We already know that Simoncini is co-owner of a television show in the USA that deals with alternative medicine and conspiracy theories. However, lately reports have come in about new patients from Mexico and Brazil following the baking soda treatment that they think will cure their cancer.
Our Italian friend WeWee has done some research and found out how this sudden influx of new clients has come about.
UFOs and Aliens
It turns out that Simoncini had himself interviewed on Mexican tv by Jaime Maussan, a UFO/paranormal sensationalist with his own tv show in Mexico. Maussan is a celebrity in South America. He is obsessed with UFOs, aliens and everything paranormal and is the author of hundreds of scoops on UFO sightings and personal meetings with extra terrestrials in all forms, shapes and sizes (penguins turning into balloons, flying horses and that sort of thing.) What’s odd though os that the UFOs and aliens are always only seen by him. No UFO group wants to be associated with Maussan, they all think he is a fake, and his “discoveries” have been debunked by many skeptics as well. Maussan is also the man of the hoax with the “alien” that was found in a trap in Mexico. The alien turned out to be a monkey’s skeleton:
Simoncini: hero, genius, maverick
In his interview with Maussan, Simoncini pictures himself as a hero, a lone genius and brave maverick, robbed of his title and forced to flee from one country to another by mainstream doctors and scientists who fear the consequences for their incomes of this great discovery of his that will save the lives of millions of cancer patients.
In the interview Simoncini claims that his treatment results in the disappearance of the cancer in only 3 to 4 days. In only 6 days, no trace of the cancer can be found. However, when you analyse his testimonials, his patients are either not cured or had conventional treatment before going to Simoncini.
He claims a success rate of 90%. For terminal cancers he claims a somwhat lower success rate, but this is because these patients have usually followed conventional therapy when they come to him and this often compromises their health to such an extent that even for him it is difficult to bring about a complete recovery.
Simoncini stresses to bear in mind that there is no other way to cure cancer than with baking soda. This is what he says on his website:
At the moment, sodium bicarbonate (in a solution of 5% or 8.4%) is the only remedy capable of making the tumours disappear completely. In order to get the maximum of damaging effect, the sodium bicarbonate should be brought into direct contact with the tissue.
Of course there is the Quack Miranada Warning, the red flag which is so often overlooked by desparate patients:
[…] We make no claims concerning health & disease in relation to usage of this book. The information we provide is for educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Users assume all responsibility for the application of the content on themselves. The information and products which on this website are reproduced are not mend to replace and/or to ignore the advice of a practicing physician.
“I have treated hundreds of patients. Most of them had extremely advanced cancer, especially after having been subjected to conventional therapies. Many of them made a complete recovery and are still alive and well years after the treatment.
In the cases of cancers caught early (lumps smaller than 3cm, with minimal incidence of metastasis) 90% of patients have made a recovery.”
Maussan asks Simoncini whether he has any doubts as to the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate against cancer and he says no, none whatsoever.
Simoncini’s miracle cure: Terminal cancer? Or just a benign cyst?
During the interview a video is shown of a miraculous breast cancer cure. In the video we see a woman, Amelia Parra, telling us of her breast cancer of gargantuan proportions. We are shown the breast with the giant tumour (the “tumour” appears at 1:57 and again at 2:13 in the video) – which to me looks very much like a cyst.
I asked jli if he thought it could perhaps be a cyst and this is what he said: “…I agree. A big tumour that suddenly appears during breast feeding, and grows fast is the way a cyst would appear, and not the way a cancer behaves. And of course no genuine oncologist would behave as claimed…”
Anyway, when Amelia went to see a doctor, he immediately told her that she was done for. She went for a second opinion and received the same answer there.
Desperate, she turned to Jaime Maussan. Stands to reason of course; what else can a cancer patient do but consult a seer of aliens and UFOs? Mr Maussan referred her to Tullio Simoncini, who cured her within a few days. When she is back in Mexico she has a scan done and there was no trace of cancer to be found. Wonderful, isn’t it?
Translation of the video:
While I was breast feeding, I discovered a ball in my left breast. The oncologist immediately prescribed chemotherapy and radiation (no mention is made of further exams or biopsy, which is extremely unusual – unbelievable actually). The tumour was too big to be operated. He doubted whether strong doses were possible because I was breast feeding. Hormonal therapy would also be too dangerous.
Then they examined me and found this other ball, in the same breast but a little higher. We went to mexico city to do a pet scan and we went to see the oncologist. The doctor does a new analysis (doesn’t say what exams are performed, just “analysis”) and then he looks at me and says: Amelia, you are going to die. He said the same thing, he described chemo and radiation, said he could not operate at once. I would lose my hair which was horror to me. I would also become menopausal at once. A terrifying prospect.
It was then that I decided I would not follow that road. If I had to leave this world then it would be with dignity and joy, surrounded by my loved ones, doing what I loved doing best. I did not want to enter eternity through a hospital corridor.
But the lump kept growing, it was like a bomb, so very very fast it was growing! It was horrible, it even took up skin of my back. There was one starting to come out on the other breast and in the neck as well. I felt that I was beginning to die. I went to another oncologist, but when he saw me he said: but that is horrible, I can’t operate on that, the skin is coming apart.
Then a friend of mine called Jaime Maussan, who told me: you must try Simoncini, I have just finished his book. I could not sleep, I imagined a miracle, bought airplane tickets in the morning and in three days I was with Simoncini. He visited me, he said: this can be removed, I’ll see you tomorrow.
Later we went with Simoncini to talk to my oncologist, who said: you stay out, I do not know yet, but after 5 minutes Simoncini had convinced him. He explained how the treatment worked and already they were discussing how to do the operation! The next day I did not go home but went straight to the hospital where I would spend the night before the operation. The operation seems to have been quite a thing. While I was under sedation, I was opened up, and washed with over 8 litres of sodium bicarbonate. Then they left catheters in strategic places, so that all residues of fungi in the area could be killed, in the breast, in the back and in the other breast. The operation was an immediate success. The terrible stain, of which they had told me in December that they would not be able to close the skin, was practically gone within a week. The wound had healed perfectly. It looks just perfect.
“And do you still have cancer?” We did tests. It has now been about 5 months. After 3 months we did the first scan. There was absolutely no cancer to be seen. A week ago I had a test done in Mexico City, the one you get to wear headphones and they scan all your organs, and it was perfect, there was absolutely no cancer. I am completely cured. My eternal gratitude goes out to Simoncini.
There are no documents shown to prove Amelia Parra really had cancer, no diagnosis, no biopsy result, no pathology report; nothing. We don’t even know if the woman with the tumour and Amelia Parra are the same person. We only have the word of the woman telling the story. But if she really did have cancer, the worst thing she could do was to put her fate in the hands of Tullio Simoncini.
But desperate people are desperate to believe. The video makes a great impression and brings Simoncini a lot of new clients.
His mantra that he is ousted by the scientific community because they hate innovative science is so lame and annoying: innovative scientists are the life blood of the scientific community, they are not ousted but awarded Nobel prizes. We find it hard to believe Simoncini doesn’t know this video is worthless; he is not stupid, he’s looking for customers.
Such seems to be his contempt for his patients that he does not even bother to render his testimonials the least bit credibility. It is no more than advertising, and of the most despicable kind at that, aimed at scared, desperate people who are uneducated on cancer.
I am speechless. I can hardly understand that anyone should still believe Simoncini. I think he delibarately preys on people with very limited knowledge of cancer, because they are easy to fool. I think that is particularly mean.
I am scientist. The best in this case is to dig into the NIH publication database (very serious). This guy never published anything about this. No conspiration he is just fake.
Being a layman and unqualified to judge, at least in the absence of objective evidence I can personally examine, I have zero opinion on Simoncini or his claims notwithstanding their obvious shock value. However, my status as a laymen does not disqualify me from opining on the quality of journalism, critiques or other writing I might come across. In this case – an effort to discredit someone’s theory and practice – I am apparently supposed to be persuaded that Simoncini is a quack by the fact that two individuals, the first a linguist and the second a pathologist, without ever having met, spoken with, or examined the patient referred to or communicated with her physicians, diagnose her condition as being benign cysts rather than cancer. Furthermore, the quack utilizes a necessary disclaimer virtually identical to that used by any individual or organization offering medical advice to the broader public via mass media rather than an individual patient in consultation. (Mayo Clinic, Web Md, British National Health Service, for example).
This is what passes for objective, dispassionate debunking these days? An old expression comes to mind but I can’t quite recall it exactly. Something about pots and kettles, I believe.
Now, should you be able to cite or direct me to peer reviewed articles demonstrating that attempts to replicate Simoncini’s work have been attempted and the results failed to support his theories I’d be appreciative and more than willing to move off my agnostic position toward skepticism. (If they are already there in your rant, I apologize for overlooking them.)
Firstly: we do not have to prove Simoncini wrong, he has to prove himself right. The one who makes the claim is expected to deliver the evidence. Simoncini makes far reaching claims about both the cause of and the cure for cancer, but has not delivered a shred of evidence. Instead, he presents us with testimonials that can in no way be validated. That to me feels like I’m being fobbed off.
Our blog pathologist examines cancer on a daily basis. If cancer really is a fungus, he would have seen it. He hasn’t, nor have countless other pathologists the world over.
However, research has been done, albeit not by Simoncini. And the research proved that baking soda does not cure cancer.
I am apparently supposed to be persuaded that Simoncini is a quack by the fact that two individuals, the first a linguist and the second a pathologist, without ever having met, spoken with, or examined the patient referred….
We can look at what the patient shows us, and listen to what she is telling us. If what she is telling and showing us indicates a cyst and not a cancer we have to stop and think about it. If she furthermore tells us, that an oncologist recommended a wrong therapy for a highly dubious diagnosis without any relevant diagnostic procedures, a red flag has to be raised.
If you don´t believe in people with extensive working experience in the appearance and behavior of cancer, and detailed knowledge on how cancer is diagnosed and treated, what would it take to make you question testimonials such as the one in question? Can´t you see the difference between what is shown in the video and the photos linked to in the post: http://www.pathguy.com/~dlaporte/br_ca.htm ?
You might not believe that cancer anatomy is well understood by pathologists and other doctors (including Simoncini). But if you are interested in understanding why it is absolutely certain that Simoncini is wrong about cancer being a fungus, you should take a look at what is explained at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160727
If you believe that it is possible that Simoncini is unaware of this, then I don´t think anything will convince you that Simoncini might be a quack. If on the other hand you understand what is shown, and acknowledge that Simoncini, being a former doctor, has to understand this too, then there can only be one conclusion. And if you want more examples on how Simoncini misrepresents facts, you can actually check out an example for yourself here: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/simoncinis-miracle-cure-in-cat-scans/
And if you put more faith in testimonials, you should surf around a bit on this blog and see that the treatment is not all that safe and effective as claimed by Simoncini. A small compilation of the cases described on this blog can viewed at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160738
You are correct: the party setting forth the claim is obliged to provide testable evidence in support. However, failure to do so allows the examiner or critic only to say “The evidence does not support your hypothesis.”, nothing more. Should the critic go further than that, offering their own theory or explanation, then that burden of proof shifts to them, does it not? “This is anecdotal video evidence, the veracity of which in every respect cannot be tested, and is therefore worthless as evidence” would be entirely acceptable to me (and everyone else, I’d wager). Any statement further than that constitutes a claim in itself and then requires its own supporting evidence. That is, evidence greater than “This man’s a quack and this video proves it because me and my pal (and we are smart) know she had a cyst.”
As for everything else in your response: so what? I raised no objection and made no mention of fungus as cause or any other matter. I went to pains to state that I have no opinion on any of it. If pressed, I’d say Simoncini looks fishy to me. But then, if pressed I’d say that seven decades of conventional “real” medical science with a trillion dollars in funding producing nothing more than hacking away body parts and administering the most deadly poisons known to man as the best “treatment” available also looks might fishy to me. Cui bono?
“This is anecdotal video evidence, the veracity of which in every respect cannot be tested, and is therefore worthless as evidence” would be entirely acceptable to me (and everyone else, I’d wager). Any statement further than that constitutes a claim in itself and then requires its own supporting evidence. That is, evidence greater than “This man’s a quack and this video proves it because me and my pal (and we are smart) know she had a cyst.”
We have provided the evidence “greater than that”.
[…]the party setting forth the claim is obliged to provide testable evidence in support. However, failure to do so allows the examiner or critic only to say “The evidence does not support your hypothesis.”
I get the impression you think our judgments on Mr Simoncini are too harsh and lack due respect. However, right now a young mother (by no means his only victim) is needlessly dying of cancer because Simoncini made her believe her cancer could be cured with baking soda. The time she lost in following his quackery caused her cancer to spread and become incurable. If that isn’t a crying shame – if not to say a crime – I don’t know what is. Had Mr Simoncini showed his patients the respect they deserve, she might have lived. He robbed her of the only chance she had to survive. You decide for yourself who deserves most respect.
I certainly did not wish to appear the apologist for Simoncini or anyone else. I neither respect nor disrespect Simoncini. Nor did I wish to engage you in a protracted debate, especially on a subject about which you clearly have some significant measure of knowledge and I know nothing. I simply thought I detected a touch of sarcasm in this piece (and others on the site), and in my view, there is no place for that in discussions of science or even pseudo-science. Far too often glibness passes for critique and, in the end, science and the rest of us suffer for it. The elegance and value of science is found in its exactitude and rigor. In my opinion, the same standards to which the scientist is held must apply to the serious critic as well. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Your arguments may well be entirely valid. I do not dispute that. I do take umbrage with the terms in which they are proffered.
As to the question at hand, my position couldn’t be smpler: If Simoncini is suspected of fraud he should be investigated and, if found guilty, prosecuted and punished according to law.
As for your last comment, alas, appeals to pity will not work with me. I have read of – and personally witnessed – far too many victims of “real” medical science (in the form of chain terminator / protease inhibitor prescriptions among other things) to be moved by anecdotal evidence against fringe players whose gravest transgressions are orders of magnitude lesser in effect than the errors, intentional or otherwise, of that dubious marriage of industry, science, and medicine.
As to the question at hand, my position couldn’t be smpler: If Simoncini is suspected of fraud he should be investigated and, if found guilty, prosecuted and punished according to law.
You are correct: the party setting forth the claim is obliged to provide testable evidence in support. However, failure to do so allows the examiner or critic only to say “The evidence does not support your hypothesis”, nothing more. Should the critic go further than that, offering their own theory or explanation, then that burden of proof shifts to them, does it not?”
Tullio Simoncini claims that cancer is a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – which can be cured with baking soda (aka sodium bicarbonate). To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein.
For this theory to be true, fungus would have to be found in at least the greater part of cancers. However, this is not the case. On his website, Simoncini claims that research showed that in 79% neoplastic tissue, there was candida found.
But what the study really says is that in about 19,457 blood samples, 193 samples (76 patients) had fungi, 79% of which was represented by candida albicans. This means that only 0,99% of the blood samples had fungi, instead of the 79% that Simoncini claims. Other studies into fungus in neoplastic tissue give the same outcomes.
So there is scientific proof that cancer is not caused by candida albicans.
Simoncini’s second claim, that cancer is can be cured by lowering the body’s acidity (with sodium bicarbonate), has also been researched – albeit not by him – and the research shows that lowering acidity has no effect on slowing or stopping cancer growth:
Therefore, contrary to what you say, we are entitled to say that Simoncini’s theory is wrong: we have given evidence of absence of cancer being a fungus and we have given evidence of absence as to the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate in curing cancer.
You also say (bold by me):
Any statement further than that constitutes a claim in itself and then requires its own supporting evidence. That is, evidence greater than “This man’s a quack and this video proves it because me and my pal (and we are smart) know she had a cyst.”
Since the Italian judge called Mr Simoncini a quack – or used words to that effect – and struck him off and convicted him for fraud because of his quackery, there is no reason why we should not be allowed to call him a quack as well. Because, to all intents and purposes, Mr Simoncini is just that.
Gee, folks, it had been my intention to drop this as simply a fairly meaningless and amusing difference of opinion as to how to approach criticism. Alas, you have tossed back at me a couple of pretty provocative statements that I can’t let go without further comment.
Firstly, Beatis, just a general comment. The tone of this site and everything here is one that puts in opposition “conventional” medicine with its scientifically rigorous standards versus less than conventional medicine (or quackery, if you prefer) that fails to meet those standards or, in some cases, fails to even attempt to meet those standards. Assuming this is accurate, and further assuming what appears to be your unquestioning faith in conventional medical science, I’d ask you to consider what you wrote between “Tullio Simoncini claims that cancer is a fungus…” and “So there is scientific proof that cancer is not caused by candida albicans. “. Now, where the word “cancer” appears” substitute “AIDS” and where the word “fungus” appears, substitute “HIV”. Correct me if I am wrong, (Please, do. Consider this a dare from an unlettered layman to correct him, if you wish.) but it appears to me that, mutatis mutandis, your words apply to and rather accurately describe the current situation respecting the theory that HIV causes AIDS – THE currently reigning pet theory of “conventional” medical science. Methinks standards, if not applied universally, are not standards but rather are convenient tools to support one’s prejudices.
And now to “anaximperator “:
My mistake. I was unaware of the fact that the veracity or its lack of any scientific theory was a matter to be determined by courts of law. I have been laboring for years under the misapprehension that the acceptability of a hypotheses was determined via peer review and replication. Silly me. Thanks for setting me straight. I can assume then, that you side squarely with the rest of us “denialists” who view the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming business as shoddy, profit-driven, pseudo-science. After all, a UK Judge found that “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is acknowledged as a reasonably complete exegesis of “conventional” science’s evidence, was erroneous, and even willfully misleading, in several respects. In other words, a learned Judge, in effect, labeled Al Gore and the “conventional” IPCC scientists “quacks”. So, you may feel free to do so yourself, should the subject ever come up.
Now, where the word “cancer” appears” substitute “AIDS” and where the word “fungus” appears, substitute “HIV”.
Whatever for?
[…] it appears to me that, mutatis mutandis, your words apply to and rather accurately describe the current situation respecting the theory that HIV causes AIDS – THE currently reigning pet theory of “conventional” medical science. Methinks standards, if not applied universally, are not standards but rather are convenient tools to support one’s prejudices.
Why on earth do you assume our words regarding fungus as the supposed cause for cancer apply to AIDS?? You cannot just swop words and concepts at will.
And now to “anaximperator “:
My mistake. I was unaware of the fact that the veracity or its lack of any scientific theory was a matter to be determined by courts of law. I have been laboring for years under the misapprehension that the acceptability of a hypotheses was determined via peer review and replication.
That cancer is not caused by candica albicans had already been established by science. The fact that Simoncini persisted in selling his baking soda therapy as a cure for cancer in spite of there being evidence that this was completely useless and potentially dangerous as well was the reason he was convicted for fraud. Selling unproven and implausible therapies is usually considered quackery. He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter because a patient died due to a number of medical faults during a bowel surgery which he performed in order to insert the – useless – baking soda.
I can assume then, that you side squarely with the rest of us “denialists” who view the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming business as shoddy, profit-driven, pseudo-science. After all, a UK Judge found that “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is acknowledged as a reasonably complete exegesis of “conventional” science’s evidence, was erroneous, and even willfully misleading, in several respects. In other words, a learned Judge, in effect, labeled Al Gore and the “conventional” IPCC scientists “quacks”. So, you may feel free to do so yourself, should the subject ever come up.
From the fact that a judge found that Al Gore made a documentary that is erroneous or misleading in several aspects does not necessarily follow that the concept of global warming in general is erroneous or misleading, or that Tullio Simoncini is not a quack.
…acceptability of a hypotheses was determined via peer review and replication.
Simoncini and his proponents have chosen to only present their data in the form of testimonials. In that context you can regard the analysis of those testimonials as peer reviews. And if you don´t understand what is explained you should ask instead of ranting. As to replication you were given links above, that among other thing show you what is found when the white in cancers is examined. As this is standard practice it has been replicated extensively. There really is evidence of absence.
I check her blog several times a week and have just read it. We are all very happy for Beth; we hoped the surgical removal in Italy of the tumour would do the trick and apparently it has.
I also hope she will allow herself some nice food now for a change. To reduce cancer risk, all she has to do is eat a healthy, balanced diet that is high in fruit, vegetables and fibre, and low in red and processed meat and fatty foods. There is no scientific evidence that extreme diets, like juice-fasting for weeks on end or only eating raw foods do anything whatsoever to prevent cancer or cancer recurrence. Some of these diets are actually detrimental to one’s health and there also are indications that large amounts of supplements can sometimes be harmful.
we hoped the surgical removal in Italy of the tumour would do the trick and apparently it has.
It is absolutely possible, that the surgery delivered the cure – it happens everyday. But there are some things in Beth´s post that just sound strange. Apparantly the diagnosis “cancer free” is based solely on “bloodwork”. No mention of any scannings. And apparantly she has been told, that the gall bladder is a key organ in cancer – it is not. And what does it mean, that her nutritionist believes that the cancer is not gone?
I have wondered about the gallbladder as well, I have never heard of such a thing and I was never offered a gallbladder examination to find out if my breast cancer has really gone. My oncologist also tells me that testing for biomarkers is a very unreliable method to assess whether someone is cancer free or not. So I don’t understand what she tells us in her post. Perhaps she just forgot some vital information that would make it more understandable.
I hadn’t noticed that the gall bladder in Beth’s story was seen as a key organ, but that can never be. And it isn’t, like jli also very rightly says.
Then why would it be removed when you undergo surgery for gall stones? Would regular doctors (surgeons) really be so stupid and be doing that for decades all over the world and thus depriving thousands people per year of a vital organ in combatting cancer?? Mine was taken out over 10 years ago.
I must lough reading what are doctors telling about “what is cancer” – in fact, they don’t know. And these same doctors say that Simoncini&his treatment is a quack. Orthox medicine is a quackery, there’s is no science just missleaded scholars led by Rockefeller and Big Pharma.
What is said here on this forum is 1 century long history of presecution for all those scientist who were thinking different than a main stream.
In fact I have proofs that MMS, ozone, baking soda, Budwig diet,..thera are all very efficient dealing with different uncurable deaseses (by otrhodox medicine).
It’ time for you guys to wake up!!!
In fact I have proofs that MMS, ozone, baking soda, Budwig diet,..thera are all very efficient dealing with different uncurable deaseses (by otrhodox medicine).
No you don’t. There is no proof for things that aren’t so.
nino – the only ‘proofs’ those products have is that their sleazy peddlers separate the gullible from their money, spread outright misinformation and lies, and often cause delays in patients receiving proper treatments.
Your credibility is nonexistant, just like the supposed claims and testimonies of these worthless products.
In defense of Dr. Simoncini the oncology world will also let my mother die. There treatments with gemzar, xloda, and tarceva absolutely destroy the body. I sit here as I type this in hospice(New York) with my dying mother next to me. The establishment is no better than Simoncini.
In fact I contacted Simoncini and he honestly said that he couldn’t help her case due to the fact that the cancer metastisized.
However, I disagree with you that the treatments of Simoncini can be compared with conventional medicine.
Many people owe their lives to conventional medicine. Nowadays, 60% of cancer patients survive for more than 10 years and are therefore considered cured. Sadly, not all treatments work all the time.
But baking soda for cancer never works, because it is completely bogus.
I think Simoncini is on to something.It is a known fact that when a person develops metabolic acidosis that cancer is often the cause of that.Bicarbonate of Soda is a proven treatment for maintaining the correct PH of the blood acidity-alkaline levels and if the blood is correct then the body should be as well.Also Bicarb of Soda is an effective remedy for indigestion and dyspepsia.My wife and mother in law both had breast cancer and before that developed they both suffered with candida albicans as an initial symptom in a different area before cancer was diagnosed.Simoncini may well be profiting from the claims of his treatments which may not be entirely effective but i am certain that he’s going in the right direction
It can help, it’s not going to heal it and it may have an indirect role actually; I for one, am still sure there’s something to be found out that will fit right into the equation.
What you eat, what you should avoid eating (I think I already mentioned the E-xxx components), there’s a lot of work to do.
Also, surprisingly, the pot helps too, sadly doesn’t help the way the treatment would be most welcome by patients.
Hmmm, Maybe some kind of perfected vaporizers to get rid of toxines and such, but of course, there’s still missing much of what there’s to be found. Altough it seems quite promising as it is right now.
‘Kay, that’s a lot of writing without me posting something crazy, so here goes:
What we are missing is… Reggae music and decoration where the treatment is applied!
You know, I am an extremely skeptical person especially with regards to homeopathy quacks. I’ve debunked one of them literally to the point where he is now in Hong Kong hiding from the US laws.
But shouldn’t ALL possible treatments be investigated?
Aside from the possibility that people might avoid other treatment, what is the harm of such ideas as this fellow has?
I’ve had sporotrichosis lesions in five places. The drugs they gave me did not help at all. Topical iodine has slaughtered the fungus.
I can’t say anything about melanoma or fungus as the etiologic agent but in my case, with severe and intractable cutaneous fungus, Simoncini’s treatment DID WORK.
But shouldn’t ALL possible treatments be investigated?
Sodium bicarbonate as a cancer treatment has been investigated; turned out it didn’t work.
The harm in his ideas is that he says his baking soda works far better as a cancer treatment than standard treatments. This is not true, but it may convince people to forgo standard treatment, which is not a good thing for cancer patients to do.
Having only just recently heard about Simoncini, I join this discussion group late but with the benefit of having read the back and forth statements both pro and con, and all, I must say, are at least eloquent and civilized, unlike the hostile exchanges on many other discussion forums. It’s one thing to disagree on these controversial issues, it is another thing to degenerate into personal attacks. At the end of the day I believe everyone on both sides of the debate is sincerely interested in finding a valid cure for cancer and all other catastrophic diseases.
Whatever the merits of Simoncini’s claims are, the inescapable truth is that the mainstream medical community is overwhelmed and confused by CANCER and the conventional treatments are ineffective and dangerous.
I am a lawyer by profession but I have been doing medical research for more than twenty years because of two bouts of cancer in my family. In this context I have studied and reviewed hundreds of alternative sciences in an attempt to find anything which offers a legitimate prospect of dramatically changing the way we deal with illness in general and cancer in particular.
Most of these alternatives do not stand up to even superficial scrutiny or are so convoluted and complicated, involve so many STEPS of what to do and what NOT to do, that they have no credibility and are impossible to evaluate as far as making any meaningful conclusion about any causal relationship between their action and any effect on a particular disease.
However, two sciences did emerge from this jungle of contradictory literature which are deserving of further study and investigattion because the evidence about them is overwhelming and compelling.
One is the science of DR. ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE who allegedly cured cancer in the 1920’s and 1930’s using only RADIO FREQUENCIES, based upon his theory and his experimental observations that all major diseases and cancer were caused by ” micro-organisms”, now known as viruses. His work was confirmed in a controlled scientific experiment at USC in 1934 and was so attractive that the head of the A.M.A. tried to buy into his company. The failure of that deal led to the whole venture collapsing, the AMA abolishing all forms of electrotherapy and resulted in legal proceedings where all the evidence in favor of the validity of this science were documented and are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.
I would have liked to put my wife who is battling breast cancer for seven years on this RIFE treatment using one of the newer devices which are on the market purporting to reproduce the work of RIFE but it quickly became apparent that the current revival methods do NOT reproduce RIFE’S original methodology and are unreliable. With the collaboration of some of the world’s leaders in this field I am currently on a campaign to fund a proper university scientific experiment into the RIFE science to determine once and for all if it is legitimate or not.
Like Simoncini the RIFE science is very controversial and engenders very heated debate, but what peaked my interest is his claim that cancer is a FUNGUS, similar to RIFE’S claim that cancer was caused by a virus and therefore, like RIFE, the theory of Simoncini should also be properly investigated and evaluated before being discredited or dismissed.
I have read certain posts on this forum which point to certain studies which they say disprove Simoncini’s claims about bicarbonate of soda but some of the other comments on this forum from equally informed people do not seem to agree with those conclusions.
I will not comment on whether or not these studies prove or disprove what Simoncini is saying, but one thing about his theory is particularly interesting because it also correlates with the second alternative science which, as I said above, emerged as one of the alternatives which were worthy of further study, and that is the science of OXYGEN therapy.
This science is the subject of over 7,000 scientific articles and is very mainstream in the “alternative” world and many doctors have written protocols on how to perform this therapy, one of which, more appropriate for the ordinary person, is by the ingestion of a diluted form of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide.
I would have liked to use RIFE technology on my wife but when that proved to be in a state of confusion, I was forced to rely on this second science of OXYGEN therapy. To be brief, my wife’s life has been saved by the benefits of that “complimentary” treatment which was added to her conventional chemo, which was clearly “killing”her. She looked like she had only a few weeks to live and this therapy brought her back to life. Interestingly, after I added this protocol to her treatments and the doctors saw the results, it was the first time that I was asked for a reference to this science by several doctors.
What strikes me, without knowing for sure who and what Simonncini really is really all about, is the fact that the scientific basis of the benefits of oxygen therapy seem to apply equally to this Bicarbonate of soda therapy. When I studied all of those hundreds of alternative sciences, many of them provided some form of anecdotal evidence of benefiting their users and the “universal” thread which tied them all together was that they all seemed to be based on them providing a boost in the body’s uptake of OXYGEN.
When I later learned that all cancers, bacteria, viruses and other pathogens were all anaerobic and could not survive in OXYGEN rich environments, the circle was complete and the LOGIC inescapable. To me, all the varied “anecdotal” and “qausi-scientific” evidence were now validated by this very conventional scientific fact.
Simoncini attributes the benfits of the BICARBOMNATE OF SODA to it’s ALKALINE properties, but it immediately occured to me that IF it has any benefits it may again be due to its OXYYGEN generating properties, and that as such it also deserves a fair and independant review.
Some of you will GOOGLE my name and find that I am involved in the even more controversial field of HAIR LOSS and MALE PATTERN BALDNES and have written a book called the MALINIAK METHOD which is a radical new theory on the true genetic cause of hair loss and a simple new method to treat it which took me thirty years to elucidate and elaborate, but which really works and has been selling all over the world.
It started as a true “pseudo” science, based on pure scientific theory and thought, anecdotal evidence and hypotheses, but it made sense and showed results in “informal” experiments which have been replicated in many subjects. The website was first activated one year ago and only now, one year later, recent independant scientific studies have been published which have confirmed TWO of the principal hypotheses of my theory. One of these was brought to my attention by an important member of one of the world’s leading forums on hair loss which has dedicated several pages to the MALINIAK METHOD.
I mention this because, in the words of DR. JOE SCHWARCZ , professor of chemistry at McGill University, and columnist for the Montreal Gazette, who is a relentless critic of pseudo-science;
” all real science starts with anecdotal evidence”
In this light I submit that some of these alternative sciences deserve to be brought to the attention of the general public and more fairly investigated because they MAKE SENSE and should NOT be dismissed peremptorally.
I believe the theory of Simoncini deserves the same fair treatment, if only because it ties in to the much more established science of the benefits of OXYGEN therapy. This may just be another way to do it.
What interesting things you write on your blog, like this for example (my bold):
The epidemic of ductal breast cancer cannot be explained simply by genetic predisposition. Some much more universal and simple mechanism must be at work for it to effect so many women at so many ages.
My theory is that the vast majority of cases are caused by environmental toxins being trapped in a women’s breast ducts and are not properly excreted. They fester and eventually trigger cancer in the walls of the ducts.
To possibly prevent this problem all women should simply have their breast ducts drained and pumped on a regular basis to cleanse these toxins.
This makes me wonder what should be done with men who have testis or prostate cancer…
I believe the theory of Simoncini deserves the same fair treatment
I think Simoncini’s patients deserve fair treatment, i.e. that he should stop lying to them that his baking soda treatment cures cancer and stop practicing his quackery.
This makes me wonder what should be done with men who have testis or prostate cancer…
OUCH!! 😯
I Think we should quietly step back, and forget all about the idea of environmental toxins as THE cause of cancer. This is a reasonable stance, because there is no data to support the idea:
1) No specific environmental toxins are suggested to be involved.
2) No case control study shoving that people with/without breast cancer differ in exposure to environmental toxins.
3) No cohorte studies showing that people with or without toxin exposure differ with regards to breast cancer prevalence.
4) Other risk factors are well documented: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/type/breast-cancer/about/risks/
Mostly civil… I think Bennet has a lot of good points. Especially when the finer points are avoided, by bringing attention to other points, or diverted by triggering empathy with the alleged “victims.” This stands out he most to me:
If pressed, I’d say Simoncini looks fishy to me. But then, if pressed I’d say that seven decades of conventional “real” medical science with a trillion dollars in funding producing nothing more than hacking away body parts and administering the most deadly poisons known to man as the best “treatment” available also looks might fishy to me. Cui bono?
Why would there be peer reviews? Why would those who fund this kind of research – and are funded by the expensive mainstream treatments – threaten their own profit structure? The same profit structure driven establishment is what doles out most causes of cancer. Even if this guy is a fraud (could be cointelpro), the potential for racketeering between food and pharmaceutical companies, as well as some technological firms is staggering. Alternative medicine may be our only hope.
Why would those who fund this kind of research – and are funded by the expensive mainstream treatments – threaten their own profit structure?
Accusing someone of being paid by evil pharma simply because they don’t agree with you immediately causes you to lose an argument. It shows you have no meaningful statements to support your argument.
Hi, I have seen the film “Artesanos” on Youtube and had to read the tip with terror that this points, nice woman, Amelia Parra in 2011 has passed away. I wanted to know what she of has died and have bumped into this side.
Please, excuse, I can do no English and have what I would like to say with a translator translated.
There is a German doctor, Dr. Hamer who is not welcome in Germany, he lives in Norway. This doctor has discovered 5 laws of the GNM (Germanic new medicine) and since approx. 1985 it is not to be brought possibly them in the world. His knowledge is, cancer as a natural biological remedial program recognize, in such a way that it is not necessary to contaminate with radioaktivity people and to fill up them with Chemo. Of course this is to the pharmaceutical companies a thorn in the eye.
Amelia Parra would live certainly even today if she had known the method of the GNM.
I allow myself to point out to a Youtube video which explains this GNM very well. It is available of my knowledge, unfortunately, only into German. A translation would be absolutely necessary.
Die 5 Biologischen Naturgesetze – Die Dokumentation
(5 biological physical laws – the documentation)
The physical laws of the GNM concern all kinds of the illnesses, thus comprehensively and apply for the person as well as for the animals.
Hearty greeting
Rosemarie
Hi, ich habe den Film „Artesanos“ auf Youtube gesehen und musste mit Entsetzen den Hinweis lesen, dass diese weise, schöne Frau, Amelia Parra in 2011 verstorben ist. Ich wollte wissen, woran sie gestorben ist und bin auf diese Seite gestoßen.
Bitte entschuldigen Sie, ich kann kein Englisch und habe das, was ich sagen möchte mit einem Translator übersetzt.
Es gibt einen deutschen Arzt, Dr. Hamer, der in Deutschland nicht willkommen ist, er lebt in Norwegen. Dieser Arzt hat die 5 Gesetze der GNM (Germanische neue Medizin) entdeckt und seit ca. 1985 ist es nicht möglich sie in die Welt zu bringen. Seine Erkenntnisse sind, Krebs als ein natürliches biologisches Heilprogramm erkennen, so, dass es nicht erforderlich ist, Menschen zu verstrahlen und sie mit Chemo vollzupumpen. Natürlich ist dies den Pharmaunternehmen ein Dorn im Auge.
Amelia Parra würde sicher heute noch leben, wenn sie die Methode der GNM gekannt hätte.
Ich erlaube mir, auf ein Youtube-Video hinzuweisen, das diese GNM sehr gut erklärt. Es ist meines Wissens leider nur in Deutsch erhältlich. Eine Übersetzung wäre unbedingt erforderlich.
Die 5 Biologischen Naturgesetze – Die Dokumentation
Die Naturgesetze der GNM betreffen alle Arten der Krankheiten, also ganzheitlich und treffen sowohl für den Menschen als auch für die Tiere zu.
According to Dr. Hamer the breast cancer of the left breast with right-handers the result of a care conflict concerning the mother or the child of the ill – breast cancer in the right breast concerns a care conflict with regard to partner, father and all other people. With left-handers this has exactly turned back! If the woman to the knots feels or if he is ascertained with an investigation, she is occupied quite (unconsciously) with the solution.
I know a woman, 50 years old who has no children and she had breast cancer links / right-handerShe survives for 5 years – without Chemo, without radiotherapy.
I know an other woman, 62 years old, likewise without children, the mother for a long time late. Breast cancer links / right-hander. What was here the conflict? This woman, a doctor, has gathered a small animal, one day a goose, (we know everything, how much we hang on animals), came this woman home, a marten had torn the goose. She found only the head of the animal. 7 months later she got a knot in the left breast – this goose is presumably to be equated with a child.
I could still report other cases to you..
Cause was her demente mother who suddenly had to be supplied.
Think of events of your life if a conflict originated, an unexpected shock which does to the people a moment or longer deeply affected, dumbfounded in the sense that he can speak with nobody “properly” about that. These are some of the criteria of the first law.
In this second with the “shock” a change and at a certain place concerning the organ originates in the suitable organ in the brain a ” Hamerscher of stove “ often as a tumor is called, with members of the family (with lung cancer) he was irradiated “as a precaution”. She died in 2010 of a tumor behind the left eye.
A total of 5 laws after Dr. Hamer. And Dr. Hamer does not want to become richly with it. Now he is 77 years old and fights for nearly 30 years for it.
Dr. Hamer sees on a computer tomography (CT) of the brain – without knowing the person – which organ is or had fallen ill which conflict must have formed the basis, when did the conflict take place, is the person already in the remedial phase?
I end here for the moment. Do you still have questions?
Correction:
I know a woman, 50 years old who has no children and she had breast cancer links / right-hander. Cause was her demente mother who suddenly had to be supplied.
She survives for 5 years – without Chemo, without radiotherapy.
@ Rosemarie
There are indeed already many posts about mister Ryke Geerd Hamer on this blog. So take your time to read them all on the first place: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/?s=Hamer
Accusing someone of being paid by evil pharma simply because they don’t agree with you immediately causes you to lose an argument. It shows you have no meaningful statements to support your argument.
What agreement or argument? I was simply pointing out a potential flaw in the reasoning. I made no direct statement in support of Simoncini. Also there’s no accusation, it’s a fact that something as simple as baking soda curing cancer stands to threaten the profits of any companies who manufacture and distribute current cancer treatments.
It’s an irrefutable fact that any research done towards a new treatment must be profitable for the company to invest in the AMA testing for that treatment. It’s the same reason vitamin and herb supplements can’t be “officially proven” to provide the benefits that they do.
I just happened to be reading about Simoncini when I found this blog, and this is more directed at the entire blog (probably) than just this article alone, but the premise is pure establishment propaganda. Even calling the treatments “Alternative” is biased, and misleading. It’s like referring to any not major political party as “Independent.” It’s a way to make you think they aren’t important, relevant, or functional. The parties have names. We should acknowledge them.
The claims that even any of the patient testimonies are faked, are no more valid than saying the same about any publications by the AMA. They can’t self incriminate, it’s the paradox of officialdom. Follow the money. It rarely lies.
it’s a fact that something as simple as baking soda curing cancer stands to threaten the profits of any companies who manufacture and distribute current cancer treatments.
You seem to take it for granted that baking soda cures cancer, but it does nothing whatsoever against cancer, as a cancer treatment it’s completely useless. Consequently, it doesn’t pose any threat to any pharmaceutical company. It does however pose a threat to cancer patients, who may be persuaded to forgo effective treatments in favour of Simoncini’s useless baking soda.
Follow the money. It rarely lies.
Car manufacturers manufacture cars in order to make money; they use their profit to pay their shareholders (public or private) and to invest in research into new developments. Does this mean then that all cars are bad? And if the answer is no, then why doesn’t the same hold for pharmaceutical companies, who also pay their shareholders and invest in research into new developments?
The fact that money is being made does not by definition imply that a product is flawed; that’s a non-argument and a lame one at that.
Alternative medicine may be our only hope.
“unquestioning faith”
Dangerous.
There is evidence in abundance that none of the alternative treatments discussed on this blog offer any hope at all for cancer patients. What’s dangerous is believing that they do in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
It’s an irrefutable fact that any research done towards a new treatment must be profitable for the company to invest in the AMA testing for that treatment.
– It is an irrefutable fact that high-quality research, independent of funding from pharmaceutical companies exist, and is highly respected.
– It is an irrefutable fact that doctors take action when they discover that foul play in pharmaceutical industry funded research has taken place.
It’s the same reason vitamin and herb supplements can’t be “officially proven” to provide the benefits that they do.
There is big money involved in selling vitamins/herb supplements. For some reason “Big suppla” (BS) doesn’t want to put their claims to a fair test.
The claims that even any of the patient testimonies are faked, are no more valid than saying the same about any publications by the AMA.
Actually some of the testimonials give themselves away right on the spot. You only need a minimal understanding of conventional cancer treatment to understand why. For instance a “melanoma in situ” that has been removed is not a cancer but at precursor of cancer which has been removed. The removal of this precursor is the cure.
Regurgitation of establishment rhetoric. They just spew talking points, when some aspect of a logical argument threatens their belief structure. The belief that modern medical science is benevolent, and hasn’t been hijacked by racketeers who look to reap the profits of a public who’ve developed “unquestioning faith.” It’s become a religion.
I’m not claiming these treatments work. I have no empirical evidence to support it. I’ve only done reading from both sides, including the establishment driven ones.
I do know big pharma profits huge from their treatments. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING if baking soda, or some other similar cheap, abundant, harmless, readily availible substance (especially food product) did cure cancer, we wouldn’t know about it.
Speaking purely financially, why would they advertise for something they can’t profit off of? In fact, they stand to benefit more for launching a smear campaign against anyone who tries to make ready this information, to protect their current profits, and being the “official” source of medical research and information, are in a great position to do so. This blog seems to be working fairly well.
I would love to go get cancer and give 1st hand testimonial on any of the dozen natural cancer remedies I’ve read about, but my diet already coincides with the preventative measures for cancer, so I don’t see it being very likely.
If readily available baking soda would be proven to cure cancer, we wouldn’t need the pharmaceutical industry, we could just buy our treatment at the baking section in the supermarket. And if the sky would fall down tomorrow, we would all be walking around in blue hats. But there is no evidence whatsoever that baking soda cures cancer, there is only evidence that it doesn’t.
I would love to go get cancer and give 1st hand testimonial on any of the dozen natural cancer remedies I’ve read about, but my diet already coincides with the preventative measures for cancer, so I don’t see it being very likely.
So you do believe alternative treatments work against cancer, otherwise you wouldn’t say a pathetically stupid thing like this.
Only an idiot would love to get cancer and only a gullible fool believes it can be prevented and/or cured by diet.
I do know big pharma profits huge from their treatments..
So does Simoncini, Big Suppla (BS) and not to mention Joe Mercola and other quackery peddlers. By your own reasoning, you shouldn’t find them trustworthy either.
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING if baking soda, or some other similar cheap, abundant, harmless, readily availible substance (especially food product) did cure cancer, we wouldn’t know about it.
We would – because sodium bicarbonate is used in cancer treatment to deal with tumor lysis syndrome. If it had any anticancer capabilities of its own, it would have been observed, and action would have been taken.
Another reason we would know about it is, that for anyone to know about it, it would have to be tested in a controlled trial. There simply is no way around it. Here is a recommended download for anyone who wish to understand why and how a fair test is conducted.
Why don’t you just go and drink a nice glass of industrial bleach?
That stuff is DANGEROUS and Humble is one of the biggest quacks on the planet.
Please read these warnings from the FDA and Health Canada (but then again, what do you expect them to say? The governments are in on the conspiracy, right?)
Rev. Joseph Layton
At least I have cured with MMS my chronic bronchitis (illness 3 – 4 times per year). I had bronchitis for 15 years. For three years I have none more.
I am sorry to hear that Ms Parra died. Sadly my Spanish is not good enough to understand in detail what is told in the video. Perhaps you could give a summary?
Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
Anaximperator blog 
But Simoncini continues to participate in “serious and important” conferences.
The next is a conference in Florence (Italy) organized from David Icke meetup.
Who is David Icke? We are all reptilians, human-reptiles hybrids.
Find the rest to yourself…
😉
Davic Icke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
I am speechless. I can hardly understand that anyone should still believe Simoncini. I think he delibarately preys on people with very limited knowledge of cancer, because they are easy to fool. I think that is particularly mean.
I am scientist. The best in this case is to dig into the NIH publication database (very serious). This guy never published anything about this. No conspiration he is just fake.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Thank you!
Being a layman and unqualified to judge, at least in the absence of objective evidence I can personally examine, I have zero opinion on Simoncini or his claims notwithstanding their obvious shock value. However, my status as a laymen does not disqualify me from opining on the quality of journalism, critiques or other writing I might come across. In this case – an effort to discredit someone’s theory and practice – I am apparently supposed to be persuaded that Simoncini is a quack by the fact that two individuals, the first a linguist and the second a pathologist, without ever having met, spoken with, or examined the patient referred to or communicated with her physicians, diagnose her condition as being benign cysts rather than cancer. Furthermore, the quack utilizes a necessary disclaimer virtually identical to that used by any individual or organization offering medical advice to the broader public via mass media rather than an individual patient in consultation. (Mayo Clinic, Web Md, British National Health Service, for example).
This is what passes for objective, dispassionate debunking these days? An old expression comes to mind but I can’t quite recall it exactly. Something about pots and kettles, I believe.
Now, should you be able to cite or direct me to peer reviewed articles demonstrating that attempts to replicate Simoncini’s work have been attempted and the results failed to support his theories I’d be appreciative and more than willing to move off my agnostic position toward skepticism. (If they are already there in your rant, I apologize for overlooking them.)
Firstly: we do not have to prove Simoncini wrong, he has to prove himself right. The one who makes the claim is expected to deliver the evidence. Simoncini makes far reaching claims about both the cause of and the cure for cancer, but has not delivered a shred of evidence. Instead, he presents us with testimonials that can in no way be validated. That to me feels like I’m being fobbed off.
Our blog pathologist examines cancer on a daily basis. If cancer really is a fungus, he would have seen it. He hasn’t, nor have countless other pathologists the world over.
However, research has been done, albeit not by Simoncini. And the research proved that baking soda does not cure cancer.
@ John Bennett:
We can look at what the patient shows us, and listen to what she is telling us. If what she is telling and showing us indicates a cyst and not a cancer we have to stop and think about it. If she furthermore tells us, that an oncologist recommended a wrong therapy for a highly dubious diagnosis without any relevant diagnostic procedures, a red flag has to be raised.
If you don´t believe in people with extensive working experience in the appearance and behavior of cancer, and detailed knowledge on how cancer is diagnosed and treated, what would it take to make you question testimonials such as the one in question? Can´t you see the difference between what is shown in the video and the photos linked to in the post: http://www.pathguy.com/~dlaporte/br_ca.htm ?
You might not believe that cancer anatomy is well understood by pathologists and other doctors (including Simoncini). But if you are interested in understanding why it is absolutely certain that Simoncini is wrong about cancer being a fungus, you should take a look at what is explained at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160727
If you believe that it is possible that Simoncini is unaware of this, then I don´t think anything will convince you that Simoncini might be a quack. If on the other hand you understand what is shown, and acknowledge that Simoncini, being a former doctor, has to understand this too, then there can only be one conclusion. And if you want more examples on how Simoncini misrepresents facts, you can actually check out an example for yourself here: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/simoncinis-miracle-cure-in-cat-scans/
And if you put more faith in testimonials, you should surf around a bit on this blog and see that the treatment is not all that safe and effective as claimed by Simoncini. A small compilation of the cases described on this blog can viewed at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160738
You are correct: the party setting forth the claim is obliged to provide testable evidence in support. However, failure to do so allows the examiner or critic only to say “The evidence does not support your hypothesis.”, nothing more. Should the critic go further than that, offering their own theory or explanation, then that burden of proof shifts to them, does it not? “This is anecdotal video evidence, the veracity of which in every respect cannot be tested, and is therefore worthless as evidence” would be entirely acceptable to me (and everyone else, I’d wager). Any statement further than that constitutes a claim in itself and then requires its own supporting evidence. That is, evidence greater than “This man’s a quack and this video proves it because me and my pal (and we are smart) know she had a cyst.”
As for everything else in your response: so what? I raised no objection and made no mention of fungus as cause or any other matter. I went to pains to state that I have no opinion on any of it. If pressed, I’d say Simoncini looks fishy to me. But then, if pressed I’d say that seven decades of conventional “real” medical science with a trillion dollars in funding producing nothing more than hacking away body parts and administering the most deadly poisons known to man as the best “treatment” available also looks might fishy to me. Cui bono?
@ John Bennett,
You say:
We have provided the evidence “greater than that”.
I get the impression you think our judgments on Mr Simoncini are too harsh and lack due respect. However, right now a young mother (by no means his only victim) is needlessly dying of cancer because Simoncini made her believe her cancer could be cured with baking soda. The time she lost in following his quackery caused her cancer to spread and become incurable. If that isn’t a crying shame – if not to say a crime – I don’t know what is. Had Mr Simoncini showed his patients the respect they deserve, she might have lived. He robbed her of the only chance she had to survive. You decide for yourself who deserves most respect.
I certainly did not wish to appear the apologist for Simoncini or anyone else. I neither respect nor disrespect Simoncini. Nor did I wish to engage you in a protracted debate, especially on a subject about which you clearly have some significant measure of knowledge and I know nothing. I simply thought I detected a touch of sarcasm in this piece (and others on the site), and in my view, there is no place for that in discussions of science or even pseudo-science. Far too often glibness passes for critique and, in the end, science and the rest of us suffer for it. The elegance and value of science is found in its exactitude and rigor. In my opinion, the same standards to which the scientist is held must apply to the serious critic as well. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Your arguments may well be entirely valid. I do not dispute that. I do take umbrage with the terms in which they are proffered.
As to the question at hand, my position couldn’t be smpler: If Simoncini is suspected of fraud he should be investigated and, if found guilty, prosecuted and punished according to law.
As for your last comment, alas, appeals to pity will not work with me. I have read of – and personally witnessed – far too many victims of “real” medical science (in the form of chain terminator / protease inhibitor prescriptions among other things) to be moved by anecdotal evidence against fringe players whose gravest transgressions are orders of magnitude lesser in effect than the errors, intentional or otherwise, of that dubious marriage of industry, science, and medicine.
@ John Bennett,
He was, in Italy. He was convicted for 4 years, for involuntary manslaughter. This is also the reason he has been struck off and was convicted for fraud as well.
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2006/maggio/21/Medico_condannato_omicidio_colposo_co_10_060521029.shtml
Due to a general amnesty by Mr Berlusconi, prison sentences up to 4 years do not have to be served. However, his conviction still stands.
@ John Bennett,
You say:
Tullio Simoncini claims that cancer is a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – which can be cured with baking soda (aka sodium bicarbonate). To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein.
For this theory to be true, fungus would have to be found in at least the greater part of cancers. However, this is not the case. On his website, Simoncini claims that research showed that in 79% neoplastic tissue, there was candida found.
But what the study really says is that in about 19,457 blood samples, 193 samples (76 patients) had fungi, 79% of which was represented by candida albicans. This means that only 0,99% of the blood samples had fungi, instead of the 79% that Simoncini claims. Other studies into fungus in neoplastic tissue give the same outcomes.
So there is scientific proof that cancer is not caused by candida albicans.
Simoncini’s second claim, that cancer is can be cured by lowering the body’s acidity (with sodium bicarbonate), has also been researched – albeit not by him – and the research shows that lowering acidity has no effect on slowing or stopping cancer growth:
Therefore, contrary to what you say, we are entitled to say that Simoncini’s theory is wrong: we have given evidence of absence of cancer being a fungus and we have given evidence of absence as to the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate in curing cancer.
You also say (bold by me):
Q.E.D.
Since the Italian judge called Mr Simoncini a quack – or used words to that effect – and struck him off and convicted him for fraud because of his quackery, there is no reason why we should not be allowed to call him a quack as well. Because, to all intents and purposes, Mr Simoncini is just that.
Gee, folks, it had been my intention to drop this as simply a fairly meaningless and amusing difference of opinion as to how to approach criticism. Alas, you have tossed back at me a couple of pretty provocative statements that I can’t let go without further comment.
Firstly, Beatis, just a general comment. The tone of this site and everything here is one that puts in opposition “conventional” medicine with its scientifically rigorous standards versus less than conventional medicine (or quackery, if you prefer) that fails to meet those standards or, in some cases, fails to even attempt to meet those standards. Assuming this is accurate, and further assuming what appears to be your unquestioning faith in conventional medical science, I’d ask you to consider what you wrote between “Tullio Simoncini claims that cancer is a fungus…” and “So there is scientific proof that cancer is not caused by candida albicans. “. Now, where the word “cancer” appears” substitute “AIDS” and where the word “fungus” appears, substitute “HIV”. Correct me if I am wrong, (Please, do. Consider this a dare from an unlettered layman to correct him, if you wish.) but it appears to me that, mutatis mutandis, your words apply to and rather accurately describe the current situation respecting the theory that HIV causes AIDS – THE currently reigning pet theory of “conventional” medical science. Methinks standards, if not applied universally, are not standards but rather are convenient tools to support one’s prejudices.
And now to “anaximperator “:
My mistake. I was unaware of the fact that the veracity or its lack of any scientific theory was a matter to be determined by courts of law. I have been laboring for years under the misapprehension that the acceptability of a hypotheses was determined via peer review and replication. Silly me. Thanks for setting me straight. I can assume then, that you side squarely with the rest of us “denialists” who view the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming business as shoddy, profit-driven, pseudo-science. After all, a UK Judge found that “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is acknowledged as a reasonably complete exegesis of “conventional” science’s evidence, was erroneous, and even willfully misleading, in several respects. In other words, a learned Judge, in effect, labeled Al Gore and the “conventional” IPCC scientists “quacks”. So, you may feel free to do so yourself, should the subject ever come up.
Whatever for?
Why on earth do you assume our words regarding fungus as the supposed cause for cancer apply to AIDS?? You cannot just swop words and concepts at will.
That cancer is not caused by candica albicans had already been established by science. The fact that Simoncini persisted in selling his baking soda therapy as a cure for cancer in spite of there being evidence that this was completely useless and potentially dangerous as well was the reason he was convicted for fraud. Selling unproven and implausible therapies is usually considered quackery. He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter because a patient died due to a number of medical faults during a bowel surgery which he performed in order to insert the – useless – baking soda.
From the fact that a judge found that Al Gore made a documentary that is erroneous or misleading in several aspects does not necessarily follow that the concept of global warming in general is erroneous or misleading, or that Tullio Simoncini is not a quack.
Typical behaviour. That’s called shifting the goalpost. Major logical flaw there John.
Done! At your service.
Simoncini and his proponents have chosen to only present their data in the form of testimonials. In that context you can regard the analysis of those testimonials as peer reviews. And if you don´t understand what is explained you should ask instead of ranting. As to replication you were given links above, that among other thing show you what is found when the white in cancers is examined. As this is standard practice it has been replicated extensively. There really is evidence of absence.
I’m a regular follower of this blog http://journeytowardhealth.blogspot.com/2010/01/always-worthy-of-praise.html
You may be interested (?) to know Beth has been declared cancer free by her oncologist!
I check her blog several times a week and have just read it. We are all very happy for Beth; we hoped the surgical removal in Italy of the tumour would do the trick and apparently it has.
I also hope she will allow herself some nice food now for a change. To reduce cancer risk, all she has to do is eat a healthy, balanced diet that is high in fruit, vegetables and fibre, and low in red and processed meat and fatty foods. There is no scientific evidence that extreme diets, like juice-fasting for weeks on end or only eating raw foods do anything whatsoever to prevent cancer or cancer recurrence. Some of these diets are actually detrimental to one’s health and there also are indications that large amounts of supplements can sometimes be harmful.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/magical-fruits-and-vegetables-does.html
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_3_2x_common_questions_about_diet_and_cancer.asp
It is absolutely possible, that the surgery delivered the cure – it happens everyday. But there are some things in Beth´s post that just sound strange. Apparantly the diagnosis “cancer free” is based solely on “bloodwork”. No mention of any scannings. And apparantly she has been told, that the gall bladder is a key organ in cancer – it is not. And what does it mean, that her nutritionist believes that the cancer is not gone?
I have wondered about the gallbladder as well, I have never heard of such a thing and I was never offered a gallbladder examination to find out if my breast cancer has really gone. My oncologist also tells me that testing for biomarkers is a very unreliable method to assess whether someone is cancer free or not. So I don’t understand what she tells us in her post. Perhaps she just forgot some vital information that would make it more understandable.
Hopefully that is the explanation.
I hadn’t noticed that the gall bladder in Beth’s story was seen as a key organ, but that can never be. And it isn’t, like jli also very rightly says.
Then why would it be removed when you undergo surgery for gall stones? Would regular doctors (surgeons) really be so stupid and be doing that for decades all over the world and thus depriving thousands people per year of a vital organ in combatting cancer?? Mine was taken out over 10 years ago.
It’s very weird, very weird indeed. Perhaps she is mistaken, or she just left out some details. But breast cancer and gall bladder is new to me.
I must lough reading what are doctors telling about “what is cancer” – in fact, they don’t know. And these same doctors say that Simoncini&his treatment is a quack. Orthox medicine is a quackery, there’s is no science just missleaded scholars led by Rockefeller and Big Pharma.
What is said here on this forum is 1 century long history of presecution for all those scientist who were thinking different than a main stream.
In fact I have proofs that MMS, ozone, baking soda, Budwig diet,..thera are all very efficient dealing with different uncurable deaseses (by otrhodox medicine).
It’ time for you guys to wake up!!!
Glad you’re having fun.
No you don’t. There is no proof for things that aren’t so.
nino – the only ‘proofs’ those products have is that their sleazy peddlers separate the gullible from their money, spread outright misinformation and lies, and often cause delays in patients receiving proper treatments.
Your credibility is nonexistant, just like the supposed claims and testimonies of these worthless products.
Pingback: Bicarbonato sódico: otro timo médico « El Rey Carmesí
In defense of Dr. Simoncini the oncology world will also let my mother die. There treatments with gemzar, xloda, and tarceva absolutely destroy the body. I sit here as I type this in hospice(New York) with my dying mother next to me. The establishment is no better than Simoncini.
In fact I contacted Simoncini and he honestly said that he couldn’t help her case due to the fact that the cancer metastisized.
I am very sorry to hear about your mother.
However, I disagree with you that the treatments of Simoncini can be compared with conventional medicine.
Many people owe their lives to conventional medicine. Nowadays, 60% of cancer patients survive for more than 10 years and are therefore considered cured. Sadly, not all treatments work all the time.
But baking soda for cancer never works, because it is completely bogus.
I think Simoncini is on to something.It is a known fact that when a person develops metabolic acidosis that cancer is often the cause of that.Bicarbonate of Soda is a proven treatment for maintaining the correct PH of the blood acidity-alkaline levels and if the blood is correct then the body should be as well.Also Bicarb of Soda is an effective remedy for indigestion and dyspepsia.My wife and mother in law both had breast cancer and before that developed they both suffered with candida albicans as an initial symptom in a different area before cancer was diagnosed.Simoncini may well be profiting from the claims of his treatments which may not be entirely effective but i am certain that he’s going in the right direction
@ Michael Krol
You say:
You are sorely mistaken, it is not a known fact at all. No wonder, since it isn’t true.
As to pH-levels and cancer, you might want to read this:
@Michael
It can help, it’s not going to heal it and it may have an indirect role actually; I for one, am still sure there’s something to be found out that will fit right into the equation.
What you eat, what you should avoid eating (I think I already mentioned the E-xxx components), there’s a lot of work to do.
Also, surprisingly, the pot helps too, sadly doesn’t help the way the treatment would be most welcome by patients.
Hmmm, Maybe some kind of perfected vaporizers to get rid of toxines and such, but of course, there’s still missing much of what there’s to be found. Altough it seems quite promising as it is right now.
‘Kay, that’s a lot of writing without me posting something crazy, so here goes:
What we are missing is… Reggae music and decoration where the treatment is applied!
You know, I am an extremely skeptical person especially with regards to homeopathy quacks. I’ve debunked one of them literally to the point where he is now in Hong Kong hiding from the US laws.
But shouldn’t ALL possible treatments be investigated?
Aside from the possibility that people might avoid other treatment, what is the harm of such ideas as this fellow has?
I’ve had sporotrichosis lesions in five places. The drugs they gave me did not help at all. Topical iodine has slaughtered the fungus.
I can’t say anything about melanoma or fungus as the etiologic agent but in my case, with severe and intractable cutaneous fungus, Simoncini’s treatment DID WORK.
Sodium bicarbonate as a cancer treatment has been investigated; turned out it didn’t work.
The harm in his ideas is that he says his baking soda works far better as a cancer treatment than standard treatments. This is not true, but it may convince people to forgo standard treatment, which is not a good thing for cancer patients to do.
Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » For shame, Dr. Oz, for promoting Joe Mercola on your show!
Gentlemen,
Having only just recently heard about Simoncini, I join this discussion group late but with the benefit of having read the back and forth statements both pro and con, and all, I must say, are at least eloquent and civilized, unlike the hostile exchanges on many other discussion forums. It’s one thing to disagree on these controversial issues, it is another thing to degenerate into personal attacks. At the end of the day I believe everyone on both sides of the debate is sincerely interested in finding a valid cure for cancer and all other catastrophic diseases.
Whatever the merits of Simoncini’s claims are, the inescapable truth is that the mainstream medical community is overwhelmed and confused by CANCER and the conventional treatments are ineffective and dangerous.
I am a lawyer by profession but I have been doing medical research for more than twenty years because of two bouts of cancer in my family. In this context I have studied and reviewed hundreds of alternative sciences in an attempt to find anything which offers a legitimate prospect of dramatically changing the way we deal with illness in general and cancer in particular.
Most of these alternatives do not stand up to even superficial scrutiny or are so convoluted and complicated, involve so many STEPS of what to do and what NOT to do, that they have no credibility and are impossible to evaluate as far as making any meaningful conclusion about any causal relationship between their action and any effect on a particular disease.
However, two sciences did emerge from this jungle of contradictory literature which are deserving of further study and investigattion because the evidence about them is overwhelming and compelling.
One is the science of DR. ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE who allegedly cured cancer in the 1920’s and 1930’s using only RADIO FREQUENCIES, based upon his theory and his experimental observations that all major diseases and cancer were caused by ” micro-organisms”, now known as viruses. His work was confirmed in a controlled scientific experiment at USC in 1934 and was so attractive that the head of the A.M.A. tried to buy into his company. The failure of that deal led to the whole venture collapsing, the AMA abolishing all forms of electrotherapy and resulted in legal proceedings where all the evidence in favor of the validity of this science were documented and are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.
I would have liked to put my wife who is battling breast cancer for seven years on this RIFE treatment using one of the newer devices which are on the market purporting to reproduce the work of RIFE but it quickly became apparent that the current revival methods do NOT reproduce RIFE’S original methodology and are unreliable. With the collaboration of some of the world’s leaders in this field I am currently on a campaign to fund a proper university scientific experiment into the RIFE science to determine once and for all if it is legitimate or not.
Like Simoncini the RIFE science is very controversial and engenders very heated debate, but what peaked my interest is his claim that cancer is a FUNGUS, similar to RIFE’S claim that cancer was caused by a virus and therefore, like RIFE, the theory of Simoncini should also be properly investigated and evaluated before being discredited or dismissed.
I have read certain posts on this forum which point to certain studies which they say disprove Simoncini’s claims about bicarbonate of soda but some of the other comments on this forum from equally informed people do not seem to agree with those conclusions.
I will not comment on whether or not these studies prove or disprove what Simoncini is saying, but one thing about his theory is particularly interesting because it also correlates with the second alternative science which, as I said above, emerged as one of the alternatives which were worthy of further study, and that is the science of OXYGEN therapy.
This science is the subject of over 7,000 scientific articles and is very mainstream in the “alternative” world and many doctors have written protocols on how to perform this therapy, one of which, more appropriate for the ordinary person, is by the ingestion of a diluted form of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide.
I would have liked to use RIFE technology on my wife but when that proved to be in a state of confusion, I was forced to rely on this second science of OXYGEN therapy. To be brief, my wife’s life has been saved by the benefits of that “complimentary” treatment which was added to her conventional chemo, which was clearly “killing”her. She looked like she had only a few weeks to live and this therapy brought her back to life. Interestingly, after I added this protocol to her treatments and the doctors saw the results, it was the first time that I was asked for a reference to this science by several doctors.
What strikes me, without knowing for sure who and what Simonncini really is really all about, is the fact that the scientific basis of the benefits of oxygen therapy seem to apply equally to this Bicarbonate of soda therapy. When I studied all of those hundreds of alternative sciences, many of them provided some form of anecdotal evidence of benefiting their users and the “universal” thread which tied them all together was that they all seemed to be based on them providing a boost in the body’s uptake of OXYGEN.
When I later learned that all cancers, bacteria, viruses and other pathogens were all anaerobic and could not survive in OXYGEN rich environments, the circle was complete and the LOGIC inescapable. To me, all the varied “anecdotal” and “qausi-scientific” evidence were now validated by this very conventional scientific fact.
Simoncini attributes the benfits of the BICARBOMNATE OF SODA to it’s ALKALINE properties, but it immediately occured to me that IF it has any benefits it may again be due to its OXYYGEN generating properties, and that as such it also deserves a fair and independant review.
Some of you will GOOGLE my name and find that I am involved in the even more controversial field of HAIR LOSS and MALE PATTERN BALDNES and have written a book called the MALINIAK METHOD which is a radical new theory on the true genetic cause of hair loss and a simple new method to treat it which took me thirty years to elucidate and elaborate, but which really works and has been selling all over the world.
It started as a true “pseudo” science, based on pure scientific theory and thought, anecdotal evidence and hypotheses, but it made sense and showed results in “informal” experiments which have been replicated in many subjects. The website was first activated one year ago and only now, one year later, recent independant scientific studies have been published which have confirmed TWO of the principal hypotheses of my theory. One of these was brought to my attention by an important member of one of the world’s leading forums on hair loss which has dedicated several pages to the MALINIAK METHOD.
I mention this because, in the words of DR. JOE SCHWARCZ , professor of chemistry at McGill University, and columnist for the Montreal Gazette, who is a relentless critic of pseudo-science;
” all real science starts with anecdotal evidence”
In this light I submit that some of these alternative sciences deserve to be brought to the attention of the general public and more fairly investigated because they MAKE SENSE and should NOT be dismissed peremptorally.
I believe the theory of Simoncini deserves the same fair treatment, if only because it ties in to the much more established science of the benefits of OXYGEN therapy. This may just be another way to do it.
What interesting things you write on your blog, like this for example (my bold):
This makes me wonder what should be done with men who have testis or prostate cancer…
I think Simoncini’s patients deserve fair treatment, i.e. that he should stop lying to them that his baking soda treatment cures cancer and stop practicing his quackery.
OUCH!! 😯
I Think we should quietly step back, and forget all about the idea of environmental toxins as THE cause of cancer. This is a reasonable stance, because there is no data to support the idea:
1) No specific environmental toxins are suggested to be involved.
2) No case control study shoving that people with/without breast cancer differ in exposure to environmental toxins.
3) No cohorte studies showing that people with or without toxin exposure differ with regards to breast cancer prevalence.
4) Other risk factors are well documented: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/type/breast-cancer/about/risks/
Mostly civil… I think Bennet has a lot of good points. Especially when the finer points are avoided, by bringing attention to other points, or diverted by triggering empathy with the alleged “victims.” This stands out he most to me:
If pressed, I’d say Simoncini looks fishy to me. But then, if pressed I’d say that seven decades of conventional “real” medical science with a trillion dollars in funding producing nothing more than hacking away body parts and administering the most deadly poisons known to man as the best “treatment” available also looks might fishy to me. Cui bono?
Why would there be peer reviews? Why would those who fund this kind of research – and are funded by the expensive mainstream treatments – threaten their own profit structure? The same profit structure driven establishment is what doles out most causes of cancer. Even if this guy is a fraud (could be cointelpro), the potential for racketeering between food and pharmaceutical companies, as well as some technological firms is staggering. Alternative medicine may be our only hope.
“unquestioning faith”
Dangerous.
Accusing someone of being paid by evil pharma simply because they don’t agree with you immediately causes you to lose an argument. It shows you have no meaningful statements to support your argument.
Hi, I have seen the film “Artesanos” on Youtube and had to read the tip with terror that this points, nice woman, Amelia Parra in 2011 has passed away. I wanted to know what she of has died and have bumped into this side.
Please, excuse, I can do no English and have what I would like to say with a translator translated.
There is a German doctor, Dr. Hamer who is not welcome in Germany, he lives in Norway. This doctor has discovered 5 laws of the GNM (Germanic new medicine) and since approx. 1985 it is not to be brought possibly them in the world. His knowledge is, cancer as a natural biological remedial program recognize, in such a way that it is not necessary to contaminate with radioaktivity people and to fill up them with Chemo. Of course this is to the pharmaceutical companies a thorn in the eye.
Amelia Parra would live certainly even today if she had known the method of the GNM.
I allow myself to point out to a Youtube video which explains this GNM very well. It is available of my knowledge, unfortunately, only into German. A translation would be absolutely necessary.
Die 5 Biologischen Naturgesetze – Die Dokumentation
(5 biological physical laws – the documentation)
The physical laws of the GNM concern all kinds of the illnesses, thus comprehensively and apply for the person as well as for the animals.
Hearty greeting
Rosemarie
Hi, ich habe den Film „Artesanos“ auf Youtube gesehen und musste mit Entsetzen den Hinweis lesen, dass diese weise, schöne Frau, Amelia Parra in 2011 verstorben ist. Ich wollte wissen, woran sie gestorben ist und bin auf diese Seite gestoßen.
Bitte entschuldigen Sie, ich kann kein Englisch und habe das, was ich sagen möchte mit einem Translator übersetzt.
Es gibt einen deutschen Arzt, Dr. Hamer, der in Deutschland nicht willkommen ist, er lebt in Norwegen. Dieser Arzt hat die 5 Gesetze der GNM (Germanische neue Medizin) entdeckt und seit ca. 1985 ist es nicht möglich sie in die Welt zu bringen. Seine Erkenntnisse sind, Krebs als ein natürliches biologisches Heilprogramm erkennen, so, dass es nicht erforderlich ist, Menschen zu verstrahlen und sie mit Chemo vollzupumpen. Natürlich ist dies den Pharmaunternehmen ein Dorn im Auge.
Amelia Parra würde sicher heute noch leben, wenn sie die Methode der GNM gekannt hätte.
Ich erlaube mir, auf ein Youtube-Video hinzuweisen, das diese GNM sehr gut erklärt. Es ist meines Wissens leider nur in Deutsch erhältlich. Eine Übersetzung wäre unbedingt erforderlich.
Die 5 Biologischen Naturgesetze – Die Dokumentation
Die Naturgesetze der GNM betreffen alle Arten der Krankheiten, also ganzheitlich und treffen sowohl für den Menschen als auch für die Tiere zu.
According to Dr. Hamer the breast cancer of the left breast with right-handers the result of a care conflict concerning the mother or the child of the ill – breast cancer in the right breast concerns a care conflict with regard to partner, father and all other people. With left-handers this has exactly turned back! If the woman to the knots feels or if he is ascertained with an investigation, she is occupied quite (unconsciously) with the solution.
I know a woman, 50 years old who has no children and she had breast cancer links / right-handerShe survives for 5 years – without Chemo, without radiotherapy.
I know an other woman, 62 years old, likewise without children, the mother for a long time late. Breast cancer links / right-hander. What was here the conflict? This woman, a doctor, has gathered a small animal, one day a goose, (we know everything, how much we hang on animals), came this woman home, a marten had torn the goose. She found only the head of the animal. 7 months later she got a knot in the left breast – this goose is presumably to be equated with a child.
I could still report other cases to you..
Cause was her demente mother who suddenly had to be supplied.
Think of events of your life if a conflict originated, an unexpected shock which does to the people a moment or longer deeply affected, dumbfounded in the sense that he can speak with nobody “properly” about that. These are some of the criteria of the first law.
In this second with the “shock” a change and at a certain place concerning the organ originates in the suitable organ in the brain a ” Hamerscher of stove “ often as a tumor is called, with members of the family (with lung cancer) he was irradiated “as a precaution”. She died in 2010 of a tumor behind the left eye.
A total of 5 laws after Dr. Hamer. And Dr. Hamer does not want to become richly with it. Now he is 77 years old and fights for nearly 30 years for it.
Dr. Hamer sees on a computer tomography (CT) of the brain – without knowing the person – which organ is or had fallen ill which conflict must have formed the basis, when did the conflict take place, is the person already in the remedial phase?
I end here for the moment. Do you still have questions?
Dear greeting
Rosemarie
Correction:
I know a woman, 50 years old who has no children and she had breast cancer links / right-hander. Cause was her demente mother who suddenly had to be supplied.
She survives for 5 years – without Chemo, without radiotherapy.
If you want to promote the quack mr. Hamer, I suppose there is another subject on this blog for it, like:
or this:
or this:
or this:
or this:
As you see, his methods are discussed several times on this blog. We don’t believe in his claims.
@ Rosemarie
There are indeed already many posts about mister Ryke Geerd Hamer on this blog. So take your time to read them all on the first place:
https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/?s=Hamer
Thank you.
beatis:
What agreement or argument? I was simply pointing out a potential flaw in the reasoning. I made no direct statement in support of Simoncini. Also there’s no accusation, it’s a fact that something as simple as baking soda curing cancer stands to threaten the profits of any companies who manufacture and distribute current cancer treatments.
It’s an irrefutable fact that any research done towards a new treatment must be profitable for the company to invest in the AMA testing for that treatment. It’s the same reason vitamin and herb supplements can’t be “officially proven” to provide the benefits that they do.
I just happened to be reading about Simoncini when I found this blog, and this is more directed at the entire blog (probably) than just this article alone, but the premise is pure establishment propaganda. Even calling the treatments “Alternative” is biased, and misleading. It’s like referring to any not major political party as “Independent.” It’s a way to make you think they aren’t important, relevant, or functional. The parties have names. We should acknowledge them.
The claims that even any of the patient testimonies are faked, are no more valid than saying the same about any publications by the AMA. They can’t self incriminate, it’s the paradox of officialdom. Follow the money. It rarely lies.
@Steeb
You seem to take it for granted that baking soda cures cancer, but it does nothing whatsoever against cancer, as a cancer treatment it’s completely useless. Consequently, it doesn’t pose any threat to any pharmaceutical company. It does however pose a threat to cancer patients, who may be persuaded to forgo effective treatments in favour of Simoncini’s useless baking soda.
Car manufacturers manufacture cars in order to make money; they use their profit to pay their shareholders (public or private) and to invest in research into new developments. Does this mean then that all cars are bad? And if the answer is no, then why doesn’t the same hold for pharmaceutical companies, who also pay their shareholders and invest in research into new developments?
The fact that money is being made does not by definition imply that a product is flawed; that’s a non-argument and a lame one at that.
There is evidence in abundance that none of the alternative treatments discussed on this blog offer any hope at all for cancer patients. What’s dangerous is believing that they do in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
– It is an irrefutable fact that high-quality research, independent of funding from pharmaceutical companies exist, and is highly respected.
– It is an irrefutable fact that doctors take action when they discover that foul play in pharmaceutical industry funded research has taken place.
There is big money involved in selling vitamins/herb supplements. For some reason “Big suppla” (BS) doesn’t want to put their claims to a fair test.
Actually some of the testimonials give themselves away right on the spot. You only need a minimal understanding of conventional cancer treatment to understand why. For instance a “melanoma in situ” that has been removed is not a cancer but at precursor of cancer which has been removed. The removal of this precursor is the cure.
…and none of those replies addressed any of the points I was making.
Very nice.
Why is it that so many altmed proponents are having reading problems?
I am too polite to answer this. Hm…. Guess I just did
Regurgitation of establishment rhetoric. They just spew talking points, when some aspect of a logical argument threatens their belief structure. The belief that modern medical science is benevolent, and hasn’t been hijacked by racketeers who look to reap the profits of a public who’ve developed “unquestioning faith.” It’s become a religion.
Aspects of logical arguments…? Where??
Faith, like love, is blind, I guess.
Since you can’t provide us with any evidence of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments it seems you are the believer here.
I don’t believe.
I’m not claiming these treatments work. I have no empirical evidence to support it. I’ve only done reading from both sides, including the establishment driven ones.
I do know big pharma profits huge from their treatments. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING if baking soda, or some other similar cheap, abundant, harmless, readily availible substance (especially food product) did cure cancer, we wouldn’t know about it.
Speaking purely financially, why would they advertise for something they can’t profit off of? In fact, they stand to benefit more for launching a smear campaign against anyone who tries to make ready this information, to protect their current profits, and being the “official” source of medical research and information, are in a great position to do so. This blog seems to be working fairly well.
I would love to go get cancer and give 1st hand testimonial on any of the dozen natural cancer remedies I’ve read about, but my diet already coincides with the preventative measures for cancer, so I don’t see it being very likely.
If readily available baking soda would be proven to cure cancer, we wouldn’t need the pharmaceutical industry, we could just buy our treatment at the baking section in the supermarket. And if the sky would fall down tomorrow, we would all be walking around in blue hats. But there is no evidence whatsoever that baking soda cures cancer, there is only evidence that it doesn’t.
So you do believe alternative treatments work against cancer, otherwise you wouldn’t say a pathetically stupid thing like this.
Only an idiot would love to get cancer and only a gullible fool believes it can be prevented and/or cured by diet.
Beatis:
Right! What a load of rubbish from Steeb.
So does Simoncini, Big Suppla (BS) and not to mention Joe Mercola and other quackery peddlers. By your own reasoning, you shouldn’t find them trustworthy either.
We would – because sodium bicarbonate is used in cancer treatment to deal with tumor lysis syndrome. If it had any anticancer capabilities of its own, it would have been observed, and action would have been taken.
Another reason we would know about it is, that for anyone to know about it, it would have to be tested in a controlled trial. There simply is no way around it. Here is a recommended download for anyone who wish to understand why and how a fair test is conducted.
Has anyone ever heard of MMS and Jim Humble therapy for cancer?
Why don’t you just go and drink a nice glass of industrial bleach?
That stuff is DANGEROUS and Humble is one of the biggest quacks on the planet.
Please read these warnings from the FDA and Health Canada (but then again, what do you expect them to say? The governments are in on the conspiracy, right?)
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm220756.htm
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_74-eng.php
Rev. Joseph Layton
At least I have cured with MMS my chronic bronchitis (illness 3 – 4 times per year). I had bronchitis for 15 years. For three years I have none more.
Pingback: Totnes Cancer Conference forced underground by Trading Standards | Josephine Jones
Amelia Parra morreu em 2011… Acabei de assistir un filme que no finalzinho do vídeo diz que ela morreu.
Abrazos
I am sorry to hear that Ms Parra died. Sadly my Spanish is not good enough to understand in detail what is told in the video. Perhaps you could give a summary?