Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Cancer, Fungus and Sodium Bicarbonate: Tullio Simoncini and The Research that Wasn’t…

    Cancer ResearchOn his website, Tullio Simoncini tells us about his groundbreaking “discovery” that cancer is a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – which can be cured with baking soda (or sodium bicarbonate). To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein. 

    According to Simoncini, lowering the body’s acidity by administering baking soda cures the fungus = the cancer.

    Simoncini complains that his brilliant theory will never be researched by the scientific community, because:

    The canonical experimentation is allowed only if you follow the rules convenient only for those who have the economic or political power, the rest is just useless talks. The society, through the politicians should protect the most fertile minds, allowing them to experiment their ideas freely. On the contrary, today, with the pretext of protecting the citizens deemed most ignorant, it only protects the powerful’s interests, to the detriment of the patients. Besides, history teaches that the patronizing attitude by souverains towards the ignorant subjects has always been an excuse to pursue their own filthy interests.

    That’s a lot of words for saying: they will never research my theory because they are only interested in maintaining the status quo and will habitually suppress brilliant ideas from anyone not belonging to their own set.

    Obviously, this is all very unfair, especially to desperate patients, as new ideas that could potentially save their lives – such as curing cancer with baking soda – will never see the light of day.

    The odd thing though is that on his website he also says this:

    Based on years of scientific and clinical research, at the centre of every cancer tumour is a common fungus, Candida albicans. The good news is that it can be treated with a powerful antifungal agent that’s inexpensive and readily available.

    Huh? How can this be? He just told us there was no research!

    We decided to do some searching ourselves and as it turns out, quite a number of studies have been done into the effect of manipulating the body’s pH and sodium bicarbonate on cancer, albeit not by Simoncini. Here’s a short overview of our findings:

    The first study is into the effect of urinary pH on the progression of urinary bladder tumours. As you can see, adding sodium bicarbonate to the mice’s food causes the urine to be alkalic – with high pH, which appears to stimulate cancer growth. Also, sodium bicarb could not prevent the growth of induced cancer in mice, but even seems to give them more cancer.

    There are a quite a number of studies to be found that show this same adverse effect of sodium bicarbonate. It seems that sodium bicarbonate stimulates already present tumor growth. This could mean that, if you already have cancer, sodium bicarbonate will make it grow even faster.

    The sodium bicarbonate seems to enhance the toxicity of certain carcinogenic agents rather than reduce it. The reason for this is the unfavourable pH of sodium bicarbonate.

    Here the researchers try to suppress the strong tumor accelerating properties of alkalic bica (NaHCO3) with large quantities of vitamin C.

    On his web site, Simoncini triumphantly presents this study as the proof for the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate against cancer: Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases.

    One important thing the authors of this study report however is that the sodium bicarbonate did not have an effect on the growth rate of the cancer. In other words: it did not destroy the cancer itself. Also, the number of metastases in the sodium bicarbonate group was by no means zero and the mice were not cured. There is an interesting but extremely limited effect here of which the researchers themselves say they don’t know what caused it.

    If proponents of Tullio Simoncini conclude that this study proves sodium bicarbonate can cure cancer and prevents development of metastases, they have not read the article.

    All this has got me very confused.

    First, Simoncini says the scientific Powers that Be have always suppressed any research into his theory. But as it turns out, they haven’t. He also says that “years of scientific research” prove that at the centre of every cancer there is a fungus. But scientific research proves no such thing. And then he tells us cancer can be cured with sodium bicarbonate, although scientific research seems to show just the opposite.

    Anyone who understands this, please enlighten us!

123 responses to “Cancer, Fungus and Sodium Bicarbonate: Tullio Simoncini and The Research that Wasn’t…

  1. WeWee June 10, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Excellent post…🙂

    Simoncini’s claims don’t have scientific logic sense. In his attempt to give some scientific credibility to his theories, Simoncini commits many gross errors…some examples?

    A study cited by Simoncini in support of his theory, is:

    *Höpfer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7012168

    Simoncini argues that this study shows that in 79% neoplastic tissue, we found candida. WRONG.

    What the study says is that in about 19,457 blood samples, 193 samples (76 patients) had fungi, 79% of which was represented by candida albicans.

    So the percentage of fungus in blood samples is very low. The mention of Simoncini also shows that the former doctor, once again, you got to handle the data, for they say exactly the opposite of what he says.

    Other examples of studies that Simoncini cites as proof of his theory, but which instead say something different:

    *The study of Hughes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7177889

    quoted by Simoncini as evidence of the coexistence of cancer and candida in 91% of cases. WRONG.

    The study says that in 109 fatal cases of candida’s mycosis, 91% was represented by candida albicans specie.

    *Kiehn: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7369176

    Simoncini says that in 97.1% of oncologic patients, was found the candida, WRONG, the study says rather that in cultures positive for fungal diseases in oncological patients, 97.1% of the microorganism is Candida.

    More evidence of data manipulation from Simoncini?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8730359

    Candida ‘the cancer of silastic’.

    The candida has been found in Silastic prosthesis (a material used to manufacture silicone catheters, implants, tubes, probes …,), in practice the candida colonize these materials and this is known. And what this has to do with candida in cancer? The bladder catheter, for example, are colonized by various bacteria, the bacteria cause cancer then?

    Cassone A, Bistoni F, Cenci E, Pesce CD, Tissi L, Marconi P.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7051368
    Immunopotentiation of anticancer chemotherapy by Candida albicans, other yeasts and insoluble glucan in an experimental lymphoma model.

    Intraperitoneal inoculations of 2×10 ^ 7 organisms (Candida, Saccharomyces and Cryptococcus) repeated in mice infected with murine lymphomas induced by viruses, are an excellent immuno-adjuvant, synergistic for the chemotherapy treatment.
    The effect was similar in case you use the whole body or single membrane (ghost cell).
    In practice, the candidate improves the effect of chemotherapy.
    Excellent choice for Simoncini, this is an article that studies the use of the Candida as cure for the cancer.

    See you soon.🙂

  2. beatis June 10, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Thank you so much for your comment and your research WeWee, very informative and reliable, coming from you as a medical professional!

    Your comment makes painfully clear that Simoncini is either completely clueless about understanding scientific data or that he is deliberately manipulating these data. Either way, there is not a word of truth in what he says.

  3. jli June 10, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Excellent post…🙂

    I think so too.

    In his attempt to give some scientific credibility to his theories, Simoncini commits many gross errors…some examples?

    And your examples of how Simoncini misrepresents scientific data to promote his own nonsense are great too.🙂

  4. jennyj0 June 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    @ WeWee,

    Simoncini argues that this study shows that in 79% neoplastic tissue, we found candida. WRONG.

    What the study says is that in about 19,457 blood samples, 193 samples (76 patients) had fungi, 79% of which was represented by candida albicans.

    This means that only 0,99% of the blood samples had fungi, instead of the 79% that Simoncini claims. I find that shocking, people trust this man with their life.

    The effect was similar in case you use the whole body or single membrane (ghost cell).
    In practice, the candidate improves the effect of chemotherapy.
    Excellent choice for Simoncini, this is an article that studies the use of the Candida as cure for the cancer.

    😆

  5. theDRaKKaR June 16, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    wewee is making a superlative work in his blog confuting Simoncini’s “theories”

    We all italian internauts love wewee efforts

  6. beatis June 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    wewee is making a superlative work in his blog confuting Simoncini’s “theories”

    We all italian internauts love wewee efforts

    QFT!🙂

  7. max(L) June 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Well done, nice work!
    I’d like to add a few comments about the paper of Robey IF (Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases)- The authors says that a HCO3- 200 mmol/L can neutralize the proton load of metastases (actually micrometasases) no greater than 1 mm^3. From these data and given the solubility of the NaHCO3 in water at different temperatures, one can argue that the proton load of a tumor of 20-30 mm^3 in size would require a NaHCO3 solution with a concentration in the range 33.6%-50.4%.
    However at 77 F (25 Celsius degree) a saturated solution of bicarbonate is obtained at a concentration of 10.35% w/v.
    That is the proof that Simoncini statements are completely false, because it is impossible to get a solution of bicarbonate with the minimum concentration a tumors would requires in order to disappear. Remember now that Simoncini, on his web site, claims that a tumor of 30 mm^3 in size can be cured with a solution of bicarbonate at 5% w/v with a success probability of 90% and, even worst, he also claims a tumor greater than 3 cm still has a 50% chance to disappear with a solution at 5%.
    Bye😉

  8. cryptocheilus June 18, 2009 at 10:29 am

    Exellent work from WeWee and his Italian friends..

    Sceptic crowds rule!

    My kind regards to Tullio Simoncini.

  9. jli June 21, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    My kind regards to Tullio Simoncini.

    Well, he is being quite helpful😆

  10. beatis June 21, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    A Slam dunk it’s called I believe.😆

  11. jli June 21, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    You sure do have a way with words😉

  12. Fermentation = fungus! June 26, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Warburg investigated the metabolism of tumors and the respiration of cells, particularly cancer cells, and in 1931 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his “discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme.”[2]

    In 1944, Warburg was nominated again for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine by Albert Szent-Györgyi, for his work on nicotinamide, the mechanism and enzymes involved in fermentation, and the discovery of flavine (in yellow enzymes).[3][4]

    In 1924, Warburg hypothesized that cancer, malignant growth, and tumor growth are caused by the fact that tumor cells mainly generate energy (as e.g. adenosine triphosphate / ATP) by non-oxidative breakdown of glucose (a process called glycolysis). This is in contrast to “healthy” cells which mainly generate energy from oxidative breakdown of pyruvate. Pyruvate is an end-product of glycolysis, and is oxidized within the mitochondria. Hence and according to Warburg, cancer should be interpreted as a mitochondrial dysfunction.

    “Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few

    words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.” — Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

  13. beatis June 26, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    More recent research seems to show that Warburg’s findings show the product of the mutations of the cancer cell instead of the cause of ‘uncontrolled growth’ in cancer.

  14. max(L) June 30, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    ..and “the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar” it doesn’t change a fungal cell in a human cancer cell …as stated by the Simoncini’s equation cancer = fungus .. as any biochemical reaction in common between chimps and humans doesn’t make them exchangeable

  15. Pingback: Of Rodents, Baking Soda and Understanding Scientific Research « Anax blog

  16. Question November 23, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    How do you all explain all the people that Dr. Simoncini has cured with his treatment? None of you debunkers address this.

    See this film for testimonials of people who were cured by it.

  17. beatis November 24, 2009 at 5:49 am

    @Question:

    Simoncini never cured anyone. We have debunked many of his testimonials on this blog already and we can debunk them all.

    We will look at this video in detail later in the day and publish our findings here.

    WeWee: this is very impressive indeed!😆

  18. WeWee November 24, 2009 at 11:41 am

    This video was prepared by the american agent of Simoncini, Massimo Mazzucco. He makes videos about UFOs, crop circles and other conspiracy themes. All cases contained in it are false.
    Were discussed and debunked all. It is not known a SINGLE case of real healing.
    There are clear data manipulation and false testimonials. Simoncini has never cured anyone.

    Here in Italy Simoncini is considered a quack, convicted of fraud (two times) and manslaughter and is seeking new markets abroad.

  19. anaximperator November 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Question:

    The Simoncini video is complete and total BOLLOCKS.

  20. jli November 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    @ Question: You asked:

    How do you all explain all the people that Dr. Simoncini has cured with his treatment?

    How many examples of demonstrative wrongful Simoncini testimonials do you need to be convinced that Simoncini is a fraud?
    Take a look around this blog with an open mind.
    And if you don´t understand what is explained in the posts discussing actual testimonials – ask for clarification instead of pretending that they don´t exist.

  21. jli November 24, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    The Simoncini video is complete and total BOLLOCKS.

    And without any “testimonials of people who were (allegedly) cured”.

  22. Honest person December 23, 2009 at 1:22 am

    this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7012168

    says:
    “During a 12-month period, 19,457 blood cultures were collected. Yeasts were isolated from 193 cultures derived from 76 cancer patients. Candida albicans or Candida tropicalis accounted for 79% of isolates.”

    It doesn’t mean that 19.457 blood cultures were derived from cancer patients, but only 76 of 19,457. Your explanations are WRONG!

    So, Simoncini tells the TRUE when he says that 79% of cancer patients have CANDIDA!!!

  23. beatis December 23, 2009 at 7:14 am

    I think you misunderstand.

    Simoncini claims that the fungus candida albicans causes cancer.

    In the study you are referring to, 19,457 blood cultures were collected from cancer patients to see if the there was fungus present

    In 193 cultures, yeast (fungus) was found.

    This means that in 19,246 cultures NO fungus was found. (19,457 – 193 = 19,246)

    Of the 193 cutures with fungus, 79 turned out to be candida albicans.

    This means that in less than 1% of cultures there was candida albicans present. The candida albicans which, according to Tullio Simoncini, is supposed to cause cancer.

    So – what’s your problem?

  24. jli December 23, 2009 at 9:21 am

    It doesn’t mean that 19.457 blood cultures were derived from cancer patients, but only 76 of 19,457. Your explanations are WRONG!

    You can read the full article here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC273585/pdf/jcm00170-0055.pdf

    The tilte is: Radiometric Detection of yeasts in blood cultures from cancer patients.

    The study was done at “Department of Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas System Cancer Center, M.D.Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston, Texas”

    What does that tell you about the study population?

  25. Guba December 30, 2009 at 12:02 am

    I have been reading closely all your comments about the Baking Soda and Simoncini trying to get some clear ideas out of it. I am not a scientist but I have seen the names of other researchers who study cancer from an acidic-alcaline perspective (Salvador Arguindey) or Ian Tannock and Jacques Pouysségur concerning the pH levels… So my question is if we can learn anything from these approaches to understand better cancer cells?? I really need and want to…

  26. beatis December 30, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Hi Cuba,

    I certainly think we can learn something from these scientists, but I don’t think it has anything to do with Simoncini’s theory.

    I found this on Ian Tannock’s research:
    http://www.webtie.org/sots/meetings/gastrointestinal/feb152000/transcripts/tannock/Transcript.htm , slide 13.
    As far as I can understand, this has to do with intracellular particles in certain cancer cells having high pH. This to me seems something entirely different than the body’s pH as a whole, which cannot be changed without us getting dangerously ill.

    Also, Simoncini’s claim is that high body acidity causes candida albicans to grow. But there is no indication that this is so. Nor is there any indication that candida albicans causes cancer. There is no indication either that a person can have ‘high body acidity’. Our body regulates it’s pH itself and it does not need our influence. If we do influence it, this is very dangerous. Our urine can have excess acidity, due to acidic waste products, but this does not mean that your body as a whole has high acidity! You might want to read this on the acid/alkaline theory of disease: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html

    I see no relation either with Simoncini’s theory and the work that Jacques Pouysségur is doing: http://www.unice.fr/ibdc/equipe/equipe.php?id=3

    I haven’t been able to find anything on Salvador Arguindey except this:
    http://grupos.emagister.com/mensaje/___salvador_arguindey_en_asociacion_con_otros/5014-536880

    Do you perhaps mean Salvador Harguindey?
    http://salvadorharguindey.blogspot.com/2008/03/curriculum-vitae-abridged-salvador.html
    But again, I don’t see what this has to do with Simoncini’s theory of cancer, but perhaps jli can explain better, being a pathologist.

  27. jli December 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    It is true that those researchers have looked into mechanisms regarding regulation of tumor pH. A fairly easy understandable review of the subject can be found here http://www.springerlink.com/content/h764575237u1w430/ , but unfortunately it is not available for free. Maybe your library can get it for you? You might also want to read this: http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/C_ancer_31/080202532008_Busting_Cancer_Myths_Acidic_Foods_and_Cancer_Risks.shtml

  28. beatis December 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Cuba,

    If you are interested in the review jli is referring to, I can arrange for you to receive it by email or get temporary access. Just let us know.

  29. Guba December 30, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Beatis and jli,
    Thanks a lot for the information and links.
    Beatis, you are right in all your explanations, I think I mixed the ideas too much. I am looking at all the information and learning. It would be great to get temporary access or by email.
    Jli, I found very clear explained the link from food consumer.
    Today commenting about all this I heard a pathologist’s “complain” who thinks they should be given more matter in order to analyze from a bigger perspective…Could this help to establish more connections about cells and the fluids??
    Thanks again.

  30. jli December 31, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Well – I think that we should all work together. Pathologists have their skills, biochemists have their skills and so on. Collaboration is the way to go.

  31. Nescio January 2, 2010 at 12:49 am

    As I understand this, tumors are often encapsulated and have a poor blood supply. This can lead to low levels of oxygen, which lead to anaerobic respiration, this and the poor blood supply lead to a relatively acidic environment within the tumor (though intracellular and extracellular pH may be different). But this is not only a characteristic of cancer cells, normal cells that are starved of oxygen behave in the same way (as in the acidosis seen after strenuous exercise), though some cancer cells will not return to aerobic respiration even when supplied with adequate oxygen (the Warburg Effect). Recent research suggests that cancer cells may prefer anaerobic repiration due to changes in their mitocondria. Neither normal nor cancer cells like extremes of pH, and alkaline conditions that will kill cancer cells will also kill normal cells.

    When cancer has started interfering with essential functions of the body, as with any serious illness, systemic acidosis is quite common, because the mechanisms that normally control pH have started to fail and sometimes because more acid than these mechanisms can cope with is being produced.

    I like to use the analogy of a car engine, with heat representing acid. Overheating in a car engine can result from a failure in the cooling mechanisms, such as a leak in the radiator, or the fan belt breaking, or by the engine producing more heat than the cooling mechanisms can cope with, such as an oil leak. Similarly acidosis can occur when the mechanisms that get rid of excess acidity fail, for example kidney disease where hydrogen ions cannot be effectively excreted, or emphysema where carbon dioxide cannot be effectively exhaled, or when the body produces more acidity than these mechanisms can cope with, for example diabetic ketoacidosis or salicylate overdose. Trying to treat cancer with sodium bicarbonate seems to me to be analogous to trying to deal with an oil leak by putting ice in the car radiator.

    What I am trying to say is that acid conditions inside a tumor, and systemic acidosis in cancer are results of the cancer, not causes. A misunderstanding of this seems to be what is behind the beliefs that acidity causes cancer (and other diseases), and alkalinity can cure it.

  32. jli January 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    As I understand this, tumors are often encapsulated and have a poor blood supply.

    They are not encapsulated, but it is true that the blood supply is somewhat poor.

