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

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by jli

He claims that the pathologist only sees the superficial part of the tumor (what is obtainable from a biopsy) which in his opinion consists of reactive cells. He seems unaware that tumors (usually) are surgically removed and then further examined by the pathologist.

But...but...but..whole tumors are biopsied all the time! In fact, one of the important things to do on tumor removal is to be sure to cut deep enough to remove the entire tumor, which means taking some healthy tissue. It's not like colon pollyps are scraped off. There's cutting involved.

I mean, this isn't techniques of integration we're talking about here. There's no trick, it really is often that straightforward.

[JennyJo]

Well then, I think we can safely conclude that mr simoncini is not only a charlatan but a total idiot as well.

[jli]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

This sounds like a very shocking level of ignorance.

I agree but maybe it is a consequence of the way pathology is taught at medical school. When I was a medical student most of the pathology teaching involved post mortem organ changes and a little bit of microscopy. We weren´t really presented to what the job as a pathologist consists of. Since then the amount of pathology teaching has been reduced even further. And it is not mandatory for any other specialty to work at a pathology department as a part of the specialist training.

[jli]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

But...but...but..whole tumors are biopsied all the time! In fact, one of the important things to do on tumor removal is to be sure to cut deep enough to remove the entire tumor, which means taking some healthy tissue. It's not like colon pollyps are scraped off. There's cutting involved.

Cutting is far from always involved in the first phase of establishing a malignant diagnosis. For instance a colonic cancer is usually discovered during colonoscopy. As part of the colonoscopy procedure a forceps biopsy is taken. This biopsy measures only a couple of milimeters, but it is enough for the pathologist to establish the malignant diagnosis. Next phase is as you say for the surgeon to cut out the affected bowel segment with adjacent normal bowl and lymph nodes. For other cancer types (eg. breast tumors) it is sometimes practical to remove the whole tumor (with its surrounding healthy tissue) as part of the diagnostic procedure. However this seems not to be the case with the dutch patient described by JennyJo.

[pgwenthold]

Sorry, when I said "tumors are completely removed all the time" I meant it happens regularly (like, daily), not that it is done in all cases. I realize there are plenty of partial biopsies, ranging from scraping to asparits. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Moreover, he isn't just talking about diagnostics. Surgical removal is a common approach to treatment, and those get sent to pathology as well. Heck, malignant and benign tumors all end up in path after they are removed. So even if it isn't taken completely in diagnostics, the whole thing often ends up being taken out in the end.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by jli

Cutting is far from always involved in the first phase of establishing a malignant diagnosis. For instance a colonic cancer is usually discovered during colonoscopy. As part of the colonoscopy procedure a forceps biopsy is taken. This biopsy measures only a couple of milimeters, but it is enough for the pathologist to establish the malignant diagnosis. Next phase is as you say for the surgeon to cut out the affected bowel segment with adjacent normal bowl and lymph nodes. For other cancer types (eg. breast tumors) it is sometimes practical to remove the whole tumor (with its surrounding healthy tissue) as part of the diagnostic procedure. However this seems not to be the case with the dutch patient described by JennyJo.

The patient felt a lump and had a mammograph which showed a lump + calcifications throughout the greater part of the breast. She then had a biopsy and the tumor was malignant.
Doctors advised an operation, partial mastectomy or, depending on the state of the tissue, full mastectomy, and possibly chemotherapy and if necessary, radiation, depending on the state of the lymph nodes.

As she was afraid of the regular treatment, she went for alternative therapy and came into contact with Simoncini. He convinced her that regular treatment was not necessary at all, in the contrary, it would maken her situation even worse, and that she could be cured by injections in her breast with large doses of sodium bicarbonate.

On the fourth day of treatment, she became very unwell and later became unconscious. She was then taken to a university hospital where she died the next day.

If I understand you correctly, it is possible that Simoncini can’t identify cancerous tissue, although he claims to have been an oncologist for more than 20 years?
But then he also cannot say that cancer is a fungus, can he?
Shouldn’t he just have asked a pathologist then, instead of performing his dangerous therapies without ever checking whether there is any basis for his therapy?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

But then he also cannot say that cancer is a fungus, can he?
Shouldn’t he just have asked a pathologist then, instead of performing his dangerous therapies without ever checking whether there is any basis for his therapy?

In fact, there seems to be evidence that sodium bicarbonate stimulates the growth of cancerous tissue. This Dutch site gives a long list of studies which attest that (the first few paragraphs are Dutch, the rest is English). I'm a complete layman in this field, but the links point to bona fide research institutes as far as I can see.

[jli]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Sorry, when I said "tumors are completely removed all the time" I meant it happens regularly (like, daily), not that it is done in all cases. I realize there are plenty of partial biopsies, ranging from scraping to asparits. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Don´t be sorry. It was a relevant and true comment.

Quote:

Moreover, he isn't just talking about diagnostics.

When he is talking about pathology he is. He claims that a cancer is a fungus because it is white, and the pathologist only get to see the superficial part of the tumor which in his opinion consists of reactive cells only.

Quote:

Surgical removal is a common approach to treatment, and those get sent to pathology as well. Heck, malignant and benign tumors all end up in path after they are removed.

You know that and I know that. But Simoncini and his followers are apparantly in total denial of this.

Originally Posted by JennyJo

If I understand you correctly, it is possible that Simoncini can’t identify cancerous tissue, although he claims to have been an oncologist for more than 20 years?

An oncologist doesn´t necessarily see cancerous tissue in his daily work. A normal scenario could be that a patient is referred to the oncology department after a malignant diagnosis has been established and the surgical procedure has been performed. All the oncologisst need is a summary of the pathology report (given by the referring surgeon) and perhaps the radiologic images to monitor the effect of the treatment. I don´t know if italian oncologists participate in "multidisciplinary team conferences", but that would be the place for them to actually see what cancerous tissue look like.

Quote:

But then he also cannot say that cancer is a fungus, can he?

He says it but he is wrong. The only argument he presents is that the cancer is white. And no one has confronted him with the fact that a lot of stuff is white whitout being a fungus.

Quote:

Shouldn’t he just have asked a pathologist then, instead of performing his dangerous therapies without ever checking whether there is any basis for his therapy?

Yes - but perhaps he has experienced that the pathologists didn´t buy his fungus theory.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by jli

perhaps he has experienced that the pathologists didn´t buy his fungus theory.

That probably is the case.
Thank you very much for educating me on this subject.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by jli

I don´t know if italian oncologists participate in "multidisciplinary team conferences", but that would be the place for them to actually see what cancereous tissue look like.

In the Netherlands they do. I should hope this is standard practice in Italy as well.
But then, it could very well be that Simoncini never was an oncologist to begin with, for there is no evidence of that to be found anywhere. The Dutch Antiquackery organisation hasn't found any either. We know he was a doctor, for he had his license withdrawn and they can't withdraw something that doesn't exist.
However, there is no evidence for the other academic titles he is supposed to hold: in philosophy, physics, and diabetic and metabolical disorders.
He just seems to have popped up out of nowhere.

O heck, I just don't believe a word the man says.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

In the Netherlands they do. I should hope this is standard practice in Italy as well.
But then, it could very well be that Simoncini never was an oncologist to begin with, for there is no evidence of that to be found anywhere. The Dutch Antiquackery organisation hasn't found any either. We know he was a doctor, for he had his license withdrawn and they can't withdraw something that doesn't exist.
However, there is no evidence for the other academic titles he is supposed to hold: in philosophy, physics, and diabetic and metabolical disorders.
He just seems to have popped up out of nowhere.

O heck, I just don't believe a word the man says.

Just a question. Do you know if the various countries in the EU has standardized claims of specialization? Is there is a unified exam or group that certifies a physician's claim to specialization.

Here in the US, any doctor can claim to be an medical oncologist but what most people care about is that the person has received Board Certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine's specialty exam on Medical Oncology.

This quack is similar to many of such quacks. A one size fits all claim with no evidence to support his claims and an evil conspiracy to silence him.

[jli]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

That probably is the case.
Thank you very much for educating me on this subject.

Thank you for sharing the report of actual damage caused by Simoncinis treatment.

Originally Posted by JennyJo

O heck, I just don't believe a word the man says.

Well, he is right about cancers being white (with a few exceptions) but that is it.

[JennyJo]

[quote=jli;3835631]Thank you for sharing the report of actual damage caused by Simoncinis treatment.[quote]

You're welcome!

Quote:

Well, he is right about cancers being white (with a few exceptions) but that is it.

I can make a very long list of white things that are not and never will be fungi.
My pillow for instance. On which I will rest my head in a minute.

[jli]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Just a question. Do you know if the various countries in the EU has standardized claims of specialization? Is there is a unified exam or group that certifies a physician's claim to specialization.

In Denmark we do. Briefly you obtain a specialist certification through employments at relevant departments - learning relevant procedures in combination with mandatory theoretical courses.

[JennyJo]

Quote:

Here in the US, any doctor can claim to be an medical oncologist but what most people care about is that the person has received Board Certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine's specialty exam on Medical Oncology.

Originally Posted by jli

In Denmark we do. Briefly you obtain a specialist certification through employments at relevant departments - learning relevant procedures in combination with mandatory theoretical courses.

To become a medical specialist in the Netherlands, you need an employment period of several years in an specialist department, mostly about 6 years. You can then apply for your specialization certificate. If your application is granted, this is registered in a list of medical specialists (BIG-register), equivalent to the Board registration in the USA. You then are a registered medical specialist.
The demands are standardized, so that you can also work in other countries in Europe who maintain the same standards.
Legally, you are not allowed to work as a medical specialist or call yourself a medical specialist if you are not registered in the BIG-register.

Should you want to work in a university hospital, you are also expected to do scientific research and have a number of scientific publications to your name. Publish or perish, if you will.

I think this is also the case in Italy, for I know we have some specialists working in our hospitals, who were trained and received their specialist certificate in Italy.

[Sherman Bay]

I think there is a lesson to be learned by all of this. Unfortunately the lesson isn't being learned by those who need it most.

When I first heard of Simoncini and his claims from my friend -- someone and something I had never heard of before -- I was skeptical, but didn't dismiss them at first. I investigated, using Internet search tools, then posting this thread. Evidence began to mount up that Simoncini is the worst kind of fraud there is and it would now be difficult for me to believe otherwise.

The difference between us and my friend is

1. At first, he accepted the claims without investigation of any kind, and
2. When confronted with research, instead of analyzing the data, countered by sending me articles about how doctors make mistakes and hospitals kill patients. As if that had any bearing on the subject.

It's a closed mind; one that not only wants to believe, but must believe. And there are charlatans out there who know that and exploit it.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

I think there is a lesson to be learned by all of this. Unfortunately the lesson isn't being learned by those who need it most.

When I first heard of Simoncini and his claims from my friend -- someone and something I had never heard of before -- I was skeptical, but didn't dismiss them at first. I investigated, using Internet search tools, then posting this thread. Evidence began to mount up that Simoncini is the worst kind of fraud there is and it would now be difficult for me to believe otherwise.

The difference between us and my friend is

1. At first, he accepted the claims without investigation of any kind, and
2. When confronted with research, instead of analyzing the data, countered by sending me articles about how doctors make mistakes and hospitals kill patients. As if that had any bearing on the subject.

It's a closed mind; one that not only wants to believe, but must believe. And there are charlatans out there who know that and exploit it.

You are absolutely right, this is exactly what happens. I am on a number of forums in the Netherlands where people advocate Simoncini. Also, a friend of mine has a medical blog where these people drop their messages. But no matter how many facts you present to them, it has absolutely no effect. There they go again, about mistakes being made in regular medicine, will I please explain why it is that still so many people die of cancer, do I know about the worldwide and evil conspiracy of BIG PHARMA who only makes medicines that keep us ill, have I ever heard about Hardin Jones who said that with chemo 4 times more people die of cancer than without chemo, have I any idea what chemo does to a person, do I know that regular medicine is worse than the Holocaust, etc etc etc.

When I tell them that I have heard of Hardin Jones and what he really said and when he said it, they call me a liar.

When I tell them about initiatives in the pharmaceutical industry so that scientific research can also be done that may be less profitable they call me a liar.

When I tell them that I had chemotherapy myself, they call me a liar and demand to see my medical file.

When I tell them that I am Jewish and that regular medicine and the Holocaust are really two very different things, they call me a liar.

Sometimes I find it very depressing and the level of ignorance and the persistent refusal to be educated truly shocking. I can't understand why people should want to go on believing things that are so obviously wrong.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

I think there is a lesson to be learned by all of this. Unfortunately the lesson isn't being learned by those who need it most.

Originally Posted by JennyJo

Sometimes I find it very depressing and the level of ignorance and the persistent refusal to be educated truly shocking. I can't understand why people should want to go on believing things that are so obviously wrong.

I agree with you. It is probably not possible to change the strong believers minds. The internet is full of sites promoting Simoncinis views. One can hope that discussions such as this one also will show on the searches made by the "openminded-but-not-yet decideds".

[pgwenthold]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that sodium bicarb is an appropriate therapy, even if it WERE a fungus. I mean, it's not like you use baking soda to cure athlete's foot, do you?

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that sodium bicarb is an appropriate therapy, even if it WERE a fungus. I mean, it's not like you use baking soda to cure athlete's foot, do you?

Of sodiumcarbonate (Na2CO3) I've heard it can be good when you have a small wound or infection. My grandmother used to soak her feet in warm water with sodiumcarbonate sometimes when she had an ingrown toenail or something like that. But these things probably heal just as fast by itself.

But sodiumbicarb... Simoncini only says that it is general knowledge that sodiumbicarbonate is a powerful antifungal agent.

Well, that says it all, doesn't it?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that sodium bicarb is an appropriate therapy, even if it WERE a fungus. I mean, it's not like you use baking soda to cure athlete's foot, do you?

It seems to be along the same lines of some of the quacks who claim that ALL disease is caused by acidity of blood or some whacko lady who believes that cancers and all diseases are caused by parasites.

[jli]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that sodium bicarb is an appropriate therapy, even if it WERE a fungus. I mean, it's not like you use baking soda to cure athlete's foot, do you?

I think it has to do with hope. You see someone who presents (as an indisputable fact) what cancer is really all about, and how traditional medical science got it all completely wrong. If you on one hand is confronted with traditional medical science giving you a realistic estimation of outcome of therapy and on the other hand is presented with guaranteed cure with no side effects (backed up by a multitude of testimonials), it is tempting to accept it.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by paximperium

It seems to be along the same lines of some of the quacks who claim that ALL disease is caused by acidity of blood or some whacko lady who believes that cancers and all diseases are caused by parasites.

You're right. Fungus is very popular in alternative medicine, especially the Candida Albicans. Candida Albicans is the fungus that is responsible for cancer, according to Simoncini. And cancers can only grow when one's blood has too much acidity (or not enough, I just can't remember, fungus in the brain I guess). Hence the baking soda. For it is common knowlegde (exept in regular medicine) that baking soda destroys fungi and makes the blood more acid (or less, I can't remember).

And all this was discovered by Simoncini.

It's very simple actually. We could have thought of it ourselves.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by jli

I think it has to do with hope. You see someone who presents (as an indisputable fact) what cancer is really all about, and how traditional medical science got it all completely wrong. If you on one hand is confronted with traditional medical science giving you a realistic estimation of outcome of therapy and on the other hand is presented with guaranteed cure with no side effects (backed up by a multitude of testimonials), it is tempting to accept it.

Yes, hope plays a big part in it. Still, there are also people who don't believe these things, not even when they are incurably ill.
But it's mean, giving people hope when there is none. And letting them pay a lot of money for it as well.
What's even worse is that many quacks keep perfectly curable people away from regular medicine. The woman I told you about, was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, just like I was. I underwent treatment (mastectomy and chemotherapy). I now have a very good prognosis, have new hair, feel fit and happy and have started working again. But she is dead. That is terrible I think.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by jli

I think it has to do with hope. You see someone who presents (as an indisputable fact) what cancer is really all about, and how traditional medical science got it all completely wrong. If you on one hand is confronted with traditional medical science giving you a realistic estimation of outcome of therapy and on the other hand is presented with guaranteed cure with no side effects (backed up by a multitude of testimonials), it is tempting to accept it.

I agree with you there. I believe it is definitive answers that make these quacks so attractive. They have an answer and a fix all. Imagine, all disease is caused by fungus and here is a way to cure all your ills.

In medicine we often have ambiguity and have to rely on probability to give us some answers. I can imagine in pathology, when you analyze a tissue sample, you're never 100% sure if all the markers and morphology equals or disproves cancer. It is ambiguity that people can't handle.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

For it is common knowlegde (exept in regular medicine) that baking soda destroys fungi and makes the blood more acid (or less, I can't remember).

Sodium Bicarbonate is an alkali. I use it pretty often. When I treat cardiac arrest patients or patient with severe acidosis, I give bicarb. I've used it to alkalize patient's in some forms of poisonings to increase urinary excretion.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Sodium Bicarbonate is an alkali. I use it pretty often. When I treat cardiac arrest patients or patient with severe acidosis, I give bicarb. I've used it to alkalize patient's in some forms of poisonings to increase urinary excretion.

I've read about the uses of sodium bicarbonate in regular medicine. Please forgive my ignorance on the subject.

[jli]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

But it's mean, giving people hope when there is none. And letting them pay a lot of money for it as well.
What's even worse is that many quacks keep perfectly curable people away from regular medicine. The woman I told you about, was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, just like I was. I underwent treatment (mastectomy and chemotherapy). I now have a very good prognosis, have new hair, feel fit and happy and have started working again. But she is dead. That is terrible I think.

Those are very good reasons for not accepting their claims on right to freedom of speech. And subsequent allowing them to get of the hook when their treatments fail. In my view it is not enough that they post a disclaimer on their websites telling us that they are not giving medical advice.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I agree with you there. I believe it is definitive answers that make these quacks so attractive. They have an answer and a fix all. Imagine, all disease is caused by fungus and here is a way to cure all your ills.

In medicine we often have ambiguity and have to rely on probability to give us some answers. I can imagine in pathology, when you analyze a tissue sample, you're never 100% sure if all the markers and morphology equals or disproves cancer. It is ambiguity that people can't handle.

I think you're right about that.
Hope, fed by fear. Some people are so afraid of regular cancer treatment and the mutilation (as they call it) that comes with it in some cases, that they can easily be convinced by someone who tells them they can get well without these 'gruesome' therapies.
Therefore I fear there will always be quacks as long as there are ills.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by jli

Those are very good reasons for not accepting their claims on right to freedom of speech. And subsequent allowing them to get of the hook when their treatments fail. In my view it is not enough that they post a disclaimer on their websites telling us that they are not giving medical advice.

I couldn't agree with you more!

What I find very disgusting as well is that they keep saying that they want 'free choice' for patients. But how can there be 'free choice' when people are blatantly lied to?
Much of a choice that is!

[jli]

Originally Posted by paximperium

In medicine we often have ambiguity and have to rely on probability to give us some answers. I can imagine in pathology, when you analyze a tissue sample, you're never 100% sure if all the markers and morphology equals or disproves cancer. It is ambiguity that people can't handle.

Fortunately the histologic differentiation of a benign versus a malignant lesion is usually straight forward (provided adequacy of the biopsy). But you are right that there are malignant lesions that look deceptively benigne and vice versa.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by jli

Fortunately the histologic differentiation of a benign versus a malignant lesion is usually straight forward (provided adequacy of the biopsy). But you are right that there are malignant lesions that look deceptively benigne and vice versa.

Actually, you sometimes don't even need to be a pathologist to see the difference. My wife is a general practice veterinarian and she diagnosis malignancy on her own very often. She usually will get a pathologist to confirm it, but she can sometimes see it herself. Her positive diagnoses are rarely (if ever) contradicted by the pathologist. She can miss it on occasion, but doesn't get false positives.

BTW, pathologists scare me. It takes a special type of person to get into it. A very thankless job, on one hand, but tough as all get out. A friend's husband is doing his path residency right now. A pretty smart bunch of folks.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by paximperium

It seems to be along the same lines of some of the quacks who claim that ALL disease is caused by acidity of blood or some whacko lady who believes that cancers and all diseases are caused by parasites.

Curious. IIRC, one of the important characteristics of cancer cells is that they have lower pH inside (more acidic). I should have made that connection before. I don't remember the basis for the lower pH, but I know it is true (there are therapies being developed that try to use that as a means for targeting them). So apparently these folks think that if you just increase the pH, then the disease will go away.

The funny part about this is that it is the same sort of quacks who claim that "western medicine" only treats the symptoms and not the real disease. So here's folks are doing the equivalent of trying to "fix" an oil leak in the car by putting sawdust down to soak up the oilspot. It doesn't get any more "just treating the symptoms and not the disease" than that.

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Curious. IIRC, one of the important characteristics of cancer cells is that they have lower pH inside (more acidic). I should have made that connection before. I don't remember the basis for the lower pH, but I know it is true (there are therapies being developed that try to use that as a means for targeting them). So apparently these folks think that if you just increase the pH, then the disease will go away.

The funny part about this is that it is the same sort of quacks who claim that "western medicine" only treats the symptoms and not the real disease. So here's folks are doing the equivalent of trying to "fix" an oil leak in the car by putting sawdust down to soak up the oilspot. It doesn't get any more "just treating the symptoms and not the disease" than that.

It gets even more crazy: I read about a relatively new use of sodium bicarbonate: it can sometimes be used as an agent to find malignant tumors in the body, because of this lower PH inside cancer cells to which it apparently reacts.
This is now used by the Simoncini followers as 'proof' that it can also cure cancer.
So, what finds the cancer, also cures it. Although I've never heard of an MRI scan that cures cancer.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

It gets even more crazy: I read about a relatively new use of sodium bicarbonate: it can sometimes be used as an agent to find malignant tumors in the body, because of this lower PH inside cancer cells to which it apparently reacts.
This is now used by the Simoncini followers as 'proof' that it can also cure cancer.
So, what finds the cancer, also cures it. Although I've never heard of an MRI scan that cures cancer.

You'd be surprised by the MRI guided radiotherapy machines nowadays...damn Radiation Oncologists get all the cool toys. One problem on modern cancer treatments is the extreme cost. Some of the new drugs are very effective...Gleevec is a miracle drug that has been remarkable in the treatment of several types of almost always fatal leukemias but the cost is hundred of thousands of US dollars per year. Some of the new very powerful radiotherapy devices are very effective but getting absurdly expensive to the point that only big cancer centers can afford it...so 10cent baking soda sounds like a magic cure.

I'm going to have to defer to someone more knowledgeable on cancers to explain why cancers are more acidic.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I'm going to have to defer to someone more knowledgeable on cancers to explain why cancers are more acidic.

For some reason, I associate it with hypoxia. However, I'm not sure if the acidity causes hypoxia, or the other way around. And I don't know why I associate them. I don't have a good chemical reason to do so. It's just something nagging on me.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by paximperium

You'd be surprised by the MRI guided radiotherapy machines nowadays...damn Radiation Oncologists get all the cool toys. One problem on modern cancer treatments is the extreme cost. Some of the new drugs are very effective...Gleevec is a miracle drug that has been remarkable in the treatment of several types of almost always fatal leukemias but the cost is hundred of thousands of US dollars per year.

IIRC, Gleevec is actually a cancer antagonist (it is a bcr-abl protein inhibitor). Used against Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

I wrote a lecture about Gleevec for my gen chem course a couple of years ago.

[JennyJo]

I've heard of that, a collegue of mine was/is using it.
In the Netherlands it is called Glivec. It's manufactured by Novartis I believe. I read something that it's also expected to be effective against small pox-like viruses...?

[jli]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Actually, you sometimes don't even need to be a pathologist to see the difference. My wife is a general practice veterinarian and she diagnosis malignancy on her own very often..

That is true. And the surgeons know that of course. They have often schedueled definitive surgery before they have the biopsy report. On one occasion they had even begun surgery before I had the chance to look at the "preoperative" biopsy

Quote:

BTW, pathologists scare me.

Don´t let them. They are usually nice people, and some of us even have a "normal" sense of humor

Quote:

It takes a special type of person to get into it.

I think trauma surgeons would have a much more stressful job. In the midst of panic they have to mobilize all of their skills in an instant. Pathologists usually have time to think before they act.

Quote:

A friend's husband is doing his path residency right now.

Remember what I told you about the friendliness of the pathologists

Quote:

A pretty smart bunch of folks.

[jli]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

IIRC, Gleevec is actually a cancer antagonist (it is a bcr-abl protein inhibitor). Used against Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

A few years ago it was successfully introduced in the treatment of a cancer type known as "Gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST).