Cesium Cures Cancer? - Page 2

In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
>
>It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
>sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
>immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
>the cation does thereafter is different.
>
>j.

Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so your
explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

>
>Carole wrote:
>> "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
>news:<3ffbd60c$0$61059$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
>>
>>>Well I read the Brewer report and all the people who used the protocol died due to toxicity. Some
>>>of them had no evidence of cancer when they were autopsied though. As I recall the inside of
>>>cancer cells are no more acidic than normal cells. Anth
>>
>>
>> Cell acidity is one of the biggest causes of autointoxication from what I have read in various
>> sources including Paul Bragg's books, the Biochemic Handbook on cellsalts, from personal
>> experience of trial and error and later on veterinary information about acidity in horses leading
>> of underperformance.
>>
>> Cellsalts which mostly eliminate acidity are sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate, which aren't
>> the same as table salt. But we are lead to think that we have ample sodium in our diets because
>> we consume table salt. This is blatant misinformation and it amazes me that nutritionists even
>> believe this.
>>
>> What puzzles me though, is when you read these articles on micro/ trace minerals e.g., cesium,
>> zinc, boron, selenium etc. being cures for this and that - and nobody seems to consider the macro
>> minerals like calcium, potassium and sodium for example.
>>
>> If the micro minerals are so important to good health, are they more important than the macro
>> minerals? If 2/3 of 65+ have osteoporosis to some extent, why would they need micro minerals
>> rather than macro minerals? Perhaps in some people who have no major mineral deficiencies, some
>> trace minerals might have a dramatic effect but surely the priority should be to remedy the macro
>> minerals before considering anything else.
>>
>> HOW WE BECOME ACID THE DEVELOPMENT OF LATENT "ACIDOSIS"
>> http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
>>
>> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/acidity.htm

As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.

It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What the
cation does thereafter is different.

j.

Carole wrote:
> "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:<3ffbd60c$0$61059$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
>
>>Well I read the Brewer report and all the people who used the protocol died due to toxicity. Some
>>of them had no evidence of cancer when they were autopsied though. As I recall the inside of
>>cancer cells are no more acidic than normal cells. Anth
>
>
> Cell acidity is one of the biggest causes of autointoxication from what I have read in various
> sources including Paul Bragg's books, the Biochemic Handbook on cellsalts, from personal
> experience of trial and error and later on veterinary information about acidity in horses leading
> of underperformance.
>
> Cellsalts which mostly eliminate acidity are sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate, which aren't
> the same as table salt. But we are lead to think that we have ample sodium in our diets because we
> consume table salt. This is blatant misinformation and it amazes me that nutritionists even
> believe this.
>
> What puzzles me though, is when you read these articles on micro/ trace minerals e.g., cesium,
> zinc, boron, selenium etc. being cures for this and that - and nobody seems to consider the macro
> minerals like calcium, potassium and sodium for example.
>
> If the micro minerals are so important to good health, are they more important than the macro
> minerals? If 2/3 of 65+ have osteoporosis to some extent, why would they need micro minerals
> rather than macro minerals? Perhaps in some people who have no major mineral deficiencies, some
> trace minerals might have a dramatic effect but surely the priority should be to remedy the macro
> minerals before considering anything else.
>
> HOW WE BECOME ACID THE DEVELOPMENT OF LATENT "ACIDOSIS" http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
>
> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/acidity.htm

"Dawn" <dherbert22@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f9ffce11.0401081555.41cd818c@posting.google.com...
> Cesium is available in a safe form. I can let you know how to get it, just email me.
> Meanwhile, calcium in the proper form also does what cesium does - raises the body's pH,
> thereby allowing more oxygen into the body, and cancer cells can not survive an oxygenated
> environment and they die.

Bull****. Your idea is just pure bull****.

MY MISTAKE, I said cation, I meant anion. So sorry
j.

Say not the Struggle nought Availeth wrote:
> As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
>
> It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> the cation does thereafter is different.
>
> j.
>
> Carole wrote:
>
>> "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:<3ffbd60c$0$61059$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
>>
>>> Well I read the Brewer report and all the people who used the protocol died due to toxicity.
>>> Some of them had no evidence of cancer when they were autopsied though. As I recall the inside
>>> of cancer cells are no more acidic than normal cells. Anth
>>
>>
>>
>> Cell acidity is one of the biggest causes of autointoxication from what I have read in various
>> sources including Paul Bragg's books, the Biochemic Handbook on cellsalts, from personal
>> experience of trial and error and later on veterinary information about acidity in horses leading
>> of underperformance.
>>
>> Cellsalts which mostly eliminate acidity are sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate, which aren't
>> the same as table salt. But we are lead to think that we have ample sodium in our diets because
>> we consume table salt. This is blatant misinformation and it amazes me that nutritionists even
>> believe this.
>>
>> What puzzles me though, is when you read these articles on micro/ trace minerals e.g., cesium,
>> zinc, boron, selenium etc. being cures for this and that - and nobody seems to consider the macro
>> minerals like calcium, potassium and sodium for example.
>>
>> If the micro minerals are so important to good health, are they more important than the macro
>> minerals? If 2/3 of 65+ have osteoporosis to some extent, why would they need micro minerals
>> rather than macro minerals? Perhaps in some people who have no major mineral deficiencies, some
>> trace minerals might have a dramatic effect but surely the priority should be to remedy the macro
>> minerals before considering anything else.
>>
>> HOW WE BECOME ACID THE DEVELOPMENT OF LATENT "ACIDOSIS"
>> http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
>>
>> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/acidity.htm

"Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JsqLb.7510$Ac3.3236@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> MY MISTAKE, I said cation, I meant anion. So sorry
> j.
>

That's okay, science had the polarities reversed for about fifty years.

