WBAI-FM New York
Dr. Ali's
Science, Health and Healing
Radio Shows Online

Editor, The Journal of Integrative Medicine
Formerly, Associate Professor of Pathology (adj.), College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Columbia University, NY
Formerly, President of Staff and Chief Pathologist, Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ
Fellow, Royal College of Surgeons of England - Diplomate,
American Board of Anatomic and Clinical Pathology
Diplomate, American Boards of Environmental Medicine
Past President Capital University of Integrative Medicine

Order Dr. Ali's Books and DVDs at 18006336226.com

Oxidative Theory of Cancer
From The Book RDA: Rats, Drugs and Assumptions

PART 2
A Cancer cell is an oxyphobe

    In the early part of the 20th century, Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize for his studies that revealed that a cancer cell dislikes oxygen---is an "oxyphobe." It predominantly uses anaerobic metabolism in which little, if any, oxygen is utilized. His findings provide the molecular basis of bio-oxidative therapies such as ozone hemotherapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. It also explains the efficacy of a rather ingenious approach of directing oxygen-hating microbes such as clostridium to cancer where they relish cancer cells. Warburg further proclaimed that once a cell turns to an anaerobic mode---and hence become cancerous---it can never revert back to a normal aerobic mode. In other words, the cancerous transformation is a one-way street, and hence is irreversible. This if course, fits into the prevailing notion that cancer at the cellular level is irreversible.
    Warburg was right on one account (predominantly anaerobic, glycolytic mode of metabolism in cancer cells) but quite wrong on the other (the notion of irreversibility). Many studies, including those of surface change normalization cited above, invalidated Warburg's view of irreversibility.

A Cancel Cell is Highly Charged

    A cancer cell accumulates electrons on its cell surface. Excess electrons give its cell membrane a very strong negative surface charges---often tow or more hundred times stronger that the -2-4 microvolts of heavy cells. Like charges repel. In a fight for space and privileges, however, the weak negative surface charge of an immune cell is no match for the highly negatively charged surface of a cancer cell. It is easy to see how the weak defending immune cell would be literally expected to be blown away by the ferocious cancer cell. This indeed happens. A cancer cell uses the strong surface charge as an effective electromagnetic shield against the attacking immune cells---unless of course, a cancer is vastly outnumbered by immune lymphocytes that band together to effectively sequester and cordon off the cancer cell. In some slow-growing cancers, I often see a band of immune cells forming a stout wall against cancer cells.
    In 1949, highly negative charges were reported in cancer of the cervix (Am J Obs Gyn 57:274;1949). Ten years later control of the tumor by normalization of the surface charge on cancer cells was documented in mice (Science 130:388;1959). This was an exciting possibility of turning a cancer cell back into a noncancer form by changing the surface charge. Many physicians in foreign countries jumped at this chance and developed charge neutralization technologies.
    Why has the enormous potential of this simple method of reverting cancer cells back to health been totally ignored in the US? I can only speculate.
    First in the United States we are incarcerated in the destructive mode of thinking---we like to poison cells with chemotherapy or burn them with radiotherapy. Surface charge neutralization is restorative, not quite fir for our consumption.
    Second, we seem to have an aversion to using simple, low cost physical methods of treatment of cancer.
    Third, we are not inclined to look favorably at therapies developed in foreign countries---the old and arrogant not-invented here (NIH) syndrome.
    It is ironic that it costs some hundreds of dollars to build surface charge neutralization machines, but it would require hundreds of millions of dollars to get FDA approval to use such a machine. How well does charge neutralization technology work? Many foreign physicians have told me of good clinical responses in many instances. (This subject is discussed further in Dr. Ali's book, RDA: Rats, Drugs and Assumptions.)       

Go to part three of this article