Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb? It's only a fungus!

[Sherman Bay]

Here's a small update to this thread from Quackometer. It seems that David Tredinnick, a member of UK Parliament, wants to use state funds for superstitious and unproven medicine, and Simoncini's name came up. From this:

Quote:

Simoncini shows the hallmark of a true quack by claiming cancer has a One True Cause – in this case, cancer is a fungus and can be cured by injections of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). In his native Italy, his medical license was withdrawn and he was convicted of “wrongful death and swindling”.

Moving to the Netherlands, he was investigated after a 50 year old woman died after being injected with baking soda. The Dutch Health Care Inspectorate warned that “the cancer treatment advocated by Tulio Simoncini is ineffective and dangerous”.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

It seems that David Tredinnick, a member of UK Parliament, wants to use state funds for superstitious and unproven medicine,

Hopefully the rest of the parliament members understand, that Simoncinis idea is not only unproven. It is disproven.

[bigred]

They should also understand that said quack should be shot. A person can't get much lower.

[Sherman Bay]

I just took this picture of our local health food store's marquee. The proprietor is the dude who first turned me on to Simoncini's theory when he invited me to a lecture on the subject. Apparently he hasn't changed his tune, and is actively promoting the "cancer is only a fungus" theory.

[Eos of the Eons]

Why would he change his tune? Baking soda is cheap to sell as a false hope.

Too bad Simo's his education is undeniable, and clearly shows he knows better... cancer is our own cells, not fungus.

Too bad others are not as educated and swallow the BS so easily.

[Sherman Bay]

Another update, from The Quackometer...

Quote:

Later this month, the Cancer Health Centre is holding a conference in Totnes [England] with an interesting list of speakers. Attendees will have the pleasure of listening to Dr Tullio Simoncini, who believes cancer is a fungus and can be treated with baking soda, Dr. Robert Verkerk who runs the Alliance for Natural Health, a vitamin pill industry lobby group, and Dr Sarah Myhill, who has recently been battling with the regulators after she was forbidden from prescribing during an investigation into questionable claims on her website.

[brador]

Several years have passed since the start of this thread and I just noticed that the University of Arizona has got a National Science Foundation grant to study baking soda dosing for cancer. I don't suppose a cheap treatment will be found effective. But at least they didn't mention fungus.

[jli]

Originally Posted by brador

Several years have passed since the start of this thread and I just noticed that the University of Arizona has got a National Science Foundation grant to study baking soda dosing for cancer. I don't suppose a cheap treatment will be found effective. But at least they didn't mention fungus.

Here is a link with some information on what it is about: http://engr.arizona.edu/news/story.php?id=429
The idea is not to cure cancers with baking soda alone, but to make them more sensitive to chemotherapeutics. And also to reduce spread.

I do find this quote disturbing:

Quote:

"Patients can actually change their body's pH to make their cancer drugs more effective -- it can be as simple as drinking baking soda....

[MikeAparicio]

Following the many posts in this thread I find paradoxical situations all over...

The general posture is either: Conventional Cancer Treatment is wrong or right... And... Alternative Cancer treatment is wrong or right!

A fact is: Either side is both right and wrong!

Neither Orthodox Cancer Treatment has reached ANY level of confidence nor Unorthodox protocols have been taken seriously and investigated.
Both methods can work or not! Variables are very many, hence, taking the arguments so lightly leads nowhere.
Of course Simoncini's statement on Cancer being a Fungus is misleading.
OF course traditional oncology is erratic and unpredictable.
Simoncini is Italian. Italians speak in emotional, comparative terms:
"Cancer is a fungus" means "Cancer acts and reacts like a fungus"...
Like saying: "William is a donkey", meaning: "William is stubborn and silly"
After all, William is just a person and cancer is a disordered phenomena.

Plenty of biological information describes the relationship between body pH, mainly tumor pH and cellular apoptosis. Also the bio-electronics related to cellular membranes, it's electric potential and permeability suggest a strong influence in cellular weakness and further DNA alterations.

All this requires a serious, non contestant posture, avoiding a premature denial attitude.

Isn't it contradictory to insist and suggest the only way to face the Cancer problem is by using toxic substances? Poison to live!

Saying "Cancer IS a fungus" can really awaken all sort of rejections and block any possible understanding of the idea behind.

Saying: "The only way to "KILL" cancer is the pharmaceutical way"... Is a clear propaganda declaration, induced by huge economical interests.

I strongly believe the whole subject must be faced with an open mind. If orthodox resources insist in the "quackery" behind alternative cancer treatments would sensibly do one of two things:
Either test and prove the alternative method cannot really work or open the door to support parallel research and investigation.

Curiously we find in Internet very FEW statements about the "great success" of Chemo and Radio therapy. At the same time we find lots of testimonies of people stating their recovery and healing by other methods... what is all this?

Implanting in Medical Doctor's minds the idea of a "forbidden taboo", restricting their scientific freedom to explore, reserving it to big medical corporations is of NO benefit for Human Kind.

What if after all, the theory on pH related cancer origin is right?

Where are going to end the so reputed scholastic medical opinions?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Following the many posts in this thread I find paradoxical situations all over...

The general posture is either: Conventional Cancer Treatment is wrong or right... And... Alternative Cancer treatment is wrong or right!

A fact is: Either side is both right and wrong!

No. One side can document that it can actually cure cancer at a higher rate than if you do nothing, and the other side has no documentation. That is a big difference.

Quote:

Neither Orthodox Cancer Treatment has reached ANY level of confidence nor Unorthodox protocols have been taken seriously and investigated.

Orthodox cancer treatment has exactly the level of confidence that the documentation warrants: it is better than nothing. We also have a very good idea why the orthodox treatment works, whereas there is nothing to suggest that the alternative treatments would ever be working better than nothing. Otherwise, the money would come flowing in.

Quote:

Simoncini is Italian. Italians speak in emotional, comparative terms:
"Cancer is a fungus" means "Cancer acts and reacts like a fungus"...

And he wants to be taken serious with an emotional term that is useless for suggesting an effective treatment?

Quote:

Isn't it contradictory to insist and suggest the only way to face the Cancer problem is by using toxic substances? Poison to live!

Who says that? You are aware that some cancers can be prevented by vaccinations?

Quote:

Saying "Cancer IS a fungus" can really awaken all sort of rejections and block any possible understanding of the idea behind.

So why say it?

Quote:

Saying: "The only way to "KILL" cancer is the pharmaceutical way"... Is a clear propaganda declaration, induced by huge economical interests.

Not the least are the economic interests of the patients who want to survive!

Quote:

I strongly believe the whole subject must be faced with an open mind. If orthodox resources insist in the "quackery" behind alternative cancer treatments would sensibly do one of two things:
Either test and prove the alternative method cannot really work or open the door to support parallel research and investigation.

Who closes the doors? The alternative crowd is not prohibited from spending their money and performing the necessary testing. The reason why the money is so hard to obtain from traditional is that the alternative treatments are so obviously based on fantasy, but surely the alternatives can pay for their own testing?

Quote:

Curiously we find in Internet very FEW statements about the "great success" of Chemo and Radio therapy. At the same time we find lots of testimonies of people stating their recovery and healing by other methods... what is all this?

That is because such anecdotes are worthless.

But in case you are interested, I know two people who have been healed by conventional methods, and who are still living many years after the treatment. One was lame and almost given up at the time.

Quote:

What if after all, the theory on pH related cancer origin is right?

In that case it should not be so difficult to produce the necessary documentation.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

I strongly believe the whole subject must be faced with an open mind. If orthodox resources insist in the "quackery" behind alternative cancer treatments would sensibly do one of two things:
Either test and prove the alternative method cannot really work or open the door to support parallel research and investigation.

There is nothing preventing the proponents of these alternative methods from designing, funding and implementing such a study. Why do they not do so?

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Curiously we find in Internet very FEW statements about the "great success" of Chemo and Radio therapy. At the same time we find lots of testimonies of people stating their recovery and healing by other methods... what is all this?

You must be looking in the wrong places. A friend of mine who is in her 20s (I'm not going to name her here, obviously, but anyone who is a facebook friend of mine can easily find her, her initials are T M-K) was told on 26 January 2011 that she had 18-24 months to live at best, following a diagnosis of stage IV (metastasised) breast cancer. After a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and cyberknife treatment (targeted radiotherapy), she is currently in excellent health, with no evidence of active disease. She still has to take medication (Letrazole and a Zoladex implant), but she has defied the doctors' prognosis and despite her treatments has packed a whole lot of living into the last two years, including her wedding and travel all over Europe.

This story just made local news in England, not national news - I only saw this story as a friend of mine knows this woman.

The cancer survivors who have had conventional treatment are all around you; but there's no real news-value in "cancer sufferer treated on NHS, is cured and lives a full life". It doesn't sell papers and it doesn't sell the snake oil that the quack doctors are attempting to peddle. Nobody (particularly in the UK, where healthcare is entirely free at the point of delivery) gets rich from curing cancer by conventional methods. But some people do get rich from promoting nonsense "alternative" cures; just the promoters, mind you. The patients don't get rich, they tend to die.

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Simoncini is Italian. Italians speak in emotional, comparative terms:
"Cancer is a fungus" means "Cancer acts and reacts like a fungus"...

In his video appearances he explains that his main reason to believe that cancers are fungi is, that they are white (a lot of cancers are indeed white). He also points at cancers and say out loud that they are fungal colonies. He states unambiguously that the cells we say are cancer cells in reality are normal reactive cells encasing the cancer (fungal colony). On his website he claims that data from conventional science support his idea.

There is not a shred of doubt that he claims that cancer is a fungus – not just something that acts like a fungus. If you don’t believe that cancer is a fungus, then you don’t believe in Simoncini.

Quote:

Saying: "The only way to "KILL" cancer is the pharmaceutical way"... Is a clear propaganda declaration, induced by huge economical interests.

Saying that this is the only way conventional medicine treats cancer is a clear propaganda declaration, induced by huge economical interests of the cancer quackery business.

Most cancers are cured through surgery. Some are treated with additional radiation and/or chemotherapy. And other types of cancer are treated with chemotherapy alone.

Quote:

Either test and prove the alternative method cannot really work or open the door to support parallel research and investigation.

Those who make the claim should do a fair test. We ask of nothing more. We do however have follow up data on people who opted for alternative therapy for cancer instead of conventional treatment. They are not encouraging - to say the least.

Quote:

Curiously we find in Internet very FEW statements about the "great success" of Chemo and Radio therapy. At the same time we find lots of testimonies of people stating their recovery and healing by other methods... what is all this?

Reliable statistics can be found on the internet, and they tell you that overall cancer cure rate through conventional cancer treatment (which includes surgery) is approximately 60 %.

There are lots of things that may be wrong with alternative cancer cure testimonials:
1) The patients might not even have had cancer
2) The alternative therapy might have been used in addition to conventional treatment
3) The cancer might not have disappeared anyway
4) Some of them might be pure fabrications
Here is a Simoncini testimonial for you to practice your BS spotting skill. Try and take a look at a few CT-scans that allegedly show effects of sodium bicarbonate on cancers. See if you can spot what is wrong with them. You can find the answers here.

Quote:

What if after all, the theory on pH related cancer origin is right?

We do understand a lot more about pH regulation in normal tissue and cancer than you seem to realize. No cells can live in a high pH-state. But cells (cancer cell as well as normal cells) can't live with a low pH inside either. A lot of metabolic processes are going in overdrive inside cancer cells. This result (among other things) in production of hydrogen ions.

For cancer cells to be able to maintain their lives, they have to get rid of these excess hydrogen ions. There are numerous transport mechanisms, that help cancer cells do just that. The extrusion of hydrogen ions leads to a lower pH in the vicinity of the cancer, but this is a result of what goes on inside cancer cells. Not a condition for cancer cells to survive.

In fact some of the transport systems are combined with bicarbonate (a base) in such a way that hydrogen ions will be eliminated inside the cancer cells by reacting with internalized bicarbonate. These cancer cells will consequently thrive better in a (slightly) alkaline environment.

[littleelvira]

By definition, cancer is a cell whose growth mechanism has gone awry. How is cancer diagnosed? A pathologist sees cells with unexpected mitoses.

[MikeAparicio]

I would not go cutting in pieces the last responses, via "quotes", which is a trick to destroy the context of a post.
I recent being called a BSer while I am trying to do my best to communicate ideas while passionate fanaticism is shown by the pseudo-scientist followers.

I find very childish arguments in responses to me.

An obvious one has to do with the argument about "Health care being free in some countries like UK or Canada"... Free? My Goodness! There is NOTHING free. the confusion is between "where the money comes from" and "where the money goes"!
Of course people under a complete health Care System do not pay directly! Taxes do! The social Security offices pay the bill. Hospitals still charge bundles. Not to say Doctors and Oncologists. But those are pennies compared to the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
It is really candid to think, cancer fight is done altruistically in those countries. Oh boy!

This funny argument connects with the other one about tests. I am said "Unorthodox procedures should find their own financing to do the tests and protocol evaluations".

Yea! How candid again!

Cancer pharmacology is EXPENSIVE. You might not notice because you never see the bill. Investors (people oriented to make money, not in search for Human well being) are ready to finance huge, gigantic labs and trial tests, as long as they will result in promoting and selling the onerous green, pink, blue and yellow poisons.

Who would finance a serious exhaustive, long term, fully documented and well equipped series of trials, evaluations and tests, if the final product would be clean simple, easy to obtain medication?

Another innocent scientific defender expresses: Why those Alternative Researchers do not do their own studies and widely publish their results? Answer: First because it requires lot's of money, second it will immediately call for a rage and rabid attack against the whole idea. Stiff organizations and medical guilds will call for license removal, for ostracism, for social rejection. Will loudly start screaming: "Quack, quack,quack".... Get them. Kill them, burn them...

Just like it happened to Louis Pasteur when he suggested the unthinkable, unscientific, "quakery" of microbes existing and being the cause of most maladies!

When Hoffman, the Great, accidentally took some ergot juice and found himself tripping for 14 hours, if he would say so, he would have been called a witch-doctor. Maybe a hippie, having fun with psychedelics.... But he insisted, researched and found the magic of ergotamines. It actually was the same fungus found in the "Bread of the Crazy"...

I also never said I agreed with Simoncini's way to present things. Very silly he was indeed ignoring we still live in a World of Inquisition, full of alligators ready to jump and snatch...

About testimonials: Some one says: I have a cousin or the sister of a friend of mine, who had this or that cancer and after some "simple radical mastectomy", a few biopsies who left her more punched than a beach ball, gallons of green and yellow poison in her veins, and more exposed to ionizing radiation than Madam Curie, when she was playing with "radio toys", she was "cured".... Left with great quality of life!

The arguments are heard against other testimonials about remission with alternative treatments. "Quacks" BSers, Nuts...

I ask: what are they gaining with those testimonials? Fool some dummies for a better seat in hell? Come on guys.

Want a testimonial? OK!

My mother (rest in peace) was diagnosed stomach cancer. She fervently took biopsies, chemo, radio, surgery and later an expensive ticket to the Beyond!....
My only sister, she was 44. Got a litle pimple or mole in her tonge. Oncologist promptly identified it as "cancerous".... You know what follows... biopsies, surgery, chemo, radio... 3 months in bed at Houston Cancer Center smoking legal grass and a ticket to accompany mother...
My former wife: 48: Gets a little lump in her right breast... Oh, oh... You know what follows: 6 months of green poison, surgery which removed almost all her front, radio, and another ticket to the same higher plane.
Now me:
1 year ago: Right leg pain. Traumatologist thinks I have a bad femoral joint... MRI, X-RAYS, ultrasound.... Hey, hey.... Radiologist says: We have a "finding" an OsteoSarcoma right in the pubic bone!
Oh,Oh! Dr. says: I need an open biopsy... There I go... Big cut, BIG swelling big ball in my groin, 20 days cannot even sit...
Histologist says: No, No it is a metastatic AdenoCarcinoma... We need to find the primary... CAT scan, Endoscopy, gastroscopy or whatever the name is...
Aghhhh! Have you tried that?... No findings!
Oncologist says: It "might" be the kidney. I see a little "shadow" in the CAT scan... WE have to do another renal biopsy...
Then... I get enlightened: "No thanks. No more. No thanks". Doctor looks at me and says: I am sorry to tell you if we do not take care of this ASAP you might not be here very soon.
I go out, get ready for alternative Johana Budwig Diet Protocol and some PH protocol I will not mention because I would start hearing "quack, dummy, quack" again...
Four months later: Excellent vitality, perfect blood tests, low PSA, tumor has shrunk like a grape in the sun, I can walk and the only hole I have is the first biopsy.
I'll keep my alternative treatment no matter what the "pro-scientist" pharmaceutical advocates say...
Thanks for reading.
Mike

