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?
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.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
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.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Hey James,
You seem to be a very informed/intelligent individual.
What are your thoughts on them boys @ Stanford? Also, I recently opted for a
anti inflammatory diet instead of “the mythical” wheat grass thing (cancer prevention). Your thoughts on this? Oh and honey(sugar) feeds cancer? I just spent 50 bucks yesterday, for the smallest jar of honey i have ever seen! (Organic Raw Manuka Honey) it is SUPOSED to be anti inflammatory being it has a ‘special’ kind of sugar.
Thanking you in advance for you efforts,
js
Jeff: “What are your thoughts on them boys @ Stanford?”
I don’t know who you are referring to.
Jeff: “Also, I recently opted for a
anti inflammatory diet instead of “the mythical” wheat grass thing (cancer prevention). Your thoughts on this? ”
Inflammation does appear to be a co-factor in some cancers. But the primary cause of cancer still remains as viruses. Other less common causes include bacteria, mycotoxin and radiation. Parasites are an extremely rare cause of cancer and heredity the most rare cause as there is only one cancer with any real evidence showing a possible hereditary link.
So will an anti-inflammatory diet help prevent cancer? Not necessarily. Depending on what you eat it may help in some ways other than reducing inflammation though. For example, fruits and vegetables can boost immunity due their vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and the fibers that feed the flora producing beneficial acids that help reduce the risk of cancer. Fruits and vegetables also contain anti-cancer phytoestrogens and anticancer acids such as chlorgenic acid.
Jeff: “Oh and honey(sugar) feeds cancer?”
Yes. In fact cancer cells have a higher affinity for sugar than healthy cells.. But there is more to the story. It is impossible to avoid sugar for one. Many people don’t realize that even something like beef contains naturally occurring sugar.
And even if we try to cut sugar out of our die the body will still generate its own glucose from a variety of sources such as glycogen, lactate, amino acids, etc. to maintain blood sugar levels. So simply attempting to cut sugar from the diet is not the answer for cancer either. It is a good idea to limit sugar intake and to make sure you get fiber with your meals to slow glucose absorption to prevent spikes in blood sugar.
Speaking of which, one of the reasons I am not a real big fan of juicing is that most juicers remove the beneficial fiber from the juice. By removing the fiber the sugar in the juice will absorb much faster in to the bloodstream, increasing spikes in blood sugar, which is not healthy cancer or not.
Fibers are also extremely important for feeding the flora, which account for most of our immune function among other things. The flora generate acids that protect us from pathogens and help with nutrient absorption. They also produce bactericides that kill pathogenic bacteria, compete for food and space with pathogenic bacteria, produce antiseptic and immune stimulating peroxides and produce about 80% of the body’s serotonin. The flora also generate B vitamins and vitamin K for the body. Therefore, removing the fiber from juices is not healthy, it’s ridiculous.
Getting back to honey really quick a lot of people think honey is better than table sugar (sucrose). But honey contains a variety of sugars including sucrose. So it can still spike blood sugar and suppress immune function just like table sugar. The only real big advantage of honey over table sugar is that the darker honeys are good antioxidants.
If I may leave a quick comment, there is a better alternative to Honey… Rice Malt Syrup… It may be worth trying to help substitute your sugar as well as reduce the overall sugar intake – It does help reduce the Inflammation. (I have had major issues with inflammation as part of my injuries, and sugar is poison to my system)
James, you are probably going to “nail me” for this one, because I don’t remember where the research for this came from but honey beats plain sugar in that the spike that you referred to is not as severe. Something in honey behaves a bit like fiber and reduces the sugar spike (for equivalent amounts). Also raw honey that has not been heated provides other health benefits.
Using honey as a sweetener is superior to plain sugar but as you point out it is a source of sugars.
Cannabis oil fight against HIV A Deadly disease which kills, they say there is no cure but there is a cure. contact me for more info for help on how to get cured of Aids and HIV.Due to the numbers of messages i get a day i decided to create this email for those who are interested to contact me.Below is the email:[email protected]
Dr Paul: “Cannabis oil fight against HIV A Deadly disease which kills,”
First of all this has NOTHING to do with the topic of the blog article.
Secondly, HIV IS NOT a disease, it is a virus formerly known as human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma virus type 3 (HTLV 3). It is one of 3 human leukemia/lymphoma cancer viruses.
Dr Paul: “they say there is no cure but there is a cure”
There are various methods that have been shown to destroy the HIV virus for decades. Ozone, Compound Q, St. Johnswort extract, lentinan (shiitake mushroom extract), hyperthermia, etc.
AIDS on the other hand is not a disease either, it is a syndrome. Look at the letters of the acronym. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Syndromes are not diseases, but rather a group of symptoms. These symptoms can have various causes.
Ironically, the HIV virus could not cause AIDS under the original definition. This is why the definition of AIDS was changed to fit the virus after one of the government’s top scientists, Robert Gallo lied to the world claiming HIV was the cause of AIDS. Gallo had already embarrassed the U.S. government once when he was busted for scientific fraud. Now he wanted to defraud the people again and make a big profit doing so. Since Gallo held the patent rights on the notoriously inaccurate HIV antibody test the only way he could profit on his patent was to falsely claim that HIV was the cause of AIDS and to make sure the public believed this lie. Again the problem was that the HIV virus COULD NOT cause AIDS under the original definition. The original definition of this syndrome was the development of opportunistic infections such as Kaposi’s sarcoma (a viral induced cancer caused by human herpes virus type 8) and pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, caused by the fungal infection Pneumocystis jiroveci. HIV cannot collapse the immune system to cause opportunistic infections since the HIV virus can only lower CD4 counts. But other immune cells can operate independently of the CD4s and support the immune system even in the absence of CD4s. Therefore, Gallo clearly lied when he claimed before a world wide AIDS symposium that HIV was the cause of AIDS. But the media had already jumped on the claim and it spread worldwide. It was just a matter of time before scientists around the world were going to expose Gallo’s most current fraud so the government scrambled to find a way to cover up Gallo’s fraud. They came up with the idea to change the definition of AIDS so that it would fit the HIV virus. Therefore, the definition of AIDS was changes to include the drop of CD4 counts below 200 so they could now honestly claim HIV could cause AIDS.
What they still keep leaving out though is the fact that there were causes of AIDS before they changed the definition of AIDS to fit HIV. The ONLY known virus that could cause AIDS under the original definition is human herpes virus type 6 variant A (HHV6-A). Unlike HIV, HHV6-A collapses the immune system by destroying multiple key immune cells leading to the opportunistic infections that defined AIDS originally. HHV6-A also reduces CD4 cell counts leading to AIDS under the new definition made to fit HIV.
Technically we could consider the pathogens that give an AIDS diagnosis as causes of AIDS as well since they cause the symptoms that define the syndrome. To an extent the government has done this to allow more AIDS diagnoses to push more drug sales. This is evidenced by the government later changing the definition of AIDS again to include repetitive “yeast” infections.
Anyway, infections are not the only cause of a collapsed immune systems that lead to an AIDS diagnosis.
The primary cause of AIDS in the U.S. in particular has always been the drug zidovudine (AZT) given to patients testing HIV+.
One of the things that most people, including most doctors do not realize is that HIV+ means absolutely nothing. There is NO standard lab test that can confirm the presence of any particular virus. This includes antibody testing and polymerase chain reaction (PCR, “viral load”), neither of which prove the presence of any particular virus.
The biggest problem with HIV antibody tests is the fact that they very often test false positive primarily due to serological cross reactivity. Instead of writing the whole reasoning for the inaccuracies of these tests again here are some posts I did in the past on the inadequacies of antibody testing and PCR. Some of this is in regards to hepatitis testing, which also relies on these highly inaccurate tests:
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1549308#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1549321#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1549328#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1549335#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1554778#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1553865#i
If doctors bother to read the inserts provided by the drug companies for these antibody tests then they will see that even the drug companies admit to the inaccuracies of these antibody tests and the fact that they CANNOT prove the presence of any virus.
Again, most of these false positives occur from serological cross reactivity, but there is another reason. Exposure without chronic infection will still lead to a positive test. A simple example of this is if you had the flu several months ago and were now over it you would be virus, but not antibody free. If they were to test you for influenza antibodies you would still test positive because your immune system successfully fought off the virus and generated antibodies that will hang around for a while despite the virus being gone. Since viruses such as HIV have been shown to be unable to infect healthy CD4 cells most people who are exposed to HIV will not become chronically infected with HIV, even though their exposure can still lead to their testing HIV+.
The reason all that is important is because people testing HIV+, false or not, are assumed to be infected with HIV and therefore are frequently treated with highly toxic, immune suppressing drugs such as AZT and its analogues.
Another common myth is that AZT was developed for AIDS. The fact is that AZT came out long before the appearance of AIDS. AZT was developed in 1962 as a chemotherapy drug. The drug was found to be so deadly though that it was initially banned for human use. When AIDS “appeared” the drug was brought back on to the market to recoup the lost pharmaceutical investments despite the fact they knew that AZT would kill a lot of people. In fact, the largest study ever done on AZT, the Concorde Study, found that AZT shortened the lives of people testing HIV+ instead of lengthening their lives.
So how does AZT cause AIDS and kill people? Simple. AZT is HIGHLY TOXIC to the bone marrow. When AZT destroys the bone marrow it prevents the bone marrow from producing stem cells, which are the precursor cells for every single immune cell in the body. Therefore, AZT collapses the immune system, which HIV cannot do, leading to the opportunistic infections that lead to an AIDS diagnosis. In addition, the lack of stem cells also leads to a decline of CD4 cells, which under the new definition of AIDS also leads to an AIDS diagnosis.
The destruction of the bone marrow is also the reason that AZT often leads to severe anemia requiring blood transfusions that are extremely dangerous for people with compromised immune systems.
Bottom line here though is that there is no singular cause of AIDS and thus no single way to address it.
There have been cases reported in medicine of people testing HIV+ and not becoming sick until they started on the AZT. When they went off the AZT on their own all their AIDS symptoms disappeared and the people tested HIV-. Instead of admitting that these people were never infected with HIV in the first place and that their AIDS was AZT induced the medical community simply refers to these cases as “spontaneous remissions”.
Whether or not cannabis oil can do anything for AIDS still has to be seen. But I doubt if will do squat for AZT induced AIDS as the cannabis oil is not gong to regenerate bone marrow. High organic germanium sources such as suma or turkey tail mushrooms (Trametes versicolor) are excellent choices.
For the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS my first choice would be ozone therapy. I have also seen several people go from their death bed to healthy with an AIDS diagnosis using herbs. In particular pau d’ arco (lapacho, taheebo, ipe roxo), which is especially effective against leukemia/lymphoma viruses. I generally combine it with highly antiviral chaparral, which increases the antiviral effects of pau d’ arco and the powerful antiviral herb andrographis. The herbs are best taken 3 times daily on an empty stomach.
If the body would draw calcium from the bones to balance a slightly acid condition in order to maintain its Ph, wouldn’t the foods we eat (alkaline) support a healthy ph or (acidic) cause the slight acidity that would trigger the use of calcium from our bones?
It would seem obvious that there would be some connection here???
Hi Chaya,
The claim circulating around the internet that the bones are a primary means of acid buffering is nothing but hype. Buffering by bone minerals is only done as a last resort in cases of extreme acidosis, which is extraordinarily rare.
The body’s main means of pH regulation is respiration followed by the retention or excretion of hydrogen ions by the kidneys. These account for virtually all the pH regulation by the body. And even beyond these the body still has other minor means of pH regulation it will utilize before buffering with bone minerals.
The main processes by which we lose bone are hyperparathyroidism and pseudohyperparathyroidism, which have NOTHING to do with acidity. Bone loss can also result for other reasons including a lack of orthosilicic acid and/or ascorbic acid, lack of exercise, some medications and cancer metastases to bone.
I ate mostly alkaline (body ecology diet) before doing GAPS for gut healing and now a personal paleo approach. The only real noticeable difference is that when I was eating alkaline I had no bad breath or bad taste in my mouth when I woke up in the morning and it was great. I noticed that when I did have meat at night, I would get a sour taste in the morning. Once I switched to a non-alkaline diet, I always have a very sour taste in my mouth when I wake up. A few weeks ago I was sick for a day and had some bone broth, but didn’t eat after about 4 pm and had lots of water and tea w lemon and ginger. I woke up the next day with no taste in my mouth. So that’s the big difference.
I am suffering from Intersitial Cystitis. I have burning pain in the vaginal area and bloating and pain in the abdominal area. I was diaganosed years ago, but had never really experience any pain or major discomfort. I am thinking about an alkaline diet for the obvioius reason of reducing the acid, however, in reading all the posts, I am not sure if that will have any affect on my urine acidity and by reduces urine acidity, will that help my pain. Looking for advice..is it just a matter of increasing water?
Hi Lisa,
Trying the mythical “alkaline diet” is not going to alkalize your blood, which is kept alkaline regardless of what you eat.
Here are some old posts I did on IC:
http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4732
http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4736
James
Lisa,
Quoting Marcelle Pick, OB/GYN NP, Chemicals in urine: Urine itself can be an irritant in the urinary tract, mainly if tissues were previously damaged from other primary causes. Urine will change as the diet changes. Studies show that patients with IC have a molecule in their urine called antiproliferative factor (APF). APF inhibits the normal growth of bladder wall cells, making it problematic for your bladder to repair itself if scarred.
Mast cell activation. Studies have shown that some of the contents found typically in our urine (like potassium, for example) can infiltrate the bladder lining in IC patients, leading to mast cell activation and the release of histamine — which can then result in further damage to the bladder lining and amplified inflammation. More than 70% of women with IC have highly activated mast cells. Again this is an example of the inflammatory system being on high alert.
Previous bladder damage: A number of factors can damage the bladder, making it more susceptible to the interstitial cystitis. Some of which include:
•A history of bladder trauma, especially including pelvic surgery
•Spinal cord trauma
•Pelvic floor muscle dysfunction
•Bladder over distention
•Inflammation of pelvic nerves
•Autoimmune disorders
•History of frequent bladder infections
•Chronically Low estrogen
There is some evidence that quercetin and melatonin may be beneficial for those who suffer from IC. Also, avoiding certain dietary triggers (coffee, diet sodas, acidic fruit juices, and tomatoes) may be of benefit. For what it is worth, I would consider having a hormone panel and follow an elimination diet, as well as diagnosing for potential candidiasis, which might exacerbate your symptoms…
Hi Lisa,
d-mannose helped me with chronic IC please look into it.
I might add that after dieting my whole life I dropped 50 lbs in 5 months eating vegetarian which was mostly, but not entirely, alkaline foods. I dropped another 20 lbs when I went Vegan for 2 months, after that I went back to vegetarian for a year and a half keeping my weight loss. I also got off gluten and nightshades because I noticed that I was not feeling well when I ate them. After that time I went Paleo I gained 15 lbs but feel good and have remained that same weight for about 4 years. I still eat a mostly plant based Paleo diet.
For anyone who wants to lose weight eating mostly alkaline worked effortless for me and I found that giving up all meats and most dairy was a lot easier than limiting my intake of food. I was by the way a big meat eater before that but I learned that I loved veggies. Also note that I stopped all dairy except small amounts of butter and I walked my dog on short walks daily and worked out a very light routine 3 X a week during that whole time.
Good ol internet.. One day I’m reading how drinking baking soda mixed with honey can alkaline the body killing cancer. I’ve read case studies of people who claim to have been totally cured of cancer by this treatment. Doctors who have written papers, and books on this topic claiming how effective it is. And no sooner do I start finding hope here’s an article stating the contrary to all of this. Does anyone know anything anymore?! One person claims this will work while another debunks it saying no it doesn’t! You get to the point you don’t know what to believe anymore. For every report given on something claiming it works there’s always the reports given that it doesn’t. I just dont know who or what to believe anymore. Maybe we are just so different that somethings work for some ppl while it doesn’t help at for others. Who knows!
Anyone can make claims of cures as often happens on the internet. How often do you see actual evidence backing these claims though? Almost never.
There are other problems with most of these claims as well. For example, most of these people supposedly cured have used multiple therapies, but they simply choose one therapy they believe worked for them. It is like the quackery cesium chloride, which not only does not work for cancer but has also been shown to cause and promote cancer. Most of the belief that cesium chloride works comes from an article written by a doctor promoting cesium chloride for cancer. If you read the paper though the people were given numerous therapies. Then they only focused on the successes while ignoring the failures. They claimed the successes were due to the cesium chloride and gave no credit to the other therapies.
There is really no way to know what therapies these people really used including changes in diets or the use of herbs and supplements.
For that matter we cannot even confirm most of the time if these people were ever sick to begin with or even existed in the first place. Many of the stories I have read are so far fetched that I am certain the people in the stories being told never existed in the first place. So much of this crap is just sales hype to push product sales.
Then there is the problem of follow up. Just because someone has a REMISSION in their cancer this DOES NOT mean their cancer is gone. So where are the follow ups showing these people are still alive and disease free 5-10 years later.
That is why I prefer to rely on research whenever possible. There is plenty of research showing the effectiveness of holistic therapies for cancer as an example. All people have to do is look.
There is also plenty of research on the morphology of cancer cells. For example the fact that the internal pH of cancer cells is more alkaline than healthy cells.
Using some common sense we should question things like how would ingesting baking soda and honey kill cancer cells when it is a proven fact that:
-Cancer cells are already highly alkaline and need the high alkalinity to survive and thrive?
-That not only does sugar, including honey, feeds cancer cells and metabolizes in to acids that these same people incorrectly claim causes cancer?
-That the baking soda will be neutralized by the stomach acid as it is in ingested?
Different areas inside the body have different pH readings. Carey Reams (who invented hair analysis in forensics, the Brix scale in agriculture, and later was involved in nutritional biochemistry) (and mind you the current day interest in him is ‘mostly’ a cult of wingnuts, and he was very religious, but neither of these should dismiss his qualifications though they tend to be a bit offputting when looking into his stuff today) did a lot of work in this area.
You can measure a couple areas of your own pH either with solution or more easily (though less precisely) with pH sticks, both urine and saliva. For most people they are different. This alone does indicate that the pH of the body is different in different areas.
Hi there Chris,
Thanks for your article.
I’m researching whether urine pH reflects whole body pH.
My thoughts about it are that if urine pH is low, that’s because metabolic acids were excreted at a cellular level. So even if momentarily, whole body pH was elevated. Of course if you have a healthy diet and lifestyle that is it.
But if you don’t? If you keep eating acidic-forming foods won’t your body pH be tending to be low, more or less constantly even if fluctuating? And won’t that be reflected in your urine pH?
(And if your lymphatic circulation is deficient, won’t these metabolites accumulate?)
What I read as claims is that food influences metabolites, and in keeping a certain diet that will be an influence in your body pH and consequently urine pH.
Am I missing something?
Is it possible that the optimum diet would tend, on average, to a neutral PH effect? Not every single meal but on average? To state the question differently, is it possible that a diet which is persistently strongly acid (or strongly basic) will eventually cause a problem?
That may be the case if foods really altered pH. But they don’t, which is why there really is no such thing as a truly acidic or truly alkaline food.
The body’s primary means of pH regulation is respiration followed by retaining or excreting hydrogen ions through the kidneys.
I had a 4 cm mole above my groin which my dermatologist was concerned about but wouldn’t touch. He would just re-measure it each year, and it was continuing to grow. I also had genital warts which he had tried several times to remove with liquid nitrogen, but they just kept coming back.
I read about how alkaline systems were hard for certain viruses to grow in, so I measured my saliva pH and found it to be about 6.8. I started taking a calcium/magnesium supplement and over time my pH started increasing.
When it got to about pH 7.4 I noticed that the mole was getting hard and scaly and over a very short period of time it just flaked off in small sections and has been gone ever since. Also the genital warts just disappeared and have never returned.
My dermatologist just shook his head and said he had no answer for why everything disappeared. That was 8 years ago, and I continue to maintain my pH at 7.5.
If viruses had such a hard time growing in an alkaline environment then there would be a lot less disease since the blood is kept alkaline regardless of what you eat. Even taking calcium and magnesium will not really alter blood pH. Any slight change that may occur would simply be readjusted back to where the blood was originally since the blood must not go too alkaline or too acid.
It should also be noted that some of the best natural antivirals are also acids. Betulinic acid, chlorogenic acid and acidic polyphenols to name a few.
Also as has been pointed out a number of timed salivary pH DOES NOT reflect blood pH whatsoever. Neither does urinary pH. The only way to determine blood pH is with a blood test.
As for warts and moles, which are both viral in origin, both of these are well known for disappearing on their own accord even without any treatment. That;s probably why your dermatologist did not write up this “amazing” case for the medical journals.
By the way, if your blood pH was really at 7.5 then you would be in trouble since this is more alkaline than the normal pH of blood.
James, do you have a blog online that I could get a link to. I appreciate the knowledge you have acquired about the body and would like to know more about what you’ve researched.
Sincerely, Donna
Hi Donna,
You can find my blog articles and videos at http://www.MedCapsules.com
James
I’m starting to change my diet to more ‘alkaline’ foods and cutting out refined and processed sugar (which I’ve read is nothing but a poison). Let’s see if it makes me feel better.
This article is about as useful as “Global Warming is a Myth” commentary and “911 was an inside job” posts. If eating alkaline food such as wheat grass, avocado, cucumber, spinach, radish, kale etc. is clearly better for you than (acid foods) coffee, hamburgers, ice cream, french fries, what is the takeaway? What is the benefit to mankind if we all believe you?
“But for someone with functioning kidneys, there should be no concern that an acid-forming diet will harm health.” — That’s your contribution (to the american obesity epidemic)!? Encouraging people to know that “pure sugar isn’t an acid forming nutrient.” Great work promoting inflammation and cell death and acid. Go Acid! You must work for either McDonalds or ACS. $$$$$
Did you read the same article that I did?
The main point of the article is that basically food does not alter blood pH. So essentially the very term “alkaline diet” is nonsensical.
I don’t see anywhere in either the article or the postings that eating sugar is promoted.
You might want to read Dr. Price’s book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.” One that that you should probably conclude after reading that is that many diets can be healthy and that the quality of the food you consume is important.
While there is research that essentially shows that plain sugar can be considered a poison to the body (using the specific biochemical reactions in the body), as in the case for most thing the “poison is in the dose.” [UC Berkley I believe] Of course in the case for sugar it is also strongly affected by what is consumed with it.
James: what do you think of adrenal glandulars? Do you think they crash the adrenals too?
Yes, adrenal glandulars will shut the adrenals down with regular use. I have seen this happen and posted on this issue here”
http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2464
Anna Biller: “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.”
The problem I have with this claim is that the sodium-potassium balance is maintained by the aldosterone released by the adrenals. Crashing the adrenals with caffeine will exacerbate the problem. It would be safer simply taking more sodium, which displaces potassium.
Interesting. Then you must think Dr. L. Wilson is totally misguided. In fact, are you the one criticizing Dr. Wilson on Curezone? Are you Hveragerthi? A couple of years back I tried researching coffee enemas and couldn’t find anything about a negative effect on the adrenals, so I am interested to read your opinions. It has always been mysterious to me that people who don’t tolerate coffee by mouth claim they can tolerate it by enema.
I have not really researched Dr. Wilson that I recall so I really have no opinion on him directly.
But I do know that sodium-potassium balance is regulated by aldosterone released by the adrenals. Therefore, crashing the adrenals with coffee enemas does not make sense in cases of already existing adrenal dysfunction.
Yes, I was posting under Hveragerthi on Curezone, primarily on my forum The Truth in Medicine. That was until I was banned from Curezone for posting evidence against some of the quackery being posted on Curezone forums. When I started posting on the dangers of the amount of iodine being recommended by the iodine sales people there I was banned. I found out after they helped start Curezone. And they can care less about safety. They are recommending 300+ MILLIgrams daily when the safe recommended limit is only 150 MICROgrams per day. When people have adverse reactions to the recommended dose they give them the BS story about having a bromine detox. See:
http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2485
Then they tell people to do a salt flush to flush out the bromine, which they are not really detoxing from. The salt flush actually pushes out the excess levels of iodine. But then they tell people to take even more iodine. So they are deliberately poisoning people for profit.
I had a friend die just over a year ago from excess iodine, which threw him in to such a strong state of hypothyroidism that he was too weak to even swallow sips of water. So yes, I have very strong feelings about the quackery they are pushing, especially when the dose that killed my friend was near the dosing these quacks are pushing.
Anyway, back to coffee enemas and the adrenals. Caffeine is caffeine whether you drink it, snort it, inject it or shove it up your rectum. The only difference between oral or rectal absorption is that rectal absorption is much faster and thus creates a stronger adverse response. If you look through my old Curezone site you will find people reporting on the adverse effects they had from the caffeine in coffee enemas overstimulating their adrenals.
Hi James,
I think you are the only person on the internet who has made statements about coffee enemas crashing the adrenals. As I said, I was searching for something about that a couple of years ago, because my doctor prescribed coffee enemas and I couldn’t tolerate them. I had to use no more than like a half a teaspoon of coffee, otherwise I felt poisoned. My adrenals had severely crashed already by the way. I also was unable to tolerate adrenal glandulars, as they made me hyper and nervous. But I couldn’t find anyone talking about this so I assumed maybe it was just me.
But I know people who are doing daily coffee enemas and multiple adrenal glandulars daily.
Do you think kelp capsules are a safe form of iodine, as long as they are mercury-safe?
That is awful about your friend. I am so sorry.
Kelp is loaded with arsenic, so no. Small amounts of iodine (under 6 mgs) seem to be totally safe and beneficial.
OY! Another mistake: Please replace “hypothalamus” with PARATHYROID GLANDS!
Correction: In above comment I typed “acidic” instead of “alkaline” environment, It should read:
Your statement that cancer creates its own acidic environment, though it may be true, also bears no weight in refuting a contention that a highly “alkaline” environment would stop cancer growth!
Despite your laudable attempts to be thorough, your arguments cannot be other than assumptive, at best! You, and we, lack so much actual data, facts, and general information that even trying to mount a logical argument for any hypothesis is absurd! It’s quite easy to find flaws, and you find many. But it isn’t valid argument! For example: your contention that cancer grows easily in a slightly alkaline environment has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to grow in a more alkaline environment! Your statement that cancer creates its own acidic environment, though it may be true, also bears no weight in refuting a contention that a highly acidic environment would stop cancer growth! Nor does your statement that our internal tissues never achieve highly alkaline conditions despite all efforts, make it true! One would need a biopsy or a test within the tissue, that you do not offer! The prostate is within the genito-urinary tract! Since PH tests are commonly done using urine to determine having achieved a high alkaline state; how can you state with any degree of certainty that creating a litmus reading of 8.5 or higher in ones urine cannot possibly affect the growth of prostate cancer, even when metastasized to the pelvis! You can’t! You don’t have all the knowledge necessary even to offer an opinion, that you have already done, saying that you doubt very much that a man’s prostate cancer has been cured with baking soda and mollasses, even after the fact that he is alive and well after five years on his protocol, that you so arrogantly state can’t be effective! It’s time you admitted your limitations, in both knowledge, and in ability to think logically! You must stop trying to prove your assertions with negative arguments that are logically invalid! In an aside to this topic, I appreciate the real knowledge that you do have, and have begun ingesting silica, along with calcium and boron, all from natural sources, in effort to reverse a diagnosed osteoporosis, and osteo-arthritis. After only three weeks, I have evidence from my own body that it is working. A calcium deposit that had grown over a bruise/irritation on my middle finger. palm side. has reduced and disappeared! The boron I take in borax powder diluted in water 1 tsp to 1 liter, taking three teaspoons of that water/day is also highly alkaline! Lack of boron makes the hypothalamus glands function improperly. Instead of regulating calcium in proper proportion in the bones, it makes calcium leech out of the bones and teeth to be deposited where it doesn’t naturally belong, Consuming proper amounts of born makes the glands operate normally producing normal metabolism of calcium. I also take magnesium supplement as part of the protocol, as well as other supplements, like MSM and glucosamine sulfate. But I’ve taken all of these except the boron as diluted borax powder, with no noticeable effect. Only when I began the borax in dilution did I have definite improvement, fast.
Reference:
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/13/06/27/borax-conspiracy-how-arthritis-cure-has-been-stopped-walter-last
I will have better proof that my osteoporosis is reversing when I take x-rays of my spine in the future. Current x-rays show osteoporosis and spondylosis (a term referring to degenerative osteoarthritis of the joints between the center of the spinal vertebrae and/or neural foramina). I try not to assume, but I will be quite surprised if my bones do not show definite improvement from current x-rays. I have sciatica, that I believe is a result of my osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, that made injury unavoidable. It has greatly improved to the point where, instead of having to walk like an ape to be pain free, I am now upright and playing tennis again. To be fair, I have been doing yoga stretching designed to improve sciatic pain. However, I think you will agree that, if I do reverse my osteoporosis and arthritis, using boron, magnesium, and silica (from brown rice, cucumber, and two beers a day). I’ve never been a beer drinker but I learned of the silica concentration from the hops in beer from you. Thank you.
In sum regarding acid-alkalinity, I think you must agree that too little is actually known to draw any definitive conclusions one way or the other. Remember butter v margarine any time you think you know anything! Remember also the credo of Albert Einstein; “I don’t know!” This philosophy is what made him the great thinker he was! He also had a much larger brain than most of us! My philosophy has always been to keep an open mind, and to learn from the great ones. Jimi Hendrix and Carlos Santana were my guitar teachers. I listened and copied until I could play both their styles, and only then did I create my original style. Unfortunately, regarding human nutrition and disease, there is very little greatness extant! We continue to suffer! I blame my osteoporosis on the fact that I stopped drinking milk 45 years ago, I have thin bones, and that green leaves and broccoli just can’t do the job unless you live on it and have four stomachs! I also never had enough boron in my diet, that I believe is the case with all osteoporosis and arthritis sufferers, the cause of the osteoporosis epidemic. Thank you very much for listening! Sorry for being so frank!
Joel “JC”: “your contention that cancer grows easily in a slightly alkaline environment has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to grow in a more alkaline environment!”
Cancer can grow fine in an alkaline pH up to a point. The amount of alkalinity needed to kill cancer cells though would also be lethal to healthy cells.
Joel “JC”: “Your statement that cancer creates its own acidic environment, though it may be true, also bears no weight in refuting a contention that a highly acidic environment would stop cancer growth! ”
Studies have shown over and over that if cancer cells become internally acidic they will die. Cancer cells require an internally alkaline pH more alkaline than healthy cells to survive and thrive. This is why cancer cells export acidic hydrogen ions in to the external matrix to maintain their highly alkaline internal pH. If the ability of hydrogen ion export is blocked the cancer cells become acidic and die.
Joel “JC”: “Nor does your statement that our internal tissues never achieve highly alkaline conditions despite all efforts, make it true! ”
It does not make it false either. But all it takes is a little simple research to find out the body maintains a tight regulation on its pH because excess alkalinity or excess acidity will both result in death. And in order for the tissues to be highly alkaline the blood would also have to be highly alkaline, which would lead to decreased oxygen to tissues and possibly death.
Joel “JC”: “One would need a biopsy or a test within the tissue, that you do not offer!”
You can find the studies showing that the internal pH of cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells with a little simple research on PubMed. Just because you never looked for the evidence does not mean it does not exist.
Joel “JC”: “Since PH tests are commonly done using urine to determine having achieved a high alkaline state; how can you state with any degree of certainty that creating a litmus reading of 8.5 or higher in ones urine cannot possibly affect the growth of prostate cancer, even when metastasized to the pelvis! ”
As pointed out so many times urinary PH DOES NOT reflect blood pH so your attempted argument is irrelevant. And urine DOES NOT affect the pH of the prostate. So again your attempted argument is irrelevant.
Joel “JC”: “You don’t have all the knowledge necessary even to offer an opinion, that you have already done, saying that you doubt very much that a man’s prostate cancer has been cured with baking soda and mollasses, even after the fact that he is alive and well after five years on his protocol, that you so arrogantly state can’t be effective!”
How do you know for sure that this is the ONLY treatment he did? You DON’T!!! How do you know for sure he is had cancer to begin with or that he is cancer free today? You DON’T. In short you are ASSUMING a lot just because you saw something on YouTube that you chose to believe without any solid evidence. If you saw the Tooth Fairy on YouTube as well are you going to claim the Tooth Fairy is real as well just because you thought you saw evidence on YouTube?
Joel “JC”: “The boron I take in borax powder diluted in water 1 tsp to 1 liter, taking three teaspoons of that water/day is also highly alkaline!”
First of all I already went over boron with you pointing out that it is only ONE of many nutrients required for healthy bone. Just like water is essential for health but we cannot function or survive on water alone. And again, it is silica, not boron that puts minerals where they belong.
As for the pH of borax, so what? Borax (sodium borate) does have a pH of 9.3, but boric acid with a pH of 5 has the same function. The pH is irrelevant.
Joel “JC”: “I will have better proof that my osteoporosis is reversing when I take x-rays of my spine in the future.”
And again, osteoporosis is not the result of bone demineralization, it is a loss of collagen matrix. It is silica and vitamin C primarily that help reverse osteoporosis. Boron will not reverse the condition since boron has no effect on collagen formation.
Joel “JC”: “I blame my osteoporosis on the fact that I stopped drinking milk 45 years ago”
Milk does not build bone, it is one of the leading causes of bone loss. This is why the highest milk consuming countries in the world also happen to have the highest rate of osteopenia in the world. The protein in milk blocks calcium absorption. This is why inactive vitamin D2 is added to milk in a poor attempt to counter the calcium blocking effects of milk protein. Phosphorus absorption is not inhibited though leading to bone mineral loss though pseudohyperparathyroidism.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/1/9.full
According to this article high dietary intake of calcium from all sources provides adequate calcium in the diet. Absorption is down regulated with hi intake, as need is diminished. The bottom line is that hi calcium diets provide adequate calcium. Low calcium diets may not, or don’t! It also states that fiber slows down the digestion of calcium compared to non fiber sources such as milk! So, this article supports my contention that my osteoporosis could be due to eliminating milk from my diet for 45 years!
In addition, regarding boron’s function in regulating calcium/magnesium metabolism via enabling proper functioning of the parathyroid glands, I have this personal anecdotal account for your consideration. I have had at least adequate silica in my diet for the last 45 years due to a diet containing brown rice, whole wheat, barley and other whole grains, along with lots of cucumber in almost daily salad ingestion, and occasional beer. Yet, I developed osteoporosis diagnosed at age 70. I also developed arthritis, as seen in an x-ray of my spine. Recently I grew a hard boney deposit on the palm side of my right middle finger. It was sore, irritated, and hurt when I held a tennis racquet. I assumed it to be a calcium deposit that grew to protect a bruise gotten from my tennis racquet. OK, no technical “scientific” proof. Then again, scientists don’t believe in out of body experiences because they cannot “observe” them! However, when have you had any knowledge of any hard bony growth on bone, reducing and disappearing, as mine has done, in only three weeks of taking boron in a water dilution! This personal experience of mine, supports the description of Walter Last of how boron is responsible for calcium being removed from arthritic deposits and put back into the bones. The thing that bothers me about you, is not your obvious knowledge. It is your lack of consciousness about how much knowledge remains that you don’t know, that no one knows, much of which holds the potential to negate what you now think you know! And, by the way, any good scientist would not negate anecdotal evidence. In fact, it has always been the instigation of thought about what it means, and investigation. Gee, why did that apple fall from the tree?
And who knows, maybe it’s the molasses with its high mineral content that cured prostate cancer in Johnston! But to call him a liar (even by omission) is beneath you, and not for anyone to do! And to call me gullible or a fool for not being cynical about his account, is also uncalled for, besides being invalid argument! “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” to quote the bard. To not recognize this truth makes you and all others who profess to have “the truth,” arrogant!
Article on borax/boron!
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/13/06/27/borax-conspiracy-how-arthritis-cure-has-been-stopped-walter-last
Since I began taking boron, pain in various parts of my body has lessened or ended, my sexuality has increased, and now I have a feeling of general well being, instead of being fatigued with pain! Two months ago I couldn’t walk. Now I play tennis again!
JOEL (JC): “It also states that fiber slows down the digestion of calcium compared to non fiber sources such as milk! ”
Of course fiber is going to slow down “digestion” of calcium. Fiber slows gastric emptying.
On the other hand fiber increases calcium absorption through the acids formed by the fermentation of the fibers by the flora.
But as far as milk goes, it is a well known fact that high protein blocks calcium absorption. Again, this is why vitamin D is added to mil in an attempt to counter the calcium absorption blocking effect of milk’s protein.
JOEL (JC): “So, this article supports my contention that my osteoporosis could be due to eliminating milk from my diet for 45 years! ”
And once again, osteoporosis IS NOT from a loss of calcium or any other mineral from bone, it is from a loss of collagen matrix. A loss of bone minerals leads to osteomalacia or osteopenia. Therefore, drinking milk or avoiding milk either way DOES NOT cause osteoporosis. The loss of calcium from bone due to milk induced pseudohyperparathyroidism will result in osteopenia.or osteomalacia, which ARE NOT the same as osteoporosis.
JOEL (JC): “I have had at least adequate silica in my diet for the last 45 years due to a diet containing brown rice, whole wheat, barley and other whole grains, along with lots of cucumber in almost daily salad ingestion, and occasional beer. Yet, I developed osteoporosis diagnosed at age 70. ”
First of all simply taking silica does not mean you are absorbing the silica. Silica is poorly absorbed to begin with. As we age our stomach acid levels decline leading to even more impaired silica absorption. If people are taking anything that neutralizes or inhibits stomach acid such as antacids, acid blockers, alkaline waters, calcium carbonate (coral, dolomite, oyster shell) or magnesium oxide/hydroxide such as found in many supplements or Milk of Magnesia then silica absorption is impaired even further. Many of the things we associate with aging such as wrinkles, heart disease, aneurysms, emphysema, osteoporosis, etc. can be linked in large part to the decline in silica levels as we age.
The second thing that you need to keep in mind is that silica is one of two primary nutrients needed to maintain proper collagen levels in bone to prevent osteoporosis. Vitamin C is the other, which can be deficient for several reasons. Stress (including pain) that taxes the adrenals requiring higher vitamin C levels for the adrenals, which get priority over the rest of the body. Collagen is low on the list of tissues that get priority of available vitamin C. Some other factors that can decrease available vitamin C include use of certain medications such as aspirin, smoking, steroids, caffeine use, etc.
JOEL (JC): “However, when have you had any knowledge of any hard bony growth on bone, reducing and disappearing, as mine has done, in only three weeks of taking boron in a water dilution! This personal experience of mine, supports the description of Walter Last of how boron is responsible for calcium being removed from arthritic deposits and put back into the bones. ”
For some reason you seem to keep wanting to argue like I don’t believe boron has any benefits despite the fact that I made it clear that boron is ONE of the MANY essential nutrients for healthy bones. All I disagreed with is the claim that boron is responsible for the mineralization of bone, which simply IS NOT true. Already explained why to you.
From the research I have seen it does make sense that boron can dissolve a bone spur since one of its effects is to increase parathyroid activity, which leads to de-calcification of bones. Keep in mind that parathyroid hormone does not just target bone spurs, which are simply an overgrowth of bone due to the excess stimulation of bone’s piezoelectric effect at one point on the bone. But there is so much more involved in bone growth including boron’s effect on the sex hormones and the piezoelectric role of silica in the collagen matrix that is what actually leads to bone mineralization. Basically you keep seeing only the tree (boron) instead the forest ( all the amino acids, minerals, vitamins, fatty acids, hormones and acids that are all required to form healthy bone).
JOEL (JC): “It is your lack of consciousness about how much knowledge remains that you don’t know, that no one knows, much of which holds the potential to negate what you now think you know! ”
I really hate when people keep trying to change the subject and make this about me instead of sticking to the topic of the alkaline myth. When people attack the messenger they do this for one simple reason. They lack any evidence to back their claim so the only thing they have left to do is to attack the messenger in an attempt to discredit them.
Do I know everything? NO. Nobody does. Do I know a whole lot more about medicine and how the body works than you do? Definitely. I have spent the largest portion of my life doing research, more research and research on top of that to understand how the body really works so I have a better idea on how to deal with people’s health conditions.
For instance, I knew the effect boron had on the hormones thus affecting bone health. I also knew that boron can increase parathyroid activity, which is how it can also lead to bone demineralization such as your bone spur. I have also known for decades why silica is responsible for bone mineralization and why boron DOES NOT correct osteoporosis since osteoporosis is not a loss of calcium from bone.
JOEL (JC): “And, by the way, any good scientist would not negate anecdotal evidence.”
Never said I did. You are assuming a lot again. But a good scientist is also aware that a single unverifiable claim is not evidence either. A good scientist is also aware that one of the reasons for limited anecdotal reports reporting the same finding is that people often make multiple changes and simply give credit to whatever they chose to believe is what made the difference whether or not that is what really did make the difference. This is why anecdotal evidence needs to be followed up with controlled trials.
Let me give you an example of how all this is done. Let’s say the drug companies want to find a new plant to cure _______. Do they just start testing whatever plant they can access? Generally no since that would require too much time and cost. Instead they will do something like got to South America and talk to the indigenous shamen to find out what plants are used for whatever condition. But this is still considered anecdotal evidence. So they take the plant and start doing controlled testing on lab animals and then finally on humans so they can prevent secondary things from possibly affecting the outcome. So yes, anecdotal can be part of the scientific process, but it needs backing by more than a claim from a single individual. Any good scientist would be a complete moron to do that.
JOEL (JC): “And who knows, maybe it’s the molasses with its high mineral content that cured prostate cancer in Johnston! But to call him a liar (even by omission) is beneath you, and not for anyone to do!”
Again you assume a lot!!! I never called Johnston a liar. I made it clear that we, which includes you, have no idea what his real history is. Have you seen his medical records and can confirm he had cancer, is cancer free and did not do anything other than the molasses and baking soda to cure the cancer? And do people sometimes make up bogus claims or videos to dupe people or to promote something? Of course they do. And as a good scientist I know that just because I saw something on the internet this does not mean it is real. I once saw a horse on YouTube with only two legs running. I did not assume it was true and was not amazed since it was obviously fake. Again, not everything you see on the internet is real. Is the Johnston video and claims real? I don’t know, but neither do you. If real, do you have proof Johnston is still alive and cancer free? And again, one anecdotal claim is not evidence of anything. So where are all the other people claiming to have cured their cancer this way and did they do anything else to treat their cancer? Please supply the evidence to any of this if true.
JOEL (JC): “And to call me gullible or a fool for not being cynical about his account, is also uncalled for, besides being invalid argument!”
Again, I did not do this. You are getting ridiculous. All I did was to point out that you were ASSUMING a lot just like you did in your last post. Again, just because you see something on the internet this does not mean it is real. Not a hard concept to grasp. So where is your proof that Johnston had cancer and cured his cancer WITHOUT any other treatment except the molasses and baking soda?
And again, stop trying to make this about me. Argue your claims, not me. If you want to claim Johnston cured his cancer without anything other than molasses and baking soda then provide the proof to your claim and stop trying to hide your lack of evidence by making your arguments about me instead. All that does as I said before is proves that you don’t have the evidence to begin with so all you can do is to attack the messenger to discredit the messenger. But all this really does is discredit you.
Before I reply to your extensive comments, for which I thank you for your time, would you please be so kind as to state your formal education; list your degrees, from which universities, and your areas of concentration. Thanks.
Joel,
If you don’t understand the simple concept that I keep pointing out to you that the topic is not me, it is the alkaline myth, then you clearly won’t understand my background.
If you have on topic evidence to the contrary then present it and I will address it. My background has NOTHING to do with stopping you from posting evidence if you have it. When people start asking for backgrounds off topic they are doing it for the same reason they attacked the messenger in the first place. They have no evidence to contradict the facts so all they can do is look for ways to try and discredit the messenger. Therefore, the more you play your off topic games the more you keep discrediting yourself.
FIRST, YOU ARE NOT “ONLY” THE MESSENGER. YOU ARE THE SOURCE! SO IT IS ABOUT YOU!
2ND! YOU ARE A REPOSITORY OF NAKED FACTS, BUT YOUR MIND IS INCAPABLE OF LOGICAL THOUGHT! You can’t synthesize the facts into knew knowledge! What you think is not equivalent to what is true! You are incapable of simple logic! The fact that protein blocks calcium absorption, doesn’t mean it blocks ALL calcium absorption from milk! I’m done! Anyone who believes what you say to be gospel truth is to sympathized with!
When you even mention believing in the tooth fairy or the like, you do insult, You’re too stupid to even realize what you say!
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: YOU obviously have NO CREDENTIALS!
I’M DONE WITH YOU. I HAVE NO MORE TIME FOR YOUR BULLSHIT! Byebye!
Joel “JC”: “FIRST, YOU ARE NOT “ONLY” THE MESSENGER. YOU ARE THE SOURCE! SO IT IS ABOUT YOU!”
Glad to see you got through your temper tantrum OK.
Now once again the topic is not about me, it is about the alkaline myth. And the facts I have presented can be verified with a little simple research from anatomy and physiology books or medical journal articles. So I am the messenger as I said before and not the source as you falsely claim.
But it looks like you have no evidence to contradict anything I have pointed out which is why you keep going with the personal attacks. So there is no reason to address the rest of your childish tirade since again it has nothing to do with the topic and does not present any evidence to the facts I already presented.
So go ahead and keep believing in your falsehoods if that is your security blanket. I just hope you don’t really screw up your health following your own advice.
Take care.
Sorry, James, but I have to agree with JC here. I cannot accept a single word you have said as truth for the simple fact that the source of this “knowledge” is unknown. You fail to provide citation to a single reputable source of information. From what I can tell, all your knowledge is derived from a series of articles that you found on the internet. Research on that level will hardly derive you any truth, since any harry, jack and mo can post information on the web.
For this reason, I too question your education. The fact that you dont understand what an acceptible source and citation would consist of leads me to believe that you probably dont have a degree above a Bachelors and most definately not in the sciences. It’s great if you have experimented with your own body and found things that worked for you. Keep doing those things for your health, but I dont believe you fully understand the mechanisms of why those things work. Understand that those things may not and probably will not work for others as well.
Mike,
If you don’t believe what I said then learn how to do at least some basic research. The fact that you spent some much time posting your BS rant and that you could have researched many of my claims from the medical journals in the time that took shows that you are not interested in finding out the truth to begin with.
Making you even less credible are the facts:
-That is it not my job to do your research for you.
-That you are not intelligent enough to understand the simple fact that I AM NOT the topic even though this has been pointed out NUMEROUS times.
-You imply that you have a greater education while at the same time you don’t appear to know how to do even basic research from medical journals. If you were capable of doing this then you should have spent more time actually doing that confirming what I already said.
If I have to spoon-feed someone with evidence to what is already well known in medicine then in my opinion they are going to lack sufficient IQ to understand the research if I posted it anyway.
-There is no rule or law that states that I have to back up everything I say with medical studies. The fact that you don’t understand that simple concept further calls your actual IQ in to question.
-And finally, the fact that you said you are going with JC, but at the same time NEVER questioned his credentials or to show scientific evidence to back his claims.
All this simply shown your ignorance and bias.
Now, if you want to go any further let me start by saying learn something about how the body really works then if you want to question something then stay on topic, which is the acid-alkaline myth, not any particular individual. And if you don’t understand something in the research you read then maybe I will take the time to explain it to you so you are not so confused.
James
Kelly,
If you take the time to read both parts of the article, and the thread which follows, we have answered this question numerous times… there is no such thing as “acid/alkaline” balance in the “body”, per se.
Sunny,
As I have said before, it is because of what they ELIMINATED, and possibly what they added, NOT the fact it may have been a “plant-based” diet.
How do you explain those cases that the person got cured of cancer ,autoimmune diseases by switching to plant based diet???
Sunny: “How do you explain those cases that the person got cured of cancer ,autoimmune diseases by switching to plant based diet???”
The answer to this is simple, and has NOTHING to do with pH. A plant based diet provides more nutrients. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and pantothenic acid (B5) for example needed to build the adrenals to address autoimmune conditions.
Many autoimmune disorders and most cancers are also triggered by viral infections. Plants can also provide antivirals as well such as the polyphenol tannic acid, chlorogenic acid, etc.
Oxalic acid and phytic acid from plants can bind free iron, which cancer cells and many pathogens thrive on.
Proper cellular function also requires citric acid and malic acid that can be found in various plants.
Then there is the magnesium found in plants, primarily in chlorophyll, which is needed for over 300 different functions in the body.
Again, eating a particular food DOES NOT adjust the blood’s pH to any significant amount. The body maintains a tight control on its pH primarily through respiration followed by hydrogen ion retention or elimination through the kidneys. Any minor shift in blood pH will simply be adjusted by the above means to maintain the narrow pH range the body must remain in.
This is one of the reasons that ingesting baking soda or alkaline water is not a good idea. First of all these will neutralize the stomach acid, which can lead to whole host of health problems. And if you ingest enough to overwhelm the stomach acid completely, which is required to have any effect on blood pH, the induced alkalosis will simply be met with an increase in blood acid to buffer the alkalosis. All this achieves is putting more stress on the body as it has to work harder to deal with the induced alkalosis, which is much more dangerous than acidosis.
I hear Tony Robbins saying acid is bad for you and he is selling supplements to get more alkaline in your system…is the wrong?
This is why I have a difficult time following anyone’s advise…one person says one thing, someone says another and I never find out what is best for me.
Kelly
“I hear Tony Robbins saying acid is bad for you and he is selling supplements to get more alkaline in your system…is the wrong?”
Was he specific about what acid was supposedly bad for the body and how it is bad? Did he back any of these claims with any real evidence?
The body is built primarily from acids, needs acids to function and stay healthy, to detoxify, for cellular energy production, etc. So how are any of these bad?
For example, most of the body is made up of amino acids and fatty acids.
Many of the vitamins essential to the body are acids.
Stomach acid is required for proper digestion of proteins, nutrient absorption and to kill pathogens.
Glucuronic acid is needed by the body for detoxification.
Malic, citric and pyruvic acids are needed for cellular energy production.
Bile acids are involved in fat absorption and prevention of gallstones.
Acids formed from the fermentation of fibers by beneficial bacteria that inhabit the body kills pathogens, increase nutrient absorption, regulate peristalsis and controls Candida.
Carbonic acid is needed to maintain proper circulation, to allow oxygenation of tissues, to form stomach acid and to neutralize highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia in the body.
Uric acid is one of the body’s primary antioxidants.
Citric acid is required for proper bone remodeling to keep bone healthy.
Acids formed from bacteria on the skin keep the skin healthy.
Acids help prevent “yeast infections”.
Acids help to control pathogens that can cause sinus infections.
Malic acid dissolves excess uric acid and can help prevent calcium based kidney stones that can result from excessively alkaline urine.
So how are any of these “bad” as Tony Robbins claims?
How many of the supplements Tony Robbins promotes contain acids such as ascorbic acid, pantothenic acid, folic acid, etc? And what about all the acids in his Citrus Harvest product? If he thinks acids are so bad then he needs to be warning people to avoid his products!!!
James,
I don’ t know if you’re still following this, and this may be a really stupid question, but if carbonic acid helps neutralize ammonia, would drinking carbonated water help do the same?
Kelly, it’s fairly simple of who’s advise you should take versus who you should ignore, but the media and commercials have distorted what is truth. Take health advice from a medical doctor, who is certified in internal medicine, not the snake oil salesmen. Do not take everything you read online as truth. Anyone can post “information” and not all is true. Only trust information that is backed by credible cited research studies. Simillarly, you need to understand that not all “Doctors” are medical doctors. My cousin is a doctor, however, her degree is in classical literature. Dr. Oz is a Doctor, however, he specializes in plastic surgery. Do not accept everything he claims regarding your bodily health. He is not certified to provide that sort of information and the advise he provides is case and point. He once claimed that we should all immediately remove our metal teeth filings, because they contain mercury that leaks into our bodies that is killing us. The interesting part of his claim was that the amount of mercury that leaks into your body from the filings every year was lower than what you consume in a week by eating a serving of fish. It was a totally bogus claim.