Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Tullio Simoncini: sCAM murderer?

Anyone who thinks sodium bicarbonate is an alternative to conventional cancer therapy should read this email before taking any steps.

To: healthfraud@lists.quackwatch.org
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:49:50 -0600
Subject: [healthfraud] interfere with Simonici?

Unbelievably, the father of a friend of mine (diagnosed one week ago
with a likely glioblastoma near his speech center) is actually
planning to go through with this. He’s not even had a biopsy. Since
Simonici is delicensed, he’s having my friend’s father travel to a
doctor outside Belgrade (yes, in Serbia) to have a catheter put into
this brain (at a cost of 20,000 euro cash), and then to Rome for
Simonici to “oversee” infusion of sodium bicarbonate directly into the
tumor (for 150 euro/day, cash).

My question: what avenues can my friend pursue, legally,
diplomatically, etc, to prevent this from happening? I’m aware that
his father is a competent adult, but surely there’s a way to prevent a
U.S. citizen from engaging in this transaction with a convicted
criminal in Italy?

Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated, even if it’s just
confirmation that, unfortunately, nothing can be done to prevent this
particular idiocy.

====================
Click here for update

292 responses to “Tullio Simoncini: sCAM murderer?

  1. Mario Rossetti November 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    The successes of medicine officer for brain cancer are zero!
    No one has ever survived with the chemo and all died after terrible suffering caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy!
    You are free to believe or not, but Simoncini with his therapy has cured a number of people.
    About three years ago the father of a friend of mine had given 20 days of life for brain cancer.
    He did care Simoncini and lived two and a half years. E ‘died for other reasons, not for baking.
    Simoncini site is the testimony of a girl with baking soda healed from a brain tumor after the medical officer had given up.
    After more than a year is still good!
    You are free to believe or not, but these are the facts!

  2. beatis November 22, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    I don’t see any facts. I see a woman in a video telling a story. That’s all.

  3. lilly November 26, 2008 at 5:46 am

    Does anyone on this blog have experience with using
    a Beam Ray for curing cancer? and if positive which one to buy?
    Thanks

  4. anaxymperator November 26, 2008 at 8:31 am

    @ Lilly,

    This is quackery in its purest form. Please don’t spend your money on it, it’ll be a total waste.

  5. cryptocheilus November 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    If you want to try this (although it will not work) don’t buy an expensive (6000$)machine.

    Here’s a building scheme….
    http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/complete.pdf

    It’s easy for any electrician to build…

    More info:
    http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/index.htm

  6. anaxymperator November 26, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    If all these scams weren’t so intensely depressing, I would be laughing out loud.

  7. Urich November 27, 2008 at 7:13 am

    If those that hold the power and the wealth weren’t so busy protecting both, we would perhaps hold the truth of a variety of topics. Rife does have some evidence and what he claimed in ’39 was born out by the scientific community in ’98 with the advent of research into HPV resulting in a vaccine against HPV to prevent cervical cancer. Until we have proof to the contrary, any unproven procedure is just that – unproven. NOT necessarily a scam. We just need an altruistic society to delve into these anecdotal truths…Yeah Right…and every child will go to bed with a full belly.

  8. ruibasto December 18, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Who am I to say something? Please if you are not a scientist just SHUT UP!

  9. beatis December 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    There are scientists on this blog.

  10. beatis December 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    But possibly you were speaking to yourself.🙂

  11. alkalinity kills cancer January 25, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    raise the alkalinity of a cancer cell to 8-9 and it dies a quick death

    but then soda bicarbonate cannot possible kill off cancer, got ya

  12. alkalinity kills cancer January 25, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    It is now 30 years since President Nixon declared “war on cancer”. Despite spending vast amounts of money on traditional medicine, current statistics paint a chilling and very sad picture:
    1. One person dies every minute from cancer.
    2. Three people are diagnosed with cancer every minute.
    3. It is anticipated that within a few years one person out of every two will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime.
    4. The fifth leading cause of death in America is from prescription drugs used as directed.
    5 Doctors are a leading cause of death in America

    Perhaps the AMA and ACS energies could be redirected to address the real problem facing our Senior citizens, the abject failure of traditional medicine to successfully treat chronic diseases.

  13. Natalie January 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    To all the negative ignorant people who are so anti simoncini or any other doctor offering alternatives to cancer treatment. tell us ALL something, after how many years in medical history, why, and how can there not be a cure for cancer? people have spoken of dr simoncini as a convicted criminal, yet
    how many people die from toxic effects of chemo and radiation? are the oncologists prescribing these useless forms of treatment any better? no they’re worse, are you aware of how much money pharmaceutical companies actually make from the use of these drugs? of course he has been banned, and it has nothing to do with some apparent patient in norway dying from his treatment…
    as a child of mother who has been treated with useless chemotherapy which has actually caused further mestastes’ I still have not found anywhere, any published praise from the cancer industry on how amazing chemo and radiation is and how many people are surviving cancer as a result of its use…

  14. beatis January 27, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Standard therapies for cancer are not useless. The fact that still people die of cancer, does not mean regular therapy is always useless. Many people owe their lives to standard cancer treatments.
    Simonici’s medical licence was taken away because the treated people with a dangerous and useless therapy, for which he also accepted money.
    Many cancer patients are treated with surgery alone, chemo and radiation are by no means standard. When the tumor is still small, surgery often suffices.
    No one has ever been cured with alternative therapy alone.

  15. alkalinity kills cancer January 28, 2009 at 1:42 am

    Natalie
    I applaud your convictions about cancer treatments, not only are the traditional methods of treating cancer dangerous, but many times are lethal in themselves. Use less may not be a way to describe because they do kill cancer cells, only they kill good cells as well.
    It doesnt take much research online to find statistics of how many people actually die from being in a doctors care. Now i do understand they are sick to begin with but not always. Many time people going in for routine procedures have their lives snuffed out because of mistakes, wrong prescriptions, wrong diagnosis etc. I personally know of a gentlemen that cured himself of colon cancer with out using a medical doctor. And he did it through fasting and juicing on and off. I do not know right now what juices he used, but i remember that he told me it didn’t taste the best. With any treatment, even alternative ones, you should use common sense. If I told you to go outside and spit up an oak tree and it will cure skin cancer, you would have to think it would be pretty silly and of course it is. Common sense tells you that you are not doing anything to make that work. One thing i do know, the cancer patients i have been around are almost always very acidic, I don’t say all because i don’t know if all are. But the ones I have witnessed are. So if a treatment talks about doing things or taking in food that would make you more alkaline and those foods also are known to have anti cancer proprieties, wouldn’t it make you think their could be a connection with that, common sense says it would. My mother passed away from having pancreatic cancer. One of the things the hospital had her do was to consume large amounts of high calorie foods (high in sugar) in an effort to have her gain weight, except they left out the fact that sugar feeds cancer. Sugar also will make you acidic as well. Do a search on the net about sugar feeding cancers. I have not met a natural path yet that doesn’t believe that. http://www.aptb82.dsl.pipex.com/stopcancer/sugar_feeds_cancer (dot) HTML

  16. beatis January 28, 2009 at 6:12 am

    Promoters of the Acid/Alkaline theory claim that cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline environment and that is true, but neither can any of the other cells in your body. Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine. If your blood changes its acidity or alkalinity for any reason, it is quickly changed back to the normal pH or these enzymes would not function and the necessary chemical reactions would not proceed in your body. Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range. Anything that changed the acidity in your body would make you very sick and could even kill you.

    Anyone who says high alkalinity is the cause of cancer, proves himself to be a complete ignoramus on how the body works.

    When you are so sure this theory is true, then come up with decent scientific evidence. Until then, stop telling people these dangerous nonsense.

  17. alkalinity kills cancer January 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    i think you mean high acidity not high alkalinity.
    please dont use such language calling people names, we are just discussing issue and you revert to name calling
    not very professional

  18. jli January 28, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Natalie.

    Don´t let your hatred towards conventional medicine cloud your senses. Explore this site with an open mind. There really is a lot of information as to why Simoncinis idea is nonsense. Beatris is right when she says that the body can only function in a very narrow pH-range, and consequently the (healthy) body has its mechanisms by which it maintains it. It is quite understandable that you and “alkalinity kills cancer” don´t know about this. But Simoncini cannot be excused.

  19. Natalie January 29, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    No one has suggested the body should be completely alkaline, of course that in itself is an unhealthy approach, there must be balance, as far as i believe and am aware a slightly alkaline ph of 7.2 is ideal ( please go ahead and correct if this an error.. no doubt beatis will..) so the concept of putting the body back into a healthy state of PH etc etc… tell me where the harm in that theory is??? i don’t understand the nonsense in that, the only nonsense going on here is injecting known carcinogens into an already vulnerable body and calling that a treatment or cure…I also don’t understand why Oncologists use Sodium bicarbonate at the end of chemo treatments which is commonly known as the “flush” procedure… maybe beatis has a thing or two to say about that?? If it is so harmful to the body, why have they been using it for years?

    Jli my senses are by no way clouded, we have tried conventional medicine for over 2 years and it has done nothing except weaken my mums immune system and cause her hair to fall out , the only time my mother has been in amazing health since she was diagnosed was the 12 months she was off chemotherapy…

  20. beatis January 29, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    Sodium bicarbonate can be dangerous, it is harmless provided it is used in the right way and for the right purposes, see http://www.medicinenet.com/sodium_bicarbonate-oral/article.htm
    Simoncini claims he can do more than standard medicine; he claims he can cure even terminal cancers with his therapy; he claims a succes rate of over 90%; he drives people with cancer in curable stages away from treatments that can save their lives,thus causing them to lose time, which cancer patients cannot afford. His treatment is useless, for cancer is not caused by the fungus Candida Albicans. But even if it were, it could not be cured with baking soda. There have been trials to find out if baking soda is effective against cancer and it turned out it wasn’t. Jli here on this blog, who is a pathologist, knows all about that. His treatment is also potentially dangerous because baking soda can have serious side effects. It can be dangerous, even lethal, to inject a patient with large amounts of baking soda the way Simoncini does. And it does not cure cancer. It is a bogus therapy.

    It know it is very hard to accept that people still die of cancer, in spite of sugery, chemo, radiation, hormone therapy etc. Treatments are often harsh and sadly the cancer sometimes is stronger. There is a lot to be said about standard medicine and science, but it is still the best we have.
    There is no alternative therapy that can cure cancer. The woman in the Netherlands who died after being treated by Simoncini, had breast cancer in an early stage, it was by no means certain that she would need chemo and her prognosis was good. And now she is dead.

    I don’t expect being able to change the minds of staunch believers in alternative medicine. My only hope is that I may help change the mind of someone who has been diagnosed with cancer and is contemplating to seek alternative treatment only. I think it is bad enough as it is that people have cancer; to have them lied to, causing them to lose valuable time, is something I can never accept.

  21. Natalie January 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    you still have completely ignored all my above questions…
    and you consistenly contradict yourself…

    if baking soda is so toxic, why can we still purchase it at supermarkets?

    Dr Simoncini does nothing more then offer people another option, it is then up to them to make the decision, standard orthodox treatment does not allow you to do that, you are told have chemo or die… there ARE many people who have refused this treatment who are still alive and well, and you say you’ll never accept that cancer patients are lied to… they are being lied to every day by oncologists who go by nothing more then what they are taught in medical school and what the pharmaceutical companies make them do…. we have been using these treatments for how long and haven’t gotten anywhere, why is it that everytime someone offers a change and another insight they are ostricised? this norweigan woman is ONE person, out of how many??

    stating Jli as a pathologist is of no relevance to me unless he offers scientific proof of how amazing chemotherapy is and justify why once a patient consents to surgery must they then sign an agreeance to have chemo and radiation…

  22. beatis January 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    The woman is Dutch, not Norwegian.
    I said baking soda is not dangerous, provided it is used in the right way and for the right purposes. I gave you a link, have you read the article at all?

    In one if my earlier posts I said:
    “Many cancer patients are treated with surgery alone, chemo and radiation are by no means standard. When the tumor is still small, surgery often suffices.” (my italics) I had cancer myself. I was not forced to anything, not to surgery, not to chemotherapy. You are your own agent, you can always say no.

    Simoncini is not “just” offering another option, something completely useless is never an option. Just as all the other quack therapies offered to desperate people. I find it hard to understand how it is that you judge standard medicine so harshly and at the same time are so uncritical towards alternative medicine. Seems to me you should at least apply the same standards to both groups.

    BTW, this may make interesting reading – if this young man had put his faith in alternative medicine, he would not even have survived, let alone win an olympic medal: http://www.maartenvanderweijden.com/

  23. jli January 29, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    If you by “scientific proof of how amazing chemotherapy is” mean a study that shows that chemotherapy cures every cancer every time with no side effects at all during treatment, then I have no offer. And I agree with you that nobody should sign an agreeance to have chemo and radiation on consent of surgery. I think that patients who are offered chemotherapy should be informed about the side effects as well as what can realistically be achieved in terms of cancer control. If no such information has been provided your hatred is somewhat understandable. I can only hope that someday you will realize that the “world of alternative therapies” isn´t all that perfect as you appear to believe at this point in your life. See for instance http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

  24. Natalie January 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Beatis, I don’t see that as proof of someone cured with orthodox treatment, i see that as an article someone has written about someone else…. that makes about as little sense as beatis’ comment on “i dont see facts i see a woman in a video talking…”

    I do not condone “bogus” as you say alternative therapies, but when someone is a trained medical oncologist and has studied cancer -that is not quackery simply because they don’t conform.
    Some oncologist or scientist somewhere had to come up with the idea of using carcinogenic chemicals to treat and control cancer -that was quickly accepted with open arms, yet when other trained doctors and scientists look to inexpensive forms of treatment they are always crucified… I still wonder why this is… wait for it… oh it’s not scientifically proved…

    Bring out a patented drug which you take either orally or intravenously that is side affect free that works in the same way as anti-biotics that completely cures all stages of cancer that costs thousands of dollars/ pounds whatever… and I will praise all medicine and science in its entireity… until then I have my opinion which is the basis for this blog…

    Beatis -having an early stage of cancer means surgery is an easy way of being cancer free, whether that’s long term or not…, I would most likely opt for surgery if I had cancer, but its no gurantee the cancer wouldn’t come back which is where current medicine is flawed, it does not treat the cause by any way shape or form, it treats the symptoms only… there may have been BOTH the dutch woman AND the norweigan woman, who sadly died but what about all the other people who have been successfully treated by Simoncini, are they to be completely disregarded? your talking 2 cases out of hundreds!
    when i don’t have enough hands to count the amount of people I personally know dead within months of diagnosis and treatment with chemo.. I dont see this as reason to condemn the man.

    Anyway we all have our opinions and beliefs, as you have said we can’t expect people to change their beliefs simply because we think they should, this is just a discussion…

    Jli i dont believe alternative medicine is the only answer I believe there should be some sort of harmony between the two but when you have exhausted all measures of orthodox medicine and it hasn’t achieved much, you will try everything you possibly can to keep someone close to you alive when your oncologist offers little more…
    so perhaps one day you will realise that the “world of alternative therapies”isn’t all about quackery and bogus ideas there are people in existance who have been helped by this approach when all other measures have failed them… that is something you cannot deny simply because it hasn’t been scientifically proven if people are still alive and well that’s good enough for me…

  25. alkalinity kills cancer January 31, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Again, close friend of mine cured his colon cancer with juicing and fasting, as well as high doses of certain nutrients. If you closely look at what he used, it was very alkalizing
    Im sure his testomony means nothing as he didnt spend 100 million to do a study of this, he was too busy getting his cancer out of his body
    his doctor was pissed at him, his doctor tried scare tactics saying he would die, i laugh at that one as his doctor would of been what would of killed him with the treatments they wanted to do. More like his doctor didnt get to make his beamer payment that month

  26. beatis January 31, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    How do you know he is cured? We don’t need testimonials; we don’t need 100 million dollars to do a study – a decent case report would be a good starter. So, either you present us with the full case report of your friend’s “miracle cure”, or you just keep quiet.

    BTW: Maybe his doctor is right. If I were a doctor, I’d be pissed too when my patients started some bogus treatment that will definitely do them no good at all.

  27. beatis January 31, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    @ Natalie,

    You can contact Maarten van der Weijden via email. He will be happy to answer all your questions in detail.

  28. alkalinity kills cancer February 1, 2009 at 6:04 am

    beatis
    you said you would be pissed as well if your patient did something that will do them no good, obviously you cant see then, because its his doctor that says he has no trace of cancer , although he tells him it will come back, but somehow from juicing just about every green plant you can think of , he has no cancer showing now, and yet his doctor didnt do a thing, now i am just repeating what he has told me about it, i have no reason to believe otherwise, i will see what info i can get you regarding this

  29. Natalie February 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    alkalinity kills cancer I believe 100% your friend is now free of cancer, as I know of others too who have freed themselves from cancer this way as oppose to chemo… there is a particularly good juicing regime known as the breuss cancer cure, its 40 days of fasting and living soley on freshly pressed vegetable juices using a forumalted technique the pioneer of this juice fast was Rudolph breuss he treated even the most terminal patients with great success- these were ALL documented with ‘decent case report studies’.

    I find it so sad that Beatis finds any measure of alternative or even complimentary therapy Bogus, most oncology wards have leaflets encouraging at least complimentary treatments when undergoing chemo there must be some value in them if thats what the doctors are saying…right??

    alkalinity kills cancer- I dont think you should keep quiet.
    beatis -this is a blog, a discussion board, everyone is free to discuss and debate and shouldn’t have to keep quiet… some “bogus” treatment as it were in your opinion has kept someone alive no doubt far exceeded the lifetime of what his doctor had predicted.

    WHY IS THAT BOGUS BEATIS???

  30. beatis February 1, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    I never said I find complementary therapy bogus. Complementary therapies can be very useful in enhancing patients’ wellbeing. As long as they are presented in an honest manner, I have no problem with it. But alternative is not the same as complementary. Alternative means what it says: an alternative to standard therapy, it comes in the place of standard therapies. And as there is no alternative treatment that can cure cancer on its own, I think it is dangerous when cancer patients forgo standard therapy and rely completely on alternative therapies to cure their cancer.

  31. Natalie February 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I asked why it was bogus if one man freed himself from cancer using a juice therapy and has far outlived his doctors lifespan expectations…. you can still use alternative medicine at the same time as traditional medicine complimentary and alternative are the same basis, but if thats your only argument…

  32. beatis February 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    I said: “as there is no alternative treatment that can cure cancer on its own, I think it is dangerous when cancer patients forgo standard therapy and rely completely on alternative therapies to cure their cancer.”

  33. alkalinity kills cancer February 1, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    so we are on same page, he gets diagnosed with colon cancer, his doctor wants to treat him, he declines and goes his own treatment plan, he now doesnt have cancer and still has his colon,
    and you said its bogus that would do him no good at all
    remember, doctors are one of the leading causes of death in this country

  34. alkalinity kills cancer February 1, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    why was my link that showed skin cancer that was healed using iodine removed from this blog?
    if this therapy was bogus, please show where it was?

  35. anaxymperator February 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    @ Alkalinity-kills-cancer, aka Wayne,

    We have posts on this blog warning people against Tullio Simoncini’s cancer therapy. Obviously, we do not accept links to sites advertising this therapy.

  36. Natalie February 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    oh my god, the dangers of tullio simoncini… lets all take it so personally like he is out to kill us… for what reason would he intend on doing that? if he wanted to make money he’d stay on the conventinal medicine band wagon and be cashing in on the pharmaceuitical company benefits, hardly able to compare a few book sales to that… really….

    why don’t you spend your time trying to find an answer as oppose to opposing anyone who comes up with a new theory to cancer???!!
    Alkalinity-kills-cancer- put your link back up please id be intersted to see what it says…

    Its ALL ABOUT DR TULLIO SIMONCINI!!

  37. jli February 2, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    …comes up with a new theory to cancer???!!

    Simoncinis theory is that cancer is a fungus. You may find that plausible. And you might even find it evident when watching the video appearances of him pointing at what he claims are fungal colonies. But cancer is not a fungus. And it isn´t just because it hasn´t been proved that it is. It is because it has been proved that it isn´t. It may be difficult for a layperson to understand why this is so, but Simoncini-given his medical training-can´t be unaware of it.
    Also the case of heptaocellular carcinoma discussed elsewhere on this blog suggests that something is wrong. Again given his medical training he can´t have been unaware that the presented scans were from different levels, and that the encircled dark areas aren´t the whole cancer. And once pointed out also laypeople should be able to see that for themselves.

    …. I would most likely opt for surgery if I had cancer.

    Then you are not a fanatic Simoncini follower afterall🙂
    According to him surgery leads to displacement of fungi into the bloodstream, thus resulting in colony formation elsewhere in the body (= meatstasis).

  38. Natalie February 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    ok so show us all the documents which have proved it’s incorrect, his theory that cancer is a fungus that is…

    does that mean Beatis isnt a strict follower of conventional medicine then Jli? because he/she seems to believe that complimentary therapy could be ok if presented honestly and used in combination with orthodox medicine…??? I simply made a comment that I don’t have hatred toward orthodox medicne, i beleive doctors do have a place in the treatment of illness, it looks like I’d have no choice to not have surgery as simoncini apprently can’t treat patients anymore, if it meant removing an entire organ ie bowel/ uteras then I would not have surgery… beacuse once again, it wouldn’t gurantee that my cancer would not return beacuse it does not deal with the cause…

    it’s funny how everyone here still has not shown the facts and case studies that prove simoncinis theory as being incorrect, SHOW US ALL please…
    better still show us what causes cancer then….?? your comments are all repetitive and non conclusive… Like I said tell me about a credible scientist/ oncologist who has the answers and has a treatment that’s effective and ill be quiet…

    Alkalinity kills cancer i know which website it is the doug hoffman one right? I have seen that one…

  39. beatis February 2, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Dear Natalie,

    First of all, I am a woman. I was diagnosed with breast cancer October 2007. I had a mastectomy, lymph node dissection (10 lymph nodes) and chemotherapy. I have one daughter, who is now 21, a husband, two dogs and one cat. I work as a communication manager for a university.

    I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can. I trust Jli will correct me where I go wrong, as he is a pathologist and deals with examining cancer on a daily basis, but I’ll give it a go anyway.

    If cancer were caused by the fungus Candida Albicans, as Simoncini claims, it would have to show up whenever there is cancer. But the fact is that it doesn’t. Some cancer patients suffer from fungus infection, however this is not the cause of the cancer but an effect of it; when your immune system is weakened, the body can become susceptible to fungi. But in most cases, no fungus is found at all, not even with cancer patients who have undergone standard treatment. As Simoncini claims cancer is a fungus, the fact that this fungus is hardly ever found by pathologists, is very odd, for a pathologist gets to see the cancer in the most extreme detail.

    Simoncini’s second claim is that this “cancer-fungus” Candica Albicans must be cured with sodium bicarbonate. But there is far better medication to get rid of a fungus infection than sodium bicarbonate. This is the second thing that is odd. However, I think it is no coincidence that Simoncini chose Candida Albicans as the cause for cancer. Many people are infected with Candida Albicans without it ever bothering them at all, but the fact that it is so common, makes it easy to blame Candida A for all sorts of ailments.

    Often people say that surgery and other forms of standard medicine do not deal with the cause of cancer and that therefore standard therapy is useless, because the cancer will just come back. Most of the time, an insufficient immune system is said to be the cause of cancer. So if you eat the right things, your cancer will go away and not come back. If only it were that simple. It is a known fact that an unhealthy diet can increase the chance for a person of developing cancer, but the correlation is weak. The reason for this is that our immune system is not entirely defined by what we eat. Our own genetics play a large part in it as well. Some people stay healthy on an unhealthy diet, while others need a lot more to stay healthy. There is also a big part of your immune system that is not influenced by food. Some people are born with a very alert, very clever immune system. Others have to make do with a slower, clumsier one that needs a lot of help and support.

    But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that cancer is “only” a symptom, caused by some underlying problem, e.g. a diet lacking in nutrients. No matter what the underlying problem may be, if you don’t get rid of this very dangerous symptom – your cancer – asap, you will never get to adressing the “underlying problem.” You could compare it to a house on fire. The underlying cause might be that the house was insufficiently fireproof. But no one in his right mind would try to extinguish a blazing fire by installing fireproof material. As soon as you become aware of the fire, you call the fire department and they will extinguish it completely, making sure that there are no smouldering spots left that may start to flare up again. Of course the house is damaged, both by the fire and the water. But you start rebuilding and take precautions that you didn’t take before, thus diminishing the chances of another fire braking out.

    You are right, I am not against complementary therapies. Reliable information on complementary treatments is to be had at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in the USA, who provide a number of therapies and do a lot of research. They do not use the term “alternative medicine” though, for they make it very clear that no alternative therapy can ever replace standard medicine when it comes to cancer. Therefore they prefer to speak of complementary therapies. The best of these they have integrated into their standard therapies. Hence: integrative medicine. This is a link to their website: http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/1979.cfm

    When someone’s cancer is still in an early stage, the most effective therapy is surgery. Sometimes, when the cancer is of a more aggressive nature but still small, a preventive chemotherapy (adjuvant chemotherapy) is often advised following surgery. After lumpectomy, radiation is advised. Bear in mind that the choice is always up to you. I would certainly always opt for surgery, as this is by far the most effective way to get rid of a tumour. Whether or not to choose adjuvant chemotherapy, is a personal matter, as it will increase the prognosis by only about 5-7 %. I decided for it, but I fully understand when people think this is too small a gain for the amount of pain involved.

    Chemotherapy is also used to shrink a tumour before surgery.

    Cancer is a nasty disease, no matter how small your tumour is, no matter if none of your lymph nodes are affected, there is always a risk of metastases, which can occur years after the first diagnosis. I can make it no prettier than this. Developing cancer is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. But it can be treated and more people survive longer. There is progress, albeit slow. But cancer is a complicated disease, where many interdependent factors play a part, and there are no simple, straightforward and painless cures.

    I’ll get to your other questions in a next comment.

  40. beatis February 2, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Natalie,

    Simoncini claims that he can cure cancer, so the burden of proof lies with him, he has to prove himself right, scientists don’t have to do his work for him and prove him wrong. However, research has been done into the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate and as it turned out, it seemed to stimulate cancer growth rather than decrease it. Jli can tell you all about this.

  41. Natalie February 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    Thanks Beatis🙂 very informative… thanks for the links

    I do beleive simoncini has proved himself , but it still remains that this isn’t enough

    over to you Jli…

  42. jli February 3, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    …it’s funny how everyone here still has not shown the facts and case studies that prove simoncinis theory as being incorrect, SHOW US ALL please…

    I think the easiest way to understand why cancer is not a fungus is to compare what Simoncini explains about cancer anatomy in the Kaufmann video (And perhaps also the lecture he gives in http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-598800713255508140&hl=it with what is explained at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160727 If that doesn´t satisfy you please tell me what kind of observations you would feel would be sufficient.

    does that mean Beatis isnt a strict follower of conventional medicine then Jli? because he/she seems to believe that complimentary therapy could be ok if presented honestly and used in combination with orthodox medicine…???

    I guess that different doctors have different opinions about the use of complementary medicine. Some think it is fine for the reasons mentioned by Beatis. It helps their patients cope with the awful situation they are in. Others are deeply against it because they feel it only gives their patients false hopes. Beatis mentioned the Sloan-Kettering Cancer centers position. In case you don´t know it already this is one of the most respected cancer centers among conventional doctors in the world.

  43. jli February 3, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    [Quote]However, research has been done into the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate and as it turned out, it seemed to stimulate cancer growth rather than decrease it. [End quote]

    You might be referring to the study referenced here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10654592?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    It is an experimental study on bladder cancer in rats. They found that alkalizing as well as acidifying the urine aggrevated resulted in progression of the cancer.

    Perhaps a few words on the use of sodium bicarbonate would be relevant at this point. Natalie wondered about why oncologists use sodiumbicarbonate at the end of chemotherapy. As a pathologist I never treat anybody with anything for any condition, so my explanation will be somewhat laymanish and not based on personal working experience. Destruction of tumor cells leads to formation of uric acid. The body disposes of uric acid through the kidneys and the urine. And this is where sodium bicarbonate comes into play. Sodium bicarbonate given correctly will not affect the pH of the whole body, but it will increase it in the kidneys and in the urine. This helps keeping uric acid dissolved, and thus easily disposed of through the urine. In short sodium bicarbonate is useful after the cancer cells have died. It does not increase pH of the whole body, and is not used by the oncologists to destroy cancer cells.

  44. Natalie February 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Thanks for the info Jli

    just one last question from me, can you explain what blood tumour markers represent? no one has ever explained it to us properly, how is it measured and why will it vary from laboratory to laboratory, for example, my mum has a blood tumour marker count of 10 however one taken at a different pathology unit measured 6.5 what does it actually reprsent by way of how much cancer activity you have?

    Im not being sceptical in any way shape or form, just curious!!
    thanks🙂

  45. beatis February 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Tumour markers are substances that can be found in the body when cancer is present. They are most often found in the blood or urine, but they can also be found in tumours and other tissue. They can be products of the cancer cells themselves or made by the body in response to cancer, but they can also be made in response to other conditions than cancer.

    Each cancer has specific tumour markers, eg CA 125 for ovarian cancer, CA 15.3 for breast cancer, etc. High levels of a tumour maker often means that there is cancer, but not always. This is also the reason that tumour markers can never replace formal tissue diagnosis by the pathologist. Very high levels of some tumour markers however, make it very likely that there is some form of cancer, eg very high CA 125 and ovarian cancer. On the other hand, tumour markers for breast cancer (CA 15.3) are very unreliable, many breast cancers show no high levels of CA 15.3.

    Monitoring disease progression is the main use for tumour markers. They are measured after the diagnosis of a cancer and prior to beginning of treatment. Regular measurement of an elevated marker may help in determining whether a treatment works, by showing a reduction in the levels of the marker after therapy.

    Cancers consist of abnormal cells and tumour markers are often produced in different forms in different patients. This may lead to different results being obtained for the same patient when different methods are used to measure the marker. For this reason it is important to follow a patient over time with the same analytical method from the same manufacturer.

    Good and accessible information on tumour makers is to be found here: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_Tumor_Markers.asp
    Also on Wikipedia, a bit more technical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_marker

    More information on alternative and complementary therapy can be found here; there is also a link to a page where you can get detailed information on a great number of alternative therapies, including warnings against the dangerous ones: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=216

  46. jli February 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    [Quote]Thanks for the info Jli[End quote]

    You are very welcome. I´m truly happy if it clarified a few things for you.

    [Quote]…can you explain what blood tumour markers represent?[End quote]

    Beatis answered that one. I might ad that in my country it is not the pathologists who perform the blood analysis. But we do use some of the tumormarkers when we are presented with a biopsy from a metastasis where the location of the cancer itself is not known. For instance the presence of PSA in a metastasis would suggest a prostatic origin.

    [Quote]Im not being sceptical in any way shape or form, just curious!![End quote]

    Well, should any questions arise later on please don´t hesitate to ask them🙂

  47. Tony Isaacs February 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    First of all, I would have to say that Simoncini is more of a self-promoter than healer and that his “all cancer is a fungus” is bogus, though certainly cancer often exhibits fungus like qualities. His background is shady and some of his testimonials have been brought into question. And nowhere can you find, even on his own website, an iota of informaton about his educational background. Is it a coincidence that Italy is well known as a country where degrees are easily purchased? Not only that, I know of a couple of people who sent to Italy to see him – neither were helped and both came back with negative opinions of him as a caregiver.

    On the other hand, the best thing he has going for him in my opinion is negative information from the mainstream tool of de-llicensed and thoroughly exposed mainstream hack Stephen Barrett (quackbuster).

    Siimoncine aside, Beatis you said “And as there is no alternative treatment that can cure cancer on its own, I think it is dangerous when cancer patients forgo standard therapy and rely completely on alternative therapies to cure their cancer.”

    You are terribly misinformed, as just the opposite is true. I once thought as you did, but many years and thousands of hours of research proved me to be just as brainwashed by the propaganda of the almost $400 Billion a year cancer industry.

    Only nature heals. Cutting out, burning out or poisoning out the mere symptoms of cancer does not cure the underlying causes. At best it merely gets rid of the symptoms and usually not even that. It also inflicts damage that paves the way for the return of cancer and introduction of other serious illness.

    Live long, live healthy, live happy!

  48. jli February 13, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    …but many years and thousands of hours of research proved me….

    Could you please explain what kind of research you have been doing?

    At best it merely gets rid of the symptoms and usually not even that.

    To clarify your opinion on concepts I would like to ask you if you think that the lumps (that are removed by cutting) are not cancers but merely symptoms of cancers?

  49. Tony Isaacs February 13, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    I am a natural health advocate and writer, and my research has been of a journalistic nature as opposed to laboratory research. I was a journalism major way back in college who also had a keen interest in science and took advanced studies in the subject. Shortly into my 40’s I began to realize that I was not destined to be young and immortal forever and I began to look for ways to extend healthy years as well as make up for past sins. At the outset, I believed that real medicine came only in a brown bottle with Rx on it and real healing only came from doctors. It has been a jaw-dropping journey!

    Initially, my research was purely for my own benefit, but at some point I realized that what I was finding out about diet, nutrtion and natural healing was something that I could and should share with a large audience, especially given my penchant for writing, and so the idea for a book titled “How to Live a Long and Healthy Life” was born.

    In the midst of compiling information on that project, a beloved cousin and life-long running buddy was suddenly diagnosed with stage 3 melanoma, and so, fearing for his life and aware of the abysmal success rates of mainstream treatments, my attention became focused on finding alternatives that might save him.

    As a result, my first book became “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” (you can find a great many articles taken from the book and free for reading at the articles section of my website (Edit)) and I ended up being the host of a Yahoo health group about cancer which now has over 1100 members, many of whom joined the group after mainstream treatments failed (and as far as I know, all but three are still alive – one of whom is my 85 year old uncle who had lung cancer that had metasticized after radiation failed to halt it).

    (Edit)
    Now, as to your second question, certainly the cancerous lumps that are removed are cancers, and sometimes the removal of those lumps may be necessary if there is a life-threatening blockage or perhaps an extremely aggressive cancer where one needs to buy some time.

    My point is that often not all of the cancerous mass itself is removed and removal of the lumps does not eliminate all cancer cells from the body. In many instances, surgery hastens the spread of cancer cells, as does needle biopsies, and as does the smashing of women’s breast during mammograms.

    Most importantly, neither surgery nor chemo nor radiation address the underlying problems that enabled cancer to get past the body’s first line of natural defense, the immune system, and gain a foothold to begin with. Those causes can be many and varied – exposure to carcinogens, heavy metals, bacterial overgrowth (candida), viruses, even parasites. In virtually all instances of cancer, there is both an impaired immune system and an impaired liver. Frequently stress and unresolved trauma issues play a role that prevents proper healing and optimum immune function.

    The only way to be sure of addressing all the underlying imbalances and issues it to adapt a comprehensive anti-cancer protocol and lifestyle that incorporates a healthy diet, elimination of toxins, stress and bad habits, and supplementation where needed to both fight cancer, boost and restore the immune system and liver, and correct any mineral, vitamin and other nutritional deficiencies.

    I hope I have satisfactorily answered your questions. If not, I would be happy to elaborate (but one should be wary of asking a writer to write, sometimes we do get carried away – lol)

    (Edit)

  50. Natalie February 14, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Tony do you know of any where in Australia who promotes your ideas? I need to get my mum onto it asap as shes just finished useless chemo and has come back with results of new cancer in her lungs wich were 100% not there prior to commencing chemo…

    Though the intentions of Dr Simoncini are debateable I don’t believe he soley is out to benefit himself, else why would he not simply endulge in the $400 Billion a year cancer industry…?
    “Fungus usually begins in the gut through a process known as dysbiosis and then enters the blood. The fact that fungus from the gut can enter the blood stream through the gut wall has been scientifically proven” (Infection and Immunity. 1993;61:619-626)

    myself and family are at our whits ends with all the lies and varying degrees of information we have been given…..

    any suggestions? from Tony that is…

    thanks🙂

  51. beatis February 14, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    @ Natalie,

    I’m extremely sorry to hear this about your mother, that is terrible news indeed.

    The sad fact is that when your mother has lung metasases, Simoncini certainly won’t be able to cure her, nor will Tony. In fact, I’m afraid chances are very slim that anyone will be able to cure her. When cancer has spread further than the lymph nodes, it often means that a person is incurable.

    And about metastases 100% not being there before chemo: nobody can say such a thing, for metastases can be so small as to be indetectable. But that you can’t see them, does not mean they are not there. This is something all cancer patients have to deal with I’m afraid.

    The best an oncologist can say is: as far as we can see, a person is cancer free. The fact that metastases can become active years after the first diagnosis is precisely the reason for the 10-year, sometimes even 12-year period of check-ups for cancer patients.

    The reason Simoncini is not part of the “cancer industry” is because his theory sucks. Cancer is not caused by Candida Albicans, period. Ofcourse he will tell you otherwise, as will the likes of Tony. But a rip-off is all they have to offer.

    I’m sure Tony will be very happy to tell you any fairy tale you wish to hear. But you’ll have to find another way to contact him, for we won’t allow it on this blog.

  52. Natalie February 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    quote” The reason Simoncini is not part of the “cancer industry” is because his theory sucks.”
    HOW is that the reason..? if he wanted to be part and reap the financial benefits he wouldn’t have any other theory then that of standard oncology “cancer is a mystery”… so that quite frankly does not explain why he isn’t part of the multi billion dollar cancer industry…

    Have your opinion Beatis but a reasoning such as that isn’t really an intelligent one..

    Secondly… I’d like to think that just because someone like yourself who surprisingly is a cancer patient , with a young daughter and husband would make a comment that my mother has no further options…is simply commenting out of ignorance.

    Quote “And about metastases 100% not being there before chemo: nobody can say such a thing,”…
    well in that case no body ESPECIALLY yourself Beatis ,can say that my mother does not have a chance of survival simply because thats your level of belief- because nothing is 100% really is it….?

    I find it very hard to believe that if you were posed with the same scenario ( and heaven forbid you are) that for the sake of your daughter you would simply accept that you have no futher control of your life and that you’d be willing to give up beacuse that’s what they
    ( intelligent oncologists) tell you…

    And yes I would be quite happy to hear from Tony, because comments such as the one below don’t really convince me that standard oncology is the only option…
    Quote “In fact, I’m afraid no one will be able to cure her. When cancer has spread further than the lymph nodes, it usually means that a person is incurable.” Fact? says who?… Usually…? there it is again nothing is 100%. Why usually and not always? must be something else out there people are using that’s keeping them alive, I’m not suggesting a miraculous cure but something that supports the immune system to do what it was designed and made to do… fight illness!

    My intentions are not to come across nasty, however when you have a multi billion dollar cancer industry yet people are still dying… im baffled as to why this industry is not being questioned by you blog devotees if the interest at heart is suffering cancer patients…??

  53. beatis February 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    @ Natalie,

    Quote “And about metastases 100% not being there before chemo: nobody can say such a thing,”…
    well in that case no body ESPECIALLY yourself Beatis ,can say that my mother does not have a chance of survival simply because thats your level of belief- because nothing is 100% really is it….?

    I could have said ‘never’. But Lance Armstrong was cured – as far as we know – of metastasized testis cancer. Not with alternative therapy though, he underwent new, experimental chemotherapy and in his case, it worked. And sometimes, sometimes, a real miracle happens and there is spontaneous remission and even cure, although this is extremely rare.

    We all want 100% certainty. But nothing in life is 100%. That’s nobody’s fault, it’s a fact of life. That people still die of cancer does not mean scientists are stupid or that they don’t have cancer patients’ interest at heart, or that there hasn’t been any progress at all, or that all the money for cancer research was wasted. We know a lot about what cancer is already, but finding a cure is another matter and a problem in itself. There is progress, but it is always slower than we want to.

    You say:

    I find it very hard to believe that if you were posed with the same scenario ( and heaven forbid you are) that for the sake of your daughter you would simply accept that you have no futher control of your life and that you’d be willing to give up (…)

    When my cancer comes back, I think I would take medication to suppress symptoms and lengthen my life, provided it wouldn’t make me feel too sick. When the moment comes that my doctor tells me there is nothing he can do for me anymore apart from pain relief, I think I will just want to spend what time I have left with my loved ones – as I do already for that matter. I will not try out alternative therapies that I know are useless, just because I’m supposed “not to give up.” Acceptance and preparing yourself and the people around you for your death is not giving up in my opinion, I think it is taking ultimate control and a very heroic thing to do.

    I know you don’t want to come across as nasty, I can’t tell you how sorry I am for you and how devastated this should have happened.

  54. beatis February 14, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    You are not a stupid man, so you must know you are lying when you say this:

    Siimoncine aside, Beatis you said “And as there is no alternative treatment that can cure cancer on its own, I think it is dangerous when cancer patients forgo standard therapy and rely completely on alternative therapies to cure their cancer.”

    You are terribly misinformed, as just the opposite is true. I once thought as you did, but many years and thousands of hours of research proved me to be just as brainwashed by the propaganda of the almost $400 Billion a year cancer industry.

    You also say:

    My point is that often not all of the cancerous mass itself is removed and removal of the lumps does not eliminate all cancer cells from the body. In many instances, surgery hastens the spread of cancer cells, as does needle biopsies, and as does the smashing of women’s breast during mammograms.

    And this is another one of your dangerous lies. Mammograms have been an important factor in early detection of breast cancer and as such have saved many women’s lives. Biopsies are sometimes necessary to make a diagnosis. But ofcourse, a far better option would be to do no biopsy, remain blissfully ignorant and just let the cancer grow and spread as it pleases. As for surgery, it is the most effective means to get rid of a cancer. I’ll tell you what really hastens the spread of cancer cells: NO surgery.

    Every time you succeed in convincing people not to have mammogram, biopsy, surgery or any other standard cancer treatment, you are morally responsible should they die of cancer.

    Have you any idea how hard it is for a person to come to terms with the fact that their cancer is incurable?

    Every time you succeed in convincing someone that your pills and potions can cure them of their incurable cancer, you inevitably make them go through this ordeal again and this makes you morally responsible for their misery.

    Just so you remember.

  55. Natalie February 14, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Im sorry Beatis, but that last comment was quite vicious…

    you cannot start talking morals with all the evidence against the cancer industry being presented by various people

  56. beatis February 14, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    @ Natalie,

    As far as I know, lung metastases can sometimes be successfully removed surgically, provided the primary tumor is under control, there are no other metastases in the body, the number of metastases is limited (no more than three) and they are still relatively small. This is because lung tissue is not regenerative, so it is not possible to remove too much lung tissue.

    Some more information here:
    http://www.meds.com/pdq/lungmetastases_pro.html
    http://www.njmonline.nl/njm/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000061

  57. beatis February 14, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Natalie,

    When your cancer is in an incurable stage, alternative therapy will do nothing for you, apart from give you hope where there isn’t any.

    When your cancer is still curable, relying on alternative therapy will make it incurable.

    I know of the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery that is caused by making people believe their cancer can be cured with alternative therapy only.

  58. Natalie February 14, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    my mothers original bowel tumour is completely gone, and she has only 3 small spots on one lung…

    her oncologist has not suggested surgery, in fact he doesn’t seem to concerned and thinks she’ll be fine for anywhere between 3 and 6 months at which point he would like to commence chemo again

    thanks for the web links

  59. beatis February 14, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Natalie,

    Ask him why no operation. You can present him with the facts on the website and ask him to explain why your mother is not eligible for surgery. Ask him why another chemo, ask him what it will do in terms of prognosis, in terms of well-being. Tell him you have the feeling he is not so concerned. Write your questions down before you visit him. Take someone with you, who is not so emotionally involved, to understand and write down what the oncologist says, for your mum and you will probably be too stressed. You can even have this third person ask the questions – this is sometimes easier than to ask them yourself. When the doctor’s answers are unclear or seem evasive, then find another doctor who is concerned and is prepared to take you seriously.

  60. beatis February 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    There also would have to be no other metastases in the body, so your mum would need to be scanned. You can ask the doctor about this also.

    Lung metastases of breast cancer have extremely bad prognosis, because breast cancer tends to metastasize “explosively” throughout the whole body. I understand that with bowel cancer, this often is not so, it seems it’s not uncommon that there are only a few metastases.

  61. natalie February 16, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    a jli

    quote “I might ad that in my country it is not the pathologists who perform the blood analysis”

    Hi Jli, just wanted to know which country you’re in? I thought that was the job of a pathologist to analyse blood as my mum always goes to “pathology” to have her blood tests done

    thanks

  62. jli February 17, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    Hi Natalie.
    I´m Danish. Uphere we have what is known as clinical chemists (another branch of doctors) who performs that sort of blood-analysis. Pathologists perform microscopy of blood smears. Sometimes the appearance of the blood cells is a valuable diagnostic feature.

  63. natalie February 17, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    oh ok, thanks!

  64. Ann March 14, 2009 at 1:39 am

    RE: BEAM RAY.

    I know of someone who was just cured of prostate cancer with the beam ray machine. He had used other “rife type” devices previously, and held it at bay. The beam ray worked. Rife discovered a cure for cancer in the 1930’s. The AMA suppressed it.

    As to the baking soda, open your mind. Are you okay with someone injecting poison into this man’s body, because the AMA says it’s the right thing to do? Because the FDA says it’s okay? Know that they’re all benefitting by a multi-billionare dollar a year business by the drug companies–at our expense.

    Let the man try baking soda.

    Simonici should not have been de-licensed, but they do that to doctors that won’t peddle for the drug companies.

    Please be open minded.

  65. beatis March 14, 2009 at 8:40 am

    We have opened our minds. Many others have opened their minds as well, including scientists, who have consequently investigated the claims by Rife and Simoncini. The opening of their minds enabled them to conclude that both the rife machine and the baking soda are completely useless when it comes to curing cancer. They could never have found this out if they had kept their minds closed.

  66. Ann March 14, 2009 at 9:52 am

    You can believe what you want.

    I happen to know a number of people that are successfully using Rife machines to treat a particular condition which I share with them. So I’m using it. I also recently learned of a man that is totally cured of cancer, who was given a death sentence.

    Scientists did not conclude because they had an open mind. You need to read up on the cover-up and the paid scientific discoveries, compliments of the FDA, the AMA, the NIC, are all behind in.

    Please point me to facts to justify your position, and one which you post here publicly. I doubt you will sway opinion on those who know otherwise, but you bear some responsibility for discouraging people from pursuing treatments that actually work when you do this. And because I have a read the precise opposite, in a well research and documented book, from other sources, and because I know people who have successfully treated, I know the opposite position is true.

    The modern machine machine pushes ongoing drug management therapy at best–for all conditions. They aren’t interested in a cure. They are interested in generating money, and drugging and poisoning us.

    If you doubt this is true, ask yourself how well the FDA and AMA have protected our health so far. A recent glaring slip on the part of the FDA might reveal they don’t care about the nation’s health–unless they think consuming rat and excrement in peanut butter is healthy for you.

    But they were busy pursuing a man who was selling Rife machines–where many people experienced improvement and none died, unlike the salmonella-poisoned people.

    Face it–they are all in bed together, and they’re reaping careers of a lifetime, and massive profits because of the gullibility and naivete of the people who believe their lies.

    Try reading, with an open mind, the following article:
    http://www.healingdaily.com/beliefs.htm

    You have been duped from day one on every level, for the benefit of the Corporation. And these organizations are at their behest.

  67. beatis March 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    @ Ann,

    I just wasted a considerable amount of my time reading up on vaccination, on the site that you linked to. I think you should be ashamed of yourself to present us with a site so full of nonsense and blatant lies. The amount of fear-mongering that is done in order to convince people not to have their children vaccinated is truly horrific and so is the level of ignorance displayed.

  68. wilmamazone March 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I also have the feeling that Ann should be very ashamed of herself to present us with a site so full of nonsense and blatant lies.
    Who should be the one to get an open mind?
    Who should be the one to show more responsibility?

  69. Tony Isaacs March 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Ann is spot on. Beatis, as usual . . . . has anything but an open mind.

    Rife was a genius and his machine did work as advertised. I have seen others like it work. Though not high on my list of cancer fighters, baking soda is not completely worthless, just worth less than self-promoter Simoncini advertises when administered intravenously and of some help when taken orally only against cancers from the mouth through the digestive sytem.

    Vaccines? Oh yes, surely it is a healthy practice which has nothing to do with the upward curve in autism or the downward curve in our overall health to inject more and more vaccines into our bodies, particularly the bodies of young children whose organs and systems, including brains and central nervous systems, are still developing. Afer all, just look at some of the wonderful ingredients vaccines contain:

    Mercury, Antifreeze, Aluminium, 2-Phenoxyethanol, Phenol, Methanol, Borax (sodium tetraborate decahydrate), Glutaraldehyde, MSG (monosodium glutamate), Ammonium Sulfate, Gentamicin Sulfate, Neomycin Sulfate, Tri(n)butylphosphate, Polymyxin B, Polysorbate 20/80, Sorbitol, Polyribosylribitol, Beta-Propiolactone, Amphotericin B, Animal organ tissue and blood, Aborted human foetal tissue and human albumin, Large foreign proteins, Latex, Animal Viruses, Human Viruses, Bacteria and the toxins they produce, Mycoplasma, Genetically modified yeast, Foreign DNA, Aspartame.

    Illness is not caused by a deficiency in unnatural lab created drugs (95% of which have side effects due mainly to the fact that they are unnatural to the human body) or the toxins they contain. Illness is caused by failing to eat a healthy diet, supplement wisely and live a healthy stress free lifestyle.

    Beatis and the mainstreamers can have their vaccines for them and their children if they like. For myself and mine I will choose a healthy body and strong immune system by making sure I get adequate amounts of essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, enzymes and other natural nutrients, proper exercise, plenty of healthy sunshine, plenty of rest, clean water, and keeping stress at bay.

    If there is a bug going round and I feel a need for extra protection then I will look for my “booster shots” in nature. For a few examples see:

    Edit: no advertising

  70. wilmamazone March 14, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs

    Again stuff and nonsense!
    You can choose what you want, believe what you want, but that is no lifetime guarantee that cancer for example stay away from you or your loved ones.

  71. beatis March 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    @ Ann,

    You can believe what you want.

    Yes. But you cannot know what you want.

  72. Ann March 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Well, clearly, this was the wrong place to come and try to enlighten a few minds. I’m not ashamed to post a link. It had the potential to help people who were open-minded to truth. You and your friend were not among them.

    Fortunately, as to the father of that friend of yours? You have no right to tell him what to believe, or to restrict what he chooses to do with his body. Your attempts to push your way of thinking on others is typical of the know-it-all arrogant (smug) mindset of many people. Fortunately for the medical machine and all their offshoots, you keep them humming loudly and prosperously.

  73. beatis March 14, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    @ Ann,

    Fortunately, as to the father of that friend of yours?

    ???

  74. Ann March 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    @wilmamazone: When you think and act like the cattle or sheep you are treated like by the corporation, you continue to feed their deceptive practices.

    I tried to open your eyes. Feel free to go back to your comfort zone, as misplaced as it is.

  75. wilmamazone March 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    @Ann

    quote:

    Well, clearly, this was the wrong place to come and try to enlighten a few minds. I’m not ashamed to post a link. It had the potential to help people who were open-minded to truth.

    You are right, this is the wrong place to bring your ‘light’ and show an air of superiority by thinking that people need your ‘truth’. My eyes are already open, thank you!

  76. Tony Isaacs March 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    “Edit no advertising” really means “Edit no truth or information that conflicts with my brainwashed concept of truth”.

    Such was clearly illustrated when ego and malice edited out my contact information from that the poster Natalie asked for because mainstream medicine has no answer for her mother who wanted to know how to contact me or my 1200 plus strong oleandersoup group on Yahoo for information that has saved hundreds of lives.

    Almost every sight has advertising – look at the top of this blog for an example. Most of the other sites whose links remain have advertising on their sites too. The article I tried to post a link to contains no advertising in it. Clearly the claim of editing to prevent advertising is a hollow one.

    Clearly, what we have here is a dictatorial close-minded moderator/blog owner who exercises censorship out of spite and ignorance of what the natural world man has evolved and been sustained by for millions of year has to offer outside of mainstream drugs and largely failed mainstream treatments that still try to cut out, burn out or poison out the symptoms of cancer 40 years after the war on cancer was declared.

    So much for claiming to have an open mind.

  77. beatis March 14, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    “Edit no advertising” really means “Edit no truth or information that conflicts with my brainwashed concept of truth”.

    No. It means: no advertising.

    my 1200 plus strong oleandersoup group on Yahoo for information that has saved hundreds of lives.

    Interesting. Can you give us some data please?

  78. natalie March 14, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    HI Tony,
    you can contact me at cn704@gre.ac.uk, please forward me the information i earlier requested.

    thank you

  79. natalie March 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    “My eyes are already open, thank you!”You are right, this is the wrong place to bring your ‘light’ and show an air of superiority by thinking that people need your ‘truth’. My eyes are already open, thank you!

    @ wilmamazone

    I don’t think you realise the contradiction that comes across in your tone when you write…
    this is a blog, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs… you present yours, we present ours
    I personally dont think I have a place to try and push my beliefs in alternative medicine upon people, just like You will never sway me to believe other wise that the pharmaceutical industry isn’t full of lies, cover ups and focused soley on billions of dollars at the cost of lives!

    but this is a place to discuss and debate… perhaps you doubt the current medical system yourself but don’t want to admit the flaws it has beacuse that might open up a can of worms
    I only suggest this as i sense frustration in your tone…

  80. Tony Isaacs March 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    I can give you peer reviewed scientific studies as well as unsolicited testimonials. Unfortunately, the links to studies and articles are on my site which “contains advertising” .

    However, you can also find the testimonials and many of the articles at the Cancer and Oleander support forums on CureZone, where I am the moderator of the Cancer Support forum as well as considered to be the top authority on oleander and the owner of my own private forum there “Ask Tony Isaacs”.

    Perhaps a start would be to go to PubMed and search for “Robert Newman and oleander”. Or do a Google search for “oleander and cancer”. Likewise you could do the same for “blackseed oil and cancer”, “curcumin and cancer”, “pancreatic enzymes and cancer” and any other number of items I recommend in my suggested natural protocol for beating and avoiding cancer.

    The fact that non-patentable natural plants and extracts have not been able to afford the several hundreds of millions of dollars to take get their products through FDA trials does not make them ineffective, it simply means that those trials represent an impossible barrier for anyone since others could sell the same product without having to recover the costs of the trials.

    Would you like for me to publish some of the success stories or links? One of the success stories is my own 85 year old uncle who beat his lung cancer after mainstream medicine failed to halt his tumor growth and it began to spread to other parts of his body.

  81. natalie March 14, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Tony Please send me a link

    my mum has metastaic bowel cancer, in her liver which is apparently in remission but she now has 3 small spots on her lungs and is having a scan on monday in order to rule out spread to her bones, im terrified of what the results may bring…
    Thank you

  82. beatis March 14, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    I read somewhere that you are currently involved in trying to get approval for your oleander treatment.

    We don’t need success stories, we want to see verified data please. Testimonials are not data, as you very well know.

    Your precious oleander drug Anvirzel showed no effect on tumor response. It has been in phase II for two years, there have been no new data as to its effect on cancer. It may or may not turn out to be a successful anti-cancer drug.

  83. beatis March 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    The fact that non-patentable natural plants and extracts have not been able to afford the several hundreds of millions of dollars to take get their products through FDA trials does not make them ineffective, it simply means that those trials represent an impossible barrier for anyone since others could sell the same product without having to recover the costs of the trials.

    Many successful cancer drugs are manufactured from plants, just like the oleander that you have invested so much in and which is currently in phase II trials by a pharmaceutical company. When the trials turn out to be successful, your oleander will be made into a chemotherapy, just like the other chemotherapies that we have which are derived from what nature offers us – plants. Hopefully the oleander chemotherapy will generate a tidy profit for the investors, of which you are one. And ofcourse let’s hope there will be enough left for some new research to be carried out out.

  84. beatis March 14, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    I can give you peer reviewed scientific studies as well as unsolicited testimonials. Unfortunately, the links to studies and articles are on my site which “contains advertising” .

    Now that is a lame excuse if ever I saw one. You are perfectly free to link to the peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the claims you make on your website. I take it the studies were not originally published on your website, but in the usual scientific journals, so you can link to them.

  85. anaxymperator March 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    Been doing some searching on PubMed; perhaps you were referring to this study:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10919658?dopt=Citation
    Of whicht the abstract ends with: “This may provide a molecular basis for the ability of oleandrin to suppress inflammation and perhaps tumorigenesis”?

    Worth pursuing further, as far as I can see, but nowhere near a cure for cancer, and yet this is what you keep saying on your website.

  86. Tony Isaacs March 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    The phase I FDA test on Anvirzel was a short term trial designed specifically to test for toxicity, not effectiveness – though the study is often mis-quoted by detractors.

    The reason it has not actually progressed to phase II testing until quite recently is that the original group seeking approval ran out of funding to continue the studies.

    Anvirzel is but one of several forms of oleander. Currently a new oldeander IND is undergoing phase I trials at MD Anderson with complete success.

    There are also at least two herbal extracts available. One is recent and the other has had a reported success rate of over 90% for a broad range of cancer for over 5 years now in hundreds of users (I can verify that by the results of those in my Yahoo group who use that form of oleander).

    It has also been virtually 100% effective at reversing HIV symptoms and restoring health and that was demonstrated in a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial in South Africa.

    Yes, many patented drugs come from plants – but the only way that they are patentable is when a synthetic version or unique isolate not found in nature with the supporting compounds found in the plant is produced.

    That is why mainstream drugs are so ineffective and often downright dangerous, because nature works synergistically just like our bodies do – and we did not develop for eons alongside synthetic drugs.

    Each year, over 100,000 people die from side effects due to YOUR precious approved mainstream drugs which were properly prescribed and administed, as admitted by the AMA in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    At the same time, in any given year one is hard pressed to find more than a handful of deaths worldwide due to natural supplements.

    Contrary to what you reported, but in keeping with your general accuracy regarding non-mainstream options, I am not now nor have I ever been an investor in any oleander drug or product or any company connected with oleander.

    My primary motivation is saving lives and educating people to the truth that has been hidden from them for generations. I live quite simply and frugally and am happy to do so.

    You really do have a most stubbornly hard time accepting the truth when it fails to fall within your preconceived ideas, don’t you?

  87. anaxymperator March 14, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    That is why mainstream drugs are so ineffective and often downright dangerous, because nature works synergistically just like our bodies do – and we did not develop for eons alongside synthetic drugs.

    Please get educated on chemistry, this is pathetic.

    At the same time, in any given year one is hard pressed to find more than a handful of deaths worldwide due to natural supplements.

    That would be true, if the likes of you wouldn’t keep them away from modern medicine.

  88. anaxymperator March 14, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    The reason it has not actually progressed to phase II testing until quite recently is that the original group seeking approval ran out of funding to continue the studies.

    Maybe the NCCAM is interested in funding further research.🙂

  89. beatis March 14, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    the other has had a reported success rate of over 90% for a broad range of cancer for over 5 years now in hundreds of users

    Data please.

  90. Ann March 14, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs
    @ Natalie

    I visited and shared and now I’m done. My very strong instinct is that Tony is correct with the moderation here. The moderator seems far too strongly invested in one side coming out a win with no inclination toward an open mind. Attacks come in plenty here, and a bias by moderation, perhaps due to the identity of the posters, or perhaps due to the bias of the moderator.

    Nonetheless, now that Tony has Natalie’s e-mail, I suggest you leave these poor souls to their delusions and go spread your good energy elsewhere, just as I am about to do.

    Thank you for sharing.

    Natalie, I hope you find help for your mother.

  91. beatis March 14, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Interesting read: Natural versus “Natural” in CAM-world, by David Gorski on Science-Based Medicine.

  92. beatis March 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    I can verify that by the results of those in my Yahoo group who use that form of oleander

    Please do so then. Thank you.

  93. Tony Isaacs March 14, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Yes Gorski the mainstream troll and supplicant loves me almost as much as Beatis does. Perhaps a clue is the name of the site. Another, for those who have been following the debate there, is the fact that Gorski removed my rebuttal with the same kind of censorship Beatis weilds here.

    Perhaps while you are at the site, you might take a look at the posts of Chris3b, who has known me for years and well knows how effective oleander and the protocol I recommend are against cancer.

    And of course, one will also find someone there by the name of “Beatis” who once again made a post to the effect that I was morally responsible for leading people away from failed mainstream medicine and that anyone whom mainstream medicine could not help should just accept their death sentences and give up all hope.

    Luckily thousands of people do not heed such heartless and misinformed advice. No one has ever died as a result of my advice, though a great many are still alive as a result.

    The moral responsibility lies with those who would deny hope and tell people to accept their deaths needlessly, seemingly choosing Science as their God and man created unnatural drugs as superior to the real God and all the bounty in nature He provided.

    The science of today is often the quackery of tomorrow, as mainstream cancer treatment as it is practiced today is surely destined to become. Nature on the other hand has never been a quack.

  94. beatis March 15, 2009 at 12:01 am

    You know very well I did not say that.

  95. wilmamazone March 15, 2009 at 12:21 am

    @Natalie

    quote:

    I personally dont think I have a place to try and push my beliefs in alternative medicine upon people

    You think right and I hope from the bottom of
    my heart that you never forget that your mother is one of these people.

  96. beatis March 15, 2009 at 12:26 am

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    I’ve read the posts by Chris3b. You’ll forgive me for not being impressed by them.

  97. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Studies? How about studies AND case reports?

    CASE REPORTS:

    Mesothelioma – HD

    Adenocarcinoma (epithelial type malignant mesothelioma?) – US

    Small cell anaplastic carcinoma in the lung -YG

    Malignant lymphoma, lung cancer – MG

    Prostate cancer with bone metastases – KE

    Pancreas cancer with bone metastases – SO

    Pancreas cancer – MH

    Peritoneal carcinosis – HA

    Inoperable stomach carcinoma with metastases -VO

    Brain tumor – AS

    Brain tumor – SD

    Breast cancer (Ductal carcinoma) – SE

    Antrum cancer – YT

    Source: http://www.drozel.org/eng/case_reports.htm

    And here is a partial list of studies on oleander, Anvirzel and cardiac glycosides:

    1: Newman RA, Kondo Y, Yokoyama T, Dixon S, Cartwright C, Chan D, Johansen M, Yang P.
    Autophagic cell death of human pancreatic tumor cells mediated by oleandrin, a lipid-soluble cardiac glycoside.
    Integr Cancer Ther. 2007 Dec;6(4):354-64.
    PMID: 18048883 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    2: Ni D, Madden TL, Johansen M, Felix E, Ho DH, Newman RA.
    Murine pharmacokinetics and metabolism of oleandrin, a cytotoxic component of Nerium oleander.
    J Exp Ther Oncol. 2002 Sep-Oct;2(5):278-85.
    PMID: 12416031 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    3: Smith JA, Madden T, Vijjeswarapu M, Newman RA.
    Inhibition of export of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) from the prostate cancer cell lines PC3 and DU145 by Anvirzel and its cardiac glycoside component, oleandrin.
    Biochem Pharmacol. 2001 Aug 15;62(4):469-72.
    PMID: 11448457 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    4: Pathak S, Multani AS, Narayan S, Kumar V, Newman RA.
    Anvirzel, an extract of Nerium oleander, induces cell death in human but not murine cancer cells.
    Anticancer Drugs. 2000 Jul;11(6):455-63.
    PMID: 11001386 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    5: Wang X, Plomley JB, Newman RA, Cisneros A.
    LC/MS/MS analyses of an oleander extract for cancer treatment.
    Anal Chem. 2000 Aug 1;72(15):3547-52.
    PMID: 10952541 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    6: Manna SK, Sah NK, Newman RA, Cisneros A, Aggarwal BB.
    Oleandrin suppresses activation of nuclear transcription factor-kappaB, activator protein-1, and c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase.
    Cancer Res. 2000 Jul 15;60(14):3838-47.
    PMID: 10919658 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    7: Newman RA, Yang P, Pawlus AD, Block KI.
    Cardiac glycosides as novel cancer therapeutic agents.
    Mol Interv. 2008 Feb;8(1):36-49.
    PMID: 18332483 [PubMed – in process]

    8: Newman RA, Yang P, Hittelman WN, Lu T, Ho DH, Ni D, Chan D, Vijjeswarapu M, Cartwright C, Dixon S, Felix E, Addington C.
    Oleandrin-mediated oxidative stress in human melanoma cells.
    J Exp Ther Oncol. 2006;5(3):167-81.
    PMID: 16528968 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    9: Nasu S, Milas L, Kawabe S, Raju U, Newman R.
    Enhancement of radiotherapy by oleandrin is a caspase-3 dependent process.
    Cancer Lett. 2002 Nov 28;185(2):145-51.
    PMID: 12169388 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    10: McConkey DJ, Lin Y, Nutt LK, Ozel HZ, Newman RA.
    Cardiac glycosides stimulate Ca2+ increases and apoptosis in androgen-independent, metastatic human prostate adenocarcinoma cells.
    Cancer Res. 2000 Jul 15;60(14):3807-12.
    PMID: 10919654 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

    If you want the links to any of the above, I created a backpage on my website which has no advertising whatsoeverm not even google adwords like this blog has, and which contains no links to any other pages on my website:

    http://www.tbyil.com/Anvirzel_Oleander_Case_Reports_Studies.htm

    Would you like a list of studies on all of the many natural items I suggest in addition to oleander? It would be several hundred long.

    Or better still, why don’t you just join my Yahoo oleandersoup group and ask the members about their expiences?

    While you are there, perhaps you might explain to all the members who were given up on by mainstream medicine and should be dead now why they should have just accepted their fate and gone home and died?

  98. beatis March 15, 2009 at 1:05 am

    I am familiar with research into Oleander; laboraty studies suggest possible anti-cancer effects. However, no reliable research in humans is currently available. There are reports that long-term use of oleander may have positive effects in some forms of cancer, eg prostate cancer or breast cancer. But more research is needed before anything definitive on the efficacy can be said.

  99. beatis March 15, 2009 at 1:22 am

    That is why mainstream drugs are so ineffective and often downright dangerous, because nature works synergistically just like our bodies do – and we did not develop for eons alongside synthetic drugs

    What is the difference between these drugs and the drugs that will be made out of Oleander if it should prove to be a successful anti-cancer drug? How is it that you don’t have a problem with drugs based on Oleander? This really confuses me.

  100. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 2:26 am

    Yes, laboratory studies do indeed indicate benefits may come from oleander. And yes, I agree that more studies would be nice. In the interim, I will just have to rely on the 40 year record of success in treating thousands of cancer patients with oleander of Doctor Ozel in Turkey, the hundreds who have used it successfully in South Africa, many hundreds more including many of my Yahoo group members, and those I know personally who have used it. That may not pass some people’s “scientific standards”, but in the meanwhile many lives have been saved and are continuing to be saved and that is plenty good enough for me.

    One reason oleander as a patented medicine may be more effective than most other drugs is the fact that the extraction method results in a very large number of compounds besides just the cardiac glycoside that has been identified as the primary compound.

    Among the various compounds identified so far which have cancer fighting and immune boosting properties are:

    Oleandrin, a number of other cardiac glycosides such as Oleandrinogen, Oleandrigenin and other proven cancer fighting and immune boosting compounds such as Beta-sistosterol, Quercitin, Linoleic-acid, Oleic-acid, Adynerin, Alpha-amyrin, Betulin, Foliandrin, Folinerin, Gitoxigenin, Isoquercitrin, Lauric-acid, Neriin, Oleandrin, Oleandrigenin, Oleanolic-acid, Rutin, Stigmasterol, Ursolic-acid, Uzarigenin.

    Two recent studies have identified over a dozen other compounds with anti-cancer properties:

    “Bioactive Cardenolides from the Stems and Twigs of Nerium oleander”

    and

    “Bioactive Pregnanes from Nerium Oleander”

    Sadly, I am skeptical that any oleander based cancer drug, or any other drug, which is very effective against cancer will ever make it to market.

    Cancer is an almost $400 Billion a year industry whose continued existence depends on NOT finding a cure.

    If that sounds cynical or fantastical, then you are woefully uninformed about the ugly history of mainstream medicine.

    I suggest you Google my name plus “Modern Medicine: How Healing Illness became Managing Illness” for an eye-opening look.

  101. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:09 am

    @ Wilmazone

    Please DONT make reference to my mother EVER again…

    unfortunately for her she has fallen victim of Orthodox medicine and as a result is in the predicament she is now in… awaiting scans to see if mestases has spread further… she literally just finsihed 6 months of chemo… so effective, amazing this stuff is… 6 months of feeling like shit, hair loss and all the rest of it oh wow and yet her cancer has still spread,…

    your words are soooo very inspiring, wilmamazone ….

  102. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:23 am

    WE need more people like Tony Isaacs

    and less like Wilmamazone… ( stage name i take it??!)

  103. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:28 am

    @anaxymperator

    “Please get educated on chemistry, this is pathetic.”
    You need to broaden your use of vocab… really… firing insults doesn’t help your cause

  104. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:29 am

    @Ann

    “Natalie, I hope you find help for your mother.”

    Thank you Ann
    I hope so too. and thank you for your input!

  105. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:33 am

    @beatis
    the other has had a reported success rate of over 90% for a broad range of cancer for over 5 years now in hundreds of users

    “Data please.”

    Beatis we have a history of arguing back and forth over the credibility of both mainstream and alternative medicine… you seem to always demand “data” or “scientific proof” of alternative “medicine”…please provide some for chemo in the use of treating metastatic cancer and the use of having it if the cancer is going to ineviatablu spread….
    Oh and how it has cured and saved lives of people over the last 50 years….??

    Please!

  106. natalie March 15, 2009 at 4:39 am

    @beatis

    “Your precious oleander drug Anvirzel showed no effect on tumor response. It has been in phase II for two years, there have been no new data as to its effect on cancer. It may or may not turn out to be a successful anti-cancer drug.”

    So why do many chemo drugs still pass trials when its a known fact cancer becomes resistant to many of these drugs thus resulting in “no effect on tumor response.”??? please explain how this happens??! Im very confused….

  107. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 4:56 am

    Natalie, I hope you received my information and I wish your mother all the best.

    You are a brave lady to go through all the grief here. Your mum should be proud.

    Tony

  108. wilmamazone March 15, 2009 at 8:13 am

    @Natalie

    Quote 1:

    Please DONT make reference to my mother EVER again…

    quote 2:

    WE need more people like Tony Isaacs

    and less like Wilmamazone… ( stage name i take it??!)

    I can deliver you about 2500 Tony Isaacs ‘s if you want. A lot of them make their money just like Tony by selling false hope and hot air to cancerpatients.
    Who all claim to cure cancer in short time; the sales pitch is- time after time- almost the same.

    You can count on it that my daughter know everything about having a mum with cancer.
    She already knows that there is no alternative medicine that relieve the pain in her heart.
    Her father died when she was two years old.

    ‘Im very confused….’ you say and the only thing I can give to you now is a virtual BIG HUG.

    Wilma.

  109. beatis March 15, 2009 at 9:39 am

    @ Natalie,

    Both Jli and I have answered all of your questions and provided you with lots of information time and time again. I have explained about the use and the effects of chemotherapy more than once. I have explained to you at large what tumour makers are, given you lots of links to sites with all the information on the treatment of cancer and the numbers that you might need. And yet you ask the same questions over and over again. It seems to me that either you have a reading problem or are too lazy or uninterested to find out anything for yourself. I also have the impression you were not interested in an open discussion to begin with and primarily wanted to rant against standard medicine. Only when you needed specific information, you showed some manners.

    I am very sorry about your mother and I sincerely hope she will be well. If blaming standard medicine makes you feel better about your situation, so be it.

  110. beatis March 15, 2009 at 9:40 am

    When you choose to talk about your mother’s situation on a public blog, you can expect people to react.

  111. beatis March 15, 2009 at 9:58 am

    I suggest you go and google a bit and try to find out for yourself. There is ample information from reliable sources on the internet where all the relevant information can be found. Good luck.

  112. beatis March 15, 2009 at 11:13 am

    One reason oleander as a patented medicine may be more effective than most other drugs is the fact that the extraction method results in a very large number of compounds besides just the cardiac glycoside that has been identified as the primary compound.

    You have no way of knowing whether it is more effective than ‘most other drugs’ or that it has any effect at all in humans for that matter. There are indications that it might have tumour-surpressing properties. The same can be said for lots of other plants and compounds that are or were researched. Some proved to be successful, like Taxol, others proved to be a dead end.

    Among the various compounds identified so far which have cancer fighting and immune boosting properties are:
    Oleandrin, a number of other cardiac glycosides such as Oleandrinogen, Oleandrigenin and other proven cancer fighting and immune boosting compounds such as Beta-sistosterol, Quercitin, Linoleic-acid, Oleic-acid, Adynerin, Alpha-amyrin, Betulin, Foliandrin, Folinerin, Gitoxigenin, Isoquercitrin, Lauric-acid, Neriin, Oleandrin, Oleandrigenin, Oleanolic-acid, Rutin, Stigmasterol, Ursolic-acid, Uzarigenin.

    Interesting survey. Why do you mention something like Stigmasterol, I wonder? This is found in many fruits, vegetables and nuts as well. It is also used as a precursor for the procuction of synthetic progresterone.

    Your mentioning Quercetin is also interesting. Look at what the American Cancer Society is saying: “It (quercetin) has been promoted as being effective against a wide variety of diseases, including cancer. While some early lab results appear promising, as of yet there is no reliable clinical evidence that quercetin can prevent or treat cancer in humans.” There are indications that intake of large amounts of Quercetin, eg in the form of supplements, may be carcinogenic.

    I could easily mention more than hundred substances that appear to have anti-cancer properties. This in itself means nothing. That a substance has anti-cancer properties in vitro or in lab-animals does not mean that in it has the same effect in humans or that effective drugs can be made out of them. Yet you see no problem in selling your Oleander soup, claiming that it can even cure patients who have been given “death sentences” by their oncologists. When the soup doesn’t have the desired effect, you simply say: that’s not my fault, the patients were just too messed up by standard medicine already to be saved. Slam dunk for you then.

    Sadly, I am skeptical that any oleander based cancer drug, or any other drug, which is very effective against cancer will ever make it to market. Cancer is an almost $400 Billion a year industry whose continued existence depends on NOT finding a cure. If that sounds cynical or fantastical, then you are woefully uninformed about the ugly history of mainstream medicine.

    I don’t think you need to worry about that. If it either works better than current drugs, or works just as well but with less side effects, they are sure to research it, isolate the active ingredients, produce them synthetically and patent them for the development of efficacious drugs. After all, they also developed drugs like paclitaxel and herceptin which gave a big boost to survival rates for breast cancer.

  113. anaxymperator March 15, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Cancer is an almost $400 Billion a year industry whose continued existence depends on NOT finding a cure.

    I can’t help thinking that the same can be said for you. After all, when mainstrain medicine says: there is nothing we can do for you anymore other than pain relief or perhaps an experimental trial, you step in with promises of complete remission. To give people hope, you say. For that is what you lambast mainstream medicine for: for being honest – which they are obliged to be by law – and thus not giving hope. And then you go and give them hope, so that you can sell them your “health products”, under the pretext that, after all, they have “nothing to lose”. But they have. They always have some money to lose, no matter how ill they are. Money that might have benefited their spouses and children. Money that could have gone to a holiday with their loved ones. But you and your ilk do everything they can to see to it that this wil not happen and try to unburden them from whatever money they have, giving useless pills and potions and all kinds of unproven remedies in return. Very ethical I must say.

  114. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Come join my group on Yahoo and tell the members how I have sold them false hope and hot air. Better still, drop by and visit me in my simple frame home in the country where two of us share only one vehicle and tell me again about that multi-millionaire part!

    At least now I think I see part of the reason why you think and act the way you do. It is very hard for many people who have lost a loved one to accept the fact that there might be answers outside the mainstream treatments that failed them.

    You have my sympathy for your loss. So does your daughter. I lost my own mother when I was 16 months old. I absolutely HATE cancer and other disease and have dedicated the rest of my life to trying to save and help as many people as I can.

    I especially hate cancer knowing that the majority of cancers are preventable in the first place (the very big majority if a person really knows what they are doing) and absolutely 90% or more is curable for those who do get cancer if they opt for the right methods of getting rid of their cancers and making sure it does not return.

    Mark my words, someday man will look back at the failed war on cancer of the past 40 years as a true dark age of medicine.

    I am sorry that you think ill of me. If you really knew me you assuredly would not.

  115. anaxymperator March 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    I absolutely HATE cancer and other disease and have dedicated the rest of my life to trying to save and help as many people as I can.

    Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps you are not sufficiently qualified to do so?

  116. beatis March 15, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Come join my group on Yahoo

    I’ve been lurking a bit and I feel very ill at ease there. I’m Jewish and I’ve come across quite a considerable amount of anti-semitism, abashed as well as unabashed. So thnx, but no.

  117. anaxymperator March 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    At least now I think I see part of the reason why you think and act the way you do. It is very hard for many people who have lost a loved one to accept the fact that there might be answers outside the mainstream treatments that failed them.

    Yeah, sure. You just go right ahead and flatter yourself man.

  118. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Beatis, you have not been lurking on my Yahoo group, memberships are approved individually and there is no anti-semitism there whatsoever.

    Maybe you are thinking of CureZone? There is both pro and anti sentiments there, though I note that most of the anti sentiments are not so much anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, and there is quite a big difference between the two, just as there is between peace loving Muslims and those that are taught to hate and murder by the zealot faction.

    Anaxymperator, I may not be qualified from the standpoint of having a medical degree, but neither am I unqualified as a result of having an education that disregards information about diet, nutrition, lifestyle and natural elements that are far more effective than mainstream medicine in many instances.

    The results speak for themselves. Hundreds helped and no one harmed. If you don’t believe it come join the group and ask the members.

    Also, if you think I am flattering myself why don’t you ask those who know me – which you obviously do not. They might just tell you that I am actually being modest.

    Until you do so, all you have is your own uninformed and inaccurate opinions.

  119. beatis March 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Maybe you are thinking of CureZone? There is both pro and anti sentiments there, though I note that most of the anti sentiments are not so much anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, and there is quite a big difference between the two

    In my experience, they usually come as a pair, where the one serves as a sorry excuse for the other.

  120. Tony Isaacs March 15, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Yes, Beatis, unfortunately they often do. And it is no more excusable for someone who is anti-Jewish to hide behind a pretension of simply being anti-Zionist that it is for Zionists to label criticisms of some of their nefarious deeds as being due to merely anti-semitism.

    Doing so is an insult to the large majority of Jewish people who are good and peace loving. You know how it is though – the actions of the few result in mislabels and predjudice against the many in virtually all groups of religion, political leanings, nationality, skin color, and sex.

    Shalom

  121. beatis March 15, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    Thank you for your comment. You have made yourself perfectly clear.

  122. natalie March 16, 2009 at 1:18 am

    @ beatis

    When you choose to talk about your mother’s situation on a public blog, you can expect people to react.

    1) I wasn’t refering to you…
    2.) I dont push my beliefs on my mother, she can think for herself! my mum doesn’t take or do anything she doens’t want to do, in fact it was yourself beatis who commented not so long ago that she is brave and has willpower to maintain a healthier diet and continues with many lifestyle changes…

    “I suggest you go and google a bit and try to find out for yourself. There is ample information from reliable sources on the internet where all the relevant information can be found. Good luck.”

    I have spent 2 and a half years googling… the relevant information should be at hand on orthodox medicine by the medical system… but it’s not! as you say I need to google to find out…

  123. natalie March 16, 2009 at 1:20 am

    @ Beatis
    The amount of fear-mongering that is done in order to convince people not to have their children vaccinated is truly horrific and so is the level of ignorance displayed.

    I think it’s horrific the amount of fear – mongering that is done in order to convince people TO HAVE vaccination… when there is exposure of the actual content of these jabs

  124. Tony Isaacs March 16, 2009 at 3:48 am

    Beatis, Beatis, Beatis – how can you possibly be so close minded as to make a statement such as:

    “You have no way of knowing whether it is more effective than ‘most other drugs’ or that it has any effect at all in humans for that matter.”

    OK, so how do you explain the thousands of patients successfully treated by Dr. Ozel in Turkey with oleander extract for the past 40 plus years, a large percentage of whom mainstream chemo and/or radiation had failed?

    How do you explain my own 85 year old uncle? Or the many others in my Yahoo Group who are still alive after mainstream medicine said they should be dead now?

    Again, you will accept nothing that does not fit within your paradigm. Further debate is pointless – one cannot talk with someone whose ears and mind are closed.

    Fare the well. My further time here is wasted. Thankfully I did contact Natalie and give her the information she sought.

    It’s been, ummm, interesting.

  125. beatis March 16, 2009 at 7:00 am

    I can find it within half an hour.

  126. beatis March 16, 2009 at 7:01 am

    I don’t mean to be rude, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  127. beatis March 16, 2009 at 7:04 am

    OK, so how do you explain the thousands of patients successfully treated by Dr. Ozel in Turkey with oleander extract for the past 40 plus years, a large percentage of whom mainstream chemo and/or radiation had failed?

    How do you explain my own 85 year old uncle? Or the many others in my Yahoo Group who are still alive after mainstream medicine said they should be dead now?

    We’ve been waiting for you to do the explaining. After all, it’s you who are making the claims.

  128. wilmamazone March 16, 2009 at 7:09 am

    quote:

    1) I wasn’t refering to you…

    I did to you on:

    wilmamazone // March 15, 2009 at 8:13 am | Reply

    @Natalie

  129. beatis March 16, 2009 at 7:57 am

    We are not against complementary therapies on principle, as you could have seen for yourself on this blog.

    What we are against is proponents of alternative medicine trying to make people believe they can be cured of their cancer without any standard treatments, the most important one of which in most cases is surgery, followed by chemotherapy for leukemia.

    What we are also against, is proponents of alternative medicine promising patients with terminal cancer that they can still be cured, provided they use the treatments the proponents have on offer.

    You say you only offer hope. But you don’t, you offer no more than empty promises to desperate people.

    You and others of your ilk always say: but what have they got to lose? Well, they have their money to lose, as you know very well. We have seen people investing their life savings, their pension funds and any other money they could find in useless treatments pushed by salesmen like you.

    We don’t blame people for not knowing all the ins and outs, intricacies and pitfalls of scientific research. We don’t blame people for not knowing how difficult it is and how very hard work to find a cure for cancer. We don’t blame people for being desperate and we don’t blame them for being gullible. But we do blame you for taking advantage of this.

  130. beatis March 16, 2009 at 8:08 am

    This is a free blog Wilma.🙂

  131. beatis March 16, 2009 at 8:21 am

    @ Natalie,

    You might want to watch this:

    You can contact her via YouTube, in case you have more questions.

  132. beatis March 16, 2009 at 8:36 am

    “You have no way of knowing whether it is more effective than ‘most other drugs’ or that it has any effect at all in humans for that matter.”

    Do you know then? I can only find research that says there are “indications” that Oleander “might” have tumour surpressing properties. I absolutely agree that it is worth further research. What I don’t understand however is why you can be so sure, solely on the basis of “indications”, that it is going to be more effective than most other drugs.

  133. beatis March 16, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Natalie,

    I have spent 2 and a half years googling… the relevant information should be at hand on orthodox medicine by the medical system…

    I think here you will find most of the information you might need (I already knew the site but had sort of forgotten about it):
    http://www.cancermonthly.com/
    They assess the effects of all different kinds of cancer treatments available, both standard and alternative. They are independent and are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry. You can also email them in case you have more questions than are answered by the information on the site.

  134. beatis March 16, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Beatis, Beatis, Beatis – how can you possibly be so close minded (…)

    It just comes natural to me – ROTFL!!

    Sorry, just joking🙂

  135. natalie March 16, 2009 at 11:45 am

    wilmamazone // March 16, 2009 at 7:09 am | Reply

    quote:

    1) I wasn’t refering to you…
    @ Wilma…
    I did to you on:

    wilmamazone // March 15, 2009 at 8:13 am | Reply

    @Natalie

    reponse; What???? this doesn’t make sense to me…

  136. beatis March 16, 2009 at 11:47 am

    @ Natalie,

    Comments are in the moderation filter, so no need for double posting.🙂

  137. natalie March 16, 2009 at 11:47 am

    @ Wilma

    “@Natalie 1) I wasn’t refering to you…

    “I did to you on”:

    What did you do to me????

  138. beatis March 16, 2009 at 11:48 am

    She meant she was referring to you.

  139. natalie March 16, 2009 at 11:51 am

    @beatis

    “I don’t mean to be rude, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about…”

    that’s ok beatis i don’t think your being rude.. Ifeel exactly the same way toward you we have very different views…

  140. natalie March 16, 2009 at 11:54 am

    beatis // March 16, 2009 at 11:48 am | Reply

    She meant she was referring to you.

    yes I know she was, I find it odd you respond so frequently on her behalf…just like now… hence my intial comment toward you… that I wasn’t directing my comment at you but in fact Wilma…

  141. wilmamazone March 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    @Natalie

    I was showing you the way to this comment:

    wilmamazone // March 15, 2009 at 8:13 am | Reply

    @Natalie

    Quote 1:

    Please DONT make reference to my mother EVER again…

    quote 2:

    WE need more people like Tony Isaacs

    and less like Wilmamazone… ( stage name i take it??!)

    I can deliver you about 2500 Tony Isaacs ’s if you want. A lot of them make their money just like Tony by selling false hope and hot air to cancerpatients.
    Who all claim to cure cancer in short time; the sales pitch is- time after time- almost the same.

    You can count on it that my daughter know everything about having a mum with cancer.
    She already knows that there is no alternative medicine that relieve the pain in her heart.
    Her father died when she was two years old.

    ‘Im very confused….’ you say and the only thing I can give to you now is a virtual BIG HUG.

    Wilma.

  142. beatis March 16, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    When I was five years old, my niece died of encephalitis, a complication of her measles infection. I can still vividly remenber how devastated we were and how scared when we heard of a child having “spots”, or when there was polio going round. We were not allowed to go outside, children were not allowed to come and play and sometimes we were even kept home from school until the danger was over. In my childhood, I knew a number of blind and otherwise handicapped children due to their mothers having being infected with rubella during pregnancy. My best friend in kindergarten had pertussis and I shall never forget the horror of seeing her – and even more: of hearing her, for she was living next door to us and we could hear her cough day and night. It was absolutely heart-wrenching and when she finally recovered she had lost half her body weight. Many children died or became permanently handicapped as a result of being infected with these diseases.

    Due to my husbands line of work, he often comes into contact with people who do not vaccinate their children on religious grounds. There are still many people there who have contracted polio and are handicapped because of it.

  143. beatis March 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    In 1957, the vaccination programme in my country was launched, for diphteria, pertussis, tetanus and polio. My mother dragged me out of bed at the crack of dawn to be vaccinated – and I got to wear my Sunday clothes for the occasion!

  144. beatis March 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    BTW I just read on Tony Isaacs’ Curezone that I am a dupe, a troll and an agent – for the pharmaceutical industry I suppose he means.

    I am neither a dupe, nor a troll nor an agent. I am an ordinary woman with a family and a job, who had the bad luck of having breast cancer and the good luck of having survived it – so far that is – and I am not paid by anyone to say the things I say. Nor are the others on this blog for that matter – well, with a few exceptions here and there perhaps…🙂

  145. natalie March 16, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    @Beatis

    “and yet you ask the same questions over and over again. It seems to me that either you have a reading problem or are too lazy or uninterested to find out anything for yourself.”

    “I also have the impression you were not interested in an open discussion to begin with and primarily wanted to rant against standard medicine. Only when you needed specific information, you showed some manners.”

    so I am the only one who has no manners at all on here ?
    and at the same time i have a reading problem and /or am lazy and uninterested in finding information for myself…?

    apologise for asking the same questions over and over but if you re-read your comments, you often fall guilty of that also.
    you ask for evidence all the time as testimonials aren’t adequate ok that is fair enough, but i don’t find ALL of the information you provide useful either…
    the very fact that the website you linked me to about tumour markers informed me that they are not always an accurate or true reading of ones state of health actually led me to question their credibility whereas before I simply wasn’t sure how they worked… you also have agreed that chemotherpay does have it’s downside but that it is still the best we have…
    Jli also commented that he agreed pharmaceuticals probably would try to synthesize components of a potentially natural remedy for cancer in order to make profits…
    he also still stands strong on his beliefs that he still is not convinced on the credibility of alternative medicine, you both have views, and it would seem both sides of medicine aren’t so black and white
    I appreciate all the information you give and some of it has been useful I will say that
    so thank you for your time Beatis…

    I am not on here to rant and bitch about orthodox medicine I find it helps me cope to discuss and hear other peoples points of view and express my own…
    I can’t blame standard medicine for my situation, if my mother passes away then it’s her time to go… slowly I am accepting that

  146. beatis March 16, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    “and yet you ask the same questions over and over again. It seems to me that either you have a reading problem or are too lazy or uninterested to find out anything for yourself.”

    “I also have the impression you were not interested in an open discussion to begin with and primarily wanted to rant against standard medicine. Only when you needed specific information, you showed some manners.”

    so I am the only one who has no manners at all on here ?
    and at the same time i have a reading problem and /or am lazy and uninterested in finding information for myself…?

    I agree this was not very tactful and I apologise. However, I must admit I was puzzled by the fact that you seem to believe anything that alternative therapists say at face value and expect others to come up with mountains of evidence. We have spent a considerable amount of time and energy to find any information for you that you should need. And along comes Tony Isaacs and without one word of criticism or question you believe everything he says right away. To be honest, I was disappointed at that.

    the very fact that the website you linked me to about tumour markers informed me that they are not always an accurate or true reading of ones state of health actually led me to question their credibility whereas before I simply wasn’t sure how they worked… you also have agreed that chemotherpay does have it’s downside but that it is still the best we have…

    I’m happy to see that you did read our information after all.

    Jli also commented that he agreed pharmaceuticals probably would try to synthesize components of a potentially natural remedy for cancer in order to make profits…

    Yes, that is their business, making drugs and making profits, so as to be able to do new research and keep their shareholders happy. That’s the way it is, but that doesn’t mean that changes can’t be made.

    I am not on here to rant and bitch about orthodox medicine I find it helps me cope to discuss and hear other peoples points of view and express my own…
    I can’t blame standard medicine for my situation, if my mother passes away then it’s her time to go… slowly I am accepting that

    My heart breaks when I think of you and what you are going through. I lost my best friend to ovarian cancer some years ago and she left her 16-year old daughter behind, who came to live with us after her mother died. It was just devastating to see how miserable she was and I would have given anything to make it go away, but I couldn’t.

  147. anaxymperator March 16, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Also, if you think I am flattering myself why don’t you ask those who know me – which you obviously do not. They might just tell you that I am actually being modest.

    You could have fooled me there!

  148. Luella May March 16, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    “When your cancer is still curable, relying on alternative therapy will make it incurable.

    I know of the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery that is caused by making people believe their cancer can be cured with alternative therapy only.”

    This is so wrong. It saddens me that this is what you believe and that this is what you are telling people.

    Success data on Oleander? What about the numerous people on Tony’s forum that came to him with invasive cancer, sometimes given only weeks to live that are still alive? And out of all these that I describe, I cannot account for one death. No, no data, just the proof. Of course, together with taking Oleander they did a complete rehaul of their lifestyle to a healthy one. All of you say what you want, but the proof is there and it is these people that are benefiting from new found health. These are the facts. It is those who hang on to the mainstream mantra of doom and gloom with the only hope of an extension of time that are the losers. You go into healing with a defeatist attitude given to you by your very doctors.

    Chemo and radiation do not heal. You may go into remission for a couple of years, but the cancer almost always returns. Natural healing is what works. I do not understand why people so gung ho for the mainstream way of treating cancer, those accepting the fact that at best their lives will only be “extended” cannot look and see what is going on before their very eyes. I do not understand how they cannot see people who once did have cancer thriving. They look at it, listen to their testimonies and recite the same old mantra. Where is the data? Give me proof. The proof is in front of you. Why are you so resigned to the hopelessness that chemo and mainstream medicine offer, when there is, indeed, hope and healing ahead?

    I understand how difficult it is for someone who has lost loved ones to cancer and someone having had cancer themselves to accept that there may have been a way to save those loved ones. I have lost loved ones to cancer myself at a time when I knew nothing about alternative measures. If I knew then what I know now, it is very possible that those loved ones may still be with me. Yet, I did the best I could with the information I had.

    I understand how difficult it would be to even take into consideration that alternative measures may have saved them. I know personally of this pain. It cuts very, very deep. Yet, what if someone with a “death sentence” is given life with these alternative measures? What would you say to all of the hundreds and thousands who have been given death sentences from their oncologists yet are alive today because the looked outside the box?

    Yes, I understand that there are charlatans out there who sell snake oil and false hopes, preying on the fears of the very ill. Tony Isaacs is simply not one of them – I assure you that he is no liar and no charlatan. He in no way is out to make money from innocent people as you state. He works tireless hours helping people heal naturally. The income he makes from his efforts is a pittance. His only passion is for people to obtain optimum health, to guide people in their path towards healing. He, too, has has had personal experiences with loved ones who acquired cancer. Some of them listened to him and he has been successful in guiding them back to health. Some have not listened and are undergoing conventional treatment not doing well. Again, no data, just proof. He in no way is on your site to sell books. Actually, he gave away a free book to one of your posters once he was finally able to contact them in the hopes that her mother not die needlessly. Money is simply not his motivation.

    Beatis, you have/had breast cancer? Are you in remission? There is a way to prevent cancer from returning, because the truth is, when relying on chemo and mainstream medicine, the cancer returns in almost every instance. At best, it keeps the cancer at bay for a period of time.

    With regard to Tony Isaacs, efforts, well…. the proof is in the pudding. I would urge you to personally get to know him because you are so very wrong. I have known Tony for years and work closely with him. I don’t know of another person who has given of himself so freely to others, who has dedicated his life, and many, many times, at his own expense to help people in need, not only with regard to healing but in any need that presents itself before him.

    I can stand, look you in the eye, and tell you that Tony would give you the shirt off his back. And I have seen him do this very thing many times.

    In conclusion, please look at all facts. Listen to reason, look at the evidence. Don’t blind yourself with useless data. Look at what’s working. Chemo is not. Natural healing is.

  149. jli March 16, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Jli also commented that he agreed pharmaceuticals probably would try to synthesize components of a potentially natural remedy for cancer in order to make profits

    I did, and the pharmaceuticals are not secret about it. But that doesn´t mean that they are dishonest, and don´t want to make drugs that can cure cancer. I think it is relevant to understand that developing a drug is a timely and costly affair. I suppose you are familiar with what goes on in the preclinical, phase I, phase II and phase III studies?. And after these studies the health authorities will review the evidence before releasing the new drug for treatment. And after it has been approved the company will only have the solo rights to produce the drug for a limited period. Roughly only about 1/3 of the drugs that are tested in the phase I trials will make it all the way. The benfits of such rigorous testing are, that we have realistic ideas of what this drug can achieve for us in terms of disease control, and we know what kind of adverse effects we can expect. Why not demand the same kind of quality testing from the alternatives?.

    he also still stands strong on his beliefs that he still is not convinced on the credibility of alternative medicine

    Well, there is alternative medicine and there is alternative medicine. I eat fish oil capsules on a regular basis. And when I have a cold my wife occasionaly succeed in making me drink water with added echinacea. But I am deeply skeptic about alternative practitioners who claim that their knowledge/particular treatment is being suppressed by the big pharmacetical industry who does not want a cure.

    I can understand why some of their ideas can appear logic/make sense to laypeople. But some of them in reality are just as absurd as to claim that: “It is the liver and not the heart that is responsible for circulation of the blood. Impaired circulation is the result of excessive alcohol consumption. The natural way to cure impaired circulation is total abstinence from alcohol. Conventional drugs are a hoax, which is evident from the fact that the patients die of circulatory failure inspite of the treatment”.
    The idea that cancer is a fungus is just as absurd as the above. And I honestly think that advising against surgery is just as wrong as advising against taking heart medicine for circulatory problems.

    Should you and your mum decide to pursue the idea of trying out oleander, please take a look at what is explained at http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69314.cfm and be careful when you handle that stuff.

  150. evenarsencisnatural March 16, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Tony just luuuuves playing the persecution angle. How dare anyone prevent him from flogging his worthless junk – and his sCAM products too…

    Tony – Why don’t you provide information about the failure rates of your ‘treatments’?

    Plug for some actual medical information:

    http://Sciencebasedmedicine.org

    One of the best sites to get to the reality of medicine.

  151. beatis March 16, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    When your cancer is still curable, relying on alternative therapy will make it incurable
    I know of the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery that is caused by making people believe their cancer can be cured with alternative therapy only.”.

    It’s not just a matter of believing but of knowing.

    Success data on Oleander? What about the numerous people on Tony’s forum that came to him with invasive cancer, sometimes given only weeks to live that are still alive?

    Yes, what about them? We’re waiting for you to show us.

    I understand how difficult it is for someone who has lost loved ones to cancer and someone having had cancer themselves to accept that there may have been a way to save those loved ones. I have lost loved ones to cancer myself at a time when I knew nothing about alternative measures. If I knew then what I know now, it is very possible that those loved ones may still be with me. Yet, I did the best I could with the information I had.

    I understand how difficult it would be to even take into consideration that alternative measures may have saved them. I know personally of this pain. It cuts very, very deep. Yet, what if someone with a “death sentence” is given life with these alternative measures?

    Sorry, but this sounds extremely hypocritical.

    What would you say to all of the hundreds and thousands who have been given death sentences from their oncologists yet are alive today because the looked outside the box?

    I don’t know them, I’m waiting for you to show them to us.

    Beatis, you have/had breast cancer? Are you in remission? There is a way to prevent cancer from returning, because the truth is, when relying on chemo and mainstream medicine, the cancer returns in almost every instance. At best, it keeps the cancer at bay for a period of time.

    Thanks.

    With regard to Tony Isaacs, efforts, well…. the proof is in the pudding. I would urge you to personally get to know him because you are so very wrong.

    No thanks, he scares me.

    In conclusion, please look at all facts. Listen to reason, look at the evidence.

    That’s what I’m doing all the time.

    Don’t blind yourself with useless data.

    What data do you mean? Yours?

  152. natalie March 16, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    @evenarsencisnatural /

    “Tony – Why don’t you provide information about the failure rates of your ‘treatments’?”

    just like how often failure rates of chemo are published right?

  153. natalie March 17, 2009 at 12:24 am

    @Jli,

    I understand where you come from, you are a pathologist this is what you have learnt and researched for a very significant amount of time… you and the vast majority of the population will seek drugs in order to rectify ailments…
    I on the other hand, have not been brought up like this… I have family who run a naturopath clinic and when I suffered from depression, my GP advised me to take drugs suitable for a schizophrenic… I was 17… instead of continuing to take the prescribed drugs which severly impaired my ability to study, I went for treatments at my uncles clinic where a hormone imbalance was found… this in fact was causing my depression and once that was corrected I have never experienced the level of depression I did at the time ( 7 yrs later…) my point in short is ( as im rambling now!) for me, if i had not had the opportunity to be treated ‘naturally’ by my uncle I would probably have developed a dependence on the anti- depressants and still be on them now… again for someone with a medical background I don’t expect you to agree…yes there are varying levels of mental disorders, but my point is my GP never looked into the cause of my depression, she simply signed a script and sent me on my way, like she was handing out sweets! nothing personal against her, that is what she is trained to do…

    but this is my background… this is what I know, and for me it works. It’s not going to work for everyone in the same way conventional medicine is more and more commonly not working for a lot of people. I still think if it were working as much as it is said to be then people wouldn’t venture elsewhere to look for alternate results.

    “Should you and your mum decide to pursue the idea of trying out oleander, please take a look at what is explained at http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69314.cfm and be careful when you handle that stuff.”

    To be honest I haven’t realy considered this for her, as I already have mentioned, my mum sees an alternative oncologist which is working well for her, should the need arise then it may be something we look at down the line, as with anything put into our bodies… care must be exercised, so thank you for the warning, I only wish my GP had pre-warned me of the side effects of taking anti- depressants all those years ago…

    I will really try make this my last comment on this blog! it is proving difficult though…!

  154. beatis March 17, 2009 at 12:30 am

    when I suffered from depression, my GP advised me to take drugs suitable for a schizophrenic

    That does not sound good to me, I wouldn’t want my daughter to take that kind of medication just like that.

  155. beatis March 17, 2009 at 12:35 am

    My daughter suffers from bouts of depression, she takes St John’s Wort.

  156. natalie March 17, 2009 at 12:37 am

    “In the example above, the response rate was calculated after removing certain patients who died from the calculation. This obviously inflates the response rate…” is this not misleading then for many cancer patients?? if someone is told their treatment will give them a 50% chance of survival, according to this article ( and im sure i stand to be corrected, perhaps i read the article wrong, it is late!) in reality this might be significantly lower, if so are “they” not guilty of giving a false sense of hope?

    Thanks Beatis, i just read the article hence the above quote… and comment
    It saddens me that this is still the best we have…

  157. beatis March 17, 2009 at 12:45 am

    I don’t know that I have read that, but you’re right, it is very late, I’ll go through it in detail tomorrow.

    if so are “they” not guilty of giving a false sense of hope?

    If so, yes, then indeed they are. There is a big difference however between response rate and survival rate.

    It saddens me too.

  158. evenarsencisnatural March 17, 2009 at 2:10 am

    @natalie –

    Successes and failures are openly discussed in legitimate drug/treatment studies.

    sCAMers only babble the same bunch of lies and misinformation, spinning only the supposedly positive side while ignoring the bad or even deadly.

    Bottom line is sCAMmers screw over the suckers that fall for the marketing – first by taking their money, then by taking their health.

  159. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 7:11 am

    “Standard therapies for cancer are not useless”?
    Then pray tell why a cross-sectioned 78% of medical doctors within the USA would never consider having chemo’ (as a standard therapy) or even allow it to their families in the treatment of cancer?

    In addition, a Heidelberg, Germany cancer biostatistician, Dr. Ulrich Abel, spent 10 years as a statistician in clinical oncology, publishing a groundbreaking book, “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer”, which summarizes all the available direct evidence from randomized studies as to whether chemotherapy extends survival. By “epithelial” Abel referred to the most common forms of adenocarcinoma– lung, breast, prostate, colon, and so on. These account for at least 80 percent of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.

    Small-cell lung cancer “is the only carcinoma for which good direct evidence of a survival improvement by chemotherapy exists.” But this improvement amounted to a matter of three months! For non-small cell lung cancer there was also some “weak indications” of small benefit.
    For other kinds of chemotherapy, the news is far less promising:
    Colorectal: no evidence exists that survival is improved by chemotherapy.
    Gastric: no clear evidence.
    Pancreatic: largest study “completely negative.” Longer survival in the control group.
    Bladder: no clinical trial done.
    Breast: no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival. Use is “ethically questionable.”
    Ovarian: no direct evidence, but probably a small advantage from cis-platinum regimens. But non-randomized comparisons “almost worthless for assessment of therapy.
    Cervix and corpus uteri: no improved survival.
    Head and neck: no survival benefit, but occasional “positive effect” from shrinkage of tumors.
    I also agree with Tony Isaacs who commented that the surgical removal of cancerous tumors doesn’t always (and very rarely) removes the cancer in its entirety, and where it is a regular occurrence for the cancer to return at a later stage and in a more aggressive and terminal form.
    Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation do not address the underlying causes of cancer, and unless these are removed, and/or prevented, the probability of developing any type of cancer remains high.
    One has to wonder why various indigenous population groups such as the Hunzas and the Eskimos only developed chronic life-threatening diseases after the alteration of their lifestyle habits from a natural way of life and diet to a “Westernized” form with the introduction of processed foods and unhealthful living practices.

    “No one has ever been cured with alternative therapy alone”
    Really?
    Then perhaps you could explain why I am still alive 30 years after a six month death-sentence from Advanced Leukemia using only a natural treatment protocol via Natural Hygiene and water-fasting?

    With reference to your comment on mammograms, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reached this conclusion: Breast-cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.
    The scientists concluded, this indicated that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. In other words, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body’s own immune system.
    As Tony Isaacs so rightly commented, a strong immune system is the first line of defence against cancers and chronic disease, and where this is only achieved thru intensive nutritional support and lifestyle choices that act as a prophylactic against the development of any and all diseases.
    I lost a close friend to Colon cancer which metastasized to his Liver and where a significant improvement was made via the Budwig protocol, but succumbed in the end after listening to his family and the advice given by his oncologist after receiving chemotherapy.
    The problem with “Medical Science” is that it relies on what they refer to as “evidence-based medicine”, but to what evidence are they referring?: the success in fighting and overcoming cancer via natural methods on an individual basis and testimony or placebo-controlled clinical trials? I would choose the former every time.
    “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them”
    The only two-time unshared Nobel Prize winner………..Linus Pauling.

  160. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 7:50 am

    Chrisb3 should read as chrisb1, so I am not at all surprised you are not impressed.

  161. beatis March 17, 2009 at 9:35 am

    @ Chris Beckett,

    “Standard therapies for cancer are not useless”?
    Then pray tell why a cross-sectioned 78% of medical doctors within the USA would never consider having chemo’ (as a standard therapy) or even allow it to their families in the treatment of cancer?

    How I wish you would tell me that! I keep reading this story, but nobody can direct me to the published article where these doctors actually said that and I can see for myself who they were and which questions were put to them. I personally know a number of oncologists and scientists who have undergone chemotherapy. So please enlighten us further.

    In addition, a Heidelberg, Germany cancer biostatistician, Dr. Ulrich Abel, spent 10 years as a statistician in clinical oncology, publishing a groundbreaking book, “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer”, which summarizes all the available direct evidence from randomized studies as to whether chemotherapy extends survival. By “epithelial” Abel referred to the most common forms of adenocarcinoma– lung, breast, prostate, colon, and so on. These account for at least 80 percent of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.
    Small-cell lung cancer “is the only carcinoma for which good direct evidence of a survival improvement by chemotherapy exists.” But this improvement amounted to a matter of three months! For non-small cell lung cancer there was also some “weak indications” of small benefit.
    For other kinds of chemotherapy, the news is far less promising:
    Colorectal: no evidence exists that survival is improved by chemotherapy.
    Gastric: no clear evidence.
    Pancreatic: largest study “completely negative.” Longer survival in the control group.
    Bladder: no clinical trial done.
    Breast: no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival. Use is “ethically questionable.”
    Ovarian: no direct evidence, but probably a small advantage from cis-platinum regimens. But non-randomized comparisons “almost worthless for assessment of therapy.
    Cervix and corpus uteri: no improved survival.
    Head and neck: no survival benefit, but occasional “positive effect” from shrinkage of tumors.

    Yes, it is standard practice in science to evaluate the effects of drugs and treatments. This is just another example of this practice. Also, Dr Abel’s research was aimed at the effect of chemotherapy on advanced cancers. Most advanced cancers are incurable, with a few exceptions, and the best chemotherapy can do is buy time. Thanks to Dr Abel, both doctors and patients are now better equipped for deciding what is the best way to go. I fail to see however what Mr Isaacs’ part was in this research.

    I also agree with Tony Isaacs who commented that the surgical removal of cancerous tumors doesn’t always (and very rarely) removes the cancer in its entirety, and where it is a regular occurrence for the cancer to return at a later stage and in a more aggressive and terminal form.

    Now this is a very dangerous and completely unfounded thing to say and it shows that you are either lying deliberately or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I’ll show you what happens when cancer is left to “simply” go away by itself: http://www.pathguy.com/br_ca3.jpg . And this is just one of the “nicer” examples.

    Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation do not address the underlying causes of cancer, and unless these are removed, and/or prevented, the probability of developing any type of cancer remains high.

    This is always said by people who actually have nothing to offer when it comes to treating cancer. So they just say that the cancer is not the problem, but rather some underlying cause, for which they do have all sorts of treatments for sale. And in the mean time, the cancer just grows and spreads, until there is absolutely nothing left to do for the patient but to die.

    One has to wonder why various indigenous population groups such as the Hunzas and the Eskimos only developed chronic life-threatening diseases after the alteration of their lifestyle habits from a natural way of life and diet to a “Westernized” form with the introduction of processed foods and unhealthful living practices.

    Ah, the Hunzas again. I don’t know why you keep implying that science is not aware of the relationship between life styles and cancer. Lots of research has been done into that and is still being done.

    Then perhaps you could explain why I am still alive 30 years after a six month death-sentence from Advanced Leukemia using only a natural treatment protocol via Natural Hygiene and water-fasting?

    Perhaps you’d care to explain. And don’t forget to provide us with all relevant and verifiable details.

    With reference to your comment on mammograms, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reached this conclusion: Breast-cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.
    The scientists concluded, this indicated that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. In other words, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body’s own immune system.

    There were a number of problems with this study, as you can read here, at your favourite blog: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=300
    BTW, can you please tell me: how in the world am I to know if my breast cancer would “simply” have gone away by itself? What if I had waited to see if it did and it “simply” wouldn’t have gone away by itself? Then I’d have been done for. What kind of ludicrous advice is that to give to someone?

    As Tony Isaacs so rightly commented, a strong immune system is the first line of defence against cancers and chronic disease, and where this is only achieved thru intensive nutritional support and lifestyle choices that act as a prophylactic against the development of any and all diseases.

    I lost a close friend to Colon cancer which metastasized to his Liver and where a significant improvement was made via the Budwig protocol, but succumbed in the end after listening to his family and the advice given by his oncologist after receiving chemotherapy.

    Now that was stupid of your friend. After all, it’s common knowledge that nobody ever dies of metastasized cancer, provided it remains either untreated or is treated alternatively only.

    The problem with “Medical Science” is that it relies on what they refer to as “evidence-based medicine”, but to what evidence are they referring?: the success in fighting and overcoming cancer via natural methods on an individual basis and testimony or placebo-controlled clinical trials? I would choose the former every time.

    I can see why you would.

    “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them”
    The only two-time unshared Nobel Prize winner………..Linus Pauling.

    I don’t know that he said that. But if he did, it only goes to show that even great minds can say stupid things.

  162. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 11:47 am

    “Nobody can direct me to the published article where these doctors actually said that and I can see for myself.”

    Well: here it is……………just contact the McGill Cancer Center.

    Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

    You have successfully distorted what I have said.
    I did not say that cancer will “go away” on its own, although this been known to occur: it’s called spontaneous remission/recovery………
    “The mechanisms for spontaneous recovery are active in many health disorders and also seem to occur in debilitating and progressive diseases such as cancer and tuberculosis…………
    Weatherall, David (2000). Concise Oxford Textbook of Medicine. Oxford University Press.pp.179,400,437,1031,1067,1084,1345,1390

    For the re-occurrence of cancer after standard treatment protocols, I suggest you read this as an example…………………………..
    http://www.jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/312

    You are unaware then or ignorant of, the basic underlying causes of cancer, which has been addressed. This I suppose shows or demonstrates your unwillingness to see “out of the box” medical paradigms, and the brainwashing that is the result.

    Of course you need proof that I recovered from Leukemia, insinuating that I am a liar……don’t they all. Testimony is insufficient of course. This reminds me of the adage: “the operation
    was a complete success………..but the patient died”!!!!
    I am officially in remission by the hospital I attended and where they say “no proof exists of my recovery from the disease”.
    Excuse me?

    Your sarcasm portrays an immature mind and where Linus Pauling knew exactly what he was talking about.
    Your prejudice and bias is clear for all to see, but then the real gains in health are made by those who investigate ALL channels at their disposal, and not just those perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies, where every ailment known to man is curable by “popping a pill, removing tissue surgically, and by burning and poisoning the body.
    I am not hopeful as to the length of your longevity.

  163. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Quote..”We don’t need success stories, we want to see verified data please. Testimonials are not data, as you very well know”.

    But that is the crux of your problem: a success story.
    This isn’t Rocket Science, or even Quantum Physics, if people are cured of a disease including cancer via a natural protocol.
    The only thing that actually matters is the success story: period. This means the patient has conquered the disease and is still alive, and can expect much greater longevity than would otherwise have been the case.
    Medical minds and orthodox medical treatments are only dependent on the data and the proof.
    If someone is still alive and there is no trace of the disease, that is all the proof that anyone should ever need………..unless you are “scientific” of course.
    The mind boggles.

  164. beatis March 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    @ Chris Beckett,

    “Nobody can direct me to the published article where these doctors actually said that and I can see for myself.”
    Well: here it is……………just contact the McGill Cancer Center.

    I just have; I’ll keep you posted. What confuses me here is that I’ve seen these statements being attributed to a number of people, eg the French oncologist Georges Mathé. I happen to read French and I happen to know the article, so I know the citation is totally out of context. Also, you refer to articles of nearly 25 years ago; things have changed considerably since then, as you can read in the conclusion of the study that you linked to.

    I did not say that cancer will “go away” on its own

    You very successfully implied as much.

    For the re-occurrence of cancer after standard treatment protocols, I suggest you read this as an example…………………………..
    http://www.jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/312

    I am familiar with this study, as well as with a number of the scientists involved. Floor van Leeuwen for example is one of the most outstanding scientists in the world. This was an important and interesting study, the conclusion is also very interesting: “While the long-term consequences of HD treatment as administered in the 1960s and 1970s are still evolving, it is promising that patients who received the new treatment regimens introduced in the 1980s have a much lower leukemia risk than patients treated in earlier years. Beginning 10 years after initial RT, the follow-up program of women who received mantle-field irradiation before age 30 years should routinely include breast palpation and yearly mammography.”

    Of course you need proof that I recovered from Leukemia, insinuating that I am a liar……don’t they all. Testimony is insufficient of course. This reminds me of the adage: “the operation
    was a complete success………..but the patient died”!!!!
    I am officially in remission by the hospital I attended and where they say “no proof exists of my recovery from the disease”.
    Excuse me?

    You feel this equals verifiable information?

    I am not hopeful as to the length of your longevity.

    Why thank you!

    Linus Pauling knew exactly what he was talking about.

    Pauling was a great scientist, but he was wrong about vitamin C and he is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and illnesses such as cancer.

  165. beatis March 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    Have you so little respect for cancer patients that you think they can be fobbed off time and time again with completely unverifiable testimonials? When people buy a car, they get al kinds of guarantees that it is safe, reliable, economic and I don’t know what else. But the minute you develop cancer, you are considered fair game by a veritable army of salesmen, who can’t wait to sell you their so-called miracle cures and otherwise treat you like a complete idiot.

    I think it’s high time you came up with some decent evidence for your claims. If you can’t, then you’d better be quiet.

  166. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    “Nobody can direct me to the published article where these doctors actually said that and I can see for myself.”
    Well: here it is……………just contact the McGill Cancer Center.

    I just have; I’ll keep you posted.
    GOOD.

    I did not say that cancer will “go away” on its own

    You very successfully implied as much.
    NO. I DIDN’T. THIS WAS IN YOUR MIND.
    I DO NOT IMPLY.

    Of course you need proof that I recovered from Leukemia, insinuating that I am a liar……don’t they all. Testimony is insufficient of course. This reminds me of the adage: “the operation
    was a complete success………..but the patient died”!!!!
    I am officially in remission by the hospital I attended and where they say “no proof exists of my recovery from the disease”.
    Excuse me?

    You feel this equals verifiable information?
    ABSOLUTELY. OF COURSE IT DOES. OTHERWISE I WOULD NOT BE CONVERSING WITH YOU NOW.
    I am not hopeful as to the length of your longevity.

    Why thank you!
    YOUR WELCOME.

    Pauling was a great scientist, but he was wrong about vitamin C and he is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and illnesses such as cancer.
    WRONG AGAIN.
    I SUGGEST YOU READ AND DIGEST THE BOOK “ASCORBATE: THE SCIENCE OF VITAMIN C by Dr Steve Hickey, a medical Biophysicist at the University of Manchester in the UK.
    YOU MAY EVEN LEARN SOMETHING BY DOING SO.

    Just one further point: I have known Tony Isaacs for a number of years, and what he has posted on within this thread is just so absolutely true in the recovery and eradication of cancer via natural means: it is only a closed mind that will not accept the evidence that he portrays.

  167. beatis March 17, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Please don’t shout anymore.

  168. anaxymperator March 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    @ Chris Beckett,

    The only thing you and your mate Tony Isaacs have come up with are commercials, and bad ones at that. We don’t need that kind of stuff here, your’re an insult to cancer patients.

    Until you can come up with some decent underpinning for your stories, you’re banned here.

  169. wilmamazone March 17, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    @ Chris,

    Just one further point: I have known Tony Isaacs for a number of years, and what he has posted on within this thread is just so absolutely true in the recovery and eradication of cancer via natural means: it is only a closed mind that will not accept the evidence that he portrays.

    So…..it is in fact Saint Tony. Praise the Lord!

  170. beatis March 17, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    @ Natalie,

    Perhaps you’ll find this informative:

    http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=153
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=154&order=56
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=155&order=57
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=240
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=18283&order=3634
    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/sitesearch.asp?siteid=2&qu=bowel+cancer

    About the article on the website: things like this, whether they are honest mistakes or done explicitly to enhance research results, are bound to be spotted when the study is subjected to peer reviews – as in fact happens all the time. This is precisely the reason why the system of peer-reviewing was set up in the first place and why we can’t do without it, either for standard therapies or for alternative therapies.

  171. natalie March 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    @anaxymperator
    “your’re an insult to cancer patients.”

    how is he an insult to ALL cancer patients?
    are you implying that he in fact has never had cancer?

    this blog is getting out of control with the personal insults…

  172. anaxymperator March 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    Well Natalie i’m sorry but then we have a difference of opinion. I think it is insulting to tell cancer patients that they don’t need standard treatment and can easily be cured of their cancer, even when it is terminal, with mr. Beckett’s or mr. saacs’ products, without they ever bothering to deliver even the smallest evidence or underpinning. I think that is a shame, when you have cancer the last thing you deserve is being taken advantage of and being lied to, not by regular doctors and not by alternative therapists. It saddens me deeply when people do that and it makes me very angry. i think it is very unfair, disrespectles and also insulting in my opinion, for people who do that abuse their fear and their despair. You don’t have to agree with me but that is how I feel.

  173. natalie March 17, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    @anaxymperator
    Well Natalie i’m sorry but then we have a difference of opinion… You don’t have to agree with me but that is how I feel.

    Yes you’re right we do have very different opinions, and you are have every right to express those too,
    but so do the rest of us on this blog and it sometimes comes across that we are frequently shut down quite aggressively and threatened with being banned…

    whether Chris’ treatment protocol works for everyone or not is another story… however I’m not sure it’s fair to call him an insult to cancer patients when he has been one himself, some patients find hope in success stories whether you choose to believe their credibility or not
    You may choose to believe every single alternative therapist is out to make money off sick people…
    Im happy to say I don’t think the same is of ALL orthodox doctors or oncologists, but the system that dictates to them undoutbedly has a level of corruption which in my opinion is sad… I think what is insulting to many cancer patients is that they aren’t given much choice by many doctors apart from simply to go home and get their affairs in order…
    for me knowledge is power, and I would rather think that way then go about my life angry with the system and blaming people…
    I’m happy to rationally discuss where things are potentially going wrong at present and how the two worlds can somehow come together to better treat cancer patients, because what is the saddest part of all, is despite the bickering back and forth on here… too many people are still dying… we aren’t really getting anywhere

    perhaps Im on the wrong blog lol

  174. jli March 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    I suffered from depression, my GP advised me to take drugs suitable for a schizophrenic…

    but my point is my GP never looked into the cause of my depression, she simply signed a script and sent me on my way, like she was handing out sweets!

    I agree with you that this is not the way your GP should have treated you. And speaking of depression you may be aware that mild or moderate depression can be treated naturally with St John´s wort. And this is aknowledged by science (and me too for that matter) because evidence show it is so. I can´t find the reference, but i believe I remember that attempts at isolating the active substance(s) have failed. You really need the whole plant to get the full effect. This is a good exampke that illustrates that science is not about who came up with the idea. It´s about whether unbiased evidence show an effect or not.

    I will really try make this my last comment on this blog! it is proving difficult though…!

    On the other hand if you don´t speak up, we won´t know what goes on in your mind. I really meant what I wrote earlier that if you had any questions, you thought I might be able to answer you should ask away. You may dislike/disagree with my answers, but they will be given with the best intentions 🙂

  175. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Quote: “Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps you are not sufficiently qualified to do so”?

    Tony is a genuine altruistic humanitarian.
    Further “qualifications” are not required.

  176. anaxymperator March 17, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    You may choose to believe every single alternative therapist is out to make money off sick people…

    i dont believe that. i know there are honest, wellmeaning alternative therapists who only think of their patients. but they would never say they can cure cancer, they would never say you don’t need surgery, for they know that’s not true and it’s dangerus to tell people that. But this is what mr. becket and mr. isaacs say: don’t take surgery, because the cancer will spread if you do. When beatis had followed such advise, she might be dead now. aND MAny others.

    I understand you want hope, we all want that. but then give it for free, i say, and dont tell people they don’t need surgery or chemo. we have friends, their middle boy had leukemia when he was 12. he is now a big healthy boy, he’s 20 now. He would have died without chemo therapie. In all honesty i have trouble to believe what mr. becket says. \that’s why I want some proof. As a cancer patient suffering from leukemia you have a right to that.

  177. evenarsinicisnatural March 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    @chris

    You’ll never go hungry ’cause you’re so full of yourself.

  178. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Sorry beatis.
    I didn’t mean to shout, just to emphasize my points of reply.

  179. beatis March 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    You can use italics.

  180. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    “So…..it is in fact Saint Tony. Praise the Lord”!

    Well………………..yes………….should be. But the Queens Honors list will suffice as “Sir” as he deserves a knighthood.
    BTW. Unless I am already banned I shall be presenting some hard, cold, clinical proofs of the “scientific method” shortly that the two of you so much enjoy.
    Watch this space.
    AND……….
    Someone mentioned (I think it was beatis) “peer-reviewed” articles and studies to avoid mistakes and so on, but them following could be enlightening, and which of course is probably just the tip of the iceberg…………………………….
    http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html
    http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

  181. beatis March 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    We know this, it’s been all over the internet. As far as I’m concerned they both go to prison and never get out, and pay damages too. It seems Pfizer didn’t know, well, then they can sue Reuben also because they paid him all these years.

    What’s you point anyway?

  182. beatis March 17, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    🙂🙂

  183. beatis March 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    @ Chris Beckett,

    Some information on Floor van Leeuwen, one of the scientists of the study you linked to, in case you might be interested: http://tinyurl.com/ow748d

  184. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Well………here’s some of the proof………

    How Vitamin C Stops Cancer…………
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910132848.htm
    http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/7/937
    Don’t forget the sub-headings as well here………
    http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/vitcancer.htm
    http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan02/Lancet.Lee.lm.deb.html
    http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/cancer/cellular_solutions.htm
    http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/researcharchive.html#cancer

    Of course there are many many more studies and proofs where nutrients play a major role in the prevention and treatment of cancer, and which does not require invasive surgery or the use of pharmaceuticals to effect a cure.
    One oversight that you probably have never heard of is the “autolytic disintegration/absorption of tumors” via water-fasting.

  185. beatis March 17, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    I did so hope you would not come up with matthias rath.😦

  186. beatis March 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Anyway, findings are highly inconclusive.

  187. beatis March 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    you probably have never heard of is the “autolytic disintegration/absorption of tumors” via water-fasting.

    Yes, I’ve heard of it.

  188. wilmamazone March 17, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    @ Chris

    Yech….we call him Mister Rat.
    Matthias Rath is a great charlatan with stuff and nonsense.

  189. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    Quote:”I know of the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery that is caused by making people believe their cancer can be cured with alternative therapy only”.

    Not to mention the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery caused by being given a death-sentence thru mainstream oncologists.

    Hope is all you have left, and where that is infinitely better than just going home to die.

  190. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    What is my point?
    This escaped the peer-reviewing process or “refereeing process” which is supposed to be the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.
    Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial reviews.

    It didn’t work this time with Dr Reuben which casts doubts on other peer-reviews.

    That was my point.

    Thank you.

  191. anaxymperator March 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Can you show us: what was your diagnosis, results of your tests, when were you diagnosed, how old were you, what treatments did you receive, where were you treated?

    Not to mention the bleak, bottomless and irreversible misery caused by being given a death-sentence thru mainstream oncologists.

    So you blame the messenger.

  192. evenarsinicisnatural March 17, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Chris, stop with the Natural News crap, just more junk science and outright garbage being shilled.

  193. beatis March 17, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    @ Chris,

    It didn’t work this time with Dr Reuben which casts doubts on other peer-reviews.

    No it doesn’t, it showed that Reuben is a cheat.

  194. Chris Beckett March 17, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Well I can see I have gotten as far as I am able to here, and will depart never to return. My time here is wasted on encountering bias/prejudice, and can utilize my efforts far more productively elsewhere.

    One final comment on departure: essentially we are all on the same side, and where debate and argument are superfluous to those that really matter. The patients.

  195. wilmamazone March 17, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Thank you Chris for never return, because this is not a soapbox nor a dustbin:

    Regarding comments
    We post most of the comments that come our way. However, we do not post unabashed or even slightly abashed attempts to use this blog to advertise dubious health products or to promote other blogs that do, especially those opposing the main purpose of this blog, as we feel no need to make this blog a soapbox for them.

  196. anaxymperator March 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    What about my questions?

  197. beatis March 17, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    @ Anaxymperator,

    What about my questions?

    Perhaps it was your questions that chased him away.

  198. beatis March 17, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Anaxymperator,

    I fear your questions will never be answered. No go to sleep and stop whining!

  199. jli March 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    I also agree with Tony Isaacs who commented that the surgical removal of cancerous tumors doesn’t always (and very rarely) removes the cancer in its entirety, and where it is a regular occurrence for the cancer to return at a later stage and in a more aggressive and terminal form.

    I´d say that Tony is misinformed. I know this because it is my job to examine removed cancers, and part of that job is to determine whether it has been removed in its entirety or not. Most cancers are in fact removed in their entirety, but a few are not. Photos of what entirely removed cancers look like can be seen here: http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/picture.aspx?id=24608703
    And here:
    http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/picture.aspx?id=24626457
    And they are not as execptional as Tony apparently think.

  200. jli March 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Chemo and radiation do not heal.

    That is not entirely true is it?. In recent years they have begun to treat locally advanced rectal cancers (Those that are extremely difficult to remove by surgery alone) with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation before surgery. A substantial part of them has disappeared by the time of operation. Only a fibrous scar remains.

  201. natalie March 17, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    @Jli
    I really meant what I wrote earlier that if you had any questions, you thought I might be able to answer you should ask away. You may dislike/disagree with my answers, but they will be given with the best intentions

    Thank you Jli! I appreciate your honesty and , when I made that comment about trying to not ask any further questions, I was not refering to you… I don’t always agree but you present things in a tactful way at the very least

  202. beatis March 17, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    When people are being confronted with cancer, it can cause them to be emotional at times. It’s a rough thing to deal with, for everyone involved.

  203. evenarsenicisnatural March 17, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Whaaaah – widdle sissy cwissiy don’t wanna play no mo’

    He whiiiined:

    Well I can see I have gotten as far as I am able to here, and will depart never to return. My time here is wasted on encountering bias/prejudice, and can utilize my efforts far more productively elsewhere.

    One final comment on departure: essentially we are all on the same side, and where debate and argument are superfluous to those that really matter. The patients.

    F’king liar – if you really had even a shred of humanity for others, you wouldn’t be continuing to lie and babble the same bogus garbage to turn a buck. You refuse to see the reality of the dangerous and hurtful modalities you promote.

    Hell, it’s not YOUR health or life on the line. You’re only concerned about spreading lies and continuing to promote health ignorance.

    Don’t let the screen door hit ya.

  204. natalie March 17, 2009 at 11:42 pm

    @ evenarsenicisnatural

    F’king liar – if you really had even a shred of humanity for others, you wouldn’t be continuing to lie and babble the same bogus garbage to turn a buck. You refuse to see the reality of the dangerous and hurtful modalities you promote.
    ….
    Don’t let the screen door hit ya.

    Are You really that angry and resentful ?holding onto that is no good for ones health… this is either resentment at its best or immaturity? Im probably a child in comparison to the majority on here and find that tone disturbing..

    @beatis // March 17, 2009 at 10:52 pm | Reply

    When people are being confronted with cancer, it can cause them to be emotional at times. It’s a rough thing to deal with, for everyone involved.

    That is fair enough, I know all about that, I disagree with many things posed by dedicated blog memebers on here but that would not justify such anger and hatred toward an individual…

  205. wilmamazone March 18, 2009 at 9:08 am

    @Natalie

    Change the world, start with yourself!

  206. evenarsenicisnatural March 18, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    @ natalie

    Get real –

    Damn right I’m angry, scum like Chris and Tony are promoting lies and they don’t care who suffers and dies because of this. There’s always excuses why the treatments ‘failed’ – they don’t take any responsibility.

    They don’t get the first-hand experience of watching people lose health and life because they were duped into following the ‘advice’ of fraud peddlers.

    Are you really that blind?? Apparently.

    Have you watched the slow death spiral of hospice clients that are the result of their ‘natural’ and ‘nontoxic’ treatments? Didn’t think so.

    Spend time at a hospice center to see the results of their ‘cures’, then tell me I’m being resentful or immature.

  207. natalie March 18, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    @ evenarsenicisnatural

    no surprises, yet again attacked… for having an opinion

    “they don’t get the first-hand experience of watching people lose health and life because they were duped into following the ‘advice’ of fraud peddlers.
    how do you know?? do you have proof either they themselves didn’t have cancer or a family member hasn’t died of cancer??

    “Are you really that blind?? Apparently.”

    apprently according to who?

    “Have you watched the slow death spiral of hospice clients that are the result of their ‘natural’ and ‘nontoxic’ treatments? Didn’t think so.”
    No… I have sat in a chemotherapy ward howver and watched people suffer a slow demise post cytotoxic treatment

    “Spend time at a hospice center to see the results of their ‘cures’, then tell me I’m being resentful or immature.”

    your opinions aren’t immature… the fact your choice to resort to inappropriate language may be…

  208. natalie March 18, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    @wilmamazone

    “@Natalie

    Change the world, start with yourself!”

    what would you like me to change about myself, Wilma?

  209. beatis March 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Natalie,

    We would very much like to have heard from Chris Beckett exactly how he cured himself of leukemia. He left this blog without bothering to explain or give us any details either about his illness or about his cure. It is extremely unlikely that someone with advanced leukemia as he claims he had, can be cured with alternative therapy only – so unlikely in fact that it borders on a miracle. Yet he expects us to believe him at face value, is deeply insulted when we ask him if he can back up his story and blames us for being biased and prejudiced. Perhaps stories like his give you hope. They don’t give me hope at all, they give me the strong feeling that I’m being duped again.

  210. natalie March 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    beatis // March 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm | Reply

    Hi Beatis

    I too would have liked to have heard his story, but from what I understand he has been banned from this blog… correct me if i am misinformed…?
    the guy was subject to quite a bit of abuse…you may have like to have heard his story, but the response he recieved from the others kind of gave the idea either way they didn’t want to hear it… I can see why he has left, but as I have already said, I would also like to know the finer details…

  211. evenarsenicisnatural March 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    What’s up the persecution complex?

    Sitting in a chemo ward is worlds apart from hospice. Go volunteer your time at a hospice.

    Since when are facts ‘opinions’? Oh yeah, when someone won’t face the truth.

    Ah, so continuing to promote worthless and deadly health care lies is an appropriate resort?

    WTF does my ‘language have to do with anything??

  212. beatis March 18, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    @ Natalie,

    No, he wasn’t banned. Anax said this because he was very emotional, but we decided to give Mr Beckett the opportunity to tell his story.
    I think he left because we didn’t believe his stories at face value and wanted some underpinning. I also happen to know why he came here in the first place. I know you are sympathetic towards alternative medicine, but in my opinion there are far better ones to give your sympathy to than Mr Beckett. Also, I think it’s never wrong to apply some healthy skepticism when people tell you that they alone can do what nobody else can, such as curing terminal cancer.

  213. natalie March 18, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    @beatis
    “Also, I think it’s never wrong to apply some healthy skepticism when people tell you that they alone can do what nobody else can, such as curing terminal cancer.”

    that is fair enough.. perhaps he should come back on here and set his story straight.?

    “I also happen to know why he came here in the first place. I know you are sympathetic towards alternative medicine, but in my opinion there are far better ones to give your sympathy to than Mr Beckett”
    Can you please elaborate a bit more? im curious now re why he came on here, and of the better cases🙂
    thanks

  214. natalie March 18, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    @ Beatis

    Thanks for the link

  215. natalie March 18, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    venarsenicisnatural // March 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm | Reply

    “What’s up the persecution complex?”

    not a complex, if it bothered me I wouldnt be conversing.. an observation perhaps…

    “Sitting in a chemo ward is worlds apart from ahospice. ”

    ok lets compete over who has seen worse then the other…

    “Go volunteer your time at a hospice.”

    that is something i would consider in the future… for the moment Id like to spend as much time with my mum as possible

    “Since when are facts ‘opinions’? Oh yeah, when someone won’t face the truth.”

    why do you ask questions you have the answer to already?

    “Ah, so continuing to promote worthless and deadly health care lies is an appropriate resort?”

    my mum has stage 4 cancer, I have seen how sick chemo has made her… im not promoting anything just speaking of my experience…

    “WTF does my ‘language have to do with anything??”

    people get told off here for using caps as that is “shouting”…. I was unaware swearing was less offensive then caps… that’s all

  216. evenarsenicisnatural March 19, 2009 at 12:53 am

    nat, nat, nat…

    Yeah, accusing anyone who doesn’t parrot false health treatment claims as ‘ignorant’ and ‘negative’ (and many more nasty remarks) is really promoting conversation.

    Rattling off the same-old alt med lies over and over still won’t make ’em come true.

    Pardon moi for not promoting sunshine, rainbows and fluffy bunnies.

  217. FromOz March 19, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Where is the Moderator now? Why is this kind of language published here? Is there a need for it? No wonder this forum cannot be taken seriously.
    Tony, Chris move on. Don’t waste your time on arrogant people. The very few who was interested in alternatives hopefully be able to use your helpful information and get the help they need. As for the rest. Quite honestly, I don’t care.

  218. beatis March 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Mr Beckett himself wasn’t too friendly either, nor was Mr Isaacs for that matter. He left some very “friendly” posts about me on his own website as well.

    I personally felt very offended by Mr Beckett’s and Mr Isaacs’ assertions that cancer can be cured with alternative treatments only. Most offensive of all I found Mr Beckett’s repeated statement that he has cured himself of advanced leukemia with water fasting, and his unwillingness to provide us with even the tiniest snippet of evidence. To me, such an attitude comes across as extremely callous and I agree with Anax that it is an insult to cancer patients. When you make statements like that on a blog that is aimed at warning people against alternative cancer treatments, you can hardly expect to be treated with kid gloves. Both Mr Isaacs and Mr Beckett came here on their own accord and they are perfectly free to stay away.

  219. wilmamazone March 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Anax, Beatis move on. Don’t waste your time on arrogant people. The very few who was interested in laughable alternatives hopefully stay away.
    Patients who look for the truth can use your helpful information on this site and get the medical treatment they need.
    As for the rest. Quite honestly, I don’t care.

  220. beatis March 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Don’t worry, we won’t, thanks for your support.
    There will be a new post here soon on the powers of magical thinking.

  221. Tony Isaacs March 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    I am not sure exactly what you folks do not understand about my bidding your farewell in my last message here, but I see that you have continued to take potshots at me and post fabrications about what I have said as well as my motivation for coming here to begin with.

    I came here quite simply to deliver my message that a person does not necessarily have to die if they have been given a terminal diagnoses by mainstream doctors.

    I certainly did not come here to promote my book, any products I am affiliated with or my website – to waste so much effort on a little read and obscure site like this would be a total waste of time.

    Helping save just one single life is never a waste of time. You might ask Natalie, by the way, just how much she had to pay for my e-book and the other information I sent her. Or her impression of my Yahoo group, which unlike this one, is open minded, friendly and caring – and does not censor, curse or defame those who disagree with us.

    I never said that had a “cure” for cancer, much less that I alone had a “cure”. I did say that natural alternatives did offer hope for many people, including the ones I have researched and written about.

    As far as Chris Beckett is concerned, he is known far and wide on CureZone as a person with a heart of gold and you can find his story easily by searching for Chrisb1 at CureZone or else visiting the Natural Hygeine and Water Fasting forums he participates in.

    Given the rude reception he received here, I do not blame him or anyone else who does not agree with your “just go home and die if your doctors tell you that you are terminal” mindset for not returning here after such a welcome.

    I note that you continue to ask for proof and would have your readers believe that our lack of providing such proof proves that your inflexible stance is correct, HOWEVER, I have had members of my website and of CureZone tell me that they have tried to do so but that their comments have not been posted.

    The flimsy excuse to censor their comments based on your assertation that they were promoting my website is typical. The truth is that this blogsite will go to any lengths and use any excuse to prevent information that disproves what they would have you believe.

    Those who do want the truth can find it at CureZone in the Cancer Support and Oleander Support forums as well as at Cancertutor.com, The Minnesota Wellness Directory, The Annie Appleseed Project and any other number of alternative health sites.

    The truth is there if you want to find it. Obviously, the managers of this site and their devotees do not wish to do so.

    Once again, I bid you farewell and wish you all the best regardless of your mindset and shots you have taken at me.

  222. wilmamazone March 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Amen.

  223. beatis March 19, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    I came here quite simply to deliver my message

    I certainly did not come here to promote my book, any products I am affiliated with or my website

    That was not the impression you gave us; you started trying to sell you remedies right away.

    I never said that had a “cure” for cancer

    You certainly implied as much and so did Mr Beckett. And look at what you said just now:

    I came here quite simply to deliver my message that a person does not necessarily have to die if they have been given a terminal diagnoses by mainstream doctors.

    You have also said more than once that many (hundreds in fact) cancer patients on your Yahoo-group have received death-sentences and yet are alive today, thanks to your advice. Are we not to understand that they were cured from their cancer then? What are we to understand from your words? Just whatever suits you best??

    You blame me of telling people to

    “just go home and die if your doctors tell you that you are terminal”

    This is not what I said and it is not what I meant, you have been deliberately twisting my words. It seems to me that you think that cancer-patients have some sort of moral obligation to try out just about anything, no matter how unproven, unpromising, absurd or even dangerous it may be. Apparently, we are supposed to “try till we die” and under no circumstance are we allowed to make our own decisions about how we wish to spend our days. Now, why would that be, I wonder.

    The truth is that this blogsite will go to any lengths and use any excuse to prevent information that disproves what they would have you believe.

    The truth is that you have had ample opportunity to prove the things you want us to believe and so has Mr Beckett. It’s not our fault that both of you failed.

    The odd thing is that when we ask for some underpinning for your implications, then you say you only offer “hope”.

    Well, as you say, the truth is on your websites, for all who want it. And indeed, it is.

  224. anaxymperator March 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    @ Tony Isaacs,

    Mr. Beckett claims he has cured himself from leukemia with water-fasting. I asked him some questions about his ilness and his cure. I think people suffering from leukemia have a right to these answers. If he takes cancer patients seriously he just gives the answers. Why doesn’t he do this? And don’t tell me we have to go to the yahoo-group to read his “story”. He makes the claim here, he can answer the questions here. When he doesn’t do this, I can only think it is because he can’t. This goes for your claims too. What you claim on this blog, you prove on this blog.

  225. beatis March 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    I am not sure exactly what you folks do not understand about my bidding your farewell in my last message …

    Are you sure that you understand? After all, it’s you who is coming back here all the time.😆

  226. evenarsenicisnatural March 19, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Awwww, widdle Tony is a whiiiiner with verbal diarrhea.

    Tell us, which formulas you peddle will provide the hope to treat you of this affliction?

  227. jli March 20, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Tony Isaacs said:

    The truth is that this blogsite will go to any lengths and use any excuse to prevent information that disproves what they would have you believe.

    To which Beatis responded:

    The truth is that you have had ample opportunity to prove the things you want us to believe and so has Mr Beckett.

    I see this as a clash between two opinions of what constitutes proof (or should I say evidence). One side believes that patient testimonials is sufficient evidence while the other do not. I believe that there are problems with testimonials as evidence of effect. An example of what can go wrong is given on curezone in the thread where Tony Isaacs launches his hate campaign against Beatis (and the rest of the skeptic blog contributers for that matter). In that thread one of the posters writes the following:

    She got a second opinion and got the surgery she needed.

    And a little bit further:

    My mother did very well with flax and cottage, juicing and floressence

    Given the dogma expressed by Tony Isaacs and friends that surgery is ineffective at removing cancer completely it would seem that the cure was brought about by “flax and cottage, juicing and floressence”. The way I see it it might as well be that the conventional treatment (surgery) brought the cure.

    One should also be aware that sometimes cancers are exceptionally sensitive to chemotherapy. This means that a cancer may shrink dramatically even if the treatment was offered for palliative treatment only.
    So a wrongful testimonial is not necessarily given with a dishonest motive.
    A more detailed description of what to look for in cancer treatment testimonials can be seen at http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm

  228. zanny March 21, 2009 at 12:37 am

    evenarsenicisnatural // March 19, 2009 at 6:25 pm | Reply

    “Awwww, widdle Tony is a whiiiiner with verbal diarrhea.

    Tell us, which formulas you peddle will provide the hope to treat you of this affliction?”

    my goodness this comment is so cringey… are we in play school?

  229. Pirsey April 22, 2009 at 6:52 am

    If you want to read a reader’s feedback🙂 , I rate this article for four from five. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn msn to find the missed bits. Thanks, anyway!

  230. john May 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Dr Simoncini and his brotherare respected MD and both had lost theirs licenses for insisting in curing people with an inexpensive product : bicarbonate of soda. THINK !!!
    Why a known oncologist, diabetologe with a PHD in philosophy and his brother will risk jail to cure people with a product that cost few euro ?/!

    Nobody taught people how to think anymore. So just sit and THINK !!

  231. beatis May 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Why then, if it is so cheap, did Tullio and his brother charge 7,500 euros for this treatment?

    Why then, if this treatment works so well, has Tullio Simoncini failed to deliver one single case of proven established cancer that was cured with sodium bicarbonate?

    Why then, if he is so sure of having found the cure for cancer, has he failed to publish one single syllable about his great discovery?

    Btw: Tullio Simoncini did not have not his medical licence revoked removed from the medical order because he cured people with baking soda. He has his licence revoked because he sold people a completely useless treatment for a lot of money, making them believe it would cure even their terminal cancer.

  232. jli May 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Dr Simoncini and his brotherare respected MD

    What do you mean by respected? To be honest I have never heard of Tullios brother. They are certainly not well respected by their colleagues (And do not deserve to be).

    Why a known oncologist…

    He is known? He has not published anything in scientific journals which is how you become known in the oncological community.

    So just sit and THINK !!

    Why don´t you take a look around this blog and also the links given on the subject. They will show you that the thinking has been done, and only one conclusion can be reached from doing so.

  233. Pingback: Curing leukemia with water fasting « Anax blog

  234. NATDR May 28, 2009 at 12:06 am

    What an ignorant statement. Read “A Cancer Therapy” Results of Fifty Cases by Max Gerson, M.D

  235. evenarsenicisnatural May 28, 2009 at 5:01 am

    Shit, who let the ducks out?? Quack-quack, quack-quack…

    Whats with the constant ass obsession with these folks? Enemas and the proverbial ‘blowing smoke up your ass’ are classic hallmarks.

    Take your coffee orally like any civilized person, thankyouverymuch.

  236. Lelania June 24, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    I stopped reading somewhere around a third of the way through these comments because it was literally sucking the energy out of me while reading Beatis’ comments.

    Here’s what I can tell so far… Every cure comes at a cost. The question is: Are you willing to pay that cost?

    If that cost is physical, just how much do you have to give? Forget about the financial costs for a moment, I’ll come back to that.

    My mother has gone through two breast cancers and just been diagnosed yet again. I have seen what traditional therapy does… it is brutal and painful and ugly… and did it cure the cancer… obviously not, even though she was given a clean bill of health twice.

    Something that you might find interesting to note is that my mother, for over a year now has been fighting off Candidas Albicans and now has a new diagnosis of cancer. Hmmm, do I believe there is a connection… most certainly.

    If the choice comes down to whether or not she should lose her hair, burn her skin and vomit non-stop for five years straight until she bleeds every time OR try the relatively harmless Sodium Bicarbonate option which will undoubtedly cause some discomfort and raise her alkalinity to a possibly dangerous level while actually killing what could well be a fungus… well… I vote for option 2. It’s a shorter term and doesn’t damage the body the way traditional treatments do.

    I feel terrible for anyone who may have suffered through Simoncini’s initial efforts but from what I’ve seen, if it’s even true, it’s been worth it.

    I noticed there were a few links to sites about whole/raw foods and I think that is a good way to augment Simoncini’s method. I firmly believe that the earth has everything that we need to keep our bodies balanced with natural remedies. It takes thinkers like Simoncini who are brave enough to go against the medical money-making goliaths to bring these simple healthy cures to light.

    If it happens that it doesn’t work, I want to give kudos for a brave and amazing effort on his part. It seems to me though, if it doesn’t work, no harm done. It looks like it only take a month or two to start seeing results.

    I hope it does work, I am getting my mother onto this right away. She’s just had her biopsy, which now worries me because I think that could well be the cause of her re-occurrences, and I want her to try this before they put her into chemo… again.

    Cheers, I wish you all happy, healthy balance.

  237. jennyj0 June 24, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    I think you have a serious reading problem.

  238. beatis June 24, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    biopsy as cause of her recurrence…?

  239. beatis June 24, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    I’m very sorry about your mother though. But I find it hard to believe that candica albicans is the cause of her having cancer. There is no evidence for that whatsoever.
    How is your mother vomiting 5 years straight?

  240. wilmamazone June 24, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    It takes thinkers like Simoncini who are brave enough to go against the medical money-making goliaths to bring these simple healthy cures to light.

    If it happens that it doesn’t work, I want to give kudos for a brave and amazing effort on his part. It seems to me though, if it doesn’t work, no harm done. It looks like it only take a month or two to start seeing results.

    It also can take only four days to see a violent death as result.

  241. wilmamazone June 24, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    I’m also very sorry about your mother Lelania, but please don’t take her to charlatan Simoncini. He is not brave, only a swindler.
    There are no simple healthy cures for cancer and the hypothesis from Simoncini is proven wrong.

  242. evenarsenicisnatural June 24, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    The ‘natural healing’ bullshit is strong in this one – too much magical thinking and drinking the new-age Flavor-Aide by the gallon.

    Sorry Lelania, you’ve been had by false information and false hope.

  243. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 2:24 am

    Wow… is all I can say to you people.

    I appreciate the condolences though.

    Candidas albicans is a fungus is it not? I have done only a bit of reading about this and while I obviously don’t have all the answers , I do see some connections.

    I was told about this doctor this afternoon by a friend and I wanted to investigate. Your welcome to perceive me in any way you wish, fling insults all you like, I’m sorry your life is so empty that you have to do that to make yourself feel better.

    You better believe that love and the magic in life are what motivate me!! I am proud of it.

    That doesn’t detract from what evidence I’ve seen so far.

    Prove to me that this man is a charlatan and that the large medical companies didn’t ignore him because it would change everything, especially their income and so many jobs. It’s almost easier for me to believe that he was framed. Who’s got greater cause?

    Your jaded opinions are not enough to prove anything, except that you’re angry.

    Give me provable facts.

    Show me in scientific terms that cancer is not a fungus. Is there an actual doctor on here who can do that?

    I am in the process of translating the article that was written about the doctor, not easy btw, to see for myself what is written there.

    I have come across actual reports, that show that his method works. All the naysayers on here seem to be speculating more than anything else.

    I have read several arguments on here describing how a biopsy releases bits of the cancer into the bloodstream. Sounds logical to me and rather likely in light of my mother’s situation. This is not the only place that I have checked out and not the only place where it has been supposed that spores or whatever the matter is, has been released into the bloodstream during biopsy.

    Thanks to those of you who maintained a sense of decency. I would never rush into anything blindly, nor for that matter would I encourage my mother to do so. I am very thorough.

    Beatis, two times, two times… my mother has gone through this already.. everything about the traditional cure makes my mother vomit, truth. both times she had to take a chemical cocktail for 5 years after radiation therapy. She threw up the entire time. And I disagree with you that there is no evidence that there is a connection.

    Prove it!!

    wilmamazone, where was it proven wrong? where may I see this scientific proof?

    …and just to make myself feel a little better after the nasty comments… ‘evenarsenicisnatural’, the name suits you. you are arsenic. and jennyo, talk to the hand.

  244. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 2:59 am

    Here, for anyone who is interested, is the article translated by Google Translate. I left it exactly as it was.

    I must say, after reading this, I remain unconvinced that he is a bad man. It seems to me that he is just a human like the rest of us, trying to make a difference. Obviously, mistakes happen, even everyone on here can admit that doctors screw up all the time. Unfortunately in their trade, it can cost lives. I think it’s important to note that the woman who died was on the brink anyway and that it was a last effort to save herself. Regular doctors had given up. What would you do? Also, when a doctor screws up these days, who is part of the accepted medical community, they have all kinds of back up and financial assistance and even, dare I say it, cover-ups, to help them out of a sticky mess.

    This is a man, I am even more convinced, whose really trying.

    Here it is…
    http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2006/maggio/21/Medico_condannato_omicidio_colposo_co_10_060521029.shtml

    Edit Beatis: I have replaced your text with the url to the article, people can then run it through google translate or babelfish themselves.

  245. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 3:01 am

    sorry, both parts got in there.

  246. jennyj0 June 25, 2009 at 5:33 am

    @ Lelania,

    Usually the one who makes the claim – in this case Tullio Simoncini – is supposed to come up with the evidence, but never mind that now.

    Here is just some of the evidence:
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/
    I would like to also advise you to read the comment to this article by WeWee. The figures Simoncini gives on his web site are seriously manipulated.

    There is not a jot of evidence for Tullio Simoncini’s theory, but the evidence to the contrary is abounding.

    There are actual doctors and scientists on this blog. WeWee is a doctor and jli is a pathologist, he examines cancer on a daily basis. He has never in his entire career found a candida albicans fungus as the cause for cancer. Neither WeWee nor jli work for pharmaceutical companies, their pay check stays just the same every month no matter what they say about the cause of cancer.

    I have come across actual reports, that show that his method works.

    These would probably testimonials which cannot be validated.

    Jli can fill you in in depth on the risk of biopsies for the spreading of cancer. What I know is that it is extremely unlikely that biopsies cause recurrence.

    Again, I am truly sorry about your mother’s situation. Cancer is a horrible disease and it sometimes hits people in ways that doesn’t bear thinking about.

    But baking soda will not be able to cure her. The only thing I hope is that mr Simoncini and his friends won’t ‘relieve’ your mother of too much money, for there ar far better and nicer things one can do with it – even as a cancer patient – than to spend it on useless treatments.

  247. wilmamazone June 25, 2009 at 5:46 am

    Show me in scientific terms that cancer is not a fungus. Is there an actual doctor on here who can do that?

    This doctor was here all the time, in the blogroll:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/a_fungus_among_us_in_oncology.php

    You were told here:

    Sorry Lelania, you’ve been had by false information and false hope.

    And this is pathologist Jli, also a member of this site:
    http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/

    They all know everything about Simoncini for a long time and you?:

    I was told about this doctor this afternoon by a friend and I wanted to investigate. Your welcome to perceive me in any way you wish, fling insults all you like, I’m sorry your life is so empty that you have to do that to make yourself feel better.

    Do you need to be so loud-mouthed to make yourself feel better?
    Already a authority on Simoncini after a few hours? You have made a good job of that!

  248. wilmamazone June 25, 2009 at 5:53 am

    Sorry WeWee i forgot to mention you.
    There are so many doctors on this site!😉

  249. beatis June 25, 2009 at 5:53 am

    @ Lelania,

    I am surprised that apparently you think it is no problem to deceive patients when they are incurable. Apparently it is all right to take advantage of incurable patients ‘for they are to die soon anyway.’ That sounds like the epitomy of cynicism to me, I am sure you wouldn’t want that and I can hardly imagine you’d want something like that being done to your mother.

    The danger with Simoncini is that he also convinces people with perfectly curable cancers that they do not need standard therapy. If I had followed Simoncini’s advice, with my own cancer and the growth rate that it had, I could very well have been dead within a year and my chances of beating it would have been zero. Whereas now I have a chance of over 80% that the cancer will definitely stay away.

    Many people are cured of cancer nowadays and the rates are still going up every year. There is progress, but of course it is always too slow. Sadly, most of us have seen people die of cancer and it is a truly terrible thing. Some call this the failure of modern medinice, I call it reality.

  250. beatis June 25, 2009 at 6:09 am

    @ Lelania,

    It’s obvious you haven’t read all the information on Tullio Simoncini here, so I’ll just give you the link to all the articles on this blog about this man and his baking soda treatment:
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/category/tullio-simoncini/

  251. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Thank you all for your comments. I realize that it would be difficult to tell that I needed to push the boundaries here, to see how much is bluster and how much is real. I don’t have a big expensive education to back me up but I have plenty of experience and insight and a really annoying need to debate things and have them proved. I will check out the links.

    I appreciate the obvious concern. I’m sorry you saw my interest and opinions as loud-mouthed. That is unfortunate. Just remember how many fingers are pointing right back at you when you are pointing at someone else.

    I would like state for the record that removing the article is exactly the kind of thing that makes this particular blog site so frustrating. You’d rather argue over absent facts than have them in front of you where they are accessible and undeniable.

    I am taking my leave of this place, thank you all for your insight. As you were.

  252. beatis June 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    removing the article is exactly the kind of thing that makes this particular blog site so frustrating

    I’m sorry?! Nothing has ever been removed here. Your copy paste is unpleasant to read because of the enormous amount of text. My link goes to exactly the same article as the one you have copy-pasted here, so there is no content whatsoever removed here.

    You’d rather argue over absent facts than have them in front of you where they are accessible and undeniable.

    Just show me where we argue over absent facts! It is so unjust what you are saying, I am really flabbergasted. The only facts that are absent on this blog are the facts that should have backed up the empty claims of all the alternative ‘healers’ who have posted their comments here. The members of this blog have never said anything without backing it up with facts for everyone to see and check for themselves.

    Like the scientific evidence that you asked for, showing that Simoncini’s theory is wrong. We provided you with that.

    If your find this blog so annoying then please do stay away.

  253. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Thank you all for your comments. I realize that it would be difficult to tell that I needed to push the boundaries here, to see how much is bluster and how much is real. I don’t have a big expensive education to back me up but I have plenty of experience and insight and a really annoying need to debate things and have them proved. I will check out the links.

    I appreciate the obvious concern. I’m sorry you saw my interest and opinions as loud-mouthed. That is unfortunate. I suppose the answer to your question is YES. I am willing to make a complete fool of myself, if I must be perceived that way, in order check things out. I shudder every time I think about what my mother is about to endure again.

    I would like state for the record that removing the article is exactly the kind of thing that makes this particular blog site so frustrating. You’d rather argue over absent facts than have them in front of you where they are accessible and undeniable. Also, I did not appreciate the negative twist to my words when I referred to the lady who died. I only meant that I think it’s only natural to exhaust every potential cure when fighting for your life, especially when accepted practices by accepted practitioners have given up. I have the utmost respect for all life.

    well, I have to admit that this method may not be the answer. According to these doctors, there is no way that cancer is a fungus.

    The question I have to ask is:

    How is it possible for this man, Simoncini, to have charged a fair amount of money from people who traveled all the way to Rome for treatments have so many rave reviews and positive testimonies?

    There is something big missing from this picture on both sides.

    I am taking my leave of this place, thank you all for your insight. As you were.

  254. Lelania June 25, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    well, that’s embarrassing, It seems my comment was somehow submitted before I had finished and now it’s here twice, appearing revised. I suppose it doesn’t matter anyway. I am sorry for any offence I may have caused.

  255. beatis June 25, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    There’s no need to apologize, but thanks anyway.🙂

    it’s only natural to exhaust every potential cure when fighting for your life

    Of course it is. I just think the last thing cancer patients deserve is to be deceived, whether it be done on purpose or because the healer is convinced of his own delusions himself.

    How is it possible for this man, Simoncini, to have charged a fair amount of money from people who traveled all the way to Rome for treatments have so many rave reviews and positive testimonies?

    I think because cancer patients are vulnerable. They live in state of hope, despair, fear of dying and fear of the harsh treatments. This can make them susceptible to promises of treatment and cure of their cancer without any side effects, risks or pain. Who wouldn’t think that’s appealing?

    Most people in Simoncini’s testimonials have also undergone some form or other of conventional therapy. Also, cancer doesn’t always behave according to statistics. A lady in my neighourhood has been living with breast cancer for 14 years now. Initially it seemed the cancer had gone, but after 7 years it turned out it had metastasized to her bones. She had another chemo and has had a number of radiation treatments, which enabled her to live with a good quality. She even continued working, albeit part-time. My best friend died of ovarian cancer after 12 years. She too had a good quality of life for the greater part of these 12 years thanks to conventional treatment. Had these people undergone alternative therapy, they would probably have said it was thanks to these therapies that they were still alive. That’s why we need science, to be able to distinguish between what really works and what only seems to work.

    There are also many testimonials though that give me the feeling they were just made up, because of all the factual errors they often contain.

    And worst of all is of course when people forgo conventional treatment altogether and thus allow their cancer to grow to such an extent that it becomes incurable.

  256. LMO July 28, 2009 at 10:54 am

    I pray to God that Simoncini’s treatment works, I used it myself instead of having immunotherapy. So far I have been clear for almost 8 months now. I get checked by a Urologist every 4 months.

    Some questions to ponder on
    Does Chemo cure cancer or prolong life?
    Does Simoncini’s treatment cure cancer or prolong life?
    Why would Dr Simoncini lose his job, his status to promote something that makes him very little money?
    Check out this site. It has stats on the success of Chemo on various Cancers. Scroll down to the table.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx?source=nl
    By the way I did use conventional methods as well as Simoncini’s treatment. Why the hell not. I have been diagnosed with a death sentence.

    To all those rocket scientists out there. Just thought you might like to know that when a human being gets diagnosed with cancer you will try anything. Simoncini’s treatment is harmless so why not give it a try.

  257. beatis July 28, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    @ LMO; 2009/07/28 at 10:54am

    Does Chemo cure cancer or prolong life?

    Yes

    Does Simoncini’s treatment cure cancer or prolong life?

    No.

    Why would Dr Simoncini lose his job, his status to promote something that makes him very little money?

    I have no idea. Perhaps he believes his own delusions.

    I have been diagnosed with a death sentence.

    That’s terrible, I am very sorry to hear this.

    To all those rocket scientists out there. Just thought you might like to know that when a human being gets diagnosed with cancer you will try anything. Simoncini’s treatment is harmless so why not give it a try.

    Not all cancer patients will try ‘anything.’ And Simoncini’s treatment is by no means harmless.

  258. Zanny July 29, 2009 at 2:05 am

    @LMO and Beatis
    Quote LMO:

    Does Chemo cure cancer or prolong life? End quote…
    That’s a double barreled question…

    Quote beatis:

    “Yes” end quote…

    Is that yes to cure or yes to prolong life?
    Because a previous comment indicated the following
    QUOTE Beatis:
    “You must bear in mind that surgery, not chemotherapy is the primary therapeutic modality for most cancers, especially early stage. Most forms of chemotherapy are not given as the sole cure for cancer, but either as an “adjuvant” or as a palliative.” End quote

    Refering to the link posted on “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies”
    Professor Morgan stated that even if those types of cancers were included… the percentage would increase to around 6% that I’m sorry is pretty dismal… particulary when the article also found that “most women don’t benefit from chemotherapy in breast cancer.”
    The table lists around 22 different types of cancers which have less then a 2.5% success rate of 5 year survival it was also noted that this was an optimistic percentage where it is most likely even less than that of which is reality…
    The fact that the most common cancers and most life threatening Cancers were included in the study I feel is enough to say that Chemotherapy drugs are over marketed and over used and are mis-leading in terms of their efficacy…

    finally
    “have been diagnosed with a death sentence.”

    I am so sorry to hear this also.

  259. beatis July 29, 2009 at 7:20 am

    @ Zanny, and LMO,

    Quote Beatis

    Does Chemo cure cancer or prolong life? End quote…
    That’s a double barreled question…

    Quote beatis:

    “Yes” end quote…

    Is that yes to cure or yes to prolong life?
    Because a previous comment indicated the following

    QUOTE Beatis:

    “You must bear in mind that surgery, not chemotherapy is the primary therapeutic modality for solid cancers, especially early stage. Most forms of chemotherapy are not given as the sole cure for cancer, but either as an “adjuvant” or as a palliative.”

    I’m not sure what your point is… Of a treatment which is given as a palliative or as an adjuvant, the effect on long term survival is by definition limited. I don’t even need a study for that, it’s simply a question of logics. If you really want to know what the effect of chemotherapy is on curing cancer, you should look at cancers for which chemotherapy is used the main treatment, with the intention to cure. So, in further answering the LMO’s question: it is a yes to prolong life in solid cancers, though not always. It is a definite yes to cure in blood cancers and a in a number of forms of child cancers. For these diseases chemotherapy usually is the only option and luckily the response often is quite good.

    Standard treatments for cancer result in a total survival rate (meaning that a patient is cancer free for at least 10 years after diagnosis) of nearly 60%. Early stage cancers have a long term survival rate of between 70 and 95%. With a few exceptions, cancer that has metastasized further than the lymph nodes is usually considered incurable and patients often die within 10 years after their diagnosis. When these are included in the statistics this results in an overall percentage of just over 50%.

    Anyone who wants to lambast standard medicine for this, by all means do so.

    But what I really don’t understand is this: Simoncini’s baking soda therapy has been shown many times to be complete nonsense and totally ineffective and until now he has failed to produce one single patient who has been cured by his therapy or even lived longer because of it. On what grounds then should we have to consider this – or any other useless alternative therapy for that matter – as an acceptable alternative to standard therapy? Because standard medicine is not 100% effective, we should hail something which is 0% effective as an acceptable alternative or even as the better choice? Where is the logic in that?

  260. beatis July 29, 2009 at 8:15 am

    On the Mercola site, Simoncini is quoted saying this:

    Several studies have linked the presence of Candida with cancer, showing that anywhere between 79 to 97 percent of all cancer patients also have Candida.

    On his website, Simoncini refers to these studies to underpin his statement:
    R.L. Hopfer: 79%
    U. Kaben: 80%
    W. T. Hughes: 91 %
    T.E. Kiehn: 97%

    The studies were analyzed on this blog and you might want to read the following comments regarding the percentages given by Simoncini, for it appears that they were seriously manipulated.

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/#comment-1221

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/#comment-1236

    What I find truly disgusting is the blatant lying that apparently is allowed towards people as soon as they develop cancer. Sorry.

  261. cytoge October 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    Why is beatis scared of simoncini?

    do you profit from death?

    My guess is you are a cancer doctor who murders people with chemo.

  262. anaximperator October 19, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    And my guess is you are certifiable. I am disgusted that you are not deeply ashamed of yourself for making sick comments like this.

  263. Phyllis February 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Logic – cancer builds long strong roots
    Fungus – builds long strong roots
    They are both hard to kill if all the roots are not killed -and will come back, either in the same place or another.
    Cancer and fungus both have different colorations, some white, some “black.
    A melanoma looks just like mold.
    There are probably more common factors but it seems to me there are too many to put these aside.
    It is a fact that mold is killed by bicarbonate of soda. I’ve done it.
    Why doesn’t the research and drug companies work with Dr Simoncini instead of just finding non-provable instances where he might be wrong? Are they afraid of losing their multi-million dollar income?

  264. beatis February 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    You won’t mind me laughing my head off now, will you?

  265. WeWee February 22, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    You’re right dude…
    Well done and logical argument!

    Logic – cancer feeds on our blood
    Mosquitos – feeds on our blood

    Cancer and mosquitos can have different colorations but both are made of living cells.

    Mosquitos can be killed with insecticides.

    So to kill cancer we can use insecticide.
    That’s all.

  266. cryptocheilus February 23, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Stop talking about insecticides WeWee. It gives me the shivers.

    Everybody knows that baking powder is the solution in case of mosquitobites.

    http://www.ehow.com/how_4917954_baking-soda-paste-mosquito-bites.html

    Duh!

    LEAVE Phyllis ALONE!!!

  267. King June 17, 2010 at 12:08 am

    This doctor deserves noble prize.

    All those who oppose him are draculas.

  268. sadarjung June 17, 2010 at 12:10 am

    beatis is a big pharma agent. kick him in the ass

  269. anaximperator June 19, 2010 at 7:48 am

    By all means, drop your turds anywhere you like. Same goes for you King, or whatever your name is.

  270. That guy June 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Big pharma, as in those making the products, are companies, this is something disliked because they are out there to make a profit, the reason why this is disliked is because when money is involved less care -or simply not enough- is put into the product, and accidents are bound to happen… but this also happens when there is no big pharma involved. Soooo, yeah, there goes that.

    Regarding conspiracies, wich I think are either present or about to be present in here (No, I don’t feel like reading the whole thing right now, maybe later when I’m a bit less mentally overwhelmed) I’d like to mention something: Isn’t it funny that there are secrets, super-secret ones, no one knows about but everybody has a blog on it? So much for a secret conspiracy.

    There’s this idea I picked off a book, it was about distrusting everything instead of being all trusty; even yourself, yeah, go ahead, question yourself, maybe you are always right? or are you?

    Remember to steal the days.
    Honor thy father in vain that thy Sabbath day may be long.
    Thou shalt not take the name of thy mother.
    Thou shalt not commit witness.
    Thou shalt not keep it holy.
    Thou shalt not bear false adultery against thy images.

    Never judge a man till you have walked a mile in his shoes, cuz by then, he’s a mile away, you’ve got his shoes, and you can say whatever the hell you want to.

    Fnord I say!

    (Yes, I am fine, but come on, I felt so free writing that)

  271. beatis June 19, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    😆
    I particularly like the part about the shoes, and the super-secret conspiracies everybody keeps stumbling upon.

  272. evenarsenicisnatural June 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Praise Bob.😉

  273. beatis June 21, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Good to see you again!

  274. anaximperator June 21, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Same here.🙂

  275. evenarsenicisnatural June 21, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    Hey guys.

    I’ve been popping in and out, busy kicking a** here and there.

    I’ll be back…

  276. beatis June 21, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    I’ll be back…

    That’s great!

  277. Mari October 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    I have read a small portion of these blog entries. I think all readers and writers here will like to see the online video at center4cancer that uses a unique microscope and related links to see for yourselves WHETHER OR NOT a link between fungus and cancer exists. For further understanding about medical establishment and alternative effectiveness, search Barry Lynes, Royal Rife and Bob Beck videos, books, schematics, etc. as well as earthclinic online.

    Personally I was told after surger that I would die in 6 months without chemo, but in fact 2 1/2 days of arabinogalactan (a disaccharide immune enhancer/cell-to-cell communicator) decreased my ping-pong ball sized lymph nodes to normal little bean size for the price of dinner at a restaurant.

    All options should be put on the table, but the censoring can hardly be stopped because of the stranglehold of political contributions and web of influence and collusion among major the food, pharmaceutical, chemical, medical equipment, etc. companies and the favor-owing politicians and media that advertise their products. The collapse of industries is at stake with all its ramifications.

  278. beatis October 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Hm, I’ll tell our blog member jli about this wonderful microscope; since he’s a pathologist dealing with cancer and peering through a miscroscope on a daily basis, he’ll probably be very interested.

    What strikes me is that everyone who is into altmed invariably meets oncologists who tell them that they will die within 6 months or so if they don’t do chemo after surgery.

    I find that very, very strange. How can that be? Do these oncologists have a secret sign on their forehead that only alties can see, or what?

  279. jli October 2, 2010 at 10:24 am

    That is a cool microscope🙂 The video lasts for almost an hour, and no where is it shown or even suggested that cancer is a fungus. It does spend some time on an old idea by a German named Brehmer which is somewhat still accepted by alties. In the video they even use the old name given by Brehmer: siphonospora polymorpha. Today we know that it is just a common skin bacterium (Propionibacterium acnes). Our friends at Esowatch have written a little about the subject here and here. It is written in German, but if you use google translation or something similar, you should be able to get the gist of it.

  280. Bram Hengeveld October 2, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Oomph. I’m shocked by the amount of low-down BS people like beatis have to deal with. Jesus Christ, how can a Tony Isaac say things like that? If this be some forum on let’s say, audiosystems, he’d be called a troll and kicked of the forum. But nooooo, when it comes to treating cancer… The strange thing is, all the peddlers of ‘nutritious stuff and healing’ all piggyback on scientific research done by real doctors and epidemiologists, not some people that have a stupid education that wouldn’t ‘even’ get you a Registered Nursing degree. Mind you that I think that RN’s are VERY cool and very important in healthcare, but you catch my drift. In their arrogance the altmeds fail to recognize this. And that shows when altpeddlers fail to even deliver the most basic of care ANY nurse would do with as much as a snap of the fingers.

    I’ve said it numerous times, but the amount of patience displayed by the bloggers here is almost ridiculous. Blogs like these are worth everything.

    Tony is a genuine altruistic humanitarian.
    Further “qualifications” are not required.

    At first I fell for Poe’s law there, almost writing a response that would make me the laughing stock for today😀

  281. kostavsm February 8, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    If anybody can help you to get rid of cancer it is Dr Tullio Simocini.He is the most decent and most brave person in the world. He could have his career as Oncologist just doing what most oncologist doing, killing people with chemotherapy..But he refuse to do so He chose very difficult but honest way to help people.All his protocols are free posted on his web site.If he care about money he could have more money just if he keep his mouth shut and do what medical establishment want him to do.Powerful pharmaceuticals company is against him.Don’t trust their propaganda.One friend of mine was sent home to die.Uterus cancer was spread on colon.It was July 2011.They told husband that October 2011 is max She can live .
    I recommended her to drink Sodium Bicarbonate 6 days on 6 days off for 4 circles.Told her to eat 3 time per day Broccoli and 25-30 apricots seeds per day..Instead of water to drink lemonade..She recovered and completely get rid of cancer.She is alive and it is Feb 2013
    All food i recommended is highly alkaline which proof TullioSimoncini Theory that cancer is result of acidic pH of body. God Bless Tullio Simocini

  282. Marc Stephens Is Insane February 10, 2013 at 7:53 am

    kostavsm,

    What right do you have telling anyone what to do for their health? Do you have a medical license?

    Oh yeah, right, neither does Tulio Simoncini anymore.

    Lemons are acidic. Apricot seeds contain cyanide, a poison.

    Your “advice” is going to kill somebody.

  283. Marc Stephens Is Insane February 10, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Beatis,

    Was there a story in Baking Soda Monthly or Quacks Quarterly recently leading people here? Two baking soda comments on ancient threads in the same day!

    Just curious: why don’t you close off old threads to comments? Not criticizing, but it would prevent some of the blather like the two baking soda comments that have popped up today, which might get more attention from the misguided.

    At least I was amused reading the old archived comments here. I had never heard of oleander quackery or that Tony guy, and I thought I had seen it all as a denizen of all the skeptic blogs over the past year or so. I’m surprised nobody mentioned Dr. B here.

    Where is Simoncini these days? Is he “working” under the radar in Mexico or somewhere? Next to Hulda Clark’s place in Tijuana, perhaps?

    Keep fighting the good fight. I admire your patience and diplomacy.

  284. JLI February 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Where is Simoncini these days?

    According to this Italian article his “treatments” are administered in Albania.

  285. TC March 31, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    beatis, this is for you and those blinded by meme: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge” (quote Stephen Hawking).

  286. JLI April 1, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    TC wrote:

    [An insult that backfires big time]

    I received a comment through the contact page on the “cancer is not a fungus website” from TC. It is not possible to show these on the website, but hopefully Beatis doesn´t mind if I show the readers of this blog what TC wanted to tell me, and what I responded. The purpose is not to chastise TC, but to show how demonstrably bad reasoning by woo-believers can be. There is nothing new in that woo believers are rude – but if you hate rudeness, please don’t read further.

    TC made the following comment to this page on the website:

    You are the one that is WRONG – your understanding of English is poor, and you don’t do any basic research.
    – for example under section “Simoncinis claims – Interpretation of Science” take the 109 cases:

    You state that the study describes 109 patients with “severe candida infection”. Where do you get this from? then you go on to say that ‘Candida albicans was the causative yeast’ – causative of what? the severe candida infection?!

    The study states “a study of 109 FATAL cases” (Severe and fatal are very different)
    approx. 90% of the deceased had received treatment for fever, white blood cell problems, relapse of malignancy (which means return of cancer) by way of antibiotics and immunosuppressive drugs. – in layman’s language.
    If it’s not related to cancer then what is it related too?

    Then the next one, you state “cancer patients who had yeast” Where did you get his from? If this were the case, the abstract would have said “over a 15 month period, cancer patients were tested for yeast, and samples were taken from those that proved positive” IT DOES NOT SAY THAT. In fact the heading says it all ‘“prevalence of yeast in … specimens from cancer patients”

    Here’s a extract from another publication, easily found on the web: “ In contrast to previous reports, we demonstrated that primary Candida pneumonia can be life-threatening in patients with cancer since it directly contributed to the death of 84% of the patients in the present series.”
    Hmmmm… Seems in perfect sync with Simoncinis claims.

    So, either your understanding of English is not up to scratch, or you lack the willingness to learn and duplicate that which is written. Either way, I recommend you improve your understanding of English before you start reinterpreting words to deride others. Maybe you should stick to Danish. (hopefully you are better at it)
    What you are doing is absolutely not okay because you are disseminating misconstrued information in a horrible way.

    Please take note: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” – quote Stephen Hawking.

    The last paragraph leaves little room for doubt that TC is the one who sent me that comment. Well – Even rude people deserve a clarifying answer. So this is what I wrote back:

    Dear Tania [That was the name she gave on the contact page].
    Thank you very much for your comments. Constructive criticism is always welcome. I prefer a polite tone, but that is of course entirely up to you.

    Let’s see if we can clear out the misunderstandings shall we?

    1) An infection with candida that causes death IS a severe infection, but not all severe infections are fatal. If it pleases you, I’d be happy to replace “severe” with “fatal”. What does the rest of the title [Systemic candidiasis] tell you about the focus of the study?

    With your impeccable English skills and high level of intelligence I am sure that you will agree with me, that 91 cases of fatal Candida Albicans infection out of 109 cases of fatal Candida infections does not equal coexistence of Candida in 91% of cancer patients.

    I think this answers your question, which you wrote in almost correct English: [If it’s not related to cancer then what is it related too?]

    2) [Then the next one]
    Apparently you think that the title and the first few words in an abstract is all you need to read to understand what the study is about.

    I stand by my words. The study does not show that candida is present in 97% of cancer patients. Being the kind and friendly person I am, I will try and explain the study to you.

    The researchers set out to do two things:

    a) Yeasts….were speciated – Means that the researchers subtyped yeasts. You can’t subtype a yeast if it is not there right? All these difficult words that does not look like English are in fact names of yeast species or subtypes if you will.

    b) Prevalence of these subtypes in various clinical specimens – Means that the researchers wanted to describe the frequency of the various subtypes in different types of samples. If you read (and understand) the full abstract you will find that they actually describe their results: Respiratory and urine specimens yielded 75% of the organisms, ….were recovered in about equal frequency from blood cultures etc.

    3) [Here’s a extract from another publication….]
    I have to say that your reading skills haven’t impressed me. Since you don’t link to the publication, I will give you a hint on what to look for – should you decide to check if your initial interpretation could be slightly off.
    What did the patients in the”present series” have in common – apart from having cancer?

    […I recommend you improve your understanding of English….]
    That is good advice – Thank you🙂
    My advice to you is to use your superb English skills to actually try and understand what is written.

    [What you are doing is absolutely not okay because you are disseminating misconstrued information in a horrible way]

    I stand by my words. Cancer is not a fungus. And Simoncini’s interpretation of the publications you ranted about is demonstrably wrong (Which I sincerely hope you understand by now).

    [Please take note: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”]

    Exactly right. If you have set your mind to believe that cancer is a fungus, and no real world observation will convince you otherwise, then you will not gain knowledge on the matter.

    Best wishes (honestly)

    JLI (Who apologizes in advance for any incorrect English in this mail)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: