I share Phil's skepticism of Li's assertions. I suspect that the blood vessel expansion is important to cancers to provide nutrients for growth, but doubt that oxygen is important to them.
Warburg got his 1931 Nobel prize for his discoveries that led to understanding the nature and mode of cellular respiration and enzymes. He did not get it for his theories on cancer, although he was pretty interested in it. As noted on the Nobelprize.org website, he found that cancer cells can live and develop even in the absence of oxygen. One of his theories was that cancer could be treated by use of oxygen therapy. However, research has shown that cancer can survive and prosper whether it is saturated with oxygen or is deprived of it. Dr. Andrew Weil has posted his own coherently written thoughts on this issue in March of this year. You can see them here if you like - http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA322213/Can-Oxygen-Cure-Cancer.html Weil is one of those online alternative medicine type doctors that is busy pushing his own line of supplements etc. For that reason, I do not jump on the bandwagon when he speaks as I've learned to be skeptical of folks when they stand to profit. On the other hand, he seems to be open to alternatives and seems to be objective when discussing most health issues. He concludes that oxygen therapy is not a useful treatment for cancer, which I suspect is true. He also disparages the use of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative treatment, but relies upon the FDA for their take on it. I DO agree that no study has proven that peroxide is an effective treatment. However, such studies cost a lot of money, and since no money is to be made by big companies, they haven't been done. I believe that THIS is the exact sort of research that should be conducted by the government. Find out whether it is useful or not using double-blind techniques and proving things one way or another instead of dismissing the whole notion out of hand due to the possibility that someone will ignore warnings and do something stupid. What I'm VERY curious about is the assertion that CS transports oxygen. I'm skeptical of all point-blank claims like this and I've never heard this one before. I can't help but wonder what is so special about CS that would enable it to be more effective at transporting oxygen than common tap water or distilled water. Can anyone explain why this could be or would be so? Steve ________________________________ From: Phil Morrison <philmorrison...@gmail.com> To: silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 1:54 PM Subject: CS>7 Sept - OT - however very interesting Hi Sandra, William Li angiogenesis offering on Ted is basically flawed. Li claims expansion of blood vessels in cancers is to provide additional "oxygen and nutrients." We know from Otto Warburg Nobel Prize 1932 that cancer is caused by oxygen deficiency and excess H+ ions. Also, hyperbaric chambers use oxygen environment to kill cancers. IOWs oxygen kills cancer cells, not nourish them. Li was flogging a number of drugs, during he course of his lecture, leading one to suspect ulterior motives for this lecture. Interestingly, CS transports and activates oxygen.
