why doctors aren't using alkaline environment method to heal their patients if this method can cure all diseases including cancer?

Above all else, let's get straight to the point about this: human blood is in truth "soluble". Our blood pH is very (and I mean VERY) firmly controlled to be actually 7.4 (perhaps 7.35, yet how about we utilize 7.4 so I don't need to type more), which is in reality marginally basic. There are numerous frameworks set up to keep our blood pH at or close to this dimension.

Along these lines, immediately, the reason of the inquiry is off: Lots of infections—or really, all human illnesses, can endure fine and dandy in a soluble domain, since our blood is basic.

However, it is likewise obvious that in the event that you make nature antacid enough, nothing can endure. You could pour, say, lye (sodium hydroxide, with a pH of around 13), onto tumor cells in a research center dish, or microbes, or yeast, and you would murder them in a moment. In any case, is this a valuable helpful technique? On the off chance that your blood were implanted with sodium hydroxide you would be dead some time before it got to a pH of 13. I don't assume tests have been done to test precisely what blood pH is deadly, however I can guarantee you it is not even close to 13. Most likely about 7.8.

We can't get by with a blood pH very different from 7.40. The "typical" go is 7.35 to 7.45. Any critical deviation will cause serious issues, and is in certainty an indication of significant confusions of the frameworks that are intended to keep our blood pH in that extend. There are cushions in the blood that artificially limit the pH, and after that there are instruments in both the lungs and the kidneys to change the way causticity (which is simply hydrogen particles) is overseen, just to keep the blood pH in that extend. A deviation to either increasingly acidic or progressively basic will cause serious physiologic unsettling influences, similar to catalysts not working appropriately, synthetic responses in cells not working right, etc. That is the reason we have advanced such a large number of multi-layered reinforcement frameworks and crisis intends to keep our blood pH in that go.

The inquiry does not say what sort of scope of alkalinity is being considered as a treatment for maladies, yet we are as of now marginally soluble, and we can't endure any deviation from the exceptionally exact dimension of alkalinity that we need.

In this way, one noteworthy thought here is that you can slaughter a tumor, or small scale living being, or whatever else might cause a malady, by placing it in an adequately soluble condition. In any case, you can do likewise with sharpness — pouring hydrochloric corrosive on tumor cells in a lab dish will murder them as well. You can likewise do likewise with warmth—nothing can endure being warmed to 250 F (around 120 C). We would execute all malignancies, contaminations, and each other ailment known, by warming them to that temperature. That works extraordinary in a research facility test dish, yet we can't expose living patients to such a treatment, clearly, much the same as we can't implant lye or hydrochloric corrosive into patients' blood to execute their malignant growth. You can execute disease by denying it of oxygen, as well… yet that is likewise not a helpful treatment, since it would likewise slaughter the patient. Same for glucose — malignancy cells need glucose (albeit a few microorganisms could possibly influence it from things they to can ingest from your body, maybe) however your body's cells need glucose as well, so actuating a hypoglycemic state is anything but a valuable treatment for disease. You could make a similar contention for nutrients and minerals, since malignant growth cells (and smaller scale creatures) need them as well.

Along these lines, to outline before I go on: We are antacid in the first place, so the possibility that a basic domain is terrible for illnesses is essentially off-base. Making the body increasingly antacid will slaughter the patient. Bunches of different things can murder malignant growth or different maladies, yet they will all execute the patient, as well, similar to sharpness, or warmth, or hardship of oxygen, or glucose, and so forth.

Presently given me a chance to swing to an alternate point of view on this inquiry.

I have an inclination — and pardon me on the off chance that I am making a hasty judgment here (I said I was going to rest… ) however I have an inclination that this inquiry is around one of the most recent patterns in showcasing … "basic" water, and "basic" eats less carbs.

I portrayed before that our blood pH is (and I underscored VERY) firmly controlled. One piece of that will be that there is nothing you can eat or drink that will influence your pH. Positively not the "basic water" that is being sold wherever now. Consider this. The facts demonstrate that unadulterated water is at a pH of 7.0, which is impartial. Regardless, does that genuinely have any kind of effect? We eat organic products, a large portion of which are acidic. Is it true that we are stating that natural products are terrible? Or then again shouldn't something be said about meat? It has a pH, as most tissues, around equivalent to our body… so why drink basic water, when you can simply eat meat? Does the possibility that the pH of our sustenance influences our blood pH even bode well? No, it doesn't.

Remember that the causticity of our stomach is noteworthy — the cells fixing the stomach emit corrosive with a pH of around 1. That is somewhere close to vinegar and sulfuric acid. What's more, that is paying little respect to what you eat. So on the off chance that you eat or drink something marginally soluble (state, 7.5 or 8.0) it will be quickly overpowered by the gastric corrosive, and what enters your duodenum (the initial segment of the small digestive tract after your stomach) will be at the pH of your gastric emissions, pretty much. Possibly around pH 3 or 4. Is a somewhat antacid water going to stand an opportunity against the fiercely acidic condition of the stomach?

At that point remember this: Immediately after the stomach substance goes into the duodenum, it is met with an enormous heap of bicarbonate particles discharged by the pancreas, which promptly kills any acridity. Also, this all occurs before anything is really ingested into the body.

Another part of this is the idea of "antacid sustenances". This is a terrible misconception of a practically immaterial thought from old nourishment physiology investigate, which took a gander at the pH not of sustenances, however of the slag left over after nourishments were singed. The unclear thought that consuming something and taking a gander at the buildup left over connected to our physiology of absorption has prompted the idea that specific sustenances are "acidic" and others are "antacid". This was not the goal of the first research, yet for reasons unknown has been gone up against by elective drug as a method for coordinating dietary decisions, and afterward there was the introduction of antacid water.

What's more, presently given me a chance to take an increasingly broad viewpoint on this inquiry. It is in a general class of inquiries: "I read some place [or heard, or found in an advertisement] that doing X will fix ailments. So for what reason don't specialists do X?"

The response to that is: Because X does not work in reality, and X is being sold to individuals, trusting that the client is too uninformed to even consider knowing better. I comprehend what I am going to state infers something that you have not expressed, however perhaps I can address others perusing this answer who may think this: Please, on the off chance that you read about something that somebody is moving, and they are attempting to state specialists are keeping a marvel fix from you, don't trust them.