Jim wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Does the research you mention below (in your opinion) contradict or support
> Otto
> Warburg's Nobel Prize winning discovery that if you have enough oxygen you
> won't
> get cancer, and if cancer is exposed to enough oxygen it cannot continue to be
> cancerous.
Hi Jim,
Giving all credit where due, Dr. Warburg did some great research.
However things have progressed in the last 68 years. The most amazing
break throughs have been in only the last 4 to 5 years, using technology
never even dreamed of back in 1930 or even in 1970. Back in Dr.Warburg`s
day we didn`t even know what was in a cell. Time and technology move on.
What I find so strange is that Dr. Warburg did not do cancer research,
his Nobel prize was for work in the area of *cell respiration*.
Specifically for finding that *cytochromes* contained iron molecules and
that they bound to oxygen and carried it in the blood to the cells. This
is part of *red blood cell* biology. I think today we all know that the
red blood cells carry oxygen in the blood. We didn`t know that until Dr.
Warburg found it out. Thats what he was awarded the Nobel prize for. His
view was that cells needed oxygen. Never mentioned cancer! Wish people
would check things before they keep on reporting the same wrong thing
over and over. Like Hitler said, if you say it long enough the people
will believe it.
> Also, any opinions on the "cancer virus" isolated by Royal Rife? Does the
> current research do anything to support or dispute this claim? As we find
> more
> and more things are pathogen caused, I find it easier and easier to think the
> cancer virus is a reality.
The latest findings show a large number of "promoters" which sensitize
a DNA damaged cell, virus being amoung them. Certain virus have been
identified with certain cancers, as promoters, setting the cell up for
the final DNA damageing event resulting in a cancer. In 1975 a chicken
virus was found (also in humans) that would turn a certain gene into an
*oncogene* and at that point the cell became cancerous (a Nobel prize
was awarded to Dr.Varmus and Dr.Bishop). However before the virus could
cause this fateful event to happen the DNA needed to already be damaged.
Bless you Bob Lee
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
> Tai-Pan wrote:
>
> > Hi Sheila,
> >
> > Oxygen radicals are known "promoters" of cancer. They do not cause it.
> > It requires several things to happen. First damage must occur to the DNA
> > of the cell,this is usually repaired. Next the cell with the damaged DNA
> > must divide before repairs are made. The new cell now has damaged DNA
> > but doen`t recognize it and does not repair it. You don`t have cancer
> > yet. Next a "promoter" comes along and sensitizes the cell, binding to
> > the DNA and changing its fuction. You don`t have cancer yet. Then an
> > "initiator" comes along and causes more damage to the DNA. Now you have
> > a cancer. There are many promoters, oxygen radicals are only one of
> > them. Cancer is now know to be the result of genetic damage to the cell
> > (DNA damage).Most of the new knowledge is so recent that any book older
> > than 1996 is out of date and incorrect, when disussing cancer. A good
> > starting point to get up to speed would be *Its Life Itself* by Boyce
> > Rensberger, ISBN 0-19-510874-4.
> >
> > Bless you Bob Lee
> >
> > --
--
oozing on the muggy shore of the gulf coast
[email protected]
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:
[email protected] -or- [email protected]
with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
