated admitted
to a hospital in Amsterdam, where she died a few days. His death
was determined to be of unnatural causes: the injection of sodium
bicarbonate - baking soda. Further investigation revealed that
the medical license had been revoked Simoncini in Italy. The
unexpectedly, the clinic in the Netherlands allowed him to
administer treatments baking soda harmful for cancer patients
through a variety of unorthodox methods: injection,
catheterization and oral. The Netherlands Health Inspectorate
determined baking soda to be dangerous and ineffective, and
warned that any physician using the procedure Simoncini would be studied."


"The Claim: Acidic foods can alter the body’s pH balance and
promote cancer.

The Facts: The unsubstantiated theory is based on lab studies
that suggest cancer cells thrive in an acidic (low pH)
environment, but cannot survive in alkaline (high pH)
surroundings. While these findings are accurate, they apply only
to cells in an isolated lab setting. Altering the cell
environment of the human body to create a less-acidic,
less-cancer-friendly environment is virtually impossible.

While proponents of this myth argue that avoiding certain foods
and eating others can change the body’s pH level, these claims
stand in stark contrast to everything we know about the chemistry
of the human body. Acid-base balance is tightly regulated by
several mechanisms, among them kidney and respiratory functions.
Even slight changes to your body’s pH are life-threatening
events. Patients with kidney disease and pulmonary dysfunction,
for example, often rely on dialysis machines and mechanical
ventilators (respectively) to avoid even small disruption of
acid-base balance."
Busting Cancer Myths: Acidic Foods and Cancer Risks

There are more sites that explain the myth of NA (bicarb of soda), along
with myths regarding cancer remedies in general, I only listed the
easiest to understand ones here.

Changing the body's PH with foods is not taken seriously by any
of those in the science world that matter; they usually ignore the
preposterous and move on to matters that make more sense

While there are some things (like homeopathic remedies) that
can not be scientifically proven to do much of anything, the
remedies are used with great success on both humans and animals.
But even homeopathic remedies can be explained in a manner that
makes sense biologically, with results that can be duplicated easily.

Killing cancer cells by taking bicarbs orally, is not one of them.

If one is dead-set on wasting time, they should try something like
Traditional Chinese Medicine instead of any of the other hocus-pokus
remedies. Maybe the TCM snake-oil will make a difference!

One won't know unless one tries, ehh?

Oh well........

Be well folks; be healthy!


herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Well said, and well explained, my hat's off to you.
Winter Marie

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

First lets put to rest the 'fungus theory' no one is taking that seriously, and no one is talking about 'diet' and Ph.

"The Facts: " While these findings are accurate, they apply only
to cells in an isolated lab setting"

That's just not true is it. Read the PDF I posted.

"One won't know unless one tries, ehh?" exactly, that is a real scientific experiment.

The only 'snake oil' I would try better have some real evidence behind it, I'm not interested in woo.

herdizziness's picture
Posts: 3397
Joined: Apr 2010

Really? You are the "woo" king. We bow to your "wooness" and take everything you say, with a grain...no let me rephrase that, with NO grains of salt, not even worthy of a grain at times, that they are so far fetched.
I know that I rarely respond to anything you say, because well, I don't respect much of anything you have to say, because it is so full of "woo" as you put it.
But I do respect John, and his facts more fully then your "woo" made up stuff. When you or any of yours gets colon cancer, and you choose to discuss that, maybe we can have a meaningful conversation, but...Brain cancer and colon cancer are on completely and hugely DIFFERENT spheres that it really is pointless to discuss much of anything with you, it's as if we are on completely different planets, which leads me to reason as to why on CSN there is a discussion group for Breast Cancer, BRAIN cancer, CHILDHOOD cancers, Uterine cancer,lung cancer etc.., all SEPARATE from each other because each cancer is different, chemos, cures (if possible), therapies, symptoms are all different. Colon cancer is NOT the same as brain cancer, the chemo's, the protocol's the surgeries are ALL DIFFERENT. Colon cancer is NOT the same as breast cancer, the chemo's the protocol's the surgeries are ALL DIFFERENT. Colon cancer is not the same as melanoma cancer, the chemo's the protocol's the surgeries are ALL DIFFERENT, the list goes on.
Yet, you feel the need, to say you aren't a "woo" king, but you only discuss alternatives as if they are the only way to go, and as if BRAIN cancer alternatives are the same as COLON alternatives, ONE SIZE does not fit all. I would have had some respect for you if you had gone to the brain cancer or children cancer boards, but you have never even done that, for some strange reason you choose to only visit our (that would be us, the people with colon cancer) board and push your "woo" on us.

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

As I have said to you before, put up or shut up.
I have already told you start your own forum then you will have TOTAL control, doesn't that sound good?

You will also see that I HAVE posted on the brain tumour forum, pretty poor place, not much info.

Im also a member of ependyparents.org, for my non-existent son's brain tumour, why don't you join and check, you check everything else about me.

Now ALL those cancers you mentioned can spread to the BRAIN, and Ive told you I ain't here for the hugs, it's the info.

Which reminds me, thanks for the heads up on the Hydrazine sulphate John23, pretty poor for colorectal but seems to be potent for brain tumours.

"for some strange reason you choose to only visit our board" Winter, I visit the brain tumour board DAILY as who ever runs this place can testify to. I ended up here for Pete's Gc-maf experiment, you have a very short term memory...

Here's the thing lady, if I wanted to 'push' anything here I would have joined as a 63 year old woman called Marge from Ohio with grade IV CRC, have a nice avatar with a puppy or some kittens then after a few months of sending people 'wishes and hugs' post how my CEA has gone down after taking some miraculous supplement with an affiliate link hidden in it. ( Google affiliate coz Im sure you don't know what it is )

Now when I joined here YOU didn't have ANY cancer so why were you here? and since I have joined you have accused me of being an 'industry shill' stealing someone else's 'cancer story' 'kiddie cancer fraud' lying several times and 'pushing woo' several times.

When really ALL I have done is disagreed with your precious opinion.

I have been warned by several members what you are like and oh how right they were, maybe you will get rid of me is with the apology YOU OWE ME.

hugs, Tony

P.s thanks for the cancer lesson.

devotion10's picture
Posts: 642
Joined: Jan 2010

I know that you and your family must be under tremendous pressure and grief to see your child experience brain cancer.

My own brother died of a glioblastoma only four short months after its discovery.

I have never doubted you nor your son's condition.

I read your posts with interest and with an open mind ... but ...

is there any way that you can disagree with Winter Marie and others that might have differences of opinion without being so mean-spirited?

It is so disheartening to come to the board and feel the anger.

Can you find a way to let the anger go?

We need you and your opinions, but not your anger.

There are so many people struggling here daily and we come together to support one another.

If you have an issue with one or two members, maybe it would be best to just not respond? Why keep it all going? What is accomplished?

There are so many people here who are sad, some dying ... why waste precious moments of your time or anyone else's with the anger?

I wish you and your family the best. I wish Winter Marie the best. I wish everyone peace and courage and strength and kindness.


Cynthia -- a 60 year old woman from Michigan with a nice avatar of a puppy who does wish everyone wishes and hugs :)

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

I have asked Winter several times in other threads to 'let it go' and not attack me.

Im sorry I find it very difficult not to respond when it's a PERSONAL attack and not about my opinion, and the only person who is making me angry is Winter.

However for the sake of all I will do my best to ignore her and her opinions. I promise.

Now maybe you can influence Winter to let it go.

Sorry about your brother, it couldn't have been easy.


devotion10's picture
Posts: 642
Joined: Jan 2010

I am holding you to your promise to try to not get so riled up :)

I think you mean well, but I also think Winter Marie does too.

Cancer and disease and stress and desperation change us all and it is often not easy to stay calm in this storm.

Yes, my brother's passing was tough. His own daughter died of leukemia at age six.

You know in the southern part of the US where I am originally from there is an expression "you catch more flies with honey".

Stay sweet and we will be able to hear you better.

Again, thank you for your response.


tanstaafl's picture
Posts: 959
Joined: Oct 2010

I think manwithnoname could do a better job "connecting the dots" to CRC and presenting acceptable, relevant studies for support. While there are subjects that I think are largely a waste of time, it may be important that we try to examine old chestnuts and controversies carefully, analytically. Too often, epithets like "quackery" and "woo" have been used as means to quash treatments that had merit, where life or major changes hung in the balance. I've run across several of these in the last 10 years.

Marie's "cancers,.., all SEPARATE from each other because each cancer is different" is not correct in the sense of total "SEPARATE" independence. Already there is significant known overlap between cancers based on molecular pathways, biomarkers and targeted treatments in common.

In the 1950s, physicists were going nuts over the classification of hundreds of new particles. Eventually the rise of quark theory could explain these particles in terms of combinations of 6 basic quarks.

Similarly there is a lot of overlap between cancers that can already be described, and treated, in terms of cells with different combinations of common, aberrant molecular pathways, and common treatment components.

Posts: 390
Joined: Jun 2012

I can do a better job...the only separation is the blood brain barrier.

currently my son takes a breast cancer chemo and a sarcoma chemo, along with an arthritis drug an epileptic drug a cholesterol lowering drug and a diabetic drug, topped off with a chicken virus and washed down with a hormone.

All these to target certain pathways, some of which are very relevant to CRC (and many other cancers.)

So you like quantum mechanics? we have Schrodinger's cat on the 6th Nov. already getting nervous.

No point in finding relevant studies, I have tried posting, WM never reads any.

tanstaafl's picture
Posts: 959
Joined: Oct 2010

It might be useful to collate the redundant material and links in the "Blog" and "Resources" area so others can find them quickly. Then if WM hasn't read, understood or agreed with something, it becomes easier for others catch up and to form their own opinion without as much back and forth that gets bogged down in personalities.

Also succinct, polished summaries are more likely to be found, read and understood by more people with a better grasp of the overall picture and issues.

Lovekitties's picture
Posts: 2933
Joined: Jan 2010

More info please, because I am a bit confused about this separate or not totally separate issue.

If the word "totally" is the key then I guess I agree since from what I have read cancers are caused by cells gone bad during division or failure to die in a normal fashion.

If they weren't separate wouldn't all be able to be treated with one chemo and all those treated have the same results from treatment? If they weren't separate why would there be a need to test tumors to find the chemo which would provide the best response?

I understand that some folks ( Pete and MWNN to name two ) do use some chemo's in an "off label" manner, but I have not read anywhere where chemo treatments are interchangable in the norm.

The only targeted treatment which comes to mind which crosses several different cancers is radiation. Can you give us some others?

If it were true that a cure for one cancer would cure all, that would be wonderful indeed.

Marie who loves kitties

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
Posts: 3915
Joined: Nov 2010

Dear Marie and all

how do you get good chemo to peritoneal mets direct injection.

so my removab use is offlabel, its like chemo in that it helps kill cancer cells and the side effects are supreme. it does not destroy your immune system like folfox etc, so I am playing the game of long term survival and i want acknowledge the compromise a short term high dose chemo maybe benefit some, but you see my MDR is 70%, that the multidrug resistance pathway in my tumour, so hardcore chemo well in my case why bother. being guided by the best science is all we can do and pray of course. after 6 month removab the express of my tumour biological markers can change considerably, so the suckers are slippery little devils to. I published all the greek test tumour results last december on my blog, goto blog search medical record and read the rgcc results about 4 documents.

beating cancer with nutrition by thomas someone. its a concise simple read. it covers lots of the pathways. i have had my tumour pathways analysed dec11, my mistake was hammering the tumour with well targetted naturals and not going hardcore jan feb 12 when my escalating markers with clear scans.

so now if i recover well enough from removab, then mitomycin, matiac d fraction and vit c in hyperthemia. the chemo is on a 24hour bottle, low dose to shutdown any circulating ctcs. this choice of chemo was guided by chemo sensitivity testing. why not use the most effective chemo for you tumour?

I will copy this into my removab post for any further discussion . my point is our tumours are unique but they all have different pathways, which can be targetted.

the point is our tumours all have common pathways which are uniquely expressed, just like we are unique, they exist in us, they are shaped by our environment, our ever changing environment, something as simple as deep breathing oxyganates our cellular metabolism and can encourage oxphos ADP not fermentation, but its very complex. read cancer as a metabolic disease for full details.


Posts: 1832
Joined: Jan 2007

"If they [cancer cells] weren't separate wouldn't all be able to be treated with
one chemo and all those treated have the same results from treatment?"

All cancer cells survive and live by the same means: the Fermentation process.

In that respect, -all- cancer cells are the same.

All the chemicals used for cancer therapy (chemo) will damage -any-
cancer cell to the point of it's death. Unfortunately, the chemicals will
also damage -any- cell as well. That's the reason every chemical
used for therapy (chemo) is considered a major carcinogenic substance.

So, if they all can kill cancer cells, why not one drug?

The problem is how to target the cancer cells specifically, without
damaging all the surrounding good cells that the cancer is among.

If the cancer began in the prostrate, it is likely a slow growing cancer.
That same cancer cell, metastasizing to the liver or lungs, will grow slower
than it's new surrounding cells, making the targeting of it more difficult
using present technology. So using genetic markers instead of glucose
sensitive products for targeting it, means that different chemicals have
to be adapted for that requirement.

Otherwise, the same chemical will kill any cancer cell, regardless where
it had it's beginning. One bullet fits all; it's how well you can aim it.

That make sense?
(That was a slight variation of how it was described to me years back).

My conclusion (and the one explaining it) was that there is too much
time being wasted on attempting to target powerful chemicals, when
they should be trying to figure out how to get the immune system to
do the job it should have been doing to prevent those damaged cells
from staying behind to begin with.

Not everyone gets cancer, and not everyone is so susceptible to what
are classified as "carcinogenic substances". Anything can be considered
carcinogenic if one's immune system allows a damaged, defective cell
to remain within us.

Immunotherapy makes more sense, than trying to selectivly target this
needle in the haystack. Our immune system is designed to address single cells.

All cancer cells begin the same way; trying to fight what it later becomes,
is just confusing the issue at hand. A good guy can become a killer,
does it take a different bullet to stop him at different times of his life?

Hopes for all, for better health,


tanstaafl's picture
Posts: 959
Joined: Oct 2010

Lovekitties, "target" in my discussion is about targeted molecular pathways of aberrant cells, where ever they occur, not tightly focused anatomical locations.

Totally independent cancers would have separate biomarkers and pathways, say Cancer1 had biomarkers A, B, C, D versus Cancer2 only had biomarkers, E and F. In reality, even with different organs, two "different" cancers might have A and B in common, separated only by D in Cancer1 and nothing more in Cancer2. Lots of overlap rather just using Drug1 only for Cancer1 and Drug2 only for Cancer2.

If you have a healthy Substance1 that neutralizes or ameliorates the pathway with Biomarker A, and a cheap tolerable Substance2 that neutralizes or ameliorates the pathway with Biomarker B, you might add both Substance1 and Substance2 to both cancers' treatments if there is no adverse interaction combining them with other treatments too.

Immunotherapies target certain molecular pathways and cellular processes to promote immune functions.

Some off label drugs and nutrient uses are already known to manipulate described molecular pathways in biologically based alternative medicine.

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2014 © Cancer Survivors Network