Ever wondered how he does it? We have – and we think it might go like this.
When you are diagnosed with cancer, there are two things that will scare the hell out of you: the fact that it may kill you, and conventional treatment.
Then you hear about an Italian doctor who claims he can cure cancer with a 90% success rate, by using a treatment that has hardly any side effects: sodium bicarbonate. Because of his huge success rate, conventional science is jealous of him and makes his life a misery.
You decide to put your fate into his hands. You fly to Rome, receive the treatment and hope for the best. Sadly though, it turns that you belong to the 10% for whom the treatment doesn’t work.
Now what?
Simoncini knows: lumpectomy, followed by more sodium bicarbonate infusions, directly into the surgery site this time. For some reason, this lumpectomy cannot be done by a local surgeon, covered by your health insurance. According to Simoncini, it is imperative that it be done in a private clinic in Rome.
Now and then a little voice inside your head wonders why you would need sodium bicarbonate infusions again. After all, the sodium bicarb didn’t work to begin with, did it?
But Simoncini convinces you, this is a different approach, this time it will work, he has done it before, with a very high success rate. So you agree. You waste your money, but you also waste your time and time is the one thing you cannot afford to waste, for you have cancer.
This can go on until you are either broke or dead.
A lucrative little scam this seems, for Simoncini and his friends in the private clinic. A very nice lucrative little scam.
Click here to see all posts on Tullio Simoncini.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
“I only needed a look into his eyes to know for sure that Tullio always tell the truth” several people told in the past.
Simoncini is only a first-class liar, nothing else!
That’s just short-term wishful thinking, generated by the fear of conventional treatment. Wishful thinking never cured anyone.
Beth has decided to cure herself of breast cancer with Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda therapy and a “healthy” lifestyle. She was diagnosed July 2008. On her blog you can read that Beth is also one of Simoncini’s “10% no-success rate.” This is what she tells us about it:
http://journeytowardhealth.blogspot.com/2009/04/return.html
The good news is that Beth has finally decided on a lumpectomy – let’s hope this will do the trick, after all the time she has been wasting.
The bad news though is that the lumpectomy will be performed in Italy, in a private clinic of Simoncini’s choice and that it wil be followed by more infusions with sodium bicarbonate. We don’t know if Simoncini will be doing the surgery himself – God forbid – or that it will be done by one of his mates.
Read what our pathologist Jli has to say about this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4655747&postcount=328
Beth received some very sound advice on her blog from a number of people. Let’s all hope and pray that she will take this to heart.
I wrote Beth that if she would have done what her oncologist said one year ago now she had all the programmed treatments done (even if they include neoadjuvant chemo, surgery, adjuvant chemo and radiotherapy …) and now she’d be living WITHOUT cancer …
Luckily, breast cancer isn’t fast in growth like a NHL: now she probably is still in time to do the right thing …
Thank you so much. What you say is so true.
You are right, most breast cancers take their time. But some – like mine was too – are very fast growing indeed. I was extremely lucky, it was caught in an early stage and my lymph nodes were still clean. I still decided to do adjuvant chemo, just in case. I don’t dare think what my situation might have been had I not been treated conventionally.
We must try not to be too frustrated when Beth and her husband decide to hook up with Simoncini after all. We have warned them and given them the facts. We can now only hope that they will consider the possibility that standard medicine can be God’s instrument in curing her.
“Beth has decided to cure herself of breast cancer with Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda therapy and a “healthy” lifestyle. ”
This is an untrue statement. Had you thoroughly read Beth’s blog you would find she has never set out to “cure herself”, she has placed her life and her faith in God and trusted Him to restore her to health. At first I was like “really??” to realize you had quoted Beth’s personal words on your website, but now I am kind of sad. If you knew Beth you would know, she is not afraid of death, she has put her life and future in the hands of the Lord. The issue here is not really which is better, traditional medicine or alternative medicine….the issue here is fear of death. The bottom line is even if everyone got cured of cancer by means of traditional medicine, we are all going to DIE at some point, from something. Perhaps we should not be arguing about the best way to prevent death, but seriously contemplating what we might face on the other side. There is hope for Beth and every other cancer patient as well as healthy person in Jesus Christ. THAT is what Beth’s blog is about, not alternative medicine.
Donna preached:
“There is hope for Beth and every other cancer patient as well as healthy person in Jesus Christ.”
False hope, whether from an imaginary diety or a fake ‘medicine’ peddler, doesn’t mean diddly. Nothing like lying that results in a hastened demise.
I have to say, i couldn’t agree any more with Donna, the second we are born, we are terminal!
I don’t understand why Beth’s choice of dealing with her cancer has gotten so deeply under the skin of this anax blog??
May I also add, I have recntly spoken with Dr simoncini myself, in the hope of sending a family member to him. After explaining their treatment history and current prognosis he informed us he did not recommend his protocol post surgery or chemotherapy… I’m confused because if the mans focus is on money, why would he not administer his protocol to such patients, a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use, there is a lot of money to be made from them… im sure Dr simoncini is more then aware of this…
anon wrote:
“I have recntly spoken with Dr simoncini myself, in the hope of sending a family member to him. After explaining their treatment history and current prognosis he informed us he did not recommend his protocol post surgery or chemotherapy”
What was the treatment history and prognosis?
“What was the treatment history and prognosis?”
why is that of relevance?
Donna,
You say:
and
If this is true, why then did Beth contact Simoncini? And why did she decide to follow this extreme diet? If it was only about faith and being in Jesus Christ, she could have settled for prayer alone.
@ Anon,
Beth didn’t even try orthodox medicine, she turned tot AM right away.
As for people turning to AM: there will always be a limit to what medical science can do to treat disease, and therefore I’m afraid there will always be quacks slagging the medical profession off and claiming their “natural” product is the miracle cure that everyone else but them are too biased, ignorant or corrupt to recognise. Alternative healers should be honest to their clients and not tell them they can easily be cured when they can’t and charge them money for these lies as well. I think that is despicable. But even more despicable is how they treat someone like Beth, who has a very good chance of a complete recovery with mainstram medicine. Simoncini should have sent her back to her to her oncologist at once. But he doesn’t, instead he makes her believe that she doesn’t need mainstream medicine and can easily get rid of her cancer with his baking soda treatment. We can only hope now that Beth is extremely lucky and that her cancer hasn’t spread in the past year, so that the lumpectomy alone will do the trick. If not, there is still a chance she can be saved, but not by Simoncini.
The members of this blog are from various countries where Tullio Simoncini has been treating cancer patients. Some of those have had to witness closely how a loved one died as a result of the false promises of this man and the disastrous way he treats his patients. Actually, Beth’s case was brought to our attention by one of Simoncini’s proponents, as a showcase for the miraculous effects of baking soda as a cure for cancer:
However, when we read Beth’s blog, we couldn’t quite see all these wonderful effects and we worried that Beth’s story might not end so well. So we tried to warn her. She is a young wife and mother of 4, with her whole life ahead of her. Early stage breast cancer, treated conventionally, has excellent prognosis. The longer she waits, the greater the chance she won’t survive. Who in the world could possibly want that? Who in the world could possibly stand by silently and watch this happen??
@ Donna Randall,
You say:
Do you really think that is the bottom line? To me that is just stating the obvious.
I was not brought up in your faith. I was brought up in the faith that says that life is the greatest gift, which we are to revere, to cherish and to protect every single day and that if you save a life it is as if you have saved the world.
@ beatis
“Alternative healers should be honest to their clients and not tell them they can easily be cured when they can’t and charge them money for these lies as well”
as i mentioned earlier, Dr Simoncini was honest with me on the phone, he informed me he could not treat the family member I was enquiring about due to the nature of their cancer and the amount of orthodox treatment they already had… what is dishonest about that? That was my point I was trying to illustrate when i made the following comment
” a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use, there is a lot of money to be made from them” in my experience in contacting him, Dr Simoncini did not exploit this…
Consider yourself lucky.
This is nonsense. He cannot treat cancer patients because 1) cancer is not a fungus and 2) it cannot be cured with baking soda.
I don’t know Beth personally. But she comes accross as a very sweet, gentle, honest and guileless person. I don’t doubt that she is a wonderful wife, mother and friend. I think she deserves the best medical treatment there is and a long and happy life with her family and everyone that loves her.
With many medical charlatans, there are other aspects besides greed that play an important part in their behaviour, such as extreme narcissism and delusions of grandeur. The fact that Simoncini thinks he found the cure for cancer, when he clearly hasn’t, and blames all the scientists the world over of either being immensely stupid and/or bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry to me is a clear indication that there is something
not quite right about himvery wrong about him.“This is nonsense. He cannot treat cancer patients because 1) cancer is not a fungus and 2) it cannot be cured with baking soda.”
Yes but again, you have been reporting on this blog that he lies to people and tells them he can cure them so he can rob them of their money, why did he not tell me our relative could be cured and take our money?
The same scenario was for a friend of mine whos sister in law is in the same situation, again Simoncini refused to offer her treatment…
“there is something not quite right about him very wrong about him.”
There is something very wrong with the medical indsutry when advanced cancer treatments such as SIRT radiation considered highly effective and more so then standard treatment is not available on the NHS or PBS to all cancer patients who qualify for it, there is something very wrong when this ‘new’ treatment particularly good for secondary liver cancer when it will cost the patient upto $20,000 to recieve this treatment and if they can’t afford it, too bad they get stuck with standard chemo which according to their oncologist is not as effective…
I don’t know why this is would not be refunded by the health insurer. I fail to see the relevance to the baking soda therapy by Simonconi however. Baking soda cannot cure cancer. You seem to think that when there is a wrong somewhere, this somehow excuses another wrong. But two wrongs don’t make a right. It is wrong when an effective treatment is not funded by the health insurer. And it is wrong to say that baking soda can cure cancer when it can’t.
I have no idea why Simoncini said he could not treat the sister in law of your friend or why he could not treat your friend. Perhaps the justice department is on his heels, perhaps he has enough patients at the moment, perhaps he is finally coming to his senses.
not sure if it’s the justice department on his heels as this was only a couple of months ago…
Im not suggesting two wrongs make a right…
but if you are warning people of scams and being ripped off, why aren’t instances such as this in regards to select internal radiation therapy (SIRT) brought forward also? http://www.umgcc.org/sir-spheres/about_sirt.htm
is info on how this treatment is highly regarded and in some cases could prove as a long term cure for stage IV secondary liver cancer patients… but at a small cost of $20,000…
Anon asked:
“why is that of relevance?”
Facts are needed to attempt to slog through the bullshit and excuses that the ‘doctor’ spews about your case.
Also, see beatis’ answers below.
That’s right. The problem is that there is no way of determining if these metastases are there or not – there is, or rather, was, no way of knowing in which category you fell. Recently, a new technique has been developed that can predict which breast cancers are likely to metastasize and which ones are not. It is called mamaprint: http://humangenetics.suite101.com/article.cfm/gene_expression_of_metastatic_breast_cancer The technique will be expanded to other cancers in the coming years. This will bring down the number of chemotherapies considerably.
I didn’t say it was a 100 % success. I feel well after my treatment. Whether it was a 100% success, only time will tell. Breast cancer is notorious for late recurrence. But my prognosis is good, so there is a good chance my cancer is definitely gone.
Without the chemotherapy, the chance that I will still be cancer free 10 years after the primary diagnosis is 75-80%. With the chemotherapy, the chance that I will still be cancer free 10 years after primary diagnosis is 80-85%. Five per cent equals 1 in every 20 women. To me that was worthwhile.
This blog is about warning people about the dangers of alternative cancer therapies. I don’t know in which country you live, but couldn’t you try to bring this matter to the attention of politics and/or consumer-patient organizations? In my country, this helped to get Herceptin funded as an adjuvant, that is, for non-metastasized breast cancers also.
Thank you.
@ evenarsenicisnatural
// May 6, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Reply
Facts are needed to attempt to slog through the bullshit and excuses that the ‘doctor’ spews about your case.
Also, see beatis’ answers below.
1.) do you always talk like that?
2.) I have read Beatis’ comments already a little while ago
3.) in response to “What was the treatment history and prognosis?” Surgical removal of primary tumour , 2 x 6 month cycles of chemotherapy and 1 of SIRT ( select internal radiation therapy)
prognosis- SIRT radiation will have almost 100% success rate… (in fine print for 6 months.)..
I hope this helps you “slog through the bullshit”?
@ anon:
1) Pardon moi for not speaking of rainbows and fluffy bunnies – so, fuck yeah.
Gimme a break, actually comprehend the smoke and mirrors being spouted (by this quack and all the others) like “due to the nature of … the amount of orthodox treatment they already had” he won’t offer treatment – cheap cop-out.
“a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use” Not everything can be successful, there are inevitable poor reponses depending on the type of disease – this is reality, not failure. Using fraudulent treatments won’t change it either, it just drains your wallet and emotions.
2) beatis wrote: “Perhaps the justice department is on his heels” Hopefully…
“perhaps he has enough patients at the moment” Read: he has a shit-load of easier marks than what your case appears to be.
“perhaps he is finally coming to his senses” Doubtful.
You and your family dodged a bomb by his not accepting your case.
3) What was the cancer diagnosis? What stage? How has it responded to treatments so far?
Your point being?
don’t pardon yourself, no bother to me.. bit of self projection won’t do any harm…
Not sure why our case wasn’t easy? we speak italian, had money to spend and were ready to get going as soon as possible
Bowel Cancer with multiple mestases throughout the liver was the initial diagnosis… I already mentioned the treatments earlier so I wont repeat myself unless I can elaborate on anything for you? just let me know !
Hi, nice site,
why have you left a message of thanks on my Simoncini blog ?
(http://www.mymalignantmelanoma.com/2009/01/tullio-simoncini.html)
A link to my blog would be appreciated
Regards
Seán
@ Sean,
The thank you was for the amount of information on your blog.
Done.
@ Anon,
I’m very sorry and wishing you all the best in these difficult circumstances.
@ Beatis
“I’m very sorry and wishing you all the best in these difficult circumstances.”
thanks for the wishes:)
I have put a link to your informative blog on my site too
Thanks…
just thought you may be happy to know, i beth’s lymph nodes were clear
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8783959258403887867&postID=8863067427564711324
I am happy, very happy in fact. That after almost a year her lymph nodes are still clear makes her an extremely lucky lady.
However, I still think she acted irresponsibly by wasting so much time. After all, her oncologist already advised lumpectomy last year, at the time of the diagnosis. But I hope from the bottom of my heart that she is cancer free now and will live a long and happy life.
ur welcome
Just wondering: how was it determined that Beth’s lymph nodes were clear?
My tumour was first analysed in a frozen section analysis. This means that the tissue is frozen and rushed to the lab for a first analysis by the pathologist during surgery, allowing doctors for rapid and accurate microscopic analysis of the tissue while the patient is still in the operating room. Frozen section analysis gives about 90 % certainty on the state of the tissue surronding the tumour.
In my country – as in many other countries as well for that matter – frozen section analysis is followed by definitive analysis in greater detail by the pathologist. This takes longer, about 4 days. Because she has allowed her cancer to grow unhindered for almost a year, I hope this was done in Beth’s case as well, as it gives more certainty about her condition than the frozen section analysis alone.
According to the post on her blog the procedure was performed in a hospital in Milan – not a private clinic. So chances are that she was operated by people who know about these things, and that the diagnostic procedures were done properly. On the other hand she was also treated with sodium bicarbonate, so if this hospital believes that pathologic examination is a waste of time (The expressed opinion of Simoncini) then there is a good reason to be concerned.
This is what worries me too.
Apparently Simoncini’s treatment doesn’t come that cheap after all, nor do the treatments of Beth’s other alternative health care providers:
None of what Beth is doing to get rid of her cancer is covered by their health insurance. None of it will cure her cancer, except hopefully the lumpectomy. But lumpectomy is part of conventional cancer treatment, there’s nothing alternative about it. I hope from the bottom of my heart that the lumpectomy alone will suffice to cure Beth. But I also hope decent tissue examination was done, to find out if the cancer has spread and if so, how far. The only thing that can possibly have saved her life at this point is the lumpectomy. This means that a tremendous amount of money has been wasted on completely useless treatments. Far worse is the amount of time that has been wasted. And wasting time is a thing no cancer patient can afford. I think that is a ****** shame.
Did he not say that they have already raised 26.000 dollars??. And they are still asking for more. Natural treatment may be a lot of things but cheap isn´t one of them
Yes, they raised 26,000. The total amount needed is 50,000.
And she could have had high quality lumpectomy including proper histopathologic examination for free (through her health insurance).
It seems that God needs tons of money to perform its miracles.
All natural? Get rid of toxins? Raising her immune system? I hope for her she doesn’t have lymphoma. It might work. They could give her a glass of freshly squeezed, organic hemlock. That’ll at least get rid of the pain. Permanently.
Maybe, they could have a look in countries where “all natural” is the only choice, and then see how outreageously long those people live.
I find it so funny that these “naturalists” (lol) always know how much money they need for everything. That seems to be one of their strong points. In medicine, we never know how much something will cost because every disease and every patient is so different.
Her lymph nodes were examined through a scan as far as I know, at the time of her diagnosis. She also had all kinds of “naturopathic” blood tests done.
For some reason modern science is never seen as an instrument of God by these ultra-religious people. I can’t understand why this is. Why would God not allow it?
There are indeed some references in the Bible that indicate that God doesn’t like medicine, but I think that the real reason has more to do with the fact that religious believers tend to be paralogical thinkers, they choose the route of least evidence. Quackery is like that too, and I am guessing that this makes them feel more comfortable.
quote from Bart B. :
“…the fact that religious believers tend to be paralogical thinkers, they choose the route of least evidence. Quackery is like that too…”
Too true. Yet they persist in torrents of BS and complete nonesense to justify their self-induced denial.
Bah – who needs to bother with facts and reality?? /sarcasm
This site is a violation of people’s privacy. Did Beth ask for your opinion on how she deals with cancer or how she spends her money?? I just don’t understand why you cannot let this go! It’s not about you, move on.
It’s not about Beth. It’s about the charlatans who make their money by deceiving people into thinking they can be cured of cancer with their quackery.
And btw, there is nothing private about a video on youtube.
@anonymous
Quote:
Did Beatis ask Beth to put everything about her cancer on the internet and advertise a big quack like Simoncini?
I just don’t understand why you can’t see/understand that this man must be stopped.
Beatis is doing a very good job on this site by warning/informing people, especially cancer patients.
Move on yourself when you don’t like it here and let Beatis do her useful job!
No it isn´t. There is no information on this site about Beth that she hasn´t already made public on the internet herself. But there is a wealth of information on Simoncini that he doesn´t give, and which every cancer patient considering his treatment should have the right to know about. Furthermore none of the posts has expressed anything but concern for Beth. What is so disgusting about that? Rather than come here and rant and then run away again, you should try to look at what is explained here on this blog with and open mind.
Thank you jli.
The right to know is very important for patients.
You are welcome
Ultra-brave Anonymous said: I just don’t understand why you cannot let this go! It’s not about you, move on.
Well, we could, for example, care about Beth’s life. When a human suffers and dies because he/she believes in non-existing deities, healing methods that are known not to work, and others, we have failed as a society. No one should have to die because of a mistaken belief in magic.
“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
- Douglas Adams
ok ok. I have a solution. Lets put Simonchinis healing methods to test on rats, and humans, just like they do it with all other drugs. After all these tests it will be clear once and for all, it works or it does not. How obout that
@zam
It has been done and the results are given here.
Tullio Simoncini claims that “excess acidity” of the body causes it to be infected with a fungus called Candida Albicans. Therefore, he argues, lowering the body’s acidity would cause the fungus – and thus the cancer – to go away. There are a number of things wrong here. First of all, cancer is definitely not a fungus. If this were so, we would all be able to see this, as fungus and cancer look completely different. Perhaps a blind man would confuse them, but certainly not pathologists with state of the art equipment. Secondly, even if this were true, there is no evidence whatsoever that an infection of candida albicans can be cured with infusions of baking soda. Thirdly, there is no evidence whatsoever that cancer (the real thing, not the imagined fungus) can be cured with baking soda. And lastly, lowering the body’s acidity is dangerous and may cause a person’s death.
Simoncini’s cancer theory is just plain wrong on every possible level.
We should also remember that conventional oncologists do have working experience with what happens when cancer patients are given sodium bicarbonate (SB). Sometimes cancer patients develop something called tumour lysis syndrome during chemo- or radiotherapy.
The degradation of DNA and RNA from destroyed cancer cells lead to formation of uric acid, which may precipitate in the kidneys (and elsewhere). Infusion of SB helps keeping the uric acid dissolved and facilitates its disposal with the urine.
So if SB had any effect of its own on cancer, it would have been observed.
I wish to all the writers here that ofend Dr. Simoncini, to experiance the pain of cancer on them selvs or in their families, that will change for ever your nasty way of existing in this place called earth !!!
I had cancer myself, in case you hadn’t noticed.
I wish for everyone that they will never have to experience cancer, either for themselves or their loved ones. I also wish they will not fall into the clutches of dangerous quacks like Tullio Simoncini, should they ever have to experience cancer. Nobody ever was and ever will be cured of cancer by his ridiculous, dangerous and completely ineffective baking soda treatment.
I concur with Beatis. I do not wish cancer upon anyone. I think the wish put forward by “CANCER – THE FORBIDDEN CURES” is absolutely disgusting. And it demonstrates that cancer quackery supporters are not necesarily humanitarians. Not that I ever thought they were, but here it is in plain view.
Tullio Simoncini isn’t a doctor anymore since has been struck off the medical register and cannot practice as a physician because of his fraud ,,,
He is not allowed to, but he still does.
He was caught in action on hidden camera for an Italian television broadcast. The video has been taken down because of copy rights. I will see if I can find it somewhere for documentation.
Beatis, I’m pretty neutral on this debate, but I have an enquiring mind. I don’t have cancer (yet)…but I have a friend who does. He is under death sentence. He has given up on chemo because the pain and misery to extend his life a month or two doesn’t seem worth it.
Your blog says Simoncini claims a 90% success rate. Those under a death sentence (under conventional treatment) would still be encouraged if it was the other way round, and even a 10% success rate was possible. They are willing to clutch at straws.
I don’t think we should be too quick to tell them that the ‘only’ way is what we have now. Some of the biggest medical advances have occurred through accidental discoveries of ‘cheap’ (but unconventional) treatments.
My friend feels immense frustration that conventional cancer treatment is in itself a scam. Drug companies research only in areas where they can patent ever more expensive drugs. The new drugs are adopted by the authorities, but don’t actually appear to improve survival, yet are vastly more expensive. The big companies have the power to actively obstruct research into new areas, especially if the ‘answer’ might be cheap. They do, of course, have their own vested interests.
My personal experience with medical “quackery” was that I was immobilised in pain after doing something to my back. My (sceptical) GP had just been on a short acupuncture awareness course, and asked if I (even more sceptical than him) wanted to try it. It worked. Yet “conventional medicine” still doesn’t understand what the Chinese discovered a thousand years ago. My “cure” flew totally in the face of conventional treatment that had me paralysed on the floor.
Of course there will be quacks and exploiters of people in deep distress. But I do feel that we cannot dismiss as scams what some (not all, I’m sure) have stumbled into. Simoncini’s accidental discovery may well work for SOME people. Surely though, we should be encouraging research into these new ‘treatments’ to see just where (if at all) they can be be effective, rather than dismissing anything outside currently accepted practice?
Science history is full of discoveries of areas where the “impossible” did indeed become possible, and thinking (and “laws of science”) had to be changed. Very often, the innovators were persecuted, yet were later proved correct.
It’s pretty arrogant to assume or claim that we have all the answers, and that no improvements are possible, Science (in any discipline) only advances when minds are open. Unfortunately, in areas where vested interests are in control, innovation can, and will, be suppressed.
I really don’t know if Simoncini is a scam merchant or not. But I’m interested to see that serious research into his proposition IS now being conducted at several research institutions worldwide..Some medical professionals evidently feel that he has found SOMETHING, and that it’s worth pursuing.
Just remember that it was 2000 years after Hippocrates observed that willow bark could “cure” pain, before “Aspirin” was properly “discovered” (and patented!!!). He was probably regarded as a witchdoctor in his time. Indeed, he was put in prison for 2 decades for daring to flout then-current thinking on “medicine”.
Let’s not be too quick to dismiss new discoveries as heresy, especially when those loudest in condemnation have an awful lot to lose, in our wickedly commercial world.
That is a very good reason to despise Simoncini. He is making money out of tricking people who have a deadly disease.
Simoncini hasn’t discovered anything. His idea that cancer is a fungus is a demonstrably wrong idea. Preclinical experiments demonstrate that the principle behind his treatment doesn’t work (Alkalizing the tumour-environment may reduce the number of metastasis, but does nothing to the cancer itself). And having treatment (overseen) by Simoncini is by no measure cheap.
But you are forgetting, that there have been genuine research into anti-cancer capabilities of sodium bicarbonate. The results have just not been as expected if Simoncini was right.
There is no doubt in my mind, that he is a scammer. I know that cancer is not a fungus because I have looked (I examine cancer as well as fungal infections on a daily basis). And I have read the scientific articles about experiments on the anticancer capabilities of sodium bicarbonate.
But we should not have minds that are so open that our brains fall out. It is a known fact, that quackery sells. See for instance http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/01/joe-mercola-proof-positive-that-quackery/ And Simoncini is no exception. If you are skeptical of claims made by people who have commercials interests, you have to be skeptical of Simoncini.
I have been using baking soda in water for a few years now and it keeps my ph in the normal range! Interesting about the baking soda is that they add it to the chemo treatment because it is so poisonous that without it the patient would die!! By the way, so far everyone I know who has done the chemo and radiation, only two have survived. The rest died from the treatment because it made them so sick!
Everyone is so sure …just like the medical professionals were that bacteria could not exist in the stomach until an Australian hospital registrar met a Australian pathologist with an enquiring mind discovered and proved by experimenting on himself by ingesting a petri dish of the culture that they did…helicobacter pylori.. promptly developed the symptoms …and won the Nobel prize. ..and incidentally ruined a thriving industry in anti ulcer treatment that now just needed a short course of anti-biotics
The two medical professionals provided the world with the indisputable evidence that helicobacter pylori can cause stomach ulcers.
Where is the indisputable evidence provided by Tullio Simoncini that baking soda cures cancer?
Why should we believe him when research clearly shows that baking soda does no such thing?
Why should we believe his claims that cancer is actually a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – when no such fungus has ever been found in cancers?
Simoncini should provide evidence for his claims and until now he has failed utterly to do so.
@Sandra Zinser
I have never used baking soda in my food except for baking, and my pH has always been in the normal range.
No – The fine tuned mechanisms that operate in your body to maintain a pH within normal range did that.
When cancer cells are destroyed by chemotherapy, there is a risk that the break down products may precipitate, which can be very dangerous. Bicarbonate helps keeping these products dissolved, so that they can be eliminated through the urine. So if bicarbonate had an anticancer effect on its own we would know about it – wouldn’t we?
You should try not to confuse deaths due to adverse events with preventable deaths. For example, failing to treat curable cancers with chemotherapy would reduce the number of deaths due to complications of chemotherapy. But the number of deaths due to cancer would rise, and those people who did not die from a chemotherapy related complication would still die.
I have actually spoken with Barry Marshall. I can assure you, that he is in no way against the scientific method. What sort of observation would convince you that Simoncini is wrong?
Here is something you can actually do your own fact checking. Here is what I would suggest that you do:
1) Find out if all stomach ulcers really are caused by Helicobacter Pylori (the name of the bacteria you mention).
2) Find out if acid reducing medication is available in pharmacies.
3) Find out if they are made by the pharmaceutical industry (if the answer to 2) is yes).
Can this treatment work for a category 4 astrocutoma brain Tumor ? Please answer as soon as possible .
With thanks Michelle
@ Michelle Brewster:
No, I’m sorry, it can’t.
Unfortunately not. A grade 4 astrocytoma (which I assume you are asking about) is synonymous with glioblastoma. There are a few reports of patients who tried it, and they did not even experience a relief of symptoms. See for instance this report . Also the last case on this list illustrate how horrible this treatment can be to patients with brain cancer.