I wonder what would have happened if they had used a silver electrode inserted into the tumor?
Dan 2010/5/21 Norton, Steve <[email protected]>: > Agreed. Electrode type, dimensions, positioning, etc. all effect the > application. But in the studies it is all over the place. See; > > " Following is a summary of these ten reports. (The electrode near the tumor > is termed as 'active', the other one being called 'passive'.) > > > > 1. Humphrey et al, 1959 (4) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: Cu or Zn plate with saline-solution-saturated sponge > on unbroken skin over tumor. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Same, over ventral area. > · BEST RESULTS (Total regression in 60% mice): at cathode, with 3 mA at 3 > V, 4.8 hours per day for 21 days. > > > > 2. Schauble et al, 1977 (5) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: Silicone covered steel needle - exposed tip implanted. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Wire-mesh with electrode paste and saline-dampened > sponge - over chest skin. > · BEST RESULTS (88% Necrosis): at positive electrode with 3 mA at 1.5 V, 1 > hour per day for 4 days. > · NOTE: Necrosis was also observed when active electrode was made negative. > > > > 3. Habal 1980 (6) > > · Poor results with 0.5 µA at 1.5 V, for 12 days continuous, using an > implanted device. > > > > 4. David et al, 1985 (7) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: Silicone covered Steel or Pt-Ir(70:30) needle - > exposed tip implanted. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Al foil plate with conducting paste - over shaved > underbelly. > · BEST RESULTS (98% Reduction in tumor mass): at either electrode, with > 2.4 mA at less than 3 V, for 1 hour per day for 5 days. > > > > 5. Marino and Morris et al, 1986 (8) > > · Both Electrodes ACTIVE: Insulated Pt - except for the implanted tips - > at foci of tumor. > · BEST RESULTS (Total regression in 43% of primary tumors): with 2 mA at > about 3 V, 1 hour per day for 3 intermittent days. > > > > 6. Morris and Marino et al, 1992 (9) > > · Both Electrodes ACTIVE: Pt needles - implanted in tumor. > · BEST RESULTS (Reduction in tumor mass without improved survival): with > 20 mA at 8-10 V, for 15 min. once. > > > > 7. Miklavčič et al, 1993 (10) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: Pt-Ir(90:10), Au, Ag or Ti needle - tip implanted. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Same, placed subcutaneously the whole length, near > tumor. > · BEST RESULTS (About 70% necrosis): at cathode, with 0.6 mA at > unspecified volts, for 1 hour once. > · NOTE: "Field" electrotherapy, by placing both electrodes subcutaneously > for their entire length, on either side of tumor, also produced similar > necrosis. > > > > 8. Griffin et al, 1994 (11) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: Au needle - implanted. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Cu plate with conducting gel - beneath the animal. > · BEST RESULTS (Regression proportional to charge passed): at anode, with > 1-4 mA at 1-16 V, for 30-90 min. once. > > > > 9. Taylor et al, 1994 (12) > > · ACTIVE Electrode: 4 parallel brass plates, vertically mounted, in a > specially designed oesophageal tube. > · PASSIVE Electrode: Large plate with saline-soaked pad on human patient's > back. > · BEST RESULTS (Oesophagus tumor of one patient regressed completely at > the primary site): with 20 mA at 7 V, at each of four anodes, for 1 hour. > Three treatments over 4½ month period. > > > > 10. Miklavčič et al, 1994 (13) > > · ACTIVE/PASSIVE Electrodes: Au needles, placed subcutaneously the whole > length, on either side of tumor. > · BEST RESULTS (Tumor growth slowed by a factor of 3): with 1.0 mA at > unspecified volts, for 1 hour, applied once. > · NOTE: No correlation was observed between the amount of deposited > electrode material (gold) and antitumor effect. > > > - Steve N > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Nave [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CS>Magnetic pulsers, electric pulsers, zilla, et al > > You may want to think about volts per inch or volts per centimeter. > Voltage, in this case, doesn't make too much sense otherwise... > > Dan > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Norton, Steve <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Thanks Bob. It is very interesting. Here is an excerpt from the link you >> provided: >> >> “Most Beneficial Voltage Range >> >> Free radicals are known to be formed in a biological medium when it is >> subjected to any voltage in excess of 1.2 volts. Electrochemical products >> begin to form around 1.5 to 2 volts (8) but these products may not be >> significant in concentration until the voltage is raised to, say, 3 or 4 V. >> If the anti-tumor effect of electrotherapy is due to the disabling of the >> pivotal enzyme RR through free radical interactions, voltage between 1.2 to >> about 3 V should be most beneficial. Higher voltage, for this mechanism, >> would be undesirable for two reasons: (i) more and more electrons would >> engage in electro-chemical processes, leaving less and less electrons free >> or as free-radicals, and (ii) concentration of toxic electrochemical species >> would increase steadily. This toxicity may be as harmful as the tumor itself. >> >> Studies 1, 2, 4 and 5 above (4,5,7,8), have reported the most positive >> electrotherapy results to date. Voltages in all of them was kept around 3 V >> or less. In study 1 (4), experiments with 6 V seemed to show less benefits. >> When investigators of study 5 (8) employed 8-10 V in their next study, 6 >> (9), tumor mass was reduced again but, this time, without improved survival. >> Toxicity, significant now, must be targeting the host, and not the tumor. >> Study 8 (11) reports on toxicity in blood after treatments at 1-16 volts.” >> >> >> The results would support the low voltages used by Godzilla. The statement >> that higher voltages also reduced tumor mass but without improved survival >> is a concern. But also supports the Beck blood electrifier approach which >> uses a higher voltage but which alternates current direction to reduce or >> prevent the migration of toxic substances into the blood . >> >> - Steve N >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Bob Banever [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:43 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: CS>Magnetic pulsers, electric pulsers, zilla, et al >> >> Steve, >> >> There is also DC current (low voltage) for cancer. Here is a late >> study on this technique. >> >> http://www.cancer-treatment.net/The-Medical-Hypotheses-Article.htm >> >> Very low cost, no side effects, and apparently quite effective. >> >> Bob >> > > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org > > Unsubscribe: > <mailto:[email protected]?subjectunsubscribe> > Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html > > Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]> > List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]> > > >
