Cancer Assumption

[Kumar]

Hello all,

Some important assumptions on cancer:-

Just assume like that. Silica/mica is the part of protiens in or arond the cells. It may be present as mica/transparent material in protiens in some limited quantity. Its limited quantity changes due to cancer effect means become excess. Mica has insulating effect making cells to become non reactive & inert/hard . This causes one kind of suffocating effect to cells being deprived from body natural signals due to insulating mica leading to changes in their DNA & cell structure in long term. We may had seen everything but not this mica under microscope due to its transparency & which can be a reason of not knowing the real cause. Routine microscopic observations & tests may not reveal the presence of excess mica/silica due to its transparency & inertness. This can be found in the ashes on cancer tissues but nor in raw tissues.

This can be possible in other disorders & in all pathogens as bacteria etc. who may also acquire this non reactive/inert power to survive in adverse conditions. In molecular doses, Pot.Sulphate seems to have property to remove this excess mica & Silica & Cal.Fluoride of destroying this excess mica.

I think this is very important to research.Will you please comment on this story after thinking deeply or discussing with senior research persons.

Best wishes & best regards

[Morwen]

Okay... Where to begin...

Nah, too easy.

Kumar, what you have posted makes absolutely no sense. And I'm not only referring to the writing, but whatever it is you're trying to say. Silica/mica is not "the part of protiens in or arond the cells". The first assumption is wrong. The rest of what, for lack of a better word, I'll call your "theory", falls down after that.

To spare you unnecessary pain, I'll tell you what you need to do before you even try to start discussing this twaddle:

- Provide the references to studies that show that silica/mica or whatever is indeed "arond the cells", with special emphasis on how did it arrive there and the metabolic processes by which it was synthesized or deposited.

- Explain, clearly and directly, the way in which your "theory" was found, and the kind of experiments that allowed you -or whoever spouted it- to determine its nature.

- Clarify the nature of "body natural signals" that are lost because of the "mica". Use clearly defined concepts, not vague new age terminology. If the word "energy" appears, without further information about the nature of said energy, I'll get very, very annoyed. Enough is enough.

- Prove that there is an in vivo interaction between mica and DNA.

There are more, many more things you'll have to explain, but these should be enough to begin. Extraordinary evidence and all that, you know the drill. Get to work.

If you are unable to do so, kindly refrain from adding up to this discussion and we'll all be happier and able to use our time in a more productive way.

Do not even try to add more unsubstantiated data without first addressing at least these questions. You'll only undermine your position and show that there's no basis for whatever you are trying to say. Which won't be at all surprising, by the way.

(Edited for typos and to count to ten)

[Kumar]

Why we immediately start getting irritated sp. on unsolved aspects. I have mentioned assumptions.

Pls. read some questions & awnsers in this respect:-

Q. When we see diseased cells/or other body substances under the microscope, is it possible that we may not be able to see some substances which are transparent in nature like mica?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A. Mica, if present in cells at all (I haven't looked into it) wouldn't be in pure form. It would be used as a structural molecule to reinforce proteins (as part of the protein). We would see the protein.

Q. I read somewhere that when some tissues are seen under microscope or tested , silica was not found but when reduced to ash silica was found. Can you comment in these consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A. Silica is found in tendons and ligaments as a structural aid. It strengthen the proteins it is used with/by, so they can withstand higher tension, and don't break when the skeletal muscles become active and contract. You don't see it because it is part of the protein. However, when you burn organic material, it will be left in the ash because it is non-volatile, and heavy. You will also find other trace elements that exist in our bodies, such as Molybdenum, Zinc, Copper, etc.

[Zep]

Kumar, you are clearly demonstrating that you have little if no understanding of medicine or human anatomy or any subject related to that. All you seem to have trotted out is inane and pointless twaddle.

But let's start right at the beginning:

1. Mica is a GEOLOGICAL MINERAL and DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE HUMAN BODY. It is not in cells, it is not in proteins, it is not floating loose, it ISN'T THERE. That would go a long way to explaining why it cannot be seen or found.

2. Even in microscopic quantities, mica is quite visible under normal optical microscopy. It does NOT go "transparent". And there are many, MANY other methods for determining the presence or otherwise of various elements, compounds, minerals, etc. within cells. I won't list them here because it would go on for ages. Suffice to say, if mica WAS normally occuring in the human body then it would have been found by now. Look here (http://www.mme.state.va.us/DMR/GALLERY/HISTORIC/mica/mica_chem.html) for a chemical breakdown of mica - it has LOTS of chemical components that are not invisible.

3. Regarding silica, you have obviously dragged that out of all the "alternative health" sites, like here (http://www.silicea.com.au/default.htm), haven't you. You are aware, I hope, that SiO2, silica dioxide, is a fairly stable and non-reactive compound? That it is the basis of glass, in which we store many of our most corrosive liquids? So what makes you think that eating ground up glass, as recommended by these fake medicine sites, is going to be absorbed by the human gut and be beneficial to human health?

4. I would like you to consider looking into a disease called silicosis (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/silica/default.html), the result of exposure to silica by humans. You might also try looking up data from the asbestos mining industry...

And, as Morwen has said, go do some REAL research for a change. DO NOT come back here trying to ask for explanations about what is obviously junk medicine that not only defies common sense and is obvious nonsense, it is also positively harmful to humans.

[Kumar]

Zep,

Many thanks for giving the deatails. Mica contains 45.57 % of SiO2 which is present in body. There may be some accumulation of this chemical in cells/tissues. When we see something on glass slides under microscope, we don't see glass. Organic silica have so many uses as given in the site you mentioned. Some 249000 sites on silica uses are available at;

http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=organic+silica&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Inhaling stone powder can cause silicosis but that does not mean organic silica is of no benefit.

Btw, what other can cause cancer cells to become inert , independent & non reactive to body signals?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep,

Many thanks for giving the deatails. Mica contains 45.57 % of SiO2 which is present in body. There may be some accumulation of this chemical in cells/tissues.

Sheesh, can't you READ?? MICA IS NOT IN THE BODY!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!! SiO2 is also in glass bottles and sand and big quartz crystals and itching powder. Your insane theory would suggest that these, too, are also inside your body. YOUR body maybe, NOT mine.

When we see something on glass slides under microscope, we don't see glass.

2. Even in microscopic quantities, mica is quite visible under normal optical microscopy. It does NOT go "transparent". And there are many, MANY other methods for determining the presence or otherwise of various elements, compounds, minerals, etc. within cells. I won't list them here because it would go on for ages.Isn't this clear enough or do I have to tattoo it on your forehead?

Organic silica have so many uses as given in the site you mentioned.

There is NO SUCH THING as "organic silica". It is only SiO2 - silicon dioxide. It does not magically change into harmless orange drink when it is ground up into a powder as these sites say. It is a very dangerous substance for humans to consume. If you truly believe these confidence tricksters then you are even sillier than I thought.

Inhaling stone powder can cause silicosis but that does not mean organic silica is of no benefit.

Complete and utter COWPATS, BULLFLOP, BUFFALO CHIPS, PIG-SWILL, CESSPIT-CONTENTS. You obviously NEVER read this:4. I would like you to consider looking into a disease called silicosis, the result of exposure to silica by humans. You might also try looking up data from the asbestos mining industry...You might then like to tell us how silica gets into workers' blood and urine - by magic, perhaps? So if it gets in so easily via the lungs and it is so deadly...WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO EAT THE STUFF???

Btw, what other can cause cancer cells to become inert , independent & non reactive to body signals?

There are so many varieties of cancer that I would be willing to bet there are no common symptoms and signs to them at all. In which case, there is no answer to your question because it is pretty much an invalid question - it makes no sense at all.

But of course, if you are willing to believe all the fakirs and dealers of hocus-pocus who have less than a simplistic understanding of these diseases, and who dispense remedies made from ground glass and lemonade-powder, then more fool you.

Here's a suggestion: GO DO SOME SERIOUS MEDICAL STUDY OF YOUR OWN FOR A CHANGE, NOT HOMEOPATHY AND CRYSTAL VIBRATIONS STUFF. Then you will be able to answer these questions yourself.

[Kumar]

Zep, many thanks for explaining. We may postpone these discussions for some time to think properly.

Best wishes.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, well, Kumar. I do admire your courage, but I trust you will never consider me blunt again ;) (I know it is mostly Tim that uses that expression).

Hans

[Kumar]

Mr. Hans,

That is right. You are not blunt but is BOLD, which personally I do not dislike. Actually, we are just trying to look a thing which may be beyond our capacity to check, by just ' brain storming '. ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Nice trolling kumar! :D

[Deetee]

Kumar: "Will you please comment on this story after thinking deeply or discussing with senior research persons."

Well I've thought very deeply, consulted a senior medical research person (myself).

Do I have a comment? - yes, but I don't think you'd want to hear it.

[Prospero]

Originally posted by Deetee
Kumar: "Will you please comment on this story after thinking deeply or discussing with senior research persons."

Well I've thought very deeply, consulted a senior medical research person (myself).

Do I have a comment? - yes, but I don't think you'd want to hear it.

Except for the senior research person part (but not for long), ditto. I would have appreciated the original post being somewhat more comprehensible as well.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Nice trolling kumar! :D
Just wanna point out that, if it's the same "Kumar" (and if it isn't, then I apologize to the JREF "Kumar"), he's not trolling. The "medicinal properties of silica" is evidently one of his deep and abiding interests.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29497

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep, many thanks for explaining. We may postpone these discussions for some time to think properly.

Best wishes.
He's not going to give it up, you know.

When he first arrived, one of the three threads he started immediately was a thinly-disguised troll on homoeopathy (don't you think a lot of fine grinding and pulverising could impart potential energy to substances?). This was immediately recognised for what it was, and someone stamped on it very quickly by remarking that homoeopathy was unreconstructed woo-woo nonsense.

Kumar said, oh well, just drop it then.

Then he waited for another homoeopathy thread to start and gain a few posters, jumped in and got exactly where he wanted to be.

The intent of this thread wasn't quite so obvious from the start (or perhaps there are fewer people around who know about silica being a woo-woo cancer cure), but it's clearly the same idea.

At first I thought Kumar was disadvantaged by his poor grasp of English, and felt sympathetic because I'm pretty sure he's doing better in English than I'd do in whatever he speaks day to day. But finally I realised he just has a poor grasp of reality. It's now quite obvious that however often and however loudly you tell him that his "theories" (whether on homoeopathy, diabetes or the lost atomic science of the Mahabharata) bear no relationship to reality, he won't pay a blind bit of attention to a word you say.

And if there's one single thing which drives me most nuts about his posts, it's the best wishes at the end.

However, if y'all persist in feeding the woo-woo, I'm right here in the peanut gallery. I just hope you've all dropped by here to vote (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30145).

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Btw, what other can cause cancer cells to become inert , independent & non reactive to body signals?

There are so many varieties of cancer that I would be willing to bet there are no common symptoms and signs to them at all. In which case, there is no answer to your question because it is pretty much an invalid question - it makes no sense at all.


I think this is the basic property of cancer cell. Multiplications with out body control. Just tell me the resons of cancer cells become inert , independent & non reactive to body signals? I read somewhere that silica was found in ashes of tissues but not in raw tissues.

We are discussing something which could not be yet known be current medical research persons.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar

I think this is the basic property of cancer cell. Multiplications with out body control. Just tell me the resons of cancer cells become inert , independent & non reactive to body signals? I read somewhere that silica was found in ashes of tissues but not in raw tissues.

We are discussing something which could not be yet known be current medical research persons. You "think this is the basic property of a cancer cell"? Why don't you go and find out for yourself and make sure, first.

You "read somewhere" about silica? Where? Show us. A non-homeopathic reference is required.

"Body signals"? What are these? Can you describe them accurately for the medical people here? Got any supporting documentation to back up your descriptions?

[MoeFaux]

Wow! This is so cool!
I never thought I'd get to meet one of the people who caused companies to start labeling "DO NOT EAT" on those packets of silica gel you get in shoe boxes.
I think I have a few of those lying around, if you like, I will send them to you.

[jj]

Originally posted by Zep
You "think this is the basic property of a cancer cell"? Why don't you go and find out for yourself and make sure, first.

Henh. good luck.

You "read somewhere" about silica? Where? Show us. A non-homeopathic reference is required.

I know how little silica dissolves in boiling battery acid (see Yellowstone NP for good examples). How much is going to dissolve in weak HCl? Err. Bzzzt.

"Body signals"? What are these? Can you describe them accurately for the medical people here? Got any supporting documentation to back up your descriptions?
You put your left foot in
You take your left foot out
You put your left foot in
And you shake it all about

That's a body signal...

[Zep]

I had the impression it was something more like this:

{Brrrring! Brrrring!}

Hello? General Headquarters, Corporal Brain speaking.

Yes, this is Captain Left Big Toe here. We've got something heavy on us and it's starting to hurt and make us ineffective. Can we get some orders to change the situation, please.

I see, sir. Just a moment, I'll consult General Cerebral Cortex. {pause} Yes, we're sending a signal to Colonel Mouth, sir. We're telling him to shout "GET OFF MY FOOT YOU DUMB CLUCK!". Oh, and a signal to Major Arm too - telling him to swat the offender hard. After that happens, things might ease up a bit for you. Is that satisfactory, sir?

Hmmm, yes, OK, but tell them to make it sharpish, will you? This is getting decidely uncomfortable.

Roger, wilco, sir! {click}

[Kumar]

Hello Zep-all,

Please read A B C of cancer at most reputed site of ACS at :-

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1x_What_Is_Cancer_72.asp?sitearea=CRI

Some of the initial( 'A' ) mentioning is as under:-

'What Is Cancer?

Cancer develops when cells in a part of the body begin to grow out of control. Although there are many kinds of cancer, they all start because of out-of-control growth of abnormal cells.

Normal body cells grow, divide, and die in an orderly fashion. During the early years of a person's life, normal cells divide more rapidly until the person becomes an adult. After that, cells in most parts of the body divide only to replace worn-out or dying cells and to repair injuries.


Because cancer cells continue to grow and divide, they are different from normal cells. Instead of dying, they outlive normal cells and continue to form new abnormal cells.......
...In many cases, the exact cause of cancer remains a mystery. We know that certain changes in our cells can cause cancer to start, but we don't yet know exactly how this happens. Many scientists are studying this problem. "

Can you translate it?

[Goshawk]

Right, Kumar, we all understand the basic principle of cancer: cells grow out of control. If we know how to stop the cells from growing uncontrollably, we can stop cancer. Radiation works on some cells, and certain kinds of chemicals work on others, to stop their uncontrollable growth.

However.

Silica is not one of those chemicals. Silica is an inert substance. It's a non-reactive substance. If you apply silica to a cell, nothing happens.
I think this is the basic property of cancer cell. Multiplications with out body control.
Yes. We already know that.
Just tell me the resons of cancer cells become inert
Well, basically, the radiation, and the chemicals used in chemotherapy, are toxic to the cancer cells, and they act in such a way so as to cause the cancer cells to slow their growth and/or die.

However, silica can't do this. It's not a "chemical" as such. It's more like sand.

Silica is inert, like carbon, like charcoal. Feeding powdered charcoal to a cancer patient won't affect the cancer cells the way the chemicals used in chemotherapy will. The charcoal just passes through his body without affecting the cancer cells. So does silica. The human body didn't evolve to eat, digest, and utilize silica and elemental carbon, otherwise we'd all be chowing down on sand and charcoal instead of meat and fruit.

I read somewhere that silica was found in ashes of tissues but not in raw tissues. Yes, there is silicon in the human body. It doesn't matter whether the tissues are raw or burned.


However, there is also oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, fluorine, zinc, copper, manganese, tin, iodine, selenium, nickel, molybdenum, vanadium, chromium, and cobalt in the human body. And none of them, if fed directly to a cancer patient, or rubbed on his skin, will affect the cancer cells at all. The cobalt that's used in cancer therapy is in a different form--you don't eat it or put it on your skin (elemental cobalt actually causes cancer).


http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/Body/index.s6.html


So, upon reviewing the table of elements that are found in the human body, I found myself wondering why your homeopathic claims are resting on silica. Why silica? And I think the answer is clear--all the other elements are either toxic or dangerous to handle in their pure form, or are difficult or expensive to obtain and market in their pure form, or have already been co-opted by other health claims. Calcium (as coral calcium), carbon (as activated charcoal), copper (as arthritis bracelets), and zinc are already spoken for, in other words.

So that leaves silicon for the homeopaths to latch onto and build up spurious claims for it. It's safe to handle, it's not toxic, it's cheap, it's readily available, and nobody has claimed anything for it yet.

[Kumar]

Goshawk,

Thanks. Nicely explained. Btw, what do you think if we have allready seen silica in cells, P.oncogenes, oncogenes & T.S. genes? I am bit doubtful whether silica cause mis-mutations,change in DNA(P.onco genes & T.S.genes) or reverse this cancer effects(abrasive property). Furthur, glass slides are used to see the cell under the microscope which also contains silica. Is it possible that silica in cancer cell/genes may be confused with the glass silica.

[MRC_Hans]

Truly amasing.....

- Kumar presents totaly speculative thesis with no basis whatsoever in reality.

- Various people, in various degrees of irony and detail, explain at lenght why Kumar's speculative thesis has no basis whatsoever in reality.

- Kumar replies: "Thank you for explanation. Do you think that.." ..And reiterates totally speculative thesis with no basis whatsoever in reality.

- Repeat..

- Repeat...

- ad nauseam.

:rolleyes:

Hans

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Goshawk,

Thanks. Nicely explained. Btw, what do you think if we have allready seen silica in cells, P.oncogenes, oncogenes & T.S. genes? I am bit doubtful whether silica cause mis-mutations,change in DNA(P.onco genes & T.S.genes) or reverse this cancer effects (abrasive property). Further, glass slides are used to see the cell under the microscope which also contains silica. Is it possible that silica in cancer cell/genes may be confused with the glass silica. Kumar, I'm going to note that you have failed to respond sensibly to various requests to do your own research, and are simply repeating back the same silly and pointless suggestions. You simply quoted back to us the opening paragraphs from the front page of the American Cancer Society, and it seems quite clear you didn't read further down that page, nor deeper into that site, nor at any other cancer-related site (of which there are many). Goshawk had to do all the work for you, which I think was very nice of them and lazy of you.

So...

I have underlined some relevant parts of your previous response. Are you saying here that silica is still in all cells and works like sandpaper on cancer cells? And that glass particles are invisible under ANY optical microscope? Is THIS what you are seriously suggesting?

[Kumar]

- Kumar presents totaly speculative thesis with no basis whatsoever in reality.

Mr.Hans,

What is the reality/ basis/real reason of cancer? You better mention assumption instead of speculative thesis.

- Various people, in various degrees of irony and detail, explain at lenght why Kumar's speculative thesis has no basis whatsoever in reality.

You explain the basis whatsoever in reality of cancer.

Mr.zep,

...there are many). Goshawk had to do all the work for you, which I think was very nice of them and lazy of you.

Do you want to say Goshawk has read & posted as mentioned on internet. Is so pls give me the site referances. Let Goshawk also confirm the same.

Are you saying here that silica is still in all cells and works like sandpaper on cancer cells? And that glass particles are invisible under ANY optical microscope?

1. As per the heading of this topic I again translate that I am assuming, assuming on an unsolved aspect.

2. I mentioned three assumptions which can be thought of.

3. I do not mean now that glass particles are invisible under microccope but I mean that suppose silica is present in cells/genes then it can be possible that it is ignored considering sillica of glass. When we see any specimen on glass slide & if silica in glass is visible under microscope, how we differanciate between silica of specimen(if present) & silica of glass??

Mr.Hans, it may be just a brain storming for good. ;)

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Kumar
Btw, what do you think if we have allready seen silica in cells, P.oncogenes, oncogenes & T.S. genes?

What I think is that I agree with Zep that it's time for you to start doing some work. It's up to you to start looking up some facts to support your position. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating pointlessly, "Hey, what if...?" and you are wasting our time.

You can start with this--go and find a cite that says that "we have seen silica in cells", either normal cells or cancer cells.

Saying "we can see silica in cells" is like saying, "we can see powdered charcoal in cells". It just isn't true. When you look at a cell through a microscope, you can't see silica. That's because human cells don't have silica in them.

Now, some plants have silica in them. Horsetails (equisetum), for example. But it occurs in the form of big obvious granules. And--you can see them under a microscope. ;)

Picture.
http://www.olympusmicro.com/micd/galleries/brightfield/equlsetummaturestrobiluslow.html

Furthur, glass slides are used to see the cell under the microscope which also contains silicaGlass slides are used under microscopes precisely because they are inert. Glass is chemically non-reactive except to extremely powerful acids. The glass cannot affect the cell that rests on it. Molecules or particles of silica from the glass cannot come off the glass and get onto the cell. The silica in the glass cannot affect the cell that is resting on it because the silica in the glass is inert. The silica in glass is all melted together as a piece of "glass"--you can't see individual silica particles. All you see, when looking through a microscope, is whatever is on the glass slide, not any silica particles or molecules in the glass slide itself. The simple act of placing a specimen on the slide and putting the cover glass over it does not result in particles of silica somehow being "knocked off" the glass onto the specimen. It doesn't work like that. If particles of glass could be "knocked off" the slide and thereby contaminate your specimen every time, people wouldn't be using them. That's why we don't use wooden slides, or clay slides, under microscopes. We use glass, precisely because particles can't fall off of it and get into the specimen.

Have you ever actually looked through a microscope, Kumar?



Also, when they test cells to find out what their chemical composition is, they don't do it by looking at the cell under a microscope. They do it by using a piece of equipment called a mass spectrograph.

How a mass spectrograph works.
http://masspec.scripps.edu/information/history/perspectives/nier.html

3. I do not mean now that glass particles are invisible under microccope but I mean that suppose silica is present in cells/genes then it can be possible that it is ignored considering sillica of glass. When we see any specimen on glass slide & if silica in glass is visible under microscope, how we differanciate between silica of specimen(if present) & silica of glass??
You're saying, "What if some researcher was working on figuring out the chemical composition of cells, and he was looking at a cell under the microscope, and he saw silica, and he assumed the silica he was seeing was contamination from the glass slide, but it was really from the cell but he didn't realize it?"

As I said, that's not how they figure out the chemical composition of cells. Before we had the mass spectrograph, you had to burn the cell (or a whole bunch of cells) and then use basic chemistry to figure out what kinds of chemicals were in there, in the ashy residue.

But a researcher looking at a cell under a microscope wouldn't see silica, either from the cell or from the glass slide. As I have said, there is no silica in human cells, either cancer cells or normal cells. And the silica from the glass slide can't "come loose" and get onto the cell.

Is it possible that silica in cancer cell/genes may be confused with the glass silica.
No.

I am bit doubtful whether silica cause mis-mutations,change in DNA(P.onco genes & T.S.genes) or reverse this cancer effects(abrasive property).
Kumar, you congratulate me on how well I explained things--but apparently you didn't hear a word I said. My whole point was that silica, as it passes through the human digestive tract, is completely inert. It is not digested. It does not give nutrients that your body's stomach acids and enzymes can break down and utilize in your body, either for good or evil. Therefore, silica cannot cause genetic mutations in cells, since it shoots right through your intestines and out the other end, completely unchanged. It doesn't affect your body chemically at all, either to cure cancer or to cause it. It doesn't dissolve and get into, or onto, your cells. It doesn't do anything at all.

Also, the abrasive property of ingested silica cannot affect your cells so as to either cause or cure cancer. Here's a thought--if the abrasive property of silica could cause cancer, then people who ingest a lot of silica should statistically have higher cancer rates than people who don't, right? Because they're eating a lot more "carcinogenic substance" than other people, right?

Okay. Follow me closely now.

1. Granite is over 70% silica.
http://www.granite-sandstone.com/granite-chemical-properties.html

2. The best grindstones (millstones) for grinding flour are made out of granite. This is because softer rocks, like limestone and sandstone, grind themselves down really fast while they're grinding the flour and add large quantities of grit to the flour. Granite wears down, too, and adds a certain amount of grit to the flour, it's just not as noticeable.

3. So, if silica causes cancer, all the people who eat bread made from flour that has been ground with granite millstones should have higher cancer rates than people who eat bread made with flour that has been ground in a modern steel roller mill. And if silica cures cancer, then all these people should have higher-than-average survival rates for cancer.

4. Here in the U.S. we have expensive health-food bread (and flour) called "stone-ground", both wheat and corn (maize). There is a fairly large segment of the U.S. population that goes out of their way to purchase stone-ground flour and bread.

5. So, if silica causes cancer, then these American people should have higher cancer rates than everybody else who eats regular flour. And if it cures cancer, they should have higher-than-average survival rates for cancer.

6. But they don't.

7. This is because the silica grit from the granite passes through their bodies unchanged, and without affecting their bodies. The silica can't get at the cells to affect them, because the body's digestive juices and enzymes aren't capable of breaking down silica. Humans did not evolve to be able to eat silica. Silica is non-nutritious. It is inert. The human body cannot use silica for the building blocks of life, not for carbohydrates, or proteins, or fats, or nucleic acids. Silica is indigestible, like cellulose.

8. And if it was the abrasive quality of silica that caused, or cured, cancer, then these people should have higher rates of mouth, esophagus, stomach, and colon cancer (or higher-than-average mouth, esophagus, stomach, and colon cancer survival rates, if it cured cancer), since those are the parts of the body that are being abraded while you're eating silica.

9. But they don't.



And finally, I found some actual data ("facts") on the toxicity of various silicon compounds, as a WHO study of food additives.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v05je04.htm

Bottom line:
The available data on orally administered silica and silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the biological inertness of these compounds.
And 20 years later, from the UK:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/evm_silicon.pdf
Overall, inorganic silicon compounds do not appear to have significant genotoxic potential.
Something called "amorphous silica" is widely used as a food and pharmaceuticals additive, being an "anti-caking agent", along with other uses.

http://www.lalecheleague.org/ba/Feb96.html
In its natural state, one silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygen atoms forming an orderly three-dimensional network. Silica is the term for both the simplest SiO2 compound and for its various three-dimensional structures. Silica is inert and permitted as a food additive. The only well-documented human health hazard from silica is a result of inhaling crystalline silica dust into the lungs, causing silicosis (pulmonary fibrosis)... When silica lacks its highly ordered geometrical structure, it is termed "amorphous silica" and is thought to lack the ability to cause fibrotic reactions. So, Kumar, if you're eating mass-produced "factory food", then you're eating silica. Do you feel like the food you eat every day is causing--or curing--cancer? If so, then people who don't eat any mass-produced "factory food" at all should either never get cancer (if amorphous silica causes cancer), or should have lower-than-average survival rates for cancer (if amorphous silica cures cancer). But this is not so. Health food nuts who eat only the food they produce themselves and who presumably don't eat a lot of amorphous silica still get cancer, and when they do get cancer, they don't suddenly start eating mass-produced "factory food" so as to get the benefits of all that amorphous silica and thus cure their cancer.

No, I'm sorry, but "silica" is just another quack remedy. There is no scientific basis for it.
Do you want to say Goshawk has read & posted as mentioned on internet. Is so pls give me the site referances. Let Goshawk also confirm the same.He's not saying I have a website somewhere--he's observing (accurately) that so far, I am doing all the running here, all the work. I am the one who's been sitting here using Google to look up stuff. All you have been doing is speculating idly.

And if you're not going to give me some indication that I'm getting through to you--that I'm making some kind of headway here--I'm going to get bored and give up. There's a limit to how much beating my head against a brick wall I'm interested in doing.
As per the heading of this topic I again translate that I am assuming, assuming on an unsolved aspect.There is no "unsolved aspect". You are merely speculating, "What if there is silica in cells? What if silica affects cells?" And we have told you, "There is no silica in cells. Silica is inert, it does not affect cells."

It's as if you were speculating, "What if there is bubble gum in cells? What if bubble gum affects cells?" And we kept telling you, "There is no bubble gum in cells. Bubble gum does not affect cells."

So, assimilate some of this information, please.

[DickK]

Jeez Goshawk, you have the patience of a saint (http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20031105gene1105fnp1.asp).

[wayrad]

Goshawk, this doesn't invalidate your point, but the main reason glass is used for traditional microscope slides is for its optical characteristics (edited to add: it needs to be transparent because the light is underneath), although its relative inertness is important too. I should also mention that although a correctly made slide is almost transparent, you can easily see a particle of glass or sand placed on it. Not that that is how you would identify silica; there are far better ways which have already been used to determine cellular composition, as you pointed out.

Kumar, if the dilute hydrochloric acid in the human stomach could dissolve silica, how could it be possible to sell concentrated hydrochloric acid in glass bottles?

[Rolfe]

Can I copy something I posted on the "What is Kumar" thread here? Just as relevant.First find your fact. Have you one to show us? Any repeatable, definite, demonstrable observation to back up any of your bizarre speculations?

Kumar, have you ever looked down a microscope? Do you know what refraction looks like?Science, as I said, will always recast its theories to accommodate facts. That is, demonstrable facts. Not assumptions, no matter how important Kumar things they are, not speculations, not delusions. Facts.

Lots of people have cited facts here. Like, there is no silica in mammalian cells. (Or, there is no active ingredient in homoeopathic medicines and all the well-controlled trials have demonstrated that they have no clinical effect. Or, that insulin administration doesn't cause insulin resistance, to go back a thread or three.) These facts can be referenced and followed up and demonstrated to be real.

Kumar, forget assumptions, or appeals to popularity, or speculations. Can you show us one single tiny verifiable factoid to back up anything you're saying?

Rolfe.

PS. Yes, I too salute Goshawk's patience.

[Kumar]

Hello Goshawk,

Many many thanks for working so hard. If we can work so hard, we can find something positive. Firstly, I tell you that I did not meant that particles/molecules of silica can be shedded from the glass slides & mixed with the specimen. But I mean, that when we see under microscpe we will see both specimen & glass slides at a time. Suppose silica particles are presents in the specimen/cancer cells then we may ignore them considering these are silica particles of the glass. Some one has told me that we will see even a single molecule of silica(even it is of glass) under Electron Microscope.

. This is because the silica grit from the granite passes through their bodies unchanged, and without affecting their bodies. The silica can't get at the cells to affect them, because the body's digestive juices and enzymes aren't capable of breaking down silica. Humans did not evolve to be able to eat silica. Silica is non-nutritious. It is inert. The human body cannot use silica for the building blocks of life, not for carbohydrates, or proteins, or fats, or nucleic acids. Silica is indigestible, like cellulose.
As far as I know, silica is present in human's Skin, hair, nails, connective tisses, bones, Cartilage, Lungs Pelvic floor.

18.2 gms silicon is present in person of 70 kg bw. Please see the sites:-

http://www.bodywise.com/bwcatalog/ingredients/silica.asp

http://www.thewolfeclinic.com/theta_minerals/theta_silicon.html

http://www.remedies4health.co.nz/page_silica.shtml

http://www.healthywaymagazine.com/issue25/05_silica_saves_skin.html

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello Goshawk,

Many many thanks for working so hard. If we can work so hard, we can find something positive. Firstly, I tell you that I did not meant that particles/molecules of silica can be shedded from the glass slides & mixed with the specimen. But I mean, that when we see under microscpe we will see both specimen & glass slides at a time. Suppose silica particles are presents in the specimen/cancer cells then we may ignore them considering these are silica particles of the glass. Some one has told me that we will see even a single molecule of silica(even it is of glass) under Electron Microscope.


As far as I know, silica is present in human's Skin, hair, nails, connective tisses, bones, Cartilage, Lungs Pelvic floor.

18.2 gms silicon is present in person of 70 kg bw. Please see the sites:-

http://www.bodywise.com/bwcatalog/ingredients/silica.asp

http://www.thewolfeclinic.com/theta_minerals/theta_silicon.html

http://www.remedies4health.co.nz/page_silica.shtml

http://www.healthywaymagazine.com/issue25/05_silica_saves_skin.html

Kumar, did you happen to notice that:

1) These are not professional health sites

2) They were repeating essentially the same information - some verbatim

3) They are trying to SELL you something

And finally, notice the FDA warning at the bottom?

See, if you do a search for "Silica Health" in search engines, you'll find websites like those you've found and then you'll find sites like:

NIOSH - Silica (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/silica/default.html)

After reading some of this information, I sure as HELL won't be ingesting silicion for my "health and well-being".

[Goshawk]

After reading some of this information, I sure as HELL won't be ingesting silicion for my "health and well-being". Um, DB, that's dealing with silicosis, which is where you breathe silica dust in, usually by mining or sculpting. We're talking about eating/drinking silica. But thanks for the link anyhow. :D

Kumar:

But I mean, that when we see under microscpe we will see both specimen & glass slides at a time.
Yes, but when you look through a microscope (and it's important to note that we're talking about an ordinary light microscope here, not an electron microscope, which does not use glass slides--see below), you CANNOT SEE individual silica or glass particles on the slide, no matter how high the magnification, because once a batch of silica in the form of sand is melted and fused into glass, it no longer has separate bits of glass or silica on the surface. It's all melted together.

Have you ever made hard candy, like lollipops, at home? You start with table sugar (crystals of sucrose), add water to make a sugar syrup, and you cook it, and when you're done, you no longer have individual sugar crystals--you have hard candy. The sugar has changed its form and become the completely new substance we call "candy". Molecules of the original sugar don't fall off the lollipop once it's done--all the original sugar has been physically changed into "candy". And molecules of candy don't fall off the lollipop.

Glass is the same way. Once it's "cooked", it's set, and molecules of either the original silica or the final glass don't fall off the piece of glass.

then we may ignore them considering these are silica particles of the glass. NO. Wrong.

It occurs to me that perhaps the dictionary definition of "inert" might be helpful.

: lacking the power to move
2 : very slow to move or act : SLUGGISH
3 : deficient in active properties; especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action

Glass is inert. Once a batch of silica in the form of sand is melted and fused into glass, it doesn't change. Little particles of silica or glass don't continually flake off. When you drink iced tea out of a glass tumbler, you don't worry that molecules of silica or glass are falling off the tumbler and getting into your drink, do you? No, of course not, because you know that glass doesn't behave like that.

And molecules of glass or silica don't come off a glass slide, either. And you can't see the individual silica molecules on a glass slide, because they no longer exist--they have been changed into "glass".
Suppose silica particles are presents in the specimen/cancer cells
If a researcher looked through his microscope at a cancer cell on a slide, and saw silica particles there with the cancer cell, they would not be inside the cancer cell. It isn't physically possible for silica particles to get inside a cancer cell. This is because human cells DO NOT HAVE silica particles in them. (The silicon in the human body is in a different form--see below.)

The silica particles would be on the outside of the cancer cell. The researcher would say to himself, "Oh, dear. My specimen must have been contaminated somehow, because this cancer cell has some silica particles stuck to the outside of it." He would know that the silica particles were not part of the cancer cell because we know all about human cells. Human cells have been tested many times, in many different ways--mass chromatography, burning and then chemically analyzing the residue, visual inspection under both light and electron microscopes--and it has been conclusively proved that there is NO SILICA in human cells.
Some one has told me that we will see even a single molecule of silica(even it is of glass) under Electron Microscope.First of all, just for the record, one does not look at things under an electron microscope using a glass slide. That's not how electron microscopes work. Samples that go under an electron microscope are specially prepared. They have to be made electrically conductive; sometimes they may be coated with gold. Then they're put into a special container, so you can't see them except through the monitor screen.

How an electron microscope works. Slide show.
http://www.mos.org/sln/sem/tour05.html

So, yes, if a researcher was looking at a human cell under an electron microscope, and there was a molecule of silica or glass in there with his specimen, he would see it, and he would say, "Oh. There appears to be a molecule of silica or glass in there WITH my specimen." He would NOT say, "Oh. This cell has silica or glass IN it," because human cells do not have silica or glass in them. He would KNOW that it was merely contamination of his specimen. Human cells have been tested many times, in many different ways--mass chromatography, burning and then chemically analyzing the residue, visual inspection under both light and electron microscopes--and it has been conclusively proved that there is NO SILICA in human cells.
As far as I know, silica is present in human's Skin, hair, nails, connective tisses, bones, Cartilage, Lungs Pelvic floor.

18.2 gms silicon is present in person of 70 kg bw.Ah ha! Light begins to dawn. You and your homeopathic friends are confusing silica with silicon. They are two completely different things.

Silica is like sand, it's a mineral. It's what happens when the element silicon combines with other elements to make silicon dioxide, or any of a number of silicates--magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, etc. These are rocks, Kumar. These are minerals. Silica, and silicates, are not found in the human body. Silica, and silicates, are found in rocks.. Rocks are not found in the human body. Silica is a rock. It is not found in the human body.

Here is some informnation on silicates.

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/class.htm

Now, the element "silicon" IS present in the human body, BUT...

It is NOT present as silicon dioxide, as silicates, as silica. It is present as silicic acid.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v05je04.htm
Silicic acid is a normal constituent of the urine, where it is found as early as a few days after birth. The amount excreted in the urine, which varies considerably according to the diet, is in the order of 10 to 30 mg per day (Thomas, 1965)...The normal level of silicic acid in human blood is below 1 µg SiO2/cm3; the concentration in the corpuscles is practically the same as that in the plasma. Silicic acid is present in plasma in a molybdate reactive form and is not bound to protein or any other substance of high molecular weight. Ingested monomeric silicic acid rapidly penetrates the intestinal wall and becomes distributed throughout the whole extra-cellular fluid. It enters the blood corpuscles at a slower rate (Baumann, 1960). So yes, you do need silicon in your diet--but only a tiny bit. Silicon is classed as a trace element, "daily value unknown", by the FDA, and it's found in most multivitamin supplements--usually as silicic acid or orthosilicic acid, since silica is not digestible. So if your "silica" supplement is anything other than silicic or orthosilicic acid, then you're wasting your money. And a regular multivitamin will take care of your silicon needs just fine. You don't need to spend extra money on extra "silica" supplements.

If you don't believe me, how about this paragraph from the above link?
Silica dust was administered intragastrically to rabbits and dogs leading to a rise in urinary silica output without significant variation in blood silica levels. Considerable absorption took place with peak excretion in dogs occurring between four to eight hours after administration. There appears to be little retention in any organ of the body even if animals ingest large amounts of silicates in their food.
See? They fed silica dust to rabbits and dogs. There was no significant rise in their blood silica levels, and finally the rabbits and dogs just peed all that silica right out the other end. (I will note that they don't say what kind of silicate dust they fed to them--apparently it was a kind that was capable of being broken down by stomach acids and sent into the bloodstream, since that's what the kidneys do, is filter the bloodstream.)

And the next paragraph says:
Intragastric 5% silicic acid administered to dogs leads to considerable absorption and urinary excretion, peak excretion occurring between three to eight hours after dosing. I.v. infusion of neutralized sodium silicate (1 mg/ml) in dogs leads to rapid urinary elimination of about 50% of the dose (King et al., 1933).
If you want the rabbits and dogs to retain the silicon, you have to give them either silicic acid to drink, or sodium silicate through an IV tube, and even then, they pee half of it right out again.


To sum up: Mammals don't need that much silicon. It's a trace element, and any excess is merely excreted. If you're spending money on silica supplements, you're literally pissing your money away.

[Kumar]

Goshawk,

Well explained. I do appreciate & CONGRATULATE for your attentions. I think chemical formula & chemical reactions of silicic acid & silica are in same line. Just see;

http://chinatrona.com/brocher/english/msds/silical%20gel.htm

Skin(epidermis), hair & nails are dead cells & all these contain silica/silicon. If it is not present in & around cells then how it appears in dead cells as Skin(epidermis), hair & nails?

I discussed y/day with one senier cancer research scientist about the possibility of presence of silica in the cells or in cancer genes due to its transparency & inertness. He become bit entusiastic & told it looks that this aspect it not yet considered & might be possible. He told that some special procedure is to be followed to deal with this transparency & inertness and find out this possibilty which he will keep in his mind for checking this aspect in future. However, he also told that they are using some container made from plastic instead of glass slides as they have to keep cells alive for research purpose. However, glass slides are still used for diagnosis purpose.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm going to ad hom, but can you find information similar to a brochure from the commercial site on a government run health site?

Thanking you in advance...

[Zep]

Goshawk, you have been extraordinarily patient and overly helpful with Kumar, but I do hope you can see that he is either trolling or his brain is merely a short audio-tape looping forever. He should really have been made to go find all this stuff you found by himself, all of it excellent work.

I do hope you can also see that, after telling him something umpteen times, and in a number of different ways, and with lots of supporting evidence, he still does not (or perhaps chooses not) to absorb your data. You can see from his last post that he is basically ignoring you and your work. I suggest you no longer do the work from now on - it's obviously wasted effort, which is very sad to see.
Kumar: I discussed y/day with one senier cancer research scientist about the possibility of presence of silica in the cells or in cancer genes due to its transparency & inertness. He become bit entusiastic & told it looks that this aspect it not yet considered & might be possible. He told that some special procedure is to be followed to deal with this transparency & inertness and find out this possibilty which he will keep in his mind for checking this aspect in future. However, he also told that they are using some container made from plastic instead of glass slides as they have to keep cells alive for research purpose. However, glass slides are still used for diagnosis purpose.
Kumar, can you please name the "senior cancer research scientist" and exactly where he works and his medical speciality?

[BillyJoe]

I think we better distinguish between ORGANIC and INORGANIC silicon.

Kumar,

Originally posted by Kumar
Silica/mica is the part of protiens in or around the cells. It may be present as mica/transparent material in protiens in some limited quantity. In the above quote from your first post you are referring to INORGANIC silicon (this is clear because of your reference to mica). But you are talking about it as if it is ORGANIC silicon (part of protiens in or around the cells)

Originally posted by Kumar
Skin, hair & nails are dead cells & all these contain silica/silicon. If it is not present in & around cells then how it appears in dead cells as Skin, hair & nails? In the above quote from your most recent post you are talking about ORGANIC silicon.

I think the confusion lies in the word "silica", which is used by you and the websites you reference, to refer to both the organic and inorganic forms of silicon. Most of the sites describe the properties of ORGANIC silicon but are trying to sell you INORGANIC silicon

BillyJoe.

[Zep]

BJ, Kumar is confusing silicon, the chemical element, with silica, the rock component. I pointed this out up front, and Goshawk gave him a long and detailed explanation about this later - but it all fell on deaf ears.

Let's just let Kumar respond to OUR requests for a change, shall we?

[BillyJoe]

Zep,

Originally posted by Zep
BJ, Kumar is confusing silicon, the chemical element, with silica, the rock component. Yes, I understand. I was just trying to explain why he has them confused - because most websites use the words "silica" and "silicon" interchangeably. That's why I thought perhaps we should distinguish "organic silicon" from "inorganic silicon".

Originally posted by Zep
Let's just let Kumar respond to OUR requests for a change, shall we? Now you are joking. :D

BillyJoe

[Kumar]

Kumar, can you please name the "senior cancer research scientist" and exactly where he works and his medical speciality?Zep,
He is head of one deptt, of one Cancer Research Institue.
I think all should discuss in the way as Goshawk is discussing to get some materialistic gains. Do not go after words, but go after the meaning wheter it is Silicon, Silica, (Organic or Inorganic), Silicic acid, Mica, Glass or some other form of Silicon. The main idea is that whether it can effect the cells in any form or not to be the cause of cancer since it is having some peculier properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells.

[BillyJoe]

Kumar,

Originally posted by Kumar
He is head of one deptt, of one Cancer Research Institue. Which department of which Cancer Research Institute?

Originally posted by Kumar
Do not go after words, but go after the meaning wheter it is Silicon, Silica, (Organic or Inorganic), Silicic acid, Mica, Glass or some other form of Silicon. The main idea is that whether it can effect the cells in any form or not to be the cause of cancer since it is having some peculier properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells. In other words, you do not wish to admit your error. ;)

BillyJoe

[Zep]

Kumar,Originally posted by Kumar
He is head of one deptt, of one Cancer Research Institue.Which department of which Cancer Research Institute?Thank you, BJ! My question exactly, Kumar. Who is this research scientist and where does he work?

[Kumar]

In other words, you do not wish to admit your error.
BJ,

Which error? Although it is not a error, but even if we found no role of silica etc. then also no error because I assumed & not yet become Noble Prize winner. Please contribute materialisticly like Goshawk.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm going to ad hom, but can you find information similar to a brochure from the commercial site on a government run health site?

Thanking you in advance...

Kumar. Any chance you can address my problem with your cited "source?"

[Kumar]

I'm going to ad hom, but can you find information similar to a brochure from the commercial site on a government run health site? UnrepentantSinner,

Sorry, I could not understand that what you mean to say. Pls explain in simple language.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kumar
UnrepentantSinner,

Sorry, I could not understand that what you mean to say. Pls explain in simple language.

I can't believe I'm falling for this BS.

Look... http://chinatrona.com/brocher/engli...lical%20gel.htm is a commercial site. They want to sell you their product.

Do you have a link supporting your claim that comes from a legitmate (and preferrably western) source?

My contention is that you do not and I am wasting my time asking for evidence on your continued wilfull ignorance regarding silica/silicon, but I would just like you to give evidence supporting your contention from a single non-commercial source. Any governmental health agency will do.

[Kumar]

UnrepentantSinner,

You can find silicon in humans at this site;

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/biol.html

[geni]

Originally posted by Kumar
UnrepentantSinner,

You can find silicon in humans at this site;

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/biol.html

As has already been explained to you this silicone is in the form of silicic acid and not elemental silicon or silica.

[Goshawk]

You can find silicon in humans at this site;
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/biol.html
Kumar:
I can do no better than to quote Geni:
As has already been explained to you this silicone [sic] is in the form of silicic acid and not elemental silicon or silica.

******************************

I think all should discuss in the way as Goshawk is discussing to get some materialistic gains. Do not go after words, but go after the meaning wheter it is Silicon, Silica, (Organic or Inorganic), Silicic acid, Mica, Glass or some other form of Silicon.
Kumar, in the world of Science, the "words" ARE the meaning. Science is a place of extreme exactness. In Science, you use an exact word to mean an exact, particular substance.

For example, sodium carbonate is a completely different chemical substance than sodium bicarbonate. Those two little letters--the "b" and the "i"--make a world of difference.

So when you come in here, to this Science website, and you talk about "silica", we assume that you are talking about the mineral silica, not the elemental silicon that is present in human bodies.

Now, if you want, we can discuss whether silicon prevents, cures, or causes cancer. There are many people who believe that various trace elements either cause or cure diseases--zinc, for one. And I'm sure we're all happy to debate with you whether the trace element silicon may cause or cure cancer.

But it has to be with the understanding that we are NOT talking about "silica". Silica and silicon are two completely different things. That different ending on the "silic--" makes a world of difference.

Also, "mica" and "glass" are two other scientific words that don't mean anything else. "Mica" has silicon in it; so does glass. But you can't use "mica" interchangeably with "silicon" or "silica". They mean completely different things. Also, you can't use "glass" to mean "silicon" or "silica", either.

But the question here is how the silicon that's in mica or glass could get into the human body's biochemistry system. The answer is, it couldn't. There is no physical way for the silicon in the form of silicates that are bound up in mica or glass to be digested and put into the human bloodstream as elemental silicon, or silicic acid. If you eat powdered glass, it doesn't digest and have its nutrients go into your bloodstream--actually, you probably die, from the hemorrhaging of your intestinal tract. And eating powdered mica, while it may not actually kill you, will still give you a tremendous bellyache, while still not being digested and having its nutrients go into your bloodstream.

So this discussion can't go any further until you clarify which substance you're talking about--silica or silicon.
The main idea is that whether it can effect the cells in any form or not to be the cause of cancer since it is having some peculier properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells.
Okay, now it's time for you to do some work. And I'm not going to talk to you any more if you don't come back with an answer to this: Explain the above statement in red.

1. Are you saying that silica--or silicon--has peculiar properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells? Which substance are you talking about here?

2. What peculiar properties does either silica or silicon have?

3. What peculiar properties do cancer cells have?

4. How do these peculiar properties match?
I discussed y/day with one senier cancer research scientist about the possibility of presence of silica in the cells or in cancer genes due to its transparency & inertness. He become bit entusiastic & told it looks that this aspect it not yet considered & might be possible. He told that some special procedure is to be followed to deal with this transparency & inertness and find out this possibilty which he will keep in his mind for checking this aspect in future.What I am hearing here is a busy man who does not want to be bothered any more by his friend's constant harping on the potential of "silica", and so he fobs him off with a polite, "Yes, that's very interesting, we'll have to look into that..."

I have an acquaintance who is the same way about the Apollo moon landing hoax, and after many years I have realized that there's no point in trying to address his issues, so I just tell him, "Gee, you know, you might be onto something there..." while tuning him out 99%.

[Zep]

Goshawk and US, I believe we have now reached the same point in our discussions with Kumar. And I'm now going to make a prediction or two!

Kumar will now...

...ignore our requests for him to do some research of his own on silica by demonstrating same with his subsequent questions.

...not answer your questions about differentiating between silicon/silica/etc.

...not confirm or deny that he thinks that the abrasive qualities of silica are responsible in some way for causing cancer, as stated previously.

...not provide the name and place of the "research scientist" he spoke with who might support his ideas, if that person does even exist.

...continue to trot out the same silly assertions about mica (or glass or silica or somesuch) in human cells causing cancer, and we can't see them because microscope slides are made of glass.

Let's see how my predicting skills go!

[Rolfe]

Can we assume....

What if....

Maybe it is the case that....

Hey, Kumar, maybe it is the case that I'm a three-toed albatross. What if hiccups were caused by a deficiency of lead? Can we assume that the speed of light is five miles per fortnight?

There's a good reason we're not discussing any of these topics (the silliest my tired brain could come up with after driving 450 miles, oops, better go change "location" on profile again). The good reason is that there isn't the tiniest little fact to support any of them.

You began this thread by sayingJust assume like that. Silica/mica is the part of protiens in or arond the cells. It may be present as mica/transparent material in protiens in some limited quantity. Its limited quantity changes due to cancer effect means become excess. ....Now, why should we "just assume" all this?

Please, can we have just one tiny little verifiable fact which makes this even a tiny bit more sensible than the idea that this is being typed by a three-toed albatross (instead of a very smart tabby cat :) ).

Kumar, have you ever looked down a microscope? Can you use one? Will you take this assurance from someone whose livelihood is made in a large part by looking down microscopes that this "assumption" is complete nonsense?

Why? Well, glass slides have to be very even and regular for microscope work. Irregularities or odd particles of glass show up very obviously as refractive artefacts - as would any such particles which got under the microscope by any other means.

Now, this is a fact, one which I can testify to from my own experience, and which anyone else can verify. If you won't accept this, please, what is the fact you can cite to support your assumption?

Rolfe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Zep
Goshawk and US, I believe we have now reached the same point in our discussions with Kumar. And I'm now going to make a prediction or two!

I'm not sure if we're dealing with a troll, a lunatic or a simpleton but my hunch is a combination of the latter two. This thread, much like his one on ancient Hindu "science" is reminiscent of discussions with Creationists. You know ones like:

C: "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution."

Me: (lengthy explanation of why that's untrue)

C: "But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics blah blah.."

Me: "Sigh."

[Zep]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm not sure if we're dealing with a troll, a lunatic or a simpleton but my hunch is a combination of the latter two. This thread, much like his one on ancient Hindu "science" is reminiscent of discussions with Creationists. You know ones like:

C: "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution."

Me: (lengthy explanation of why that's untrue)

C: "But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics blah blah.."

Me: "Sigh." I called troll some time back now. So far, there's been nothing presented to change my mind...

[Kumar]

Goshawk,

Before I give the awnser I want to ask one question. When we talk about Sodium in the body, we also talk about Common salt or Sodium Chloride or not? Silica & Silcic acid have same chemical composition as I mentioned previously.

[Zep]

Evasion...changing the subject...NOT answering...

[Kumar]

Another question: Why we ignore lemon/orange rind?

[BillyJoe]

.....and why we ignore the accidental ingestion of Granny Smith apple pips?

[Zep]

Spiralling away from us now...

Soon to reach an eccentric orbit over the poles...

Kumar, will you provide any answers to our questions before you leave us?

[Kumar]

Hope so provided discussions are really discussions.

[Goshawk]

Kumar, when I said I wasn't going to talk to you any more until you clarified that statement and answered my questions, I meant it. Neither of your two subsequent posts--Before I give the awnser I want to ask one question. When we talk about Sodium in the body, we also talk about Common salt or Sodium Chloride or not? Silica & Silcic acid have same chemical composition as I mentioned previously. --or--Another question: Why we ignore lemon/orange rind? --have anything at all to do with that statement, let alone be an attempt to clarify it.

Now.

I don't know if you care, but you've got several people here convinced you are nothing more than an attention-hungry troll. A Real Person who wanted a real discussion of this subject would be at least attempting to clarify that statement and answer my four questions as requested. A Troll, however, would be doing exactly what you are doing--practicing evasion, and changing the subject.

Well, if you want me to talk to you, you may not change the subject. If you don't come back with answers to my four questions, and thereby prove that you are not a troll, then I am going to quit this thread, leaving you to blather on uselessly to yourself and your jeering audience of troll-hunters, and on my way out, I am going to buy a virtual beer for everyone else in this thread who has been insisting that you're a Troll and are not worthy of my time and attention.

So, put up or shut up.

[Kumar]

Goshawk,

You have done lot of internet search. But I think unless a person actually do research, a scientist can only check this possibility which I am trying. Howecer if you insist I give you my assumptions againt your questions as under:-

1. Are you saying that silica--or silicon--has peculiar properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells? Which substance are you talking about here?

I am thinking of Silica or Silicic acid. Silicon, a vital element of health, occurs in its natural state as Silicic Acid or as Silica, and plays an important metabolic role in the formation of collagen and all types of connective tissue in the body. It is found in all tissues and organs of the body including the skin, hair, nail, teeth, bones, tendons, and ligaments.

2. What peculiar properties does either silica or silicon have?

Silica is a transparent substance. It has got semiconducting, inert & one kind of insulating properties.

3. What peculiar properties do cancer cells have?

Independent, inert, non reactive to body signals so multiply out of control.

4. How do these peculiar properties match?

Transparent so probably invisible. Inert so independant. Semiconducting/insulating so non reactive & out of control.

Another question: Why we ignore lemon/orange rind? Why you quoted this another question, it is not addressed to you.

I think it may be bit clear to you & will keep you within control.

---------

Thanks all.

[Rolfe]

Kumar, why are you asking this question? Do you have one single little FACT to suggest that there's any sort of connection between silicon/silicone/silica in or on cells, and any sort of cancer?

Unless you can tell us this, we might as well be discussing the possibility of the moon being made of green cheese.

Edited to add: If Kumar won't even answer this simple question, I think there's no doubt he's a troll.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hmmmm. Since posting the above, I stupidly skimmed through the whole of the "prove the earth is round" thread. I am now in no doubt that Kumar is a troll.

When he first appeared with that wet post about his diabetic friend (who was 10 years old and then became 50 years old), I thought he was genuinely seeking help and information. I was also very worried about his friend, who seemed to be risking serious complications by altering his insulin dosage without medical advice. However, both BillyJoe and I long since gave up on that thread, as it was impossible to reason with Kumar, and I note that several other people seem also to have given up and the thread is unattended despite Kumar himself bumping it every day or two.

Then of course there was the homoeopathy thread. After his own attempt to start one was scotched, he muscled in on one started by someone else, and off he went. I participated in "the world v. Steve Grenard" on homoeopathy and felt like I was banging my head on a brick wall, but that was a Sunday picnic compared to Kumar. One minute he's so convinced these content-free remedies have an effect that he accepts the Randi challenge, the next he decides that God only reveals the truth to those who are worthy and if you go after the money you're not worthy. One minute he is appealing to scientists to test his assertions, the next he's declaring that truth is entirely subjective and nothing can be known.

The "basis of ancient science" thread - well, go read for yourself. Anything the ancient Hindus wrote can't have been cracking good fiction, oh no, they must have known about the atomic bomb.

But it is the round earth thread which so clearly demonstrates his trollishness. I don't actually think he does think the earth is flat. He's simply stringing the argument along by refusing to accept any proof shown to him in order to use it as an analogy for his homoeopathy argument - somehow, the inability of anyone to convince him that the earth is spherical proves that all anti-homoeopathy arguments are just as invalid. (Maybe that should be, since we know the earth is a sphere but he won't accept our arguments, then now we know how he feels, because he knows in just the same way that homoeopathy works. I think. Maybe.)

He's clearly not quite the innocent savage he would like us to take him for. Not only can he operate a computer (evidently), but he can follow arguments well enough to find flaws if there are any there, and he can follow some mathematical arguments.

I say only a troll would continue to insist that the earth is flat given the amount of evidence he's been given; only a troll would insist that homoeopathic preparations have any effect given the amount of evidence that says they do nothing but amuse the patient; only a troll would refuse to accept that the ancient Hindus coudn't have been writing fiction; only a troll would ignore the amount of expert knowledge about diabetes he was given; and only a troll would come right out of left field and invite us all to discuss the relationship between cancer and silica without even one single supposed fact to base this assertion on.

Shooo, troll.

Rolfe.

[Goshawk]

1. Are you saying that silica--or silicon--has peculiar properties matching with the behaviour of cancer cells? Which substance are you talking about here?
I am thinking of Silica or Silicic acid.
This does not answer my question. My question was, "Which are you talking about--silica, OR silicon." Your answer apparently is, "Both." This is not a valid or useful answer. As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you in this thread, there is no point in discussing silica the mineral or rock as it relates to the human body. Therefore, this answer--"Both"--is nonsensical. You reveal the extent of your obsession with over-the-counter silica supplements here. You are absolutely determined to cling to your position that silica (and I DO NOT MEAN "silicon") is good for you. Fine. Since you go on to use the term "silica", and since you didn't see fit to clarify this for me, I'm going to assume that we're talking about the mineral "silica" from now on.

2. What peculiar properties does either silica or silicon have?
Silica is a transparent substance. It has got semiconducting, inert & one kind of insulating properties. Okay, granted, silica can be a semiconductor, and have insulating properties, but what has that got do to with cancer cells? Cancer cells do not require electrical conductivity or insulation.

And as for you touting "inert" to me as one of silica's properties--well, I'd laugh, but at least it shows you've been paying attention. Yes, Kumar, you FINALLY got one right--silica is indeed inert. It only took two pages. :rolleyes:

However, the fact that it's INERT means that it CAN'T AFFECT CANCER CELLS. Duh. :rolleyes:

Got it now?

3. What peculiar properties do cancer cells have?

Independent, inert, non reactive to body signals so multiply out of control.
1. It makes no sense to describe cancer cells as "independent". Do you mean "out of control"?

2. Cancer cells are certainly not "inert". They are like any other living cells--they take in nutrients, they excrete waste products. Rocks are inert--they don't eat, they don't excrete.

3. Yes, it's fair to say that cancer cells are non-reactive to the body's signals and so they multiply out of control. It's kind of a stretch, biologically speaking, but it's fair enough, given the overall tenor of this thread. :rolleyes:

4. How do these peculiar properties match?

Transparent
Yes, some forms of silica, like glass and mica, are transparent or translucent.. And cancer cells under the microscope are translucent.
Cancer cells are not so probably invisible.
If cancer cells were invisible, we wouldn't be able to see them under the microscope. Duh. :rolleyes:
Semiconducting/insulating so non reactive & out of control.
I understand the point you're trying to make here. You're saying, "Silica is like cancer cells because they are both non-reactive." However, the fact that silica is NON-REACTIVE (your word, remember, not mine) proves that it can't affect cancer cells. Duh. :rolleyes: "Non-reactive" means "inert". Non-reactive things don't do anything, they just sit there.

And cancer cells are "non-reactive" in the body in a different sort of way than silica is "non-reactive". Cancer cells are ignoring the body's signals, but the body isn't wired to give silica any signals, so the silica isn't ignoring the body's signals in the first place. So the analogy is a poor one.

Comparing the "non-reactiveness" of silica to the "non-reactiveness" of cancer cells is like saying, "That statue of President Jefferson is ignoring me the same way my teenage son is ignoring me." Your teenage son ignores you in a totally different way than a statue of Jefferson ignores you. The analogy does not hold.

So your list of "similarities" goes like this:
Silica: Transparent/translucent, inert, non-reactive, semiconducter, insulating.

Cancer cells: Transparent/translucent, independent, inert, non-reactive, out of control.
The only thing that matches up in these two lists is "inert" and "non-reactive". And cancer cells are most definitely NOT inert.

So we subtract "inert" and "independent" from your cancer cell list (until you explain what you meant by "independent", and if you meant "out of control", there's no sense having it twice), and then it reads like this:
Silica: Transparent/translucent, inert, non-reactive, semiconducter, insulating.

Cancer cells: Transparent/translucent, non-reactive, out of control.

So, is that your whole argument--that because both silica and cancer cells are translucent/transparent, and because they are "non-reactive" in the body, that silica should somehow either prevent, cure, or cause cancer?



Question: How does something that you've admitted is "inert" and "non-reactive" affect the body's biochemistry in any way whatsoever? Gold is inert and non-reactive, too--why aren't you suggesting that gold can prevent, cure, or cause cancer? And if you pound it thin enough, gold is translucent, too.

http://www.gold.org/discover/sci_indu/properties/
In the annealed state it can be hammered cold into a translucent wafer 0.000013 cm thick. So why isn't "gold" being touted as the new miracle cure? Answer--because it's expensive, and mica is cheap.


Question: How does the fact that both silica and cancer cells are transparent/translucent have anything to do with silica's supposed ability to affect cancer cells? What's the physical mechanism you're suggesting? Or is this just the homeopathic "law of similars" rearing its ugly head again? "If they look alike, then it MUST work..."

[fishbob]

Much of the sand laying around the beaches of the world is ground up bits of quartz - silica sand.

A common expression in this part of the world, usually said to someone annoying or useless, is "go pound sand up your a$%".

This expression is not used to wish good health on the annoying or useless person. Prevention of cancer is not the intent.

[Kumar]

." Your answer apparently is, "Both."

Hello Goshwak,

Thanks for good auditing. I make it clear that I am assuming Silica & silicic acid not silicon & which we ingest in organic form i.e.derived from organic source.

Okay, granted, silica can be a semiconductor, and have insulating properties, but what has that got do to with cancer cells? Cancer cells do not require electrical conductivity or insulation.

How then body passes the signals to the normal cells to remain in control.

However, the fact that it's INERT means that it CAN'T AFFECT CANCER CELLS. Duh.

Inert means difficult to chemical reaction. But it does not mean it can not react or it can not form a layer on cancer cells or cancer genes.


1. It makes no sense to describe cancer cells as "independent". Do you mean "out of control"?2. Cancer cells are certainly not "inert". They are like any other living cells--they take in nutrients, they excrete waste products. Rocks are inert--they don't eat, they don't excrete.


They are independent means they works independently & perform all their functions with out the body control.



Yes, some forms of silica, like glass and mica, are transparent or translucent.. And cancer cells under the microscope are translucent.
If cancer cells were invisible, we wouldn't be able to see them under the microscope. Duh.

I mentioned>Transparent so probably invisible< I meant silica coating on cell/genes is there then that will be transparent so probably invisible. Cancer cells are visible.


"Non-reactive" means "inert". Non-reactive things don't do anything, they just sit there.

As I explained above inert here means not absolutely inert. Carbon atom also has 4 valency still react with other body substances. Furthur as you said, they just sit there, means deposited as a layer and may cause suffocating, insulating or semiconducting effects.

Cancer cells are ignoring the body's signals, but the body isn't wired to give silica any signals, so the silica isn't ignoring the body's signals in the first place. So the analogy is a poor one.

As asked, how then body passes the signals to each cells?


So your list of "similarities" goes like this:
Silica: Transparent/translucent, inert, non-reactive, semiconducter, insulating.

Cancer cells: Transparent/translucent, independent, inert, non-reactive, out of control.

Well mentioned. Keep it as it is.

So, is that your whole argument--that because both silica and cancer cells are translucent/transparent, and because they are "non-reactive" in the body, that silica should somehow either prevent, cure, or cause cancer?

No, but it can be like this-- That because silica is transparent, inert(specifically not absolutely), abrasive, semiconducting & insulating so may either prevent, cure or cause cancer by making cancer cells independant & non reactive to body signals.

Question: How does something that you've admitted is "inert" and "non-reactive" affect the body's biochemistry in any way whatsoever? Gold is inert and non-reactive, too--why aren't you suggesting that gold can prevent, cure, or cause cancer? And if you pound it thin enough, gold is translucent, too.

Gold is not non reactive becuse it is a good conductor & not absolutely transparent. Moreover its abundance is least.


because it's expensive, and mica is cheap.

There is no relavance of expensive & cheap. But there can be a relevance in their abundances i.e. maximum & least.


Question: How does the fact that both silica and cancer cells are transparent/translucent have anything to do with silica's supposed ability to affect cancer cells? What's the physical mechanism you're suggesting? Or is this just the homeopathic "law of similars" rearing its ugly head again? "If they look alike, then it MUST work..."

Transparency is not related to the effect on cancer cells but can be related to its visibility under microscope. I personally feels that only homeopathic/biochemic principals can handle the incurable disease being minute & deep in nature.

[Goshawk]

Cancer cells do not require electrical conductivity or insulation.

How then body passes the signals to the normal cells to remain in control.
Body cells communicate with each other using enzymes and other chemicals. Not electricity. Therefore body cells do not need to have any sensitivity to electricity, either through being able to transmit electricity, or through being shielded from electricity.

Website explaining how body cells communicate.

http://www.cell-biology.com/cellcom.html
Cells in a multicellular organism must communicate with one another in order to direct and regulate growth, development and organization. Animal cells communicate by secreting chemicals that signal to distant cells, display cell surface chemicals that influence other cells in direct physical contact, and communicate directly via porous cellular junctions called gap junctions...[more]Notice how "electricity" is not mentioned.

So, silica is a semi-conductor and has insulating properties; cancer cells are not semi-conductors and do not have insulating properties. The two things are not "like" each other at all. Silica is not like cancer cells.

Inert means difficult to chemical reaction. But it does not mean it can not react or it can not form a layer on cancer cells or cancer genes.No, Kumar, "inert" DOES mean it cannot react. "Inert" means it doesn't do anything at all. It can't form a layer on cancer cells. It certainly can't form a layer on cancer genes. "Inert" means it just lays there. Silica doesn't react to anything at all. As someone already asked you, if silica isn't inert/non-reactive, then how come they can package acids in glass bottles? If silica isn't inert, the acids would dissolve the glass.

They are independent means they works independently & perform all their functions with out the body control.
Okay, so cancer cells work independently in the body--but how does that make them similar to silica? Silica doesn't work independently in the body--it doesn't "work" in the body at all. It isn't digestible. It just shoots right through.

Transparent so probably invisible< I meant silica coating on cell/genes is there then that will be transparent so probably invisible. There is no silica coating on human cells or genes. Silica is a mineral, and does not exist in the human body. Now, silicon in the form of silicic acid may exist in human cells, but since you refused to clarify whether you were talking about silica the mineral or silicon the element as silicic acid, I decided to assume you were talking about silica the mineral. And there is no silica the mineral on the outside of human cells.

The outside part of a human cell, called the "cell membrane", is made up of proteins and lipids, which is a fancy (extremely oversimplifying here) word for "fats".

Diagram. See the picture? No silica. Just proteins and fats. Silica is a rock; it does not coat human cells or genes.
http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/cb/membranes/structure.html

Now, yes, there may be SILICON in the cells or in the genes, in the form of silicic acid (frankly I'm getting tired of looking stuff up for you), but how does the presence of silicic acid in the cells or genes--which is SUPPOSED to be there, as it is a normal body component--prove anything?

As I explained above inert here means not absolutely inert. No, dear, as I explained above, "inert" means "inert". Always "inert". "Inert" every time. 100% totally absolutely "inert". "Inert" is a scientific term that means very specifically "always inert". You may not come into this science website and use the word "inert" however YOU want to. Here at JREF "inert" means "always inert".

Carbon atom also has 4 valency still react with other body substances.
Yes, a carbon atom can COMBINE (not "react") with other atoms to form molecules. But--guess what? Carbon itself, say, as powdered charcoal, is also "inert", "non-reactive". If you swallow powdered charcoal, the carbon does not set up a chemical reaction within your body, combining with any other loose atoms it may find there and turning into, say, a carbohydrate. If that were true, then we could all just eat charcoal and have our bodies manufacture carbohydrates for us.

So, no, you are quite wrong--carbon does not react with other body substances. The chemical reactions that take place in the body during digestion and other processes use enzymes to do it, not merely combining one kind of atom with another kind of atom, as though your stomach were a test tube in chemistry class.
Furthur as you said, they just sit there, means deposited as a layer and may cause suffocating, insulating or semiconducting effects.No, "just sit there" means they don't react chemically with anything--it does NOT mean they form a layer. I was speaking metaphorically. I should have known better.

As I've mentioned REPEATEDLY, silica passes through the digestive tract essentially unchanged and comes out the other end as feces. It most certainly does NOT form a layer anywhere in the body, and CERTAINLY not on cancer cells, "suffocating" them or "insulating" them.
As asked, how then body passes the signals to each cells?See link above.
That because silica is transparent, inert(specifically not absolutely), abrasive, semiconducting & insulating so may either prevent, cure or cause cancer by making cancer cells independant & non reactive to body signals.
So what mechanism are you suggesting for this? How does silica accomplish this? Tell me exactly how it does it--don't tell me anymore, just, "It does." Tell me HOW it does.

How does silica's transparency affect human cells?
How does silica's inert quality affect human cells?
How does silica's abrasive quality affect human cells?
How does silica's semi-conducting properties affect human cells?
How does silica's insulating properties affect human cells?

It's not enough to merely repeat, "It affects them by making the cancer cells independent and non-reactive to body signals." Tell me exactly HOW it does this.
Gold is not non reactive becuse it is a good conductor & not absolutely transparent. No, you're completely wrong. Gold IS non-reactive. Gold does not react to anything but the very strongest, most corrosive acids. That's why people make JEWELRY out of it, Kumar. Because it's non-reactive, it won't turn green on your finger.

And you may not say something like, "Gold is not non-reactive because it is a good conductor." Whether or not a substance is a good conductor has NOTHING TO DO with whether it's non-reactive or not.

Also, you may not say something like, "Gold is not non-reactive because it is not absolutely transparent." Whether or not a substance is absolutely transparent has NOTHING TO DO with whether it's non-reactive or not.
There is no relavance of expensive & cheap.Oh, yes, there is. The relevance is that it explains why your homeopathic websites have latched onto it as the Next Big Thing.
Transparency is not related to the effect on cancer cells but can be related to its visibility under microscope. I personally feels that only homeopathic/biochemic principals can handle the incurable disease being minute & deep in nature.This does not answer my question.
I make it clear thay I am assuming Silica & silicic acid not silicon & which we ingest in organic form i.e.derived from organic source.
Kumar, you make NOTHING clear at all. You merely repeat your obfuscations.

Now, for the LAST time:

Silica and silicic acid are two different things. They are not the same thing.

You.

MAY.

NOT.

"ASSUME"

...both silica AND silicic acid.

You must assume

---> EITHER <---

silica

---> OR <---

silicic acid.

Silica is an indigestible inorganic mineral. It is not found within the human body.

Silicic acid is the organic form in which the element silicon is found within the human body.

As soon as you have clarified which you are talking about--EITHER the mineral silica, OR silicic acid--then we will continue this discussion.

[starts looking through billfold for money to pay the bartender]

Do you guys think fifty will do it?

[Zep]

I made these predictions a few days ago. Let's see how I went:Originally posted by Zep
Goshawk and US, I believe we have now reached the same point in our discussions with Kumar. And I'm now going to make a prediction or two!

Kumar will now...

...ignore our requests for him to do some research of his own on silica by demonstrating same with his subsequent questions.

TICK!

...not answer your questions about differentiating between silicon/silica/etc.

Half-tick. He answered, but still demonstrated total lack of understanding.

...not confirm or deny that he thinks that the abrasive qualities of silica are responsible in some way for causing cancer, as stated previously.

One wrong. He HAS just done this - trotted out the "invisible mica causes cancer by abrasion" theory again.

...not provide the name and place of the "research scientist" he spoke with who might support his ideas, if that person does even exist.

TICK!

...continue to trot out the same silly assertions about mica (or glass or silica or somesuch) in human cells causing cancer, and we can't see them because microscope slides are made of glass.

TICK!

Let's see how my predicting skills go! Well well! Rectum I just might try for the $1M myself on that basis...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Do you guys think fifty will do it? Naw, let's stay on for the home-groan stand-up. They say he's real funny... I'll buy you another drink soon anyway.

(spelling deliberate - it's a pun...)

[Kumar]

Goshawk,

Thanks for trying so hard. Btw, just tell me if you are a research scientist,doctor in this field & if you have access to the cancer labs? Since these are assumptions, I try to reply as under:-

Body cells communicate with each other using enzymes and other chemicals. Not electricity. Therefore body cells do not need to have any sensitivity to electricity, either through being able to transmit electricity, or through being shielded from electricity.

What you are mentioning is a cascading effect. Enzymes & other chemicals may also need conduction in & out of cells. The signals in non cancer stage are as instruction to weak cell to commit sucide. Do you feel that a normal cell can be capable to create & give this type of instructions to the other touching cell.


No, Kumar, "inert" DOES mean it cannot react. "Inert" means it doesn't do anything at all. It can't form a layer on cancer cells. It certainly can't form a layer on cancer genes. "Inert" means it just lays there. Silica doesn't react to anything at all.

Several Carcinogens which are said to be the reson for developing the cancer by a process i.e. carcinogenesis. Silica is also one of them. Several others may be inert substances to body cells. How do they then effect body cells to become cancer cells.
Okay, so cancer cells work independently in the body--but how does that make them similar to silica? Silica doesn't work independently in the body--it doesn't "work" in the body at all. It isn't digestible. It just shoots right through.

I never mentioned that cancer cells are similar to silica but they can possess one property of silica i.e. to seprate from the physical contact of touching cells, like sand particles differanciated from clay particles. The active form of silicon in body should be 'Silicic acid' & inactive(deposits) form as silica.

There is no silica coating on human cells or genes.

Since it is a mystery that how cancer cells become out of control, we should not accept your above quote till it is actually researched i.e. seen specifically under suitable microcope & tested accordingly.

Yes, a carbon atom can COMBINE (not "react") with other atoms to form molecules.

Ok, I accept this type of action by silicon>silicic acid>silica.

The chemical reactions that take place in the body during digestion and other processes use enzymes to do it, not merely combining one kind of atom with another kind of atom..]/b]

If combining one kind of atom with other is not a chemical reaction?


[b]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kumar: That because silica is transparent, inert(specifically not absolutely), abrasive, semiconducting & insulating so may either prevent, cure or cause cancer by making cancer cells independant & non reactive to body signals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what mechanism are you suggesting for this? How does silica accomplish this? Tell me exactly how it does it--don't tell me anymore, just, "It does." Tell me HOW it does.

That's what I am trying to know. It may be alike carcinomas changes normal cells to cancer cells.



How does silica's transparency affect human cells?

As I mentioned may be due to misjudgement/oversight under microscope.

How does silica's inert quality affect human cells?

Possibily, make them independent like clay particles to sand particles.

How does silica's abrasive quality affect human cells?

Possibily, corrects by scratching/cutting the deposited silica or other substances. It may also deprive the weak cells from the water content in them by tearing their membrane.

How does silica's semi-conducting properties affect human cells?

How does silica's insulating properties affect human cells?

That's what I am trying to find/know. As on date, I just assume whatever I allready mentioned here.

That's why people make JEWELRY out of it, Kumar. Because it's non-reactive, it won't turn green on your finger.

It is a point to look into it deeply. I will think of. Thanks. But it is not related to cancer absolutely.

Silica and silicic acid are two different things. They are not the same thing...

You must assume

---> EITHER <---

silica

---> OR <---

silicic acid.

When specifically asked I mentioned Silica/Silicic acid. It means both i.e active form is silicic acid & inactive(deposited) form is silica. I can't confirm but may be possible silicon in ionic form also work in body. Body can be capable of converting silicon ion>>silicic acid>>silica. & vive versa, Eg; common salt ,NaCl when taken orally can be converted in Sodium ions, Hydrocloric acid, Nacl & other forms.

Silica is an indigestible inorganic mineral. It is not found within the human body.

Silicic acid is the organic form in which the element silicon is found within the human body.

But body can concert silicic acid to silica. What do you think in what form it is present in dead portion of nails.

Best wishes.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Kumar, why are you asking this question? Do you have one single little FACT to suggest that there's any sort of connection between silicon/silicone/silica in or on cells, and any sort of cancer?
Just checking. Any chance of an answer to this any time soon?

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Hey, Goshawk! You gotta come in here and listen to this guy! He's a laugh a minute! No, really!

Kumar, of the many, many outstanding questions you have not yet answered, can you please answer this one: Tell us the name and work location of the "research scientist" whom you said thought you had a good idea about this cancer theory of yours? That can't be a hard question, can it?

And you do know that I will ask all the other outstanding questions again until you answer them sensibly and stop evading them?

And you do know that I can and will continue to ask them again and again until you answer them sensibly?

[Kumar]

Hi Rolfe, Zep,

Just read my previous postings.

[MoeFaux]

You know, I'm just irked because he never answered whether or not he wanted the silica gel packets from my shoe boxes.

Well they're gone now! You hear? I couldn't wait for you to answer me any longer and I threw them out.
I hope you're sorry.

[fsol]

blimey, silica and gold mentioned in relation to cancer and there's me remembering skimming through this link.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994341

The tiny silica particles are plated with gold and heat up when near infrared light (NIR) is shone on them. This kills the cancer cells.

The Rice University team created nanoparticles from a non-conducting core of silica with a diameter of 110 nanometres and a 10 nm thick metal shell. Gold was used because it is biologically inert.

Warming the tumour cells to only about 55°C is enough to kill them, because it changes the permeability of the cell membrane. "Leakiness is what causes the cell to die," West explains. "Cells normally have to have a very tightly controlled barrier between the inside of the cells and the fluid surrounding them. If you disrupt that, you create huge pores which lets everything across, significantly changing the composition of the fluid inside - it ends up very toxic."

what are the odds of that eh?

[Kumar]

Hello fsol,

Thanks for the useful information. Actually, silica (except direct inhaling of its dust) in moleculer form(naturally shedded particles) is considered auspicious eg;
crystals, gemstones, unpolished stones in holy places,aloe vera,pets, chuteny/some herbal/homeopathic medicines grindings, pickles in china clay or glass containers, Aura, energy healings & so many, all are related to silica.

Warming the tumour cells to only about 55°C is enough to kill them, because it changes the permeability of the cell membrane. This is most important information. Silicon is a semiconductor i.e. insulator at lower temp. but conductor at higher temp.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

Some intresting reading at;

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/PreventCancer/p43.htm#1

[Goshawk]

Kumar, I got as far as this--I never mentioned that cancer cells are similar to silica --and this----There is no silica coating on human cells or genes.

Since it is a mystery that how cancer cells become out of control, we should not accept your above quote till it is actually researched.--and this--How does silica's transparency affect human cells?

As I mentioned may be due to misjudgement/oversight under microscope.--and then I quit. I told you that there's a limit to how much beating my head against a brick wall I'm willing to do. You seem completely unwilling to assimilate ANY of the information that I'm giving you. I give you "Science"; you give me ill-informed twaddle, and idiocies like, "I never said cancer cells are similar to silica."

Game's over.






Bartender...? Set 'em up. And--no beer for the one in the back there--yeah, that's him, the ugly one, the one under the bridge. Bring him a Shirley Temple.











http://www.sallys-place.com/images/beverages/beer/beers.jpg




















http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/news/photos/shirley%20temple.jpg

[MRC_Hans]

Kumar:
This is most important information. Silicon is a semiconductor i.e. insulator at lower temp. but conductor at higher temp.

No, that is not the characteristic of a semiconductor. Pure crystalline Si is an insulator. When doped in various ways, it can become conductive. Dependence on temperature varies with conditions.

You are acting like a kid in a toy-shop. You just run around grabbing at everything that is colorful or shines.

You obviously have no idea about how research is done. For instance, do you really, really believe that cancer cells have only been studied with optical microscopes? :rolleyes:

Hans

[Kumar]

--and then I quit. I told you that there's a limit to how much beating my head against a brick wall I'm willing to do.

Goshawk,

I don't justify any reson which can irritate you. Actually, this disease is like that only & therefore a mystery. People usually beat the head against a brick wall during the exercise, so can be irritated & limited. But if they can deal it softly, it can be opened in itself.

I can understand that your limit has come, so thanks & appreciate your replies.

Mr.Hans,

No, that is not the characteristic of a semiconductor. Pure crystalline Si is an insulator. When doped in various ways, it can become conductive. Dependence on temperature varies with conditions. Is it not a pulling the skin from the hair? However thanks for the remarks. Don't expect that any one can tell/know this mystery just in one or few shots.

Dict. definition of semiconductor: [n] a substance as germanium or silicon whose electrical conductivity is intermediate between that of a metal and an insulator; its conductivity increases with temperature and in the presence of impurities

Thanks for relieving me from this head beating disease.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Thanks for relieving me from this head beating disease. It's Maxwell.....





WATCH OUT!......










CLANG.....















you're dead.

[Zep]

fsol, I suspect Kumar has read a few of his favourite sites about "chelation" and "organic silica" and such, and they, in turn, mention research such as this in more reputable publications. However, and it is a HUGE however, they completely distort and re-arrange the descriptions and findings to make it come out they way they would LIKE it to. In some cases it is so blindingly mis-stated that it is not only the opposite of the reputable document, it is also absolute illogical rubbish.

This happens fairly frequently that I have seen personally - I have some similar old examples that another woo-woo trotted out that I researched. And you only have to have some sucker like Kumar to "believe" in your inane product and you are on a winner.

In other words, these websites are nothing more than marketing ploys for some useless or even dangerous chemical or other that has no medical value even slightly related to the claims. It's just an upgraded Nigerian-letter scam, really.

[Zep]

Kumar:

Will you continue to ignore our requests for you to do some research of your own on silicon / silicic acid / silica, and present them here?

Will you continue to asert that you think that the abrasive qualities of silica or the insulating properties of silica are responsible in some way for causing cancer cells to multiply because they "block body signals," as stated in your own posts previously? Even though you have been shown here conclusively that this is so unlikely as to be rubbish?

Will you continue to trot out the same silly assertions about there being mica (or glass or silica or somesuch) in human cells and we can't see it because "no-one has researched that" and microscope slides are made of glass? Even though we have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on this many times?

Will you provide the name and place of the "research scientist" you spoke with who supported your ideas, if that person does even exist?

[Zep]

Kumar: Actually, silica (except direct inhaling of its dust) in moleculer form(naturally shedded particles) is considered auspicious eg;
crystals, gemstones, unpolished stones in holy places,aloe vera,pets, chuteny/some herbal/homeopathic medicines grindings, pickles in china clay or glass containers, Aura, energy healings & so many, all are related to silica.<h1>Auspicious homeopathic CHUTNEY ???</h1>

That's a first...

:D :D :D

[BillyJoe]

CLANG!

[Rolfe]

:s2:

Rolfe.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Zep
<h1>Auspicious homeopathic CHUTNEY ???</h1>
Yeah, I saw that, too.

:big:

I also enjoyed the idea of pickles in glass jars somehow soaking up all that beneficial--or carcinogenic*-- silica.


http://www.toponemall.com/931zwvtsronljihecba.html
A preparation in use in the West Indies called Mandram, for weak digestion and loss of appetite, is made of thinly sliced and unskinned cucumbers, shallots, chives, or onions, lemon or lime juice, Madeira, and a few pods of bird pepper well mashed up in the liquids. It can be used as a chutney."Silica" is not mentioned as an ingredient, although it's possible that the Madeira, which comes in a glass bottle, would contribute some...



*Has anybody else noticed that he can't seem to decide whether "silica" causes cancer, or whether it's good for you? It seems to vary from day to day.

[jj]

Oh goodness.

Kumar, people have done chemical assays of human cells that would have long ago detected silica, mica, etc.

And there is none. There just is none.

Give that one up.

[DickK]

Originally posted by Zep
<h1>Auspicious homeopathic CHUTNEY ???</h1>

That's a first...

:D :D :D
oh man, don't, I have a chuckle condition, hehehe, hahaha,er, hehe, hahaha, HAHAHAHAHA, er,phew, er, hehehe, HAHAHAHAHAHA, pheeww...

[fishbob]

I don't justify any reson which can irritate you. Actually, this disease is like that only & therefore a mystery. People usually beat the head against a brick wall during the exercise, so can be irritated & limited. But if they can deal it softly, it can be opened in itself.
Obtuse, obscure, confusing, without meaning, opaque, and obfuscacious.

On backwards day, this one should be nominated for a language award.

[Rolfe]

I guess I've been relatively dim here, but it was only when re-reading an old thread that I came across this post by our very own Steve Grenard (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870115425&highlight=homeopathic+and+silica#post1870115425) which seems to explain a lot.Highly diluted solutions of silica are widely used in homeopathic medicine to treat lesions such as chronic wounds, ulcers, and abscesses. We tested the therapeutic effects of homeopathic dilutions of silica on induced chronic wounds. Holes were made in the ears of mice by dental wire, which then remained hanging from the ear to cause persistent mechanical irritation. In each experiment 3 or 4 groups of 10 mice each were treated by adding homeopathic dilutions of silica (10(-10), 10(-60), 10(-400)) and of saline (10(-10), respectively, to the drinking water of the mice for 4-20 days. The size of the wound holes was measured every second day (grades 0-4) and/or by an objective image analysis system. The results showed that in 7/11 experiments the ear holes of the silica-treated animals were significantly smaller (p less than 0.05-0.001) and healed faster than in those treated with saline. Also the therapeutic effect increased progressively with increase in dilution of the silica (10(-10) less than 10(-60) less than 10(-400)). These results show that homeopathic dilutions of silica (even well beyond Avogadro's number) clearly have a therapeutic effect on wound healing and that our experimental model for studying wound healing is a very useful tool for such studies.OK, with Kumar, everything does seem to trace back to a deep need to demonstrate that homoeopathy is effective, and an utter disregard for any and all of the mountains of evidence that it is delusional fraudulent pseudomedicine. (The article quoted was seriously shredded in later posts for very small sample numbers - this is the sort of study which gets automatically rejected from meta-analyses as being "poor quality". There are stacks more where that came from - in this particular case Israel, but in fact most of them are done by Indian researchers.)

Indian researchers? Hmm, Kumar?

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Kumar, were they feeding the experimental mice chutney, by any chance? You know, the auspicious homeopathic kind...

[UnrepentantSinner]

A preparation in use in the West Indies called Mandram, for weak digestion and loss of appetite, is made of thinly sliced and unskinned cucumbers, shallots, chives, or onions, lemon or lime juice, Madeira, and a few pods of bird pepper well mashed up in the liquids. It can be used as a chutney.

Slice the cukes a little thicker and it sounds like a tasty salad. Not sure about the medicial effects, but you have to work to screw up cucumber salad.

[MRC_Hans]

Rolfe:

Highly diluted solutions of silica are widely used in homeopathic medicine to treat lesions such as chronic wounds, ulcers, and abscesses. We tested the therapeutic effects of homeopathic dilutions of silica on induced chronic wounds. Holes were made in the ears of mice by dental wire, which then remained hanging from the ear to cause persistent mechanical irritation. In each experiment 3 or 4 groups of 10 mice each were treated by adding homeopathic dilutions of silica (10(-10), 10(-60), 10(-400)) and of saline (10(-10), respectively, to the drinking water of the mice for 4-20 days. The size of the wound holes was measured every second day (grades 0-4) and/or by an objective image analysis system. The results showed that in 7/11 experiments the ear holes of the silica-treated animals were significantly smaller (p less than 0.05-0.001) and healed faster than in those treated with saline. Also the therapeutic effect increased progressively with increase in dilution of the silica (10(-10) less than 10(-60) less than 10(-400)). These results show that homeopathic dilutions of silica (even well beyond Avogadro's number) clearly have a therapeutic effect on wound healing and that our experimental model for studying wound healing is a very useful tool for such studies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, with Kumar, everything does seem to trace back to a deep need to demonstrate that homoeopathy is effective, and an utter disregard for any and all of the mountains of evidence that it is delusional fraudulent pseudomedicine. (The article quoted was seriously shredded in later posts for very small sample numbers - this is the sort of study which gets automatically rejected from meta-analyses as being "poor quality". There are stacks more where that came from - in this particular case Israel, but in fact most of them are done by Indian researchers.)


Rolfe, thats funny. Sure the stastistics are shaky, but my foremost complaint about that report is that they kept the saline constant. Even if results are accepted, they could just as well be interpreted as an adverse effect of the saline solution.

A typical example of how difficult it can be to select a suitable placebo.

Also, of course, I see no sign of blinding......... :rolleyes:

Hans

[Zep]

I also see no signs of separating the animals, controlling their hygiene, other dietary or environmental factors, etc, etc. Just SO MUCH has not been explained that it is pretty much the same as testing them in a pet-shop!

And such a tiny sample - 11 mice! I suppose if they wanted REALLY biased results, they should have used just 3, and hoped like heck that the one that healed slowest was not a "silica subject". :)

[Kumar]

Several types of 'clapping'.

Just read;

http://www.abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Sil

http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/s/sil.htm

http://www.indiangyan.com/books/homeopathybooks/biochemic_treatment/twelve_tissue.shtml#SILICEA

I think there is no use of furthur discussions so 'Good Bye' in this topic.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Several types of 'clapping'.

Just read;

http://www.abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Sil

http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/s/sil.htm

http://www.indiangyan.com/books/homeopathybooks/biochemic_treatment/twelve_tissue.shtml#SILICEA

I think there is no use of furthur discussions so 'Good Bye' in this topic. Oh ho! ANOTHER pseudo-departure, Kumar? And with so many questions from us to you left UNanswered? No explanations before you go?

Don't worry, will you! You do know we will be waiting breathlessly for your return, don't you?

[Rolfe]

He's gone off this and started a new thread on body tempertature. Fall in, guys.

This one's intriguing in that we still haven't figured out what the hidden woo-woo agenda is. Brownie points to the first person who figures out which quack remedy he's actually supporting there.

Roilfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Kumar is one of those believers that will not say: "I believe in this, peiod". He wants justification for his beliefs, he wants them somehow to be based on the science he ultimately rejects.

SO, he starts with his conclusions, his beliefs, then ho goes searching for facts that might support them. He is not interested in logical consequences, causes and effects. He just wants to treat science as a candy store where he can put whatever he likes into his shopping basket, and leave whatever he dislikes on the shelves.

Kumar believes in homeopathy, and other alternative regimens, the more ancient the better. He believes in the lost ancient science, and I think, hopes to refind it.

I have been communicating with him for some time on other boards before he came here. He is basically a nice and decent guy, but these exchanges with people who insist on logic drive him into a corner and turns up his demagogic side.

Part of the picture is that Kumar is from India, where many things can look different.

Hans

[fsol]

Zep, I kinder guessed that for myself. I just couldn't resist the link after Goshawk mentioned Gold in one of his posts.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
He is basically a nice and decent guy, but these exchanges with people who insist on logic drive him into a corner and turns up his demagogic side.
I know, I know, but he presses my buttons. I just can't resist. It's taking candy from a baby, but I fall for it every time.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, of course! This is a free web, and he must be assumed a responsible individual, so if he chooses to come here and push buttons, he must face the lights. Simple as that.

Hans

[Zep]

Some beers all round, wasn't it, Goshawk?? :D