[steenkh]

Ah, another anecdote.

Why do people think anecdotes are evidence of anything?

[jli]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Why do people think anecdotes are evidence of anything?

Closemindedness?

In all fairness they do reject some anecdotes as evidence. But only anecdotes that go against their beliefs. The horrible anecdotes on for example whatstheharm.net (or on the "cancer is not a fungus website" for that matter) do not seem to impress the stouch believers.

[steenkh]

Yes. I also note that when we talk about evidence, Mike wants to talk about who earns the money. I could understand if he claimed that the tests were forged because of the money involved, but he does not. Instead he just hints that if there is money to earn, then the procedure is tainted, and should be rejected in favour of procedures with no evidence whatsoever.

[jli]

Yes - He is completely ignoring the fact that quackery is a money spinner.

[MikeAparicio]

What I said about money was in relation to your own previous statement (from someone here) about: "Cancer pharma-industry not being an economy issue" because "In this country nobody has to pay for the treatment"

For slow minded, I intended to say: The fact profits from EXPENSIVE, difficult to make or synthesize chemicals is much, much larger than simple medications.
Further deducting, Watson, There would be no interest in large financial capitals to invest in proving how the current chemo-radio is just a "gangsterized" fad, supported by faithful and blinded pro scientists.

Further analysis, dear Watson, leads us to understand there would also be a lack of interest in financing research for low return alternatives.
I guess ANY 1st year student in basic Marketing and Economics would know this.

Medicine Doctors are not anymore scientists. They are now "technicians", following directives from many Medical Visitors or Pharma-representatives, carrying their funny square leather cases, full of "samples", bonus items, and leaflets explaining "how, when and to whom prescribe treatments, pills, tests and fixes".

I am not saying ALL doctors are like this. Of course not! But among oncologists it is really hard to find one open minded enough as to listen the basics of alternatives, and trying to understand their patients agony having to take such crude decision, as to allow gallons of green poison, harmful and destructive rays and removal of half their organism just to "survive", if the becoming state could be called "survival...."

It is dismaying to hear posts from some nicknames here, (nick named althoug I am posting my REAL name), which are probably engaged in the oncology industry somehow.

Rejecting my personal testimonial, just because I am not part of those "statistical charts"... I honestly cannot understand such mind state! Why? Because I KNOW what I said is a FACT, it happened and it is a reality!

My personal experience together with the experience of many friends, relatives a near persons cannot account for a SINGLE successful case of orthodox treatment success.

But you guys insist I should listen to statistics rather than close experience. I refuse. I don't know who did the statistics. I don't know their interests. My experience is much more valuable to me!

Thanks

[pakeha]

Welcome to the forum, Mike.
First of all, accept my condolences for your losses.
And congratulations on your good health, too.

The reason why posts are cut and quoted is because we're not giving speeches here, but examining a given subject in depth, when possible.
It is by no means meant as a discourtesy.
If you keep to one and one only point in a post, you'll see how much easier it is to discuss it.

Originally Posted by jli

...
There are lots of things that may be wrong with alternative cancer cure testimonials:
1) The patients might not even have had cancer
2) The alternative therapy might have been used in addition to conventional treatment
3) The cancer might not have disappeared anyway
4) Some of them might be pure fabrications
Here is a Simoncini testimonial for you to practice your BS spotting skill. Try and take a look at a few CT-scans that allegedly show effects of sodium bicarbonate on cancers. See if you can spot what is wrong with them. You can find the answers here.

Mike, has it occurred to you your case might fall into one of the above categories?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Further deducting, Watson, There would be no interest in large financial capitals to invest in proving how the current chemo-radio is just a "gangsterized" fad, supported by faithful and blinded pro scientists.

This is of course pure nonsense. "Large financial capitals" would love the huge profit that could be gained by producing cheap anti-cancer cures. the problem is that there is no evidence that such cures exist.

Quote:

Further analysis, dear Watson, leads us to understand there would also be a lack of interest in financing research for low return alternatives.
I guess ANY 1st year student in basic Marketing and Economics would know this.

Could you please explain why inexpensive cures for one of the main killers in the Western world would give a low return?

Quote:

Rejecting my personal testimonial, just because I am not part of those "statistical charts"... I honestly cannot understand such mind state! Why? Because I KNOW what I said is a FACT, it happened and it is a reality!

Your anecdote is rejected because it is useless, not because it is false.

Quote:

My personal experience together with the experience of many friends, relatives a near persons cannot account for a SINGLE successful case of orthodox treatment success.

Well, I know more than a single successful case of orthodox treatment of cancer. So what?

Quote:

But you guys insist I should listen to statistics rather than close experience. I refuse. I don't know who did the statistics. I don't know their interests. My experience is much more valuable to me!

It is such experiences that led people to use and recommend the dangerous and useless cure of blood-letting for centuries. Personal experiences are useless: only statistics can lead to a valuable conclusion.

If the alternative crowd is dissatisfied with the statistics made by the conventional doctors, why do they not produce their own carefully controlled statistics?

A lot of young medicine students are interested in alternative treatment when they start their study, and quite a few are still peddling ineffective alternative treatments even after they have graduated (in Germany and Austria many real doctors are offering homoeopathic or acupuncture treatments). Do you not think that such alternatively minded doctors would be interested in furthering rigorous testing of alternative cancer cures?

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

I am not saying ALL doctors are like this. Of course not! But among oncologists it is really hard to find one open minded enough as to listen the basics of alternatives........

I work with oncologists. They are perfectly capable of being critical against the pharmaceutical industry as well as the altmed industry.

Quote:

, and trying to understand their patients agony having to take such crude decision, as to allow gallons of green poison, harmful and destructive rays and removal of half their organism just to "survive", if the becoming state could be called "survival...."

It is important to understand that chemotherapy is not just one thing. There are close to 100 different chemotherapies. Some of them are sheer hell while others are quite doable. Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in some but not all kinds of cancer.

In other types surgery is the primary treatment. If certain characteristics are present in the cancer, that are associated with risk of later detection of spread, chemotherapy can be used to mop up the residual cancer cells that are still in the body. No guarantees can be given, but the evidence shows that the risk decreases.

Sometimes the cancer has spread to other organs such as the liver and/or the lungs at the time of diagnosis. In that situation, the purpose of chemotherapy is to relieve the symptoms as much as possible. Long term survival is not to be expected, but some patients do live longer and with a higher quality of life than they would have without therapy. Patients who (most likely) will not benefit from chemotherapy are discouraged from having it.

Quote:

It is dismaying to hear posts from some nicknames here, (nick named althoug I am posting my REAL name), which are probably engaged in the oncology industry somehow.

I think it is quite clear from my posts in this thread that I am a pathologist. I work in a tax payer financed health care system. Part of my job is to test cancers for specific mutations, that if present implies that some (very expensive) drugs will not work. Every time I report the presence of such a mutation, the drug in question is not used. The patient is spared from the adverse effects, there is less strain on the oncologists budget, and the pharmaceutical industry is deprived of income. I am not a pharma shill.

I don't care if you post under your own name or not. What matters is what you post. Sadly not all proponents/practitioners of altmed behave civilized when they are told the identity of their critics. See for instance here and here.

[MikeAparicio]

Originally Posted by jli

I don't care if you post under your own name or not. What matters is what you post. Sadly not all proponents/practitioners of altmed behave civilized when they are told the identity of their critics.

@jil

It was not my intention to offend in any manner, Dr. jil. I understand the reasons you want to cover yourself behind a blog alias and I think they are valid.

I know I am using a "hard" or not so friendly approach in my responses but it is necessary to create some awareness among professionals involved in orthodox treatment and audience in general to be respectful to others which stand for the altmed possibilities.

A generalized attitude used to all who comment, write, question or mention Altmed is mostly an immediate "quack" association. It certainly is unfair, as you know well, NOT ALL people involved is a swindler or money vulture. Lots of people with great experience, such as Dr. Johanna Budwig, also speak about alternative treatments for cancer and other diseases.

I just experimented by reversing the treatment as to make feel Ortmed people what the other side feels when attacked. Rather than strict opposition, insult and ridicule, there should be a lot of tolerance, openness and discussion.

I agree there are true "quacks" as you would agree there are dishonest med doctors and med companies. (Or pure science world is Mother Teresa's world ?)

Being this a place created for open discussion and exposure, I find very hard the J Rand Foundation forum is used to adopt an attitude of superiority, rejection to other thoughts and a patronizing pose, assuming science is written in a private language, where ordinary but intelligent people or professionals of other trades COULD NOT research, investigate and arrive to findings and conclusions.

There are really obtuse trends filling pages: The atheists and the anti Altmed folks!

Both are daring and risky attitudes because both could be wrong.

How nice and enlightening would be a frank listening to Altmed theories, exposing mistakes and assertions within them. Dismissing the whole concept just because "I know better" or "I know it all" is not a good philosophical stand point.

Whether Simoncini is mistaken about his "fungus" views or not, does not justify killing totally the biochemistry behind the concept.

I have been reading quite a few documents related to pH relationship with both early generation of neoplastic cells, and pH influence in the possibility of metastasis to occur.

Concepts about the origin of Cancer are kept away in average oncology clinics. There, the subject is how to kill or destroy the cancer. Rarely the patient is questioned about his diet, his emotional attitude in daily issues, and his general costumes and private behavior.

Mostly, doctors are not interested in understanding how and when the cancer started, or understand what is making it thrive with our body resources and more.

Some interesting Altmed proposals speak of finding ways to reactivate apoptosis, to induce cancer cells to reverse it's electrical unbalance, to increase the autoimmune system to properly fight by natural means what is after all a disorder.

Probably you have seen the Minnesota (I think) University announcement on bicarbonate studies. I remember a comment (maybe yours) where it is said "if a cheap substance like that could be taken seriously" !!!!!

Is it that only "not cheap" ingredients can make good medicines????

I will keep writing on this later, as I don't want to take all space in one shot!

Mike

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by steenkh

If the alternative crowd is dissatisfied with the statistics made by the conventional doctors, why do they not produce their own carefully controlled statistics?

Agreed. To elaborate...

Alternative medicine is very big business. More profitable than "Big Pharma," because they don't have to run those expensive tests the FDA requires. They also don't have to do any research, and in the case of some remedies, the most expensive ingredient in that $20 bottle is water. Enormously, insanely profitable.

So if they came up with a cheap cancer cure, it would be one more, highly profitable enterprise. Little cost, big market. Saying "no one would sell a cheap cure" makes a mockery of those who make billions out of bottling the same basic stuff that we get from a tap. Heck, the main ingredient in soda is water, then sugar and a few drops of flavoring. There's hardly a cheaper formula for any food or drink. But Coke and Pepsi get filthy rich selling it.

Only one thing stands in the way of alternative suppliers: validating their claims. But if their product is as wonderful as they claim, that should be easy -- and they can afford it more than anyone. Just prove it works, and the world is theirs.

The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@jil

It was not my intention to offend in any manner, Dr. jil. I understand the reasons you want to cover yourself behind a blog alias and I think they are valid. ...[.rant snipped]...

Feel free to answer my earlier post when you're ready to discuss and not rant, Mike.

"...Being this a place created for open discussion and exposure, I find very hard the J Rand Foundation forum is used to adopt an attitude of superiority, rejection to other thoughts and a patronizing pose, assuming science is written in a private language, where ordinary but intelligent people or professionals of other trades COULD NOT research, investigate and arrive to findings and conclusions. ..."

I think it's clear who's being patronising here.

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

I have been reading quite a few documents related to pH relationship with both early generation of neoplastic cells, and pH influence in the possibility of metastasis to occur.

So have I. And I have also studied details of normal pH-regulation in the normal body, and seen all of this in action in real patients.

Quote:

Concepts about the origin of Cancer are kept away in average oncology clinics. There, the subject is how to kill or destroy the cancer. Rarely the patient is questioned about his diet, his emotional attitude in daily issues, and his general costumes and private behavior.

Mostly, doctors are not interested in understanding how and when the cancer started, or understand what is making it thrive with our body resources and more.

I think "fls" explained this elegantly a few pages ago. This is a long thread, so it is understandable that you may have overlooked it. This is what she wrote:

Quote:

You have mistaken knowledge for a closed-mind. It isn't that anyone's mind is closed to the idea, it's that we already know about information which shows that the idea is wrong. That you are unfamiliar with this information does not somehow make you cleverer or us heartless. If you wish to suggest that the heavenly bodies revolve around the earth, does it really make sense to call the recognition that this idea is wrong, that the movement of heavenly bodies is best described by the effects of gravity and general relativity, "close minded"?

Quote:

Let me try an analogy.

Simoncini is suggesting that rather than the heart, the liver circulates the blood throughout the body. He has suggested that treatment directed at the liver, will resolve circulatory problems. He enrolls patients in a program that involves strict avoidance of alcohol as the solution to heart failure and fails to suggest those treatments which have demonstrated effectiveness when it comes to improving survival and disability. He pays no attention to the increased disability and death amongst his patients. When we complain about this, you berate us for our close-mindedness and unwillingness to consider that it is the liver which is responsible for circulation, or that strict avoidance of alcohol is a reasonable solution for a failing heart.

I don't think it can be explained much better.

Quote:

Some interesting Altmed proposals speak of finding ways to reactivate apoptosis, to induce cancer cells to reverse it's electrical unbalance, to increase the autoimmune system to properly fight by natural means what is after all a disorder.

They are doing this on the basis of experiments on cancer cell lines cultured in dishes or implanted in mice. The problem is, that a cancer is not a cultured cell line. Clinical research has shown us again and again, that you can't conclude directly from such experiments to effects in humans. Saying that a substance can cure cancer because it activates apoptosis in cancer cells cultured in a dish is either dishonesty, or lack of knowledge.

[MikeAparicio]

@jil

I find it very delicate to participate in this thread because it is very easy to feel mistreated as an ignorant, fanatic or merchant.

I do like some of your explanations which make sense but not necessarily agreeing with them.

Your last response, citing former posts where it was "amply explained" and reasoned why Altmed is inoperative, confirms my feeling of being pressed down in inferiority. But I would humbly ask: Science has NEVER being wrong? As you have ample knowledge of pathology (under the academic canons) I have good experience in physics, quantum mechanics and other non medical branches of science.
We usually get together with other University professors to discuss the RADICAL changes in fundamental concepts. How Heisenberg for instance contradicts the rational mind!
It is hard for the rational mind to understand how is it possible "The fact a thing being observed is changed by the observation" !!!!!
Quantum mechanics PROVE the act of studying and examining a particular subject CHANGES IT, in a way our observation is not fully correct.
I witnessed personally an experiment at Texas State University, where a special laser table was setup to PROVE how a particle beam would "Change it's behavior depending on the way it was observed", to the point in some instances it could ANTICIPATE in time what the testing operator would do!!!!

With this I want to transmit why it is I think scientific assertions are transitory and will eventually be modified by new findings.

New findings usually occur among facts and concepts already considered solid, true and unmovable. Hence, scientific concepts turn obsolete and sometimes replaced by opposite theories.

You will have to forgive me and all those who do not reverence unconditionally to scientific statements, statistics, data collections and such.

With this I AM NOT SAYING you, Dr. jil or any other scientist, doctor, or amateur thinker is "absolutely wrong". Not at all. But at the same time I see no evident proof SOME alternative medicine concepts have been totally disproved.

Some comments say "Altmed is a real big business". Such statement amazes me! I am having three alternative treatments which cost me very little. They are not sold and I do prepare them at my facilities with the help of my wife.

All my search in Internet never got me to a place where I would be asked for money in exchange for advise, books, alternatives, diet suggestions and more.
Where is then the Altmed business mentioned in former posts?

Please, see I am NOT attacking anyone. I am asking. If there is some GOOD literature about contradicting Dr. Johana Budwig concepts on Cellular Membrane alterations and repair by using Omega 3 and 6 fats I would appreciate the links

A Dr. being nominated 7 times for a Nobel Prize has some merit. Does she not?
Her mistake for NOT getting the prize was precisely trying to convey her cellular concepts into Cancer therapy notions. There she touched the devil. There she encountered ferric detraction.

A second Altmed concept is based on the same principle used for PET scan. Glucose hungry neoplastic cells!
Why it is taken so seriously and well accepted the fact irradiated glucose goes directly to live tumor regions while keeping away from the same necrotic tumor parts? I guess it is because it has been clearly show by the x-ray plates!
The question is: If glucose can carry radiation into the tumor, why could it not be used to carry metabolic alterations to it, in fact disturbing the tumor growth, reverting lost apoptosis and inducing shrinkage?

The Altmed protocol using glucose (molasses) and bicarbonate to reach the tumor inner, bringing a strong alteration of the internal tumor pH (Not its environment but its interior) has strong possibilities including some personal evidence.

Further, my understanding of electrical phenomena with chemical reactions makes me comprehend well how the electrical balance at the cellular membrane boundaries would be truly changed in values, promoting cell recovery.

I really would appreciate an explanation on why the whole concept is considered a mistake, a taboo, a "quack", etc., WITHOUT the proper exhaustive testing and demonstrations? And if already done, as you say, why I can't find them?

I won't go any further at this time, hoping I get some illustrated, non attacking comments.

Thanks

[jli]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

New findings usually occur among facts and concepts already considered solid, true and unmovable. Hence, scientific concepts turn obsolete and sometimes replaced by opposite theories.

This is a good reason why you should reconsider your stance on the Budwig diet as a reliable way of treating cancer.

Quote:

But at the same time I see no evident proof SOME alternative medicine concepts have been totally disproved.

Failure under fair test conditions are good reasons to consider them disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

All my search in Internet never got me to a place where I would be asked for money in exchange for advise, books, alternatives, diet suggestions and more.
Where is then the Altmed business mentioned in former posts?

Here is one example.

Quote:

A Dr. being nominated 7 times for a Nobel Prize has some merit. Does she not?

This is another claim that should raise your suspicison that something might not be entirely truthful. The Nobel Prize commitee only reveals who won the prize. They do not reveal the names of those who were nominated, not even to those who were considered.

Quote:

The question is: If glucose can carry radiation into the tumor, why could it not be used to carry metabolic alterations to it, in fact disturbing the tumor growth, reverting lost apoptosis and inducing shrinkage?

Deregulation of metabolism is considered to be a hallmark capability of cancer cells. It is not being neglected by cancer researchers. So far the experiments into attacking this capability hasn't led to anything useful.

Quote:

I really would appreciate an explanation on why the whole concept is considered a mistake, a taboo, a "quack", etc., WITHOUT the proper exhaustive testing and demonstrations? And if already done, as you say, why I can't find them?

This is a good place to start your search.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Some comments say "Altmed is a real big business". Such statement amazes me! I am having three alternative treatments which cost me very little. They are not sold and I do prepare them at my facilities with the help of my wife.

That is very kind of you. Others aren't so generous and altruistic.

Americans Spent $33.9 Billion Out-of-Pocket on Complementary and Alternative Medicine

[MikeAparicio]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

That is very kind of you. Others aren't so generous and altruistic.

Americans Spent $33.9 Billion Out-of-Pocket on Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Sherman: Come on! What are you saying? I am doing the treatments for myself. It is not I am giving or administering nothing. You prove my point on a total attitude of accusation and rejection against those who speak for Altmed.
Your sarcasm is cruel and heartless. You thrive on people's anguish and hope.

Are you Cancer affected? Is anyone cracking down on me affected by cancer?
Do you UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM?

about the link: Do you believe government propaganda? I rather believe in the Tooth Ferry, Cinderella, and Spider man.

[MikeAparicio]

Dr. Jli:

It was not the Nobel committee who revealed Johanna Budwig nominations. It was the nomination letters she kept and were presented to public AFTER she passed away! (Unexpected possibility... Right?)

I ask you to read your own response lines. My wife is a lawyer. Invariably she responds by either formulating another question or by reversing the concept bouncing it back to me. Just an observation. No pun intended.

Rather than engaging into an arid post crossing I would ask you, as a pathologist if you would be so kind of helping me with you opinion, of great value to me.

I was diagnosed by biopsy lab of having a metastatic AdenoCarcinoma.
Oncologist wanted to differentiate the tumor origin and ordered an expensive Histo-Chemistry analysis.
Three pathologists responded, they could NOT differentiate the tissues, but reported:
"Apparent epithelial origin but WE OBSERVED NO MALIGNANCY!!!"

How can this be? If the tumor came to my bone via metastasis, how come NO MALIGNANCY is found in the tissues?

My Oncologist explained me "it was a redaction error" !!!!!!!!
A redaction error in a Histo-Chemistry report, by three pathologists?

Would you give me your thoughts on this. If you allow me I can send you the complete data from the Histo-C. tests.

Thanks for being so kind to me.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Sherman: Come on! What are you saying? I am doing the treatments for myself. It is not I am giving or administering nothing. You prove my point on a total attitude of accusation and rejection against those who speak for Altmed.

You questioned statements about alternative medicine being profitable, and I provided evidence that it was.

Quote:

Your sarcasm is cruel and heartless. You thrive on people's anguish and hope.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote:

Do you UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM?

Yes, the problem is people are unable or unwilling to differentiate between valid medicine and quacks like Simoncini who may give hope, but do nothing else but take their money. Very few treatments -- perhaps you are the noble exception -- are free, but some have good evidence that they work behind them, and others do not.

If you have cancer, then my heart goes out to you. You owe it to yourself and your life to learn to tell the difference.

If you do not like the link I gave from the National Institutes of Health, part of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, perhaps you can supply one from a reputable source that says that Alternative Medicine suppliers are NOT profitable and do NOT take in $33 billion a year.

[MikeAparicio]

@Sherman
Q. If people spent 32 billion greens in Altmed, assuming it does NOT work, if each person spent $5000.00 there would be 640,000 frustrated "victims". If one out of every 100 would publicly complain, there would be at least 6,400 complaints. If from those, 1 out of every 10 would complain via Internet we should be able to search for 640 Internet complaint posts. Where are those?

Let me make it clear I DO NOT produce, sell or distribute Altmed. What I do is prepare it FOR ME, following free instructions, advice and counselling from non profit sources.
I appreciate your concern about me. I have carefully evaluated my situation. After taking into account experience from my relatives, reading both worlds of Cancermed, I am following three Alt-protocols which, at this point keep my doctors amazed at the results.
Because I am doing NO Business with it, I feel my freedom-of-speech is my right.
If I end up being taken by the illness it will be Gods will. If I am not, it is God's Grace via Altmed. No one should be blamed!

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

... quacks like Simoncini who may give hope, but do nothing else but take their money. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

And killing them, apparently.

Originally Posted by JennyJo

...
October 2007, a woman with curable breast cancer, who was afraid of operation and chemo therapy, came into contact with simoncini and was treated by him. He injected large doses of baking soda into her breast.
On the fourth day of the therapy, the woman became very ill and was transported to a university hospital in Amsterdam, where she died the following day. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
Now me:
1 year ago: Right leg pain. Traumatologist thinks I have a bad femoral joint... MRI, X-RAYS, ultrasound.... Hey, hey.... Radiologist says: We have a "finding" an OsteoSarcoma right in the pubic bone!
Oh,Oh! Dr. says: I need an open biopsy... There I go... Big cut, BIG swelling big ball in my groin, 20 days cannot even sit...
Histologist says: No, No it is a metastatic AdenoCarcinoma... We need to find the primary... CAT scan, Endoscopy, gastroscopy or whatever the name is...
Aghhhh! Have you tried that?... No findings!
Oncologist says: It "might" be the kidney. I see a little "shadow" in the CAT scan... WE have to do another renal biopsy...
Then... I get enlightened: "No thanks. No more. No thanks". Doctor looks at me and says: I am sorry to tell you if we do not take care of this ASAP you might not be here very soon.
I go out, get ready for alternative Johana Budwig Diet Protocol and some PH protocol I will not mention because I would start hearing "quack, dummy, quack" again...
Four months later: Excellent vitality, perfect blood tests, low PSA, tumor has shrunk like a grape in the sun, I can walk and the only hole I have is the first biopsy.
I'll keep my alternative treatment no matter what the "pro-scientist" pharmaceutical advocates say...
Thanks for reading.
Mike

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

What do you mean, another renal biopsy?

[MikeAparicio]

My mistake. It should read: "Another biopsy. This time, kidney"...

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

My mistake. It should read: "Another biopsy. This time, kidney"...

Right, but that's not was was said either, was it?

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

@Sherman
Q. If people spent 32 billion greens in Altmed, assuming it does NOT work, if each person spent $5000.00 there would be 640,000 frustrated "victims". If one out of every 100 would publicly complain, there would be at least 6,400 complaints. If from those, 1 out of every 10 would complain via Internet we should be able to search for 640 Internet complaint posts. Where are those?

Dead men tell no tales.

[MikeAparicio]

Sherman:
You KNOW what a fallacy is! Are you implying there occurred about 640,000 deaths by Altmed? You know no one will believe such thing, not even here at this biased thread.
By the same distorted way of seeing things, "All dead men from orthodox poisoning (Radio-Chemo) did not complain either)" One thing for sure is there are very many more from Ortmed than Altmed...
Oh boy! Some people simply cannot twist their arm.

[MikeAparicio]

What are you trying to prove Sherman?
I had one open biopsy from the metastatic tumor (pubic area). Then doctor wanted to do "another biopsy", this time from left kidney.
What is the mysterious "sneaky" thing you want to find in my words?