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

[MikeAparicio]

Thanks Mojo!

I want the audience to understand I am not promoting any treatment.
What I object in ANY forum is the usage of "ad hominen" attacks in lieu of the proper arguments.

But, even most important, I don't see the connection between the personalities and the ideas behind their proposals.

Yes. Dr. Budwig independently of being or not invited or nominated for whatever prize, was a REPUTED scientist until she fell under the strong Pharma repression forces attention. Her work on deep analysis of the relationship of fat consumption and illness and her profound studies on the Omega 3 and 6 properties, assimilation problems and cellular effects are indisputable.

But attacking a person does not destroy his ideas. I have to be honest I find discussion in this forums very difficult, as there seems to be a strong bias towards one trend of medicine. Posting any arguments or questions will bring all kind of "qualitative" attack to the poster.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
I want the audience to understand I am not promoting any treatment....

You certainly appear to want to promote Budwig's unevidenced cancer treatment ....

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

I have to be honest I find discussion in this forums very difficult, as there seems to be a strong bias towards one trend of medicine.

Right you are. Some of us think that the only treatments worthy of being called "medicine" are those that have been proven to work using reliable methods. We think that putting faith in treatments that have a low likelihood of working and have not been shown to work using well developed scientific procedures is a bad idea, a waste of money, and a retreat to the Dark Ages or worse.

Putting faith in nothing but faith may prove P.T. Barnum was right, but it won't cure anything.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

I want the audience to understand I am not promoting any treatment.

Yes, that would make your promotion more convincing. But what you have posted betrays you.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by jli

The quoted statement is rooted in experimental animal models like for instance this one. As interesting as it is, I am not convinced that it is clinically relevant. It may teach us a thing or two about an aspect of metastasis. But we don't know if it is equally effective in metastasis prevention as traditional adjuvant therapy. At the start of adjuvant therapy, the tumour has usually been surgically removed, so there is nothing left to prevent from spreading. When sodium bicarbonate is used to treat tumour lysis syndrome, it has already spread.


It is true that cancers show an increase in what is called "Aerobic glycolysis", which means that glucose is degraded to pyruvated, which in turn is converted to lactate in spite of sufficient oxygen for further degradation into CO2 and H20. This is called the Warburg effect, and it is being heavily abused by alt medders to promote their ideas on why (and how) altering body pH is usueful as anticancer treatment. Here is a fairly recent review on the subject. This one is a bit older, but the full text is available for free.

Thanks for the links!

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

...

Have you read the link Professor Yaffle provided, properly? I mean, beyond the regression part? The later appearance of a possible primary?

Although your story leaves much to be desired in the way of clinically meaningful information, it seems that, from your point of view*, you should cautiously fear the appearance of an actual primary tumor at some time.

Continuing with your so called alternative approach might cause you to loose sight of what's really going on inside you*.
Because it makes you look the other way.

This says it all, Mike.
Please take care!

[Sherman Bay]

Why waste time with Dr. S.? This doctor, Leonard Coldwell, claims he can cure ALL cancers in 16 weeks or less. I wonder what that costs? It's a spectacular example of technical gobblety-gook:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgbdNNfotwM

[jli]

Well - Judging from the traffic on the "cancer is not a fungus website", there are still a few people around who take ex. dr. S seriously.

I have only come across one very dedicated fan of L.C. (on Yahoo answers) and he believed that the internet would cease to exist by January 1.st. 2013, and I haven't really seen him since.

Anyway this is what I came up with back then:

The ideas suggested are known cancer quackery that has been refuted over and over again. But there is more about him that makes the whole thing even more implausible in my opinion.

He is not a medically trained doctor:http://saltydroid.info/darker-than-the-darkside/
Also his methods of diagnosing patients are unethical (to put it mildly): http://saltydroid.info/dr-leonard-co...ndson-healing/

We are told that he has cured more than 30,000 cancer patients (started as 35,000 patients). And on his website he claims that he has seen more 35,000 patients and over 2,2 millions seminar attendees have written to him sending their life stories and comments.

Now to know that a patient is cured, you need to follow him/her for some time. One visit, after which the patient was never seen again, is not good enough evidence that the patient was cured. So 10 visits is not unrealistic if he did a proper follow up.

So there would have to be at least 300,000 contacts for those he cured, and an uncertain number of contacts with those he couldn't cure - at least 5,000.

The first question we could address is how much time would be needed to have 300,000 contacts? If a working day is 8 hours, and he spends no more than 30 minutes per patient including calling the next patient in, he can see 16 patients per day.

This would take 300,000/16 = 18,750 working days.

If he works 7 days a week all year long, that would take him
18,750/365 years ~ 51 years.

We are also told he is giving seminars. Some of these have catchy titles such as “How to become rich and powerful” and “The only answer to becoming a sales champion”. Having received 2,2 million comments/life stories in writing from seminar attendees means a lot of reading, and a lot of huge seminars. I have no idea of how long it takes to read a comment or a life story. But 2,2 million is a lot of reading.

He has also written 19 books (another time consumer). He claims to have earned 4 doctor degrees and 4 PhD’s.

Regardless of his methods, I find it extremely implausible that he would have the time to cure 30,000 cancer patients, and have it confirmed.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by jli

Regardless of his methods, I find it extremely implausible that he would have the time to cure 30,000 cancer patients, and have it confirmed.

Well, at least he doesn't look like a con man.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Well, at least he doesn't look like a con man.

Then again, no SUCCESSFUL con man ever looks like a con man. It's hard to pull off the con if everyone thinks you are trying to con you.

There is a reason why used car salesmen are friendly and outgoing, and come off as being trustworthy.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Well, at least he doesn't look like a con man.

With that pencil-thin Snidely Whiplash mustache? Dead giveaway!

[jli]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Well, at least he doesn't look like a con man.

Neither does Simoncini. But as soon as they speak up, their true nature becomes apparent.

[cosmicaug]

http://www.worthytoknow.com/baking-soda-nightmare-pharmaceutical-industry

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

http://www.worthytoknow.com/baking-soda-nightmare-pharmaceutical-industry

From a site that rants about toxins, says drinking lemon water cures everything, cellphones are harmful for your heart, food coloring is dangerous, Nutrasweet will kill you, and Coke should not be consumed internally.

Woo-city.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

http://www.worthytoknow.com/baking-soda-nightmare-pharmaceutical-industry

The article was just what you'd expect from that sort of site- the comments were pathetic.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

http://www.worthytoknow.com/baking-soda-nightmare-pharmaceutical-industry

[jli]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

http://www.worthytoknow.com/baking-soda-nightmare-pharmaceutical-industry

Already in the first sentence it is painfully obvious, that the author knows nothing about cancer:

Quote:

According to the result of research findings, cancer is a lactic acid....

And then there is this one:

Quote:

has been used for several years even by oncologists....

To treat tumour lysis syndrome - meaning that it is useful after the cancer cells are dead. Doesn't this also suggest, that oncologists would know it if SB had an effect of its own on cancer?

Quote:

Unfortunately,our modern diet encourages a decrease in the pH level, making it acidic.

Okay - That does it. This person knows nothing about the physiology/biochemistry that regulate pH in the blood.