The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 2 | Chris Kresser
HCTP Banner

The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 2

by

Last updated on

acid alkaline myth, mercola alkaline diet
Shaking up the acid-alkaline diet myth. istock.com/pilipphoto

In Part 1 of this series, I talked about why the basic premise of the acid-alkaline theory is flawed, and I showed that the evidence doesn’t support the idea that a net acid-forming diet is harmful to bone health. Now I want to look at the effect of dietary acid load on other health conditions.

Can the acidity or alkalinity of your diet affect your risk for muscle loss, cancer, and more? Tweet This

Muscle Wasting

There is some research claiming that acid-forming diets cause muscle wasting, and the proposed mechanism is similar to that of the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis. Some researchers hypothesize that in order to eliminate excess acid and maintain homeostasis, the kidneys must steal amino acids from muscle tissue. (1, 2) Just as a higher acid load increases calcium in the urine, it also increases nitrogen in the urine, leading some to believe that an acid-forming diet causes net nitrogen loss. However, some of these studies neglect to measure nitrogen balance, so this is not necessarily true. (3, 4) In fact, one study showed that a higher acid diet improved nitrogen balance! (5) This theory also does not acknowledge that protein, although it’s acid forming, actually increases the body’s ability to excrete acid. (6) Finally, the one observational study concluding that alkaline diets improve lean muscle mass didn’t even measure the overall acid load of the diet. (7) Instead, they used potassium intake as an approximate measure, and just assumed that the observed improvement in muscle mass was due to the diet being more alkaline. This, in addition to the limitations that always accompany observational data, makes the evidence less than convincing, especially since the clinical trials have conflicting results.

Cancer

One of the more popular claims of the alkaline diet is that it can cure cancer. Proponents say that because cancer can only grow in an acidic environment, a net-alkaline diet can prevent cancer cells from growing, and can eliminate existing cancer cells. This theory is incorrect for a few reasons. First of all, the hypothesis depends on the ability of food to substantially change the pH of the blood and extracellular fluid, which I’ve already shown is not the case. (8, 9, 10) Second, cancer is perfectly capable of growing in an alkaline environment. The pH of normal body tissue is 7.4, which is slightly alkaline, and in almost every experiment done with cancer cells, they are grown in an environment at that pH. (11)

Now, cancer cells do tend to grow better in an acidic environment, but the causality is reversed. Once a tumor develops, it creates its own acidic environment through up-regulated glycolysis and reduced circulation, so the pH of the patient’s blood no longer determines the pH of the cancer. (12) It’s not the acidic environment that causes the cancer; it’s the cancer that causes the acidic environment. To top it all off, the only comprehensive review on ‘diet-induced’ acidosis and cancer did not even acknowledge this as a valid mechanism by which an acid-forming diet could increase cancer risk. They discuss a few biological pathways that could potentially link dietary acid load and cancer, but they admit that it’s mostly speculation and there’s no direct link. (13)

Other Effects

There are a few observational studies attempting to link acid-forming diets with hypertension, but the results are mixed. (14, 15) There’s also limited observational data associating higher acid loads with things like high cholesterol, obesity, and insulin resistance, but there are no proposed mechanisms or clinical studies to validate the hypotheses. (16, 17)

There are a few review papers examining the effect of acid-forming diets and health, but as you’ve seen above, the evidence they have to review is sparse. (18, 19, 20, 21, 22) If you read these papers, you’ll notice that whenever they cite trials showing the deleterious effects of acidosis, those trials were done on patients with chronic kidney disease or diabetes-induced acidosis. In the studies done on healthy people, they’re given ammonium chloride to induce acidosis. What you won’t see are clinical trials showing health consequences from purely ‘diet-induced’ acidosis. (Perhaps because ‘diet-induced’ acidosis doesn’t exist!) You’ll also notice that the strongest two hypotheses deal with osteoporosis and muscle wasting, and that links with other diseases are speculative or based on observational data. And although conflicts of interest don’t necessarily mean their conclusion can’t be trusted, it’s interesting to note that one of these reviews was funded by “pH Sciences®,” which “develops and manufactures patent-protected ingredients that safely and effectively manage biological pH levels.” (23)

In sum, I am not convinced that an acid-forming diet has negative effects on healthy people, based on the science. But just to be sure, it’s always a good idea to observe healthy cultures to see if there’s any anthropological evidence to support or refute the hypothesis.

Evolutionary Data

There are a few studies where researchers attempted to approximate the net acid load of Paleolithic diets. One estimated that 87% of pre-agricultural people ate net-alkaline diets, and proposed this discrepancy with our modern diets as a possible reason for our declining health. (24) However, a more recent study estimated that only half of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies eat net-alkaline diets, while the other half are net acid-forming. (25) They reason that the other estimate is likely accurate for our earlier ancestors, because their tropical habitat would’ve provided ample fruits and vegetables. This idea is confirmed by another analysis that showed increasing acid load with increasing latitude. (26) Even without the study, it stands to reason that as humans moved into less hospitable environments, the animal content (and acid load) of their diet increased.

Given the subpar clinical science on this topic, I think the evolutionary argument is far more convincing. If half of the world’s hunter-gatherer populations avoid the ‘diseases of civilization’ on an acid-forming diet, it would seem that acid load has little to no bearing on overall health. For some case studies, we can always look to Weston Price’s work to see quite clearly that acid-forming diets are not detrimental to health. Based on Price’s descriptions, many of the traditional diets he studied would have been primarily acid-forming, including the Swiss, the Masai, and the Inuit. Yet despite their high intake of animal foods or grains and their comparatively low intake of fruits and vegetables, they maintained excellent health.

Conclusion

I don’t deny that many people have seen significant health improvements when switching to an alkaline diet, but there are many possible reasons for this not having to do with pH balance. Eating more fresh produce is rarely a bad idea, especially when it displaces nutrient poor processed foods. A person switching to an alkaline diet would significantly reduce their consumption of grains, which could cause dramatic health improvements for somebody with a leaky gut or gluten sensitivity. Dairy would also be minimized, which would help those with dairy sensitivities. And although pure sugar isn’t an acid-forming nutrient, many laypeople claim that it is, so alkaline diets tend to contain far less sugar than a standard Western diet.

Between the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the anthropological research, I think we can be confident that the acid load of our diets doesn’t negatively impact healthy people. For those with renal failure or similar conditions that affect kidney function, it’s a different story—there’s certainly room for manipulation of urine pH in the treatment of those conditions. But for someone with functioning kidneys, there should be no concern that an acid-forming diet will harm health.

Now I’d like to hear from you: what are your opinions on the acid-alkaline diet theory? Have you ever tried eating an alkaline diet, and if so, did you experience health benefits? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

892 Comments

Join the conversation

  1. I am so glad you did this!!! I have had a hard time communicating this to others and this was very helpful!
    Green Blessings!

  2. The conclusion here is pretty much what I’ve long believed (and kept quiet about for the past 15 years because of the proselytizing and hate mail that happens when I call bullshit on things people take as gospel).

  3. THANK YOU! As a chiropractor, I’ve recommended the alkaline diet concept to patients for awhile, but felt uneasy about it because of the fact that physiology textbooks do not make ANY mention of a mechanism by which the body would “pull Calcium out of the bones to buffer the blood”.

    What makes more sense, having read your concurrence that such evidence DOES NOT EXIST*, is the idea that when people eat more fresh vegetables, their urine pH goes up – and they feel / function better – but then they mistakenly attribute the “feeling better” to the increased urine pH, rather than the increased vegetable intake.

    * to be evidence, a study’s results must be reproducible – and it looks like attempts to validate any prior “research” supporting the acid/alkaline ash theory of health/disease/osteoporosis have ended up REFUTING the original (non-peer-reviewed) work rather than supporting it.

    I would ask, Chris, what you think the explains the correlation between dairy intake and osteoporosis? This shows up in the Harvard Nurse’s Study, as well as studies that compare dairy intake and osteoporosis rates of different countries.

    Proponents of the alkaline diet blame protein intake in countries and individuals with high dairy consumption/osteoporosis, but that seems unlikely if the other studies you cite are true…

    To those of you (on this site’s comments) either asking or answering the question “What causes cancer?”, it is ridiculous to imagine that we know the answer to this question! We may be able to come up with health strategies that help people get well when they have cancer – but that is NOT THE SAME as knowing what causes cancer. Science just isn’t there yet, and may never be.

    My guess is that our environments and lifestyles have become so polluted on so many levels over the years, and our nutrition so depleted, that a vast number of factors combine to raise cancer rates to the shocking levels they are today. Looking for ONE cause is likely futile – but I do understand how comforting it is to imagine we can find ONE cause and therefore, cancer-proof ourselves by avoiding that one thing.

  4. I’m the author of the book “The Doctor Who Cures Cancer.” What is missing here is the little known work of Dr. Revici. Revici discovered that there are three distinct urine pH patterns when the urine is checked four times a day.

    In one pattern, the person’s urine is too acidic AS A PATTERN and in the other the person’s urine is too alkaline as a pattern. The third pattern is that of a healthy person where the pH readings are balanced.

    The symptoms manifested by the two unbalanced patterns are the opposites.For instance one could have high blood pressure while the other low blood pressure. One has trouble sleeping, the other has no trouble sleeping. One feels worse as a result of eating while the other feels better.

    These are distinct patterns, not just happenstance.

    Cancer is dualistic in that either imbalanced pattern promotes cancer activity. The symptoms are different, however.

  5. I’ve had some swallowing problems, a swollen lymph node, heartburn, recurring athlete’s foot, constipation, various small bumps and a pituitary tumor. As I’ve sought remedies to these issues, I found that eliminating some foods from my diet helps. Once I found the alkaline diet, I could finally expand the diversity in my diet without negative effects. The more alkaline my diet, the more issues are resolved. I can even eat animal meat and sweets without negative effects as long as I balance it with fruits and vegetables.

    The pH balance in our blood is tightly regulated, just like body temperature. So, I don’t believe the diet changes our body’s pH. But something about this diet works in a big way. How about figuring out why it works rather than “debunking” a diet with clear benefits.

    And Nic, don’t overdo the apple cider vinegar. There are better long-term solutions.

    • Hi Kevin….some good points….just one note that may interest you….whatever imbalances there are re pH in our blood is being thrown out into the tissue to maintain that stable pH of 7.365 in the blood….so when you test your urine it is reflecting your tissue pH not the blood ph…when our tissue is acidic for too long due to an acid lifestyle and diet …this very tissue will change/adapt in order to survive….this tissue change is the start of a cancerous condition. So diet has a lot to do with the acid/alkaline balance of the blood and tissue.

    • Thanks, Kevin! I’ll go slow with the vinegar and see where it takes me. I also agree with you on how to approach things in a “non-debunking” way. We see so many people attempting to debunk a paleo diet, for example, and know that it helps no one…

  6. Well this throws my belief system into a tizzy. I experience a better feeling of well being as I see my urine PH rise relating to the dominion of plant food versus animal. I found out I was Paleo by accident as I had already found grains of any kind to make me more lethargic, especially processed. I was following the Alkaline diet to a good degree, and fish or meat with dinner. But I always struggled with the question of getting protein if you don’t bring eggs, fish, and the like into the daily diet. Thus I gravitated to an Alkaline/Paleo hybrid as my mental image of the daily plan to regiment by, to the normal extent possible with a family lifestyle. Age age 56 It keeps my weight stable, my muscle mass grows slowly if I use weights/pullups/pushups etc., and I feel pretty good all around. I had struggled with weight gain and health problems before shifting into the plant & fish dominated meal plans. The plant foods definitely cleared up the need for medications to which I believed was based on alkalinity and mineral/phytochemical content. I can pass for 40 at age 56, compared to when I was 50 I could maybe pass for 45 at best. Bottom line is plant foods are really really good while they do increase your urine PH. It took greater than a year to go from about 4.0 to 5+. and another year to 6. Worst case,you use this as as guide to see if you should eat more plants I suppose; even if the number means nothing per the Myth article.

  7. Kris – Is there any such thing as hard data on the health, bone condition and longevity of races such as the Inuit? People quote on the one hand how healthy they were, then others say they were short-lived and had osteoporosis. What’s the truth? I’m 60 years old and have been seeing this same question come up for decades now. I think YOUR analysis of whatever evidence there might be on this topic would help us all dissemble fact from fiction. Or can you point us to sources where we can investigate ourselves. Thankyou.

  8. Hi, I’ve just started taking 2 spoons of non-pasteurized apple vinegar 3 times a day, since I’ve read it can be a good probiotics. From this post, I can tell there’s probably not a harmfull effect to it, but…do you think is there a good outcome of it? Thanks!!

  9. It seems to me the real problem is not the PH of blood or urine but the body tissue acidosis. Acidic pancreas = pancreatitis or diabetes and so on.

    • Elena, I think urine PH reflects average tissue acidity. I experimented for 3 years. It took me a year of trying to stick closely to the alkaline diet to really see urine ph go up. So you are 100 % correct in my experience. I cannot measure tissue ph, only Urine though. After a few months I had no more asthma, no more acid reflux, no more high Triglycerides, no more headaches, no more congestion at night, no more fat guy pants, and other better things. That sort of speaks to tissue acidosis relief, while the urine PH was less meaningful as read on a log scale of color code. While i was having the health benefit observations I rationalized that my body was slowly dumbing acid month after month after month. Finally the color changed and never went backward. urine can fluctuate on the strip from meals after your total body tissue has been renormalized. I can drink a cup of juiced celery carrot and beet, and minutes later the PH goes up 2 colors. when normalized tissue levels are very acidic the urine does not get to show you a delta. Like one cup of water dropped on hot beach sand will not moisten the beach would it? But if the beach was all wet a cup of water will drain over the top. I think the goal of raising ph of the urine is pointless until a person first learns to focus on alkaline eating over a long time. If you are way younger than 50 results could be lots faster.

      • Hi Glenn and Elena,

        I had a similar effect. It took me 6 months to get my urine pH over 7 on a 80% vegetable diet, probably 50% greens. First my pH fell from 6 to 5 and stayed low for many months, so much so that I thought vegetables weren’t helping. Then I read in a few forums how others had the same effect, and people thought the tissues were releasing their acids. I also lost 45 pounds and surely there must have been toxins and acids in my fat cells being removed as well.

        So a question for Chris, do acids go into the blood stream, and if they do, does the blood dump it into tissues immediately (to maintain pH) as Dr. Young states in the pH Miracle book?

        If so, then everyone on the Standard American Diet (SAD) should probably alkalize until they get over 7 like you and I, Glenn, and then can incorporate more acid-forming foods and become more paleo. I also had many symptoms dissappear (acid reflux, headaches, lung issues, insomnia, etc) as I went to 7 pH. My exercise was similar throughout, and for me it seemed to be the alkalizing. Now, after getting to 7 pH, I eat meat and don’t have as much of an issue (only a little lethargy).

        I’m very impressed with Chris, and I hope everyone on this board respects the societal progress he is making with his research and thoughts, even if we don’t yet know all the answers. He is awesome and I definitely subscribe to his blog.

    • Pancreatitis is not caused from acidity. Most often it is caused from a gallstone lodged in the bile ducts, but can also occur from other things such as alcoholism, trauma and infection.

      Diabetes is not caused from acidity either. Type 2 diabetes is the result of insulin resistance from excess body fat or a lack of chromium and magnesium needed to maintain the insulin receptors in an open state:

      http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3159

      http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3160

      Type 1 diabetes is a rare autoimmune disorder most often caused from viral infections or giving cow’s milk to infants. It can also result from alloxan exposure, anesthesias used in surgery, some medications or pancreatic trauma.

      Gestational diabetes is the result of a hormone imbalance during pregnancy and generally clears up on its own after the woman gives birth.

      Diabetes insipidus has nothing to do with the pancreas.

  10. Has anyone ever tried or looked into Baking Soda as a health supplement? Why it seems helpful is often cited because of the acid-base balance but could it be helpful just as a source of bicarbonate? Given that we need it for healthy digestion? Would love to know more about this! There are cancer treatments based around this and lots of stories on the web.

    • Kirsty, I have books that say to do that as option 5 or more, but does not feel right. Using a juicer is the best bet. Celery works awesomely well.

    • Kirsty,
      Taking baking soda as a health supplement is a disastrous plan. It will neutralize the stomach acid- which is absolutely fundamental to our digestion. It’s true that sodium bicarbonate is released during digestion- but it’s after the food has moved from the acidic stomach through the pyloric sphincter (Which operates on an acid trigger, by the way) into the duodenum. Then the PANCREAS releases enzymes and sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the pH of the food being digested, but it’s only at this point that you want that to happen. This is another reason the whole acid-alkaline food thing is bunk- our natural digestion involves both acid and alkalizing substances- and it must be that way, regardless of what you eat and what it’s mineral ash is (acid or alkaline).

        • Mr. Paleo, I wonder when consuming a high alkalizing meal say salads or green smoothies does the stomach still require acid to breakdown? often if I eat a acid forming meal without any veges I would get minor acid reflux but if I just have some smoothie reflux goes away.

      • The only place of digestion actually happens in the mouth….once the food hits the stomach the body produces as much Sodium Bicarbonate as needed to alkalize the food in preparation for its journey through the small bowel…HCL is a by-product/waste product generated during the production of Sodium Bicarb….to much HCL hence means too much S/B had to be produced to alkalize the acidic food ingested…the rest I totally agree with regarding the pancreas/ Gallbladder etc are all injecting alkalizing fluids into the small bowel. Years of practical applications have shown that the body is alkaline by design and acidic by function….emotional and physical stress can produce more acid than any food you may eat….people challenged with these issues are almost always acid even if they are on an alkaline protocol.

        • That’s not true. Digestion starts in the mouth, and continues in the stomach and intestines.

          The mouth DOES NOT release protein digestive enzymes, only for starch. This is the enzyme amylase. Protein and fat digestive enzymes are released in the stomach and intestines. These are pepsin and lipase.

          The pepsin is dependent on sufficient stomach acid to function, so this is one of various functions of stomach acid.

          Stomach acid also kills pathogens, allows for the absorption of B6, B12 and folate and converts minerals in to more absorbable salts. It IS NOT a waste product but a very important component of the digestive and immune systems.

          As the chyme leaves the stomach pancreatic bicarbonate neutralizes the acid.

          The pancreas then secretes a variety of enzymes to continue digestion in the intestines. These enzymes are pancreatic amylase, pancreatic lipase, trypsin, chymotrypsin, carboxypeptidase and nucleases.

          Small intestinal cells also release peptidases, sucrase, lactase, maltase and intestinal lipase.

          The intestinal flora release cellulase and hemicellulase to digest fibers so they can among other things produce beneficial acids that help protect us from pathogens and increase nutrient absorption.

  11. I tried to go with the alkaline diet, tried very hard. Being a personal trainer having access to software that tracks diet and nutrition I knew exactly where I was on the acid/alkaline chart. The software calculates it automatically which took the guess work out of my meal plans. I stay in shape by doing some kind of exercise 6 days per week. I got weaker the longer I stayed on the diet. Plant based protein or animal based protein, according to the acid/ash hypothesis, is all the same, it creates an acidic environment. I could not get enough protein into the body without going to the acid side of the equation. It seamed when I got over about 60 grams of protein at the end of the day I was considered on the acid side of the equation. I played with this thing for about 1 year.

    We definitely need to balance our diets, proper amount of protein, plant or animal, with a good variety of vegetables. For most of us meat or eggs is the only source of vitamins B12 and B6. I gave up on the acid/alkaline diet about a year ago, but it did teach me to eat more vegetables and I am thankful for that.

    • John, I had similar situation. I try to get as much plant food as I can, juicing, smoothies, salads, and heated veges with dinner, while eating my egg, fish, and occasional other meats. I put hemp and whey in the smoothies too. its a compromise for sure. taking alkaline diet too serious seems unrealistic and overly stressful. Paleo with alkaline trends seems most sensible and maintainable I found.

      • FYI only: Nutritional Yeast Flakes claim to have high level of B vitamins. Not the Brewer’s Yeast, rather nutritional yeast flakes.

  12. “Now I’d like to hear from you: what are your opinions on the acid-alkaline diet theory?”

    I think you’ve nailed it. We can put this one to rest.

    • The other thing is carbonated beverages, and acid load. The acid is neutralized, largely through the use of calcium, and calcium is stored in bone. Osteoporosis can occur with high acid load. Usually through carbonation is the issue, not food, as the source.

      • All sodas contain carbonic acid that is also produced by the ingestion of baking soda. Most of this decomposes releasing the carbon dioxide that we simply burp up. Any carbon dioxide entering the bloodstream would simply be exhaled right away and thus the bones are not affected at all. The teeth may be though from the acids in sodas.

        Colas on the other hand also contain phosphoric acid. But again this does not affect the bone due to acidity. Instead, the rise in blood phosphorus creates a calcium-phosphorus ratio imbalance. In response the parathyroid glands release parathyroid hormone that breaks bones down to raise calcium levels in response to the perceived calcium-phosphorus ratio imbalance. This is known as pseudohyperparathyroidism.

        Keep in mind that regardless of what you eat or drink the material will have to be made very acidic before the stomach will empty out and once the chyme leaves the stomach and and all acids present will be neutralized by pancreatic bicarbonate. This is what is commonly referred to as the “alkaline response”.

  13. Great article.I wonder though about the findings of Paleoanthropoligist Aidan Cockburn who found that Inuit who ate 95% meat had rampant osteoporosis in well-preserved mummies, whereas the Aleutians (I believe, I don’t have the reference on hand) who lived at similar latitude had robust skeletons and the only difference was the that they had ample plants in their diets. Cockburn concluded that it was the plants that were the difference in skeletal robusticity. Any thoughts? Mineral content? some other mechanism?

    • Minerals are only part of the answer to healthy bones. We can get the amino acids needed for healthy bone from plants or animals. So it is not the protein.

      What meats do lack is sufficient silica to maintain healthy bones. We get most of our silica from unpurified waters since the water dissolves rock and soil silica and from the plants that uptake that silica.

      I have an earlier post on these comments that discuss the various other nutrients needed for healthy bones. One of these nutrients is vitamin D, which is not a singular vitamin. There are actually around 20 forms of vitamin D, but we are mainly concerned with vitamins D2, inactive D3 and active D3. D2 is inactive and is the form we get from plants and dairy. D2 can be converted in to inactive D3 by the liver then in to active D3 by the kidneys provided everything is working properly. The Aleutians though would get more vitamin D, especially active vitamin D from their diet. That world explain part of it.

      Another major factor is activity. Bone cannot mineralize without being stressed from either exercise or electrical stimulation. So if you took a bottle full of minerals daily and just sat around those minerals are not going to do squat for your bones.

      So other factors that can explain the better bone health in the Aleutians can include more activity, more vitamin D in the diet, more silica in their diet from sea vegetables and even boiling bones for bone broth for starters.

    • Hi Joanna….good question! One of the body’s main purpose is to maintain the iso-structure of the blood…that is to also maintain the blood pH…as such the body will use any alkalizing minerals including Calcium from the bones or Magnesium from muscle tissue to keep the blood pH at 7.365. Considering that death occurs at a blood pH of 6.9 and coma at 7.0 one can see how preoccupied the body must be to maintain Homeostasis of the blood at any cost…Osteoporosis is a consequence of an acidic diet and lifestyle…that is mentally, emotionally and physically…pulling calcium from the bones into the blood may save your life whilst creating brittle bones at the same time.

      • It’s interesting how the body goes acidic at death to help its own decomposition. My concerns with ph during digestion mostly center around what it does to the probiotics in the gut. If too much acidity kills them off, then allergies and disease are pretty much an inevitability.

        • Corey, too much acid does not kill off good probiotics, most of them live better in a very acidic environment. Google it, alkaline favours candida and acid favours the probiotics that kill off candida.

          Allergies and intolerances are caused by leaky gut. Google this, you are completely off on your concerns.

        • Acidity does not kill the flora not is it the basis for most disease as so many sales and propaganda sites promote.

          And where did you get the body goes acidic to promote its own decomposition claim? First of all if that were true then why don’t are bones that would be exposed to all those acids also decompose?

          Secondly, do you know what causes rigor mortis? Its an influx of calcium in to the muscle cells. Since calcium contracts muscles the influx keeps the muscles in a contracted state until enzymes start breaking down the muscle tissue. Here are some old posts I did on this subject:

          http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1447219#i

          http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1445897#i

          So with this influx of calcium, which would neutralize the acids how does muscle decompose?

      • That is not true. First of all osteoporosis is not a loss of bone minerals it is a loss of collagen matrix and has nothing to do with an “acid diet”. I posted a more detailed answer on this already above.

        The body has numerous redundant systems though to maintain its pH. Respiration is the main means of pH balance. Using bones to balance the pH is only used by the body as a very last resort and would require severe chronic acidosis, which is super rare.

        The most common reason for bone loss is excess parathyroid hormone from hyperparathyroidism or pseudohyperparathyroidism and thus has NOTHING to do with acidity.

        Normal blood pH is about 7.35-7.45 so the claim that coma occurs at a pH of 7 is also incorrect.

        • Science has shown quite clearly that when the body does not have sufficient food it goes through what is called tissue wasting ….in order to maintain the iso-structure of the blood the body will draw alkalizing minerals from any available tissue…including bone and muscle. Regarding coma at a blood pH of 7.0 or 6.9 it is a fact…. ask any nurse and they will tell you when trauma victims are admitted and the blood pH drops due to blood loss the patient will be connected to an IV with alkalizing minerals as their first action….sometimes this occurs already in the ambulance.

          • I have been in medicine for 32 years and can tell you for a fact that you are making things up. Blood loss DOES NOT cause acidity. If anything the pH can rise because of increased respiration as the body tries to increase oxygen levels to compensate. The increased respiration reduces carbonic acid raising the pH.

            As for your claim about IVs again you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. We use various types of IVs depending on the need. For example, D5W (5% dextrose in water) is used for drug delivery. Then there is normal saline (0.09%), other concentrtions of saline, lactated ringers, dextran, etc.

            Saline Ivs can be used as a short term blood volume expander to prevent the vascular system from collapsing due to blood loss. It cannot carry oxygen like blood though, nor can the sugar compound dextran used as a long term blood volume expander.

            Saline IVs are not used to adjust pH.

            If acidosis does occur, which is a very rare thing then IV bicarbonate is used. This is a controversial procedure though as the use of bicarbonate can paradoxically cause acidosis. The reason is the neutralization of acids by bicarbonate yields carbonic acid.

      • Hey there Hardo! Great to mkeet you here. I wish I as an alkaline advocate could agree with you that osteo is simply a result of an acidic lifestyle but after 13 years on an alkaline diet and with a recently diagnosed case of serious osteo… I am so glad I found K2, which is now (as evidenced by my latest Dexascan) rebuilding my bones.

        Ian

  14. I don’t follow an ‘alkaline’ diet per se and I do include mostly plant-based foods, minimal grains and with some high quality animal products/fats. I used to do dairy/meat every day and I could tell it wasn’t for me and I experienced heartburn, etc. Once I stopped doing dairy and focused on plant-based diet, my symptoms improved. I’ve also done the master cleanse several times which has helped to remove the toxic junk as well. All dis-ease really comes down to autointoxication and stress whether it be psychological, physical, environmental. Most people are overly toxic and the body does not function optimally like it should.

      • The problem with appealing to the allergy hypothesis is that the food combining advocates argue that you wouldn’t have allergies to begin with if you would combine foods properly and stop eating such an acid forming diet, which in turn sends that acid right into your gut where it kills off the good probiotics. The idea is that you need the good probiotics in sufficient quantities to break down proteins that provoke an allergic response down into harmless amino acids that do not provoke an allergic immune response. So, you may want to do more here than simply blame allergies as being the culpret, since food combination advocates will agree that you are likely right, and argue that the reason is because too much acid in the diet is causing the allergies to emerge as a direct result of that dietary acidity killing off too much of the beneficial probiotics in the gut.

        • The gut flora produce acids to aid in mineral absorption, to kill pathogens and to control Candida. So why would acids kills them? More importantly, if they understood how the digestive system works they would realize that any acid leaving the stomach would be immediately neutralized by pancreatic bicarbonate. Therefore, no acids leaving the stomach ever reach the lower intestines.

          And the flora do not break down proteins. That is done in the stomach by the action of the enzyme pepsin, which is activated by stomach acid. The enzymes produced by the flora are cellulase and hemicellulase, which they need to break down fibers for a food source.

          Allergies themselves are the result of adrenal dysfunction, which decreases output of epinephrine and corticosteroids that normally counter allergic responses.

          The “leaky gut” being referred to is most often the result of not only adrenal dysfunction leading to increased inflammation from decreased corticosteroids, but also Candida overgrowth from an overly alkaline intestine. The alkalinity from a lack of acid forming bacteria turns on the Candida growth gene and coverts the Candida in to its pathogenic fungal form. In this form the Candida form finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to the intestinal wall leading to gut damage and inflammation. The inflammation increases intestinal permeability allowing the passage of protein solutes in to the bloodstream that can act as antigens.

    • Kristen,

      Were you consuming fruit juices (in particular, orange juice) often ? And was the dairy raw ?

      I will assume you were not consuming sodas, artificial sweeteners, or additives in your diet, as all of the above can cause heartburn and acid-reflux….

  15. Chris – Your critique of the acid/alkaline theory causes me to wonder what DOES bring about osteoporosis and cancer. Would you say that it is from eating sugar and grains, and not enough fresh fruits and vegetables, along with lack of exercise? I would very much like to know what causes these all-too-common diseases.

    • Kathy, Google “osteoporosis + vitamin K2”, and you’ll find out how osteoporosis can be both prevented and reversed.
      As for cancer, it feeds on sugar. Dr. Mercola has quite a few very good articles discussing that link.

    • Osteoporosis has nothing to do with acidity nor mineral loss. These are both very persistent myths though. Osteoporosis is the result of a lack of collagen matrix, not a loss of bone minerals. Without sufficient collagen matrix there is not sufficient mineral binding sites in the bone. Loss of actual bone minerals result in conditions known as osteomalacia and osteopenia.

      Bones require a number of nutrients for health. Silica is the most important as it not only helps in the formation of the collagen matrix, but it also aids in calcium absorption and is the actual component of bone that allows bone mineralization. Next are the amino acids proline, lysine and glycine then the minerals zinc and copper that are all also required for the formation of the collagen matrix. Next are calcium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, strontium, natural fluoride, vitamins A, D, E and K and essential fatty acids.

      A lack of silica is the most common cause of osteoporosis. Silica levels decline with age due to decreasing stomach acid levels leading to decreased conversion of silica in to the absorbable form orthosilicic acid.

      Decreased vitamin C levels are the second leading cause of osteoporosis. Vitamin C levels can decline from low intake, stress, the use of stimulants like caffeine and nicotine and various medications such as steroids.

      Cancer does not result from acids either. The vast majority of cancers have been linked to viruses. This includes most of the so-called “hereditary” cancers such as breast cancer. There has never been a hereditary component linked to breast cancer, but breast cancer has been linked to several viruses. In fact, every oncogene (cancer causing gene) ever discovered has been viral. No human oncogene has ever been discovered. Here are a few old posts I did that discusses this more:

      http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1889860#i

      http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1715317#i

      I am in the process of writing tow books regarding holistic therapies. One I have been writing is on osteoporosis, osteomalacia and osteoarthritis. The second book I started is a review of holistic cancer therapies and covers a lot of these myths about cancer. The book also goes over various therapies showing what actually works such as ozone therapy and some herbs, what is highly questionable such as cesium chloride and what has been proven to be outright quackery such as “oleander soup” and other oleander compounds. i am heavily referencing the books from medical journal studies since so many people want to hold tightly on to their beliefs even in the face of real evidence to the contrary.

        • The mutations they are referring to ARE NOT inherited. They are mutated by the insertion of viral genes.

          All this information including the link of viruses to most cancers can be found on Medline (PubMed).

            • You just posted it yourself. Don’t you read your own evidence? The first sentence of your link clearly states:

              “The majority of cancers are sporadic. They are caused by the progressive accumulation of genetic mutations and/or epigenetic changes during a person’s lifetime. These are known as somatic mutations – they affect a particular tissue and are not heritable.”

              So they are not heritable, which means “not inherited” or otherwise “not hereditary”.

              There has never been a human oncogene ever found. All oncogenes have been found to be viral.

              Cancer viruses have been known since 1908 and therefore there has been a lot of research on their role in carcinogenesis. That is why I told you to search Medline. Here is just a small sampling of some of the research studies I have found linking viruses to various cancers. These include breast, vaginal, vulvar, uterine, cervical, prostate, penile, brain, colon, skin, nasopharyngeal, oropharynx, esophageal,
              laryngo- pharyngeal
              anogenital, bone, bladder, kidney, intestinal, lung, gastric and liver cancers. Also leukemias, lymphomas, insulinomas, leiomyosarcomas, ependymomas, Kaposi’s sarcoma and breast, post-transplant lymphoproliferative
              disease.

              Barbanti-Brodano G, Sabbioni S, Martini F, et al. BK Virus, JC Virus and Simian Virus 40 Infection in Humans, and Association with Human Tumors. In: Madame Curie Bioscience Database [Internet]. Austin (TX): Landes Bioscience; 2000-.

              Antibody levels against BK virus and prostate, kidney and bladder cancers in the EPIC-Oxford cohort. Br J Cancer 2005 November 28; 93(11): 1305–1306

              Association of BK virus with human brain tumors and tumors of pancreatic islets. Int J Cancer 1987 Jan 15;39(1):60-7

              Human cytomegalovirus and mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary glands: cell-specific localization of active viral and oncogenic signaling proteins is confirmatory of a causal relationship. Exp Mol Pathol 2012 Feb;92(1):118-25

              Glioma-Associated Cytomegalovirus Mediates Subversion of the Monocyte Lineage to a Tumor Propagating Phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2011 Jul 15;17(14):4642-9

              Detection of human cytomegalovirus in medulloblastomas reveals a potential therapeutic target. J Clin Invest 2011 Oct;121(10):4043-55

              Detection of human cytomegalovirus in normal and neoplastic breast epithelium. Herpesviridae 2010 Dec 23;1(1):8

              Is HCMV a tumor promoter? Virus Res 2011 May;157(2):193-203

              Epstein-Barr Virus and Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004 Feb 1;10(3):803-21

              The role of Epstein-Barr virus in cancer. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2006 Nov;6(11):1193-205

              Epstein-Barr virus in breast carcinoma in Argentina. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005 Mar;129(3):377-81

              HBV and liver cancer. Med J Malaysia 2005 Jul;60 Suppl B:63-6

              Viral hepatitis and liver cancer: the case of hepatitis C. Oncogene (2006) 25, 3834–3847

              Splenic large B-cell lymphoma in patients with hepatitis C virus infection. Hum Pathol 2005 Aug;36(8):878-85

              Prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in cases of B-cell lymphoma in Japan. Histopathology 2006 Jan;48(2):189-98

              A Population-Based Study of Hepatitis D Virus as Potential Risk Factor for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012 May 16;104(10):790-2

              Association of Herpes simplex virus (HSV) with cervical cancer by lymphocyte reactivity with HSV-1 and HSV-2 antigens. Am J Epidemiol 1979 Aug;110(2):141-7

              Herpes simplex virus type 2 and human cervical cancer: relationship between cellular and immune assays for the detection of previous infection. J Natl Cancer Inst 1981 Jun;66(6):1031-6

              Herpes simplex virus. An expanding relationship to human cancer. J Reprod Med 1983 Feb;28(2):116-22

              Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):890-907

              High-risk human papilloma virus associated oropharynx squamous cell carcinomas: clinical, biological implications and therapeutical perspectives. Cancer Radiother 2012 Feb;16(1):34-43

              Prevalence of human papillomavirus in breast cancer: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012 Mar;22(3):343-7

              Human papillomavirus infection and incidence of squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas of the skin. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 Mar 15;98(6):389-95

              Human papillomavirus-associated cancers – United States, 2004-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012 Apr 20;61:258-61

              The specifities of the HPV-genital infections in males. Med Glas Ljek komore Zenicko-doboj kantona 2010 Aug;7(2):89-95

              Etiologic role of human papillomavirus infection in bladder carcinoma. Cancer 2011 May 15;117(10):2067-76

              Investigation of Th1/Th2 cytokine profiles in patients with laryngo-pharyngeal, HPV-positive cancers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012 Jun 13

              High prevalence of human papillomavirus in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a study in paired samples. Dis Esophagus 2012 Jun 7

              Lymphomas and leukemias due to infectious organisms. Hematology 2012 Apr;17 Suppl 1:S87-9

              Adult T-cell leukemia-lymphoma. Hematology 2012 Apr;17 Suppl 1:S32-5

              In vitro cellular tropism of human T cell leukemia virus type 2. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2000 Nov 1;16(16):1661-8

              HTLV-II-associated cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in a patient with HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2000 Mar 30;342(13):930-6.

              JC virus in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer, an etiological agent or another component in a multistep process? Virol J 2010 Feb 18;7:42

              Oncogenic role of JC virus in lung cancer. J Pathol 2007 Jul;212(3):306-15

              Oncogenic potential of human neurotropic papovavirus, JCV, in CNS. Dev Biol Stand 1998;94:93-101

              High JC virus load in gastric cancer and adjacent non-cancerous mucosa. Cancer Sci 2007 Jan;98(1):25-31

              Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al., editors. Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th edition. Hamilton (ON): BC Decker; 2003. Human Herpesvirus 8 and Malignancies.

              KSHV infection of B-cell lymphoma using a modified KSHV BAC36 and coculturing system. J Microbiol 2012 Apr;50(2):285-92

              Merkel cell carcinoma: a virus-induced human cancer. Annu Rev Pathol 2012;7:123-44

              Mouse mammary tumor virus-like RNA transcripts and DNA are found in affected cells of human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004 Nov 1;10(21):7284-9

              Progression from normal breast pathology to breast cancer is associated with increasing prevalence of mouse mammary tumor virus-like sequences in men and women. Cancer Res 2004 Jul 15;64(14):4755-9

              Elevated expression of the tumor suppressing protein p53 is associated with the presence of mouse mammary tumor-like env gene sequences (MMTV-like) in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004 Sep;87(1):13-7

              Viruses and human breast cancer. Future Microbiol 2006 Jun;1(1):33-51

              Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen. Brain Pathol 1999 Jan;9(1):33-42

              Integration of SV40 in human osteosarcoma DNA. Oncogene 1998 Nov 12;17(19):2457-62

              Presence of simian virus 40 sequences in malignant mesotheliomas and mesothelial cell proliferations. J Cell Biochem 1999 Dec;76(2):181-8

              Brain tumors and polyomaviruses. J Neurovirol 2003 Apr;9(2):173-82

              Role of viruses in the induction of primary intracranial tumors. Neurosurgery 1982 May;10(5):643-62

              Integration site preference of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, a new human retrovirus associated with prostate cancer. J Virol 2008 Oct;82(20):9964-77

              Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus establishes an efficient spreading infection and exhibits enhanced transcriptional activity in prostate carcinoma cells. J Virol 2010 Mar;84(5):2556-62

              The ONLY cancer that has any evidence that it may be hereditary is familial retinoblastoma.

              By the way, I have been researching cancer for 33 years. So if you want to convince me of your claims you better come up with some really solid evidence and not just opinion sites.

              • You need to read beyond the first sentence of the link I posted instead of spamming up your reply with lots of links. The next sentence reads
                ______________________________________________________________

                “Certain inherited, natural variations in our genes (known as polymorphisms) may also influence the risk of developing a sporadic cancer.

                In contrast, some individuals are born with a markedly increased susceptibility to cancer. The inheritance of a single genetic mutation may be sufficient to greatly increase the susceptibility to one or more types of cancer, and this susceptibility can be passed from generation to generation.

                The inheritance of these mutations results in families in which a number of individuals develop a certain type(s) of cancer. These are generally referred to as inherited cancers.”
                ____________________________________________________________

                No one is denying that SOME viruses cause SOME cancers.
                And my link is from Cancer Research UK who are one of the world leaders in cancer research and treatment. You may have been researching cancer for many years, but if you just keep looking for selective evidence to back up your a priori belief then you have just wasted years of your life confirming your personal prejudices. That is not research, that is self-pleasuring.

                • Yes, go back and look at the second part of your link. Note where they keep saying “MAY”. In other words will not necessarily cause. You are suffering from a condition known as “selective reading” and you clearly know as little about cancer as you do the definition of “spam”.

                  YOU asked me for evidence to my claims. I provided the evidence and now you are bitching about my providing the evidence YOU requested and probably have not even checked any of the research I presented proving most cancers have been linked to viruses. Therefore you are just wasting space on this forum and wasting both of our times since you clearly are not interested in real research or the facts.

                  Again, the ONLY cancer that has any evidence to a possible hereditary cause is familial retinoblastoma. If you knew anything about hereditary conditions you would also know why this is.

                  Try learning a little something about medicine and how the body really works then get back to me.

              • James,

                What do you think of the theory that root canals cause breast cancer? I’ve seen statements by doctors to the effect that they have never treated a breast cancer patient who did not have a root canal on the same side as the cancerous breast, suggesting to them that the hidden bacteria in the root canal is the cause of the cancer. Would this just be a case of the bacteria causing immune suppression that makes the body susceptible to a virus, or what?

                • A lot of things are claimed to be hereditary when they are not. Diabetes for example, which gas often been claimed to be hereditary even though NO forms of diabetes are hereditary.

                  The ONLY cancer that has been shown to possibly be hereditary is familial retinoblastoma. The reason this appears to be hereditary is because the infants are born with it.

                  If a condition is really hereditary then the person is born with the mutation and thus develops the symptoms of the mutation early in life, not decades later.

                  Look at the hereditary condition cystic fibrosis for example. People with CF have symptoms from birth since they are born with the mutation. They do not develop the symptoms 40, 50, 60…. years later in life.

                  The biggest problem is that people keep confusing genetic with hereditary. They ARE NOT always the same thing. A person can have a genetic disorder that is hereditary, but they can also have an somatic of viral induced genetic disorder that IS NOT hereditary such as gliomas.

                  Gliomas are most often caused by viral oncogenes. For example:

                  Glioma-Associated Cytomegalovirus Mediates Subversion of the Monocyte Lineage to a Tumor Propagating Phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2011 Jul 15;17(14):4642-9

                  Gliomas have also been linked to the JC virus and mycoplasmas. But no hereditary glioma gene has been proven.

                  The other part of the confusion people have is that they hear about a gene associated with cancer and they automatically think it is either human, or even if it is that is causes the cancer. Again, most of the genes are not human they are viral. And the few, very rare, genes most often associated with cancer forming claims DO NOT actually cause the cancer. These are genetic mutations such as neurofibromatosis type I, Turner syndrome, neurofibromatosis 1 or 2, tuberous sclerosis, etc. These hereditary genetic mutations DO NOT cause the cancer, they only increase the risk of developing cancers.

                  This is why in your link they say “Aproximately 5-10 percent of gliomas ‘MAY’ be related to inherited gene mutations”.

                  Again these gene mutations ARE NOT the cause of the cancer they only make the person more susceptible to the cancer. Just like immune suppression does not cause cancer, it just makes people more susceptible to cancer from the microbes that actually induce the cancer.

          • So why do you think breast cancer seems to be clustered in some families?
            Do you think Angelina Jolie needn’t have removed her breasts?

            • Martin:: “So why do you think breast cancer seems to be clustered in some families?”

              There are several reasons for this.

              For one cancer viruses can be spread among family members.

              Secondly, families can be exposed to the same viral activators. The most common viral activators for breast cancer viruses are the hormones estrogen and progesterone. Estrogen in particular since it is much more prevalent. I am not just talking about the estrogen produced by the body or estrogen replacement therapy. There are non-natural estrogens, known as xenoestrogens, that can be thousands to hundreds of thousands of times stronger than human estrogen. These compounds include dioxins, DDT, PCBs, phthalates, etc. These can can come from a variety of sources such as contaminated waterways where dioxins are being dumped from paper mills. Waterways contaminated from plastics manufacturing plants, agricultural sprays (herbicides and pesticides), some plastics such as polycarbonate (some water bottles, lining for canned goods), and soft plastics like pacifiers and teething rings, etc. A less common known source is thermal paper receipts we get from machine printed receipts. These contain the hormonal compound biphenol-A.

              So one of the factors is exposure to these compounds. For example, a family can be exposed to the same xenoestrogens from living in the same place where they are being exposed to xenoestrogens such as dioxins or herbicide or pesticide sprays.

              Also keep in mind that many xenoestrogens are extremely stable and can persist for decades. For example, they stopped spraying DDT I think it was back in the 50s, but it takes 100 years to break down in the soil so it is still present where it was sprayed. This could account for some of the “pockets” of cancer incidences reported in some cities sprayed with DDT.

              These compounds also have a high affinity for fats and therefore can store in the body. Many people serving in Vietnam for example are developing cancers long after due to Agent Orange exposure, which is a dioxin source.

              Another source of hormone exposure that can be shared by families is diet. Meats and dairy contain hormones. Most of these are added to increase animal growth or milk production. Keep in mind though that animals also produce their own hormones, so they are even found in “organic” meats and dairy.

              Not everyone is gong to be affected the same though as their are other factors involved. For example, dietary phytoestrogens are actually estrogen antagonists. And liver function plays a big role since the liver breaks down excess estrogens.

              Martin: “Do you think Angelina Jolie needn’t have removed her breasts?”

              I think she was a fool for doing this.

              First of all the media has created so much confusion by incorrectly claiming she tested positive for the gene that causes cancer. The gene they are referring to though is the BRAC-1 gene, which is a tumor SUPPRESSOR gene. This gene does not cause cancer, it stops it. It is mutations in this gene, again normally from viral infections, that lead to the formation of cancer since its job of tumor inhibition is blocked.

              Does removing the breasts of ovaries get rid of the virus causing these cancers? Of course not. So what she did is as stupid as removing the engine from your car to stop an oil leak.

              If someone thinks they are at high risk for breast cancer because other people in their family had it then there are some simple things that can be done to reduce the risk:

              -Digestive bitters and B vitamins to help the liver function better and to help the liver properly break down excess hormones.
              -Antivirals such as chaparral, andrographis, chagas, quercetin, etc.
              -Support the immune system by doing things such as avoiding caffeine and nicotine, more vitamin C rich foods, more dietary fiber, immune supporting herbs and supplements, etc.

          • James, about the BRAC1 and BRAC2 are in fact mutations. The National Cancer Institute began a study on my family back in the 70’s. All of my grandmothers female blood relatives died of either breast or ovarian cancer. They discovered that unlike my grandmothers female relatives, my grandmother didn’t have a mutation on the BRAC1 or BRAC2. The conclusion of the study stated that it would be impossible for my grandmother to pass those mutations down to her offspring. I would like your feed back on this.

            • Hi Donna,

              There is no real evidence that these mutations are hereditary in the first place. There is a lot of evidence that viruses induce genetic mutations leading to cancer. For example, it is known that human papilloma viruses alter BRAC genes increasing the risk of cancer.

              The only cancer I have ever seen that has even the slightest link to possibly being hereditary induced is familial retinoblastoma.

              James

        • Hi Anna,

          I don’t buy it. Where is the evidence? It does not exit. Interestingly, Mercola keeps harping on how there is no evidence that root canals are safe, yet he provides no real evidence to back his claim.

          I am not a big fan of Mercola anyway. In my opinion he has become too sensationalistic in his writings hyping stuff up and presenting just flat out false information. I have written rebuttals to many of his bogus claims a number of times. You can find many of these on my MedCapsules.com site by searching for “Mercola” on the site.

          Mercola is on the board of the Weston Price Foundation, which in my opinion is just as much of a joke. For example, Mercola and the Western Price Foundation keep posting completely bogus information on soy since its biggest competition is the beef and dairy industries that help support the Western Price Foundation. The one I find most ridiculous and funny is their claim that consuming soy is the equivalent of taking 5 birth control pills due to soy’s high phytoestrogen content. Not only is this an outrageous lie, but it is also funny because Mercola claims flax seed a “health food”. Apparently Mercola does not realize that flax seed is nearly 4 times higher in phytoestrogens than raw soy!!! In addition, Mercola sells resveratrol, which is a concentrated phytoestrogen. And he makes no mention of the naturally occurring estrogen in beef and dairy that is thousands of times more powerful than the phytoestrogens found in ALL plants. This is just one of many claims made by Mercola I have debunked so I don’t put any real faith in anything he claims anymore.

          In fact, the article by Mercola you linked gives a great example how Mercola really sensationalizes his articles. He is discussing how Price was able to cause heart attacks and diseases in rabbits by implanting tooth fragments from root canals in to the rabbits. Mercola continues with his claim saying that the rabbits died within a few weeks from a heart attack, which he implies is from induced heart disease 100% of the time. If Mercola really understood medicine then he would realize that putting ANY bacterial contaminated foreign object in to the rabbits will cause disease. You can swab someone’s mouth with a toothpick then shove that toothpick in to a rabbit’s bloodstream and the rabbit is going to develop diseases and possibly even die from a heart attack as the rabbit’s immune system tries to fight off the foreign object and foreign pathogens it harbors. After all are human tooth fragments naturally found in the bloodstream of rabbits? How about human mouth bacteria? And what happens when an animal is exposed to pathogens they have not been exposed to before? For example, what happened to the Native Americans when the white settlers brought previously unknown pathogens to the shores of the Native Americans land? Many of the Native Americans were decimated by these new diseases since they had never been exposed before to these pathogens and therefore had no immunity. So is Mercola really so stupid that he does not understand that implanting foreign bacteria alone in to the rabbits will cause disease? Or that implanting a foreign body that can provide a source of infection will cause disease including blood clots that can cause a heart attack?

          In fact, he tries to imply the rabbits are dying of heart disease, which is misleading. A heart attack from a blood clot induced by the immune system fighting foreign is not the same as heart disease, which can take decades to develop.

          The other diseases Mercola claims Price could induce in this manner is still subject the same flaws I mention above. For example, the immune complexes that will be formed can cause kidney disease.

          Therefore, not only was Price’s research SEVERELY flawed, but Mercola’s interpretation of this flawed research was even more flawed.

          I also looked at Mercola’s references from medical journals he linked to his article. I don’t see where any of them support his claim. They discuss how pathogenic bacteria have caused disease in some isolated cases. No surprise there. But they DO NOT support the claims that any of these bacteria are causing cancer in humans, especially breast cancer.

          I could go through the medical journals and find all sorts of articles showing how bacteria can cause diseases other than cancer. But it would be ludicrous if I posted these studies as proof to a claim that these bacteria caused cancer, but this appears to be what Mercola is doing.

          For example, let’s look at his most current reference, J Clin Micr Feb 2007 in which they are talking about brain abscesses occasionally being caused by bacteria associated with dental procedures. A brain abscess IS NOT cancer. So how is this reference supposedly going to support Mercola’s claim about root canals and cancer? It doesn’t!!! In fact, NONE of his medical journal abstracts he references back the root canal-cancer connection.

          Again pretty ironic that Mercola harps on how their is no medical evidence that root canals are safe but Mercola himself has no real medical evidence proving a link between root canals and cancer.

          The second link you provided is to the Weston Price Foundation, which again I have no faith in since so many of their claims have been discredited.

          The third link falsely claims that most cancers are caused from root canals. The vast majority of cancers have been linked to viral infections, not bacteria associated with the mouth. In fact, bacterial induced cancers are rather rare.

          Bottom line is that there is absolutely no real evidence to back the root canal-cancer claims.

          James

          • Hi James,

            Thanks for your long and thorough response. I haven’t been able to find any evidence other than anecdotal evidence about the root canal-cancer link either, but I did find the descriptions by scientists alarming about how noxious the mouth bacteria are. So I supposed that at least these super-lethal bacteria may compromise the immune system, if not actually cause cancer. I wondered about the rabbit experiment though, and you’ve explained that to my satisfaction. I would be interested to read more about the virus theory though, if you can provide links.

            I think in one of your other comments you also said that the idea that the body naturally produces cancer cells that are digested by the pancreas is also bogus. Was it you who said that? There are all sorts of ideas floating around about peoples’ ability to digest their own tumors if they stop feeding the tumors protein.

            Here’s a link Dr. Kelley’s hypothesis stating such a thing to be true:

            http://www.drkelley.com/CANLIVER55.html

            I would b e interested to hear your thoughts on this theory. The reason I’m asking you these questions is that I’ve read all of the comments on the two PH articles and you seem to know a lot about the body.

            • Hi Anna:

              I already posted some links to to the association of viruses with cancer previously. See my post on
              January 9, 2014 at 4:14 am.

              “I think in one of your other comments you also said that the idea that the body naturally produces cancer cells that are digested by the pancreas is also bogus. Was it you who said that?”

              It may have been. There is a common myth that everyone has cancer cells and they simply get destroyed by the immune system in most cases. None of this is true. These people are confusing overgrowth of cells with malignancy. Even though malignancies are an overgrowth of cells, not all overgrowths of cells are malignancies. Malignant cells have morphological differences from healthy cells and benign overgrowths.

              They are also overlooking the fact that cancer cells are extremely good at evading the immune system and are rarely detected by and destroyed by the immune system. If everyone had cancer cells as they claim then people would dropping dead from cancer left and right since cancer cells do evade immune detection and destruction in most cases.

              And taking digestive enzymes is not going to cure cancer. Digestive enzymes are proteins and if taking digestive enzymes these enzymes will be digested just like any other enzyme. This is important since if these enzymes were to enter the bloodstream they could cause serious damage and even death since they will digest the body in the same manner they digest other proteins. Using some common sense how are protein digestive enzymes, supplemental or produced by the body, supposed to reach cancer cells in various parts of the body without digesting the healthy tissues made up of the same proteins?

              The Kelly article you linked is full of errors.

              For example, he claims that cancer is from an excess of “female sex hormones”. Although estrogen and progesterone both can activate cancer viruses they are not the cause of cancers. If this were the case then we would have all died of cancer a long time ago as we all have female hormones throughout life.

              And what about the role of testosterone in some cancers, which is not a female sex hormone. Same with radiation exposure, which can also cause cancer.

              In addition, many tissues produce estrogen within the body including the ovaries, testes, adrenals, fat cells, bone and brain tissue. So why don’t all these tissues constantly develop cancer, which according to Kelly’s hypothesis should be happening.

              I also disagree with Kelly’s recommendations to do coffee enemas and the so-called “liver flush” with oil, magnesium and citrus.

              Coffee enemas are hard on the immune system because the caffeine overstimulates the adrenal glands. I have had a number of people ignore this fact when I told them and came back to tell me that they learned their lesson the hard way by ignoring that fact.

              The whole “liver flush” thing with the oil, magnesium and citrus is also completely bogus. First of all the oil stimulates the gallbladder, which is not the liver. These so-called “liver flushes” do not even affect the liver.

              And the big, green, squishy blobs people are passing are not gallstones, but rather saponified oil and sterol-cholesterol complexes formed in part from the “liver flush” ingredients. I did a series of videos explaining the myth of the so-called “liver flushes” here:

              http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6379

              James

              • Hi James,

                Thank you again for your long and thoughtful response.

                I don’t think Dr. Kelley is saying that the enzymes enter the bloodstream and kill the cancer cells in the body. I think he is saying that if we overload our bodies with excess protein, then the pancreas can’t do its job properly and metabolize foreign proteins such as cancer cells, which he claims are always being created and digested without disease or malignancy as long as the pancreas is functioning normally. So he is in agreement with you that not all cancerous cells are malignancies, but it sounds as if he is saying that all fast-growing suspicious cells, including malignant ones, can be digested by the pancreas if the pancreas is fully supported. I think you’re saying that that is just silly, right?

                I don’t think he says that all cancers are caused by hormones, but that they can, as you stated, be activated by hormones.

                Basically what he is saying is that cancer is a disease of the pancreas in the same way that diabetes is, and can be cured by reducing meat and taking enzymes in the same way diabetes can be cured by reducing sugar and taking insulin. Or, that eating too much meat is for the pancreas what drinking too much alcohol is for the liver; that it eventually produces a diseased organ leading to various other disease states throughout the body.

            • Hi Anna,

              “I don’t think Dr. Kelley is saying that the enzymes enter the bloodstream and kill the cancer cells in the body. ”

              Actually he does specifically state this claim. Look under where he is talking about the “third law” where he specifically states that the pancreatic enzymes need to circulate through the blood to dissolve the “placenta”. Again, if active pancreatic enzymes were circulating in the blood then the body would be digesting itself leading to severe damage and possibly death.

              “I think he is saying that if we overload our bodies with excess protein, then the pancreas can’t do its job properly and metabolize foreign proteins such as cancer cells, which he claims are always being created and digested without disease or malignancy as long as the pancreas is functioning normally.”

              I am going to apply a little common sense here. How are the enzymes supposed to ‘metabolize foreign proteins such as cancer cells’ unless the enzymes can first reach the cancer cells? In order to reach most cancer cells the enzymes would have to travel through the bloodstream, which means they would also be digesting healthy tissue, including blood vessels, in the process. This is why digestive enzymes do not enter the bloodstream and thus do not reach cancer cells to digest them as Kelley is trying to imply. So yes, his claim is just plain silly.

              “I don’t think he says that all cancers are caused by hormones, but that they can, as you stated, be activated by hormones.”

              He specifically refers to the requirement of female sex hormones for cancer to form several times under his “four laws”.

              Actually he contradicts himself by first claiming that all cancers are caused by germ cells converting to trophoblast cells. Then he claims all cancers are caused by female hormones. Then he claims that all cancers are caused from a lack of pancreatic enzymes.

              He also claims that cancers are “a placenta” growing outside of the uterus, which is also totally ludicrous. The placenta is a very particular type of tissue with a specific morphology. For example, if you were to thin section a piece of placenta and a malignant brain tumor are they going to appear as the same tissue? Of course not since they are not the same tissue. Malignant tumors are not placental tissue unless the tumor is a placental tumor such as a gestational trophoblastic tumor. Since the tumor is composed of placental cells then it is still placental tissue. Just like a malignant lung tumor is still made up of lung cells, not placental cells. Or bone cancer is still made up of bone cells, not placental cells.

              As for his claims about diabetes , such as adult onset being degenerative are also wrong. There is a lot more to diabetes than he realizes, such as the pancreas working fine and kicking out too much insulin at the onset of type 2 diabetes. But that is a whole other issue.

              James

              • Ah okay, I see. I didn’t realize he was claiming that the enzymes actually travel through the blood stream. That would indeed be ridiculous. I thought he was suggesting that the abnormal cells naturally go to the pancreas to be digested, like food, and that without the proper support they can grow and become malignant. But you’re right, if one applies common sense then one would have to wonder why the body’s cells would ever do such a thing as to try to travel to the pancreas to digest themselves!

                I think in Dr. Kelly’s case enzymes worked to cure his cancer because the type of cancer he had was pancreatic cancer, so he really did need enzymes to heal his pancreas. But he seized on the earlier work of Beard to assume that all cancers are about a lack of digestive enzymes.

                Still, the diets we eat are so noxious and organ-damaging that any time we give our body a break by just not pouring poisons into it and supporting it with proper nutrients can seem to people like a miracle cure. And his advice (if not his science) is probably good for others with pancreatic cancer.

              • Hi James,

                In the enzymes theory link I provided, I was inly interested in the claims Dr. Beard made, not in the rest of the article.

                Here is a brief description of Beard’s ideas from another website:

                “In 1902 a Scottish doctor, John Beard, published an interesting paper. He drew attention to the fact that when the placenta implants into the uterus, the way it burrows in and invades the mother’s tissue is exactly like a cancer.

                Why didn’t the placenta just keep going and take over everything – like a cancer does? Nobody knew at the time but John Beard noticed that the placenta stops invading at exactly the moment when the infant’s pancreas starts to produce enzymes. If that doesn’t happen, the deadly cancer of pregnancy – chorion-carcinoma – ensues which is capable of killing the mother and baby very quickly.

                The cells of the placenta which invade are called the trophoblasts. These cells set out to establish the food supply line for the baby fetus.

                Beard began to ask himself whether cancer cells, which look exactly like trophoblast cells—young, vigorous, unspecialized—could also be turned off by enzymes from the pancreas. In fact he went even further and speculated that cancer came from hidden trophoblasts cells in the body, left over from days in the womb, which got activated again, by stress and toxins. Perhaps normally these get picked off by enzymes but sometimes they do not and cancer is the result. So Beard called this the trophoblastic theory of cancer.”

                In this description, Kelly’s theories of enzymes and trophoblasts are not actually contradictory. But I’m still trying to understand this theory – especially in how it relates to more current research on stem cells. There’s not a lot about this in the medical journals, but it seems that Beard’s ideas are taken seriously by a few scientists now, although Kelly and others who have used his ideas are considered quacks.

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116220

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116223

                • Hi Anna,

                  First of all where is the proof that pancreatic-type enzymes stop the growth of the placenta? Could it be that the placenta’s size is simply genetically determined just like the liver, lungs, intestines, etc? Even the pancreas itself?

                  And it is a big jump to assume that just because malignant tumor cells have so many characteristics of fetal cells that they are composed of placental tissue as he repeatedly claims. I do agree that malignant tumor cells are embryonic tissue, I have said that for years. But I still think Kelley makes too big of jump in his hypothesis without the proper evidence to back his claims.

                  You may be interested in this article, which would call in to question the premise of some of Kelley’s claims:

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708939/

            • “Here’s a link that briefly explains the enzyme theory adopted by Dr. Kelly:”

              Again this is full of misleading information.

              For example they claim that cancer cells are killed by enzymes. That may be true in a test tube where healthy cells would also be digested by the same enzymes. This does not mean the same will occur by ingesting enzymes. As I pointed out before enzymes are proteins that get digested within the digestive system in the same manner as other proteins.

              Another common sense moment. They claim that cooking, irradiation, etc. decreases the digestive enzyme ability of plant enzymes. If these enzymes are so active to begin with then why aren’t the plants digesting themselves?

              More evidence that they are either completely ignorant of the subject or are being deliberately misleading is evidenced by the fact that the pancreas IS NOT the only source of digestive enzymes. The protein digestive enzymes pepsin and lipase are secreted by the stomach. Digestive enzymes are also secreted by the salivary glands and intestines. Therefore, even if the pancreas was not up to par there would still be digestive enzymes being secreted.

              And cancer cells DO NOT hide from the immune system using fibrin. They hide from the immune system through a coating of human chorionic gonadotropic hormone. Same way a fetus is hidden from the mother’s immune system so the immune system does not destroy the fetus since it is a foreign protein source to the mother’s immune system. I have had people try to argue against that fact but remember that only half the DNA came from the mother. The male DNA present makes the fetus foreign to the mother’s immune system.

              • Hi James,

                I don’t think that study is conclusive of anything. You can always find studies which refute other studies. It’s always good to keep questioning everything though.

                What I find interesting is when therapeutic approaches work before the science is totally in place. With Beard’s work, he really was making a big leap, but the results of his therapy on patients was a reduction of tumors:

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1291589/?page=1

                The reason you need coffee enemas when you are doing this sort of therapy is so you don’t die from the toxins being released into the bloodstream as the tumor is killed. In this study, one patient did die as the tumor was suddenly “sloughed off.”

                • Hi Anna,

                  I still don’t buy it for several reasons.

                  In the beginning of the discussion paper they talk about injecting the tumor directly with enzymes. This would work since the enzymes will digest the proteins they come in to contact with.

                  But this brings up several questions as far as the oral administration. First of all how are the enzymes going to reach the tumor without being digested themselves since enzymes are proteins that get digested just like other proteins? They do give extremely high amounts of enzymes orally. So let’s assume they gave the patients such a high level of enzymes that they managed to escape digestion and somehow managed to be absorbed in to the bloodstream despite intact proteins not being absorbed through the intestinal wall. So we already have a number of variables that don’t add up. But again let’s assume that the enzymes somehow make it intact to the bloodstream despite being basically impossible. If this did happen then would stop the enzymes from digesting healthy tissue and blood cells as it circulated around trying to reach the tumor? More damage would occur to the healthy tissue than the tumor itself. Again, there is a reason our own digestive enzymes do not enter in to circulation.

                  As for the coffee enemas the biggest risk of killing off cancer cells too quickly is tumor lysis syndrome, in which excess potassium dumps in to the bloodstream. Coffee is a diuretic due to the effects of the caffeine so it will reduce potassium levels. But the caffeine will still suppress the immune system by suppressing the adrenals, which also leads to thymic suppression. Not a safe idea for someone suffering from cancer.

                  James

                • Hi James,

                  It does seem unlikely that enzymes would work if ingested according to your logic. But for me the jury is still out until I read further studies.

                  As for coffee enemas, I think whether they are valuable depends on the state the body is in. If I was dying of cancer I would prioritize differently than as a healthy person. For example, I would never do a strict raw foods or juice diet now, because I don’t want to become deficient in anything and I am sensitive to all of the sugar from juices. But if I had cancer I would temporarily try such diets based on anecdotal evidence of their efficacy. As for coffee enemas, they are often recommended even to adrenal burnout patients, as they temporarily correct the inverted sodium/ potassium ratio that many of these patients have.

      • So helpful, thanks! Would you please include ‘rheumatoid arthritis’ as well in your book? How and when can we read them? Do you also happen to have any info on Parkinsons or how to combat it? Would love to hear your views.

        • Martin: “So helpful, thanks! Would you please include ‘rheumatoid arthritis’ as well in your book?”

          I touch on it in the book. Rheumatoid arthritis is a bacterial induced autoimmune disorder. Here is a more detailed write up I did on autoimmunity:

          http://www.medcapsules.com/info/Auto_Immunity.htm

          I recommend antibiotic herbs such as chaparral and pau d’ arco, vitamin D3 (no more than 2,000IU daily) and building up the adrenal glands:

          http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2462

          Avoid adrenal glandulars:

          http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2464

          Martin: “How and when can we read them?

          I have to finish them first. This may still be a while. Backing everything with solid research is very time consuming.

          Martin: “Do you also happen to have any info on Parkinsons or how to combat it? Would love to hear your views.”

          Parkinson’s is best treated by elevating dopamine. The amino acids phenylalanine or tyrosine can be used to elevate dopamine.

          Trimethylglycine (TMG) can also help increase dopamine.

          The herb magnolia bark also increases dopamine.

          These are all best taken on an empty stomach at least 30 minutes before meals.

          Sage leaf is great for the nervous system and helps to control the Parkinson’s tremors.

      • I have read that silica supplements can be harmful and that many silca supplements are not very absorbable; do you feel supplementation is necessary, especially for an older individual?

        • Silica is poorly absorbed. And the ability to absorb silica declines as we age since stomach acid levels decline with age. With the loss of silica absorption we start seeing a lot of what we consider age-related diseases/disorders. These include osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, diverticulitis, aneurysms, atherosclerosis, emphysema, wrinkles, etc. The primary reason is because silica absorbs as orthosilicic acid, which is used by the body to form the structural proteins collagen, elastin and chondroitin. Orthosilicic acid also has a mild anti-inflammatory effect.

          Is it dangerous if ingested? No. Whatever does not absorb simply passes through the body harmlessly.

  16. why do researchers keep on quoting about the inuit and massai when they are the shortest lived people on earth, that doesn’t seem healthy to me

    • Are they short lived because of diet induced disease or is it injury and communicable disease? And have the Inuit and Massai always been so short lived or is that a recent issue?

  17. Loved this article Chris. Thanku!
    I’ve a few questions:
    What are your thoughts on alkaline water?
    And improving on low and decreasing HCL levels (with age and otherwise)?
    🙂

    • I’m curious what his thoughts are on alkaline water as well! A friend of mine does this alkaline filtration thing and it’s thousands of dollars to buy the system so I want more information before I invest.

  18. Man, I’m so glad you decided to tackle this topic, Chris! Another myth that is extremely pervasive is the concept of food combining; that the human body is somehow incapable of digesting protein and starch together in the same meal! It’s completely absurd – anyone familiar with even the most basic concepts of how digestion works should realize that. I think the problem is that so many people make these kinds of dietary changes in their lives, replacing a highly processed diet with an “alkaline” diet of mostly fresh foods, and they do feel better, so they feel that is confirmation that the theory is true. Or they start following the rules of food combining, and find they digest better. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that food combining is necessary, it only means that that person has impaired digestion of one or more dietary components. Because a person with a normally functioning digestive system is perfectly capable of digesting protein, starch, and fat all in the same meal. I do it every day! And another myth that drives me crazy is the blood type diets. According to my blood type, I should be a low-fat vegetarian, but I already tried that years ago with disastrous consequences for my health. Fortunately I’m now thriving on a higher fat animal product based diet. But unfortunately many well-meaning books, including the Body Ecology Diet, perpetuate all of these myths. It’s unfortunate that such BS is intermixed with a lot of really good information about the benefits of fermented foods.

    • Man, I’m so glad you decided to tackle this topic, Chris! Another myth that is extremely pervasive is the concept of food combining; that the human body
      is somehow incapable of digesting protein and starch together in the same meal! It’s completely absurd – anyone familiar with even the most basic concepts
      of how digestion works should realize that.

      They don’t simply argue that your body is incapable of performing digestion of that combination, they argue rather that such a digestive process is highly inefficient. The issue is does the food contain enough digestive enzymes to complete the bulk of digestion or must it toss the bulk of the job of digestion to your body to expend it’s own supply of enzymes to complete digestion. Consequently, it is important to note that the food combination community is not simply arguing that ph is a problem here, but also arguing that enzymatic supply and demand is at issue as well.

      (You continue:) I think the problem is that so many people make these kinds of dietary changes in their lives, replacing a
      highly processed diet with an “alkaline” diet of mostly fresh foods, and they do feel better,
      so they feel that is confirmation that the theory is true.
      Or they start following the rules of food combining, and find they digest better. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that food combining is necessary, it only
      means that that person has impaired digestion of one or more dietary components. Because a person with a normally functioning digestive system is perfectly
      capable of digesting protein, starch, and fat all in the same meal. I do it every day!

      The food combination advocates would argue that your digestion will seem relatively normal in this case, provided that your body’s supply of enzymes remains abundant enough to help complete digestion. Their concern is that your body eventually will run out of these enzymes and digestive demand will exceed your body’s enzymatic supply. So, the only way to truly debunk the food combination theory is to prove that the body’s supply of enzymes available for digestion is not limited, hence implying that the body will always be able to produce enough of a supply of enzymes to meet the demands of completing digestion. Else, if the supply runs out or gets too low for completing digestion, then their theory would predict that digestive distress from improperly combined meals is a mathematical inevitability governed by the afore mentioned supply and demand concerns.

      • The enzymes in food provide absolutely nothing towards the digestion of that food. The notion that eating foods with their enzymes reduces the work the body has to do is silly. Think about it, how long does a food substance spend in your body? A few hours? Chop up a vegetable, leave it on a plate for a few hours and see if it breaks down within the same amount of hours. It would take days for a chopped up vegetable to break down in a similar way to digestion. The enzymes in a food are there for the growing process of the food, not to help us break it down in our GIT.

        • So your saying live enzymes in food don’t help us break it down in our body? ? I’m not sure where you got your info but I believe that is incorrect. Mastication starts the process in our saliva and food

          • Please provide proof that fruit and vegetables contain any adequate amount of protease, lipase & amylase. If you think I am incorrect, then correct me. You have made the claim first that “food enzymes help digestion” without providing evidence. I researched this topic last year and found no evidence that enzymes in food help digestion. I am not saying supplemental enzymes don’t help, they are a different kettle of fish. Im saying there is no proof that any small amount of enzyme in a food survives the stomach acid environment, effectively reducing the amount of enzymes the pancreas or other areas of the GIT has to release.

            http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml

            • Dan. Surely this is what our Pancreas is for!. It provides all the enzymes needed to digest food in the gut. However, as we age it produces less so supplementation may be the answer.
              Of course, most of us cook our food to make it more ‘digestible’ This kills any useful enzymes anyway.

          • Dan brings up an excellent point I have heard before. If these plant enzymes are so active as some people believe then why aren’t these plants digesting themselves when their cell walls are broken releasing the enzymes?

            Furthermore, are you aware that enzymes are proteins and the plant enzymes simply get digested by our own digestive system?

      • You are 100% correct. The body is very capable of digesting multiple types of foods at once. And the body continually produces digestive enzymes throughout life. We do not have a limited enzyme supply as the enzyme sellers claim.

      • All I know is that after my eldest son was born, I had a year long bout with nausea. I was too broke to go to the doctor, being young, married, and full of dreams rather than cash. I was just getting worse, and one day this couple asked us to their home. They had just started this new diet, and felt great! I was so sick all the time, that I was interested in anything that made me feel great. I asked them what it was, and they told me, Fit For Life by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond. I was desperate. They explained the simple principles, and I started it that day before I read one word about food combining. I got better almost immediately. I lost thirty pounds. The nausea went away and never came back. I had three times as much energy. Over the years since, whenever I feel an energy lull, I go back on it. I’ve heard all the hype, and criticism. However, like it or not , experience when it comes to health is a much better teacher. If you know what makes you feel good, and your nails get stronger, your skin glows, your energy increases, your digestion is better, then whatever makes that happen for you, more power to ya! Diets that have made me feel lousy or over bloated: High protein, low carb, and the Rotation diet, which made me feel like I was at death’s door! All I can say is that Fit For Life did exactly what the Diamonds said it would do for me, I had way more energy, my digestion was better, and I could feel that my meals were lighter and weighed me down less. I didn’t stop eating meat. Had it most nights. I was healthy. My opinion is that its easy to point fingers at something that you’ve not experienced. In my case it helped me improve my diet. There were things I did not do that they espoused. 1) I drank plenty of fluid with meals and throughout the day. 2) I ate one meat meal a day 3) I went off it once a week on Sunday and had a hamburger, which felt like a stone in my stomach but made my taste buds happy. 4) I ate cheese on my bean burritoes. 4) I drank milk, usually in the late afternoon or with my protein dinner.

  19. I am alkalizing my body to reduce a candida overgrowth I have been struggling with. I do feel better and can tell a huge difference!

      • Haven’t had white sugar since my children were babies, 51 yrs. ago…..makes no difference to ph balance….still acidios unless I totally eat alkaline…..
        L

        • I think it’s interesting you use “evolutionary evidence” to suggest the fact that acidic Paleolithic diets had no adverse health effects are applicable to modern day human couch potatoe acidophiles. As I recall, the hunter-gatherers did not have an enviable lifespan regardless.

          • Their short life span no doubt had to do with the savage world they lived in, no health care, no dental care….be honest.

              • They did not eat things like fruits? What about meats that still contain sugar? Think about it, what fuels the muscle cells? So what is trapped in the meat when the animal is killed?

                Dental care may also be needed due to fracturing or loss of teeth from trauma. Or chewing on bone or other hard materials. Also from getting sand on their food that is abrasive on enamel. And yet there are still other reasons.

                • My son took this in university as I made a comment to him once because I had to start eating paleo. He told me that the age that is referenced is an average. The average looks really low because most died in infancy, those who survived past infancyusually lived a long life

                • Oh James, I have been following your entries now for a while and am starting to wonder if you have actually any practical/clinical experience in the field of acid/alkaline balance at all. Also …have you ever been to a slaughter house….what animals have within their flesh at the time of killing is pure fear and trauma…it may pay to analyse the flesh and see what hormones are present at the time of slaughter and at normal times.

                • Sunflower,

                  My body has been balancing its pH just like it is supposed to do my entire life. So yes, I have lot’s of personal experince.

                  As for you comment about the slaughter house, so what? We are discussing pH, not the elevated cortisol in the animals tissues when they killed. So what you need to be really asking yourself is what causes rigor mortis when the animal is killed? An influx of alkaline calcium. What is released from the cells, but remains in the tissues when the animal is killed? Alkaline potassium.

                  Keep to the topic of pH.

                • James….The only reason I mentioned the slaughter house was in response to your statement of what do you find in a killed animal.
                  Anyway James…I wanted to acknowledge you for your continued effort to reply to peoples statements. You have been very patient with many of us and repeated your info over and over again. I am impressed with your convictions and agree with some of your statements as well.
                  Saliva pH indicates the potential you have to alkalize the food you are eating…the urine pH indicates your tissue pH and not your blood pH….your blood pH is measured via a blood test and is maintained by the body as one of its major priorities. Blood pH changes under severe circumstances such as trauma, blood loss and schock…this is often taken care of via immediate transfusions of alkalizing saline or even Bi-carbonates. Tissue pH can be altered via the diet you eat and the water you drink…in my practice this has proven to be the case hundreds of time and resulted in significant improvement to the health of my clients. I also understand that there are dynamics occurring within our bodies that still need to be discovered and understood…the worst thing we can do is be ignorant of these processes by adhering to what we already know so tightly that anything new has no room to establish itself within our thinking. As I said earlier James your knowledge is not being questioned…it is the lack of receptivity to anything outside your paradigm that is in my opinion limiting. I have learnt a lot from your comments and feedback and for that I thank you. I do not believe in the Paleo diet as it does not reflect the need of todays population…eating meat is no longer a “must do” component within our society…it has been proven that red meat has the potential to increase violence within society…for early men thousands of years ago that was a desired effect to make sure one was able to establish authority…I have been living w/o meat for 33 years and have more energy than people half my age(61) I love though the diversity of opinions in this forum and am happy to embrace anyone opinion be it true or misguided.

                • sunflower: “Saliva pH indicates the potential you have to alkalize the food you are eating…”

                  Saliva has several functions, Lubrication, protecting the teeth from food acidity and aiding salivary amylase to work. But all food will be made acidic in the stomach, alkalized in the intestines and eventually metabolized in to acids. Therefore, salivary pH really does not tell us anything of importance.

                  Sunflower: “the urine pH indicates your tissue pH and not your blood pH…”

                  Urinary pH DOES NOT reflect tissue pH either. Tissue pH is controlled by several things depending on the tissues you are referring to. Stomach tissues, and areas with acid forming beneficial flora will tend to be acidic is everything is working properly. Other tissue pH levels are primarily regulated by the blood. Blood pH is then kept in check primarily through respiration.

                  Urinary pH can be affected by a number of things including the amount of water being ingested, the excretion of excess supplements, bacteria that cause urinary tract infections, etc. Thereforee, urinary pH does not reflect blood or tissue pH.

                  Sunflower: “.your blood pH is measured via a blood test and is maintained by the body as one of its major priorities. Blood pH changes under severe circumstances such as trauma, blood loss and schock…this is often taken care of via immediate transfusions of alkalizing saline or even Bi-carbonates.”

                  Saline IVs are not used to buffer acidity. Read this:

                  http://www.medsci.org/v10p0747.htm

                  IV bicarboante can be used to buffer acidity, but it must be used very carefully since IV bicarbonate can cause acidosis through the byproduct formed, which is carbonic acid.

                  Sunflower: “Tissue pH can be altered via the diet you eat and the water you drink…in my practice this has proven to be the case hundreds of time and resulted in significant improvement to the health of my clients.”

                  Again, tissue nor blood pH is significantly altered by diet. Respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation of the blood, and blood is the primary means of tissue pH regulation.

                  What alkaline supporters keep overlooking is that the foods they are consuming are generally more nutritious, which is why they can feel better. This is not the result of a change in pH since the body maintains its blood, and thus pH, in a tight regulation despite what foods are consumed.

            • Agreed, the harsh environment contributed greatly to the “overall” life spans. But, in order to make any comparisons relevant to that era, you have to look at the health of the two different groups at that time, not compare them to any group at a different time. Most archaeological evidence shows that hunter gatherers who usually ate more meat and fresh vegetable and fruits had less dental caries and healthier skeletons that those who settled into farming grains.

          • Infant mortality = skewed data on life spans. For those who lived past childhood, they had decent life spans.

    • Candida as in skin rash?

      I cured my wife of that after her Caesarian:
      1) Wipe the affected area with alcohol or hydrogen peroxide. ONLY the affected area, try to avoid healthy skin next to it! (Feel free to wipe parts you’re unsure of. Better to be aggressive)
      2) Wipe a healthy part of the skin with your finger and then “paint” the affected skin with the sweat/skin oil of the healthy area to recolonize the infected skin with benign, normal skin flora.
      3) For more aggressive treatment, apply a little anti-fungal ointment. Yeast infection cream worked for us even though it isn’t specifically for skin.

      Sweat between folds of skin may be the problem. Consider applying antiperspirant after the bacterial recolonizing in step 2.

      If you r case follows my wife’s the affected areas should become smaller and fewer in number until the candida is out-competed by the harmless microbes.

        • Lisbeth,

          Candida is naturally occurring in humans as a normal resident of our gut. Candidiasis is when it gets “out of control”, usually do to the administration of antibiotics, which kill off the “good guys” and let candida flourish. Taking nystatin will usually cause a rebound effect, and there are several “natural” (and better) choices to deal with candida overgrowth…

          http://www.misterpaleo.blogspot.com

          • Mr Paleo, I paste an extrat for your consideration:
            Source: http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=791621
            Where the Yeast is & Why it Causes Problems
            Tartaric acid is an analog (or close chemical relative) of malic acid. Malic acid is a key intermediate in the Krebs cycle, a biochemical process used for the extraction of most of the energy from our food.

            Presumably tartaric acid is toxic because it inhibits the biochemical production of the normal compound, malic acid.
            Tartaric acid is a known inhibitor of the Krebs cycle enzyme fumarase which produces malic acid from fumaric acid

            A large percentage of patients with fibromyalgia respond favorably to treatment with malic acid. I presume that supplements of malic acid are able to overcome the toxic effects of tartaric acid by supplying deficient malic acid.
            Treatment with the antifungal drug Nystatin kills the yeast and values for tartaric acid steadily diminish with antifungal treatment.
            Hope this is of interest
            Les

      • Leslie,

        Interesting, yes… applicable, not in my experience. What most people do not comprehend is the adaptive complexity of the candida organism, and the fact that it is a natural resident of our gut… I strongly recommend against antibiotics of ANY sort, except in “worst case” scenarios where “natural” treatments have failed or repeatedly have shown no efficacy under clinical conditions. I don’t usually use Wikipedia as a reference, but this entry is well written, and, as far as I can tell, accurate…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_albicans

        • Mr Paleo
          Many thanks for the replies.
          Yes. Antibiotics save lives, unfortunately at the expense of our Gut flora.
          I think that a more insidious culprit is the inhalation, ingestion and skin contact of Chlorine which is daily weakening/killing our Flora.
          All reviewers of the Paleo diet never mention that they didn’t drink Chlorinated water!
          I can find no research into how yeast spores can be prevented from becoming systemic.
          I believe that chlorine is the primary cause of Leaky Gut Syndrome. Candida is also being investigated for implications in vascular and cancer diseases!. The Italian Doctor Tullio Simoncini believes that cancer is caused by Candida and killing the candida cures cancer.
          I am not convinced Candida causes cancer, but I do believe they both feed the same way so candida growth feeds cancer cells.
          Leslie

          • Dear Leslie,

            LOL…. yes, I DO NOT consume chlorinated water, bath in chlorinated water, swim in chlorinated pools, use brominated hot tubs, etc…

            Arnold (MR PALEO)

            • Hi Arnold
              Obviously you have done your research!
              But still many websites on paleo diets and candida still miss this important point, don’t you think?
              By the way, there is another Leslie posting here so I am going to change to an avatar as you have. Will be yannibenji (names of my dogs joined together from now on!
              Cheers
              yannibenji

              • Dear YB,

                There are many factors influencing our health that I feel are significant… for instance, fluoride, parabens, BPA, GMO’s, and man-made biologicals like lyme disease… the list just goes on and on. To me, the most important aspects of good health are diet, exposure, and genetics… and, as a “health-care” provider, the most critical aspect of my job is accurate diagnosis…

                http://www.misterpaleo.blogspot.com

          • Candida rarely goes systemic. If it does the person will end up in the hospital or would be dead.

            Candida is kept in its benign yeast form through the acids produced by our flora. The acids turn off the Candida growth gene and again keeps the Candida in a benign yeast form. When the flora levels are reduced the pH of the terrain becomes too alkaline. This turns on the Candida growth gene and converts the dimorphic microbe Candida in to its pathogenic fungal form. In its fungal form the Candida forms finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to tissues causing damage and inflammation.

            Leaky gut results from the hyphae damage to the intestinal lining. The resultant inflammation makes the intestines permeable to protein solutes that can now enter the bloodstream triggering immune responses to these antigens.

            The flora can be easily built back up with cultured foods such as kefir, miso, tempeh, etc. And by increasing fiber intake to feed the flora.

            Simoncini claims cancer is Candida. He clearly does not understand the differences in cell structure. Of course he also claims that Candida and Aspergillus are the same thing, which again is not true. I wold not follow anything that Simoncini claims.

            • James, (is there only one?)
              Would like to discuss a few things that really are “off-topic” here… you can contact me thru my blog, which has been mentioned several times… ?
              arnold

    • Candida is kept in control by the acids produced by our flora. The acidity turns off the Candida growth gene and keeps the Candida in its benign yeast form. In an alkaline environment the Candida growth gene is turned on and the Candida morphs in to its pathogenic fungal form.

      The so-called alkaline diets help because they are high in fibrous foods that feed the flora. As the flora ferment these fibers the produce various acids to kill pathogens, increase nutrient absorption and to control Candida.

      • What do you think about probiotic pills?
        I am taking Solgar’s ‘Advanced 40+ Acodophilus.
        Does it survive the stomach acid intact enough to get to the intestines?
        Is there enough live bacteria in it to start with?
        Should I be alternating it with other strains? etc

    • Candidiasis is when the candida in your gut turns into a multi-celled pathogen that can the ability to dig into your gu, eventually spreading into your blood (leaky gut). This is pathogen is allowed to take palce when your stomach goes alkaline (when there are not enough probiotics to make acid by products). When the candida is triggered by eating sugary foods or starches that break down into sugar you feel hungover for a few days and will often get a yeast infection on your sex gland. I have had this infection for 3 years since receiving antibiotics and steroids and the same time when I had mononucleosis.
      I am finally overcoming it by:
      Eating ONLY eating low starch veggies, fish/meat, rice (needed to help cure leaky gut), lots of kefir (with rice bran, a prebiotic, added), vitamin B and C supplements, and probiotic pills everyday. I also use olive oil or coconut oil to cook, no vegetable oil or canola oil type stuff. No vinegar, sugar, etc I’m sure you know the list by now.
      The main thing is that you should focus on pre and probiotics over eating lots of antifungals that kill both probiotics and candida (whose biomembrane often protects it completely). I havent had an eposide in months and feel amazing.

    • Won’t do any good! Yeast spores are everywhere even in the air we breath!
      The best we can do is try and stop overgrowth.
      Tip 1: eat and cook with Coconut oil – its a natural yeast killer.
      Tip 2: Crush and slice a whole garlic bulb then fry in a little olive oil (coconut oil is better.). until light brown. Then eat. It will taste quite sweet.
      Tip 3: (this is powerful!) Crush and dice a garlic bulb, put it in a glass of water and leave for an hour or two (or longer) Then drink. You can increase the amount of garlic to your taste. Your next stool might look greyish!
      Best of luck
      Not only does this kill Candida but also retains the Allicin which is good for the heart.

      • Leslie,

        I won’t give specifics on a blog entry, but Candidiasis usually requires four to six weeks of treatment to regain homeostasis, and yes, coconut oil (caprylic acid), and fresh raw garlic (allicin) are an excellent place to start, but there are other requirements including probiotic therapy…

        http://www.misterpaleo.blogspot.com

        • In answer to taking probiotics. I have spent hundreds of pounds on pro and pre biotic supplements but none worked!
          Q: It is said that we have between 300 to 1000 strains of gut bacteria. When antibiotics kill off most of them, how do we get them back when most supplements I have seen only contain from around 3 to 14 varieties? (Apart from faecal transplants!)
          I theorise, that all health depends on our cellular health. Gut bacteria are cellular. so if we adopt a diet to improve the cells of our bodies then perhaps we can strengthen the bacteria in our gut making them stronger to fight for their place on the gut lining. (having first made room by killing as much of the yeast as possible.)
          Prolification of yeast spores is the main concern. As we can never stay free of yeasts in our environment. Diets for candida control is virtually impossible for the average person living in the west. (Interesting that Candida diets are akin to the Paleo diet!)
          It seems that yeasts are only a problem when they spore. Does anyone know of any substance which prevents this? Some say Biotin does, others say it feeds yeast. Which is correct?
          My thanks to all for these informative comments on a subject which greatly affects so many in the western world today.

          • Leslie,

            Probiotics by themselves will not mediate candidiasis… and yes, fecal transplants do show promise, but I hesitate to recommend them for a very simple reason… what ELSE are you transferring that you are NOT aware of ?
            The majority of your gut flora are established from birth, and re-established by what you eat.
            Yes, the “paleo” dietary regimen is a part of my approach to resolving most health issues…

            • Yes. There is danger from getting the matter from unknown sources. I believe the Australian experiments used a close, healthy relative who shared the same diet so therefore had the right strains of bacteria.
              It has been shown to be the only cure for Clostridium difficile (C. diff).

      • Response to the suggestion about putting garlic in water and drinking it. Sounds like a great idea! I would first allow the crushed and diced garlic to sit for a few minutes to allow the allicin to form before putting it in the water. Allicin forms when the garlic is exposed to air.

    • I applaud you for ‘listening’ to you own body! May I suggest that you eat Molasses and broccoli every day. They are both ‘Super’ foods. (Molasses are a high mineral food especially calcium and Copper (which is a powerful fungicide).
      There are many critics of ‘alkalizing diets’ saying that they don’t work! But they do if one is suffering from mild or severe acidosis!
      Most ‘western’ diseases are caused by an over acidic diet depleting the body of calcium which results in inflammation. This diet is deficient in magnesium and vitamin D which are required to properly assimilate calcium and stop it being ‘deposited’ in the wrong parts of the body such as arteries, and not in the bones where it should be. The process of building strong bones is when exercising, the body takes calcium from the bones to work the muscles. Then when resting it drives the calcium back into the bones. This is what gives the bones their ‘honey comb’, structure which is stronger than solid bone.
      Citing the Inuit, they have tremendous amounts of calcium AND vitamin D from the fish in their diet which continually offsets the acidic meat they eat. – it’s all about balance.
      Many meat eaters suffer from Indigestion, acid reflux, arthritis etc. This is due to a too high Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils. The Inuit have a ratio of around 1:1. The average American has a ration of around 20:1. I recommend (having experimented on my own body as I am not a fish eater apart from Sardines!) that as fats are absorbable through the skin, that people rub extra Virgin Olive oil (high in Omega 3 and vitamin E) into their skin – I rub it around my stomach area daily. A noticeable difference in lessening of inflammation in the body will quickly become apparent!
      Regards to all you people who are analyzing what your own body needs and not following the ‘One size fits all’ current medical advice.

      • Molasses is also high in iron, which promotes cancer, promotes oxidative damage to tissues leading to inflammation, feeds many pathogens and can be extremely detrimental to a person with hemochromatosis.

        As far as acidosis goes, the body rarely ever goes acidic because of the numerous redundant systems the body has to maintain pH. Therefore, the only times we see acidosis is in rare cases of some poisonings, hypoventilation, diabetic ketoacidosis, and a few other rare incidences. Diet plays virtually no role in pH control of the blood. The body’s primary means of pH control is respiration, not diet.

        Depleting the body of calcium does not cause inflammation. Inflammation is the result of hormones known as prostaglandins that can over dilate blood vessels causing them to leak fluid. This is want results in the pain and swelling. This is also why non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are used to control inflammation. They have nothing to do with calcium, but they counter inflammatory prostaglandins.

        Calcium is supposed to be in a lot of places other than the bones since it is used for other purposes other than being one of the numerous components needed for healthy bone.

        The role of magnesium is not to enhance calcium absorption as it is a calcium antagonist. Both are required for strong bones, but in the blood magnesium helps to prevent the side effects of excess calcium such as high blood pressure, constipation, muscle spasms/cramping, heart arrhythmias, etc.

        Vitamin D does help with calcium absorption, but has nothing to do with where calcium goes. That role belongs almost exclusively to silica, which also aids in the absorption of calcium and is the most important nutrient for bone strength there is.

        By the way, there are over 20 forms of vitamin D. There are only 3 we are concerned about for the human body. Two are inactive forms and one active.

        Your discussion of how strong bones are built is completely wrong. During exercise calcium is not taken from bones. That would be completely stupid as the calcium would be taken from the bones at the one time the bones would need mineralization the most.

        Bones are built during exercise by the removal of calcium and other minerals in the blood. These minerals are electrodeposited in to the collagen matrix of bone during exercise due to the piezoelectric effect of the stress applied to the silica in bone during exercise.

        The Inuit eat a lot more than meat. During the warmer months they collect and stock up on plant materials such as berries. They consume their stockpiles of plant material throughout the year, which is also why they don’t get scurvy.

        Indigestion and acid reflux have nothing to do with eating meat. Indigestion and acid reflux are more apt to happen from the consumption of plants that provide a lot more fermentable sugars as well as lower esophageal sphincter relaxers such as caffeine or the oils in mints. See:

        http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2632

        The claim about arthritis is very misleading. Arthritis is not a singular disease. There are over 120 forms of arthritis with different causes. Although consuming high levels of meat does increase the intake of inflammatory arachidonic acid this does not necessarily mean it will contribute to inflammation. Take deep cold water fish for example, which is still a meat source. But they are also high in anti-inflammatory omega 3 oils. In addition, we can obtain other anti-inflammatories from our diet and our body generates its own anti-inflammatory corticosteroids. Bottom line is that there is so much about this topic you are overlooking.

      • So I had been eating a low-carb paleo type diet with tons of organic veggies as well as fish (which is high on all the acidic charts I have seen), grass-fed or pastured organic meat, eggs, and some organic raw dairy, butter, etc., but my gouty arthritis was still bothering me. So I cut back on the meat and animal products and had to get more of my protein from plant sources which was more carbs than I had been eating such as beans, quinoa (sprouted varieties), more hemp and chia/flax meal, etc. I also started taking some supplements to help with uric acid – mostly herbs. I started drinking more water, most of which I added alkalizing minerals to. I have seen a big improvement in my symptoms. So a “healthy” diet is different for everyone. My diet was super clean before but switching to more alkaline foods seemed to help reduce the uric acid. I know just increasing water intake, whether it’s alkaline or not, is a huge help. I understand that the circulatory system maintains ph and is separate from the digestive tract, but I do believe that cellular alkalinity is a whole different thing and that some issues can be addressed through this pathway.

    • I had cancer my blood sugar was 600 and 8 sleeping disorders.mayo in minn. I bought a kangen water machine and I started sleeping my sugars went down and I know-longer have cancer.

      • The problem is that we have no idea what other things you did. There had to something as alkaline water does not cure diabetes or cancer.

        There is a possibility that the water was high in magnesium, which can help with type 2 diabetes that accounts for about 95% of diabetic cases. In early stage type 2 diabetes the high blood sugar is not the result of pancreatic failure but rather a closing of insulin receptors on cells. This prevents the proper uptake of glucose by cells so the blood sugar remains high. The primary cause of closed insulin receptors is a lack of chromium and/or magnesium. See:

        http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3160

        http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3159

        As for cancer, cancer cells have a more alkaline pH than healthy cells and it has been shown that excess alkalinity of healthy cells causes them to become cancerous.

        In addition, the hydroxides in the ionized water are caustic and strong radicals that can cause tissue damage and inflammation believed to be risk factors for cancer. And the neutralization of stomach acid by the hydroxides in ionized water increases the risk of cancer by making a more suitable environment for cancer pathogens and by reducing methylation in the body.

        You made no mention of what kind of cancer, what therapies you received, what dietary changes or other changes you made, how you determined you were cancer free and for how long, etc. Therefore, even if your claims are true there is no way to determine what really dropped your blood sugar and got rid of the cancer without more details. But again, alkaline water is not the answer.

        • No alkaline/base is not just about being more alkaline. It’s about balance and replenishing your essential minerals especially oxygen. Simple detoxify, remineralize and reoxygenate. Most alternative people and allopaths have tried to commercialize this protocol by selling alkalizing products. but its about eating the right foods, high nutrient dense foods. The naysayers of this protocol are almost always pushing a product of some kind , whether its pharmaceuticals or over priced supplements . The protocol is also difficult for most people to understand scientifically, which makes it susceptible to misinformation.

    • You have no proof it’s because of that thing. It happens that cancer disappear without any treatment nor change in lifestyle.

      It’s like prayer, it,s not because sometimes there’s a coincidence that we have to forget all the tim it does nothing