Alternatives & Traditional

Posts tagged ‘Bret Peirce’

Top 5 Worst Internet Health Information Sites: Curezone.org Part 2: Cancer Support Forum

There is no disease that scares the average person more than cancer.  Unfortunately there are a lot of con artists out there that are ready to take advantage of people’s fears about cancer in both the allopathic and the holistic fields to sell them on bogus therapies.

The danger is not just from bogus therapies being promoted but also from the misinformation that keeps getting repeated.  Large part of the problem is that someone reads or hears something about cancer on the Internet, from a book or from some other person that they never bother to research to confirm if the claims are true.  This leads to the same misinformation being repeated over and over.

Having been doing cancer research for 32 years I have looked in to numerous therapies and claims.  I am even working on a book currently as a review of holistic cancer therapies explaining the facts behind various cancer myths and explaining what works, what is questionable and what is outright quackery.  I decided to write the book after being banned from the Cancer Support forum on Curezone for posting evidence against some of the quackery and other misinformation.

A lot of the misinformation was being posted by Tony Isaacs, who has his own forum on Curezone, but moderates the Cancer Support forum.  As with so many of the moderators on Curezone, Isaacs has a tendency to suppress any evidence he disagrees with.  We ended up butting heads numerous times especially over his misrepresentations of “oleander soup” being effective against cancer including misinterpreting studies that showed oleander as being ineffective but presenting them as proof as effectiveness.  When I posted evidence to the contrary my posts were moved or deleted from the Cancer Support forum and Mr. Isaacs went on a personal campaign to attack me personally and even tried recruiting others to join in on the attacks despite the attacks being a violation of the Curezone Terms of Service (TOS).  Reporting the violations to the Webmaster got me nowhere since Isaacs pays for advertising on Curezone.  Therefore, the Webmaster once again is putting money before health and safety.  Interestingly, I had saved my messages to the Webmaster with all the evidence of Mr. Isaacs violations in my personal folder on Curezone.  After posting about the violations on my own forum on Curezone my personal messages with the evidence were suddenly deleted.  Luckily I learned a long time ago though to back up posts and messages of Curezone since they do have a tendency to be deleted or reworded to hide violations, especially by moderators and their associates.

Oleander is the most promoted treatment on the Curezone Cancer Support forum due to Isaac being the moderator.  Most promoted does not mean most effective though, or even effective at all.  Oleander has been shown to be effective against a few cancer cell lines in Petri dishes, but actual human studies have found oleander to be ineffective for cancer.  I addressed Mr. Isaac’s claims in my previous blog posts:

https://medreview.wordpress.com/2012/10/

https://medreview.wordpress.com/2012/11/

Another person that posts on the Curezone Cancer Support forum is Bret Peirce, who is the founder of American Cancer Advocates.  Mr. Peirce has made numerous claims about cancer that directly contradict what the studies in the various medical journals claim.  Although, Mr. Pierce has stated several times that he would post the evidence to his claims or send me the evidence neither has ever happened.  Even my repeated requests reminding Mr. Peirce about his statements that he was going to supply the research to back his claims have been ignored.  This leads to me to believe that the “evidence” Mr. Perice claims to have that is the basis for this recommendations does not exist in the first place.

Another problem I have with Mr. Peirce is that he loves to use a lot of scientific words that appears he does not understand.  There is nothing wrong with using scientific words provided they are used properly.  When someone tries to use scientific words though just to make themselves sound more intelligent then this presents a problem.  I am going to address some of his other posts in future blogs.  As an example though, I have addressed some of Mr. Peirce’s claims on ozone in this blog post:

https://medreview.wordpress.com/2013/01/

When people post their health issues on places like Curezone they are putting their health, safety and trust in to the people who are responding to their posts.  When people make up claims as to the safety or effectiveness of therapies or pretend to know things they really know very little to nothing about then the persons health and trust is put at risk.  Would you ask your auto mechanic who knows nothing about cancer how to treat cancer?  Of course not.  If you are going to ask advice like this you expect the person you are asking to have a good knowledge of the subject.

Unfortunately, Curezone’s Cancer Support forum has a lot of people who simply post answers to promote their own agenda or information they simply read on a sale’s site somewhere.   They are not even taking the time to research what they read on these sales sites to see if the claims are true or not, so a lot of proven misinformation simply gets repeated over and over.  Some of the common misconceptions that keep getting repeated include:

  • Everyone has cancer cells.  If this were the case then none of us would be alive considering how well cancer cells can evade the immune system.  People claiming this either heard this myth somewhere and are repeating it or are mistaking excessive cellular growth with actual malignancies.
  • Cancer cannot survive in a high oxygen atmosphere.
  • Cancer cells thrive in the absence of oxygen.  In reality a lack of oxygen kills cancer cells, which stimulates the process of angiogenesis to increase oxygen levels to the tumor so it can survive.
  • Cancer cells are anaerobic.  Cancer cells have actually been found to be highly aerobic, but like healthy cells rely on both anaerobic glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation for survival and function.
  • Shark’s don’t get cancer.  This myth was heavily promoted by the books titled Shark’s Don’t Get Cancer and Shark’s Still Don’t Get Cancer.  The book was published to promote shark cartilage as an angiogenesis inhibitor to treat cancer.  The fact though is that sharks DO get cancer and the whole shark cartilage thing was heavily mispromoted.  I will go in to this more in detail in a later blog post.
  • Oxygen cannot enter cancer cells unless alkalized.
  • Cancer cannot survive in an alkaline environment.  Actually the internal pH of cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells, which helps them to survive and thrive.
  • Cancer is a survival mechanism.
  • Cancer is a mold or fungus.
  • Cancer is caused by a parasite.  Even though there are some parasite associated cancers these types of cancer are EXTREMELY rare.
  • Cancer is a modern disease.  Fossil records show evidence of cancer even pre-dating modern humans.
  • Cancer cells are acidic because they produce lactic acid.  Actually , cancer cells produce non-acidic lactate.  They do not produce lactic acid as is commonly claimed.  The drop in extracellular pH (acidity) comes from the acidic protons generated by cancer cells that they export out of themselves since cancer cells cannot tolerate an internal acidic pH.
  • Phytoestrogens promote cancer.  Phytoestrogens, which are found in all plants have a long history of being used to treat cancer.  For example,  various studies have found soy phytoestrogens to be effective against estrogen promoted cancers.  Flax seed, which is nearly 4 times higher in phytoestrogens than raw soy has also been used therapeutically to treat cancer.  For example, these studies:

http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4622

And a series of medical abstracts on the subject:

http://medcapsules.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=541

One of the most persistent myths about cancer is that Otto Warburg won the Nobel Peace Prize for proving cancer was the result of a lack of oxygen.  Warburg actually won the Nobel Peace Prize for the discovery of an enzyme associated with cancer.  And Warburg never claimed cancer was the result of a lack of oxygen.  If people read his actual speech they will find that what Warburg actually claimed was that cancer cells would continue to ferment regardless of how much oxygen was present.  Despite what Warburg actually stated not even being close to the “cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen” the claim was repeated over and over primarily through sales sites.  Eventually Warburg’s statement eventually morphed in to the false notion that cancer was the result of a lack of oxygen.  Here are some of the examples of research readily available that prove cancer cells are reliant on oxygen:

https://www.medical-library.net/content/view/82/index.html

It is interesting to note that cancer cells use sixty percent anaerobic metabolism. Anaerobic conditions may be a significant risk factor for cancer. The fact is, in normal cells both types of metabolism are going on at all times, but the experience of vital, normal health requires that aerobic metabolism predominate. That is where TNAS comes in.”

http://www.tarosan.de/Coy_science_p53_mitochondrien.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/2/632.full

“In contrast to tumor-associated fibroblasts, the newly formed endothelial cells expressed GLUT1 well above the levels exhibited by mature colon vessels, suggesting active uptake of glucose from the blood stream, ready to be used aerobically for energy production. The oxygen, diffused through the tumor-associated vasculature, seems to be necessary for the survival of intratumoral endothelium and stroma but is unlikely to have a major contribution to energy production for cancer cells, as it is indicated by the low PDH, high PDK1, high LDH5, and high GLUT1 cancer cell reactivity.”

“Thompson et al. showed in a recent study that activation of a single oncogene, Akt, is sufficient to stimulate aerobic glycolysis in tumors ( 5)”

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/27/6_Part_1/1020.full.pdf

“The experimental procedure showed very clearly that the 3 tumors studied were able to remove oxygen from blood as well as or better than non-neoplastic tissues. This would not be expected to occur if any impairment of the ability to utilize oxygen did involve the neoplastic cells in vivo. A deficiency of oxygen produced by hypo-oxygenation was unable to induce an appreciable increase of blood flow through the tumor. From our data, one would expect that in vivo the tumors will compensate for a deficiency of oxygen by an increase of the oxygen removal ratio rather than by an increased blood flow.”

 

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/11/3892.abstract

“Cancer cells frequently display high rates of aerobic glycolysis in comparison to their nontransformed counterparts”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360301686901525

“These data suggest that activation of the Akt oncogene is sufficient to stimulate the switch to aerobic glycolysis characteristic of cancer cells and that Akt activity renders cancer cells dependent on aerobic glycolysis for continued growth and survival.”

One of the most bizarre claims I have seen made about cancer is that cancer is a survival mechanism made by Andreas Moritz.  I addressed some of Moritz’s other wild claims on my previous blog post Top 5 Worst Internet Health Information Sites: Curezone.org Part 3: Liver Flush Forum:

https://medreview.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/top-5-worst-internet-health-information-sites-curezone-org-part-3-liver-flush-forum/

Moritz’s claims are not only bizarre but very dangerous.  By convincing people that cancer is a survival mechanism people may decide to not do anything about their cancer since they will see the cancer as a benefit and think the body will right itself in the long run.  Cancer is not a survival mechanism, it is not beneficial to the body and cancer does not keep the body alive.  Cancer is dangerous, damaging and deadly.  I addressed some of Moritz’s wild claims regarding his “cancer is a survival mechanism” myth here:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1567784#i

As mentioned previously too many of these claims being made are simply from someone reading bogus information on sales sites then repeating the claims without ever bothering to verify the claims.  I posted a great example of this back a while ago on the claims being made by Ty Bollinger:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1944145#i

Another example of questionable information was posted on my forum about Dr. Harvey Bilgelsen.  The link that was posted to his site is no longer functioning.  Bilgelsen also claims that Warburg found that if oxygen levels in a cell drop below 60% that the cell becomes cancerous.  Not only did Warburg never make that claim, but current research has disproven this claim anyway.

This is not the only error Bilgelsen makes though.  Bilgesen’s premise is that cancers are caused from the blood becoming too alkaline. Here is a quote from his site “When the body is stressed, the sympathetic nervous system takes over and the cells become more acid and they dump alkaline waste, which elevates the pH of the venous blood setting up the cancer terrain.” This is the exact opposite of the alkaline supporters who falsely claim that acidity causes cancer.  Neither alkalinity nor acidity are the cause of cancer.

I wonder what kind of doctor Bilgensen is supposed to be since his statements regarding physiology are contradictory.  For example, Bilgensen states that cancer develops when blood oxygenation is low and the pH of the blood is high.  The problem with this claim is that it is contradictory.  Blood pH is increased by oxygen, which reduces carbonic acid and acidic protons from the blood.  A lack of oxygen in the blood actually decreases the pH by increasing the level of carbonic acid and protons.

Later in his article he claims that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is effective for treating cancer.  I don’t know where he is getting his information, but HBOT has never been shown to cure cancer.  And again, this contradicts his earlier claim that alkalinity causes cancer since HBOT will raise the pH of the blood increasing its alkalinity.

Bilgensen continues by claiming “, if you ever get the pH of the blood below 7.35 or definitely 7.32, Cancer will die all over the body”.  At first glance the premise does seem plausible since cancer cells can be damaged or killed by acidity.  This is why cancer cells export acidic protons in to the extracellular matrix to protect themselves from the acidity.  This leaves the cancer cells more alkaline than the healthy surrounding cells.  This leaves the obvious question though of if the blood pH below 7.32 is sufficient to kill cancer cells then why doesn’t the acidity of the protons in the extracellular matrix kill the cancer cells?

Another misconception by Bilgensen is that cancer is a mold.  This is similar to the claims of Dr. Simoncini who claims cancer is a fungus.  Cancer cells are not even close to the same as mold or fungi cells.

Despite these contradictions, misrepresentations and outright false information it amazes me how many posters on Curezone not only fall for these kind of claims, but worse yet keep promoting it despite the solid evidence to the contrary.

As a final note I want people to remember that misinformation can be more dangerous than the cancer itself.

Ozone Misinformation

I was recently reading a post on the internet entitled “Ozone Therapy/ Common Mistakesposted by Bret Peirce, founder of American Cancer Advocates.

Even though the concept of the article is good, most of the information is incorrect.

Ozone therapy is fantastic for many things and administered properly is one of the safest therapies available for many diseases and disorders including cancer.  As with any therapy though, ozone therapy can be very dangerous and cause a lot of harm and possibly even death if improperly administered.  Therefore, the goal of this blog article is to address what I see as misinforming claims being made by Mr. Peirce regarding ozone therapy.

Mr. Peirce starts by stating he is listing the primary mistakes made with ozone therapy in regards to cancer.

In the first claim Mr. Peirce states a failure to check lactic acid levels before starting the therapy.  The problem with this claim is that contrary to popular belief cancer cells DO NOT secrete lactic acid.  In fact, no human cells secrete lactic acid.  The only cells in or on the body that secrete lactic acid are beneficial bacterial cells that inhabit the body commonly referred to as “flora”.  These bacteria secrete lactic and other acids to help control pathogens and to aid in nutrient assimilation.

Human cells can generate non-acidic lactate, which is frequently and incorrectly referred to as lactic acid even though lactic acid and lactate are not the same thing.

Regardless, lactate is an important fuel for the body’s cells and is generally regulated by the body preventing excessively high or low levels.

Reading Mr. Peirce’s past posts Mr. Peirce’s reasoning is that oxygen cannot enter cancer cells unless the cells are sufficiently alkalized. Therefore, Mr. Peirce recommends using heavy metal salts to neutralize the lactic acid so oxygen from oxygen therapies can enter the cancer cells.  The problems with these claims are:

  1.  Cancer cells do not secrete lactic acid.
  2. The internal pH of cancer cells is already more alkaline than healthy cells and excess alkalinity of healthy cells have been shown to induce transformation of healthy cells in to cancer cells (1,2,3,4,5,6).  Cancer cells cannot tolerate an acidic pH, which kills them, and therefore cancer cells export acidic hydrogen ions (protons) in to the external matrix to maintain the internal alkalinity cancer cells need to survive and proliferate (5,6,7,8).
  3. Alkalinity actually promotes anaerobic glycolysis of cancer cells (9).  This could be from the fact that alkalinity reduces oxygen utilization by inhibiting oxygen release from hemoglobin and by constricting blood vessels leading to decreased circulation(10,11,12).
  4. Cancer cells have a higher affinity for oxygen than normal cells and utilize that oxygen very well (13,14).  On the other hand cancer cells die in the absence of oxygen.  The process of cancer cells dying due to a lack of oxygen during their early stages of development lead to the production of angiogenesis growth factors that stimulate the formation of blood vessels that brings sufficient oxygen and nutrients to the cancer cells for the cancer cells to survive and thrive (13,15,16).

Therefore, adding heavy metal alkaline salts as is being recommended will make no difference as regards to the effectiveness of ozone therapy, but the salts can pose health problems themselves.

For example, the most common alkaline salt recommended for cancer treatment alone or with ozone is cesium chloride.  The use of cesium chloride is actually based on numerous false premises, but that is another story.  Cesium chloride has not only been shown to be a failure in the treatment of cancer, it has also been shown to induce cancer and promote existing cancers (17,18,19,20,21,22,23).

Cesium chloride can also cause heart related side effects (24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34) and liver damage (35).

In Mr. Peirce’s second claim Mr. Peirce claims it is a mistake to fail using a maximum dose.  Not only is this claim incorrect, but it is EXTREMELY dangerous!

First of all there is no definition of “dose”.  Dose could refer to the concentration or the volume, which both present their problems in excess.

Concentration refers to the milligrams per milliliter (mg/ml) also referred to as gamma.  Since most ozone therapy for cancer is administered internally through injection or insufflation the proper concentration is essential.  Ozone is administered internally only in trace amounts of ozone to oxygen since higher concentrations can damage tissues and hemolyze red blood cells leading to serious health issues.

Volume refers the actual amount of ozone administered at a given concentration.  If ozone is administered at the proper concentration then larger volumes can be administered as long as it is administered slow enough.  Administering a large volume of ozone to quickly by injection or vaginal insufflations risks the possibility of embolus.  Administering ozone too quickly though by rectal insufflation risks overinflating the colon and rupturing the colon wall.

Mr. Peirce’s claims continue with oxidative stress can be countered by adding catalase. And if no oxidative stress is present the person can go higher in their dose.

If the author had done his research he would have found that catalase (CAT) is only one of several antioxidant enzymes produced by the body.  And CAT along with superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidases are increased by properly administered ozone therapy.  This reduces the risk of oxidative damage to healthy cells already, but a high concentration or dose of ozone too quickly can still cause damage or death regardless of the increase of antioxidant enzymes stimulated by ozone therapy.

Pathogens and cancer cells lack these defenses.  This is why cancer cells and pathogens are  selectively destroyed by properly administered ozone therapy without destruction to healthy tissue.

Excessive concentrations of ozone though can overwhelm the body’s antioxidant enzyme systems though leading to tissue destruction.  As mentioned earlier this is why the recommendation of maximizing ozone dosing is not only incorrect, but also dangerous.

It also needs to be kept in mind that the antioxidant enzymes taken as a supplement may be destroyed long before they could be absorbed unless they are enteric coated.

Since many people use ozone therapy personally at home there would not be a way for them to monitor the oxidative stress on red blood cells.  Even in a clinical setting where blood samples can be monitored for oxidative stress by the time the red blood cells are hemolyzed it is too late.  Therefore it is essential to use the proper concentration of ozone used in guidelines for ozone therapy set by over a hundred years of proper research and not just go for a “maximum ozone dosing” as recommended by Mr. Peirce.

Another issue with high dose ozone being overlooked by Mr. Peirce is that rapid destruction of cancer cells can not only lead to tissue damage, but also potentially kill the patient.  There are several reasons for this:

-The destruction of cancer cells leads to the formation of uric acid.  A sudden high uric acid load can lead to kidney damage as these sharp crystals get excreted through the kidneys where they can cut up the kidney tissue.  Other tissues in the local region of the destroyed tumor can also be damaged from the elevated uric acid.  This is especially dangerous in the case of brain tumors as the uric acid can inflame the brain tissue leading to dangerous brain swelling.  Since the brain is inside an inflexible skull there is no room for the expansion and the brain can suffer crushing damage if the brain swells too much within the skull.  To reduce these risks the cancer cells must be killed off little by little to allow time for clearance of the uric acid.  Drinking plenty of water throughout the day when using ozone therapy to help hydrolyze the uric acid in to safer urea can also help.

High dose ozone can further increase uric acid levels by hemolyzing red blood cells.  Hemolysis though does not occur when proper ozone levels are used, which are actually quite dilute when administered internally.

-The destruction of cancer cells leads to an increase of alkaline potassium released from the cancer cells as they are destroyed.  A sudden surge of potassium can create electrolyte imbalances that can impair heart function if cancer cells are destroyed too rapidly by higher than recommended ozone levels.

-In cases of brain tumors there is also danger of swelling if cancer cells are destroyed too quickly not only due to uric acid induced inflammation, but also due to the release of serum from dead cancer cells and the surge in potassium that can draw water in to the tissues by osmosis.  Again, this can be avoided by slowly destroying the cancer cells with the dilute doses of ozone used with internal ozone therapy rather than the dangerous “maximum ozone dosing” recommended by Mr. Peirce.

-The other risk is a dangerous infection condition known as sepsis.  Large tumors can be destroyed very easily with high dose ozone, but this is not a safe thing to do.  Dead cancer cells constitute infectious material to the body just like any other dead tissue in the body.  Of a person had a malignant tumor the size of a basketball it could be easily destroyed with a single ozone treatment using high concentrations of ozone. But the massive amount of dead cellular debris would kill the patient from sepsis.  Again, ozone therapy needs to be used in low concentrations, not “maximum ozone dosing”, to gradually kill the cancer cells.  And it is essential to allow time between treatments for the body to clear the dead cellular debris as well as the uric acid, and to allow time for the electrolytes to rebalance.  Using a shotgun approach of “maximum ozone dosing” could kill the patient.

Mr. Peirce then repeats the myth that alkaline salts are required to allow oxygen to enter the cancer cells.  This claim is based on the myth that cancer cells are totally anaerobic.  Cancer cells though are only partially anaerobic with the majority of energy for cancer cells being produced by an aerobic processes known as oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos).  In other words, oxygen not only readily enters cancer cells, but cancer cells are highly reliant on oxygen for energy production.  A low pH does not interfere with this process as Mr. Peirce claims.

Interestingly, Mr. Pierce later contradicts himself by admitting “hormone dependent cancers, sarcomas, and advanced cancers can also burn glucose oxidatively”.  This would be impossible if oxygen could not get in to cancer cells without alkaline salts as Mr. Pierce claimed previously.

Additionally, it is not only hormone dependent, sarcomas and advanced cancers that burn glucose oxidatively.  All malignant tumors including cancers in their earliest stages primarily burn glucose through OxPhos as studies have shown (13,14).

Next on Mr. Peirce’s list is an application failure.  In this case Mr. Peirce states “it is a mistake to not use ozone in high enough concentrations as well as causing irritation to the tissues or not using a humidifier”.

As previously mentioned though high concentrations of ozone are contradicted in internal ozone therapy due to the fact that high concentrations of ozone will damage the tissues and destroy red blood cells.  In addition, as pointed out in cases of cancer high concentrations of ozone can lead to tissue damage and possibly death.  The correct concentration of ozone used in internal therapies is  highly dilute, not concentrated as Mr. Peirce advises.  The recommended concentration of ozone for internal therapy is only around 0.1% ozone and 99.9% oxygen to prevent tissue damage and hemolysis.

This brings up another of Mr. Peirce’s contradictions.  Mr. Peirce keeps recommending high concentrations of ozone, which will cause tissue irritation and damage while at the same time claiming it is a mistake to cause tissue irritation with ozone.

The use of a humidifier in ozone therapy is controversial.  The humidification will result in a loss of some of the ozone as the ozone reacts with the moisture to form peroxides.  This may be helpful in the sense of reducing the damage that could occur from improperly using high concentrations of ozone.  Although, this also means that the person will not be able to properly gauge the level of ozone being administered for safety and effectiveness.  Imagine if your pharmacist was diluting down your medications with a random amount of water then telling you to take the same dose as would be normally recommended.  That would be ridiculous, yet this is the same principle as using a humidifier with ozone.  This is one of the reasons I don’t use humidifiers with ozone.  The second reason is because the mucus membranes and blood are already moist.  Therefore, if proper low concentrations of ozone are given in the first place the required moisture for oxidation will already be present in sufficient levels.

Another dangerous claim made by Mr. Peirce is at the end of his paragraph discussing inhaling ozone.  Mr. Peirce is correct that inhaling ozone is an irritant.  Mr. Peirce goes on to say though that inhaling ozone must be done at a lower concentration through a humidifier.  He also recommends doing slight exercise during the therapy and running the oxygen through the ozone generator at up to 6 liters per minute.  And finally Mr. Peirce states if the ozone causes a cough or irritation despite the humidifier to slow down the oxygen rate.  So what are the problems with these claims?

Well, first of all it is not recommended to inhale ozone for several reasons.  The lungs are more sensitive to ozone than other tissues and can be easily damaged by high levels of ozone.  In addition, ozone can trigger asthma attacks in those prone to asthma.

The most dangerous part of Mr. Peirce’s claim is that if a cough or irritation develops that you should slow down the oxygen rate.  The problem with doing this  is that this will significantly INCREASE the concentration of ozone increasing the risk of serious damage.  Ozone concentration is regulated by several factors such as voltage and discharge tube length.  The third factor is the flow rate of oxygen. The faster the flow rate the less contact time the oxygen has in the discharge tube and thus the lower the ozone concentration.  When you slow down the flow rate as Mr. Perice dangerously advises there is a greater contact time of the oxygen in the discharge tube, which increases the concentration of ozone. If you are developing a cough or irritation from the ozone concentration as it is showing damage occurring then why would anyone recommend increasing the concentration dangerously higher?!!!

Another issue not even mentioned by Mr. Peirce is that there are different methods of generating ozone and not all ozone units can utilize oxygen as a starter gas.  Using air with ultraviolet or hot corona systems also present a problem of the generation of nitrogen and sulfur based acids that can irritate or burn the tissues in the presence of moisture.

Anyone considering ozone therapy should research the subject thoroughly before initiating the therapy.  Thoroughly researching the subject is also recommended even if receiving ozone from a practitioner to make sure they understand the therapy and are administering the therapy properly for the particular condition.
Select References:

  1. Na+/H+ exchanger-dependent intracellular alkalinization is an early event in malignant transformation and plays an essential role in the development of subsequent transformation-associated phenotypes. FASEBJ 2000 Nov;14(14):2185-97
  2. Tumorigenic 3T3 cells maintain an alkaline intracellular pH under physiological conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990 October; 87(19): 7414–7418
  3. 31P NMR analysis of intracellular pH of Swiss Mouse 3T3 cells: effects of extracellular Na+ and K+ and mitogenic stimulation. J Membr Biol 1986;94(1):55-64
  4. Extracellular Na+ and initiation of DNA synthesis: role of intracellular pH and K+. J Cell Biol 1984 Mar;98(3):1082-9
  5. Vacuolar H(+)-ATPase in Cancer Cells: Structure and Function. Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology       Sept. 2011
  6. Vacuolar H+-ATPase in human breast cancer cells with distinct metastatic potential: distribution and functional activity. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 286: C1443–C1452, 2004
  7.  Targeting vacuolar H+-ATPases as a new strategy against cancer. Cancer Res 2007 Nov 15;67(22):10627-30
  8.  Vacuolar H(+)-ATPase signaling pathway in cancer. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2012 Mar;13(2):152-63
  9. Role of the Intracellular pH in the Metabolic Switch Between Oxidative Phosphorylaiton and Aerobic Glycolysis-Relavance to Cancer.  Cancer 2011;2(3):WMC001716
  10. Biochemistry, Mary Campbell, Ph.D. and Shawn Farrell, Ph.D. 2005
  11. Regulatory mechanisms of hemoglobin oxygen affinity in acidosis and alkalosis.       J Clin Invest 1971 March; 50(3): 700–706
  12. Hematology in clinical practice: a guide to diagnosis and management Robert S. Hillman, Kenneth A. Ault, Henry M. Rinder 2002
  13. Oxygen Consumption Can Regulate the Growth of Tumors, a New Perspective on the Warburg Effect. PLoS One 2009 Sep 15;4(9):e7033
  14. Choosing between glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation: a tumor’s dilemma? Biochim Biophys Acta 2011 Jun;1807(6):552-61
  15. Anoxia is necessary for tumor cell toxicity caused by a low-oxygen environment. Cancer Res 2005 Apr 15;65(8):3171-8
  16.  Relationship between oxygen and glucose consumption by transplanted tumors in vivo. Cancer Res 1967 Jun;27(6):1041-52
  17. Relative protection given by extract of Phyllanthus emblica fruit and an equivalent amount of vitamin C against a known clastogen–caesium chloride.
  18. Food Chem Toxicol 1992 Oct;30(10):865-9
  19. Inhibition of clastogenic effects of cesium chloride in mice in vivo by chlorophyllin. Toxicol Lett 1991 Jun;57(1):11-7
  20. Comparative efficacy of chlorophyllin in reducing cytotoxicity of some heavy metals. Biol Met 1991;4(3):158-61
  21. Modification of cesium toxicity by calcium in mammalian system. Biol Trace Elem Res 1991 Nov;31(2):139-45
  22. Cytogenetic damage induced in vivo to mice by single exposure to cesium chloride. Environ Mol Mutagen 1991;18(2):87-91
  23. Clastogenic effects of cesium chloride on mouse bone marrow cells in vivo. Mutat Res 1990 Aug;244(4):295-8
  24. Cesium toxicity: a case of self-treatment by alternate therapy gone awry. Ther Drug Monit 2003 Feb;25(1):114-6
  25. Acquired long QT syndrome secondary to cesium chloride supplement. J Altern Complement Med 2006 Dec;12(10):1011-4
  26. Acquired long QT syndrome and monomorphic ventricular tachycardia after alternative treatment with cesium chloride for brain cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Aug;79(8):1065-9
  27. Polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in a woman taking cesium chloride. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001 Apr;24(4 Pt 1):515-7
  28. Life-threatening Torsades de Pointes resulting from “natural” cancer treatment.       Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2009 Jul;47(6):592-4
  29. Torsades de pointes – a report of a case induced by caesium taken as a complementary medicine, and the literature review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2013 Jun;38(3):254-7
  30. Cesium-induced QT-interval prolongation in an adolescent. Pharmacotherapy 2008 Aug;28(8):1059-65
  31. Cesium chloride-induced torsades de pointes. Can J Cardiol 2009 Sep;25(9):e329-31
  32. Cesium chloride induced ventricular arrhythmias in dogs: three-dimensional activation patterns and their relation to the cesium dose applied. Basic Res Cardiol 2000 Apr;95(2):152-62.
  33. Cesium-induced atrial tachycardia degenerating into atrial fibrillation in dogs: atrial torsades de pointes? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1998 Sep;9(9):970-5
  34. Spontaneous, electrically, and cesium chloride induced arrhythmia and afterdepolarizations in the rapidly paced dog heart. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001 Apr;24(4 Pt 1):474-85
  35. The high pH therapy for cancer tests on mice and humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1984;21 Suppl 1:1-5

Tag Cloud