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

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Delayman

<snip>

...I still look at this in the context of what current medicine has to offer as an alternative to sufferers of, shall we say, advanced cancers of the solid tumor type, which, I hope you will grant me is not much.

They don't offer treatments based on half-assed theories put forward by people exploiting patients' desperation and their loved ones' grief to make money and/or boost their egos.

There will always be a limit to what medical science can do to treat disease, and I suspect there will always be quacks slagging the medical profession off and claiming <insert “natural” product here> is the miracle cure that everyone else but them are too biased, ignorant or corrupt to recognise.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients
there is a lot of yeast in everyone

Yes, Fungus

2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
Microbial particles of what? [/quote]

Could it be Fungus?

3) fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancies.
So? Secondary infections are common even in people that get non-cancerous diseases too.[/quote]

Yes, I agree, fungal infections

4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok
So? That doesn't mean all cancers are caused by fungus. Do you even know what cancer IS? Obviously not.[/quote]

That's the discussion, haven't you read the thread?

5) Candida can coexist with tumor cells.
Really? So? That still doesn't mean that that the cancer can be cured just by killing the Candida. [/quote]

Maybe worth a try


6) Fungi can produce carcinogens and have been implicated in the initiation of esophageal cancer.
So? The sun can initiate skin cancer. Doesn't mean that it causes or initiates ALL cases of skin cancers. Doesn't mean the sun is the cause of rectal cancer. I could get going on funny stuff about where the sun don't shine...[/quote]

I agree

I request you start researching what cancer is and and the umpteem known causes, including cellular dna mutations. [/quote]

Could you tell me what causes the dna mutations, so I know where to look?

Then read up on what actually kills fungus. [/quote]

A lot of stuff but in horticulture and some medical situations it's sodium bicarbonate

[Eos of the Eons]

Can you explain how other "things" cause cancer and then explain why it would suddenly just be fungus instead (does the sun not alter the skin's cellular dna to cause cancer, or is it just fungus now)?

Do you not understand how just cellular mistakes when cells are replicating can cause cancer and why there is no fungus present to be implicated instead?

Can you understand that fungus is not the issue when it is the cell's dna that is the issue?

Can you understand that blaming fungus for all cancers is stupendously wrong and overly simplistic?

Can you understand why chemo and radiation target the problem and destroys it to save the person?

Can you understand why the woman who was injected with baking soda died when her cancer wasn't even that advanced yet? Can you understand why the quack who did that to her should be in jail and not be allowed to continue to kill people?

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Source for the information is the footnotes copied above. My reply to Ducky:-

3) This footnote is a little more interesting, but hey, talk about being selective, you are quite happy to refer to infections, but deftly drop the word fungal which is mentioned five times in the footnote..Again you go on to say that ‘nowhere does it state that cancer is fungus’, of course not because, as I have said above and repeat again, if it did, we would not be having the discussion. However what it does say is that ‘fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancies’. And ‘dimorphic fungi can cause serious infection in immunocompetent persons…’Please note the word immunocompetent..

Thanks for info regarding esophageal cancer, I am learning.

Ace, you're trying to characterize whether I use a word as a motive here when you clearly did not comprehend what I wrote to you. Stop poisoning the well and pony up some evidence for your cancer is fungus/sodium bicarbonate kills cancer theories.

As for your rather patronizing attempt to garner sympathy with some discussion of how modern medicine is the boogey man, get over it. People get sick. They can't always be helped. Modern medicine may be scary and horrifying to you but do not mistake your feelings for indignity on the patient's part.

Since you did not add anything new and did not address any of my points I see no reason to feed your need for attention at the expense of intelligence.

Fact: Cancer is NOT a fungus, and sodium bicarbonate is NOT any form of treatment for cancer in any way.

You know how I can say that so confidently? Because I have a much better understanding of cellular biology than you do. Because when I got sick I decided to inform myself with facts about my disease, about how/why chemo and radiation are effective, about how white platelet cells divide out of control due to genetic abnormality to form a myeloma tumor, and about what chances I have, what treatment options are open to me and why crap like this sodium bicarbonate is a dangerous red herring.

You say you had someone close to you have cancer, yet I see no evidence you educated yourself about the particular cancer they had in any way shape or form, which either makes you the most naive schmuck ever to have a sick relative or it makes you willfully ignorant and ready to believe in anything to make the horrifying disease that kills more emotionally manageable. Since this is exactly what quackery preys on in patients, I doubt you'll see past your blind spot.

Your patent misunderstanding of the pubmed papers you presented show me that either you think you don't need to learn anything about this topic because you already know the answer or that you don't care to learn, you're simply grasping at straws so you can have your perfect answer to a scary and horrifying disease. Either way, you need to re-evaluate your motives here. You're woefully outclassed and not going to convince those that have more adept critical thinking skills, and are willing to educate themselves, of your dreck.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Could you tell me what causes the dna mutations, so I know where to look?

You're tapping into an enormous body of research with that question; much of it has been neatly summarized in modern basic biology texts, so those are good places to start.

Mutations arise from myriad places. Here's a sampling:

1. Replication error -- Each time a cell divides to generate two new cells, the DNA must be replicated. The molecular machinery that copies the old DNA to make the new DNA makes a handful of mistakes each time (actually, it makes a lot of mistakes, but there are corrective machines as well that make it go back and fix stuff -- your cells burn a lot of energy during replication fixing these goofs!). Thus, each time you make a new cell, something in there is probably just a little bit different from the old one. In most cases, this tiny DNA alteration is meaningless, but sometimes, these mutations are critical. For example, you may spontaneously acquire a mutation that disables that corrective machinery I mentioned before. From then on, each additional replication cycle will see many more errors occur, in a cascade of mistakes that can lead to full blown cancerous growth.

