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

[jli]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

If your PH is on the alkaline side the cancer will go away.

Then why did this study show otherwise?

Quote:

Cancer is big business.

I wouldn´t be suprised if Simoncini is in it for the money.

[JJM]

Another take on the topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...n_oncology.php

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

Peroxide 3% 10mil in water daily ups the oxygen levels

That's a negligible amount or peroxide, taken orally. All you're doing is exposing your mouth, throat, and stomach to oxidative effects. I've done that orally when I had a minor infection around one of my wisdom teeth (before I had them yanked) -- helps kill the anaerobes. Otherwise, you're just, well, damaging your cells.

Oxidation does tend to, you know, damage DNA. Maybe cause cancer. Fortunately, 300 microliters of peroxide a day isn't going to do anything.

Originally Posted by Old Bob

If your PH is on the alkaline side the cancer will go away.

Yes. Because you'll die.

Your blood is a heavily buffered system that has evolved to do its best to maintain a specific pH. When you move away from that pH in either direction (which you can do by having a near-drowning experience, e.g.), it can kill you.

[Old Bob]

Worked for me 20 years ago.

[Strawman]

I've learned through personal experience as well as personal observation that one person's 'quack' is another person's path to being cured. Many examples abound - enough examples to hold my opinion of the treatment until I learn more.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Strawman

I've learned through personal experience as well as personal observation that one person's 'quack' is another person's path to being cured. Many examples abound - enough examples to hold my opinion of the treatment until I learn more.

I hope it was not your intention to chastize those of us who have taken the trouble to learn more already.

Linda

[Old Bob]

Have found out that bi-carb needs to be bound in maple syrup by almost boiling syrupy then adding bi-carb, let cool and take about a half teaspoon daily. 4 of syrupy to 1 of bi-carb so I'm told.

[Delayman]

I have just picked up this thread.

I am not interested in who is for, or against, Simoncini but I think that he would claim that whilst it is true that tumors are white, he is not basing his whole theory on that fact and anyway, jli confirms several times in the thread that Simoncini is right about this.

jli also states that it is a fact that cancers “do not hide fungus within them”. Why is it then, that at the autumn meeting of the Society for General Microbiology in Dublin, Miss Hansong Ma of the University of Birmingham said (in a lecture on fatal yeast infections related to AIDS) “we have shown that these airborne yeast cells can hide inside our bodies’ own white blood cells, called macrophages and then use them as vehicles to travel around the inside of our bodies” !

pgwenthold has never heard of sodium bicarbonate as an anti-fungal agent but in the context of horticulture, sodium bicarbonate and potassium bicarbonate have been used for many years for their anti-fungal properties and btw are recommended and approved by the FDA because they are not harmful if they enter the food chain.

I wonder why pgwenthold finds it “curious…. that one of the important characteristics of cancer cells is that they have a lower pH inside (more acidic)”. Researchers from the University of Cambridge found that “almost all cancers, in comparison with surrounding tissues, have low pH level due to disturbance in body’s chemical balance system”. Also, I do not understand his analogy of “trying to fix an oil leak in the car by putting sawdust down to soak up the oilspot”. A better analogy, in my view, would be say. ‘filling up the tank to the maximum with petrol after you had accidentally put in some diesel’. That at least might restore the balance of the fuel and get the vehicle going?

I too would have to defer to someone more knowledgeable on cancers to explain why cancers are more acidic, paximperium, but if I have read correctly, Simoncini would agree with pgwenthold that it is to do with “hypoxia” because I believe that one of his ideas regarding Psoriasis, for instance, is that although this is a fungal infection it does not become cancerous precisely because of the exposure to oxygen on the surface of the skin.

jli,says the “pathologist is not only looking at the neoplastic cells…..If the white masses were fungal colonies he/she would see that without any problems”, but it seems that pathologists do not even contemplate the possibility of fungi being present and have been brought up on the notion that fungi are the poor relations of bacteria and viruses in the microbiological world.

That being the case, is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that a pathologist using a regular microscope could miss say, a 5 micron spore in the dead inner mulch of a tumour, which has been sliced, diced and stained?

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

....but I think that he would claim that whilst it is true that tumors are white, he is not basing his whole theory on that fact

But that is exactly what Simoncini says in the videos (That I´m almost certain you have watched).

Quote:

jli also states that it is a fact that cancers “do not hide fungus within them”.

As you have seen in the videos. Simoncini claims that all cancers are made of Candida colonies. And the pathologists only look at the superficial reactive cells encasing the colony. What should be clear from reading this thread is that pathologists see more than just the surface of the white mass. The cells that Simoncini thinks are reactive are not just at the surface of the white mass but all over it. That was the meaning of the statement that cancers do not hide fungus within them.

Quote:

Why is it then, that at the autumn meeting of the Society for General Microbiology in Dublin, Miss Hansong Ma of the University of Birmingham said (in a lecture on fatal yeast infections related to AIDS) “we have shown that these airborne yeast cells can hide inside our bodies’ own white blood cells, called macrophages and then use them as vehicles to travel around the inside of our bodies” !

That is not the same as to say that cancers are made of fungus or that all cancers contain fungus within them.

Quote:

jli,says the “pathologist is not only looking at the neoplastic cells…..If the white masses were fungal colonies he/she would see that without any problems”, but it seems that pathologists do not even contemplate the possibility of fungi being present and have been brought up on the notion that fungi are the poor relations of bacteria and viruses in the microbiological world.

That being the case, is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that a pathologist using a regular microscope could miss say, a 5 micron spore in the dead inner mulch of a tumour, which has been sliced, diced and stained?

Watch Simoncinis videos again - and you will see that he claims that cancers are fungal colonies. Not just single 5 micron spores. Anyway the spores and hypaes are not that hard to find when present.

This photograph is of an esofageal biopsy clearly showing candida. And the biposy of course has undergone cutting and staining in the same way that a section of a cancer would have been (in addition to beeing squeezed because of the biopsy procedure).

[Delayman]

Thanks for the feedback.

I state again you, yourself confirmed that Simoncini is right about cancer being white. So there is no argument there. I have seen the videos and in the ‘Know the Cause’ video, it is Kaufman that is making the big deal out of cancer being white, which is really just a starting point to Simoncini but by no means the whole basis of his theory. Obviously with a new theory you have to start somewhere but what I can tell you is that in Simoncini’s book, which I have read, the fact that cancer is white is not even mentioned!

In regards to your statement that cancers “do not hide fungus within them”, I referred to a source that I assumed would be acceptable to you (Society of General Microbiology) but perhaps I should have made it clear that this quote was put forward as an a priori argument ie that if a cell can actually hide a fungus inside (and I notice that you did not argue with this statement) then obviously so could a tumor mass.

If, then, you could be open to the idea of certain cells being reactive in nature, then they could be proportionally so, and possibly more pleomorphic to the centre of the mass. The tumor would be like a piece of fruit with a seed in the centre representing the fungus.

It is true that Simoncini refers a lot to fungal colonies and I have no idea how big a colony would need to be to fit his definition or how spread out (although we know that fungi can be as small as bacteria), but the fact is, that there are many studies that show that Candida is always present with cancer and this is accepted by the medical profession, itself. I acknowledge and accept that you could and do recognize fungus (thank you for the example) but the fact is that, even assuming the tumor is sliced right through the centre (as per my example above), even if a pathologist came across a fungus within the tumor, he would have no reason to assume that it is other than a result of adjuvant therapy and a suppressed immune system (which is the conventional wisdom) and therefore it would have no significance for him/her.

Simoncini, in his book by the way, insists that the war against cancer will be won through microbiology because that is the science that deals with infections . He admits that Sodium Bicarbonate is a crude solution and is probably waiting for some brave microbiologist to stick his head above the parapet and give some credence to his theory.

Meanwhile, as you know HPV is the cause of two types cervical cancer so is a theory that all cancer is caused by an infection so utterly outrageous?

[JennyJo]

How can so many scientists, including pathologists, all over the world, time and time again, miss this fungus that is supposed to be the cause of all cancers? Are all of these people utterly blind and stupid?
And if Simoncini is so certain, why has he failed to deliver any supporting evidence for his theory whatsoever?

[Delayman]

How? Easy, new ideas and theories are often dismissed by scientists,” all over the world, time and time again” in fact it may well be a particular hallmark of those theories that upset conventional thinking. Think of Ignaz Semmelweis who was ridiculed and ignored for 20/30 years and ended up dying in an asylum, when all he tried to do was explain that medical students should wash their hands between procedures to prevent patients dying. No one wanted to listen.

I am not a supporter of alternative medicine nor am I promoting Simoncini’s theory but a simple call for ‘supporting evidence’ is rather naïve, if I may say so. Let’s be frank here, we are talking about a pernicious disease which has no known cause and no known cure and which continues to kill millions every year. This after 30 years of intensive research and $100millions invested and it is no use claiming that it is many different diseases because, if so, why call each one cancer?

A theory, by the way, does not need evidence, it is just that – a theory. What you are referring to, presumably, is evidence of cure. Well he claims clinical case studies (many of which are documented in his book and in his patient testimonials), but of course that is not good enough for the medical fraternity, they want peer reviewed articles and clinical studies. Meanwhile, there is an epidemic, people keep dying and what can conventional medicine offer apart from surgery? I will tell you- nothing!

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Delayman

How? Easy, new ideas and theories are often dismissed by scientists,” all over the world, time and time again” in fact it may well be a particular hallmark of those theories that upset conventional thinking. Think of Ignaz Semmelweis who was ridiculed and ignored for 20/30 years and ended up dying in an asylum, when all he tried to do was explain that medical students should wash their hands between procedures to prevent patients dying. No one wanted to listen.

Tired argument. I'm not even going to bother to tell you why this particular argument will be dismissed out of hand, you can read any number of threads on this forum for that.

Originally Posted by Delayman

I am not a supporter of alternative medicine nor am I promoting Simoncini’s theory but a simple call for ‘supporting evidence’ is rather naïve, if I may say so.

Yes you are, and no it is not.

Originally Posted by Delayman

Let’s be frank here, we are talking about a pernicious disease which has no known cause and no known cure and which continues to kill millions every year. This after 30 years of intensive research and $100millions invested and it is no use claiming that it is many different diseases because, if so, why call each one cancer?

No known cause? No use claiming cancers are many diseases? It would seem you are not all that educated on cancers. Tell you what, when you can intelligently discuss the differences between Multiple Myeloma and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma I'll bother to point out where your above statements are patently false. In the meantime I can tell you that the causes for cancers vary as much as the cancers themselves. You would do well to take a look at the ACS website and read through several different cancers. There's some good explanations about causes there.

Originally Posted by Delayman

A theory, by the way, does not need evidence, it is just that – a theory. What you are referring to, presumably, is evidence of cure. Well he claims clinical case studies (many of which are documented in his book and in his patient testimonials), but of course that is not good enough for the medical fraternity, they want peer reviewed articles and clinical studies. Meanwhile, there is an epidemic, people keep dying and what can conventional medicine offer apart from surgery? I will tell you- nothing!

You can have a theory all you want without evidence. You can't have a theory you want to put into practical application without having evidence your theory is correct. This is why clinical trials are done. I can have theories all over the place that Metallica causes cancer and Brahms cures it. Until I run clinical trials on listeners of both music types, I have nothing but a whimsical statement.

Then again, the context of how you use the term theory makes me think you have no idea what it means outside layman usage. When you understand what it means in terms of science your statements will appear as ridiculous to you as they do me.

In short your post isn't right, but it's not even wrong either. It's just bunk.

It's funny, my tumors were donated to be used as research/teaching materials. I would think a class of physicians and the staff teaching them would have found a fungus. Of course, I would think that the several biopsies on those tumors would have found them also.

As for this sodium bicarbonate nonsense, along with the alkaline/maple syrup nonsense it's just more demonstrations of people making something up when they have no understanding what they are dealing with. That they would then sell it as a cure without any evidence it works (hint: testimonials are not evidence of functionality) is the very definition of reckless.

I won't bother to expound more because there's ample posts of mine on this topic littered across this forum. There's a thread in forum spotlight regarding some of the topics here for anyone interested.

[Delayman]

Apologies if my arguments appear tired, but the fact is, they are pertinent.

I took your advice, by the way, and checked the ACS site. Guess what? Under ‘Causes of Multiple Myeloma’ it talks about risk factors and alterations of DNA and then goes on to say…..”while the exact cause of multiple myeloma is not known scientists are learning…..”. Also on Non Hodgkins Lymphoma it says right at the beginning….”although researchers have found that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is linked with a number of risk factors most patients…do not have any known risk factors and the causes of their cancers are unknown…” .

I am not stupid and obviously there are differences between all cancers but their generic classification is a ‘type of cancer’, and as in these two cases the cause is not known, which is the first point I was making.

I am not against clinical trials, but they are overrated. The recent media controversy over the availability of Avastin is a case in point. The Icon 7 trial for instance is randomised but not blind. By the time that the lead researchers cobble together enough patients for the trial, in this case at different FIGO stages, ages, menopausal profile etc, and then take into account the ‘drop out’ rate, they may well be left with a few hundred patients and a trial, for which people have been waiting for years, whose statistical significance will not be much more than a handful of case studies.

A well known surgeon that I was speaking to recently said that the only statistics that were meaningful in medicine were meta-analyses. We were discussing the 2004 study done by the College of Radiologists in Sydney, Australia which did a meta analysis of 25,000 people from the US and Australia and came to the conclusion that in the world of adult solid tumours the overall survival rate increase from chemotherapy was just 2.3%.

All I am saying is that we all need to be more open to other possibilities.

[Ducky]

You fail. There's a list of risk factors and an explanation of platelet cell abnormalities due to chromosomal changes on that page. It is not a complete mystery where Multiple Myeloma comes from, it simply cannot be pinned down to a single risk factor due to many reasons. That you don't understand this emphasizes my point.

From the Myeloma Research Foundation's webpage:

Quote:

...However, the search for a cause has suggested possible associations between myeloma and a decline in the immune system, genetic factors, certain occupations, certain viruses, exposure to certain chemicals including Agent Orange, and exposure to radiation.

<snip>

It is important to remember that in most cases, individuals who develop multiple myeloma have no clear risk factors. Myeloma may be the result of several factors acting together

Asking for one clear cause to why cells mutate and divide abnormally is a red herring, ace. Causes for MM can be as varied as HPV or infection or genetic predisposition. All of them are related to a decline in immune system function.

And if you were wondering what the major difference between Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma are, you can look up the differences between T-cells and B-cells.

Now unless you can give a good explanation of how sodium bicarbonate can counteract genetic mutations due to a variety of causes, or how it can counteract all cancers as claimed, you've lost here.

As for the rest of your post, it's a study in support of confirmation bias. That's something blinded studies remove from the equation. Until you can show where confirmation bias is helpful (and you won't be able to) this discussion is moot.

In other words, pony up some evidence or stop waxing philosophical about things you are demonstrating a lack of understanding about.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I am not against clinical trials, but they are overrated. The recent media controversy over the availability of Avastin is a case in point. The Icon 7 trial for instance is randomised but not blind. By the time that the lead researchers cobble together enough patients for the trial, in this case at different FIGO stages, ages, menopausal profile etc, and then take into account the ‘drop out’ rate, they may well be left with a few hundred patients and a trial, for which people have been waiting for years, whose statistical significance will not be much more than a handful of case studies.

I like how 1500 drops to a few hundred and then to a handful in the space of a single sentence.

I hate to break it to you, but a collection of sporadically selected, highly biased stories does not serve as a substitute for carefully collected, inclusive information gathered in the absence of the effects of bias, regardless of whether or not the implementation of the latter falls short of the ideal.

Quote:

A well known surgeon that I was speaking to recently said that the only statistics that were meaningful in medicine were meta-analyses.

Meta-analyses are performed on randomized controlled trials. You cannot choose to poo-poo the idea that clinical trials are useful on the one hand, and agree with this well-known surgeon on the other.

Quote:

We were discussing the 2004 study done by the College of Radiologists in Sydney, Australia which did a meta analysis of 25,000 people from the US and Australia and came to the conclusion that in the world of adult solid tumours the overall survival rate increase from chemotherapy was just 2.3%.

All I am saying is that we all need to be more open to other possibilities.

What are you suggesting? That we dismiss the idea of testing our hypotheses and proceed as though we should not care whether or not we are wrong?

Linda

[jli]

Delayman:
You seem very reluctant to even contemplate that Simoncinis theory about cancers being fungi could be incorrect. Just out of curiosity: What kind of observation would you accept that would make Simoncinis theory implausible?

[Delayman]

Firstly, I would like to apologize. I may not have made it clear that as far as I can make out there are no claims by Simoncini that the sodium bicarbonate treatment is effective when dealing with blood cancers or lymphomas, so any arguments that I may have put forward, with the limited knowledge that I have, only relate to solid tumors. I would also add that it is interesting to note that if chemotherapy has had any success it appears to have been in the blood cancers or lymphomas rather that the solid tumours.

To continue then, we seem to have a problem of semantics because what I am talking about is ‘causality’ and what you are talking about is ‘risk’. At your suggestion, once again, I have visited the Myeloma Foundation’s website and it says very clearly that: “Although a tremendous amount of work has gone into the search for the cause of multiple myeloma, to date no cause for this disease has been identified.” You interpret my reference to a ‘cause’ and say “ it simply cannot be pinned down to a single risk factor…..that you don’t understand this emphasizes my point” (?), but in your own quote from the website you say “However, the search for a cause…..so the Myeloma Foundation is also, of course, searching for a ‘cause’ it is just that at the moment, sadly, it only has possible associations with an impossibly long list of risk factors.

Despite what you say about my not understanding the activities of T cells and B cells, frankly I find it desperately sad that, as with most other cancers, the time, effort and vast amounts of money that have been spent over all these years has not brought us any nearer to understanding what ‘causes’ the majority of cancers.

I acknowledge that the cell mutations in each cancer are different but as I said before (referring to solid tumors) that it is not too far beyond the bounds of possibility to imagine different cells, each reacting in their own way but to the same deep tissue infection.

Your reference to blinded studies removing confirmation bias is well taken, that is why, if you had read my reference to the Icon 7 trials in the UK, you would notice that whilst these are randomised they are not single or double blind trials and it is precisely my point that whilst obviously of some benefit (particularly when they are assessed all together in meta analyses) clinical trials cannot, necessarily be relied upon in isolation any more than, say, reasonable case studies.

If you do not want to consider, what to me is a rather plausible theory about solid tumours being cells reacting to a fungal infection then fine, but if you insist on supporting evidence in the form of peer reviewed articles and clinical trials (which I assume is your position, then when it comes to the sodium bicarbonate theory, to the best of my knowledge there are none, because to have those you need laboratories, cancer clinics and substantial amounts of funding.
So, you are right, I cannot pony up the evidence and thereforeI will need to continue to wax philosophical because at least that gives me some ray of hope in this hopeless situation that the world finds itself in.

[Delayman]

I think you are correct that the target figure is 1500, but I believe they have around 800 to date. Avastin is licensed in the UK only for colorectal cancer, so this is an opportunity for ovarian Patients to receive the drug. Since this trial is not blinded, a number of the control group could well drop out subsequently. My reference to a handful was to the alternative ie case studies which I accept may not be rigorous. Sorry if I gave the impression of poopooing, clinical trials are obviously necessary not least because of the meta analysis. I do not suggest that we dismiss trials just that maybe we could broaden our horizons.

[Delayman]

To be honest jli, your observations have had an effect. You are insisting that seeing the fungus is a simple microscopic observation and you make a convincing scientific argument. However it is not my theory, I am not a microbiologist and I might not be describing it properly. The difficulty is, although I may well have doubts about his theory I am afraid I do not have any doubts about chemotherapy being a poison, so I can only hope you are wrong.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I think you are correct that the target figure is 1500, but I believe they have around 800 to date. Avastin is licensed in the UK only for colorectal cancer, so this is an opportunity for ovarian Patients to receive the drug. Since this trial is not blinded, a number of the control group could well drop out subsequently.

So what? You can't pretend that all or most trials are unblinded, regardless of whether you deliberately picked one that wasn't.

Quote:

My reference to a handful was to the alternative ie case studies which I accept may not be rigorous. Sorry if I gave the impression of poopooing, clinical trials are obviously necessary not least because of the meta analysis. I do not suggest that we dismiss trials just that maybe we could broaden our horizons.

Except that the only reasonable interpretation of "broaden our horizons" is to move closer to poor quality information and away from good quality information. And you have failed to explain why this would be a Good Thing.

Linda

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Delayman

A theory, by the way, does not need evidence, it is just that – a theory.

No, what you have is a hypothesis. A theory must have something to back it up.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

A well known surgeon that I was speaking to recently said that the only statistics that were meaningful in medicine were meta-analyses.

It also requires mention that your well-known surgeon is wrong. The gold-standard is appropriately large, high-quality trials. Meta-anlyses are measured against this gold-standard and often come up short.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Madalch

No, what you have is a hypothesis. A theory must have something to back it up.

Even a hypothesis requires something to back it up. The best he can be said to have is an 'idea'. The biggest failing in the investigation of these subjects is that ideas are formed in the absence of a theoretical basis or evidence. Even if/when research is performed, it is difficult (if not impossible) to draw conclusions from the result that are both relevant to the original idea and are likely to be valid.

Linda

[Delayman]

[quote=fls;4191822]So what? You can't pretend that all or most trials are unblinded, regardless of whether you deliberately picked one that wasn't.

Actually when it comes to cancer trials many (if not all) are not blinded for the ethical reason (enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki) that you cannot leave patients untreated. Therefore trials tend to compare new treatment with the best pre-existing current treatment, which happens in the case of cancer to be chemotherapy.

Except that the only reasonable interpretation of "broaden our horizons" is to move closer to poor quality information and away from good quality information. And you have failed to explain why this would be a Good Thing.

I use the term ‘broaden our horizons’ in the context of using ANY information that may help us move away from results extrapolated from clinical trials which have got us nowhere in terms of a cure for cancer.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by Madalch

No, what you have is a hypothesis. A theory must have something to back it up.

Ok I can see that I will have to use my words more carefully. The theory is not mine, it is Simoncini’s and he obviously feels that he has ‘something to back it up’ ie his own clinical observations and case studies. That is not evidence as far as the medical establishment is concerned. So maybe we should use the word hypothesis, that is not such a bad thing, and at least that may help the contributors to this forum, including myself, to deal with it, and stop focusing too much on scientific evidence, because obviously if irrefutable scientific evidence were available then there would be no discussion.

No, the real question is not what is the evidence? The real question is - could there be the slightest possible chance that such a hypothesis is true!!

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Originally Posted by fls

So what? You can't pretend that all or most trials are unblinded, regardless of whether you deliberately picked one that wasn't.

Actually when it comes to cancer trials many (if not all) are not blinded for the ethical reason (enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki) that you cannot leave patients untreated. Therefore trials tend to compare new treatment with the best pre-existing current treatment, which happens in the case of cancer to be chemotherapy.

You are confusing 'blinding' with the type of control (treated or untreated). Many clinical trials use treated controls but are still subject to blinding with the use of placebos.

Quote:

Quote:

Except that the only reasonable interpretation of "broaden our horizons" is to move closer to poor quality information and away from good quality information. And you have failed to explain why this would be a Good Thing.

I use the term ‘broaden our horizons’ in the context of using ANY information that may help us move away from results extrapolated from clinical trials which have got us nowhere in terms of a cure for cancer.

Almost none of our exploration in regards to finding cures for cancers comes from extrapolating from clinical trials, though. Your criticism seems to be based on your unfamiliarity with this subject.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Ok I can see that I will have to use my words more carefully. The theory is not mine, it is Simoncini’s and he obviously feels that he has ‘something to back it up’ ie his own clinical observations and case studies. That is not evidence as far as the medical establishment is concerned. So maybe we should use the word hypothesis, that is not such a bad thing, and at least that may help the contributors to this forum, including myself, to deal with it, and stop focusing too much on scientific evidence, because obviously if irrefutable scientific evidence were available then there would be no discussion.

Again, you claim that we should discard good evidence and instead explore on the basis of poor information as though this is useful advice. When has this ever been a fruitful endeavour?

Quote:

No, the real question is not what is the evidence? The real question is - could there be the slightest possible chance that such a hypothesis is true!!

The real question is what opportunities are lost by exploring ideas that are already highly likely to be invalid? We already know so much about this area, all of which tells us his idea is false, is it really worth our while to abandon areas that are highly promising in order to place additional seals on the coffin? We already know that any proposed treatment can be made to look like it is useful on the basis of stories, so stories, in and of themselves, cannot serve as evidence - they can not make it more or less likely for something to be true. Specific criteria must be met for a story to be a case report or part of a case series. His information falls very far from that standard. His behaviour his highly unethical for a medical practitioner/researcher. If he really has information at a level that could serve as evidence, then it is unethical for him to withhold that information from the rest of the medical community (i.e. he hasn't made his information available by allowing others to examine it); profiting from the misery of those with cancer by monopolizing information. If he does not have information that could serve as evidence, then it is highly unethical for him to proceed as though he does in order to profit from the misery of those with cancer.

Linda

[kbm99]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

Baking soda helps because it turns your body alkaline, take it in a glass of water with a little honey. Peroxide 3% 10mil in water daily ups the oxygen levels, B17 targets cancer cells 6 apricot kernels daily. If your PH is on the alkaline side the cancer will go away. Chemo is evil. Cancer is big business. We also treat our own skin cancers with petty spurge juice. Have a friend that a smart woman has brought back from terminal cancer, she tip bodies alkaline with spirulina with grape seed oil massage plus some of the above.

Is there any unsupported baloney being peddled anywhere that you don't believe in, Old Bob? Or are you, perhaps, an elaborate hoax of some sort? "I'll make up a sock puppet that is so maddeningly credulous that surely it will be clear to everyone on the forum it can't be a real person."

If so, Poe's Law seems to have bitten you on the butt. If not - wow.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

You are confusing 'blinding' with the type of control (treated or untreated). Many clinical trials use treated controls but are still subject to blinding with the use of placebos.

If that is the case then why is the Icon 7 trial not using placebos?

Almost none of our exploration in regards to finding cures for cancers comes from extrapolating from clinical trials, though. Your criticism seems to be based on your unfamiliarity with this subject.

Linda

I must be unfamiliar with the subject, because if trials of new cancer drugs are not looking for a cure, what are they looking for?

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

You are confusing 'blinding' with the type of control (treated or untreated). Many clinical trials use treated controls but are still subject to blinding with the use of placebos.





Almost none of our exploration in regards to finding cures for cancers comes from extrapolating from clinical trials, though. Your criticism seems to be based on your unfamiliarity with this subject.

Linda

Originally Posted by fls

Again, you claim that we should discard good evidence and instead explore on the basis of poor information as though this is useful advice. When has this ever been a fruitful endeavour?

You keep on about good evidence! Good evidence of what, failure?


The real question is what opportunities are lost by exploring ideas that are already highly likely to be invalid? We already know so much about this area, all of which tells us his idea is false, is it really worth our while to abandon areas that are highly promising in order to place additional seals on the coffin? We already know that any proposed treatment can be made to look like it is useful on the basis of stories, so stories, in and of themselves, cannot serve as evidence - they can not make it more or less likely for something to be true. Specific criteria must be met for a story to be a case report or part of a case series. His information falls very far from that standard. His behaviour his highly unethical for a medical practitioner/researcher. If he really has information at a level that could serve as evidence, then it is unethical for him to withhold that information from the rest of the medical community (i.e. he hasn't made his information available by allowing others to examine it); profiting from the misery of those with cancer by monopolizing information. If he does not have information that could serve as evidence, then it is highly unethical for him to proceed as though he does in order to profit from the misery of those with cancer.

Linda

I did not say abandon areas that are highly promising. I really do not know whether his case reports meet your definition of ‘specific criteria’ but some are documented in his book. Have you read it?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I must be unfamiliar with the subject, because if trials of new cancer drugs are not looking for a cure, what are they looking for?

We do not explore for new cures by arbitrarily selecting chemicals for clinical trials. The clinical trial is the final stage of a process that begins with in vitro (term used loosely) research. Clinical trials are performed after you have weeded out the dead ends and discarded all those ideas which turned out to be useless.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I did not say abandon areas that are highly promising.

If you are not suggesting that resources (which are finite, after all) be directed towards exploring this area, what are you suggesting?

Quote:

I really do not know whether his case reports meet your definition of ‘specific criteria’ but some are documented in his book. Have you read it?

I haven't read his book. I have read the stories that he was written on his website. He hasn't disseminated any of his information in the usual way, that is by publishing any of these stories in peer-reviewed medical journals. The stories on his websites are woefully inadequate as case reports. It is not possible to tell whether or not his conclusions are justified, as much of it does not make sense. For example, he shows pictures where one is supposed to assume that one can see fungal masses, yet, they are not what fungal masses actually look like. He gives no indication to me that he knows what he is talking about. And since his work is not peer-reviewed and there is no mechanism that subjects him to criticism, he is free to make mistakes or even make stuff up without being corrected.

Linda

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

The real question is - could there be the slightest possible chance that such a hypothesis is true!!

One way of forming an opinion is to analyze the predictions of such a hypothesis. According to the hypothesis the lump consists mainly of fungus. you might want to confirm that by watching the Kafufman video once more. That prediction is not in accordance with what is actually seen at the pathologic examination. According to the hypothesis the cells traditionally percieved as cancer cells are reactive cells present only at the surface (Simoncini says on the Kaufmann video). At pathologic examination the cancer cells/reactive cells are all over the white mass. In your modification of the theory (if I understand you correct) the fungal element of the mass may be one single spore located inside a macrophage, and thus go undetected. The reactive cells thus dominate the mass, and are more pleomoprphic at the center. At microscopy no such pleomorphism gradient is present. According to the hypothesis also the metastasis should consist predominantly of fungi. The reactive cells in their vicinity will have characteristics of liver cells. Sometimes metastasis are biopsied or even resected. No fungi are present at microscopy, and the metastatic cells do not have charactersitics of liver cells. Instead they have the characteristics of the cancer they spread from.

In short - Predictions one can make on the basis of this hypothesis are wrong. That is a good reason to dismiss it.

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

Please read this blog: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/

[sanguine]

Incidentally, if all cancer is really misdiagnosed fungus (which would be an impressive mass fail by every pathologist ever, everywhere), then why is Simoncini suggesting the use of sodium bicarb? Why not use one or many of the highly effective, proven antifungal medications that already exist? Surely you could cure cancer immediately by giving someone a systematic antifungal medication?

I mean, that follows from his assertion that it's all based on fungus. After all, if you had a bacterial infection that caused cancer, you'd treat the bacterial infection with antibiotics, not intravenous bleach. Surely you could give the person IV terbinafine or similar and watch their cancer woes go away, without the intrinsic risks involved in screwing up blood pH.

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

Quote:

If you do not want to consider, what to me is a rather plausible theory about solid tumours being cells reacting to a fungal infection then fine,

I just can't understand why you think this fungus theory is plausible. On what basis do you think it's plausible?
And why then should we use sodium bicarbonate, instead of one of the many proven effectively antifungal medications, as sanguine suggested?

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by jli

One way of forming an opinion is to analyze the predictions of such a hypothesis. According to the hypothesis the lump consists mainly of fungus. you might want to confirm that by watching the Kafufman video once more. That prediction is not in accordance with what is actually seen at the pathologic examination. According to the hypothesis the cells traditionally percieved as cancer cells are reactive cells present only at the surface (Simoncini says on the Kaufmann video). At pathologic examination the cancer cells/reactive cells are all over the white mass. In your modification of the theory (if I understand you correct) the fungal element of the mass may be one single spore located inside a macrophage, and thus go undetected. The reactive cells thus dominate the mass, and are more pleomoprphic at the center. At microscopy no such pleomorphism gradient is present. According to the hypothesis also the metastasis should consist predominantly of fungi. The reactive cells in their vicinity will have characteristics of liver cells. Sometimes metastasis are biopsied or even resected. No fungi are present at microscopy, and the metastatic cells do not have charactersitics of liver cells. Instead they have the characteristics of the cancer they spread from.

In short - Predictions one can make on the basis of this hypothesis are wrong. That is a good reason to dismiss it.

I do not think that Simoncini has necessarily done himself any favours by aligning himself with Kaufman because that interview focuses on certain aspects which are, once again, not mentioned in the book (particularly the histological comment). The book does put forward the concept that fungi adapts to the cells within the tumor in a sort of symbiotic relationship but frankly I am way out of my depth, so I have taken some of the references from the book's footnotes. I have no doubt that these have been peer reviewed and hope that they may shed some light on the matter:


1: Science. 1987 Dec 11;238(4833):1573-5. Links
Phagocytosis of Candida albicans enhances malignant behavior of murine tumor cells.
Ginsburg I, Fligiel SE, Kunkel RG, Riser BL, Varani J.
Department of Oral Biology, Hebrew University--Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.

Murine tumor cells were induced to phagocytize either Candida albicans or group A streptococcal cells. The presence of microbial particles within the tumor cell cytoplasm had no effect on in vitro tumor cell growth. However, when Candida albicans-infected tumor cells were injected into syngeneic mice, they formed tumors that grew faster, invaded the surrounding normal tissue more rapidly and metastasized more rapidly than control tumor cells. Tumor cells infected with group A streptococcal particles did not grow faster or show increased malignant behavior. These data indicate that the in vivo behavior of malignant tumor cells can be modulated by microbial particles, which are often present in the microenvironment of the growing tumor.
PMID: 3317835 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Am J Clin Pathol. 1980 Apr;73(4):518-21. Links
The prevalence of yeasts in clinical specimens from cancer patients.
Kiehn TE, Edwards FF, Armstrong D.

Yeasts recovered from cancer patients during a 15-month period were speciated, and the prevalence of these isolates in various types of clinical specimens was determined. Five species, including Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida parapsilosis, Candida krusei, and Torulopsis glabrata, accounted for 97.1% of the isolates. Eighteen different species were recovered. Respiratory and urine specimens yielded 75% of the organisms. C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. parapsilosis were recovered in about equal frequency from blood cultures. Certain species usually were recovered from one type of specimen: Candida quilliermondii from urine, Trichosporon cutaneum and Candida pseudotropicalis from respiratory sites, and Cryptococcus neoformans from spinal fluid. Pityrosporum orbiculare was isolated only from ear and urine cultures. Most of the yeasts (95.4%) were identified within 48 hours after isolation.
PMID: 7369176 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


1: Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2002 Dec;16(4):935-64, vii. Links
Fungal infections in nontransplant patients with hematologic malignancies.
Segal BH, Bow EJ, Menichetti F.
Division of Infectious Diseases, SUNY at Buffalo, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA. brahm.segal@roswellpark.org

Fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies. Candida and Aspergillus species are the most important opportunistic fungal pathogens in this patient population. Dimorphic fungi can cause serious infection in immunocompetent persons, but infection is more likely to be disseminated in patients with compromised cell-mediated immunity. Cryptococcus neoformans and Pneumosystis carinii typically cause infections in persons with severe T-cell suppression. The frequency of rare pathogenic fungi commonly resistant to amphotericin B has significantly increased over the past 20 years among patients with hematologic malignancies. Examples of such emerging pathogens include Trichosporon, Fusarium, and Scedosporium species, and dark-walled molds. This article reviews the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of the major fungal pathogens in nontransplant patients with hematologic malignancies.

PMID: 12512188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1995;252(7):417-21. Links
DNA amplification for the in vitro detection of Candida albicans in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.
Werner JA, Görögh T, Lippert BM, Rudert H.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kiel, Germany.

DNA was extracted from whole cells of Candida albicans and digested with HindIII restriction enzyme. After electrophoresis in a segment of the lane containing between 800 and 1200 base pairs (bp) of DNA fragments, a 1.1-kilobase (kb) fragment was found that hybridizes to biopsied tumor cells from head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). From the nucleotide sequence of the putative gene locus, primers were synthesized for use in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with DNA extracted from 18 SCC of the upper aerodigestive tract. After 30 cycles of amplification all tumors were found to contain sufficient amplified DNA to be detected in polyacrylamide or agarose gels. In contrast, template DNA from lymph nodes and malignant lymphomas failed to generate positive signals under these conditions. However, samples of DNA obtained from head and neck SCC cells in vitro, Candida glabrata, and Candida parapsilosis after PCR were found to contain homologous sequences. Application of this technique to head and neck SCC biopsies may help to identify quickly the presence of concurrent candidal species.
PMID: 8562037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Delayman]

Ok, I've got your point. See my reply to jli, regards

[Delayman]

This is heartbreaking, may she rest in peace.