Generative Energy #26: Talking With Ray Peat #2: Carbon Dioxide, NAD+/NADH, Antibiotics, Coffee

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Good conversation :D. The statement (that is roughly paraphrased as) "Cancer cells have excess negative charge on their surface" caught my attention, so I decided to verify it.

And the answer is, "Yes, this is true" :ghost:

- 'Changes in Electric Properties of Human Breast Cancer Cells', (Dobrzyńska et. al., 2013) -- Changes in Electric Properties of Human Breast Cancer Cells

- 'The Surface Properties of Cancer Cells: A Review', (Abercrombie M and Ambrose EJ, 1962) -- The surface properties of cancer cells: a review. - PubMed - NCBI (full text: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/22/5_Part_1/525.full.pdf )

NOTE: the authors Barbara Szachowicz-Petelska and Izabela Dobrzyńska often come up in many of such studies:

- Phospholipid Composition and Electric Charge in Healthy and Cancerous Parts of Human Kidneys
- Characterization of Human Bladder Cell Membrane During Cancer Transformation
- Phospholipid Composition and Electric Charge in Healthy and Cancerous Parts of Human Kidneys

Basically, cancerous cells of all forms exhibit excess negative charge potential at low pH, and excess positive charge potential at high pH -- ie: charge dys-regulation. (This is referring to membrane charge potential)

That second paper hints at lack of normal cell behaviour due to continuous repulsion. Normal cells stick together, cancerous cells don't. They explain it in terms of charge repulsion, and I actually think that is plausible.

Note that we have to specifically refer to this phenomena as less charge differential between membrane and cytoplasm. All the studies measured "charge" as "delta potential". Again, we're talking "Dys-regulation", not necessarily Less Absolute Energy in the cell.

If you are a Mae-Wan Ho fan, this would be "Decoherence" -- less ability to transfer charge to where it needs to go; it "spreads out everywhere". Coherence => resonance => common frequencies => channel for charge.

Now the important question "What promotes coherence?". I am biased, I look at Guenter Albrecht-Buehler's work and say that it is good metabolism that allows for coherence -- http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm

(He basically showed how cells use Red to Infrared light signalling from mitochondria to send signals to each other, and how groups of cells made decisions faster and more accurately than single cells or smaller groups of cells)

....
 

m_arch

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
483
Location
Perth, Australia
(He basically showed how cells use Red to Infrared light signalling from mitochondria to send signals to each other, and how groups of cells made decisions faster and more accurately than single cells or smaller groups of cells)

....
If that's the case, any theories as to how red and infrared light effects the mitochondria besides the usual cyto c oxidise enzyme?
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
If that's the case, any theories as to how red and infrared light effects the mitochondria besides the usual cyto c oxidise enzyme?

I can't tease out specific mechanics ;). This depends heavily on the method of application of red light. I am assuming here that the goal is to actually use exogenous red light in practice.

First, we must note that the observations that the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase "benefits" (there are a multitude of different effects based on different cellular environments), are based off in vitro observations -- cells are directly exposed to incoming red light.

This is obviously not the case in the body. Different applications of red light, at different intensities, for different application periods, will penetrate the body and modulate it's processes differently. Getting red light to a target tissue usually means going through a dense set of proteins and other organic material -- most light doesn't get very far.

To complicate practical application further, we do know that Collagen transmits red and infrared light very well, and that there are huge collagen networks (acupuncture meridians) that have been verified to connect various systems together. I assume from the systemic effects that acupuncture has, that red light application to a particular point actually modulates function at a systemic level (and this is what we see from the people trying laser acupuncture using Red lasers).

Then we need to consider that the red light used varies considerably in experiments, ranging from monochromatic Red Lasers, to wide spectrum red light, to narrow band LEDs. (a) we don't know if this is the natural case in the body, and (b) specific wavelengths do matter, and have different effects in the body.

What this means, is that for whatever red light therapies we have in practice, we cannot attribute direct effects to. Yes, experiments and practice have shown narrow band 650nm and 850nm LED light at particular fluences and particular application spots to be useful for fixing certain conditions. This gets very complicated, and I wish my friend @ PaleoOsteo were here to comment ;) since he's taken a THOR laser certification course, and of course, is an osteopath who can see the movement-related benefits of site-specific Red Light application.

But the mechanics? We have no clue if this is a direct effect on mitochondria, or a systemic effect on the cell (I assume the people on this forum understand the "entire cell as Electromagnetic receptor" idea, and can buy the idea that red light directly plays into cell level "receptor" signalling)

My bias (without any proof :wtf: except for best guesses based on Albretch-Buehler's work), is that the red to infrared ranges of light are basic signalling frequencies of light which turn on and off specific work processes in the cell.

If we think of hormones as simply "deducting or adding quantas of energy" at the cell membrane, then red light application to the cell is basically like hormone therapy. This thinking of scales to any system barrier (cell membrane, nuclear "receptors", mitochondria, entire organs, etc ....).

A more far-fetched interpretation of Albretch-Buehler's work also suggests that production of red light is a signal that "work has been done" (as opposed to UV light, which his work suggests is a signal to "do work now"). If we view certain systemic failures as a failure for cells to acknowledge that work has been done (ie: think systemic a over-excitable section of a brain), then adding an artificial red light stimulus may "calm things down" and allow for resetting of healthier processes.

Anyway, as I've said, this is highly speculative, and the only hard experiments at the low-level that I'm currently aware of right now is Guenther Albretch-Buehler's. If anyone has any other hints (and maybe some sekret Russian studies :closedlockkey:), then I'd love to know those.

.....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom