As many of you may know, one of the alternative therepies is the salt
Cesium Chloride. I spent a day searching on www.sciencedirect.com (an
account is required) for any scientific papers on the subject. Most
are form the early 80's. I have  abstracts  at work in Word format (if
anyone wants a copy let me know here as my email may have expired).
Most reports on mice and people were very positive. However I think 2
of them were not. I believe the physicist who came up with this
treatment belived that the dosage used in those studies was too little
to have affect.

In a nutshell, the cesium ion is preferentially absorbed by the
malignant cell (many types) compared over potassium when compared to a
normal cell. This was studied by mass spectrometry by a renound
physicist. Since potassium carries glucose into the cell but cesium
cant, the cell can not regulate its  pH as before sice the
glucose/lactic acid equilibrium is affected. The pH goes alkaline and
the tumor dies. I am a chemist but not a biochemist so I dont have the
knowledge required to see if this theory is obsurd or not. If the pH
is indeed a function of glucose absorbtion, and if the cancer cells do
indeed absorb cesium and little potassium then the theory may have
some merit.

What I dont understand is why no papers which totally disprove this
treatment have ever surfaced. I mean if someone published great
results, as a mainstream doctor I would get some research going to
prove that it is a fraud but by the look of it nobody cared enough.
Has anyone here tried it of know of someone who took the proper
dosage?