2. Our friend the sun -- Radiation of all sorts can do funny things to DNA. UV irradiation generates thymidine dimers, fusing together adjacent "T" residues in your DNA. If this is not caught by corrective machinery in the cell, it can lead to screwed up copies during replication, and that, again, can cause problems.

3. Oxidants -- Oxidizing agents can strip parts of the DNA off. Again, there's corrective machinery in your cells that tries to find and fix these problems, but it doesn't catch all of them.

4. Viruses -- Many viruses insert themselves into our genome when they infect us. Indeed, the human genome is littered with the "remains" of virus insertions that have occurred over and over again through our evolutionary history. Sometimes, a virus inserts itself in a position such that it disrupts normal gene function. A now-classic example of an oncogenic (cancer-inducing) virus is human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and for which there is now a vaccine. Harald zur Hausen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine this year for his discovery that HPV causes cancer (read more about that here --> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/m...008/index.html ).

I seriously do recommend an introductory biology textbook. Campbell Biology is a good one that is used in many advanced high school and introductory undergraduate courses, and which may well be available at some libraries. The grounding in biology that you gain from reading through an intro text will help you understand the meaning and significance of papers from the biomedical literature, and that, in turn, will give you a better handle on evaluating claims like Simoncini's.

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman:

Originally Posted by Ducky

Because when I got sick I decided to inform myself with facts about my disease, about how/why chemo and radiation are effective, about how white platelet cells divide out of control due to genetic abnormality to form a myeloma tumor, and about what chances I have, what treatment options are open to me and why crap like this sodium bicarbonate is a dangerous red herring.

I did the same thing when I heard I had breast cancer. I think I can safely say I know everything about my disease that there is to know for a layman. A very dear friend of mine died nearly 4 years ago of ovarian cancer and she did the same thing. In this and in the way she handled her illness, she has always been an example to me. She lived with her illness for almost 14 years, thanks to treatment in one of Holland's excellent cancer clinics and a good and understanding medical team. The greater part of those 14 years she felt well enough to work at her job as a high school teacher.

She was always realistic, she knew that people sometimes die of cancer no matter what you do and that she herself would be one of those in the end. She also knew conventional therapy had a lot to offer and she made the best use of it, never letting herself and those around her be fooled by the many callous stories of miracle cures for cancer.

I have yet to see a quack therapy that can accomplish what conventional therapy could for my friend and for many others I have seen during her illness and mine as well.
On the contrary, when you fall into the hands of a quack like Simoncini, you can be sure of only one thing: that your chances are absolutely zero.

[JennyJo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delayman:
Could you tell me what causes the dna mutations, so I know where to look?

When I see you asking questions like these, I'm not surprised you can be so easily fooled by this Italian's fairy tales. You don't even seem to know the absolute basics. Please educate yourself!

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by sanguine

You're tapping into an enormous body of research with that question; much of it has been neatly summarized in modern basic biology texts, so those are good places to start.

Mutations arise from myriad places. Here's a sampling:

1. Replication error -- Each time a cell divides to generate two new cells, the DNA must be replicated. The molecular machinery that copies the old DNA to make the new DNA makes a handful of mistakes each time (actually, it makes a lot of mistakes, but there are corrective machines as well that make it go back and fix stuff -- your cells burn a lot of energy during replication fixing these goofs!). Thus, each time you make a new cell, something in there is probably just a little bit different from the old one. In most cases, this tiny DNA alteration is meaningless, but sometimes, these mutations are critical. For example, you may spontaneously acquire a mutation that disables that corrective machinery I mentioned before. From then on, each additional replication cycle will see many more errors occur, in a cascade of mistakes that can lead to full blown cancerous growth.

2. Our friend the sun -- Radiation of all sorts can do funny things to DNA. UV irradiation generates thymidine dimers, fusing together adjacent "T" residues in your DNA. If this is not caught by corrective machinery in the cell, it can lead to screwed up copies during replication, and that, again, can cause problems.

3. Oxidants -- Oxidizing agents can strip parts of the DNA off. Again, there's corrective machinery in your cells that tries to find and fix these problems, but it doesn't catch all of them.

4. Viruses -- Many viruses insert themselves into our genome when they infect us. Indeed, the human genome is littered with the "remains" of virus insertions that have occurred over and over again through our evolutionary history. Sometimes, a virus inserts itself in a position such that it disrupts normal gene function. A now-classic example of an oncogenic (cancer-inducing) virus is human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and for which there is now a vaccine. Harald zur Hausen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine this year for his discovery that HPV causes cancer (read more about that here --> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/m...008/index.html ).

I seriously do recommend an introductory biology textbook. Campbell Biology is a good one that is used in many advanced high school and introductory undergraduate courses, and which may well be available at some libraries. The grounding in biology that you gain from reading through an intro text will help you understand the meaning and significance of papers from the biomedical literature, and that, in turn, will give you a better handle on evaluating claims like Simoncini's.

This is a reply to sanguine and JennyJo on my question "Could you tell me what causes the dna mutations, so I know where to look?”

Obviously you guys did not understand the “irony” in the question and it occurs to me more and more as I write on this thread that many of the contributors are unable to piece together different posts written by the same person and make some assessment of that person’s character and intelligence.

I may be a layman but I hope you will grant that I am not completely stupid so I can assure you that, when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer I did all the research that a reasonably intelligent person can be expected to do. I rushed out and bought and read very many medical books on the subject including on DNA and have since kept up, as best I can. So feel free to disagree with me, but do not jump to the conclusion that I have not done any research at all.

For those of you who think that I am convinced by the cancer is a fungus theory you are wrong, I am on this thread precisely because I want feedback on an idea that I consider to be interesting, an idea that has been suggested, by the way, well before Simoncini, an idea that may not be accurate and an idea that is not conventional but could possibly provide certain other clues as to alleviation of some suffering caused by cancer. Am I hearing the interest and openmindedness of truly enquiring minds, no, all I am hearing is anger, and obsession with crucifying some guy, who, to me is irrelevant to the issue. However, if that is the sole purpose of the thread please let me know and I will withdraw.

Meanwhile, sanguine, to get this into context- for all the enormous body of research regarding the subject of cancer it boils down to your first quote:

‘the molecular machinery that copies the old DNA …..makes a handful of mistakes…From then on….a cascade of mistakes ..can lead to full blown cancer”.

So for all the the mitogen-activated protein kinases, signal transducers, dysregulated signalling, competitive inhibitors and nucleic acid aptamers, it all boils down to one thing

- cells multiply out of control and whilst we may know to some extent how the process works, and we may even know some of the risks, basically we do not know why, nor do we no the cause of the vast majority of cancers.

A few comments on the sampling:

2. The sun - I do agree that radiation of all sorts can do funny things, and you will not be surprised to hear my concerns about radiotherapy in respect of cancer treatment..

3. Oxidants - Presumably, you are referring to the process of removing electrons from the DNA in mitochondria. This could be an interesting research project because of mitochondria’s evolutionary relationship with eukaryotic cells.

4. Viruses – Yes, this causes cervical cancer. I wonder if we might, in the future, discover any other exogenous microbes which cause cancer?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

For those of you who think that I am convinced by the cancer is a fungus theory you are wrong, I am on this thread precisely because I want feedback on an idea that I consider to be interesting, an idea that has been suggested, by the way, well before Simoncini, an idea that may not be accurate and an idea that is not conventional but could possibly provide certain other clues as to alleviation of some suffering caused by cancer. Am I hearing the interest and openmindedness of truly enquiring minds, no, all I am hearing is anger, and obsession with crucifying some guy, who, to me is irrelevant to the issue. However, if that is the sole purpose of the thread please let me know and I will withdraw.

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 see this complaint levied all the time. But the one thing I have noticed is that it never arises when the complainer has substantially more knowledge on a subject than the complainee. The lack of symmetry makes me suspicious that the complaint is invalid.

You have stated that you don't believe in homeopathy, yet that makes no sense to me. Surely that demonstrates that you are not approaching the idea with an open and inquiring mind?

Quote:

4. Viruses – Yes, this causes cervical cancer. I wonder if we might, in the future, discover any other exogenous microbes which cause cancer?

You may be interested in this article.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/417716_1

I'm not sure whether you can read the whole thing without a WebMD account, though. If you can't read it, let me know and I will try to find an alternate.

Linda

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

Indeed your irony was lost on me. Well, just no sense of humour I guess.

You say:

Quote:

For those of you who think that I am convinced by the cancer is a fungus theory you are wrong, I am on this thread precisely because I want feedback on an idea that I consider to be interesting, an idea that has been suggested, by the way, well before Simoncini, an idea that may not be accurate and an idea that is not conventional but could possibly provide certain other clues as to alleviation of some suffering caused by cancer.

That's where we differ. I don't think the idea is interesting and I think it's not worth pursuing at all. The fact that someone considers an idea 'interesting' is not reason enough to pursue it scientifically. There has to be more backing than just the feeling that it's 'interesting'. To some people the idea that the earth is flat is interesting, but nobody in their right minds would consider pursuing this idea. It would just be a complete waste of time, just as pursuing simoncini's idea would be. And btw, what is stopping simoncini from doing that himself, as scientists normally do when they have an 'idea'?

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

- cells multiply out of control and whilst we may know to some extent how the process works, and we may even know some of the risks, basically we do not know why, nor do we no the cause of the vast majority of cancers.

That is either a lie or an argument from ignorance. I'll vote argument from ignorance for now, just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you figure we don't know the cause of cancers, then I can understand why you might think it could possibly be just fungus. I think a lot of oncologists would find your viewpoint "interesting", but will understand that your lack of education causes you to think the way you do.

So, we can only continue to tell you to educate yourself so that you don't continue making these kinds of baseless claims and entertaining crazy ideas that are easily proven wrong with a biopsy.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by fls

{snip} You may be interested in this article.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/417716_1

I'm not sure whether you can read the whole thing without a WebMD account, though. If you can't read it, let me know and I will try to find an alternate.

Linda

Medscape has free registration. I know this because I have an account, and I am too frugal to pay for one. Can you pronounce "frugal"? When my brothers say it, it sounds like "cheap ..."

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

- cells multiply out of control and whilst we may know to some extent how the process works, and we may even know some of the risks, basically we do not know why, nor do we no the cause of the vast majority of cancers.

Random errors in replicative machinery is not an unknown mechanism. We have a very good understanding of the progression of many cancers, as elements that maintain genome stability are progressively lost, leading to an unsurprising positive-feedback loop of ever-increasing instability. Consider, for example, p53, which is lost in a huge percentage of cancers.

In fact, understanding how this mutational progression works has led to some of the clear diagnostic tests for cancer risk (e.g. looking for BRCA1 mutations).

Knowing how the process works /is/ knowing the cause in many cases.

Originally Posted by Delayman

2. The sun - I do agree that radiation of all sorts can do funny things, and you will not be surprised to hear my concerns about radiotherapy in respect of cancer treatment..

It's a legitimate concern. We want to avoid excess radiation when possible. That's why newer, more focused techniques continue to be developed. On the other hand, the choice between "some risk from highly targeted radiotherapy" and "death" seems clear.

Originally Posted by Delayman

3. Oxidants - Presumably, you are referring to the process of removing electrons from the DNA in mitochondria. This could be an interesting research project because of mitochondria’s evolutionary relationship with eukaryotic cells.

No, I meant oxidation of DNA generally. Your cells contain a number of mechanisms designed to stem the oxidative harm intrinsic to our world (poisoned as it is with oxygen), but at the same time, oxidants are used as an integral part of our body's defense against disease. As with all things evolutionary, it's an imperfect balance, and we end up with radicals floating around that can screw up our DNA.

Originally Posted by Delayman

4. Viruses – Yes, this causes cervical cancer. I wonder if we might, in the future, discover any other exogenous microbes which cause cancer?

Possibly, but the mechanism for virus-induced cancer is very clear, as is the evidence.

One could imagine a fungus or other microorganism that generated, say, a small molecule with some degree of transforming ability -- perhaps an intercalating agent of some kind. However, even if we have this hypothesis, we need to do the actual research before we tell people to switch away from proven medical treatments. This is the fundamental ethical lapse behind Simoncini's efforts. When zur Hausen hypothesized that HPV caused cervical cancer, he didn't come up with some quack treatment for HPV and tell women suffering from cervical cancer to stop seeing their doctors. Instead, he tested his hypothesis, ended up finding convincing evidence, and now we have an HPV vaccine that young women can take to prevent HPV and possible associated cancer.

If you're just trying to get us to admit that it's reasonable to do basic research into the idea that a fungus can induce cancer, well, sure. Relatively weird ideas get funded and researched all the time. Usually, they turn out to be incorrect, sometimes they turn out to be correct. But it's unreasonable -- and would be unethical -- to expect people to switch from proven medical treatments based on someone's hypothesis, and it would be unreasonable and unethical to pour a giant pile of funding into the hypothesis.

I recommend reading about Nobelist Stanley Prusiner for an example of how one correctly pursues a weird hypothesis. When he initially suggested the idea of prions (infectious proteins), people thought it sounded unlikely. Rather than rushing off and sweet talking a bunch of patients into trying some wacky cure based on his hypothesis, he did the work. He rigorously tested his hypothesis, and it passed muster. We now believe, based on evidence from Prusiner and others, that prions are behind conditions like mad cow (BSE) and Kreutzfeld-Jacob disease. Research funding on prions has grown over the years to match its increasing evidence base. We make decisions on how animal products are used based on evidence from this research. It was a weird idea, but it panned out.

For each of these weird ideas that pans out, there are thousands that don't. We can't pour piles of money into each one, and we can't ethically tell patients to discard treatments that work for ones that are likely not to.

So could Simoncini or someone else get a mid-sized grant from the EU or NIH to test that fungus hypothesis? Sure. Should patients be treated based on the idea? Hell, no.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JJM

Medscape has free registration. I know this because I have an account, and I am too frugal to pay for one. Can you pronounce "frugal"? When my brothers say it, it sounds like "cheap ..."

I wasn't sure because I registered a long time ago and pretended to be an MD at the time.

Linda

[pgwenthold]

You know, I always used to say that the first rule of internet discussion is, "Whatever the topic, assume someone knows more about it than you do." Especially if you are new. What it means that when you get into a topic, and people start telling you details about the topic, you should listen to what they say, and learn from it.

The dumb thing is, Delayman comes into this thread admitting that s/he comes from a position of ignorance, but still won't listen to the answers s/he is given.

Delayman, you claim you are just curious about these claims. "I'm just asking questions." But your questions have been answered, in more detail than you can even understand. It shows that the topic is well over your head, so perhaps you need to step away and come back when you can discuss it when you have a better basic understanding of the basics.

I'm not meaning to criticize here. We are all ignorant about lots and lots of things, and no one holds it against you that you aren't very familiar with the fields of pathology and oncology (the same cannot be said for Simoncini, who absolutely should know better). But please recognize that whereas you may be ignorant of these fields, the people you are talking to are not.

[fls]

Originally Posted by sanguine

So could Simoncini or someone else get a mid-sized grant from the EU or NIH to test that fungus hypothesis? Sure.

I disagree. I don't know if you've ever written a grant proposal, but you do have to provide some information that supports the idea that there is anything to explore in the face of overwhelming evidence that there isn't. If he wanted to be useful and to show good faith, he could pick out a few of his best cases, document them appropriately, and get them published. You don't need a grant for that.

Linda

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by fls

I disagree. I don't know if you've ever written a grant proposal, but you do have to provide some information that supports the idea that there is anything to explore in the face of overwhelming evidence that there isn't. If he wanted to be useful and to show good faith, he could pick out a few of his best cases, document them appropriately, and get them published. You don't need a grant for that.

Linda

True, that's more accurate (and, full disclosure, I've written NIH, NSF, and DOE grant proposals -- always pure excitement). I meant more that he could reasonably be given some grant funding given solid initial findings, but that no matter what, no giant pile of money is coming his way, and absent any findings of any kind, under no circumstances should his ideas be the basis for transferring patients from proven treatments. That's not how it works, because it's harmful and unethical.

[JennyJo]

Simoncini has brilliant ideas all the time.
How about this one:

Quote:

Here is the method of curing skin cancers, as dictated by the Italian Doctor Tullio Simoncini :
“Every tumour of the skin can be completely removed with Iodine Tincture 7%, brushed many times (10-20) a day. When the crust is formed, don’t take it away, but treat the area continuously and wait until it falls without any other intervention except the Iodine tincture. When the crust falls down the third time, the patient is healed.”

[JJM]

Originally Posted by fls

I disagree. I don't know if you've ever written a grant proposal, but you do have to provide some information that supports the idea that there is anything to explore in the face of overwhelming evidence that there isn't. {snip}

Linda

That is no longer true. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) was designed to channel money, lots of it, to support idiotic ideas. For example, Elisabeth Targ got around $5M to study intercessory prayer (performed by strangers to the patients) in treating AIDS and brain cancer. Five million to pay for prayer!!

Here is a leading reference http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=217 to a study of chelation therapy for heart disease. As I recall, they got $30M for that study despite massive theoretical and clinical evidence that it won't work, and is potentially quite harmful. The only good news is the study has been suspended.

Imagine how bad a proposal must be for NCCAM to reject it. That happened to Nicholas Gonzalez. He wanted money to study a dietary treatment, along with frequent coffee enemas, for pancreatic cancer. After being rejected, he somehow got in touch with Rep. Dan "The Loose Cannon" Burton (R, IN) who called the head of NCCAM to his office. We don't know what Dan told the guy (in the past, Sen. Tom Harken (D, IA) threatened to hold the entire NIH budget till NCCAM funded idiots); but Gonzo got the big bucks. This is the last of a multipart blog entry on Gonzalez http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=104

[fls]

Originally Posted by JJM

That is no longer true. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) was designed to channel money, lots of it, to support idiotic ideas.

<snip examples>

Yikes!

I stand corrected.

Linda

[JennyJo]

Originally Posted by JJM

That is no longer true. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) was designed to channel money, lots of it, to support idiotic ideas. For example, Elisabeth Targ got around $5M to study intercessory prayer (performed by strangers to the patients) in treating AIDS and brain cancer. Five million to pay for prayer!!

Here is a leading reference http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=217 to a study of chelation therapy for heart disease. As I recall, they got $30M for that study despite massive theoretical and clinical evidence that it won't work, and is potentially quite harmful. The only good news is the study has been suspended.

Imagine how bad a proposal must be for NCCAM to reject it. That happened to Nicholas Gonzalez. He wanted money to study a dietary treatment, along with frequent coffee enemas, for pancreatic cancer. After being rejected, he somehow got in touch with Rep. Dan "The Loose Cannon" Burton (R, IN) who called the head of NCCAM to his office. We don't know what Dan told the guy (in the past, Sen. Tom Harken (D, IA) threatened to hold the entire NIH budget till NCCAM funded idiots); but Gonzo got the big bucks. This is the last of a multipart blog entry on Gonzalez http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=104

'

That is shocking. Where does all this money come from?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

That is shocking. Where does all this money come from?

My federal income taxes. You can read about it at www.quackwatch.org Basically, US Senator Tom Harken thought his allergies were cured by a quack; which made him susceptible to requests from quacks for their own "research" program.

Meddling from politicians has sanctioned many sorts of quackery. All fifty states license chiropractors, around thirteen approve naturopaths, some allow homeopaths or acupuncturists to work. At the federal level, there is a law (DSHEA) that allows a quack to put anything in a bottle, label it a "dietary supplement" and sell it with no proof of safety or efficacy. These permissions make a lot of people happy and, except for the NCCAM, don't cost the government anything. For a politician, that's great.

[JennyJo]

Good grief, and I tought things were bad in the Netherlands.
Sometimes I think there must be a 'gullibility-gene' which certain people are born with. Maybe someone could do some research into that and find a remedy for it.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

When I came on to the thread I stated that I was not interested in who is for, or against Simoncini,

But you also expressed doubts about some of the things I had written about his theory in the thread. That is why I felt the need to clarify things a bit.

Quote:

... I am interested in whether sodium bicarbonate could be used as a treatment for cancer.

According to this study it is not likely in bladder cancer. It has been referenced earlier in the thread but I realize that it could easily have been overlooked.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by JJM

<snip>

Imagine how bad a proposal must be for NCCAM to reject it.

<snip>

I suggest flooding them with requests for funding for ever more ridiculous research to find out.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I suggest flooding them with requests for funding for ever more ridiculous research to find out.

It is a little tempting to just find a way to make my research some more illegitimate than it really is so I can reduce the burden on our friends at NIGMS and NIAID and pull in some of that NCCAM money.

Maybe I can have some undergraduates offer intercessory prayer for the metabolic pathways as I study them.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by sanguine

One could imagine a fungus or other microorganism that generated, say, a small molecule with some degree of transforming ability -- perhaps an intercalating agent of some kind. However, even if we have this hypothesis, we need to do the actual research before we tell people to switch away from proven medical treatments. This is the fundamental ethical lapse behind Simoncini's efforts. When zur Hausen hypothesized that HPV caused cervical cancer, he didn't come up with some quack treatment for HPV and tell women suffering from cervical cancer to stop seeing their doctors. Instead, he tested his hypothesis, ended up finding convincing evidence, and now we have an HPV vaccine that young women can take to prevent HPV and possible associated cancer.

When you pointed out that zur Hausen completed his meticulous research on the HPV virus and got the Nobel prize, you are rather making my point for me. I did not even know who zur Hausen was. But a quick search on Google and all the information that I needed was there, and guess what, zur Hausen’s original presentation of his theory was met ‘with stony silence’ and not taken seriously for years by his colleagues because the whole of the establishment was convinced that cervical cancer was caused by herpes simplex. So, our friend zur Hausen had to slave for 30 years, yes that’s 30 years to achieve his goal. Who knows how much faster his research would have moved with a bit of help and the support of the medical research establishment. Maybe he could have done it in half the time. The repercussions, well, with the thousands, or tens of thousand s of women worldwide who died of cervical cancer each year during that period? I will let you do the math.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

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 see this complaint levied all the time. But the one thing I have noticed is that it never arises when the complainer has substantially more knowledge on a subject than the complainee. The lack of symmetry makes me suspicious that the complaint is invalid.

You have stated that you don't believe in homeopathy, yet that makes no sense to me. Surely that demonstrates that you are not approaching the idea with an open and inquiring mind?



You may be interested in this article.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/417716_1

I'm not sure whether you can read the whole thing without a WebMD account, though. If you can't read it, let me know and I will try to find an alternate.

Linda

Thanks for the analogy. This is for somebody who does not understand your position, I do.

Knowledge? Actually in my profession I have occasion to prepare reports of evidence for certain complicated arbitration procedures and, fortunately, I remember a lot of information that helps me when I represent my clients. They think I am knowledgeable, and in the sense of remembering a lot of stuff over the years and setting it out correctly, I guess that I am. The fact is that I get paid because it is easier and relatively quicker for me to do it than others and my experience enables me to access information efficiently, but, you know what, it’s not that clever, and the average layman, with a bit of application and pointed in the right direction, could probably understand everything that I do.

Let’s not forget the ego’s at work. This also applies in my profession, but particularly in the medical profession and nowhere is this more pronounced than in the research and academic fields. But, now, we have the internet. How lucky we are!

Please do not misunderstand me I do not despise the medical profession, I would be the first to run to the hospital in an emergency and take any pills prescribed under normal circumstances. I respect the vast majority of doctors for what they do under pressure and in hugely difficult circumstances and (as they say) some of my best friends are doctors.

However one of the main problems with medicine today, especially in the cancer field, is that it is too specialized. This is the reason, for example, that hospitals cannot function without their multidisciplinary meetings (referred to previously in the thread) which are basically designed for specialists to pool their information, before making decisions. Treatment by committee is probably not wrong, considering the limitations of the individual in such a difficult situation. Let’s think about this, in cancer treatment the surgeon does not know too much about the chemotherapy side of things and hands over to the oncologist. The oncologist who generally does not look at the scans tends to rely on a written report by the radiologist and a histological report by the pathologist. People are only human, so since the surgeon relies on the oncologist to ‘mop up’ afterwards, they could and in many cases do, take a less radical approach to the surgery, why take the risk? Radiologists generally are not too keen on the work of the oncologist because they think their own work is undervalued. It is no coincidence that the meta analysis of long term survival rates for chemotherapy was produced by the Society of Radiologists in Sydney and on and on it goes…..

The point here is that the knowledge is fragmented, so actually when you imply that the complainer always has less knowledge than the complainee, I am not so sure, because the complainee is inevitably relying on lots of others but not, necessarily, understanding the stuff, in the round, any better than the complainer.

Moreover, the problem can be seen in the way that these blogs are written. The favourite tactic is for the so called ‘more knowledgeable’ person to extract a sentence that he/she wants to attack, out of context, bringing so called evidence to demolish the argument, but ignoring the bits that they do not like (I am also guilty of this)

By the way, as far as homeopathy goes, I happen not to believe in it but I am certainly open to the discussion and, in fact, only the other day I was having dinner with a qualified MD (I know a lot of doctors) and he swears by homeopathy. But, there are, only so many hours in the day…

By the way, thanks for the reference to ‘Fungal and Parasitic cause of Malignancy’ in Medscape very useful.

There is also a very quick CT scan test shown on Medscape called 'Cancer or Fungi?', contributors to the thread may be interested.

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

You completely missed Sanguine's point.
He said:

Quote:

When zur Hausen hypothesized that HPV caused cervical cancer, he didn't come up with some quack treatment for HPV and tell women suffering from cervical cancer to stop seeing their doctors. Instead, he tested his hypothesis, ended up finding convincing evidence, and now we have an HPV vaccine that young women can take to prevent HPV and possible associated cancer.

And this is precisely what simoncini is doing, which has already killed several people.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by jli

But you also expressed doubts about some of the things I had written about his theory in the thread. That is why I felt the need to clarify things a bit.



According to this study it is not likely in bladder cancer. It has been referenced earlier in the thread but I realize that it could easily have been overlooked.

This is interesting and basically implies that either the acidic treatment or the sodium bicarb could aggravate the tumors (in rats). Maybe you could comment on the following, where SB is recommended for alkalizing purposes, but in cancer patients, because surely they would not suggest SB if that were the case:-


•
Evaluation of a Single Fixed Dose of Rasburicase 7.5 mg for the Treatment of Hyperuricemia in Adults with Cancer
Posted 08/14/2008
David J. Reeves, Pharm.D.; Daniel J. Bestul, Pharm.D.
Author Information
INFORMATION FROM INDUSTRY
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
Study Objective: To determine the efficacy of a single 7.5-mg dose of rasburicase compared with single doses of 0.15 mg/kg for the prevention or treatment of hyperuricemia associated with tumor lysis syndrome.
Design: Prospective, open-label study using a historical control group.
Setting: Large, nonprofit community teaching hospital.
Patients: Seventeen hospitalized patients with cancer and hyperuricemia or a risk for hyperuricemia in the prospective group, and 23 control subjects with cancer who received a weight-based dose of rasburicase.
Intervention: Patients in the prospective group received a single 7.5-mg dose of rasburicase and were followed for a minimum of 96 hours. Control subjects received a single 0.15-mg/kg dose of rasburicase.
Measurements and Main Results: Uric acid levels were measured in all patients at baseline, at 12 and 24 hours after dosing, and then daily. In all patients receiving 7.5 mg, uric acid levels returned to normal at 12 and 24 hours. Mean uric acid levels were similar between the 7.5-mg and 0.15-mg/kg groups at 12 hours (1.9 vs 0.99 mg/dl, p=0.12) and at 24 hours (1.34 vs 1.69 mg/dl, p=0.64). Mean reductions in uric acid levels in the 7.5-mg and 0.15-mg/kg groups were, respectively, 82% and 91% at 12 hours (p=0.04) and 87% and 79% at 24 hours (p=0.35). If 26 doses of rasburicase were administered every year, a 7.5-mg dose would save $41,000/year compared with a 0.15-mg/kg dose ($15,750/10 patients treated).
Conclusions: A single 7.5-mg intravenous dose of rasburicase appeared to have effects similar to those of a single 0.15-mg/kg intravenous dose for the treatment or prevention of hyperuricemia associated with tumor lysis syndrome. This low fixed dose also has the potential to reduce costs.
Introduction
Tumor lysis syndrome is considered an oncologic emergency and may result in severe metabolic abnormalities, including hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia.[1,2] This syndrome occurs most often in people with lymphoproliferative malignancies after they are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation, or corticosteroids, and it frequently leads to acute renal failure.[1] In addition, many oncology patients initially present with spontaneous tumor lysis, which may worsen if preventive or therapeutic measures are not taken before chemotherapy is begun.[2]
Hyperuricemia can result in uric acid nephropathy due to precipitation in the acidic environment of the renal collecting ducts. Available prophylactic and therapeutic modalities for hyperuricemia include hydration, alkalinization of the urine with sodium bicarbonate, administration of xanthine oxidase inhibitors (allopurinol) or urate oxidase (rasburicase), and dialysis.[1] At present, allopurinol and rasburicase are the most effective agents for reducing uric acid concentrations



Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Medical Care
Because leukemia is a systemic disease, therapy is primarily based on chemotherapy. Different forms of ALL require different approaches for optimal results. For example, B-cell ALL does not respond well to the chemotherapy traditionally used for childhood ALL. However, outstanding results, with EFS estimates of nearly 90%, have been obtained with treatments designed for Burkitt lymphoma, which emphasize cyclophosphamide and the rapid rotation of antimetabolites in high dosages. Therefore, B-cell ALL was the first form of ALL to be recognized as a distinct clinical entity on the basis of immunophenotypic and cytogenetic features, and it was the first to be treated by using separate protocols designed specifically for the unique features of this leukemia.
• Tumor lysis syndrome
•
o Before and during the initial induction phase of chemotherapy, patients may develop tumor lysis syndrome, which refers to the metabolic derangements caused by the systemic and rapid release of intracellular contents as chemotherapy destroys leukemic blasts. Because some cells can die before therapy, such derangements can occur even before therapy begins.
o Primary features of tumor lysis syndrome include hyperuricemia (due to metabolism of purines), hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, and hyperkalemia. The hyperuricemia can lead to crystal formation with tubular obstruction and, possibly, acute renal failure requiring dialysis. Therefore, electrolyte and uric acid levels should be monitored closely throughout initial therapy.
o To prevent complications of tumor lysis syndrome, all patients should initially receive intravenous (IV) fluids at twice the maintenance rates, usually without potassium. Sodium bicarbonate is added to the IV fluid to achieve moderate alkalinization of the urine to pH 7.5-8 to enhance the excretion of phosphate and uric acid. Avoid a urine pH higher than this to prevent crystallization of hypoxanthine or calcium phosphate. Administer allopurinol or rasburicase to prevent or correct hyperuricemia.
• Phases of therapy ……..

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

@ Delayman,

You completely missed Sanguine's point.
He said:


And this is precisely what simoncini is doing, which has already killed several people.

QFT.

I'm not buying Delayman's "I think this is interesting" ambiguous posts. I also don't buy this "I'm trying to learn stuff" as it really just seems you're trying to dance hard to sneak your belief in unsupported and dangerous cancer treatments through the back door to win some sort of debate points. You are selectively responding to things in a way that suggests you don't actually want to learn about this from those that could educate you.

The pH arguments are old and wrong. There are uncountable numbers of threads on this forum showing why. Sodium Bicarbonate is dangerous and not a cure for any cancer and this has been demonstrated in this thread. If you don't understand why I suggest you take some classes in biology.

I doubt you would, because it seems you would rather hold onto some idea that makes cancer less scary even if it is totally wrong.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

When you pointed out that zur Hausen completed his meticulous research on the HPV virus and got the Nobel prize, you are rather making my point for me. I did not even know who zur Hausen was. But a quick search on Google and all the information that I needed was there, and guess what, zur Hausen’s original presentation of his theory was met ‘with stony silence’ and not taken seriously for years by his colleagues because the whole of the establishment was convinced that cervical cancer was caused by herpes simplex. So, our friend zur Hausen had to slave for 30 years, yes that’s 30 years to achieve his goal. Who knows how much faster his research would have moved with a bit of help and the support of the medical research establishment. Maybe he could have done it in half the time. The repercussions, well, with the thousands, or tens of thousand s of women worldwide who died of cervical cancer each year during that period? I will let you do the math.

Herpes simplex was not considered the cause of cervical cancer. Zur Hausen discovered the presence of HPV DNA in cervial cancer in 1983. I just looked in some of my old medical textbooks from the mid to late 80's and they state that HPV is a cause of cervical cancer.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

This is interesting and basically implies that either the acidic treatment or the sodium bicarb could aggravate the tumors (in rats). Maybe you could comment on the following, where SB is recommended for alkalizing purposes, but in cancer patients, because surely they would not suggest SB if that were the case:-

I'm going to respond to this for Jli, because pathologists do not treat tumor lysis syndrome, but I do.

The body has a sophisticated system in place in order to maintain the blood pH within a narrow range of about 7.35 to 7.45. Giving bicarbonate or acid, rather than dramatically altering that pH, simply initiates mechanisms by which that pH is maintained. When you add sodium bicarb, you have the effect of alkalinizing the urine and kidneys. Sodium bicarb helps protect against the complications of hyperuricemia by creating a localized, alkaline environment in the kidneys. Since the main mechanism for getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys and urine, the uric acid becomes concentrated in the kidneys. The sodium bicarb helps to keep it in solution so it can be pissed away.

Since the sodium bicarb does not have the effect of alkalinizing the body, one does not have to be concerned about whether it is promoting tumor growth while it is helping with the control of tumor lysis syndrome.

Rasburicase has an effect on uric acid metabolism, but has nothing to do with alkalinization.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

Herpes simplex was not considered the cause of cervical cancer. Zur Hausen discovered the presence of HPV DNA in cervial cancer in 1983. I just looked in some of my old medical textbooks from the mid to late 80's and they state that HPV is a cause of cervical cancer.

Linda

Here's the link:-


http://www.cancerworld.org/CancerWor...le.aspx?id=717

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

I'm going to respond to this for Jli, because pathologists do not treat tumor lysis syndrome, but I do.

The body has a sophisticated system in place in order to maintain the blood pH within a narrow range of about 7.35 to 7.45. Giving bicarbonate or acid, rather than dramatically altering that pH, simply initiates mechanisms by which that pH is maintained. When you add sodium bicarb, you have the effect of alkalinizing the urine and kidneys. Sodium bicarb helps protect against the complications of hyperuricemia by creating a localized, alkaline environment in the kidneys. Since the main mechanism for getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys and urine, the uric acid becomes concentrated in the kidneys. The sodium bicarb helps to keep it in solution so it can be pissed away.

Since the sodium bicarb does not have the effect of alkalinizing the body, one does not have to be concerned about whether it is promoting tumor growth while it is helping with the control of tumor lysis syndrome.

Rasburicase has an effect on uric acid metabolism, but has nothing to do with alkalinization.

Linda

Am I understanding you correctly. You are saying that the body per se has a relatively stable environment the pH of which is not dramatically altered by either acid or sodium bicarb, but even if administered systemically by IV, sodium bicarb only has the effect of alkalinising the kidneys and therefore the urine?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Here's the link:-

http://www.cancerworld.org/CancerWor...le.aspx?id=717

That story bears little resemblance to your summary of it. For one thing, he did not know that his ideas were correct in advance. It was only when he was able to demonstrate that his ideas were correct to himself that he was also able to demonstrate that it was correct to others.

However, it does serve to reinforce my point. He notes that had more resources been available to him, the discoveries could have come sooner. Yet here you are suggesting that finite resources not be distributed on the basis of evidence, but rather should be distributed on the basis of wishful thinking in ignorance of the evidence. "Keeping an open mind" about stuff that has already been proven wrong would have had the effect of prolonging or even killing the discovery of HPV as a cause for cervical cancer and the development of a vaccine, since fewer resources would have been available to zur Hausen and other researchers pursuing leads on the basis of evidence.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Am I understanding you correctly. You are saying that the body per se has a relatively stable environment the pH of which is not dramatically altered by either acid or sodium bicarb, but even if administered systemically by IV, sodium bicarb only has the effect of alkalinising the kidneys and therefore the urine?

Yes.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

Yes.

Linda

Sorry, I am not trying to be clever but why is it then considered dangerous?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Sorry, I am not trying to be clever but why is it then considered dangerous?

Because if you give a large enough dose fast enough, you can alter the pH before your body has a chance to catch up. Electrolyte disturbances can lead to cardiac arrest.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

Because if you give a large enough dose fast enough, you can alter the pH before your body has a chance to catch up. Electrolyte disturbances can lead to cardiac arrest.

Linda

Oh, I thought that it was used as an emergency treatment precisely for OHCA?

Presumably a physician would make a judgement call on ‘too much to fast’ for instance when it is used for emergency purposes but in a controlled environment it is my understanding that this is administered in various (non cancer) medical situations such as diabetic ketoacidosis, pregnancy, vascular surgery and presumably, like all drugs this could be monitored safely in those situations. Have I got this wrong?