On his website, Tullio Simoncini complains that his theory that cancer is a fungus and can be cured with baking soda, will never be researched by the scientific community, because:
The canonical experimentation is allowed only if you follow the rules convenient only for those who have the economic or political power, the rest is just useless talks. The society, through the politicians should protect the most fertile minds, allowing them to experiment their ideas freely. On the contrary, today, with the pretext of protecting the citizens deemed most ignorant, it only protects the powerful’s interests, to the detriment of the patients. Besides, history teaches that the patronizing attitude by souverains towards the ignorant subjects has always been an excuse to pursue their own filthy interests.
That’s a lot of words for saying: they will never research my theory because the scientific community is only interested in maintaining the status quo and will habitually suppress brilliant ideas from anyone not belonging to their own set.
He also tells us that research costs millions of dollars (not every research does, but never mind), which of course will never be granted to him because he doesn’t belong to the aforementioned set. Obviously, this is all very unfair, especially to desperate patients, as new ideas that could potentially save their lives – such as curing cancer with baking soda – will never see the light of day.
The odd thing is though that on his website he also says this:
Based on years of scientific and clinical research, at the centre of every cancer tumour is a common fungus, Candida albicans. The good news is that it can be treated with a powerful antifungal agent that’s inexpensive and readily available.
We’ve been doing some researching ourselves- with invaluable help from jli and our chemist friend Ed - and as it turns out, quite some research has been done into the effect of sodium bicarbonate on cancer, albeit not by Simoncini. Here’s a short overview.
The first study is into the effect of urinary pH on the progression of urinary bladder tumours. As you can see, adding sodium bicarbonate to the mice’s food causes the urine to be alkalic – with high pH, which appears to stimulate cancer growth. Also, sodium bicarb could not prevent the growth of induced cancer in mice, but even seems to give them more cancer.
There are a quite a number of studies to be found that show this same adverse effect of sodium bicarbonate. It seems that sodium bicarbonate stimulates already present tumor growth. This could mean that, if you already have cancer, sodium bicarbonate will make it grow even faster.
The sodium bicarbonate seems to enhance the toxicity of certain carcinogenic agents rather than reduce it. The reason for this is the unfavourable pH of sodium bicarbonate.
Here the researchers try to suppress the strong tumor accelerating properties of alkalic bica (NaHCO3) with large quantities of vitamin C.
On his web site, Simoncini triumphantly presents this study as the proof for the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate against cancer: Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases.
One important thing the authors of this study report however is that the sodium bicarbonate did not have an effect on the growth rate of the cancer. In other words: it did not destroy the cancer itself. Also, the number of metastases in the sodium bicarbonate group was by no means zero and the mice were not cured. There is an interesting but extremely limited effect here of which the researchers themselves say they don’t know what caused it.
If proponents of Tullio Simoncini conclude that this study proves sodium bicarbonate can cure cancer and prevents development of metastases, they have not read the article.
All this has got me very confused.
First, Simoncini says the scientific Powers that Be have always suppressed any research into his theory. But as it turns out, they haven’t. He also says that “years of scientific research” prove that at the centre of every cancer there is a fungus. But scientific research proves no such thing. And then he tells us cancer can be cured with sodium bicarbonate, although scientific research seems to show just the opposite.
Anyone who understands this, please enlighten us!
17 responses so far ↓
WeWee // June 10, 2009 at 9:41 am
Excellent post…
Simoncini’s claims don’t have scientific logic sense. In his attempt to give some scientific credibility to his theories, Simoncini commits many gross errors…some examples?
A study cited by Simoncini in support of his theory, is:
*Höpfer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7012168
Simoncini argues that this study shows that in 79% neoplastic tissue, we found candida. WRONG.
What the study says is that in about 19,457 blood samples, 193 samples (76 patients) had fungi, 79% of which was represented by candida albicans.
So the percentage of fungus in blood samples is very low. The mention of Simoncini also shows that the former doctor, once again, you got to handle the data, for they say exactly the opposite of what he says.
Other examples of studies that Simoncini cites as proof of his theory, but which instead say something different:
*The study of Hughes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7177889
quoted by Simoncini as evidence of the coexistence of cancer and candida in 91% of cases. WRONG.
The study says that in 109 fatal cases of candida’s mycosis, 91% was represented by candida albicans specie.
*Kiehn: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7369176
Simoncini says that in 97.1% of oncologic patients, was found the candida, WRONG, the study says rather that in cultures positive for fungal diseases in oncological patients, 97.1% of the microorganism is Candida.
More evidence of data manipulation from Simoncini?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8730359
Candida ‘the cancer of silastic’.
The candida has been found in Silastic prosthesis (a material used to manufacture silicone catheters, implants, tubes, probes …,), in practice the candida colonize these materials and this is known. And what this has to do with candida in cancer? The bladder catheter, for example, are colonized by various bacteria, the bacteria cause cancer then?
Cassone A, Bistoni F, Cenci E, Pesce CD, Tissi L, Marconi P.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7051368
Immunopotentiation of anticancer chemotherapy by Candida albicans, other yeasts and insoluble glucan in an experimental lymphoma model.
Intraperitoneal inoculations of 2×10 ^ 7 organisms (Candida, Saccharomyces and Cryptococcus) repeated in mice infected with murine lymphomas induced by viruses, are an excellent immuno-adjuvant, synergistic for the chemotherapy treatment.
The effect was similar in case you use the whole body or single membrane (ghost cell).
In practice, the candidate improves the effect of chemotherapy.
Excellent choice for Simoncini, this is an article that studies the use of the Candida as cure for the cancer.
See you soon.
beatis // June 10, 2009 at 10:21 am
Thank you so much for your comment and your research WeWee, very informative and reliable, coming from you as a medical professional!
Your comment makes painfully clear that Simoncini is either completely clueless about understanding scientific data or that he is deliberately manipulating these data. Either way, there is not a word of truth in what he says.
jli // June 10, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I think so too.
And your examples of how Simoncini misrepresents scientific data to promote his own nonsense are great too.
jennyj0 // June 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@ WeWee,
This means that only 0,99% of the blood samples had fungi, instead of the 79% that Simoncini claims. I find that shocking, people trust this man with their life.
theDRaKKaR // June 16, 2009 at 3:03 pm
wewee is making a superlative work in his blog confuting Simoncini’s “theories”
We all italian internauts love wewee efforts
beatis // June 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm
QFT!
max(L) // June 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Well done, nice work!
I’d like to add a few comments about the paper of Robey IF (Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases)- The authors says that a HCO3- 200 mmol/L can neutralize the proton load of metastases (actually micrometasases) no greater than 1 mm^3. From these data and given the solubility of the NaHCO3 in water at different temperatures, one can argue that the proton load of a tumor of 20-30 mm^3 in size would require a NaHCO3 solution with a concentration in the range 33.6%-50.4%.
However at 77 F (25 Celsius degree) a saturated solution of bicarbonate is obtained at a concentration of 10.35% w/v.
That is the proof that Simoncini statements are completely false, because it is impossible to get a solution of bicarbonate with the minimum concentration a tumors would requires in order to disappear. Remember now that Simoncini, on his web site, claims that a tumor of 30 mm^3 in size can be cured with a solution of bicarbonate at 5% w/v with a success probability of 90% and, even worst, he also claims a tumor greater than 3 cm still has a 50% chance to disappear with a solution at 5%.
Bye
beatis // June 17, 2009 at 5:33 am
Thnx!
cryptocheilus // June 18, 2009 at 10:29 am
Exellent work from WeWee and his Italian friends..
Sceptic crowds rule!
My kind regards to Tullio Simoncini.
jli // June 21, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Well, he is being quite helpful
beatis // June 21, 2009 at 6:35 pm
A Slam dunk it’s called I believe.
jli // June 21, 2009 at 8:34 pm
You sure do have a way with words
WeWee // June 21, 2009 at 10:25 pm
lol
Fermentation = fungus! // June 26, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Warburg investigated the metabolism of tumors and the respiration of cells, particularly cancer cells, and in 1931 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his “discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme.”[2]
In 1944, Warburg was nominated again for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine by Albert Szent-Györgyi, for his work on nicotinamide, the mechanism and enzymes involved in fermentation, and the discovery of flavine (in yellow enzymes).[3][4]
In 1924, Warburg hypothesized that cancer, malignant growth, and tumor growth are caused by the fact that tumor cells mainly generate energy (as e.g. adenosine triphosphate / ATP) by non-oxidative breakdown of glucose (a process called glycolysis). This is in contrast to “healthy” cells which mainly generate energy from oxidative breakdown of pyruvate. Pyruvate is an end-product of glycolysis, and is oxidized within the mitochondria. Hence and according to Warburg, cancer should be interpreted as a mitochondrial dysfunction.
“Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few
words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.” — Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg
beatis // June 26, 2009 at 9:35 pm
More recent research seems to show that Warburg’s findings show the product of the mutations of the cancer cell instead of the cause of ‘uncontrolled growth’ in cancer.
max(L) // June 30, 2009 at 10:00 pm
..and “the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar” it doesn’t change a fungal cell in a human cancer cell …as stated by the Simoncini’s equation cancer = fungus .. as any biochemical reaction in common between chimps and humans doesn’t make them exchangeable
Of Rodents, Baking Soda and Understanding Scientific Research « Anax blog // August 9, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] has shown sodium bicarbonate to often stimulate cancer growth rather that stop it, providing the link to the post on our blog about [...]