;o) Rich

> Cesium is available in a safe form. I can let you know how to get it, just email me.
> Meanwhile, calcium in the proper form also does what cesium does - raises the body's pH,
> thereby allowing more oxygen into the body, and cancer cells can not survive an oxygenated
> environment and they die.

Actually no. We're talking about intracellular (within the cell), not about blood plasma levels or
in the intestines. Most people do not need extra calcium; especially in the form they get it in. Not
unless they want kindney stones.

BETTER YET! Cesium Bicarbonate (or would that burn a hole through ya)

http://specialmetals.chemetall.com/s...e/cs+bicarbon-
at+h.r..pdf

CO2 + H20 <---> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) <---> H+ + HCO3- (bicarbonate)

It claims 30 out of 30 patients were 'cured' (in essence their tumours disappeared - doesn't mention
any follow up or what type/stage cancers they had - maybe someone can post the data on this?)
http://www.mwt.net/~drbrewer/highpH.htm Anth

Here's paper on cesium chloride and cancer.
http://www.ithyroid.com/cesium.htm

Title

Cesium therapy in cancer patients.

Author

Sartori HE

Source

Pharmacol Biochem Behav, 21 Suppl 1():11-3 1984

Abstract

The effect of cesium therapy on various cancers is reported. A total of 50 patients were treated
over a 3 year period with CsCl. The majority of the patients have been unresponsive to previous
maximal modalities of cancer treatment and were considered terminal cases. The Cs-treatment
consisted of CsCl in addition to some vitamins, minerals, chelating agents and salts of selenium,
potassium and magnesium. In addition, a special diet was also instituted. There was an impressive
50% recovery of various cancers, i.e., cancer of unknown primary, breast, colon, prostate,
pancrease, lung, liver, lymphoma, ewing sarcoma of the pelvis and adeno-cancer of the gallbladder,
by the Cs-therapy employed. There was a 26% and 24% death within the initial 2 weeks and 12 months
of treatment, respectively. A consistent finding in these patients was the disappearance of pain
within the initial 3 days of Cs-treatment. The small number of autopsies made showed the absence of
cancer cells in most cases and the clinical impression indicates a remarkably successful outcome of
treatment.

Anth

(more information) http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lcesium.htm Anth

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...lationreg.html Hellfried E.Sartori, MD (MD:
License revoked DC: License revoked) The article originates from a doctor who lost his license. Anth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...2427&dopt=Abs-
tract Anth

(There's no cancer types,staging,follow ups - imo the paper is useless for assesment) Anth

"Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:3fffc4c7$0$61054$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Here's paper on cesium chloride and cancer. http://www.ithyroid.com/cesium.htm
>
> Title
>
> Cesium therapy in cancer patients.
>
> Author
>
> Sartori HE
>
> Source
>
> Pharmacol Biochem Behav, 21 Suppl 1():11-3 1984
>
> Abstract
>
> The effect of cesium therapy on various cancers is reported. A total of 50 patients were treated
> over a 3 year period with CsCl. The majority of the patients have been unresponsive to previous
> maximal modalities of cancer treatment and were considered terminal cases. The Cs-treatment
> consisted
of
> CsCl in addition to some vitamins, minerals, chelating agents and salts of selenium, potassium and
> magnesium. In addition, a special diet was also instituted. There was an impressive 50% recovery
> of various cancers, i.e., cancer of unknown primary, breast, colon, prostate, pancrease, lung,
liver,
> lymphoma, ewing sarcoma of the pelvis and adeno-cancer of the gallbladder, by the Cs-therapy
> employed. There was a 26% and 24% death within the
initial
> 2 weeks and 12 months of treatment, respectively. A consistent finding in these patients was the
> disappearance of pain within the initial 3 days of Cs-treatment. The small number of autopsies
> made showed the absence of cancer cells in most cases and the clinical impression indicates a
> remarkably successful outcome of treatment.
>
> Anth

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:42:30 GMT, Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What the cation
>does thereafter is different.

By the way, in these cases the cation (sodium) is the same :-) Did you mean anion?? Or perhaps you
have never heard about that word (otherwise you should have known that cation is the positive ion,
that is, sodium :-)

In article <fcb180f1.0401131723.1712b13@posting.google.com>,
Carole <hubbca@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
>news:<btpLb.54952$zx3.28942@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
>> In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Say not the Struggle nought
>> Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
>> >
>> >It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
>> >sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
>> >immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
>> >the cation does thereafter is different.
>> >
>> >j.
>>
>> Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so
>> your explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.
>>
>Very entertaining Dave ...I am suitably amused.

Why Carole, there's hope for you after all.

>But what you're saying is that I need to go and get some scientific training so I can be as brain-
>washed as you.

Nope, I'm saying that right now, you are slinging around terms like "calcium" without having the
faintest idea what they mean.

>They tell you the rules, how to apply them, a few case histories but you aren't encouraged to think
>for yourself.

Oh, but you are. After all, you can go replicate any experiment you like, do your own checking if
you don't believe what's in the books.

But you don't even know what's in the books.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message news:<btpLb.54952$zx3.28942@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
> <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
> >As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
> >
> >It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> >sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> >immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> >the cation does thereafter is different.
> >
> >j.
>
> Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so
> your explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
> always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
> shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Very entertaining Dave ...I am suitably amused. But what you're saying is that I need to go and get
some scientific training so I can be as brain-washed as you. They tell you the rules, how to apply
them, a few case histories but you aren't encouraged to think for yourself. Neither are you allowed
to recommend nutrition based remedies. Its all about supporting the pharmaceutical-chemical cartel.

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/health.htm