Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Is cancer a fungus?

Tullio Simoncini claims that all cancers are fungi. Can this really be true?

Cancer is no more than a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – says Tullio Simoncini, and it can be cured with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues that this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein. Although he has failed to deliver any evidence or even the slightest underpinning for his theory, he expects us to believe him solely on his word.

For any layman, no matter how well-educated, scientific texts on cancer are often difficult to read and interpret, but we have been very lucky to find a scientist-pathologist with a website where he explains in layman’s terms all the relevant facts of cancer in relation to Simoncini’s theory and the important work that a pathologist does. You can click here to visit his site.

If you have any questions, you can ask them on this blog.

About these ads

47 responses to “Is cancer a fungus?

  1. Urich November 27, 2008 at 7:16 am

    Actually, unless I greatly misunderstood Simoncini, he never ever stated that Cancer was a Fungus. Instead, Simoncini among others, claim that cancer is a result of fungi. This is a great distinction. Many oncologists are even now pointing to bacteria and/or viruses as being culprits in cancer – read HPV vaccine for preventing cervical cancer as just one example.

  2. beatis November 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Simoncini claimed that all cancers are caused by Candida A. This is not the case.

  3. Urich November 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    I think I would agree with you on that. However, I think the evidence does point to cancer being implicated with microorganisms. Perhaps Simoncini only has part of the answer :)

  4. beatis November 29, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    Simoncini would do everyone including himself a great service if he would just publish decent case reports. Then we would at least know what we are talking about.

  5. Urich December 1, 2008 at 4:04 am

    Agreed. Surely he has a staff that could help out in this area.

  6. Urich December 4, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Peter:
    Your translator needs some serious work…try:
    http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

  7. jli December 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    Actually, unless I greatly misunderstood Simoncini, he never ever stated that Cancer was a Fungus.

    I believe you did misunderstand Simonicini. He has written a book titled “Cancer is a fungus”. In several video appearances he claims that the “white cancer masses” are fungal colonies. He further claims that metastases occur because of fungi entering the bloodstream, and settling down elsewhere in the body forming new fungal colonies (=metastases). There is no doubt that he claims that cancers are fungi.

  8. Urich December 9, 2008 at 9:34 am

    I just went to his site and he states:
    “My idea is that cancer doesn�t depend on mysterious causes (genetic, immunological or auto immunological as the official oncology proposes, but it comes down from a simple fungal infection.”

    His book “Cancer is a Fungus” is summarized as such:
    “Among the many books that try to give an answer to the problem, the one given by the oncologist Tullio Simoncini distinguishes itself by its simplicity and its innovative ideology.
    The book “Cancer is a fungus” describes how a fungous infection always forms the basis of every neoplastic formation, and this formation tries to spread within the whole organism without stopping. The growth of the fungous colonies, together with the reaction of the tissue that tries to defend itself against the invasion, causes the tumour. This is a simple and solely extracellular phenomenon.”

    I believe this refutes what you are saying and I cannot find evidence that he states cancer and fungus is the same thing. It seems to me he is saying that fungus creates an environment that allows the fungus to survive which results in the formation of cancer due to the action of the fungus on the surrounding cells….

  9. jli December 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    I believe this refutes what you are saying and I cannot find evidence that he states cancer and fungus is the same thing. It seems to me he is saying that fungus creates an environment that allows the fungus to survive which results in the formation of cancer due to the action of the fungus on the surrounding cells….

    On his website he links to an oral presentation he gives. http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-598800713255508140&hl=it
    I suggest you follow that link, and pay attention to what is going on at around 4 minutes in the video. He points at a cancer and directly states that it is a fungal colony. If you believe that cancer is not a fungus, then you have to dismiss Simoncinis idea.

  10. Urich December 10, 2008 at 6:54 am

    Good evening, I am Dr. Simoncini and I am Oncologist
    I am pleased to release this interview where we investigated the world of the Cancer

    Question: We know that it is a long time to treat this problem What kind of discoveries did you do?
    Answer: After many studies I found out that the cancer is a particular infection a fungal infection moreover I always thought that genetic theory of what the cancer is of no relation to this illness I’m convinced of it by continuous experiences and therapeutic successes that validated and enforced my theory that the cancer is caused by fungus the Candida with all its variance.
    Question: So you afear that cancer is not due to the modernness of a cell as reported by conventional oncology but to a simple fungal infection?
    Answer: Yes it is a fungus in fact I started from the observation that another unknown illness the psoriasis is due to a fungus hence I thought of the cancer and I know illness is also caused by fungus the fact that the cell becomes independent and grows up independently is a real invention from about 100 years scientists suggest hypothesis that nobody ever demonstrated never this policy has no evidence at all at the same time it is supported only by negative elements 8,500,000 deaths for cancer this is still unknown and the wars after hundred years over researches it is still completely surrounded by the mystery everybody not only the doctors talks about the cancer and about the oncology researches but I want to make a question has anybody seen a cancer I think it is useful before talking about the subject and studying it to focus it and look at it. So this is a colonscopy of the intestine and this is the wall and this is the tumor that cause the almost total occlusion of the intestine this is a cancer that you can see it is quite red then after washing out and going on with this you can see whats there the red color that is in my opinion the last phase of the organs reaction here you can see that I am pushing water from above and going on with this washing out you can see that go out the white fungal colonies that stays beyond the epithelium you can perfectly see the fungal infection here this invasion causes reaction of the tissue and from where the tumor comes down hence you can see intestinal occlusion going on you can see always this colonies dramatically white that is the fungal colonies here you can see also the date of april 26 when the treatment with sodium bicarbonate was performed about 200 grams of sodium bicarbonate in a liter of water we are going on and this is the operation of the washing out with the sodium bicarbonate and on april 27 that is the day after you can see that the intestine is open and getting closer the cavity is open and wide and that is the mass is really regressed and the intestine was reopened I would like to underline that the cancer is made only by fuh white colony
    Question: Then you want to say that the abnormal cellular production doesn’t pertain to the cancer as we can usually know?
    Answer: The madness of the cell is an invention the hypothesis that nobody has demonstrated and that hasn’t lead to any result Just to keep on saying what the cancer is here is bronchial endoscopy made by entering directly in the bronchia there are you can see are the main breathing ways and then the {?cemental?} and then going down yes now going down you can see also the bronchia what the cancer is the lung cancer that is in this case an adenocarcinoma here also in this case you can see the white lumps also in this case the tumor is made by white lumps going on there is another white lump and there are the many bronchia of the bronchial tree there are many bronchia with the white lump so the cancer is always white here there is another bronchus with a white lump going on it seems clear the color of the tumor also of this one going on it seems clear that the tumor is white and that there are images of them of the next bronchial endoscopy and we are going on look look we are keep on showing all the treatment now and there are still white lumps inside but when we start the next treatment you can see here starting from the larynx and going to the main bronchia we enter directly inside and we can see now that after the four days treatment with the sodium bicarbonate lets notice that the previous white tumor is gone are gone it disappeared this is also reported in my book the cancer is a fungus but in a video it is much more striking the tumor has disappeared the liquid you can see is the sodium bicarbonate solution usually from the 3rd to the 4th administration the fungal colony regresses and from the 4th to the 5th the fungal colony shrinks very quickly rapidly here we made just for washing out treatments but they were enough to clean completely the bronchia now here look at another case….

    I stopped transcribing the translation at 9 minutes 24 seconds….

    You know, I have to thank you. I never actually listened to one of his translated lectures/media releases. It was quite educational and he makes an even more persuasive argument in person. He looks nor behaves in an erratic manner nor does he seem maniacal or a megalomaniac. He presents evidence on video and apparently has documented some of his research. Enough so, that it begs to be further investigated by experimentation for validation.

    Also, by what I transcribed (of course I left out most punctuation etc) I find that he very clearly states that fungus creates an environment that is cancer. However, I do not see where he makes the two the exact same thing except in the title of his book which is known as literary license. He clearly states over and over that fungus causes cancer…at the point you reference, he clearly shows that he believes that fungus is present with the cancer as all cancer is white and fungus candida is always present in cancer (also stated later in video).

  11. beatis December 10, 2008 at 7:40 am

    Maybe jli can answer this, being a pathologist.

    To me it seems that when cancer is indeed caused by Candida A, this has to show up some how or other after the examinations of the pathologist. According to Simoncini this is such a plain fact that it can hardly be overlooked. Yet up to now, no evidence sustaining Simoncini’s theory has ever been found. I find it hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of pathologists the world over are willing to keep this a secret because pharmaceutical companies pay them to do so.

    Simoncini also says: “the fact that the cell becomes independent and grows up independently is a real invention from about 100 years scientists suggest hypothesis that nobody ever demonstrated (…)”
    This has been demonstrated in many ways, for graphic and detailed demonstrations you may click on this url and look at several cancer cells: http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/
    Select Favourites, then click Image Awards 2008.
    I personally wouldn’t call this process madness though. It is the result of a normal process, where many factors are involved and where something has gone wrong with one or more factors, some of which we know already, some of which we don’t yet.

    I’d like to point out the following:
    - the video has been watched by an oncologist, by a pathologist who works at the university hospital of the university where I work myself and by jli, who is also a pathologist, dealing with cancer on a daily basis. They all say the same: in his video simoncini ‘shows’ ‘fungi’ where in fact there are no fungi at all.
    - he also says that in every cancer, fungus is involved; this also is not the case;
    - he claims that continuous experiences and therapeutic successes have validated and enforced his theory that cancer is caused by fungus Candida A with all its variance. If this is true, then why hasn’t he made this information public?

  12. jli December 10, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Hello again Urich.

    In your transcript it say:”…Answer: Yes it is a fungus

    And a bit further comes the bit I suggested you payed attention to.
    “…..from above and going on with this washing out you can see that go out the white fungal colonies that stays beyond the epithelium you can perfectly see the fungal infection here this invasion causes reaction of the tissue and from where the tumor comes down hence you can see intestinal occlusion going on you can see always this colonies dramatically white that is the fungal colonies“.

    If this doesn´t convince you that Simoncini claims that cancers and fungal colonies are the same, then I guess nothing will.

  13. Urich December 10, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    I would imagine that any pathologist or oncologist would have to say that watching a video does not give them any opportunity or ability to state whether a bacteria, virus or fungus (even if it is Candida A) is present. They would have to say that they would need to take samples and scope them or utilize other hands-on analysis before they could make such an allegation. Simoncini claims that he has already done that work and that led him to believe that Candida A or its variants are responsible for the overlaying cancer. Nobody can say that something does/does not exist without directly performing the tests themselves. The mere viewing of any video, textbook or professional consultation with another in the profession cannot give anybody the ability to make any form of ascertainment without doing the necessary footwork themselves. And if they do recite a colleague they should state that “so-and-so did the scientific work/research and has conclusively stated based on their own experimentation …”
    I hate it when lawyers bring in professionals that “review the facts” and then make a “professional judgement” without actually doing the true research work themselves. It just seems phony and manipulative, to me.

    Beatis: I clicked on the link but I don’t understand what you want me to see. How does those pictures show that cells grow independently of other factors (such as Candida A and cancer as Simoncini claims).
    Also, I don’t believe pathologists or researchers are necessarily overlooking Candida A (or other invader) just because of Pharma but sometimes it is hard for us (as in humans) to break out of the rigidity of our beliefs/training (the same problem that Galileo had) even if something is glaringly obvious or has been there all along and just required a different way of viewing the same situation to receive a different result.

  14. Urich December 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    jli:
    He responded to a question as to whether he does or doesn’t think that cancer is caused by fungus. He responds yes it is caused by fungus.
    The second part is where he points out the white area and states that this is where the fungal infection is at. He then shows the tumor (not saying fungus) and says that the two coexist as the fungus causes reaction in the tissue. At least that is my interpretation of the interpreter’s interpretation. Admittedly, if you took bits and pieces, one could make the jump that he is saying fungus=cancer instead of fungus creates an environment to survive and that environment is cancerous. You have to take the whole to help weed out some of the bad English…to get to what he is in fact saying…I think….
    beatis says that you are in the profession. Are the nodules or lumps that he shows in the video in fact what you would think visually could be cancers (understanding you didn’t do a biopsy).

  15. jli December 10, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    beatis Says:
    December 10, 2008 at 7:40 am

    “To me it seems that when cancer is indeed caused by Candida A, this has to show up some how or other after the examinations of the pathologist.”

    I agree. If not everytime – at least once in a while.

    “And you might also expect that when Candida i
    According to Simoncini this is such a plain fact that it can hardly be overlooked.”

    Yep – you only have to examine the white masses. But Simoncni firmly believes that the only thing a pathologist gets to see is the reactive red cells on the surface.

    “I find it hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of pathologists the world over are willing to keep this a secret because pharmaceutical companies pay them to do so.”

    If candida were present in cancers, I´d write about it – and document it in an instant. That would make me famous. Pharmaceuticals don´t pay anything to pathologists because pathologists don´t buy their drugs. In some instances pathologists reduce the pharmaceutical industries income because they can examine cancers for sensitivity to various types of chemotherapy.

  16. jli December 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Urich Says:
    December 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    …He then shows the tumor (not saying fungus) and says that the two coexist as the fungus causes reaction in the tissue.”

    What do you think a clearly visible fungal colony is??

    “You have to take the whole to help weed out some of the bad English…to get to what he is in fact saying…I think.”

    Well, there is an american fan of his named Doug Kaufmann (also mentioned on Simoncinis site)who have had conversations with him. He understand Simoncinis theory just like I. In the introduction to his interview with him he quotes Simoncini for saying that cancer and fungus are the same. The words cancer and fungus can be used interchangeably. And in the interview Simoncini say that at post-mortem examinations the white masses found are fungal colonies.


    beatis says that you are in the profession. Are the nodules or lumps that he shows in the video in fact what you would think visually could be cancers (understanding you didn’t do a biopsy).”

    The colonic lump we are discussing is a cancer. The red you see is blood – not reactive cells. And the clearly visible white mass is made of cancer cells (embedded in its stroma). It is not a fungal colony.

  17. Urich December 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Hmmm. I thought you might say that. So, then my and everyone else’s question should be:
    In the video it shows the resulting white masses and tumors – gone. So, would this not indicate that even if Simoncini is incorrect about the fungus that he would then be correct about NaHCO3 being effective against cancer? One or the other would have to be seemingly true based upon the visual evidence and anecdotal evidence supplied by “allegedly” cured patients. Especially since the nodules do not appear to be there any longer?

  18. beatis December 10, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    That sounds like very haphazard ‘science’.

  19. jli December 10, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    You do seem to believe everything he says (except that cancer is a fungus – Which you don´t believe he said anyway). How do you know that the photos are from the same location or even the same patient?. Afterall he was caught lying when he denied being near a patient of his who died from his treatment. Not an honest thing to do.
    And what about the experimental study that showed progression of bladder cancer treated with sodium bicarbonate?

  20. Urich December 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    I was never present with the so-called patient. I don’t know what he claimed or disclaimed, I wasn’t there, nor were there any credible disclosures that I could find. Why believe one and not the other? If we are to give benefit of the doubt to everything against the man, then we should also give benefit of the doubt to the man. If there is suspicion that he filmed someone else after his treatment, it should be easy enough to duplicate his procedure and find if it is effective. I think it obviously would need to be done by someone with equipment that can verify the process’s efficacy. Oh, and saying why try something which won’t work, is an extremely ignorant and irresponsible argument (not saying that would be your response, just the normal response I’ve seen in other places). I don’t believe anything ANYBODY says – you, him or anyone else. I believe in seeing with my eyes, experiencing with my body, and doing with my own hands. I have seen the failures of Allopathy with my own eyes and have experienced it with my own body. I have yet to have that failure with alternatives (but to be fair I also have not tried very much alternative). I refuse, and believe this to be the only sensible approach by anyone, to blacklist, slander, libel, put down, or otherwise discredit anything/anyone without good concrete evidence that I know what I’m talking about through the very science (or self-experienced evidence) that you accuse another of not performing. The onus lies upon me as I am responsible for my actions – I am not now, nor do I plan to ever be responsible for another’s actions. If the whole world does wrong, it still lies upon me to do right.
    To paraphrase: Even if Simoncini is full of BS and his videos are BS and his process is BS and his concept is BS, I shall not be guilty of BS and shall refute anything I have an opinion of with cold hard scientific evidence against. An opinion “for” anything can always be done without fact and just opinion…as that is as the colloquialism says “just playing devil’s advocate.”
    As in any court of law and to allow for justice to prevail even outside that court, the burden lay upon the accuser, not upon the accused.
    I am not aware of the experimental study although I would be interested in reading about it, although, I am aware that there are in vitro tests done showing that an alkalized solution does kill cancer cells.
    Also, my understanding from reading (now quite a bit) is that Simoncini has stated that NaHCO3 cannot be used for all cancers and that there are a few states in the body in which NaHCO3 has no efficacy. Matter of fact in the video he states that for skin cancer you need to use iodine and not NaHCO3. I do not know what his opinion of bladder cancer would be.

  21. beatis December 11, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    @ Urich,

    These are the facts: in October 2007, a woman with breast cancer was treated in a clinic in Bilthoven, Netherlands by Tullio Simoncini’s protocol, with injections with sodium bicarbonate. Whether or not Simonicini administered the sodium bicarbonate himself or had this done by an assistant, remains unclear.
    Apart from Simoncini himself however, no one denies he was there. The clinic medical director and several members or staff have made legal statements that Simonincini was present at the clinic when the woman was treated. The clinic medical director said Simoncini was there in the capacity of ‘medical consultant’. He also claims that he knew nothing about Simoncini’s criminal record.
    After her treatment in the clinic, the woman became critically ill and died soon after.
    We don’t know if she died because of the treatment or because of something else. We know she did not die of natural causes. We know Simoncini was there, he was seen standing by her bed on a number of occasions, examining her. We also know he denies having been there.
    All these facts are common knowledge and we are entitled to mention them.
    We are also entitled to mention that he was convicted in Italy and that his medical license was taken away by an Italian court.
    Stating these facts is not slander. Telling lies about the man is, but we’re not doing that.

    Simoncini is making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s up to him to deliver that evidence and up to now, he hasn’t done so.
    When you make extraordinary claims without delivering any evidence, you can expect to be asked tough questions, especially when it comes to cancer. I guess he’ll just have to live with that.

  22. Urich December 11, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    I’m not saying that you or this blog is slandering Simoncini. I think the discourse here is far superior to what you find at other blogs. What I am saying is that I do not know the facts. I have only information that is not from what I would consider reliable sources as to Simoncini’s involvement, his conviction, the two women who died, etc. I have less than anecdotal evidence to go on. I did transcribe a web page, I did read that Simoncini was not convicted of manslaughter but of charges that seem to be a little all encompassing that someone peddling chicken soup for colds could get caught up in.
    Do you happen to have or could come across a reputable site source for the testimony that Simoncini said he wasn’t present and yet witnesses put him at the scene? I would like to view something reputable as all I have been able to find are blogs or personal websites. Thanx.

  23. jli December 11, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    “# Urich Says:
    December 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    ” I don’t believe anything ANYBODY says – you, him or anyone else. I believe in seeing with my eyes, experiencing with my body, and doing with my own hands.”

    Okay – fair enough. I have a working experience of how pathology is performed, and what sort of information that oncologists are given (contents of the pathology reports). Don´t you think that it is reasonable for me to be skeptic about him, when he misinforms about that? If he has 20 yaers of working experience he can´t be unaware that cancers are (usually) removed by surgeons and subsequently thoroughly examined by pathologists. All oncologists I know is fully aware of this. Either Simoncini is the only oncologist in the world who doesn´t or he is lying. Personally I find the former option unlikely.
    It is understandable that laymen may not be aware of this. And as such you are free to believe that cancers aren´t removed by surgeons and subsequently examined by pathologists.But I have witnessed with my eyes and done with my hand. From my perspective he is using laymens lacking knowledge to promote his ideas, and that is dishonest.

    “I am not aware of the experimental study although I would be interested in reading about it”

    It is an in-vivo study on rats. There is a summary of the study here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1429206
    ” I do not know what his opinion of bladder cancer would be.”

    On his website it is on the top of his list. He claims that bladder cancer is very sensitive to his treatment.

    # beatis Says:
    December 11, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    “These are the facts: in October 2007, a woman with breast cancer was treated in a clinic in Bilthoven, Netherlands by Tullio Simoncini’s protocol”

    Wasn´t this clinic one that uses complementary treatments? That would make it hard to claim that the eyewitnesses are biased against alternative treatments.

  24. beatis December 11, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    [Quote]
    jli Says:
    December 11, 2008 at 7:22 pm
    Wasn´t this clinic one that uses complementary treatments? [end quote]

    Yes, it was.

  25. beatis December 11, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    @ Urich,

    Simoncini wasn’t peddling chicken soup for colds, he was peddling sodium bicarb for cancer. Just a tad more serious.

  26. Edward December 23, 2008 at 5:07 am

    Amazingly, why did Simoncini not produce a publication on his theory and results? The common excuse that regular medicine prohibits such publications is unvalid, since there are 20 alternative medical journals that would eagerly publish cured cases if accompanied with the correct patient data.

    I am pretty sure Simoncini does not have the correct data on one cured person (since obviously he did not cure even one), so his “results” will not even be accepted in such complementary journals. They would immediately spot the unprofessional errors and omissions in his data and scans. This is pretty sure the only reason he wrote no publications. A big shame, since he did not give his peers worldwide the chance to adjust or correct his “innovative” theory.

    Like is common practice in the myriad of hundreds of complementary therapies, which all claim to cure cancer, but never properly substantiate their claims with publications. Because they have no real cured persons or proper patient data.

  27. beatis December 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Hello Edward,

    Welcome here!

    Y’all,
    This is Edward, the man who collected over 2000 alternative therapies, more than half of which claim to be able to cure even termincal cancer.
    Click here and visit the world of miracles that never happen…

  28. jli December 23, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Edward Says:
    December 23, 2008 at 5:07 am

    [Quote] Amazingly, why did Simoncini not produce a publication on his theory and results?[Pause quote]

    In the eyes of his believers he did that by writing a book. And to them testimonials are equally valid as documentation.

    [Continue quote}
    I am pretty sure Simoncini does not have the correct data on one cured person (since obviously he did not cure even one), so his “results” will not even be accepted in such complementary journals.
    They would immediately spot the unprofessional errors and omissions in his data and scans.[Pause quote}

    That is where the internet comes in handy. He reaches more people than he would in even the most "open minded" journals. There is another post on this blog at http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/simoncinis-miracle-cure-in-cat-scans/
    It has a link to his website showing some CT-scan images. They are presented quite deceitful, and it is probably hard for a layperson to spot it. I know Beatis did - but I don´t think that is the rule.

    [continue quote]
    A big shame, since he did not give his peers worldwide the chance to adjust or correct his “innovative” theory.[end quote]

    Chances are that he knows he is wrong.

  29. beatis December 23, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    The first time I saw these scans, I stared at them for quite a long time, without being able to pinpoint what was wrong with them. Then it dawned on me that they had been mixed up. That was the first thing I noticed. Then I wondered how it could be that the heart in the one scan is so much bigger than the ‘heart’ in the other scan. Finally, I sent an email to my oncologist, asking him if he could possibly have a look at the scans and he said that they were taken from very different angles. In one scan there is a heart, in the other scan there isn’t, what you see there is probably the aorta, but definitely not the heart, so we have no way of telling whether there are any improvements or not.

    I also found the liver scans very diffuse; I couldn’t spot a tumor and to be honest, could see practically no difference in both scans, but then I’m only a lay person. This was confirmed however by my oncologist and jli here on this blog is of the same opinion. There was something else as well that I didn’t notice, but jli did: the liver scans were also taken from different angles.

    And last but not least, in one of the scans the patient’s name was made unreadable.
    Now, why would they have done that, I wonder.

    All this just makes me smell a rat.

  30. jli December 23, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    It is also suspicious that the story ends where it does. A cure means that the cancer (and its metastasis)dissapear, and the patient is alive and well. He says that the scans show that his treatment is effective. One should wonder where the next scan is that shows further regression or even complete destruction of the cancer.

  31. beatis December 23, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Perhaps the patient was just fed up with being cat-scanned all the time. :-)

  32. jli December 23, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Well- He could have written that, and all my suspision would of course vanish :-)

  33. Jorge January 3, 2009 at 2:42 am

    This is silly – no data are provided that offer any support for cancer being or being caused by a fuyngus.

  34. beatis January 3, 2009 at 9:48 am

    You are perfectly right, it is silly. Sadly enough that’s not all it is. Many desperate people have already fallen for this man’s ploy and allowed themselves to be treated by him, to absolutely no effect. It has only given patients and their nearest and dearest false hope, for which they had to pay dearly, sometimes even with their lives. You might say these people have been very naieve. But naïvety is not a crime, whereas deliberately deceiving people and giving them useless and potentially lethal treatments is.

  35. WeWee February 27, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Hi,
    i’m an italian MD with a blog investigating Simoncini’s teories.
    I still studying all the Simoncini’s videos and documents of his website.
    The blog i’ts in italian, but please write (in english, on my email: wewee1[at]hotmail.it ) me all your documents, news and articles about Simoncini We need your help!
    Thanks!

  36. beatis February 27, 2009 at 8:01 am

    We’ll be happy to help you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

  37. sumpm1 May 18, 2009 at 8:32 am

    I think that all of this suspicion that you guys have against the Simoncini’s theories are moot. If I claimed that chewing bubble gum cured cancer, it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong. And I don’t need to prove it to anyone, just go chew some gum, and it won’t kill you.

    If Simoncini’s treatment does not prove to be harmful to a patient, then what does a cancer victim have to lose? To the layman it does seem that in his videos of treatments, that the tumors are regressing; this is a very striking phenomenon that obviously needs further investigation to hold true. Like I said though, if the treatments are not harmful (and no one can present any reason why the treatments would be), then why do we not do our own trials here in the US?

  38. beatis May 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    If I claimed that chewing bubble gum cured cancer, it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong.

    Yes it does. When someone thinks bubble gum will cure cancer, they might decide not to take the treatment that does cure cancer. And this may cause them to die when conventional treatment could have cured them.

    If Simoncini’s treatment does not prove to be harmful to a patient, then what does a cancer victim have to lose?

    Their lives. Simoncini offers his baking soda treatments instead of conventional cancer treatments. He claims that conventional treatments don’t cure cancer and his baking soda does. When people with early-stage, curable cancer forgo conventional treatment and go to Simoncini instead – which they do, as you can read on this blog – and believe him when he tells them that his treatment has cured them, they may have wasted invaluable time. Time in which their cancer continues to grow and perhaps even matastasizes; and if they wait too long taking conventional treatments, the cancer may have progressed too far and it may well be too late for them.

    I can’t believe I’m explaining this.

    then why do we not do our own trials here in the US?

    What sort of trials do you mean? We know that injecting too much sodium bicarbonate may be dangerous and even lethal. We also know that sodium bicarbonate doesn’t cure cancer – there have been trials into this, although Simoncini says there haven’t. And we know cancer is not a fungus. So what kind of trials do you think should be done?

  39. wilmamazone May 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    @ Beatis

    I can’t believe I’m explaining this.

    And i can’t believe that you have to explain this again.

  40. jli May 18, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    I think that all of this suspicion that you guys have against the Simoncini’s theories…

    It is more than just suspicion. For instance try and compare what Simoncini explains about cancer anatomy in the videos (Cancers are white and all that) with what is explained at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/ I know that some of the threads on this blog are a bit lengthy, but they do provide a lot of info as to why there are good reasons to be skeptical about Simoncinis ideas. They are not just prejudiced rants.

  41. qnbs7 April 21, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    what about hemp?

    profound research accessible via pubmed confirms the anticancer properties of cannabinoids

  42. Jim McCracken November 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    I believe that there are a lot of interested parties trying to bebunk any alternative therapies – they stand to loose BILLIONS and are quite capable of paying for derogatory articles. I am completely independent and would like to point out the following. Look into Aspergillosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergillosis this just one quote there are many. There you will find that the relationship of cancer and fungus does indeed have a basis. “A fungus ball in the lungs” is one description and if someone sees that fungus ball in the lung with an xray or a scan what will the average doctor call it?
    After all the medical profession (? more like pharma front men) have stated that they do not know what causes cancer (it is of unknown cause or “undeclared” more like now) and if that is the case then how can anyone state that fungus (or fungii) is not the cause?
    There are more Doctors Frankenstein than there are Doctors healers!
    The majority are controlled by a corrupted profession that precludes alternative medicine – why? they backstab colleagues who try to actually find cures for peoples problems and pains. All to ensure the gravy train of pharma subsidy keeps rolling!

  43. beatis November 24, 2010 at 9:19 am

    It has been well known for years in standard medicine that fungi of the genus Aspergillus can cause a number of serious diseases and can also present grave problems to people whose immune system is compromised, i.e. cancer patients.

    However, that is not what Tullio Simoncini claims.

    According to Simoncini, all cancers without exception are caused by the fungus Candida Albicans. Under normal circumstances, C. albicans lives in 80% of the human population without ever causing any harmful effects. There is no evidence whatsoever that Candida A causes cancer and that it can only be cured with baking soda – as Simoncini claims – but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

    Like all fungi, Candida A can sometimes present problems in severely immunocompromised patients such as cancer patients, in the form of a systemic fungus infection. There is medication for systemic fungus infections, but baking soda is not one of them, as it is completely useless in this respect.

    Simoncini also claims that people become infected with Candida A because their bodies are “too acidic”, but this is nonsense.

    I am surprised you should say the cause of cancer is unknown, when actually quite a lot is known about what causes cancer. You didn’t seem to know either that there is a lot of knowledge about fungi and fungal diseases.

    This makes me wonder how well informed you actually are about the level of knowledge in standard medicine.

  44. jli November 24, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    if someone sees that fungus ball in the lung with an xray or a scan what will the average doctor call it?

    Well – Let’s check out the the Wikipedia page you linked to:

    In addition to the symptoms, an x-ray or computerised tomography (CT) scan of the infected area provides clues for making the diagnosis. Whenever possible, a doctor sends a sample of infected material to a laboratory to confirm identification of the fungus……..
    On chest X-ray and computed tomography pulmonary aspergillosis classically manifests as an air crescent sign

    And here is what it looks like.

  45. jesus December 28, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I see a lot of opinions and arguments against candida and acidity /alcalinity
    and you haven’t yet considered the fact that candida proliferates in an acidic environment.just ask any female in your family and she will tell you the symptoms and suffering they have to go through when they follow a diet rich in elements that promote acidity in their organs. Any doctor will tell you this fact about a woman’s private parts where candida fluorishes ,but they will never compromise their medical standing by admitting anyhing that will go against hundreds of years of established medical opinions,that just like religion,once they are repeated by the high ranking fellows again and again they become the law of their trade.

  46. beatis December 28, 2010 at 8:51 am

    just ask any female in your family and she will tell you the symptoms and suffering they have to go through when they follow a diet rich in elements that promote acidity in their organs.

    I don’t know what sort of family you come from, but in my family there is no indication that an “acidic” diet (whatever that may be) causes rampant vaginal yeast infections.

    Any doctor will tell you this fact about a woman’s private parts where candida fluorishes

    Any doctor will tell you that 99,9% of vaginal yeast infections can be treated quickly and effectively with cheap standard medication, and luckily most women know this too.

  47. jli December 28, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    but they will never compromise their medical standing by admitting anything that will go against hundreds of years of established medical opinions,

    You are wrong. Medical history is full of examples of how ideas that seemed absurd became accepted when data showed them to be correct. If you are interested in learning about this, I recommend the book “Trick or Treatment” by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: