Baking Soda for Cancer: What is the Scientific Evidence?

Introduction

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death globally, and researchers are constantly seeking novel therapeutic strategies. current research proposes that one relatively simple, inexpensive compound — (NaHCO₃, commonly known as baking soda) — might play a role in cancer treatment by altering the tumour microenvironment (TME).

Cancer immunotherapy—the approach of using the body’s immune system to attack tumors—has made impressive advances. However, it still faces two major hurdles:

1. Low immune response: Sometimes the immune system simply doesn’t mount a strong enough attack against the tumor.
2. The tumor’s “bad neighbourhood”: Tumors create a microenvironment (the surrounding space and conditions around the cancer cells) that is hostile to immune attack. One big part of this is that the region becomes slightly acidic (lower pH) because the cancer cells produce a lot of lactic acid via glycolysis, and expel it into the surrounding space.
   • That acidity and the excess lactic acid weaken immune cells (such as T‑cells) and help the tumor hide.

A 2023 study published in the journal, Immunotherapy, asked the question: Can we both neutralise the acidic tumour environment and stimulate a kind of programmed, inflammatory cell‑death in the tumour cells that will boost immune attack?

To study this, the researchers developed a material: alkalescent (i.e., slightly alkaline) sodium bicarbonate nanoparticles (NaHCO₃ NPs). Some of the main features:

• These nanoparticles are inorganic and drug‑free (meaning they are made of a simple material, not a loaded drug).
• They are prepared by a “fast microemulsion method”. 1
• Their design allows them to perform two main actions:
  1. Neutralise acidity/lactic acid in the tumour microenvironment via acid‑base reaction (the bicarbonate reacts with acid).
  2. Enter tumour cells, release lots of Na⁺ ions → cause a surge in internal osmolarity → trigger pyroptosis (a form of highly inflammatory programmed cell death) → release danger signals from the dying cells that wake up the immune system.

Put another way: The nanoparticles act as both environment “fixers” (by reducing acid/lactic acid) and cell‑killers that stir up immune alarm signals. Why is that important?

• By neutralising the acidity, the tumour neighbourhood becomes less immune‑suppressive. That means immune cells can function better.
• By triggering pyroptosis (rather than a “quiet” cell death), more immune‑activating signals are sent (DAMPs = damage‑associated molecular patterns). That helps recruit/activate immune cells. turn0search0
• Because the material is simple (sodium bicarbonate = baking soda) and doesn’t rely on complex drug molecules, there’s a possibility of lower cost/complexity or side‑effects (though of course lots of work remains).
• It combines metabolic intervention (blocking lactic acid effects) with immune activation, a two‑pronged strategy.

Results of the Study

• The nanoparticles were shown to reverse (or at least reduce) tumour microenvironment acidity / lactic acid build‑up.
• Inside tumour cells, the nanoparticles caused a large Na⁺ release, rising internal osmolarity, activation of caspase1/GSDMD (these are components of pyroptosis) and then pyroptosis/ICD (immunogenic cell death) with release of DAMPs & inflammatory factors.
• In animals (mouse models), the treatment inhibited primary tumour growth, reduced distant (metastatic) tumour growth, and cut tumour metastasis.
• The combination (acid neutralisation + pyroptosis) boosted antitumour immunity more than one approach alone.

What does “pyroptosis” mean and why is it used?

• Pyroptosis is a form of programmed cell death that is inflammatory. Unlike apoptosis (which is often “quiet” and non‑inflammatory), pyroptosis causes cell swelling, rupture, and release of intracellular contents that act as danger signals.
• These danger signals help alert the immune system: “Hey, something bad happened here — come and check!”
• By forcing tumour cells to die by pyroptosis, the researchers hope to “sound the alarm” in the tumour area so immune cells are recruited and activated, rather than just quietly removing tumour cells with little signalling.
• The study found that the NaHCO₃ NPs triggered key pyroptosis‑pathway proteins (like GSDMD) and the release of DAMPs, thus converting a “cold” tumour (poorly immune‑active) into a “hot” tumour (immune‑active) environment.

What about lactic acid metabolism and the tumour microenvironment?

• Tumour cells often rely on glycolysis even when oxygen is present (the “Warburg effect”) → they produce excess lactic acid. That lactic acid is exported to the tumour surroundings, making the extracellular pH lower (more acidic).
• This acidic environment suppresses immune‑cell function (for example, it can hamper cytotoxic T cells, dendritic cells, etc).
• By using bicarbonate, the study aims to neutralise acidity (H⁺ ions, or lactic acid’s acidic effect) → raise pH a little → reduce immune suppression.
• Thus: intervene in tumour metabolism (lactic acid), and thus change the physical/chemical environment for immune cells.

Why is this meaningful for cancer treatment?

• Many immunotherapies fail or have limited effect because of the “cold” tumour microenvironment. Changing the environment (making it more immune‑permissive) is an emerging strategy.
• Combining metabolic intervention (acid/lactate) + immune activation (pyroptosis) is a novel angle.
• The materials used are relatively simple (inorganic, no drugs loaded) which may reduce complexity of manufacturing/approval (though that’s speculative).
• If this approach translates well, it could boost the effectiveness of existing immunotherapies (checkpoint inhibitors, CAR‑T, etc) by first “priming” the tumour environment.

What’s next / the big picture

• Additional studies likely will look at combining these NaHCO₃ NPs with existing immunotherapies (e.g., checkpoint blockers) to see synergy.
• Detailed toxicity and pharmacokinetics (where the particles go in the body, how long they stay, how they’re cleared).
• Optimisation of delivery: ensuring sufficient nanoparticles get to the tumour, minimal off‑target effects.
• Potential human clinical trials (if safety and efficacy in animals are robust).
• Broader exploration of tumour types: whether this strategy works only for some cancers (with specific microenvironment profiles) or more generally.

What this means for “you & me” / the everyday perspective

• This research is an example of how scientists are thinking outside the box: not just “kill the cancer cells” but “change their neighbourhood” and “make the immune system wake up”.
• While it might be many years until such a therapy becomes standard, it shows hope for more effective immunotherapies in the future.
• From a lay‑person view: it suggests that cancer therapy is evolving into multi‑modal strategies—not just drugs, but materials, environment modulation, immune training.
• If you or someone you know is affected by cancer, this kind of research might signal better therapies on the horizon—but as always, new treatments require time, trials, safety evaluation.

Summary in a nutshell

The study by Ding et al. developed sodium bicarbonate nanoparticles that:

• neutralise the acidic, lactic‑acid‑rich tumour microenvironment, making it less hostile to immune cells;
• trigger pyroptosis in tumour cells (a highly inflammatory cell death), promoting immune activation;
• together, these effects boost immune‑system tumour attack, inhibit tumour growth and spread in animal models.
  It’s a promising “two‑pronged” strategy (metabolism + immune activation) that could help overcome current immunotherapy challenges — though much more work is needed before human use.

Core idea: many tumours have an acidic extracellular microenvironment, which supports tumour growth, invasion, metastasis and treatment resistance. If you neutralise or buffer that acidity, you may be able to slow tumour progression or improve responses to therapy.

Scientific Rationale: Why tumour acidity matters

• Tumours often exhibit a lower extracellular pH (i.e., more acidic) compared with normal tissue.
• This acidity arises for several reasons: the “Warburg effect” (aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells), hypoxia, lactic acid production, proton efflux mechanisms, and abnormal perfusion.
• Acidic extracellular pH (pHe) is thought to promote tumour behaviours: increased invasiveness, breakdown of extracellular matrix, metastasis, resistance to chemotherapy/radiation, suppression of immune cell function (e.g., T‑cells).
• Given that the tumour “likes” acid, buffering or alkalising that environment might hamper tumour progression or improve therapy.

In essence: if the tumour micro‑environment is a battlefield, acidity is a weapon in the cancer’s arsenal — sodium bicarbonate is proposed as a potential “counter‑weapon”.

One of the most well-known and early adopters of this treatment strategy was Dr. Simoncelli from Italy. His detailed thoughts can be found here: Is Cancer a Fungus?

What does the evidence show (and what it does not)

Preclinical (animal/lab) evidence

• Several studies in mouse models have shown that oral or injected sodium bicarbonate can raise tumour extracellular pH, reduce metastasis, delay tumour growth and improve immune infiltration (e.g., CD8+ T‑cells).
• For example, a review noted that in breast cancer/metastasis mouse models, 200 mM bicarbonate in drinking water reduced spontaneous metastases.
• Some studies combined bicarbonate with other therapies (chemo, immunotherapy) and found additive benefits in experimental settings.

Implications and conclusions

What can we take away from Basta’s paper?

• Potential value: The idea of targeting the tumour microenvironment by neutralising acidity is promising and somewhat underexplored relative to many targeted‑therapy approaches. If sodium bicarbonate or related buffering strategies can enhance existing therapies (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or reduce metastasis/invasion, that could be impactful.
• Adjunctive therapy, not stand‑alone: Given the current evidence, sodium bicarbonate should not be seen as a replacement for standard cancer treatments. Rather, as a possible adjunct to improve outcomes. Basta’s conclusion points to clinical trials.
• Need for careful clinical research: To turn this hypothesis into practice, we need: well‑designed human trials, clear dosing/administration protocols, biomarker monitoring (e.g., tumour pH), safety data, and stratification of which tumour types are most susceptible.
• Realistic expectations: As other reviews emphasise, while the “baking soda cures cancer” narrative is appealing, we must avoid oversimplification and unproven claims. For instance, an article warns that claims of soda alone “curing” cancer are unsubstantiated.
• Mechanistic interest: From a mechanistic viewpoint, the paper underscores how tumour acidity interacts with metabolism, immune escape and drug resistance — reinforcing the importance of the microenvironment in cancer biology.

What it means:

• Scientists are exploring simple, low‑cost compounds like sodium bicarbonate to complement cancer therapy by altering the tumour’s acidic environment.
• This line of research sheds light on how tumour acidity supports cancer—and how disrupting it might weaken the tumour’s “defences”.
• If future trials succeed, this could open up novel adjunctive options that are relatively inexpensive and accessible (though of course still delivered under medical supervision).

What it doesn’t mean:

• It is not yet a clinically approved standalone treatment for cancer. Patients should not self‑medicate with high doses of baking soda in hope of curing cancer.
• The human evidence is still preliminary; many hurdles (dosing, safety, tumour type specificity) remain.
• The body’s pH regulation is complex: systemic ingestion of bicarbonate does not guarantee tumour pH change, and side effects can be significant if misused.

Final thoughts

New research continues to provide a compelling and biologically plausible hypothesis: that buffering tumour acidity with sodium bicarbonate might inhibit tumour progression, invasion and metastasis by altering the tumour microenvironment. The preclinical evidence is encouraging, but we are still a long way from routine clinical application.

From a research perspective, this is an elegant reminder of how the microenvironment matters in cancer — not just the tumour cells themselves. From a clinical perspective, it's a “watch this space” story: promising, but not yet ready for prime‑time.

Video

Watch this recent video by Dr. Sircus, who developed a protocol inspired by Dr. Simoncini's ideas: