hyperbaric oxygen therapy

[ShRek]

Well, i'm doing a paper on alternative medicine.

anyone heard of hyperbaric oxygen therapy,they say it cures many sickness and no side effects, just some pressure on your lungs. They say it is not widely known because those who knows wants to keep it quiet coz it's cheap n will effect the medical field badly, anyone can enlighten me\??

[abeefaria]

When my wife had cancer, I read about oxygen therapy. Supposedly the oxygen kills cancer cells but that is all I know. I haven't heard of it as a treatment for other diseases.

 

I suspect that the cancer cells have high rates of metabolism so with hyperbaric oxygen, the oxygen would be toxic to the cancer cells?

[Mokele]

Garbage. If the O2 is high enough to kill cancerous cells, it'll kill *all* cells, and there's more than just cancer with a high metabolic rate (think brain cells). There's no way for it to specifically target cells that are cancerous, so any toxic effects would likely be lethal.

 

Mokele

[abeefaria]

Well how do you explain chemotherapy killing cancer cells (and other high metabolic cells) without killing all cells?

[abeefaria]

I just want to post one link to show that it may be possible, to use oxygen to fight cancer. I only scanned the article and did not find mention of the science of how oxygen is used to fight cancer. But with your thinking, I assume you would argue that what the oxygen does to one cell, it would do to the other cells?

 

If there is ONE thing I have learned from studying science and engineering, it is this: No one knows everything and what was impossible yesterday is possible today. After all, man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.

 

oxygen therapy

[Mokele]

Well how do you explain chemotherapy killing cancer cells (and other high metabolic cells) without killing all cells?

 

I don't need to explain it, because it doesn't. Chemotherapy basically induces mutations. The idea is that even cancer cells can only function after so many mutations, and beyond that they die. They lack the mechanisms to repair mutations, while normal cells have those mechanisms intact. Other cells die simply by chance, and those that divide fastest (which is *NOT* the same as high metabolism) are most at risk for accumulating damaging mutations.

 

I only scanned the article and did not find mention of the science of how oxygen is used to fight cancer.

 

That's because a) the article is crap and b) there *is* no science behind it.

 

If there is ONE thing I have learned from studying science and engineering, it is this: No one knows everything and what was impossible yesterday is possible today. After all, man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.

 

Not everything is possible. Perpetual motion machines, anyone? Biology has even more restrictions. Our bodies work in certain ways, and you have to work within that context.

 

Mokele

[abeefaria]

They lack the mechanisms to repair mutations, while normal cells have those mechanisms intact.

 

 

Ok, this is what I wanted to know from you. You would admit then, that some cells will react to a substance while other cells will not (to the same chemical)?

[newty]

Ok, this is what I wanted to know from you. You would admit then, that some cells will react to a substance while other cells will not (to the same chemical)?

 

Yes, some cells will react to a substance but others will not. I can add

Shh to epidermal cells and they will proliferate like crazy. But, if I add this to, let's say, astrocytes they do not proliferate in such a response.

 

Now, back to the oxygen theory. The theory behind cancer is that they proliferate quite rapidly, form new blood vessels via secretion of angiogenic substances that is thought to feed their high nutritional demand (oxygen and nutrients from blood). If you add more oxygen to the body (to the levels that is thought to be toxic to cancerous cells), then as stated above, it would be toxic to other 'normal' cells. Chemotherapy works to a certain degree. You can aim it to a certain body part, and the highly proliferative cells (i.e., tumourgenic cells) would accumulate more DNA mutations and be more susceptible to cell death. Normally, cancer cells have a strong anti-apoptotic response, but with enough mutations, they will be susceptible.

 

The link you gave provides no info. I do not believe it unless I see the results. Preferably from a credible source such as a scientific organisation or journal that is peer reviews. Remember that just about anyone can say anything they want on the internet.

 

Newty.

[the tree]

They say it is not widely known because those who knows wants to keep it quiet coz it's cheap n will effect the medical field badly, anyone can enlighten me\??

This claim is a sure sign of pseudoscience. If the goverment or a major company didn't want a scientific development to be used then they'd patent it, not cover it up.

Saying that evidence is being kept under wraps is on a par with saying that you did do your homework before your dog ate it*.

The article that Abeefaria doesn't even make a reasonable atttempt at pretending to contain science, it's only about how the fictional treatment is being covered up.

 

*Actually, it's not that unlikely for a dog to eat homework, especially if it's a young puppy. (It happend to my friend once)

[labasta]

I'm not sure how you can patent oxygen therapy.

I don't think that would be possible.

 

You also can't patent herbal medicine. Oh wait, of course you can.

You take out the active ingredient in the herb and change it ever so slightly so that it still has a similar allbeit concentrated affect and more importantly it is unique, so you can own it. (very important) There is a danger of side-effects though, so you will need a lot of money for getting into bed with the required medical associations, having a large marketing campaign, and a large sales force to "suggest" to GPs what they should administer. (don't forget the lawyers too)

 

Another large cost which is vital is to make sure that you stifle any competition in the non-patented world which could easily and cheaply spring up because anyone with little start-up cash could do it. Use bogus scientific reports paid for by you. Use the press and especially TV programs (after all everyone believes what they see on the box, there are NO exceptions) to trash these "charlatans". Destroy all credibility.

As a last resort, lobby politicians (with your gigantic funds from your last patented herb) to issue laws which ensure your continued oligarchy. Make sure everything has to be registered and approved of only by your "paid for" institutions. Then make sure that any dose of the non-patented herb over the "no effect" amount is illegal. Do this in the guise of "we are only protecting you from overdose". This works very well and only costs a couple of million pounds (very cheap relatively). The EU are suckers for this. In fact, make sure all justification for your anti-competitve measures is "protection". The public are suckers by and large.

 

Despite all these costs, the rewards of an oligarchy can be very great.

[mattbimbo]

Newty

Now, back to the oxygen theory. The theory behind cancer is that they proliferate quite rapidly, form new blood vessels via secretion of angiogenic substances that is thought to feed their high nutritional demand (oxygen and nutrients from blood). If you add more oxygen to the body (to the levels that is thought to be toxic to cancerous cells), then as stated above, it would be toxic to other 'normal' cells.

 

i feel there is room for some revision here.

 

it is true that cancer cells can have high metabolic demands, although it depends on the cancer, this wouldn't be true for all leukemias for instance.

 

not all cancers proliferate rapidly.

 

depending on tissue location, tumours do induce hypoxia, a lack of oxygen, in surrounding tissue which leads to angiogenesis. there exist a number of therapies which through an inhibition of angiogenesis aim to reduce tumour growth. however it is not solely the tumour cells themselves which contribute to hypoxia and induce angiogenesis. tumours are commonly surrounded by a number of cell types, including macrophages, which can have high metabolic demands too.

 

most cells, including tumour cells but not brain cells, can derive enough ATP to function from the anaerobic metabolism of sugars, eg glucose.

 

cells have an enormous ability to adapt to oxygen pressure, but hyperoxia and hypoxia can be damaging and lead to cell death, usually by necrosis rather than apoptosis.

 

from what i know of the literature, it seems possible that tumour cells may be less able to adapt to hyperoxia than normal cell types - maybe because they are already adapted to a hypoxic environment.

 

needless to say though, i doubt hyperbaric therapy would work. however in certain instances and in combination with other treatments, i can see the approach might be plausible.

[insane_alien]

Current methods of cancer treatment work on on single principle. They hit your body with some lethal cocktail of radiation or chemicals and hope that it kills the cancer faster than it kills you.