    ….(though intracellular and extracellular pH may be different)

    They are. Intracellular pH is similar to that in normal cells, whereas extracellular pH is slightly lower. The cancer cells need to maintain a normal intracellular pH to avoid cellular death.This is acomplished through transport systems in the cancer cell membranes, that assist in extrusion of excess intracellular acid. So you are absolutely correct in your statement that the lower extracellular pH is a result of the cancer.

  33. Nescio January 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Jli – my background is in clinical biochemistry, so I’m less well-educated about the histological side of things. Tumors are never encapsulated? I thought encapsulation was quite common in hepatocellular carcinoma, for example, and was a major factor in prognosis.

  34. jli January 6, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    my background is in clinical biochemistry

    That´s great.🙂 What do you think about the article that I linked to in a response to Guba?

    Tumors are never encapsulated?

    One should always be cautious about saying never, but infiltrative growth is a very important characteristic of cancer. This powerpoint-presentation: http://www.medicalschoolpathology.com/powerpoints/Ch7-Neoplasm.ppt illustrates it nicely. Try to scroll down to slides 33 and 34. They show two breast tumors, one encapsulated which is benign, and one non-encapsulated infiltrative growing which is malignant. Also slide 40 summarizes some of the characteristics of benign and malignant tumors.

  35. beatis January 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Thanks for the powerpoint!

  36. jli January 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    You are very welcome😀.
    The guy who made it also has a you tube channel. These slides (and slide number 32 are described at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3JFjktJrs4&feature=channel at about 5 minutes.

  37. beatis January 6, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    And thanks again! Where would we be without you I wonder!

  38. jli January 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    You would probably yourself have found http://www.path.uiowa.edu/cgi-bin-pub/vs/fpx_gen.cgi?slide=562&viewer=java&view=0&lay=iowa and started to explore the microscopy section (Same section as shown in slide 35)

  39. beatis January 6, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    And thanks again🙂

  40. Nescio January 12, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Thanks jli, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. That makes things much clearer. Would it be more accurate to say that malignant tumors, by definition, are not encapsulated?

    I looked at the ‘Busting Cancer Myths’ page that you suggested to Guba and was surprised to see that they say, “The unsubstantiated theory is based on lab studies that suggest cancer cells thrive in an acidic (low pH) environment, but cannot survive in alkaline (high pH) surroundings.” I wish they had given a reference. Not long ago I did a literature search looking for research on optimal pH for cultured normal and cancerous human cells. I found some papers that found the ideal pH for both seems to be around 7.4, normal blood pH, though one paper found that some cancerous (HeLa) cells prefer a slightly lower pH. Neither normal nor cancerous cells will grow at pH greater than 8. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a pH range in which normal cells thrive and cancer cells die.

    I have qualification in social anthropology as well as clinical biochemistry, so I find the origins of belief systems of interest. This article published in 1940 http://www.oldandsold.com/articles35/health-and-medicine-28.shtml shows that the same erroneous beliefs have been around for at least 60 years.

    This paper from 1979 I found interesting, http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/39/11/4364.pdf It concludes, “…total body acidification seems to be a promising avenue in antagonizing tumor growth in animals and its effects seem to be independent of starvation-ketosis. Acidosis per se is not likely to favor solid tumor growth, and it has the potential to delay it at least in some cases. Conversely, environmental field alkalosis per se seems likely to promote malignant growth. These concepts are applicable without regard to location or histological type of solid tumor and as such should be considered in any attempt to control or prevent neoplasia.” In other words acid conditions reduce solid tumour growth, alkaline conditions encourage it.

  41. jennyj0 January 12, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    How would one bring this about in a patient, total body acidification?

  42. Nescio January 13, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Hi Jenny Jo,
    You can induce a metabolic acidosis by dosing a patient with large amounts of ammonium chloride, but I wouldn’t recommend it. I suspect you would kill the patient before you cured the cancer, or at least leach all the calcium out of their bones. I would guess that this idea was abandoned after this paper was published 30 years ago. The references in that paper are worth a look, as it shows that it was generally accepted back then that alkalosis stimulated tumors, the opposite of Simoncini’s claims. I can’t find much published research since then that has explored the effects of pH on tumors. I just find it interesting how ideas change and spread over the years, independent of the evidence.

  43. beatis January 13, 2010 at 12:32 am

    You can induce a metabolic acidosis by dosing a patient with large amounts of ammonium chloride, but I wouldn’t recommend it. I suspect you would kill the patient before you cured the cancer, or at least leach all the calcium out of their bones.

    This doesn’t sound at all good – I think I’d prefer chemo!

    BTW I noticed that one of the contributors of the paper was this dr Harguindey that Cuba mentioned.

    I wonder though how the mice survived the induced acidosis. Tough little cookies!

    it shows that it was generally accepted back then that alkalosis stimulated tumors, the opposite of Simoncini’s claims.

    (My bold).
    Interesting; I wonder if Simoncini ever read this; probably not.🙂

  44. jli January 14, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Would it be more accurate to say that malignant tumors, by definition, are not encapsulated

    I can´t think of a malignat tumor that is encapsulated, but a lot of benign tumors aren´t encapsulated either. So I wouldn´t use non-encapsulation as part of a definition. But local destruction and ability to metastasise are main characteristics of malignant tumors.

    In other words acid conditions reduce solid tumour growth, alkaline conditions encourage it.

    In the other article that I suggested to Guba (the one that is not free) a transportation system that helps the extrusion of H+ from cancer cells using sodium bicarbonate is mentioned. If such a transportation system is upregulated in certain cancer cells it is plausible that increased concentration of sodium bicarbonate in the surroundings will be beneficial to those cells.

  45. Nescio January 14, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    I guess that simple HTML works in this blog – let’s see if I’m correct!

    I can´t think of a malignant tumor that is encapsulated, but a lot of benign tumors aren´t encapsulated either. So I wouldn´t use non-encapsulation as part of a definition. But local destruction and ability to metastasise are main characteristics of malignant tumors.

    Understood, thanks.

    If such a transportation system is upregulated in certain cancer cells it is plausible that increased concentration of sodium bicarbonate in the surroundings will be beneficial to those cells.

    I did read that abstract, but not the full article. That makes sense too. There has been recent research that shows that oral sodium bicarbonate in mice (or was it rats?) reduces the tendency of tumors to metastasise, which I believe the Simoncini brigade have quoted as supporting his claims. It seems to me more likely that it suggests that cancer cells prefer a less acidic environment and behave more normally in one. The tendency to invade and metastasise strikes me as a desperate attempt to find a more friendly environment, or is that anthropomorphising tumors a little too much?

    There was also some recent research that the newspapers said had found that “Oxygen kills cancer” but when I looked up the study it actually found that improving the blood supply to a tumor makes it more susceptible to chemotherapy. Not the same thing at all!

    I really wish that Simoncini was right about sodium bicarbonate. Imagine how fantastic it would be if you really could get rid of cancer with something so cheap and relatively harmless. But I still haven’t seen the smallest piece of convincing evidence that this might be true, yet.

  46. Pingback: Bicarbonato sódico: otro timo médico « El Rey Carmesí

  47. qnbs7 April 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    maybe they put out fake cures to discredit emerging popularity of hashish oil (cannabinoid extracts) which indeed has anticancer properties…
    check pubmed for “cannabinoids”🙂

  48. beatis April 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    I have never heard of anticancer properties of cannabis, only of analgesic properties. Could you provide links to the relevant research please?

    Who are “they” btw?

  49. Nescio April 21, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Please excuse me jumping in here, but I know a little about this subject. There is some evidence suggesting that some components of cannabis inhibit the spread of cancer, and may have promise as anti-cancer agents. Evidence includes in vitro and animal studies, and epidemiological studies showing lower rates of some cancers in long-term cannabis users.

    Cannabis is also useful for reducing the nausea caused by chemotherapy. I had a girlfriend with Hodgkins Lymphoma who had chemotherapy and was advised by her oncologist to smoke cannabis to reduce the side-effects. BTW she is still alive and well, completely cured, 25 years later (I thought a pro-conventional medicine anecdote would make a change).

    Scientific review article about cannabis and cancer here:
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121665774/PDFSTART

    Lower levels of head and neck cancer in long-term cannabis users:
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/707935

    Anecdotal unscientific video account of hemp oil allegedly curing cancer here:
    http://www.esoterictube.com/run-from-the-cure-the-rick-simpson-story.html

    “They” are clearly Big Pharma, whose lack of success in their conspiracy to kill us all is evident from our constantly rising life expectancy, and the falling death rate from cancer. BTW did you see the video posted by Orac today, about cancer? Worth a look:

  50. beatis April 22, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Hi Nescio, good to see you again & thanks for your input!

  51. UNKNOWN May 3, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    WHAT A BUNCH OF ENVY MEDICAL MOTHER F…OR WHOEVER YOU ARE… JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN ‘T HAVE INTELLIGENCE ENOUGH TO FIND THE CAUSE OF CANCER HE MUST BE WRONG IT’S JUST ANOTHER ENVY COMMENT BEATIS YOU TOLD US YOU WILL PROVE ALL OF THE CANCER SURVIVORS ARE FALSE IN TULLIOS VIDEO I AM WAITING FOR YOU
    YOU ARE TRYING TO BRAINWASH EVERYBODY INTO THINKING THE DR. TULLIO SIMONCINI IS COMPLETELY WRONG THAT’S WHAT I CONSIDER AN ABSORD AND NOT HIS WORK. WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE HIM VERY MUCH? OWNERS OF A PHARMACY COMPANY??
    OH I FORGOT THERE IS A BOMB CALLED CHEMOTHERAPYISN’T THERE? OR EVEN A SURGERY TO TAKE PART OF MY BODY OUT
    CONGRATULATIONS ON CONTRIBUTION FOR HUMANITY.
    THIS DOCTOR IS SAVING MANY PEOPLE WITH CANCER EVERY DAY AND YOU HOW MANY HAVE YOU SAVED?

  52. beatis May 4, 2010 at 6:53 am

    There is no evidence that Mr Simoncini ever saved anyone from cancer. There is no evidence either that cancer is the fungus candida albicans, nor that it can be cured with baking soda. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary tough, as you can read for yourself, not just on this blog but on countless other websites and blogs, with good evidence presented as well.

  53. beatis May 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Are you perhaps the person who sent us this charming email?

    from XXX
    to anaxbeatis@gmail.com
    date 4 May 2010 00:43
    subject I WANT TO SEE YOR FACE WHEN THIS HAPPEN
    Signed by yahoo.com.br
    hide details 00:43 (8 hours ago)

    Dear whoever you are,

    Are you owner of a pharmacy company? have you ever cured someone with cancer using alternative treatments? Why did you create a blog to destroy a person who’s trying to help thousands of people (Dr.Tullio Simoncini) how much do you earn with those goddammed stupid statement? I KNOW A CANCER SURVIVOR PERSON AND THE DOCTOR WHO YOU SAY IN YOUR BLOG IS WRONG FOR ALL OF SAVED HIS LIFE IN A FEW DAYS THANK GOD AND GOD BLESS THIS DOCTOR BUT WHEN I SEE PEOPLE LIKE YOU CREATING A BLOG SAYING PILES OF CRAP OR EVEN WITHOUT AT LEAST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT REALLY BEGINS AND SEE THE CURE OF CANCER LIVE I GET VERY FED UP WITH IT!!! ONE DAY THIS DOCTOR IS GOING TO BE AWARDED FOR ALL OF HIS WORK HE HAS BEEN DOING TO SAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH CANCER IN THE WORLD BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HELPING HIM AND IN THE END I’D LIKE TO SEE YOUR UGLY FACE WHEN THIS HAPPEN.

    WITNESS

  54. Nescio May 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I’m afraid I’m not convinced by your incoherent rant “UNKNOWN”. That Big Pharma shill gambit gets very boring after a while. I wish I did get paid for disseminating what I honestly believe, based on scientific evidence, to be the truth.

    Every single one of Simoncini’s testimonials that I could find is:

    1. From someone whose cancer diagnosis is not documented i.e. we don’t know if they really had cancer or not OR

    2. From someone who had conventional treatment that we know could be expected to cure the cancer (the majority are in this category) OR

    2. From someone who still has cancer and there is no evidence that Simoncini’s treatment has had any positive effect at all OR

    3. The evidence that the cancer existed in the first place and/or has shrunk or disappeared seems to have been manipulated in a very suspicious manner.

    I want to see evidence of a documented cancer, diagnosed by biopsy, that is considered incurable by a competent oncologist (not Simoncini), treated only with Simoncini’s methods, and evidence that the tumour has shrunk or disappeared. Show me ten well-documented case studies of this quality and I will believe that perhaps Simoncini is onto something. If he is curing as many people as his followers claim, this shouldn’t be difficult. Simoncini could put together a well-documented series of case studies, and I’m sure it would be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal if he provided sufficient evidence. But that’s not going to happen, is it?

    “UNKNOWN”, can you refer me to even one single case where these conditions are met? Just one out of all the countless thousands that Simoncini has cured?

  55. UNKNOWN May 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    OK Nescio maybe ur right even though he has already proven this , take a look at this document from Dr.Simoncini about many years of study against cancer http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/pdf/bicarbonate-increases-tumor-ph-and-inhibits-metastases.pdf and please if you still have doubts about it do yourself this test with a patient but sign an agreement with him firstly that’s it.
    The funny part of it is that human nature doesn’t change at all, many years ago Aristotle clained eath was round but a bunch of people believed it was flat so at this time it was consideted and absurd for humanity
    Galileo came after Copernicus but both claimed through his heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe…. well Copernicus died for saying such thing
    I think you shouldn’t denigrate Dr. Tullio Simoncini like creating a blog against him and saying bad things, this is dirt… instead it just keep waiting to see where it is going to end, that’s all

  56. Marcos May 4, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Well from Dr. Simoncini website
    Why do so many people still die of cancer?
    The question that many people ask themselves is why, after so many years of study and research, has cancer not yet been defeated?

    The problem is indeed scientific, but in my opinion it is even more a problem of a cultural and social nature as it represents the very structure of knowledge at the world level – a structure that prevents that freedom of thought and creativity that is capable of finding the right solutions.

    The politicized structure of universities and professional orders which are set up almost as castes, with financing issued only to established institutions that are often almost mummified, and the monopoly of information held by existing political and cultural powers – all these are elements that prevent the most fertile and creative minds of society from having the slightest chance of exploring new paths. This fossilized social attitude is forcing entire populations to exist in a chronic state of fear and suffering when it comes to a disease – cancer – which could be successfully defeated.

    Some time ago a patient with cancer sought my help. As I was explaining my mycotic theory on cancer to her, she commented “This perspective at least gives me the dignity to be ill. An infection makes sense.”

    It seems logical

  57. beatis May 5, 2010 at 5:08 am

    @ Marcos,

    This fossilized social attitude is forcing entire populations to exist in a chronic state of fear and suffering when it comes to a disease – cancer – which could be successfully defeated.

    Do tell us how then, please.

    Btw, it would be good if you read this I think: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4832

  58. beatis May 5, 2010 at 5:22 am

    @ UNKNOWN:

    Is it so hard to do a bit of reading first? The study you have linked to, was discussed here on this blog:

    Simoncini triumphantly presents this study as the proof for the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate against cancer: Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases.

    One important thing the authors of this study report however is that the sodium bicarbonate did not have an effect on the growth rate of the cancer. In other words: it did not destroy the cancer itself. Also, the number of metastases in the sodium bicarbonate group was by no means zero and the mice were not cured. There is an interesting but extremely limited effect here of which the researchers themselves say they don’t know what caused it.

    If proponents of Tullio Simoncini conclude that this study proves sodium bicarbonate can cure cancer and prevents development of metastases, they have not read the article.

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/

    You didn’t bother to read the information on this blog on Tullio Simoncini, you didn’t even bother to read the study you linked to yourself, and yet you know for sure that Simoncini knows the cure for cancer and that everyone who delivers evidence to the contrary does is a bigoted idiot.

    The problem is not that you don’t know the facts, the problem is that you don’t want to know them.

  59. UNKNOWN May 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Dear Beatis
    There are over 40 years of study of cancer, so of course there will have a lot of argument against Dr. Simoncini because his concept about cancer, ends all with those theories about this subject

    I’m tired of reading these articles I have been reading for years I have read and reread and nobody already discovered the cause of cancer just a pile of crap as always and no one can guarantee that someone will survive after chemotherapy that’s what i call “bomb” but this doctor at least showed us on Video the cancer regressed in several cases with a simple treatment because he went straight into the cause of the problem so the method was quick to heal, he is not a clown to appear in public and say he discovered the cause of cancer with no evidence

    Don’t worry I will not bother you at all but next time when you tell us that Dr. Simoncini has no evidence that he can cure cancer on the other hand think that despite years of study there is still no proof of the cause of cancer either

  60. beatis May 8, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    @ UNKNOWN:

    You say: but this doctor at least showed us on Video the cancer regressed in several cases with a simple treatment because he went straight into the cause of the problem

    He showed us nothing of the sort. This video is a pathetic scam:

    You can get an idea of just how dumb this video is by listening to Dr. Simoncini opine in the first couple of minutes of the vide that whenever he sees a cancerous tumor in the body, the lumps are “always white.” He emphasizes this amazing observation several times, so apparently important is it. Yes, that was the observation that supposedly led him to his idea (I refuse to dignify it with the term “hypothesis”) that tumors are in fact due to fungus. In response, the host gushes about how brilliant that is and how obvious it is. Just crush up a mushroom! Of course, it would be a major blow to Dr. Simoncini’s idea, would it not, if not all mushrooms are white/. I suppose that neither he nor the interviewer would be happy to know that a lot of them are brightly colored, which makes their stupid truly burn ever more hot with a bright fungal yellow.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/a_fungus_among_us_in_oncology.php

  61. beatis May 9, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    I find amusing how every “detractor of altmeds” has you as his only source for the “victims” whose track will be lost since you are the last person speaking about them, not a single newspaper.

    Deceived and forgotten. And you find that “amusing?”

  62. pclady June 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    In reference to your comments below:

    “As you can see, adding sodium bicarbonate to the mice’s food causes the urine to be alkalic – with high pH, which appears to stimulate cancer growth.”

    Simmoncelli never said to eat it. Just to the contrary – he says it must be injected directly into the tumor! Even Mercola’s article states:

    “anti-fungal drugs…fungi…can can adapt to a new environment in three to four days…swallowing the baking soda would not work at all. needs to be injected directly into the tumor”

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx

  63. beatis June 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    According to Tullio Simoncini, cancer is actually a fungus – candida albicans to be precise – which can be cured with baking soda (or sodium bicarbonate).

    To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein. Lowering the body’s acidity is supposed to prevent candida albicans = cancer.

  64. jli June 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    [Quote]….he says it must be injected directly into the tumor![Endquote]
    Not in the case of bladder cancer. He recommends instillation of sodium bicarbonate (SB) into the bladder as treatment of bladder cancer. Not injection of of SB into the bladder tumor. The idea is that this alkalinization of the inside of the bladder will kill the bladder cancer.

    And this is not the only cancer type where Simoncini recommends that SB is instilled around the cancer and not directly into the tumor. You only have to read his website to see that this is correct.

  65. JLEG July 8, 2010 at 1:45 am

    About the research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC273585/pdf/jcm00170-0055.pdf it says: “During a 12-month period, 19,457 blood cultures were collected. Yeasts were isolated from 193 cultures derived from 76 cancer patients. Candida albicans or Candida tropicalis accounted for 79% of isolates.”
    It doesn’t mean (at least I don’t understand that way) that they only found 193 yeast from the total cultures, it means that they studied 193 cultures from the total. So, it is misleading to say that they only found yeast in 1% of the total cultures.
    Moreover, at the end they said “…These factors, as well as others unidentified, may explain the paradox of finding some patients with extensive fatal candidiasis who never have positive blood cultures and, conversely, repeatedly obtaining positive blood cultures from other patients.” So, candidiasis wasn’t easy to identify at that time.
    I’m not a supporter of Dr. Simmoncini, I’ve just received today an e-mail about his “miraculous” treatment that leads me to surf the web for information.

  66. beatis July 8, 2010 at 6:55 am

    @ JLEG,

    Simoncini claims that the fungus candida albicans causes cancer.

    To explain the fungus, he argues this is due to “excess acidity” of the body, which allows the fungus free rein.

    Cancer patients undergoing certain types of chemotherapy, e.g. leukemia patients and recipients of bone marrow transplants, sometimes suffer from systemic fungus infection.

    This is caused by the fact that their immune system is seriously compromised by the treatments, making it relatively easy for a fungus to settle and grow.

    A fungus infection is a burden on the system and treatment should start as soon as possible, so as sooner it is detected, the better it is.

    However, as the researchers of the study in question stated, it can be difficult to detect a systemic fungus infection in its early stages.

    In this study, an alternative method to detect systemic fungus infection was tested, to see whether it would be able to find an infection sooner than the methods already in use.

    It appeared the tested method was indeed able to do this, although the difference was not very big.

    In the study in question, 19,457 blood cultures were collected from cancer patients and cultured to see if there was fungus present.

    To be able to establish this with a reasonable degree of certainty, more than one blood sample was collected from each cancer patient.

    In 193 of the 19,457 cultures, yeast (fungus) was indeed found.

    This means that in 19,246 cultures NO fungus was found. (19,457 – 193 = 19,246)

    After further examination, of the 193 cultures with fungus, 79 of these fungi turned out to be candida albicans.

    This means that in less than 1% of cultures there was candida albicans found. The candida albicans which, according to Tullio Simoncini, is supposed to cause cancer.

    I don’t think it is misleading to say that in less than 1% of cultures candida a. was found, as this is what was actually the case.

    Simoncini claims that 79% of cancer patients are infected with candida albicans, and he cites this study to prove his point.

    But that is not what the study says at all, so he simply cannot use it as a proof for his claim.

    Also, given the fact that any fungus infection can be difficult to diagnose, how can Simoncini be so certain that so many cancer patients are infected with a fungus, candica albicans in particular?

    When your immune system is weak, your defences to all kind of harmful intruders are lower. There are a number of cancer treatments that can seriously compromise the immune system, such as the treatments for leukemia, bone marrow transplant in particular. A systemic fungus infection sadly can be a serious side effect of these treatments.

    However, there is no evidence at all that cancer is caused by an infection with candica albicans.

    To sum it up:
    1. There is no evidence that we can compromise our body’s pH by means of diet.
    2. Following a “pH balanced” diet, and taking pH manipulative supplements has no demonstrated relationship to a person’s risk of cancer, or any other serious illness for that matter.
    3. To prove his point regarding candica albicans as the cause of cancer, Simoncini uses a study that does not prove his point.
    4. He confuses cause and effect.

    Whether he claims all these things because he actually is completely witless on the subject, or for other reasons, I have no idea.

  67. Nescio July 8, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Hi LEG,

    I worked in hospital laboratories for more than 20 years, and dealt with blood cultures as part of my job. The large majority of them do not culture anything. When the study says “yeasts were isolated” it means that yeasts grew in the culture.

    Of 19,457 blood cultures taken from cancer patients, fungus grew in only 193 cultures, and candida was the fungus in 79% of those cultures. So it is perfectly true to say only 1% of all the blood cultures examined found candida.

    You are right in saying that 30 years ago blood culture was not as good as it should have been at detecting candida. At the very beginning of the study they write, “Yeasts can be detected in blood cultures of 25% of cancer patients with disseminated candidiasis”. So it is likely that since candida was found in 1% of these cultures, 4% of them actually came from patients with disseminated candidiasis.

    If you look at Simoncini’s website, you will see that he claimed this study proved that 79% of cancer patients were infected with candida. It found no such thing, and he clearly either does not understand or has not bothered to read this study.

  68. Skaag Argonius August 24, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    You are all entitled to speak your minds and hearts, this is after all “The Internets”, the series of tubes and wires… However, I thought it would be appropriate to mention a few important aspects:

    1) We’re discussing cancer here. If you are a cancer patient, the fear of death, and the torrent of emotions, are unimaginable. Please do not forget this, and try and be sensitive about this issue. I’m not saying you are not being or have not been sensitive! I am just saying it’s important to consider taking human emotions and pain and suffering into account.

    2) On the internet there is no censorship (unless you’re in china), and doctors and chemists can discuss the efficiency or inefficiency of methods / products / chemicals / techniques, they discuss it in a dry, academic, and scientific manner. These things do not always go well with patients who are under huge emotional pressure! What do you expect? Cancer, being as popular as it is (unfortunately) is always going to be a subject for heated debate, and it will always invite trolls, false messiahs, pretending scientists, and any junk the internet will summon…

    3) None of you really know enough about anything, to say anything for certain about anything at all. You can only attack a very narrow subject, in which you specialize. To combat something like cancer, requires the cooperation of a large team of doctors and scientists, proper recording of scientific data, many double blind experiments, a lot of money spent, a lot of time spent, a lot of energy, absolutely impeccable organization skills, etc. This is a mammoth effort!! Let’s imagine for the sake of the argument, that in order to prove/disprove a theory, you need 500 people, and 5 years at least? Are they really going to work on Simonchini’s theories? I can understand if they won’t, because he’s just one person, and not even a very respected one (at least not yet! and maybe never!).

    4) I have read some of the referenced pubmed publications, some of them say NO, some say Yes Maybe, and yet some say that in certain concentrations of the chemical, the results do warrant further research. So who’s telling the truth here? Nobody can really tell, because they are all just tiny pieces in a huge puzzle!

    5) Let us not forget that there are many natural cures that for many people work better than synthetic cures. Many of the so called “modern” cures have come from natural remedies. The latter were just researched, and were then mass produced synthetically, because the efficacy of the synthetic product was either at least as good as the natural remedy, or sometimes it surpassed it, but even if it was just a bit less efficient it was still more cost effective to produce. Not everybody in the world has access to all medicinal herbs (some of which must be fresh to have any efficiency at all). What I’m saying here is that even if some Voodoo Priest in Africa was curing cancer right now in the forest of Uma Chuka, the same claims would be made: Where’s peer review? has some doctor verified this? Double Blind tests? Where are those who were cured, we want interviews with them?

    6) Personally, I’ve seen all kinds of cures working, some of them were placebo, yet people were cured (not talking about cancer here, talking about other disease). My wife is a Neurobiologist, and if there’s anything I learned from her, is that science is not as far as I thought it was – The mind and body are not fully understood yet, and it will take us decades to get there. Anyone who claims something is for “sure”, is just full of ego and is a shit head. All you can say is “maybe”, and “probably”, but what you can never argue with, is results! In the end it’s all about “Show me the money”, isn’t it? Until we know absolutely EVERYTHING there is to know about the mind and the body, there will always be a place for “voodoo” cures, because people will keep “trying everything”. In the age when we’ll know everything, there will no longer be a need to “try”, it will be just a matter of implementing the knowledge. The challenge will then turn to the creation of tools, manufacturing techniques, miniaturization, process management, etc.

    7) With any cure or disease, it’s important to have devil’s advocates, as well as blind believers! I believe they are all important, and should exist in almost equal amounts. They both have their job to do, because “Hope” still has value. Without hope, the rate of suicide in cancer patients would rise dramatically. So the way I see it, the world *needs* pessimists and optimists, they are the Ying & Yang🙂

    8) In short, there are many questions to be answered, there are many doubts and fears, but unfortunately, NONE of you above are qualified to answer anything for certain, and I would advise anyone reading this blog, or any other blog, to take everything with a grain of salt, research for yourself, go yourself and talk to patients who tried it, don’t believe ANYONE but your own eyes and logic. Especially if you are sick yourself, and you still value your own life and hope to extend it.

    So my conclusion is, let’s see real interviews with people who were cured by cancer with Dr. Simonchini’s method. Some of the interviews I have read sounded great and promising, even inspiring. As a person who has lost some people to cancer, I can tell you it invokes strong emotions in me, a feeling that all those people may have lost their lives because this person’s discovery was not popular enough or accepted enough. On the other hand, there’s always the skepticism, what if it’s indeed bogus? what if the skeptics are right and this guy is just at it for fame and money? What if Sodium Bicarbonate will actually make the cancer grow faster??

    But if he’s half-smart, is he really at it for fame and money? If he’s an oncologist, can’t he just continue working as an oncologist and make his monthly salary and be happy with it? last I checked, oncologists earn enough to make decent living. Why is this Dr. risking everything to sound his theories to the world? If he’s wrong, surely he will be regarded as a total clown, and lose credibility forever and ever? What if there’s a placebo effect? What if it’s mind and body working together? Surely this is not something you can only check In Vivo? I’m sure you all have opinions on these matters. Unfortunately, the are just opinions!🙂

    With much love, to ALL of you (really!),
    Skaag Argonius.

  69. jli August 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    None of you really know enough about anything, to say anything for certain about anything at all.

    I am a pathologogist, and as such I have a working experience in diagnosing cancer as well as fungus through macro- and microscopy. It is 100% certain that cancer is not a fungus. Why this is so is explained in detail here.

    Are they really going to work on Simonchini’s theories?

    They would if he had presented a decent case series. If you nose around this blog a bit you will find multiple examples of his cases, with explanations as to why they are useless as documentation of effect of his treatment. As for his theory about cancer being a fungus, I hope you will follow the link I gave you above, as it will show you why that theory has been disproven already.

    Many of the so called “modern” cures have come from natural remedies.

    Which should tell you right away that science has no bias against looking into promising effects from natural remedies.

    even if some Voodoo Priest in Africa was curing cancer right now in the forest of Uma Chuka, the same claims would be made: Where’s peer review? has some doctor verified this? Double Blind tests? Where are those who were cured, we want interviews with them?

    Actually only three things would be required to make the oncologists interested:
    1) It had to be certain that the patient actually had cancer
    2) The voodoo would have to be the only treatment used
    3) It had to be certain that the cancer had disappeared.
    I don’t think those requirements are unreasonable

    Anyone who claims something is for “sure”, is just full of ego and is a shit head.

    You can call me anything you will, but that wont change my position that cancer is not a fungus.

    Some of the interviews I have read sounded great and promising, even inspiring.

    That is what they are designed to do. Now you should try if you can find reviews of some of these interviews on this blog. And if you have objections to any of them feel free to discuss them case by case.

    If he’s wrong, surely he will be regarded as a total clown, and lose credibility forever and ever?

    The power of the internet sometimes defeats sound reasoning.

  70. tractoristu November 4, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    This art It’s a fraud. Even the doctors know that a high pH is good to keep away cancer.
    If you are so smart, can youy tel me when chemo cured any cancer, Bozo ?
    Simoncini is right and it’s your job in Cacer Mafia to say that only chemotherapy works and get millions for ” finging ” a protein in my fat ass. You are for money, and leave Simoncini alone !
    I know him.
    You are wrong saying over and over about gene modification. There is no such proof, Bozo ! There is not !
    Simoncini shows that ortodox medicine is a fraud.

  71. Nescio November 5, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    “tractoristu” – thank you for your eloquent and well-argued comment.

    A few points:

    A high pH does not keep away cancer, cancer cells grow in the same range of pH that normal healthy cells grow in. Sodium bicarbonate does not cure cancer, and is no more toxic to cancer cells than it is to normal healthy cells. This is very simple, basic biochemistry, not some mysterious area where doctors and scientists have never experimented.

    Many people have been cured of cancer with chemotherapy, I know several who have been cancer free for decades after chemotherapy. My ex-girlfriend had Hodgkins Lymphoma back in the early 80s and was treated with chemotherapy alone. She is still alive and well.

    Please give us the name and details of a single person Simoncini has cured of cancer. Make sure you include medical evidence that:
    a) they had cancer originally
    b) that they had only Simonicini’s treatment and
    c) that their cancer has completely disappeared.

    Every single one of the cases he claims to have cured lacks at least one of these elements. In other words:
    a) we don’t know if they had cancer in the first place or
    b) they had conventional treatment for cancer or
    c) we don’t know if they have really been cured. A growing number of people he has either treated or who have followed his treatment protocol have died of their cancer.
    I see no reason at all to believe Simoncini’s methods can cure cancer.

    I have never received any money from any drug company ever, and my only motive in commenting here is to try to counteract the ignorant and dangerous nonsense that people like you keep trying to spread. I am sure that the same is true of the blog owner and all regular commenters here.

    No one has paid me anything for “finging” a protein or anything else in your “fat ass” either. I honestly have no idea what you mean by that, but it sounds uncomfortable and I hope you get better soon. Diet and exercise can work wonders!

    Telling us that you know Simoncini personally does not add anything to his credibility, quite the opposite if anything.

    The genetic basis of some cancers is extremely complex, but is now understood in quite a bit of detail. You should really take a look at some real science sometime, you might be surprised at what advances have been made. The National Cancer Institute is an excellent starting place to find out some facts about cancer, not the fairy tales that Simonicini and others tell to the gullible, ignorant and desperate people that they wish to part from their money.

  72. jli November 6, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I know him.

    Yes – It is abundantly clear, that you are the head of his PR-department.

  73. Pingback: OT: Baking Soda and Cancer | cancer cure | Base

  74. Allan Smyth February 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    MR Beatis, Not wishing to join in this discussion other than to ask you what you mean by there are red mushrooms, broken open they are practicably all white/very light brown.
    Your statement does undermine your argument somewhat, I sincerely trust you are right in your other arguments, as if it is found that the subject of cancer being other than a type of fungus, anyone who argues otherwise would deserve to rot in hell.

  75. beatis February 18, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    other than to ask you what you mean by there are red mushrooms, broken open they are practicably all white/very light brown.

    Huh?? I never said that.

    Your statement does undermine your argument somewhat,

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  76. Allan Smyth February 19, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Hi, Beatis,
    Hope you are well, with regards to the above comment, someone mentioned the red mushroom thing, but haven’t time to read through to see where, apologies if it was not you.
    I saw our Italian friend’s Youtube video last year and thought wow, great a brave man fighting the system, and a brave new world without cancer, hoping that it was all true, as you would, then somehow yesterday came across another article here- http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/holistic_alternative_medicine/news.php?q=1209404469
    -even more encouraging, but I thought, this is all too good to be true, googled debunks and ended up here, it was quite late, but tried to follow the thread, which I found most interesting, but there was the comment about the mushrooms, and I thought hang on…..the rest you know.
    My partner used to work at a local hospice, and i have done some fundraising with them, and although my friends and family seem to be very lucky and cancer free, I still find it incredible that there is still no pain free natural cure etc, especially considering the amount of money and resources that have gone into it.
    I work with medical companies quite frequently in my work, and always find it fascinating, often thinking of Bob Dylan’s lyric, “I wish I had been a Doctor, maybe i could save some lives that been lost”
    I think what you are doing is great, to have lived through what you have, and to still find time to try to help others is a wonderful thing, so many would have just wallowed in self pity.
    I hope all stays well, and keep up the good work, there is nothing worse than false hope!
    See you on twitter!
    Best regards
    Allan Smyth.

  77. wilmamazone February 19, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Allen:

    I still find it incredible that there is still no pain free natural cure etc, especially considering the amount of money and resources that have gone into it.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=10761
    Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?

    Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?

    If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we cure cancer?

    If we can harness the atom, why can’t we cure cancer?

    How many times have you heard these questions, or variants thereof? How many times have you asked this question yourself? Sometimes, I even ask this question myself. Saturday was the two year anniversary of the death of my mother-in-law from a particularly nasty form of breast cancer, and, even though I am a breast cancer surgeon, I still wonder why there was nothing in the armamentarium of science-based medicine that could save her from a several month decline followed by an unpleasant death. That’s why, to me at least, the timing of the publication of a study……..
    on the end:

    Does that mean I have no hope? Of course not! Otherwise, I wouldn’t keep doing what I’m doing. I am simply expressing humility in the face of a protean foe that has thus far withstood our best efforts to eradicate it. That does not mean that it will continue to do so. After all, never before have we had the tools that we have now to probe deeply into the biology of cancer at the whole genome level as we do today.

    Still, it will be hard.

  78. mayre February 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Is this blog owned by the big Pharma?

  79. jli February 21, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Is this blog owned by the big Pharma?

    No it isn’t. But why don’t you run a check for yourself, and see if Simoncini is right about his interpretations of the studies or the posters on this blog are.

    It is also worth noting, that the studies on sodium bicarbonate (SB) mentioned above were not financed by the pharmaceuticals. So you have pharmaceutical independent research, meaning that “Big Pharma” has absolutely no control over the data.

    If the data had shown that SB treatment was fantastic, every oncologist would do use it, and save the budgets as well as patients sufferings. And the researchers would become famous and respected. And they wouldn’t even have to credit Simoncini, because he has never presented one single decent case report in a place where it would catch the attention of oncologists.

  80. Nescio February 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    It’s interesting how “Big Pharma” has entered the language. It implies that there is only one huge drug company which ruthlessly controls what treatments are available. This is of course nonsense. There are thousands of companies that make drugs and other things used in medical diagnosis and treatment. All of them are in fierce competition with each other, and do whatever they can to outdo each other in making profits. If any of them found a successful treatment for cancer they could make a huge profit at the expense of their competitors.

    There’s a discussion of this at the science based medicine blog today. Mayre – if you believe that anyone who opposes useless alternative treatments being promoted as cancer cures is in the pay of “Big Pharma” I suggest you read it.

  81. jli February 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    It’s interesting how “Big Pharma” has entered the language.

    Well Nescio, “Big Suppla” is also gaining foothold. And it is abbreviated BS:mrgreen:

  82. Nescio February 23, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    🙂 Big Farmer needs BS?
    The odd thing is that it often the same companies that make both conventional drugs and “dietary supplements”. The only difference is the safety standards each has to comply with. I recently came across some studies that found lavender and tea tree essential oils have estrogen-like and androgen-inhibiting properties that can cause prepubertal boys to develop breast tissue when absorbed through the skin. I can only imagine the outcry there would be if a conventional drug given to children had this side-effect.

  83. beatis February 24, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    You’re a funny lot, you two🙂

  84. jli February 26, 2011 at 11:27 am

    I never thought I would wish, that I could take credit for BS😀

  85. beatis February 26, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    There’s a first for everything.🙂

  86. Pingback: Dr Death – David Icke Exposed

  87. dgkn May 27, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Howdy,

    There is always more than meets the eye to everything. Whether this Simoncini is right or not makes no difference. There are many issues which cause cancer, every case is entirely unique. The first thing that Doctors need to do is look outside the box. This means unity in research between governments and drop the ego. Remember in order to “find” a cure you need to create a new idea. More and more people want to claim fame and bash the one next to him.

    Perhaps we need to look at the wider picture of things. Cancer rates have been rising as with all diseases. What has also been on the rise that we think is good? Food processing? Higher levels of electromagnetic radiation? Higher emotional stresses? More time glued to a screen like this one? Higher noise levels due to city life? Perhaps we need to leave the “laboratory” looking at the smallest details, and instead focus on the picture.

    Just a thought, I mean who am I – not a doctor, not a scientist, no phd. Just your everyday man who constantly questions.

    On a side note, I have tried eating a kind of ph diet (more like eating things that are living instead of dead things… “you are what you eat”) and I must say the experience was pretty good. Heightened energy and endurance, less sleep and overall a clearer mind. Worked for me anyways but I was not trying to cure anything.

    Best wishes😀

  88. beatis May 28, 2011 at 9:52 am

    @dgkn

    If you are really as interested in the subject as you seem, you might want to read The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, by Siddharta Mukherjee.

    Mukherjee is a cancer physician and a researcher. He is an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University and a staff physician at Columbia University Medical Center. A review of the book is here.

    I don’t understand how you can think that it makes no difference whether Simoncini is right or not. The difference is life or death.

    I don’t get the concept of only eating “living” things either. As soon as you harvest anything, it starts to die. I also hope you don’t mean eating you chicken while it is still alive – or a piece of beef for that matter.

  89. mary June 12, 2011 at 9:50 am

    All I can say is that I have known many people who have not survived chemo. Lots of money is generated from this treatment. I for one would not touch it with a barge pole and stopped along time ago supporting the charity for research because they do not realy know what it is and what causes it. I would certainly try something less harsh than a treatment that completely distroys the immune system.

  90. jli June 13, 2011 at 10:00 am

    @ Mary:
    People have already tried to forgo conventional treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation), and opted of alternative therapies. And there are a few followup studies, that document what happens when they do that.

    These studies show that the risk of progression/death significantly increases – most notably in those who refuse surgery, but also in those who refuse additional radio-chemotherapy. None of the cancers shrunk during alternative therapy.

    You can read the summaries of those studies here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16978951
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225354

    And research does pay off. You might like to take a look at how progression has been made in the treatment of childhood cancers: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/childhoodcancer/survival/ Children are not part in screening programs, so what you see is not just a consequence of earlier detection. Research really does save lives.

  91. wilmamazone June 13, 2011 at 10:47 am

    @Mary
    All I can say is that I know many people who have survived cancer by for instance chemotherapy.
    That lots of money is generated from this treatment is spread gossip and the same with the assumption that chemotherapy completely distroys the immune system.
    It’s intimidation and all slander by people who are not competent to deal with these matters.
    There is -cast-iron certainty- no alternative treatment to try out as the oncologist recommend chemotherapy.

    .

  92. Nescio June 15, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I came across this comment the other day:
    “In the UK, there is the “cancer act” to protect patients from the claims of CAM in treating cancer, sadly this is seldom enforced. As a cancer surgeon and professor of medical humanities I can attest to the tragic consequences of patients with breast cancer refusing modern humane treatment in place of barbaric alternatives. I call them barbaric as it allowed me to follow the natural history of untreated disease. Although I rarely endorse the use of mastectomy, if there is one thing more barbaric than radical surgery, it’s the disease itself being allowed to run riot. The cancer leaves behind a rotting stinking ulcer and a swollen arm as the involved lymph nodes block the drainage from the lymphatics.”

  93. Pingback: simple cure for cancer found, but cant be patented - Page 9 - Grasscity.com Forums

  94. Nescio June 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    In the news in the UK, Brian Haw, a protester who campaigned against UK and US foreign policy for ten years, has died of lung cancer. Less well known is that he went to Germany for Tullio Simoncini’s useless baking soda treatment.

    “Mr Haw’s cancer was almost certainly incurable, but rather than spending his final days being cared for by medical professionals in the UK, he was sent to Germany by conspiracy theorists, offered the false prospect of a cure, and was subjected to unnecessary and ineffective treatments.”
    http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/brian-haw-and-the-false-cures-of-quackery/

  95. celeron55 January 16, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Have you people noticed that all of the other studies using sodium bicarbonate are dealing specifically with bladder cancer, while the one finding positive effects does not?

    Can anyone find any any studies that use sodium bicarbonate on some other cancer than bladder cancer? Bladder cancer might well be a special case due to the different PH nature of urine to the overall body.

  96. jli January 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Well – We are not totally in the dark concerning what happens when patients with all sorts of cancer are treated with sodium bicarbonate.

    Waste products of dead cancer cells may precipitate resulting in something called “tumour lysis syndrome”. This is treated with sodium bicarbonate, which helps dissolving these waste products (or keeping them dissolved), thus facilitating their elimination through urine.

    Direct observation of what happens to patients treated for tumour lysis syndrome has not demonstrated benefits in terms of anti-cancer effect of sodium bicarbonate.

  97. serges saliba March 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    sodium bicarbonate provokes the alkalinization of the body creating an ideal environment in which thrive the fungi. Instead of killing fungi bicarbonate sodium makes them proliferate,thus allowing them to contribute to the growth of tumours which are physiological reactions to engulfe the fungi.Dr Simoncini assertion that fungi causes tumours is wright,but his proposal of killing the fungi with baking soda is stupid and ridiculous.Instead of using baking soda to kill the fungi which give birth to tumours,kill the fungi with antifungal herbs such as horopito or oregano oils which are stronger than any baking soda or nystatin in killing tumous causing fungi.

  98. amadeo March 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    fungi causes tumours by attacking the immune system.together with horopito ,oregano oils caprylic acid teattree oils,licorice roots undecylenic acid or castor bean oils take immune enhancing herbs to treat holistically the problem.Baking soda is good for baking bread and treat some hyperacidity of the stomach ,hyperacidity which is useful in killing fungi or keep them under control.killing the acidity of the body will surely make fungi proliferate and cause many problems among them candidiasis and tumours.For Gods sake dont try to swallow huge amounts of baking soda if you dont want fungi bake your immunity.

  99. beatis March 2, 2012 at 7:37 am

    @amadeo/sergessaliba,

    Please don’t post under different names, it is very confusing for our readers.

    As to your claims regarding fungus and cancer: although many fungi produce compounds that are toxic, there is no evidence whatsoever that fungi are the cause of cancer, nor is there even the least shred of evidence that cancer can be cured with herbal therapy, holistically or otherwise.

  100. lindybindi May 3, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Thank you Beatis for setting this blog up, I have found it most edifying!
    I have just been diagnosed with cancer and a friend tried to tell me it was ‘just a candida and that i needed an alkali diet!!’ So I did a little research and find independantly, as well as on here, that it appears that Simoncini’s credentials are dubious and Icke’s supporting him futhers dimishes his credibility. After all who could believe anything from a man who believes the world’s dominated by alien lizards? I feel Simoncini’s ruthless pursuit of money, regardless of the stress and false hope he gives to desperate people, immoral. He would seem to be no more that an old fashioned con man.
    Alternative medicines are by nature holistic and responsible practitioners offer emotional and sometimes practical support for general well being. Any alternative healer stating that they can cure you of anything is not being honest. A balanced healthy diet (with veg and fruit grown by yourself!), exercise and regular laughter is probably more efficacious in the fight against cancer than the nonsense espoused about bs and fungus!!!

  101. annata kondana October 24, 2012 at 10:00 am

    You might be right or wrong on the effects of bicarb but you are being devious about the research. Big pharmaceuticals will never initiate a trail unless they can patent. Bicarb cannot be patented hence the lack of serious dollar rich research.

  102. jli October 24, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Not all research is run by the pharmaceutical industry. If a beneficial effect of Sodium Bicarbonate was suspected from the routine use of it, it would be easy and cheap to conduct a trial without involving the pharmaceutical industry.

  103. GioviAnna October 30, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Another victim of baking soda scam cure, a 27 years old boy with brain tumor: http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/559071/luomo-morto-per-aver-curato-il-cancro-con-il-bicarbonato/

  104. jli October 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    @ GioviAnna
    Very sad report. My understanding of Italian is poor.

    If I understand it correctly, this young man was diagnosed with a brain tumor in june, and opted for Simoncini’s treatment. And he (his family) payed (or told to pay?) 20.000 Euros for infusions of sodium Bicarbonate into the brain. And this took place in Tirana. And during the course of the treatment he developed severe symptoms leading to his death.

  105. GioviAnna October 31, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Yes, the family paid 20.000 euros to Simoncini and the clinic in Tirana (Albania), the boy did the sodium bicarbonate injections and after seven infusions Luca (the name of the poor boy) start to get sick. Another set of infusion and the boy died in another hospital, after few hours of suffering. Luca’s family filed a complaint against Simoncini.

  106. jli November 3, 2012 at 11:53 am

    @ GioviAnna.
    I have added this report to the list on the cancer is not a fungus website: http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160738
    Thank you for posting it. Please feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something.

  107. Anon November 25, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Bicarbonate and dichloroacetate: evaluating pH altering therapies in a mouse model for metastatic breast cancer.

    “Survival was longest in mice administered bicarbonate-based therapies. Primary tumor re-occurrence after surgeries is associated with survival rates. Although DB therapy did not significantly enhance oral bicarbonate, we did observe reduced pulmonary lesion diameters in this cohort. The DCA monotherapy was not effective in reducing tumor size or metastases or improving survival time. We provide in vitro evidence to suggest this outcome may be a function of hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21663677

    Your thoughts?

  108. jli November 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Your thoughts?

    First of all it is an experimental model involving cell lines implanted in immune deficient experimental mice. As explained in another post you can’t conclude directly from such experiments to effects in humans: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/if-it-works-in-a-mouse-it-works-in-a-man-right-well-not-necessarily/

    But we can use such models to look into aspects of biology. A few highlights of the results:
    1) Neither bicarbonate, DCA or a combination of these did anything to the primary cancer => This is not going to be a cure of all cancers.
    2) The body’s pH didn’t change (Figure 1 B)
    3) None of the treatment modalities were able to completely prevent metastasis.

  109. JudyV March 16, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you all for enlightening me. My husband just had a brain tumor removed, and is now dealing with lung cancer that moved to his liver. My daughter found information on T. Simoncini’s baking soda “cure”. When I first read information on it, I must admit I was encouraged by the simplicity of it all, and it seemed to make so much sense. I think that was a cancer fighter’s hope getting in my way. After a while the correct questions popped into my mind, such as if it’s so great, how come no one else is doing it? Now I admit that I didn’t spend a lot of time researching this, but it seemed that all the articles mentioned 1 doctor. Surely if it worked, there would be more than 1. And surely, even if the “big pharma” had such control as to keep this knowledge from us, surely there would be ethical doctors that would buck the system to actually cure people. So when I got up this morning, I looked into debunking the “cure” and stumbled on this blog. If I had any remaining questions about the effectiveness of baking soda on cancer, I have been set straight. I do believe there are holistic remedies and foods that will help my husband as he goes through treatments, and I think I’ll spend my time researching what may help with that. I’ll leave the quackery to the ducks. And one final word… the reason I found this blog is because my husband has cancer. I’m assuming, tho maybe I shouldn’t, that other people who find this blog are going through something similar. The Simoncini supporters believe you scientists have a closed mind to this treatment, and are all in a giant conspiracy. To all his supporters who find this blog, I ask you to keep an open mind yourself. I believe beatis, jli, etc would be happy to report a cure for cancer. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge.

  110. Pingback: Does research at University of Arizona show that drinking baking soda cures cancer ?? | Anaximperator blog

  111. Victor December 5, 2013 at 5:20 am

    The book “CANCER IS A FUNGUS” is a revolution in the treatment of tumors. Tullio Simoncini, M.D., Oncology has and is developing medical procedures to administer the anti-tumor agent directly to the tumor. His work compliments 1931 Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg’s research. Dr. Warburg observed that when tumors were encountered in the body the tumor always existed in an acidic environment. Dr. Simoncini’s treatment protocol takes advantage of Dr. Warburg’s observation to cause the tumor to regress.

    “Otto Warburg and Mark Plank got a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1936 by proving cancer cannot exist in an alkaline, oxygen-rich environment.” Dr. Leonard Coldwell

    Is cancer a fungus? This is a good question; let’s look at some interesting facts.
    A fungus gets its energy for life by fermentation. The human body gets its energy from respiration. Now, when weight lifting is used in order to build up the body the person may experience muscle pain due to the build-up of lactic acid in the muscle. This situation occurs because the muscle cells have changed from respiration
    to fermentation to get the energy due to the stress the person is putting on the muscles. There is a lack of oxygen in the muscle; the person is forcing the muscle to work (lift the weight). Mind over matter. So matter changes the process by which it gets energy in order to submit to the will of the person. Cancer cells get their energy for their life by the fermentation process. And the fermentation process produces lactic acid. Cancer cells and fungus cells live by the fwermentation process which produces an acidic environment. An acid will react with a base to neutralize the base; in like manner, a base will react with an acid to neutralize the acid.

    Sodium bicarbonate is a base and it reacts with acids to form the sodium salt of the acid and carbonic acid (surprised!?). Carbonic acid is what is formed when carbon dioxide is bubbled into water. Carbonic acid is an interesting substance because when it is formed it breaks apart into carbon dioxide and water; two neutral substances. So, in effect sodium bicarbonate neutralizes acids and leaves the salt of the acid, carbon dioxide and water behind; this destroys the acidic environment in which tumors exist. This occurs regardless of whether the tumor is a fungus or a normal cell turned to fermentation for its energy source.

    In conclusion, it is the neutralization of the acid that destroys the acidic environment while simultaneously creating an alkaline environment around the tumor that gives validity to the use of sodium bicarbonate as an anti-tumor drug.

  112. Krebiozen January 4, 2014 at 12:35 am

    I’m not sure why WordPress decided to alert me to this comment almost a month later, but anyway:

    Is cancer a fungus? This is a good question;

    No, it is a spectacularly dumb question, unless you are contacting us through a time portal from around a century ago.

    Yes, sodium bicarbonate neutralizes acidity, but since there is no pH that kills cancer cells while not affecting normal cells this isn’t very useful. The acidic environment in some tumors is the result of cancer, not the cause.

  113. beatis January 4, 2014 at 11:18 am

    @Krebiozen

    It may be a dumb question to you, but for someone with a limited knowledge of cancer who is considering such a treatment, it is a very important question.

  114. JLI January 4, 2014 at 11:23 am

    Leonard Coldwell is not a doctor. And the Warburg effect is misunderstood by many alt medders. To recapitulate: The warburg effect is the phenomenon that cells can degrade glucose by glycolysis only – even when oxygen is available for carrying the products of glycolysis through citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. This is prominent in many cancers. The slightly acidic microenvironment of the tumours is a result of this – Not a prerequisite for survival of the cancers. We have discussed glucose metabolism in cancers in further details here.

  115. Krebiozen January 7, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    Beatis,

    It may be a dumb question to you, but for someone with a limited knowledge of cancer who is considering such a treatment, it is a very important question.

    Perhaps. I’m just extremely frustrated by how often I see this nonsense repeated no matter how many times it is refuted.

  116. beatis January 7, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    So am I – frustrated I mean. So much so in fact that I haven’t been able to blog for over a year.

  117. JLI January 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    It is frustrating. But I don’t think our refutations are wasted efforts. I do receive a thank you on the cancer is not a fungus website now and then. And the number of clicks per week has dropped from about 800 in the first year and a half to now a little less than 600 a week.

    It is possible that this is because our information does have an impact – even if it is not as big as we would have hoped. And I also think that these sites have at least reduced the interest for Simoncini in the Netherlands as well as elsewhere.

  118. Krebiozen January 8, 2014 at 1:00 am

    Beatis,

    I miss your blog posts. I used to comment here using the ‘nym Nescio, but another Nescio popped up on the sceptic blogosphere so I changed names to reduce confusion. I mostly hang out at Orac’s place these days.

    You may remember you very kindly helped me get some information when my mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago. She finally passed away last year, having refused any treatment apart from oestrogen blockers, and lived two years longer than predicted, despite self-medicating with whisky and cigarettes. If she had taken some quack remedy she would no doubt be part of a testimonial somewhere😉

  119. beatis January 8, 2014 at 8:43 am

    @Krebiozen

    I do remember very well, good to hear from you. I’m sorry about your mother-in-law, but I hope the whisky & cigarettes made her final months somewhat more bearable.🙂

  120. TruthInterest April 6, 2015 at 1:15 am

    I know two people personally that have pushed back cancer using either the Simoncini or Alkaline method. One had an inoperable tumor in the chest and shrunk it using a port with the sodium bicarbonate solution. The other friend who is in her 70’s pushed back cancer that was in the breast and bones using the alkaline diet. Evidenced by her PET scan. Simoncini seems to admit that his method does not work with all cancers which leads me to believe he is NOT 100% correct about what cancer is. The anti-bicarbonate research that is represented here does not representative of all cancers, mostly bladder. I really do appreciate people here being willing to question the claims of alternative medicine where they are weak. Thank you.

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: