Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

9 Questions that Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims – Plus 9 Answers and Some Counter Questions

Although the article referred to in this post is about vaccines and not cancer, we still think it is very relevant, as it clearly shows the methods applied by many altmeds to discredit science and scientists.

On his website, David Mihalovic, who describes himself as a naturopathic medical doctor specializing in vaccine research, asks 9 questions about vaccines which he claims no vaccine-expert can answer.

Well, Mark Crislip on Science-Based Medicine does answer them – and at the same time presents some counter questions to be answered by David Mihalovic.

Distorting science, ignoring or flat out denying the knowledge it has yielded, caricaturing scientists – as is done in David Mihalovic’s 9 questions – sadly seems to be the norm in altmed circles, whether they talk about vaccines, cancer, or any other serious health issue. That’s why we think it’s so important that you read Mark Crislip’s article, even if it’s not about cancer.

The subject may vary, but the method is always the same: distort, deny, ridicule. Buyer beware!

43 responses to “9 Questions that Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims – Plus 9 Answers and Some Counter Questions

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Blogpost: Nine Questions -- Topsy.com

  2. That guy May 9, 2010 at 1:29 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.

    I also find amusing how bicarbonate is actually essential for chemo.

    Last, but not least, I find amusing how subitramine was distributed to obese people when it was very clear that expected and known side effects (looks like death was an unknown side effect) were quite dangerous to obese people.
    You don’t want high blood pressure among other things for a patient that suffers obesity.

    If you so desire, we can talk more in the future, but I doubt it.

    And I DO HAVE a “patient” of subitramine, with lots of “unknown and unexpeced” side-effects. He has yet to be compensated, hell, he has yet to have those side-effects accepted, the guy can’t even walk straight, but he’s a-ok according to “the good nice docs like you”.

    As for vaccines: How much of those did we need for our last epidemic of pandemic proportions?

    Did they have any side-effects? ANY AT ALL? Why does a vaccine have side-effects on the first place?

    And why do I have the feeling that this post is going to be erased?

  3. beatis May 9, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    And why do I have the feeling that this post is going to be erased?

    Yes, why indeed?

    The only comments we don’t allow are the ones that are offensive on a personal level.

    As for the sibutramine: you’ve lost me there. I don’t recall us saying anything about that.

    I find amusing how subitramine was distributed to obese people when it was very clear that expected and known side effects (looks like death was an unknown side effect) were quite dangerous to obese people.

    I don’t find that amusing at all.

    I also find amusing how bicarbonate is actually essential for chemo.

    Actually, the use of sodium bicarbonate in chemotherapy has nothing to do with Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda theory. It is used for example in cases of tumor lysis syndrome. This is side effect of leukemia therapy that occurs when there is a rapid breakdown of leukemia cells caused by chemotherapy drugs. The cells split apart and release substances into the bloodstream that can damage the kidneys, heart, and nervous system. Therefore, acute leukemia patients are monitored for this syndrome and, if necessary, may receive extra fluids, sodium bicarbonate, and allopurinol (drug used to reduce uric acid in the blood) to rid the body of unwanted chemicals and cell remains. The sodium bicarbonate does nothing against the cancer.

    Why does a vaccine have side-effects on the first place?

    That’s merely begging the question – or trolling, if you will. Why don’t you go and try to find out for yourself – that is, if you don’t know the answer already, which I’m sure you do.

  4. That guy May 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Oh, and by the way, one of your victims, is no longer a victim:

    http://journeytowardhealth.blogspot.com/

    So much for that murder. Huh? Must be placebo effect. Of course! how could I doubt it?

  5. beatis May 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    I have to disagree with you there, we don’t think it was a placebo effect, there’s no such thing as a placebo effect being able to cure cancer.

    Right from the moment we read that she would undergo a lumpectomy in Italy, we hoped that this would do the trick and rid her of her cancer. There’s a good chance it did, provided she didn’t already have mets and the operation was performed well, i.e. that the margins were clear.
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/simoncinis-lucrative-little-scam/#comment-1092
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/career-boost-for-tllio-simoncini/#comment-2183

    Simoncini did not perform that surgery btw, as he is not allowed to practice medicine anymore.

  6. beatis May 9, 2010 at 2:18 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?”

  7. That guy May 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    He didn’t?

    http://journeytowardhealth.blogspot.com/2009/05/abundantly-blessed.html

    I am no fool, and I am not going to claim that this man is a genius, I will however state that standard medicine is rotten to the core.

    That’s why I mentioned subitramine, wich you don’t find funny, but my bud here sure is having a laugh about it. You know, he used to be obese but healthy, now he’s obese and very sick, not a good change.

    ANYTHING that seems to work, is worth some study. Be it fungus or some other reason wich may have been overlooked. Chemo… is something we want changed.

    As for my vaccine question:

    http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/07/swine-flu-health-expert-warning/does-virus-vaccine-increase-risk-of-cancer.html

    Is this person a shady individual? I do not know, so I must ask (he probably is, he’s a politician).

  8. beatis May 9, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Simoncini is not attached to a hospital, as he has been struck off. No hospital would run the risk of having him perform surgeries. He may have been present in the OT, but he definitely did not perform the surgery.

    There is no indication that cancer is a fungus. However, in spite of this, sodium bicarbonate as a cure for cancer has been studied, but it turned out to be ineffective against cancer.

    As far as I know, the flu vaccine was made with virus that was cultured in fertilized hen’s eggs, as is the usual procedure. But even when cancer cells are used in a growth medium, this does not mean that a vaccine contains cancer cells.

    I don’t know whether this person is a shady individual. He doesn’t seem to know how the virus for the vaccines is produced.

  9. That guy May 9, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Correct, he cannot do it, but he can apply his procedure using others. If I pick somebody’s hand, and pull the trigger, I’m still the murderer.

    Indeed there is no such indication… but some cancers may respond to this for OTHER reasons, then it would make some sense, apart from the fact that it might affect other things that have been overlooked, do read on, our protagonist didn’t just go home and that’s it, she then went into a diet. I believe both the diet and something in Simoncini’s procedure may have been very helpful and we are not aware of how the procedure went.

    As for the vaccine, that person is a doctor (epidemiologist too I must add), and he seems clean to me, he has much to lose making such statements and I don’t see yet what he could possibly earn trough ostracism.

    Regarding how the virus is produced… I think you meant the vaccine… didn’t you? Well, we can’t just ignore his words, it was big news back on the day when the Chancellor of Germany aswell as other important people were said to be receiving a different vaccine. This doesn’t make people comfortable about vaccines. And that person wasn’t exactly there visiting, that used to be his job.

  10. beatis May 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    @ That guy:

    Correct, he cannot do it, but he can apply his procedure using others. If I pick somebody’s hand, and pull the trigger, I’m still the murderer.

    Yep.

    I believe both the diet and something in Simoncini’s procedure may have been very helpful and we are not aware of how the procedure went.

    So…? Isn’t it Simoncini’s duty to find this out before making any claims?

    Regarding how the virus is produced… I think you meant the vaccine…

    I believe virus is needed for making vaccines. The virus is grown in hen’s eggs. The whole production process of the flu vaccine is described here: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090806/en/index.html

    @Martin,

    Have the courage my friends, to criticize both parties and to ask : Who benefits?

    In my opinion the only relevant question is:
    “Who can back up their claims with good evidence?”

  11. That guy May 10, 2010 at 1:08 am

    It is indeed Simoncini’s duty to find out, or rather it would, as he’s very clearly operating in dark gray areas, but that is not the important issue, the important issue is that there seems to be claims on sucess, whatever has caused this, must be studied carefully by other people, I know there has been research, but maybe that research has been taken on a very straight basis, let’s not forget “thinking outside the box”.

    Not even the U.S military can mantain a façade for long, so he couldn’t unless he’s meeting some sucess. That’s what should be looked into.

    You usually need a virus for a vaccine, you don’t exactly make the virus ‘as is’ however, you do need a weakened (read inactive) or even a dead one, enough so the human immune system can identify the new patogen and prepare itself for the new threat, but it must not be a threat by itself, serious side-effects in a vaccine are something to be worried about. Of course there are other types of vaccines, and not all of them need a virus, in some cases just part of it is necessary. I believe that Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, being in the position he was, knew about the whole process more than us, of course he could have motivations to lie, but so does everybody.

    Regarding this:

    ‘Have the courage my friends, to criticize both parties and to ask : Who benefits?’

    When there’s a profit to make, sometimes you can’t even trust your own family.

    The way I see it, WE should be the ones getting any benefits, that is: better healthcare. The problem is: economics + science + politics don’t mix well; wich is the reason why I keep an open mind regarding every possibility.

  12. beatis May 10, 2010 at 5:55 am

    It is indeed Simoncini’s duty to find out, or rather it would, as he’s very clearly operating in dark gray areas, but that is not the important issue, the important issue is that there seems to be claims on sucess, whatever has caused this, must be studied carefully by other people, I know there has been research, but maybe that research has been taken on a very straight basis, let’s not forget “thinking outside the box”.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that “cancer” is the fungus candida albicans, as Simoncini claims (he conveniently ignores the fact that there are more than a 100 different kinds of cancer), but there is an abundance of evidence that it isn’t. There is no evidence or even an indication that sodium bicarbonate can cure cancer. There is no evidence to suggest that our body’s pH correlates with serious diseases like cancer, as Tullio Simoncini also claims. We know for a fact that Tullio Simoncini has not been able to provide science with even one verifiable case of cancer cure or regression due to sodium bicarbonate. So what on earth should be studied carefully now? And what does this “thinking outside the box” constitute here??

    Not even the U.S military can mantain a façade for long, so he couldn’t unless he’s meeting some sucess. That’s what should be looked into.

    He can only maintain a façade toward people who do not know or do not want to know the first thing about cancer. Everyone else has known for years that this man’s theory is nonsense.

    You usually need a virus for a vaccine, you don’t exactly make the virus ‘as is’ (…)
    I believe that Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, being in the position he was, knew about the whole process more than us, of course he could have motivations to lie, but so does everybody.

    I know how vaccines work. However, in order to obtain a weakened or dead virus, you must have a virus to begin with. As far as I know, there were no cancer cells in the flu vaccine. I have no idea why Dr Wodarg made this statement, so I suggest you ask Dr Wodarg himself why he did this.

    Regarding this:
    ‘Have the courage my friends, to criticize both parties and to ask : Who benefits?’
    When there’s a profit to make, sometimes you can’t even trust your own family.
    The way I see it, WE should be the ones getting any benefits, that is: better healthcare. The problem is: economics + science + politics don’t mix well; wich is the reason why I keep an open mind regarding every possibility.

    Given all the evidence to the contrary, I do not consider Simoncini’s theory a possibility. Not just any claim made by just anyone is a possibility.

    I still think “who benefits” is not the most relevant question to ask if you want to know which claims are true and which aren’t. Asking this question can help you find out who is making money over something, but it doesn’t automatically imply that the ones making money are by definition always liars.

    Therefore we should ask who can back up their claims with good evidence. We should look at what is being said, rather than to who is saying it.

  13. That guy May 10, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Not exactly what I mean, you see, most people who have resorted to Simoncini have also seeked the aid of other treatments, so it would have worked with those other treatments, not as a cure, but as a benefical addition. This is what should be looked into. As I said before, do read on, she later on went into a diet, still with a positive. If all it takes is some mental hygiene, a specialized diet and some bicarbonate, I.E. working in a similar way it would in standard chemo, I think it’s worth looking into.

    Of course you do need a virus, but you do not make it, you modify and/or study the live one. I don’t know either why did he make that claim, but different vaccines for different people smell bad. And he worked there, so he must know something. If anything, he claimed that the whole pandemic alert was irrational, and it has turned out to be.

    Indeed we should ask who can back up their claims with good evidence, and then we should really check out that evidence. But sometimes evidence is just a clue. This is how science has always evolved.

    Seen this before? Let’s back it up with evidence, we could use math…

  14. That guy May 10, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Oh yeah, forgot to mention this:

    ‘ the virus is mixed with a standard laboratory virus strain and the two are allowed to grow together’

    This is not a standard procedure. That would be classified as experminetal procedure. One I dislike.

  15. jennyj0 May 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    That is standard procedure.

  16. anaximperator May 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    How can something that doesn’t work at all, be beneficial?

    It seems you simply cannot accept that there’s nothing in Simoncini’s theory. The man must somehow be deluded: he doesn’t have a shred of evidence for his claims, and even worse: he seems absolutely clueless about cancer.

    As for diets, supplementation and cancer: again there is no evidence that a diet like Mrs Hasz has been following, does anything against cancer. Excessive supplementation is not a good idea, as it this has been shown more than once to stimulate cancer.

    As for cancer cells in vaccines: there are NO cancer cells in vaccines. Cancer cells can be used as a growth medium for viruses, but that doesn’t mean there are cancer cells in the vaccine – and this wasn’t what Wodarg said either btw. He feared allergic reactions due to the fact that animal (cancer) cells had been used. Other people seemed to fear that the vaccine contained animal cancer cells, which in turn would cause cancer in humans.

    Btw it is perfectly normal to use cancer cells for the production of vaccines.

    I have no idea why the German government decided to use two different vaccines. The one contains adjuvants, the other doesn’t. Apparently the German government wanted certain categories to have the vaccine without adjuvants – perhaps because only one shot was needed – but as far as I’m concerned both vaccines are equally effective.

  17. That guy May 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Sure thing.

    In wich group would you classify it then?

  18. anaximperator May 10, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    ?? In which group? Classify what?

  19. That guy May 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Firstly, you seem to miss my point anaximperator. I don’t claim it’s a cure, I do claim that it may have been helpful as a sum of OTHER procedures.

    As for Mrs H’s diet… it was fasting if I am not mistaken, not excessive supplementation.

    As for cancer cells in vaccines: I know how to read, thank you.

    You have no idea why the German government did that, neither do I, but I think both of us know that such things make the population uneasy. And yes, allergic reactions are in my book more dangerous than this virus in particular.

  20. That guy May 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    I was talking to jennyj0 in that post, anax.

  21. anaximperator May 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    No I don’t miss your point. You claim that something may or may not have been helpful. And I say there is no evidence that the lifestyle Mrs Hasz has been following and/or baking soda do anything against cancer.

    As for Mrs H’s diet: fasting was only one of the things she did. She did excessive juicing, raw food, and excessive supplementation as well:

    THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2008

    It has now been six months since I started this journey and almost everything in my life has changed. My diet and lifestyle are completely different: No meat, no dairy (other than occasional goat cheese and goat yogurt), no sugar, no white flour, limited amounts of fruit and high volumes of vegetables and fresh vegetable juice. In addition to taking exorbitant amounts of supplements, I’ve changed every product I use from shampoo to laundry detergent to avoid chemicals and carcinogens. I work very hard at getting eight hours of sleep each night, have become an avid runner and I read astronomical amounts of information about health and nutrition. I’m not even sure I recognize myself anymore!

    Are you sure you can read?🙂

  22. That guy May 10, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    That does indeed make sense, and it’s still fasting. I heard starving is bad for you.

    “I work very hard at getting eight hours of sleep each night, have become an avid runner and I read astronomical amounts of information”

    I’d also call this a sort of mental hygiene, as well as good habits. In the end, she’s healed, and that is what is important to me.

    I’m surprised at how men and women of science are so closed minded sometimes.

    I’m not sure I’m making myself understood, and I’m the one to blame, I don’t get along with docs usually.

    Let’s try to sum this up:

    a) I do not think Simoncini is some kind of prophet or genius.

    b) I do not think Bicarbonate is a marvellous cure.

    c) I don’t trust you either.

    I do see however, that this woman is healed, and I am aware that between lies some truths are to be found, so yes, I do believe further study is needed, as it may bring unexpected results, note that I am citing Simoncini as an example, but I also mention that those who seek his aid do follow it up with other people’s aid; that’s not just sodium bicarbonate, there are more things involved, how they would interact, I’m not sure, but I think it’s worth a look.

    Seen the double split experiment? That’s an impossible right there for you to see.

  23. anaximperator May 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    You can think whatever you like.

    I think that of all the things Mrs Hasz did, the lumpectomy she underwent is most likely to have done the trick.

    I fail to see what more you want us to study: research into the relation between diet and cancer is ongoing, as well as research into the effects on cancer – and other diseases as well for that matter – of vitamins, minerals etc.

    Numerous studies have been done into the effect of sodium bicarbonate on cancer, but they have yielded no positive results.

    Hundreds of thousands of pathological studies have failed to show that cancer is the fungus candida albicans.

    Numerous studies have resulted in effective medication for systemic fungus infection, but sodium bicarbonate is not one of them.

    Numerous studies have shown juicing and fasting to be bad for your health.

    Numerous studies have shown that exercise can lower a person’s risk of developing cancer.

    Numerous studies have shown no evidence that exercise can cure cancer.

    Numerous studies have shown that excessive supplementation is not effective in preventing or curing cancer and that in a number of cases it even causes cancer.

    Now who’s close minded again?

  24. wilmamazone May 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    @That guy

    I do see however, that this woman is healed

    You can’t see that this woman is healed, you only want to believe she is. This story is not one of possibly unexpected results!
    Scientists know better than to do something that only wastes precious time and money.

  25. That guy May 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    @anaximperator

    I am aware, the lumpectomy was done, but still she was giving a positive, now it’s a negative according to her oncologist.

    I am aware also that this research is being done, we have people operating in very dark gray areas and claiming results, this can be useful, that’s what I’m saying.

    b) I do not think Bicarbonate is a marvellous cure.

    And I was unable to read…

    ‘Now who’s close minded again?’

    You, you don’t even read…

    @wilmamazone

    Yes, both me and her oncologist want to believe, let’s call Mulder.

    ———————————-

    By the way:

    ““True” knowledge is attainable only for those who are capable of thinking “outside the box” – box being the “mainstream paradigm of science,” and faith is a prerequisite for being able to think outside the box, a thing scientists are not very good at, given their deplorable lack of faith.”

    Nice indoctrination.

    What does faith have to do with being versatile and creative with your thinking?

  26. beatis May 10, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    When one is diagnosed with a cancerous tumour, the first thing that needs to be done is to remove the cancer asap. Surgical removal of the cancer is the primary and most effective treatment for solid cancers and in many cases brings about a complete cure, even without adjuvant therapies.

    Making cancer patients believe that surgery is not necessary is extremely dangerous, for the longer the cancer remains, the more time it has to spread and go from curable to incurable. Thank God Beth eventually consented to a lumpectomy. Provided the cancer had not yet spread, there’s a good chance the lumpectomy did the trick and I sincerely hope this will turn out to be the case.

    But Simoncini’s advice caused her to lose valuable time, a thing no cancer patient can afford, and it might well have gone terribly wrong. She should have had the lumpectomy right away, like her oncologist advised. In waiting that long she took a huge risk, all on the unfounded belief of Mr Tullio Simoncini.

  27. wilmamazone May 11, 2010 at 5:59 am

    By the way:

    ““True” knowledge is attainable only for those who are capable of thinking “outside the box” – box being the “mainstream paradigm of science,” and faith is a prerequisite for being able to think outside the box, a thing scientists are not very good at, given their deplorable lack of faith.”

    By the way:

    The insinuation of not being able to think “outside the box” is a customary bromide, fobbing someone off with a fatuous reply. It’s almost slander to say so!

  28. anaximperator May 11, 2010 at 7:07 am

    @ That guy:

    This may make some nice reading for you: an example of the close mindedness of scientists and their incapacity of versatile and creative thinking and thinking “outside the box:”😉
    http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2010/05/his_find_became_tumors_nemesis.html

  29. That guy May 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    @ Beatis:

    I agree, the fact that I am interested in heavier and even wider research doesn’t mean I disregard what for the moment works.

    @ anax:

    Precisely, that is the kind of thinking I admire and hope to see working on cancer, that man stepped forward.

    I think others should, since there are claims on sucess on some of the people following Simoncini and other altmeds advice afterwards, those researching such areas should have a look at those individuals and gather data from them, instead of just bashing on the “prophets”; there is more to earn from that than for bashing, wich is what the laws are there for.

    I know that you are angry at the professional intrusion, you are for some reason always pissed off in fact; but as long as there are claims on sucess, data on the sucessful cases should be gathered because it’s going to help research, and if they are fake you’ve got a jailed criminal already.

  30. jli May 14, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    It’s almost slander to say so!

    And it is also demonstrably wrong. The history of medical science is full of examples of how dogma fell, after data was provided showing those dogma to be wrong.

    but as long as there are claims on sucess, data on the sucessful cases should be gathered because it’s going to help research

    Well you don´t have to look further than this blog to see many examples of why Simoncinis testimonials are not worth taking seriously. In an older post you can even explore one of the cases yourself. The post contains a link to a couple of CT-scans presented by Simoncini as evidence of effect. You might like to explore the CT-scans yourself before reading the answers in the post which can be found here.

    Given the many examples of obviously deceitful testimonials in combination with a demonstrably wrong idea, I think it is fair for the researchers to regard further investigation of this as a complete waste of time.

    and if they are fake you’ve got a jailed criminal already.

    Then why do alternative practitioners/proponents need a disclaimer saying in effect that they are not giving medical advice, and people should not pay attention to the information presented on the website but should rather consult a real doctor?

  31. That guy May 17, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Jli… I already said I wasn’t a fan of the guy, I’m just citing him as an example of all others, as for legal issues, if someone is faking results and presenting them as facts and such, that’s quite illegal, at least where I live. So, if we DO have people who got cured following such treatments I think it wouldn’t be very demandig to question them a bit, would it? As I said, something simple may have been overlooked, and might actually be a nice clue.

    As for the disclaimer, with all due respect doc, that disclaimer looks to me like that document you hand to your patients to sign if they are going through surgery so you don’t get sued if something goes wrong -I think I have one of those actually-.

    As I stated before, I don’t trust them, and I don’t trust you either, as I can’t trust somebody who is telling me that I have no guarantees of survival if I have to go through surgery, wich is why he is asking me to free him of any responsibility, and of course I cant trust people like Andreas Moritz (¿Like it better now that I’m citing somebody else?) wich is a person that states: Mens sana in corpore sano, and if you get hurt, it’s your fault for not having a mens sana, also if you get shot do smile at it, because a mens sana is going to make your corpore sano by all means.

  32. jli May 17, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    I already said I wasn’t a fan of the guy, I’m just citing him as an example of all others

    True, but not being a fan is not the same as regarding someone as a crook. Besides I only used him to illustrate that not all cases of miraculous cures are worth spending time on.

    if someone is faking results and presenting them as facts and such, that’s quite illegal, at least where I live.

    Evidently that is not stopping them.

    As for the disclaimer, with all due respect doc, that disclaimer looks to me like that document you hand to your patients to sign if they are going through surgery so you don’t get sued if something goes wrong

    I don´t treat anybody with anything for any condition. But I have tried to undergo surgery (not for cancer though), and so has several of my relatives (also for cancer). Where I live we don´t sign any such documents. But risks and benefits of surgery are explained by/discussed with the surgeon.

    I can’t trust somebody who is telling me that I have no guarantees of survival if I have to go through surgery

    That is your choice. I don´t trust anybody who claim they have invented a miraculous cancer cure based on an idea that is demonstrably wrong.

  33. beatis May 17, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Same in my country; during my entire cancer treatment I didn’t have to sign one single document. In fact, never in my whole life was I asked to sign anything by a doctor. The surgeon however spent over an hour explaining the whole procedure of mastectomy and node dissection etc. And before my chemo started my husband, daughter and myself had an appointment with the nurse practitioner in which she explained everything one could possibly need to know about everything pertaining my chemotherapy. Now I may have been lucky with such considerate doctors and nurses, but even so, we never have to sign anything.

  34. wilmamazone May 17, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    During my entire cancer treatment I also didn’t have to sign one single document. Always time for explaining everything and asking questions. After that you give your permission or not.

    Guarantees for 100% can never be given or make demands on, that’s an illusion.

  35. jli May 17, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    I am not convinced that signing such a document as described is a good idea. It sort of signals that the doctor doesn´t trust his patients, and then it is somewhat understandable that some patients will react with mistrust towards the doctor. What you two experienced is much more fruitful – in my opinion.

  36. That guy May 19, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    That’s were my distrust comes from, after all, there are no 100% guarantees of course, but if you are presented with such a document, and for something that I ended up doing myself (pretty trivial, and not really surgery but more like ‘military first aid’) doubt grows, and it does a lot. (No it wasn’t cancer, I’m not braindead).

    I believe you are a pathologist, Mr Jli, hence why ‘doc’, I am in no way accusing you of anything, should this thoughts paint your linens. Apologies if you misunderstood me, wich I guess is pretty easy, my english isn’t the best.

    It’s not stopping them, until the right people get solid grounds and a chance I have to add, still, I must insist that if there is people who got cured, they should be asked some questions and see what comes up, remember: those who follow such treatments do not go after just one of them, they try a plethora of different things, some knonwn, some unknown -and solid grounds in my country’s case may come from this actually so if anything, you at least stop a criminal-.

    As for Beatis and Wilmamazone, what can I say, I’m glad you don’t have to deal with such shady procedures as I had to.

    Anyway, I’ll be more civil in the future, you’ve passed the first trust check. You did however sound pretty… inquisition-like, hence my approach.

  37. beatis May 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Anyway, I’ll be more civil in the future


    No offense taken; we’re known to have been not very civil at times ourselves – except for jli of course, as he is the most tactful person one could ever imagine.🙂

  38. jli May 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    I believe you are a pathologist, Mr Jli

    Yup, And it is okay to call me doc😀

    I am in no way accusing you of anything,

    No problem – I just interpreted the you in “…looks to me like that document you hand ….” as meaning me. Thats why I only clarified that I don´t actually see patients. And your sentence was correct english as far as I can see (not my native language either).

    I must insist that if there is people who got cured, they should be asked some questions and see what comes up

    And that is where we find our source of disagreement. I think we both agree on the statement as it is. But it is my impression that we differ in opinion as to which testimonials are worth exploring further. I could write a detailed explanation on my position, but it is explained much better at this site. It gives a good overview of what can be wrong with testimonials.

    except for jli of course, as he is the most tactful person one could ever imagine

    Well- I have tried to be a bit grumpy once. I´m just not very good at that🙂

  39. That guy May 23, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Yes, that leaves a very small sample of data to be collected, so it wouldn’t be much of a hassle.

  40. beatis May 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    No, indeed it wouldn’t, therefore I don’t understand why Simoncini just hasn’t done this already. After all, as he been treating these people, he has all the relevant data. I really don’t understand why he keeps fobbing us off with nothing more than testimonials.

  41. That guy May 24, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Because he’s a shady guy who just wants to make money and is pretty aware of the fact that when it comes to medicine most people are at disadvantage?

    That’s why I’m such a loving and trusting person🙂

  42. beatis May 24, 2010 at 11:49 am

    That’s why I’m such a loving and trusting person

    That makes us so happy you chose to land here!

    Now, in order to make my day even more perfect, I will go into my garden, look at my roses and savor a big bowl of eton mess.

    See you!🙂

  43. KA August 18, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    Mrs Hasz passed away last week from her breast cancer

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: