Tullio Simoncini, an Italian ex-medical doctor, claims that cancer is caused by a fungus and can be cured with the administration of sodium bicarbonate.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and there is good reason to believe that the treatment is dangerous.
In October 2007, a charge was brought against the Clinic for Preventive Medicine (CPM) in Bilthoven, the Netherlands. This clinic houses a mixture of small enterprises, where physicians and nonphysicians offer a great variety of “alternative” treatments. A 58-year- old patient with breast cancer who was treated at this clinic was admitted to the emergency department of the University Medical Center of the Free University of Amsterdam, where she died within a few days. The attending physician refused to sign a death certificate, because the patient had died from a non-natural cause. It appeared that Simoncini had treated her at the Bilthoven clinic with injections and infusions of sodium bicarbonate. The clinic medical director denied any involvement, but two tenacious journalists of the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant succeeded in finding out what had happened. The Public Prosecutor and the Netherlands Health Care Inspectorate have opened an investigation of the case.
Because one of us (SJJ) is fluent in Italian, we could extensively search Italian Web sites for information on Simoncini’s background. Currently living in Rome, he has been using unsubstantiated cancer treatments for 15 years. He calls himself a specialist in diabetes and metabolic diseases, but in 2003, his license to practice medicine was withdrawn, and in 2006 he was convicted by an Italian judge for wrongful death and swindling. This has not stopped him from continuing to provide his controversial treatments, not only in Italy, but apparently also in foreign countries, such as the Netherlands. He has appealed his conviction, but we could not find information on the status of this appeal on Italian Web sites.
Simoncini claims that cancer is “simply” an infection (il cancro è un fungo) caused by Candida albicans, an opportunistic fungus. He claims that this intruder causes formation of cysts and an uncontrolled cell division in several organs, such as the liver and lungs.
To eliminate fungal colonies, he administers sodium bicarbonate by intravenous infusion, by mouth, or even with intra-arterial catheters close to the tumor site. Simoncini claims that the tumors will become smaller and subsequently disappear completely in half of patients thus treated. He does not give any proof for this and has never published any data in a scientific journal. He also claims that the treatment is not dangerous, because sodium bicarbonate is also used in standard medical procedures. He fails to mention that this treatment is applied only in patients with definite disturbances of water and mineral metabolism and under meticulous clinical supervision. The highly concentrated solutions that he administers within a short period can disturb the mineral balance in the body and lead to serious and even fatal complications.
Based on expert reports of two physicians, the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate has concluded that Simoncini’s treatment is dangerous and should not be administered.
The infusion of sodium bicarbonate to vulnerable patients is hazardous and ineffective. This is the conclusion of two expert physicians who wrote reports on request of The Netherlands Health Inspectorate (Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg, IGZ). The IGZ asked them for advice when in 2007 a patient with cancer died in the Free University Medical Centre in Amsterdam after she had received sodium bicarbonate in a clinic in Bilthoven. Currently, the clinic has, under the pressure of the IGZ, stopped administering this therapy and will not restart it. In the meantime it has not been firmly established that the patient has died as a consequence of the sodium bicarbonate administration. The Public Prosecutor is still investigating this.
Based on the expert report, the IGZ has first of all reached the conclusion that there are no scientific data that justify the administration of sodium bicarbonate to patients with cancer for other indications than described in the official prescription information. There is no scientific proof whatsoever showing that this therapy cures or can slow its progress.
The IGZ concludes that the administration of sodium bicarbonate even has risks for patients with high blood pressure, patients with diseases of lungs, heart, or kidneys and for patients with cancer. This is certainly the case if a number of specific blood levels are not monitored daily before, during and after the treatment. The balance of the body can become completely disturbed when large amounts are administered. In severely ill patients, this may lead to organ damage. In sick people, there is in fact irresponsible health care if this product is administered without monitoring.
Given these risks and because there is no scientific basis for the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate apart from the registered indications, the IGZ concludes that physicians should not apply this treatment. If physicians administer these despite this warning and/or the IGZ receives reports of cases thereof, the reports will of course be investigated, whereby the aforementioned considerations will play an important role. The IGZ will not hesitate to inform the Disciplinary Medical Board.
Rob Koene, M.D., Ph.D.
Sophie Josephus Jitta
This article is a modified version of an article originally published in Dutch on November 17, 2007 by the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (Dutch Association against Quackery). Dr. Koene is emeritus professor of Nephrology at the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Ms. Josephus Jitta is assistant professor of Italian language acquisition at the University of Amsterdam. Both are board members of the Association.
92 responses so far ↓
peter // November 11, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thank you all!
Hopefully for Sylvia and me a quick conviction for simoncini.
Urich // November 16, 2008 at 3:31 pm
It is amazing to me what everyone is passing back and forth on the internet. It is the same blurb, written by the same author, with the same intent to destroy anyone’s desire to pursue this treatment. The case for Sylvia: 1. The doctors in ND never evaluated the treatment by using any form of protocol other than their “wise opinion”, 2. Sylvia’s coroner refused to sign off on the death certificate and that was when? back in 2007? so, obviously Simoncini is now languishing behind bars for murder…right?…not from what I could Google! 3. He bought his license, but couldn’t buy his way out of a conviction for which he is? serving time?…not from anything I can discover. So, why the great desire to malign and impugn his reputation and this proceedure. What truly is your motive!?! Stop the lies and the BS and give us cold hard facts. Where is the evidence against? Show me the Trials that conclusively proved it is a false treatment, AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop with all of the Opinions – they mean squat to those of us who want the truth.
anaxymperator // November 16, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@ Urich,
Interesting. I wonder what makes you think we are not also after the truth.
Urich // November 16, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I guess that the bashing is just as irritating as the ones who are cheering. What I would like to see is an unbiased (yeah, right) governmental agency set up to explore these treatments and to report back with factual results. It is currently not possible for “alternative” medicine to do trials as the costs are prohibitive and the labs (from what I have been able to gleam from reading different articles) are not willing to assist for fear of losing their main backers. Current medical trials are always backed by those who have much to profit from if there is a positive result from the trial. Simonici for example, would have no financial gain for a non-patentable procedure and therefore no one is going to put up the money to validate the claim. It is tragic. I have researched NCI’s website where there have been Stage 1 trials that were performed by some University or small doctor’s office and yet even with what looks to be great results, there were never any Stage 2 trials as there were no backers providing large sums of money. You cannot expect a small natural source lab or doctor (such as Simonici) to initiate something that will not be financially beneficial as they shall soon no longer be financially viable having spent their money on trials that everyone can take advantage of and build product or method from. Large pharms can because of the patent ability. Also, the common doctor will only enter their clients into trials that have large audiences reached by large advertising dollars.
As far as getting to the truth, I can see being doubtful and expressing why you “feel” and are “opinionated” toward a negative thought, but without substantiation or without trying, how can one slam and denigrate a procedure or substance, that others are who have tried, are extolling? Try it, research it, don’t listen to groups that have a poker in the fire for destroying a counter method to their own. Then report to others your personal experience. Better yet, get involved and write your representatives in government (as they are the only ones that have the money without the conditions attached), start groups to collect funds to decisively determine what procedure is valid. Truly pressure upon the government is the only way that I can see enough money for laboratory, supplies, salaries for MDs, NDs, CNTs, etc to be paid.
But to say something is false because some body (which is all somebody with MD after their name, is) says that in their opinion (where’s the actual testing) it is fake. I have been looking at a product called MMS, and it sounds good, the guy who “invented” it doesn’t receive any compensation and yet it is consistently bashed. But there is no true science on either side. That’s all I want. Since there are anecdotal reports of its effectiveness, like their is with Simonici’s protocol, it behooves the other side of the argument to provide valid and sensible arguments that it is a placebo affect. Not – “based on expert reports of two physicians” “based on no scientific data” which is another way of saying they DID NOT research the item/procedure themselves but rather referred instead to a lack of research. They don’t even cite research of others that would have disproved the current claim. So, that is why I say we want the truth, and the government has the ability to fund the studies to give the lie and then truly prosecute charlatans. But notice how they prosecute, reach agreements out of Court and then you see those little disclaimers at the bottom of fliers, webpages, and other ads? I want evidence that they are committing fraud and I want them prosecuted if it turns out there is fraud. Not vicious declarations based on zero science claiming they are frauds. Innovation is stifled by such declarations and would result in many claims never being made available that are truly beneficial (such as Vitamin C). Give the proof against, not the lack of proof as a adversarial tool.
I hope this explains why I said what I said…
Urich // November 16, 2008 at 10:11 pm
sub simoncini for simonici
anaxymperator // November 16, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Simoncini’s anecdotal reports are unreliable. As long as he has no more backup for his theory than just his own idea, he has no right to advise patients to turn away from conventional therapy.
Besides, there is no evidence at all that cancer is a fungus but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that cancer is not a fungus. And even if it were a fungus, it could not be cured with sodium bicarbonate. There is proven effective medication for systemic fungus infections and sodium bicarb is not one of them.
There is a big institution in the US doing research into all kinds of alternative therapies, the NCAHF. Simoncini may want to consider putting in a request for a grant to try out his theory.
beatis // November 16, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Simoncini is no longer a doctor.
Urich // November 17, 2008 at 12:53 am
anaxymperator:
Agreed…there should never (within reason)be advisories, without solidly backed evidence, advising people to avoid a treatment that has (at the very least anecdotal) evidence of effectiveness. Sadly, it is very evident from reading the mainstream websites, such as NCI that there is very little evidence that survival rates for cancer patients increase (and much evidence that it decreases life expectancy) for those undertaking radioactive or chemo. These archaic treatment programs should probably be outlawed in all modern countries even though they do provide some sort of action/hope for cancer patients. I propose that alternative methods such as Simoncini’s provide hope at least to the same level as chemo/radiation therapy. Usually, people seek such alternatives as a final desperate act…death is already knocking at their door and they want ANYthing to save their life as mainstream medical has probably long since failed them. Should we deny them this hope? Should we denigrate a procedure that some claim have benefited them? I was going to say we don’t do that to mainstream, but the web is full of people despairing because the mainstream docs have cut them to pieces, nuked them till they had no hope of healing, and then poisoned them until they only could lay down and let hospice starve and deny them liquids (they don’t have any feeling the morphine takes care of it) until they pass after a lingering 72 hours or so….It’s a horrific death, is it any more wrong to offer the same hope to these people and apparently for some it may actually prove beneficial (whether placebo or no)….
Beatis:
Why do you say he is no longer a doctor…what makes a doctor? Is it someone who has a specialized knowledge or treats others…think about what doctors were, how they came about that credential including those in the aboriginal groups…maybe he still is a doctor…maybe, when greed is taken out of allopathy and primum non nocere has meaning once again, perhaps then we shall trust that they should have a meaningful say on who should be classified as a doctor.
By the way, anyone completing a degree of 4 years has a bachelor’s, 6 – masters, 8 or more with a degree is a doctor – forever……includes PhDs….
Urich // November 17, 2008 at 1:06 am
Ahhh, I forgot….
It is true that cancer is not a fungi, bacteria, or virus; however, there is quite a bit of evidence that cancer may be a response to any of the above and some believe that it may be an attempt by the invader to make a comfortable home for itself. That is why soda or other such agents are being viewed and why some believe that if you can destroy the invader and/or its home that the body may be able to heal itself (the body destroys cancer cells continuously until it becomes overburdened). I personally wish that we had unbiased, unconnected, uncontrolled research to discover the truth. I do know that Cancer of the pelvis and prostate cancers are both apparently able to be prevented with vaccine; however, HPV is proven and the prostate is in trial for approval of a patentable vaccine. Also, the prostate vaccine will only be given after the patient has been neutered, poisoned and/or burned which I really don’t understand. Vaccines, I thought, only worked on living organisms such as bacteria, viruses and fungi…so what does that mean….???? I’m not even saying this facetiously – I mean it…why don’t we know something from those two facts – are cancers caused by those organisms or is a fraud being perpetrated on the populace especially in places like Texas where the HPV vaccine is required? Or is the fraud in not telling us about the causal relationship? Prostates that have been removed with cancer have ALL been shown to be infested with fungi…Is this before the cancer or a result of weakness caused by the cancer?
peter // November 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm
quote: It is amazing to me what everyone is passing back and forth on the internet. It is the same blurb, written by the same author, with the same intent to destroy anyone’s desire to pursue this treatment.
Success is a science, if you have the conditions, you get the result.
Urich // November 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Peter:
Ahhh…but of course – you do?
Illusion is a matter of perspective, whether yours or mine or someone else’s. If you want an esoteric masturbatory argument on the base pleasures of the mind, please engage. But then again, maybe this is all illusion and the aches and pains that you feel daily are merely the delusions of another….
The dialogue other than that, remains the same. Your own statement “Success is a science, if you have the conditions, you get the result” feeds the fire in favor of Simoncini and other alternatives as there have been provable results (whether placebo or no I am not qualified to say – nor is anyone else at this time) that anecdotally say these products/procedures do work. So if success is the science, then your argument has become your antagonist’s.
beatis // November 17, 2008 at 5:57 pm
@ Urich,
What’s your point exactly? Would it be possible for you to use a little less words?
anaxymperator // November 17, 2008 at 7:23 pm
@ Urich,
There’s an interesting thread on Simoncini’s fungus theory on the James Randi forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113061&page=5
You can start on page 5, where Delayman comes in, it’s a new discussion but basically the same information as in the earlier pages, so starting here saves you from having to read a lot of double information. There are scientists, MD’s and pathologists in this thread who are very knowledgeable on the subject.
Urich // November 18, 2008 at 12:14 am
Anaxymperator,
Thanks…Actually Delayman basically says what I have said including the HPV example. I ask again, how can we have vaccines for cancer if cancer is not caused by a microorganism? And if it is, then couldn’t Simoncini be correct?
As an aside – I’ve seen JennyJo at several different sites and she’s always an aggressive conventional medicine advocate and heavily against anything “alternative”. She actually refers back to this site as a response.
beatis // November 18, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’ve been doing some checking on the Randi forum: JennyJo is a breast cancer survivor, she had a full mastectomy, lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemo therapy.
beatis // November 18, 2008 at 10:51 am
Also, JennyJo is from the Netherlands, where there has been a lot of noise about Simoncini’s therapy because of this woman’s death, as you can read on this blog.
anaxymperator // November 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm
@ Urich,
Jennyjo is not the only one on the randi forum who is in favour of conventional medicine. As far as I can see the main argument against alternative medicine on the jr forum is the lack of decent backup or underpinning alternatives have for their claims. This lack of backup might very well be the reason they can’t get any research financed, which is their eternal complaint. Ideas without any scientific basis usually don’t get financed easily. Their counterattack that conventional science sabotages research being done into their ideas sort of proves my point I think.
Urich // November 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Beatis,
There has been a lot of noise over this woman’s death, just not from the Nederland authorities. I have always been suspicious of disinformation when not backed up by the logic of result. Also, note that JennyJo took the harshest of approaches – did she first try anything else as she was in the perfect position to do so.
Anaxymperator,
You have been extremely logical and formed in your opinion and for that I am appreciative. Most, including those on the jr forum are like children fighting in the streets – they scream names and try to degrade but with little substance. You are correct in saying there is little backup for the claims, but we are all in a catch 22 situation – nobody is going to fund the research without an underlying financial gain possible. Ideas with good solid research don’t get researched further, such as any form of natural medicine. NCI is full of research that had a phase 1 that was highly successful but never went to phase II for lack of funding. Places like NHACF and Quackwatch are both sites dedicated to stopping alternative med. NCCAM does co-fund some studies but it seems only has the ability to fund Phase 1. Currently they are funding a Reiki trial – (my opinion is…oh good grief). That is why we need an independent governmental body made up of a mixture of scientists with non biased opinions to find out the truth – they are the only ones that have the ability to fund without end gain. Now I’ll go stop living in fantasy land….
P.S.
Where is the valid response to the vaccine question and the fact that ALL prostates that have been removed due to cancer have fungus in them? NOTE: cancer is NOT fungus or other microorganism.
beatis // November 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm
How do you know JennyJo was in a perfect position to first try something else?
Urich // November 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm
You answered your own question earlier:
beatis Says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:49 am
JennyJo is a breast cancer survivor, she had a full mastectomy, lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemo therapy.
beatis // November 19, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Sorry, don’t follow. My question is: how do you know that JennyJo was in a perfect position to first try anything else – I take it you mean other than the treatment she did take.
Because you said “note that JennyJo took the harshest of approaches – did she first try anything else as she was in the perfect position to do so.”
Urich // November 20, 2008 at 3:23 pm
If your question is: How do you know that JennyJo didn’t feel that she had to immediately respond to conventional treatment and was afraid to do anything other than to undergo the most invasive and harshest of cancer treatments?
Then my response (though the same) is – she was in the perfect position to try alternatives not normally prescribed by Allopaths and then she would have had first hand experience to report back to the interested community. Of course we have plenty of anecdotal evidence already, from those that decided not to succumb to the advices of their Allopaths and to instead seek out alternatives (like Simoncini’s) with apparently a far better record than that of the Allopaths’. Of course they’re just anecdotal…except to the person that claims they are cured!
beatis // November 20, 2008 at 5:36 pm
No, that is not my question, as I think you very well know. I have the feeling that you are deliberatey twisting my words.
It was YOU who made a statement about JennyJo, implying that she had ample time to first try out other treatments than the one she actually did have. Even now you say she was in the perfect position to try alternatives not normally prescribed by allopaths, by which you mean alternative treatments. Therefore I presumed you have essential and private details about her medical condition, otherwise how can you make such a statement? You have lost me completely with your answer, I have no idea what you want to communicate.
Regarding your quote:
“Of course we have plenty of anecdotal evidence already, from those that decided not to succumb to the advices of their Allopaths and to instead seek out alternatives (like Simoncini’s) with apparently a far better record than that of the Allopaths’.”
No, we don’t have any evidence to that effect. You say there is, so then please show me, because I’ve never seen it.
beatis // November 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm
BTW anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. Someting is either evidence, or an anecdote.
Urich // November 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm
You are being obtuse. The internet is full of reports including the site referenced above by anaxymperator, or check out curezone.com
And you are also wrong about anecdotal evidence.
an•ec•dot•al \’a-nik-”do-tel\ adjective (1836)
1 a : of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes
b : anecdotic 2
2 : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usu. unscientific observers
3 : of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story
an•ec•dot•al•ly \-tel-e\ adverb
(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved
Nothing further will be gained by arguing about jennyjo…
As far as studies go for alternatives, ask yourself why there are no Phase II trials of good Phase I experiments that have no financial gain for the backer.
Look up Carvacrol or Eugenal in phase I trials…here’s a site to get you started – http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-86702004000300005&script=sci_arttext
If that doesn’t help, then I fear there is none who shall ever be able to persuade you. The world persecuted Galileo for not accepting the common path, maybe Simoncini is in the same boat. And you still have failed to answer the simple question of “Why, if Simoncini is wrong, we have vaccines such as HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and they have developed a vaccine for use in late stage prostate cancer and all removed cancerous prostates have shown to have been colonized by fungi. Skip the side BS and give a logical conclusion as to why Simoncini is actually wrong if the above is true. Not an emotional knee-jerk reaction to “my allopath doesn’t agree”, sort of comment. And PS, if the above ain’t true, then the allopaths must not have a clue either…because that’s their own procedural treatment…and HPV vaccine is even the law in Texas…’mazin isn’t it?
beatis // November 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I don’t have to prove simoncini wrong, he has to prove himself right.
The fact that a virus can cause cancer has been well known for quite some time. I don’t see the relation with Candida Albicans however. You must realise: simoncini argues that ALL cancers are caused by one particular fungus: Candida Albicans. Now that is complete nonsense. I can imagine some fungi being able to cause cancer, but Candida A is not one of them, certainly not all cancers indiscriminately.
It is also not true that all prostate cancers are shown to have been colonized with fungus.
I don’t see why others should do Simoncini’s work for him: he makes the claim, let him deliver the evidence.
And as for Galilei: it is not enough to be persecuted to be considered a genius, you must also be right. Galilei was, which cannot be said – as yet – of Simoncini.
beatis // November 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I quote: ‘Not an emotional knee-jerk reaction to “my allopath doesn’t agree”, sort of comment.’
Now, what’s that supposed to mean?
cryptocheilus // November 25, 2008 at 12:34 am
What beatis says.
Simoncini treated enough people to come up with clean evidence. If not, he’s either lazy or a charlatan. I’ll go for the second option.
It’s not strong trying to prove you have a point using a dictionary Ulrich. Dictionaries don’t cure people.
You are quoting research about curing oral candidiasis in the rat. What has that got to do with curing different forms of cancer? I don’t see a link here.
I hope you’ve got enough tin foil to fold your anti allopatic hats.
Urich // November 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Actually, you and I finally have reached agreement. I also do not believe that Candida is responsible for all cancers. There may be many differing organisms responsible that may/may not have mutated/evolved in the body and have set up home (which is what I believe cancer is – home/nutrition/environment for the organism).
I don’t believe Simoncini to be a charlatan even though he doesn’t have the final proof. Costs are too prohibitive to expect that and we therefore have to rely on anecdotal evidence until our society changes its mind set.
Galileo was “not correct” during his lifetime. It was only after later the opinion of those in power discovered him to be correct and even into the 20th century there were people who doubted. Stupidity (unlike ignorance) is always slow to accept change and always refuses to accept evidence that doesn’t match its preconceived notions. Although, it must be said – healthy skepticism is essential WHILE maintaining an open mind.
In the rat example – it was just a starting point. Here is better. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GVW-4DS34W3-80&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=77fc18930bc438d0dc1a3c7aca3da892 or
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/cyto/2003/00000043/F0030001/05381083 or http://www.springerlink.com/content/g66342r161866264/ the list is actually quite large. Notice the lack of further testing….It is prohibitively costly unless you are a company (read pharma) that has something to gain from such testing….
I was pretty sure that I got the bit about fungi in the removed prostate from NCI’s site from one of the gazzillion studies that I’ve been reading on. When I get more time, I’ll try to find it for you.
The Kneejerk comment is from what I’ve seen on many different sites/blogs when confronted with (admittedly) anecdotal or survivor evidence. No one can provide “clean” evidence as of yet as there is no one that is willing to put out the millions of dollars required for trials unless they stand to gain great sums of money. Note that in Allopathy there is very rarely clean evidence, especially when it comes to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. All I ever wanted to show, was that Simoncini should not be attacked, instead they should fund him in a put up or shut up trial that would then be useful to us and at the same time would be useful in convicting him of fraud if that were the case. There have been trials offered to certain “alternative” practitioners but only if they were willing to modify their dosages/methods and/or accept patients that had extremely short life expectancies. Those would be unacceptable trials and all of these practitioners have refused (rightly so in my opinion). I’m not only thinking of Simoncini but also of Burzynski and a few others. If they are frauds, give them the rope to hang themselves; but if not frauds, perhaps they could give us a better, more useful way and perhaps more of our loved ones as well as ourselves could stand a better chance with greater quality of life than the options currently offered by Allopath
beatis // November 25, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Anecdotes do not count as scientific evidence.
However, they can serve as a sound basis for further research, provided there are many of them, they are documented in an objective, detailed, precise manner and they are made public at the usual platforms, so they can be assessed and subjected to peer reviews. Thus, although not delivering direct proof, anecdotes, or rather, case reports, may be valuable in promoting and assisting further research efforts.
This is what Simoncini should have done and it would not have been difficult: meticulously documenting your work can be done by any university freshman. Until now, he has failed to do so, therefore in my opinion this ‘idea’ of his does not deserve to be funded. He has failed to do even his most basic homework.
peter // November 26, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Anecdotas are occasionally the only means for making sense of a situation.
That’s the only thing: simoncini is a charlatan.
peter // November 26, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Selling point simoncini, only based on anecdotes.
The reason he don’t want to documenting his work must be the only reason of his totally disqualification.
Urich // November 27, 2008 at 7:05 am
Peter:
It is easy to say someone is a liar, or someone is a charlatan; however, it is upon the accuser to prove that accusation. What is YOUR proof. Not the mere, “I think so, therefore it is.” Most people (including myself) would like documented evidence of claims – name calling or reputation bashing requires no less than that which you would like. Documentation. That doesn’t mean aiming us toward other blogs, or non-governmental sites that are stating opinion. I would accept anything from…say…NCI or other .gov site. The lack of his documentation puts Simoncini into the realm of doubtful and unproven – not charlatan. Without direct evidence of falsehood, fraud, or deceit, then you ask to be allowed to give more than what you are willing to accept.
Beatis:
Lack of documentation is not necessarily a valid reason to decide that a procedure is invalid – not if there is anecdotal evidence. I would like for Simoncini to be correct, but someone must do the work. He has to have some sort of “correct method” although it may not be the end all of research into cancer (and may not be the best solution), only because he does have anecdotal evidence. For that reason alone, I would like to see the Trials funded for other researchers and Simoncini. I would even like him to be enriched if his procedure is useful. I don’t necessarily want to see Simoncini funded, just his methodology.
I used to do Payroll for the U of Colorado Health Sciences Center and I saw a lot of grants paid to doctors for some really bogus stuff. They would come in ranting that they didn’t get the extra 20G in the paycheck that they were expecting. Those grants went directly to the docs and not even to the department where they were supposedly doing their study. Wouldn’t it be great if we could do a study and then financially, as well as greatly honoring, those who gave us innovative research. On the other hand throw the bastards in jail that actually dupe the paying public. But who would be the decision makers? Could we trust them? Ehh…just in a philosophical mood, I guess….
beatis // November 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Philosophical or not, I still think it’s no more than basic that Simoncini should deliver decent anecdotical evidence, e.g. case reports, so that we know what he has been doing excactly and can gain some insight into cause and effect etc.
I still see no reason to fund research into his theory. When working in Europe, he claimed all cancers were caused by Candida A. Later he amended his theory and said all cancers are caused by Candida A plus a number of other factors, such as food, state of mind, positive thinking and what not.
All in all, I’m not very impressed.
I work at a university, where a lot of research is being done, the greater part of it with very little financial backing. The scientific level is very high nonetheless, which cannot be said for Simoncini. I get the impression that he doesn’t even know how to document his cases properly, which is the first thing for any research whatever.
beatis // November 27, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@ Urich,
I quote you:
‘Lack of documentation is not necessarily a valid reason to decide that a procedure is invalid – not if there is anecdotal evidence.’
Simoncini’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ does not meet any scientific standards and therefore as such is useless.
anaxymperator // November 27, 2008 at 7:25 pm
@ Urich,
Simoncini’s anecdotes don’t meet basic scientific standards.
You also say that someone has to do the research – I take it you mean into Simoncini’s theory. But on what basis? There is no evidence that cancer, any kind of cancer, is caused by Candida A. That some cancers contain fungi, is not the cause of the cancer but the result, as can easily be determined by any pathologist.
Your mentioning of HPV has does not make his theory more plausible; they are two totally different things. You are doing this all the time, mixing unrelated factors and trying to drain some logic out of that.
In my opinion, funding simoncini in a put up or shup up trial would be a waste of the tax payer’s money and I think it would also be very unfair to all the good scientists still waiting for their grants.
The pharmaceutical industry needs to make profits to fund further research and keep their shareholders satisfied. We may not be happy with that, but it’s a fact of life. The government can take over in part, but that would mean tax rises, something Americans are extremely allergic to.
In Europe, pharmaceutical companies are becoming more and more aware of the dilemma they are in and together with governments and universities are trying to find solutions to this problem. This has resulted in the foundation of a number of scientific institutions in which pharmaceutical companies, governments and universities are working together. Profit is not the main goal of these institutions and all participants wil benefit equally from any results.
For information, see:
Innovative Medicines Initiative
http://imi.europa.eu/index_en.html
Anyway, this still does not prove simoncini right. There is an abundance of evidence that cancer is not caused by Candida Albicans. In fact, the evidence is so abundant there would simply be nothing to research, not even for the above mentioned institution.
peter // November 28, 2008 at 6:51 pm
quote: The lack of his documentation puts Simoncini into the realm of doubtful and unproven – not charlatan.
I can imagine that’s this is for you like lookin’ to yourself!
Urich // November 29, 2008 at 10:47 pm
While I would agree that Simoncini does lack published documented cases, he states that he has the documentation and that it is available to those that want it. Without proof that he doesn’t have it (especially since I don’t plan to ask him for it) and I know of absolutely NO ONE that has asked him for it, I withhold judgement either way as to the validity of his treatment. However, I refuse to discredit those that claim they have used his treatment – successfully. Nor will I call them liars without any substantiating evidence that would make me correct and not a liar.
I also notice that many websites that have a discourse of Simoncini, including this one, declare that Simoncini has stated that Cancer is Fungus. However, I can find no basis for this claim; instead, I find that Simoncini states that fungus leads to cancer – a very distinct difference. Even in the headline article at the beginning it clearly states: “Simoncini claims that cancer is “simply” an infection (il cancro è un fungo) caused by Candida albicans, an opportunistic fungus.” That is provable misinformation, while Simoncini’s procedure is merely questionable as it has not been proven to scientific standards.
Anaxymperator:
Oncologists have discovered both fungi and bacteria in cancer. No question of that fact. The question is whether bacteria or fungi cause the cancer or if the cancer weakened system allowed the growth of microorganisms.
I believe that maybe, when talking about all those good doctors waiting for their grants, perhaps you are talking about the grants to study chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Both are very dubious practices and the results are questioned by a large bevy of physicians. Also, how many studies done by grants are required for the exact same procedure, before we decide that procedure works/doesn’t work? Check any of the government sites like NIH or NCI and you will find multiple trials of the same thing. Talk about wasted money.
You mention that I mix different topics in order to drain some sort of logic. I have looked back over all of my posts and failed to make sense of your comment in those regards. Maybe you have me confused with Peter. No wait, he’s just plain confusing.
Still – I still appreciate that for the most part your comments are logically based and the argument is formatted as a dialogue.
As far as funding Simoncini, Why Not?! We fund so many other unbelievable things such as bridges to nowhere, butterfly farms in the far north, and other such projects that have little benefit to all of humanity, it makes sense to me to fund those that could provide insight.
You are wrong about Candida. It is not unbelieved and it is the opinion of various doctors, Weil, Whittaker and even many anti-alternative doctors, that Candida plays a very huge role in human health and the lack thereof. So much so that a simple googling of the term brings up millions of pages and is even under study by NCI and has over 88,000 page references in NIH’s site.
To put blinders on is to prevent seeing that which is around you. Tunnel vision … tch, tch, tch.
To all:
If you look at the SELECT Study on NCI’s site, you will discover that it takes 10s of millions of dollars to fund a study. Since there is zero patentable profit to be made (by those with the money to fund studies) from alternative treatments/procedures and eradication of human disease is not profitable to either the planet or to pockets (read population control) why would a study ever be done. Check out the Phase I trials on Bio-Dim. They’ve known about IC3 since the 1970s and yet there are no Phase II much less Phase III trials. Why??? It doesn’t take a genius to determine that something stinks.
And yes, the American public is against taxes, but let a school issue come up on local politics and watch how fast your homeowners tax goes up, especially since a majority of those voters aren’t homeowners. Or check out the local Starbucks on every corner and calculate the profits. People only care about others (generalizing – OK) when it directly affects their own selves. Science, pseudo or not, has only been able to be advanced by those who pioneer their techniques and products. Very rarely do we see innovation come from the established groups, it almost always takes an outsider to shake things up.
You condemn Simoncini and YET I ASK AGAIN, does any body, any body at all, have direct evidence, direct proof, anything other than hearsay and opinion, that his procedure does not work??? I heard of someone dying while under Simoncini’s care, but shucks, they die daily from aspirin, ibuprofen, celebrex, paxil, surgery, anesthesia, chemotherapy, radiation, and even CT scan with contrast to name just a few of the allopathy recommendations that kill. Does that make all of those bogus/scams/fakes???
Why the desire – the need – the impetus to call Simoncini fake? Where is the evidence against him? He is…let me say that again…HE IS still practicing and there are others using his methods….Maybe he does have something, if we hold him to the same standard as we hold allopaths…oops, he is an allopath as well…and still a doctor! Weird – huh.
Urich // November 30, 2008 at 12:53 am
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=194
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=90613
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15795711
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/15/1026
All are reports on the presence of Candida with Cancer. All are important for what they imply versus what they say. Some are relevant for both purposes. All show the link of candida with the presence of cancer. All are from mainstream science. They are many more on the web, this is just a very, very small sampling from the first two pages out of over 2.8 million hits!
beatis // November 30, 2008 at 1:33 am
@ Urich,
Two things:
1. These are not all mainstream science.
2. Even if cancer were caused by Candida A – which it is not – there are far better remedies to get rid of a such an infection than sodium bicarbononate.
beatis // November 30, 2008 at 2:01 am
Candida A. is not particularly harmful, except sometimes in patients with lowered immune function, such as cancer patients. When you talk about fungi capable of causing cancer, there are far more likely candidates than Candida A. Many people are infected with Candida A. without it ever bothering them in the least. That so many people live with Candida A may well be the reason why it’s such a popular fungus in alternative circles: it is common in many people so you can blame it for most diseases, sell your alternative remedies and at the same time make fun of stupid narrow minded conventional science.
Urich // December 1, 2008 at 4:01 am
Beatis:
I was about to take exception with you, but realized that I did include the canceractive site which as you pointed out is not mainstream…Sorry for the error; however, I do believe the others are correct (double checked to make sure)
Really, I don’t disagree with you about candida; I also think that candida is not the cause of all illness/cancer. However, I do lean toward cancer being caused by “opportunistic” microorganisms, whether bacterial, fungal, or viral. It does not make sense to me, that in an otherwise healthy body, that cells become cancerous without an outside influence that can redirect/subvert the bodies own defensive mechanisms. Cancer cells are produced constantly by the human body (I’ve read somewhere) from birth. The thing is is that our immune system, when healthy, destroys these cells. The only outside influence that I can think of that can bypass the bodies defenses are outside invaders. Maybe I’m wrong…but the science seems to back me up.
My understanding of using sodium bicarb is that it can be injected at the site, bypassing the body’s internal processes which might otherwise excrete the NaHCO3. I do know that anti fungals from pharma do not penetrate the bodies tissues very rapidly, frequently incompletely and they tend to kill everything including the good when they do reach somewhere. Yeast is in the air all around us and can be captured in the wild. You can naturally rise bread or make beer from wild yeast. Therefore, it would seem to me that you could become easily reinfected without any defenses once pharmas were used. I truly don’t know the answer and am only guessing.
I know that all of the naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors, and other “alternative” practitioners that I have heard of/met feel that allopaths have a very important role in treating people. The only thing (my opinion too) is that they are stuck in a world ruled by pharma. They do not look outside of what they are taught and there have been great pains taken to prevent them from deviating from a pharmaceutical path. There are a very few that have started taking a more complete approach to medicine, combining allopathy with naturopathy. My hope is that it far more embrace this path before I die, or someone I care about, of something because there was no profit to be made from keeping me/them healthy and alive….
beatis // December 1, 2008 at 11:18 pm
@ Urich,
You said: “It does not make sense to me, that in an otherwise healthy body, that cells become cancerous without an outside influence that can redirect/subvert the bodies own defensive mechanisms.”
No one is saying that there is no outside influence; there are many outside influences, we are only saying that Candida A. is not one of them.
Our DNA has always been mutating, which is the cause of disease but is also a good thing, because otherwise we’d still be amoebes. It takes a long time and many stages for a cancer cell to develop, for there are many safety mechanims to prevent this. But something can go wrong with each of these mechanisms and there can be numerous reasons for it, some we know of, some we don’t yet.
Our immunesystem is also a very fine-tuned affair, where many factors work together interdependently. It is not a simple straightforward thing like: eat healthily and you won’t develop cancer.
What worries me in many alternative theories is that they simplify the whole concept of cancer to an enormous extent and that the people who speak about it so confidently have very limited knowledge and understanding of what they are talking about.
Sometimes I think the simplification is done deliberately, to convince the layman, for scientific information on cancer is often complicated and difficult to understand for ‘normal’ people, who are not scientifically trained in this field. An example is the video in which simoncini points out the ‘fungus’, where there is no fungus is sight and blames the cancer for being a fungus ‘because a fungus is white’. But many cancers are white as well and in this video there is no fungus in to be seen. When he shows that the cancer has disappeared after his ‘treatment’, he shows a different part of the colon, you can see it because of the angle of the images, which is not the same as the earlier images. Things are definitely not right with this video. Simoncini is either lying or he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I don’t know which is the worst.
Urich // December 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Beatis:
I agree very much with you for the most part; however, I think that you are wrong about candida. I do believe that candida, like so many other pathogens, can be a culprit in inducing cancer. Cancer may be, as you say, a mutated cell but it could also be an adapted cell as well. Adaptation is another process by which many scientists believe that we went through some sort of evolutionary process. The cell may be adapted by an invader to provide a necessary environment for that invader (think HIV). Sometimes it kills the host, sometimes it’s beneficial to the host, and sometimes it is neither. There is plenty of evidence (albeit mostly anecdotal) of raised ph causing cancer remission. Candida survives in an acidic environment, could it not create that environment for its survival and proliferation?
I would agree that those in the alternative field do tend to simplify; however, those in the mainstream are no less guilty. As a matter of fact, most oncologists will rush a patient into biopsy and surgery or other invasive/toxic treatment without giving full perspective to the patient, and (I’m a witness) telling the patient that either they do what they are told or find someone else and then still dare to bill the patient for such lousy advice. As example: the NCI’s website as well as NHI’s shows that unnecessary biopsies have been frequently performed and mostly based on PSA levels for prostate. It became so bad that the PSA test no longer reflects a reference for doctors of an established baseline and the formerly useful PSA test is now listed as being unsuitable for determination of prostate cancer. If you were to ask an allopath of alternatives, he/she is legally restrained from giving the patient alternative treatment or information. If the doctor does, then their license can be suspended, the doctor fined, and criminal charges can actually be brought against the doctor – regardless of whether the information given was beneficial or not. The legal question is whether or not the doctor used “standard approved treatment” for the condition.
Also, I disagree about diet. If you were to consume a proper diet, I do believe that you would be far less likely to develop cancer. However, a proper diet is almost impossible at this time. Not only are we societally barred from a proper diet, but the very ground that we grow food in is almost completely devoid of nutrients. The US Congress was notified in the early part of the 20th Century that we were running out of good ground. No answer has truly been forthcoming for even now we lay tremendous amounts of fertilizer on the ground to make plants grow, but that does not add human nutrition to the plant.
As far as Simoncini – I wish I had a good answer as to whether he is lying or incompetent or a genius. I do know that he could make far more money from practicing conventional medicine for which he was licensed to do. He is not making millions from patenting his process, and others are using his process for which he is not recompensed. If he is sloppy, then you would hope that someone would step forward and help him to “clean it up”. But to expose him as a fraud without proof or establishing motive is irresponsible as it may be his treatment that could have saved that one person’s life that his treatment would work for.
Why do we not hold allopaths to the same exacting standard that we hold alternatives to? Why do alternatives have to be 100% safer, more effective and more researched than allopathic methods? Where is the research on radiation therapy, chemotherapy and for that matter – surgery? There are plenty of Phase IVs but all of the evidence points to little to no benefit with some very serious side effects. If alternative had the same dismal record…’nuff said….
beatis // December 4, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Honestly Urich, how can you say that there is little or no benefit to conventional cancer therapies?! You can’t be serious! Conventional therapy is proven effective when cancers are still in a curative stage.
No one says that alternatives have to be 100% more safer, effective etc than allopathic methods – including myself. But the least alternatives can do is try to answer to the same standards of documentation. Many of them don’t. The ones that do, are a blessing to everyone, but sadly enough, they are very rare.
I know that certain alternative therapies can help patients feel better, more balanced and healthier, so that they can cope with their illness better. But there is no alternative therapy that can cure cancer. There is no conventional therapy that can cure metastasized cancer, with one or two exeptions. But there are many conventional therapies that can cure early stage cancers.
I strongly believe simoncini is a fraud, every vein in my body says he is, because it is so obvious he knows next to nothing about cancer. I don’t know if he’s in it for the money, although his treatments are definitely not cheap. He might also be in it out of vanity or megalomania. I don’t know, but I would never ever risk my life with him.
That a conventional MD makes a mistake, or is rude or in incompetent, does not mean the treatment in itself is worthless.
I don’t know how things are in the USA, but when a very good friend of mine had breast cancer, her oncologist had no objections to her taking complementary therapies as well, als long as the therapists were prepared to consult with her oncologist and as long as they did not advise her against conventional therapy. Which they did not. The oncologist was interested in what she was doing and kept notes of it, so as to be able to advise other patients.
I know many biopsies are unnecessary. But you only know that when you’ve done them. It’s always easy to say when the case is closed what the doctor should have done.
As far as diet is concerned, I don’t know what people in the USA do, but in my country it’s perfectly possible to follow a healthy diet.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people want to put blame to someting or someone for the fact that there is such a thing as cancer, because they can’t accept that such a terrible illness can exist. So there has to be blame, be it conventional science, conventional doctors, the environment, bad food, modern times, whatever.
But the harsh facts are: there always was cancer, there always will be, and many people die because of it.
There is also hope: science does progress, no matter how much you doubt it; every pharmaceutical company wants to find the cure for cancer, for even if they would not make one cent profit out of it, it would get them the Nobel prize and generate millions and millions of dollars, because of goodwill and positive advertising for their other medicines; there probably will always be cancer but there will be less of it because we will gain better insight in all the different factors that cause it, less people will die of cancer and the ones that can’t be cured will live longer and with a better quality of life.
For this, we need science. And all science starts with documentation. Everyone who is not willing to do even that, can’t expect to be taken seriously.
Urich // December 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Actually, the science does not bear out a positive outcome for cancer patients. The survival rates for patients “at the curative” stage is considered to be good at five years. That to me, is a dismal outcome. Europe’s land mass was depleted even before two world wars devastated the land. There are still places in Asia and Eastern Europe, South America and North America (Some parts of Canada) where the land is still nutrient rich. However, I would be suspicious that the land is probably not in the best of climates for growing or would require vast removal of essential forests. Almost all of the vitamins and minerals that we are told to supplement ourselves with are produced by (I think) fourteen pharmaceutical companies – seven of which are in the US. The companies that make these vitamins are making them from soot from coal burning plants and obviously other sources but almost always a chemical process rather than a food based process. All vitamin companies purchase their raw products/materials from these companies and then package those raw products into a pill that is then given their own label and sold.
As far as pharmaceutical companies wanting to do something so humane as to discover a cure for cancer, I can only raise my brows and wonder at what they shall tell all of their shareholders at the next meeting as to why they have lost such a huge portion of their profits. They are in the business to make profit, not to cure anything. As a matter of fact, as I sit here typing this, I can not think of a single thing that has been cured by pharmaceutical intervention. Herpes – no, shingles – no, headaches – no, heart disease – no, cancer – no, cholesterol (even though that debate rages on as to what is the proper level) – no, kidney disease – no, liver disease – no, alcoholism – no, and the list just keeps on going. Pharmaceuticals treat symptoms, not the disease itself. Even inoculations (which again there is large debate about) don’t cure anything, they only get the body to present antibodies against a particular invader.
There is no long term evidence that any form of radiation, chemotherapy or even surgery has a much better outcome than alternative practices when it comes to cancer. We have no scientific studies that shows the long term survival rate being greater than other procedures. We cut, burn, and poison cancers, but the mean survival rate of cancer patients remains the same. The sole exception is in the area of skin cancer, and yet even alternative methods have proven effective in this particular area – neem especially. We really are still in the dark ages when it comes to what we call medicine. It is little wonder that people grasp at every straw, rather it be allopathic or naturopathic in nature. Our survival rates are not good if we fall seriously ill. Our only hope is to avoid as much damage as we can, through (admittedly bad) diet, chemical manipulation of our bodies (ph level in particular) and care with our environment. Until we are no longer ruled by greed and we look forward to a world of humanists we can expect little to change. Yes, there are those (maybe Simoncini) that will attempt to make changes for the betterment of mankind and even those that shall go against their own professions, but they are few and far between. Until then we can not expect the science to be there unless there is a profit to be made and the science can be manipulated.
As far as Simoncini: his treatments are far less costly than the treatments by any other oncologist. He may indeed have a case of megalomania, but then again maybe he is on the level. Lack of documentation does not disprove nor discredit a theory.
“Good” science starts with documentation, but lack of documentation, though suspicious, is not proof of bad science – just proof of carelessness.
beatis // December 4, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Urich,
You say: “There is no long term evidence that any form of radiation, chemotherapy or even surgery has a much better outcome than alternative practices when it comes to cancer. We have no scientific studies that shows the long term survival rate being greater than other procedures.”
That is complete nonsense. I challenge you to show me the evidence of cancer patients who are cured by alternative treatments.
You also say:
““Good” science starts with documentation, but lack of documentation, though suspicious, is not proof of bad science – just proof of carelessness.”
You are wrong again. Where there is no documentation, there is nothing and where there is nothing, there can never be science.
You say: “but the mean survival rate of cancer patients remains the same.” This is also untrue. I don’t know where you’re coming from, what you’ve been reading, but I think you are talking dangerous nonsense.
peter // December 5, 2008 at 5:35 pm
quote JJ: I thought you were trying to convince us that conventional science is wrong about the cause of cancer. With what you are saying here, you are undermining all you’ve said before on cancer being a fungus etc.
Become entangled in self-deception, he doesn’t believe to be true!
anaxymperator // December 5, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[Quote]
Urich Says:
December 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
alternative methods have proven effective in this particular area – neem especially. We really are still in the dark ages when it comes to what we call medicine.[End Quote]
When you put it that way, then surely we are still in the dark ages.
Simoncini cancer therapy: is it true? « Anax blog // December 8, 2008 at 7:43 am
[...] also: Tullio Simoncini Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Alkalize Your Fungus…1- Sodium bicarbonate, a [...]
Calay // December 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think its a shame that some doctor in the USA does not try this out to see if it works? Im sure there are many people who would want to try this out and see if it works. So 100,000s of people deai every year from the current treatment of CANCER !! and 100,000 more will die next year. If there is 5% chance that this new way can work, IT NEEDS TO BE TRIED>)>. So lets get a program to trie it, and let the FAT lady sing !!
beatis // December 8, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Good idea.
Let Simoncini try it out, after all he is the one making the claim
BTW the chance that it works is not 5%, but 0%.
jli // December 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm
[Quote] Calay Says:
December 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think its a shame that some doctor in the USA does not try this out to see if it works? [End quote]
Well it has been tested in bladder cancers in rats. And the cancers progressed. It would be a bad idea to try something out that is based on a demonstrably wrong idea, and furthermore with no effect in an experimental model.
beatis // December 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Really? Where do you get these numbers from?
Urich // December 9, 2008 at 9:09 am
Sorry, I was away and have to leave again in a few days…so here goes:
The truth is, that our doctors are still fumbling about and stabbing at diagnoses. They are pretty good at setting bones. But can you think of a single cure. When I say cure, I mean 100% of the time for 100% of the patients with that illness. Okay…I’ll accept 80% with 80% of the patients…60 %…. We truly have come a long ways in technology in the last 100 years, but we know that Egyptian doctors were performing brain surgery over 3000 years ago. And how are we doing today…dark ages indeed. And don’t point out vaccines, because then you are truly talking about an alternative method known as Homeopathy….
JennyJo: Sorry to read about your illness. I hope you are one of the many miraculous ones that have spontaneous remission and remain that way. I personally doubt anything that I haven’t personally experienced…too many have too many reasons to be biased in their “offerings” and proof for me is self evidence and not mock trials (See the SELECT Trials). I have never said fungus, bacteria or viruses are cancer. I do believe and the evidence is quite persuasive that they may be the basis of cancer; since both alternative and conventional med have established that these microorganisms are always present with cancer. Conventional wisdom states they are incidental, alternative states they are the cause. Complementary medicine states that neither and both sides may be correct and therefore they approach the issue in a more whole manner. I consider the jury to be out, but I still lean more toward the invader. The list of people is tremendous for those that claim to have been cured by alternative treatments for cancer. Look at the Cesium treatment; there are many who claim they used it years before and were successful including the guy at T-Up who pioneered it and contracted cancer during his trial and documented his cancer and his cure. Those in allopathy (read conventional) rate people who are “cured” of cancer in five year survival rates and they are dismal. However, I can not and do not blame your regular practitioner (except oncologists) because they are clinicians and not researchers. They get trained in a medical school that receives the majority of its funding from pharma and they rely upon researchers to steer them to practices that are beneficial to their clients. The majority of them truly do care about most of their patients and do not wish them ill. They are also (in my opinion) victims of a broken system. Oncologists on the other hand have none of my respect (I’ve seen four – so I do judge based on my limited experience) because they are uninterested in the clients opinion or value the patients desire to try less invasive procedures first. They are of the opinion that only their opinion counts and will try to force the client into their own rigid and expensive methodology. I am glad you recognize your own aggressiveness. I see it across the web but usually only from those who never attempted alternative treatments and (quite frankly) doesn’t know anyone who has tried alternative treatments. I have witnessed both methods. I personally have seen loved ones die of cancer – up close and personal. None of them survived conventional treatments even though one of them lived for 11 years with cancer. The quality of their life was terrible as they went through conventional treatments. Every single one of the ones that I have seen do alternative, first attempted to do the conventional. Once conventional said there was nothing more to be done, they went to alternative. They’ve already destroyed their immune system, poisoned their bodies and frequently had made tremendous removals of flesh from their bodies. All except for one of them also perished. The allopaths told him that he was one of the few lucky ones that had spontaneous remission of his cancer (which apparently does happen quite a bit). He tried to tell them about how he proactively treated his cancer through alternative methods and they just poo poohed him.
For Beatis and JJ:
Trials can only be afforded by those with great wealth or backing by great wealth. However, no one will back a trial that has no foreseeable patentable profitable product for which they can recoup their money. Simoncini is willing to undergo trials (if I understood correctly) and that is the only acceptable “scientific method” allowed by any and all governments in all countries. Documentation is not acceptable except in a phase I trial. It does not get you to a phase II trial. Money does that. I do wish that Simoncini and a whole bunch of others would provide true Trial I research and make it available to the general public. It probably wouldn’t mean much if all of the evidence “on the internet” written about in books, etc is true. check out:
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/Alkaline.html or
http://www.thewolfeclinic.com/pdf_news/DMSO_Cesium_Protocols.pdf or http://www.cancer-coverup.com/cancer-success-stories/default.html
Check out BioResponse-DIM at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search?term=diindolylmethane and http://www.bioresponse.com/Clinical-Studies.asp
Now are any of these sites the “smoking gun”? I don’t know, NOR does any of us. Really this is all just a masturbatory experience in futility. Even if one of us was a research scientist, we would be limited by what our employer allows us to do and what our funding allows us to do. Even if we were gazzillionaires, we would be limited by what the opposing side claims and their credentials vs what the facts may/may not be since any idea can be supported and manipulated to show what is wanted to be seen.
Anaxymperator:
I know you don’t mean it this way – but – I agree with you, we are truly still in the dark ages
To all:
I finally figured out why people think Simoncini said fungus=cancer. The title of his book (but of course). However, this title is taken out of context with his book which (if I have read the summary correctly) is Simoncini giving attention to the fact that he believes get fungus, get cancer not truly saying cancer and fungus are the same exact thing.
Once again I must say that people are still trying to prove Einstein’s theories, Pythagorean theory, etc. Theories are not always supported by documentation but through practice. Would you refute Einsteinian theory? How about Darwinian? Or maybe even Pythagorus? You can and there are those who do. Non of the above have great documentation and most of the documentation that has eventually been done was not by those greats but by others that came after. But there are many who refute even the Greats. Hence they are only THEORIES!
Simoncini’s procedure is unproven. It does not mean fraudulent. It does not mean that it does not work for some patients or for some cancers. Not yet it doesn’t. If any one I say again ANY ONE has evidence, direct proof, that it does not work, please direct me to that evidence. Please – NO BLOGS, quack sites, etc….I want straight up evidence from someone who can say they directly researched by the method prescribed by Simoncini and that the method did not work. Can’t find it, doesn’t exist? Then Simoncini is unproven, not fake, until then. But if you are willing to put up the tens of millions required for a trial, I would bet that Simoncini would happily oblige you in performing the Trial.
That being said, it makes sense that those are different fields and there’s not a lot of money to be made from disproving the Great’s theories (just religious bases). However, discounting without disproving “alternative” methods of “curing” cancer does have great financial boon to those that discount it.
Do you realize that every cancer organization in the world has written into their charters that upon the discovery of a cure for cancer that they must disband. Wow, loss of job, prestige perks and gobs of money all because someone else – as in THEM – wants to live….
Screw the hope, that’s the purview of everyone not afflicted. Those that are afflicted want cures…any way they can get them. And they just aren’t available through standard methods…either…and since we don’t accept anecdotal evidence for Simoncini or alternative med, then let us also not accept it for conventional med. Show me a study of a 10 year, 20 year survival rate based on Chemo, Radiation, or surgery where there was a significant rate of survival over other methods of treatment or lack thereof. A rate of 51% vs 43% after five years is not something to be proud of or cutting the death rate at 5 years for breast cancer down 38% which means for every 10 women, 3 survived which means SEVEN died. Not real great if your one of the families of the deceased.
You all placed Simoncini on trial in the public forum and without evidence you convicted him and you convicted alternatives at the same time. But the evidence is present against Allopathy at the same time and is presented by their own hand. Yet you defend it! Where is the sensibility of this. Simoncini has no evidence for OR AGAINST his treatment. Allopathy has evidence against and very little evidence for, that says their method is effective and yet you convict one and not the other.
You all have a great Christmas and may you find blessings from God in your stockings. I expect HE is about the only one that has the answers and the cures….
beatis // December 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm
@ Urich,
[Quote]
Urich Says:
December 9, 2008 at 9:09 am
A rate of 51% vs 43% after five years is not something to be proud of or cutting the death rate at 5 years for breast cancer down 38% which means for every 10 women, 3 survived which means SEVEN died.[End quote]
Could you perhaps read carefully what you have just written and let us know if you are really sure this is correct?
beatis // December 9, 2008 at 11:11 pm
@ Urich,
[Quote]
Urich Says:
December 9, 2008 at 9:09 am
I expect HE is about the only one that has the answers and the cures…. [End quote]
If he does know, then why not let us in on it?
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 3:57 am
Yes I am sure of the numbers as I pulled them from several sites after googling survivor rates of cancer vics….Does that give a full view of what is happening? No. There are many variables involved and those variables can always be manipulated by the person interpreting those stats. Take for example the blurb I wrote above. A survival rate of approx. 1 in 3 ain’t too bad when the count was even lower in ages past and especially if you happen to be one! However, I look at it in a far more skeptical view and feel that it’s not good enough.
As far as the reports go in how many true survivors of alternative treatments there are, I wouldn’t know where to begin. I even doubt they exist as they are NOT acknowledged nor even appreciated by those that have a stake in not finding a cost effective approach to disease – cancer or otherwise. Of course, I can’t find any true evidence in allopathic circles either. How do we “know” that these aren’t spontaneous remissions or that the treated cancer patient wasn’t using some form of supplement (like Vitamin C) which was the true cause of the remission (see anything can be refuted). Testimonials seem to be all we can base any evidence on. Whether it is done in a Trial or by reports from “alternative” doctors there is always the influence of the person doing the reporting. Never mind the Trial subject must answer the questions of the researcher and there also lies a bias based upon what the researcher does or does not ask. There are NO double blind Trials, that I can find, that shows whether a single allopathic method of treating (excuse me – curing) cancer exists. If so, please point me to one at NIH or NCI or Cancer.org.
See JJ used conventional treatment and therefore has no reference (personal) for the efficacy of alternative medicine in the treatment of cancer. However, it was because of the spontaneous remission not the conventional treatment that worked, right…proof otherwise exists where…after all we only have her testimonial….
As a side note VERY IMPORTANT I went to C.org which is the site for the American Cancer Institutes site and checked out the stats for 2007.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0_2007.asp?sitearea=STT&level=1
Amazing what they say about “Can Cancer be Prevented?” Read this amazing report and gosh, I know I’m reading into it and between the lines, but it seems like they have some agreement with Simoncini in the fact that cancer can be caused by an invader….Okay, they really parrot what I’ve been saying above but what the hey….
As far as “If he does know, then why not let us in on it?”…I thought he did…IT’S CALLED ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE….
beatis // December 10, 2008 at 8:01 am
No one has been denying that cancer can be caused by an invader. We only say it’s highly unlikely this invader is called Candida Albicans.
Also, we have not said that alternative cancer therapies can’t cure cancer, we said we strongly doubt it because the alternative therapists making claims to that effect have never been able to come up with any reliable underpinning.
Every time we are referring to results of conventional cancer therapies, which can be checked and double checked by anyone who wishes to do so, you say these results have been manipulated. In that case further discussion is useless.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Beatis:
I went back and looked through the blog and I have to agree with you. You have stated that the link to viruses is well known (as a matter of fact Royal Rife made this allegation) and never said that other pathogens were excluded.
Your main focus has been that you don’t believe that candida A is the cause of any cancer much less all cancers. You have also said that you felt that NaCHO3 couldn’t be effective and that there would be better fungicides anyhow.
I have to say…I agree with you and slightly disagree with you. I’ll just say this: I don’t know if candida A and its variances are at the base of any cancer, but I cannot rule out the influence of candida A as uncontrolled growth does overwhelm the body and it does survive in an environment that is conducive to cancer. Also, I do not know of any fungicides that are systemically effective. Simoncini is using a compound that has been shown to be effective against candida as it creates an alkaline environment and candida needs an acidic environment.
To summarize…I can’t rule out Simoncini or his procedure even if Simoncini may have exaggerated or focused too narrowly on cancer as it would be in line with the way other oncologists practice conventional medicine and the amount of ego the whole profession seems to exhibit.
My whole bent has been and remains that we cannot discount Simoncini and that with his documentation (for those new to the discussion see this blog http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/cancer-a-fungus/#comment-188 ) there should be a more open minded approach until he is disproved. When I asked two different oncologists that I have seen about fungus being found in all cancerous prostates, they stated that yes it’s true but that that is incidental to the cancer and is a result of the cancer and not the reverse.
All results of every Trial are always interpreted in the way of the person conducting and interpreting the Trial. Like politics it can and usually does bend the meaning; it doesn’t mean that there is no value, just hard to place a true value because of the human involvement.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I don’t want to promote Simoncini, I just want to know from someone following Simoncini’s procedure independently, if his methods/beliefs have validity. Not just opinion.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Also, Peter, I don’t understand why your translator doesn’t do as good over here as it was at http://www.topicalinfo.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=80
This was actually only one of the forums where I noticed that you and jennyjo were always together. Also this site has a discussion as well on Simoncini’s approach.
beatis // December 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm
@ Urich,
Simoncini is not meant to be the only subject on this blog. We have just started, so you will have to be patient.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Forgive me for above…don’t know what I was thinking but you could be a totally different Peter…and it was wrong of me to make this assumption….
beatis // December 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Don’t worry.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Beatis:
But the blog topic is Tullio Simoncini and the link is Simoncini Cancer Treatment? What do you mean?
beatis // December 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I should hope one can have more than one topic on a blog. If not, I’ll have to start another 10 blogs or so.This one is complicated enough as it is already. I’ve been trying to make pages for various subjects, but to be honest, I don’t know how that works.
Urich // December 10, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Ah…I understand…and feel for you….
beatis // December 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Thank you.
peter // December 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@ Urich,
I was probably wrong in you.
I offer my apologies to you!
This is as a result of the research that I did.
One question please to see if I am right.
Is your year of birth: 1976
beatis // December 11, 2008 at 3:11 pm
No personal information on this blog please, respecting everyone’s privacy is paramount here.
Also, we prefer substantive content.
Thank you.
peter // December 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I have askin’ his age.
How do you know that he finds it’s personal, he’s not a woman.
So, a very substantive question.
Please, think again on your tone of voice.
peter // December 11, 2008 at 6:03 pm
When personal information is givin’.
What the hell you’re doin’ in that neighborhoud?
Urich // December 11, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Ah, come on Be at is (love your play there), give a moment for non-substantive material.
I am eternal having been made of the stuff of stars. And none shall ever walk the path I have taken for that path has blended with a million other paths crossed. I am a flower child, raised in shadow, to only bloom with the light of knowledge and the sprinkling of experience. And much older than ‘76
Which is why I think that Simoncini may be onto something. When I’ve looked into Cesium Salt (scary as it is), alkalizing diet, and other procedures that are based on raising pH, it seems to me that the introduction of NaHCO3 is in line with the other research. NaHCO3 is an acid neutralizer which is the environment that cancer survives in. Perhaps this is what gives his method effectiveness. In the US direct injection is not allowed and they are using a drip system instead. I don’t know how effective this would be except to raise the body’s pH. Seems that would take a long time to cause cancer cell die-off. Direct injection makes some logical sense to me, as that would immediately remove acid waste that normally surrounds cancerous tissue. It still doesn’t explain what happens to the blood vessels that cancer taps to bring glucose into themselves. Of course, the one thing I can definitively state is that we have almost no clue as to how the body works. What we know is so infinitesimal when compared to what we don’t know as to truly be an embarrassment to the medical profession that has been in play for tens of thousands of years. As tragic and as sad as it is, I have read that a lot of our knowledge came out of what Nazi Germany did. It is also equally tragic and sad that most of what we now research and experiment with has to have a monetary greed factor built in. Most alternatives including Simoncini’s procedure, does not lend itself to great wealth building or CEO payouts in the millions of dollars, much less the money that needs to be paid out to shareholders. I am not against wealth, conservatism, pessimism, or research. I just believe that all should be tempered with a huge dose of humanism…
beatis // December 11, 2008 at 6:35 pm
@ Urich,
??? You’ve lost me completely, don’t understand the word play either, sorry. Are you having happy hour perhaps?
Perhaps you are referrring to cyclofosphamide, or better Mustard gas (1,1-thiobis(2-chloroethane))? This was used by the Germans as early as WW1. I think you are confusing cyclofosphamide with zyklon-B, which the nazis used in the gas chambers.
beatis // December 11, 2008 at 7:06 pm
He might be from Jupiter for all I care.
peter // December 11, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Sorry, but have I read from you that Urich is a pathologist?
beatis // December 11, 2008 at 7:23 pm
@ Peter,
Urich is not a pathologist, but jli is. Jli is also building a website on Simoncini’s fungus theory:
http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus
Urich // December 12, 2008 at 2:39 am
Ya’ll might think I’m far out there, but no, I’m across the big pond.
As far as WWII Germany, they performed a tremendous amount of experiments, not only in longevity, gene manipulation, and cloning, but also in how sound, chemicals, and surgical intervention performs on the body. They were also heavily into the occult and there has been some evidence of “dark arts” being used on unwilling victims to see if different alchemy potions were more efficacious than others. At the end of WWII the allies were quick to grab as much of the brain power as was possible. Unfortunately, a lot of the great brains (many involved in what we would say was brutality and inhumanity) were snatched into the USSR only to disappear and not be heard of again. However, a great many also came to the US. In the US the Paperclip Project had a lot to with what was to come. Rocket science as well as medical advances were directly related to those expatriates, as well as the USSR’s first flight into space and the launching of Sputnik. Or so I’ve read…here’s some base info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Vera from Bucharest // June 6, 2009 at 7:38 am
People believe any charlatan because they don’t have not only the slightest idea abut medicine or another science field, but also they don’t have the slightest amount of common sense and judgement.
Candida is a fungus commonly living in the human body and which doesn’t cause any illness until the host is immunocompromised.
The causes of cancer are yet unknown, although there is an official proof that a weakened immune system cannot fight disease, including cancer.
See the picture at this link:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macs_killing_cancer_cell.jpg
A weakened immunity caused by stress and sleep deprivation, which is very modern nowadays, can cause a variety of health impairments, perhaps cancer also.
The fact that candida can be found amongst many patients with cancer doesn’t make it the cause of it!
The observation that most patients with cancer have also candidiasis is very basic and rough and the hypothesis that candidiasis leads to cancer is laughable and erroneous.
Candida is just one of the many signs of an weakened immune system and it can be found frequently also in diabetes patients, transplant and AIDS patients and, in general, in those patients with a severely weakened immune system.
Candida is the alarm ring that tells us that something’s not going all right in the body.
Chronic inflammations have the same status and purpose and they have also been associated with preceding cancer.
I believe that cancer is caused (in patients who have a genetic predisposition to it) by the general degradation of the immune system, which doesn’t have the cytostatic ability to fight cancer cells anymore.
beatis // June 6, 2009 at 8:03 am
@ Vera,
Thank you very much for your comment. I would like to add the picture you linked to in our page See This! Hope that’s ok with you!
Tullio Simoncini and How Not To Cure Skin Cancer « Anax blog // July 22, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] 22, 2009 · Leave a Comment Tullio Simoncini, a convicted ex-medical doctor, ‘discovered’ that cancer is always caused by the fungus candida albicans and that is can be [...]
Beps // August 28, 2009 at 8:08 am
Simoncini’s treatment is effective!
It is an inconvenient for the Farmaceuticals that having invested billions of dollars in cancer research are now facing a change of direction for a very cheap treatment.
Wake up!
G.F. Loriga
jennyj0 // August 28, 2009 at 8:37 am
Oh, for Pete’s sake go and have your head checked!
beatis // August 28, 2009 at 8:47 am
And this is supposed to be your ‘evidence’?
Ranting against mainstream science, only to make your own quackery seem like a reasonable alternative, is that all you can do convince us that cancer can be cured with baking soda? That’s really lame.
And another thing: have you ever asked yourself how much money is being made in alternative ‘medicine’, without any decent research ever been done? All you people ever do is make empty statements and treating cancer patients like complete idiots.
Beps // August 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Well you have an alternative to baking soda: “chemiotherapy”. Good luck
wilmamazone // August 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Indeed Beps!
All you people ever do is make empty statements and treating cancer patients like complete idiots.
anaximperator // August 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Just what I thought: no evidence. Stupidity and viciousness, that’s all you have to offer.
Good luck with your baking soda. Just don’t say we didn’t warn you.
evenarsenicisnatural // August 29, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Mmmmmm…thought I smelled roast duck…
Please pass the plum sauce.
jli // August 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Treatment by Simoncini is not cheap. See http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160733
LIVELONG // October 29, 2009 at 5:58 am
All I have to say is there is a lot of talking and Urich seems to be in control of the issue. Except for the fact the Cancer has been proven several times to result from the Bx virus.
in 1906 the Rockefeller Institute Mr. Peyton Rous deduced that cancer can be caused by a virus. Dr. Royce Rife also made that connection in the 40’s and early 50’s. the world’s leading vaccine expert, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who explains that Merck’s produced vaccines with SB40 (a Cancer Virus) in Polo vaccines. Geez nothing is known about cancer or at least there is little publicly published about what is really known. They are always telling on them selves.
wilmamazone // October 29, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@livelong
I hope that you live long with your conspiracy-fungus infection, because there is no treatment for this disease!