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

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Delayman

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?

Safely implies not forcing the pH of a patient's blood outside of the range 7.35 to 7.45 for a significant length of time.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

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

I don't know what OHCA is.

Quote:

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?

Yes, sodium bicarbonate can be given in a manner that's safe, but I don't understand the relevance of your point.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by fls

I don't know what OHCA is.

<snip>

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

In that case, being dead leads to acid-base disturbances.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Looks like Sodium Bicarbonate may not be useful for cardiac arrest, at least in neonates:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/122/4/831

Quote:

Sodium Bicarbonate: Basically Useless Therapy

Common clinical practices often are unsupported by experimental evidence. One example is the administration of sodium bicarbonate to neonates. Despite a long history of widespread use, objective evidence that administration of sodium bicarbonate improves outcomes for patients in cardiopulmonary arrest or with metabolic acidosis is lacking. Indeed, there is evidence that this therapy is detrimental. This review examines the history of sodium bicarbonate use in neonatology and the evidence that refutes the clinical practice of administering sodium bicarbonate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation or to treat metabolic acidosis in the NICU.

[jli]

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).

Bladder cancer is one of the cancers Simoncini claims can be treated successfully with SB. Don´t you think that this study indicates that he could be wrong?

Originally Posted by fls

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

That´s true. In that respect I´m a layman. As a layman I think of tumor lysis syndrome as a condition caused by dead tumor cells. Not something that living tumor cells do to the body. In that perspective bicarbonate treatment is something that is useful after the tumor cells have died.

[metamars]

I encountered Simoncini just today. His claim that "cancer is a fungus" immediately struck me as just plain wrong. His explanation about doctors only studying biopsies of the "reactive" encapsulating tissue seemed laughable, even if that happens to be true, in general. Are we to believe that no doctor was ever curious enough to look into the core of cancer tumors to see what difference there might be with the outer regions? Also, I've heard Michio Kaku say on his science program that cancer is understood as involving gene mutations, with all cancers involving the same gene (though different cancers will also be involved with different genes, as well).

However, it seems possible (to this layman) that tumors may be primarily composed of opportunistic fungi cells. I don't know, I am asking the question. Can anybody cite me references that determined the percentage, by weight and/or volume, of fungi in cancer tumors? Apparently it is zero for some tumors, but what are typical ranges for various types of cancer (say lung, esophageal, intestinal), across a number of patients?

Some other questions:
1) can sodium bicarbonate kill candida albicans, etc., in vitro, in concentrations that can be achieved in vivo by the localized methods mentioned by Simoncini?
2) if the answer to 1) is "yes", what happens if these killed yeast cells are added to cancer tissue specimens in vitro? One can imagine sodium bicarbonate killing yeast cells, their cell walls bursting and releasing enzymes, which in turn are capable of killing cancer cells. (Again, I'm a layman.)
3) Dr. Simoncini has made an unambiguous claim of curing 90%+ of his breast cancer patients. Assuming that he can draw from a large pool of women with breast cancer who do not wish to undergo lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemo and radiation, what is the best way for him to do a clinical study on such women (let's assume that funding is not a problem; because his proposed therapy is so cheap, I don't see why funding should be a problem) such that he can gather enough (statistically significant) data to present to the scientific community, should his therapy actually work?

[fls]

Originally Posted by metamars

I encountered Simoncini just today. His claim that "cancer is a fungus" immediately struck me as just plain wrong. His explanation about doctors only studying biopsies of the "reactive" encapsulating tissue seemed laughable, even if that happens to be true, in general. Are we to believe that no doctor was ever curious enough to look into the core of cancer tumors to see what difference there might be with the outer regions? Also, I've heard Michio Kaku say on his science program that cancer is understood as involving gene mutations, with all cancers involving the same gene (though different cancers will also be involved with different genes, as well).

However, it seems possible (to this layman) that tumors may be primarily composed of opportunistic fungi cells. I don't know, I am asking the question. Can anybody cite me references that determined the percentage, by weight and/or volume, of fungi in cancer tumors? Apparently it is zero for some tumors, but what are typical ranges for various types of cancer (say lung, esophageal, intestinal), across a number of patients?

Some other questions:
1) can sodium bicarbonate kill candida albicans, etc., in vitro, in concentrations that can be achieved in vivo by the localized methods mentioned by Simoncini?
2) if the answer to 1) is "yes", what happens if these killed yeast cells are added to cancer tissue specimens in vitro? One can imagine sodium bicarbonate killing yeast cells, their cell walls bursting and releasing enzymes, which in turn are capable of killing cancer cells. (Again, I'm a layman.)
3) Dr. Simoncini has made an unambiguous claim of curing 90%+ of his breast cancer patients. Assuming that he can draw from a large pool of women with breast cancer who do not wish to undergo lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemo and radiation, what is the best way for him to do a clinical study on such women (let's assume that funding is not a problem; because his proposed therapy is so cheap, I don't see why funding should be a problem) such that he can gather enough (statistically significant) data to present to the scientific community, should his therapy actually work?

Simoncini, like many CAM proponents, presents just enough information to provide superficial support for his idea. Lay people, such as yourself, play around with this information in order to construct plausible scenarios based on limited understanding. The problem is that they very quickly break down when subject to a deeper understanding. Sodium bicarbonate seems to have a weak anti-fungal effect when used topically on a few fungi that affect plants. I couldn't find evidence that it was effective against candida albicans, and one study using it as a rinse to treat oral candidiasis found it performed no better than placebo and worse than other treatments.

Tumours contain lots of cells that are dead or dying already.

The idea that he can draw from a large pool of woman who are rejecting treatment for breast cancer is horrifying to me. Especially since treatment in the early stages has excellent results. I don't see how such a study could ever pass ethical review since he would have to provide informed consent which should have the effect of eliminating this pool of women that he is lying to.

As I stated earlier, he doesn't need to perform a clinical trial in order to provide evidence for his idea. All or none case series are considered Grade A evidence (all the people used to die and now some don't, or some of the people used to die and now none do). If he wants to show that he is sincere, then all he has to do is pick out his best cases, document them appropriately, and get them published in a peer-review journal.

Linda

[metamars]

Originally Posted by fls

Tumours contain lots of cells that are dead or dying already.

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer my question. I am looking for percentages by weight/volume of fungus cells in cancer tumors.

Quote:

The idea that he can draw from a large pool of woman who are rejecting treatment for breast cancer is horrifying to me. Especially since treatment in the early stages has excellent results. I don't see how such a study could ever pass ethical review since he would have to provide informed consent which should have the effect of eliminating this pool of women that he is lying to.

A friend of the family had breast cancer, and refused all treatment. She was elderly, and I suppose she figured she wouldn't live more than 10-15 years more, anyway. Whether or not her decision, or the decision of other women like her, horrify you is besides the point. Last I heard (we lost touch over 10 years ago, about 5 years after her diagnosis) she was doing fine. Even her daughter admitted that she probably made the right decision.

Also, I see no reason why Simoncici would have to lie to anybody. Because of the wonders of the internet, it's too late for him to withdraw earlier claims, but ito going forward, he can simply say that he has an experimental treatment, and make women sign informed consents that he is making no guarantees, don't expect anything, blah blah.

Quote:

As I stated earlier, he doesn't need to perform a clinical trial in order to provide evidence for his idea. All or none case series are considered Grade A evidence (all the people used to die and now some don't, or some of the people used to die and now none do). If he wants to show that he is sincere, then all he has to do is pick out his best cases, document them appropriately, and get them published in a peer-review journal.

Linda

I think I missed this. I only started reading this thread on p. 6, courtesy of a Google search.

If he writes up his best cases and can't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal (for whatever reason), what would be the best venue for him to get his article in front of oncologists?

[fls]

Originally Posted by metamars

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer my question. I am looking for percentages by weight/volume of fungus cells in cancer tumors.

The problem is that that is a fairly useless question

Quote:

A friend of the family had breast cancer, and refused all treatment. She was elderly, and I suppose she figured she wouldn't live more than 10-15 years more, anyway. Whether or not her decision, or the decision of other women like her, horrify you is besides the point. Last I heard (we lost touch over 10 years ago, about 5 years after her diagnosis) she was doing fine. Even her daughter admitted that she probably made the right decision.

It doesn't horrify me that some women refuse any treatment for breast cancer. The best advice for any particular individual depends upon a number of factors, and in some cases may be no treatment. The advances in breast cancer have come in prevention, earlier detection and in treatment of the earlier stages. If there is a large pool of Italian women who are refusing treatment it suggests either that they are not being prevented or discovered in the early stages, which indicates a serious problem with medical services. Or that they are not being given accurate information about their treatment options and outcomes. It is those last two situations that concern me.

Quote:

Also, I see no reason why Simoncici would have to lie to anybody. Because of the wonders of the internet, it's too late for him to withdraw earlier claims, but ito going forward, he can simply say that he has an experimental treatment, and make women sign informed consents that he is making no guarantees, don't expect anything, blah blah.

Informed consent isn't just about what treatment you are offering. It also means that you must provide accurate information on what other treatment options are available and expected outcomes.

Quote:

If he writes up his best cases and can't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal (for whatever reason), what would be the best venue for him to get his article in front of oncologists?

Presenting his cases at a professional meeting/conference dedicated to oncology.

Linda

[metamars]

Originally Posted by fls

The problem is that that is a fairly useless question

If the answer is that 51% of cancer tumors are candida colonies, then not only isn't it a useless question, it would indicate that Simoncini may be on to something, theoretically (i.e., disregarding any evaluation of his proposed cure). If 5-10% is the correct answer, then Simoncini is wrong to say "cancer is a fungus", but for all I know, there may be a symbiotic relationship between cancer and candida colonies.

Quote:

Informed consent isn't just about what treatment you are offering. It also means that you must provide accurate information on what other treatment options are available and expected outcomes.

Fine. He can throw that into his informed consent statements, also. He should have done that anyway. Apparently, his license was suspended.

Quote:

Presenting his cases at a professional meeting/conference dedicated to oncology.

Linda

From reading elsewhere, he's apparently no good at even documenting his cases. Not a good sign, if true.

[jli]

Originally Posted by metamars

Are we to believe that no doctor was ever curious enough to look into the core of cancer tumors to see what difference there might be with the outer regions?

Dont´t belive it. In fact it is standard pathology procedure to examine the cancers inside out and their surroundings. On page 6 you probably saw a slice of one cancer. In this picture:

you can see what is examined under microscope from that particular slice. And it is not just one slice that is examined this way.

Originally Posted by metamars

If 5-10% is the correct answer, then Simoncini is wrong....

Even that low percentage would be easy to detect during routine pathology workup.

[jli]

The counts on this thread show that it is still being read. So I thought I´d share this revolutionary discovery with you. Most cancer patients contain vegetables. These vegetables can invade the body and become a cancer. The cells around them are healthy reactive cells protecting the body.

Why haven´t we heard about this before??. Because the greengrocers and the "big farmers" suppress this information - an apple a day keeps the doctor away (unless you miss him). Can I prove this??

Sure I can. The photo below demonstrates it clearly.



You see vegetable material surrounded by macrophages and around these are the "cancer cells". So how do we treat it ?? I don´t know (Heck - I´m a pathologist). But I´m sure most children would agree that we should stop eating vegetables

Does this theory sound absolutely absurd (In a Monty Pythonian way). Well it is far better documented than Simoncinis Cancer = Candida-theory

BTW. I have put some more microscopy photos of cancer on Cancer is not a fungus These include the ones I have posted here. If you have had enough of microscopy photos, my site will almost certainly be of no interest to you. But you are welcome to visit if you like.

[JennyJo]

@ jli

Quote:

but i´m sure most children would agree that we should stop eating vegetables

I wanted to put big grinning faces here, but today is my clumsiest day ever, so I'll just say it: you have me in stitches!
:-))

[JennyJo]

What is it btw? Looks like a chunck of turnip.

[jli]

Unfortunately I´m not an expert on subclassification of vegetables. So I really don´t know.

[JennyJo]

Then turnip it is.
:-)

[jli]

As long as it is something the kids don´t want I´ll accept it

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

You see vegetable material surrounded by macrophages and around these are the "cancer cells". So how do we treat it ?? I don´t know (Heck - I´m a pathologist). But I´m sure most children would agree that we should stop eating vegetables

Does this theory sound absolutely absurd (In a Monty Pythonian way). Well it is far better documented than Simoncinis Cancer = Candida-theory

BTW. I have put some more microscopy photos of cancer on Cancer is not a fungus These include the ones I have posted here. If you have had enough of microscopy photos, my site will almost certainly be of no interest to you. But you are welcome to visit if you like.

lol. Nice satire. Cool website, nice job. On the candida page though, you may want to change the one word to esophagus instead of esofagus?

[JennyJo]

Don't worry, I have never met a child wanting turnips.
Turnips are full of vitamins, another reason for children to distrust them intensely. My daughter always refused to eat anything containing vitamins, for they made her feel 'very awfully wobbly'. This was because she had been sick once after we had eaten carrots (not because of them), and I had persuaded her to eat the carrots, telling her they were very good for her because of all the vitamins in them.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

lol. Nice satire. Cool website, nice job. On the candida page though, you may want to change the one word to esophagus instead of esofagus?

Esofagus is a "danification" of esophagus. Thank you for spotting it and also thank you for your other comments.

[rudeboy]

http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-...carbonate.html

ever heard of it.?? Found by an italian doc who noticed all cancer patients had in common aphtas

[Professor Yaffle]

There is a thread on this subject here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=113061

[Agatha]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ht=bicarbonate

Simoncini's claims to cure cancer would be illegal in the UK under the Cancer Act.

[Subduction Zone]

If you want a good laugh go to the FAQ's page. Here is one:

Quote:

Why is this therapy not applied in the regular health care?
The regular health care presents to work only with scientific proved medicines and therapies and is suspicious about new therapies.

Dang doctors and their suspicions about unproved therapies

And one more, supposedly he is an oncologist but he does not work in a cancer clinic:

Quote:

Is there no way that you could use this evidence to put pressure on the establishment to take your work more seriously?
No, because it is necessary to demonstrate one’s results with many hundreds of fully documented cases. This is not possible unless you work in a cancer clinic.

[Madalch]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=113061

But then again, that's already been pointed out.....

[SYLVESTER1592]

Not him again....

Please people....Cancer is not a fungus

This guy Simoncini, has already been thrown out of the medical profession before 2005 and still practices medicine although he denies it even against video evidence available on Youtube, but unfortunately only in Italian.

Alternative therapy proponents still push him forward as a medical doctor and even a certified oncologist. It's quite sad really...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[jli]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

There is a thread on this subject here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=113061

And if you start on page 5 you should be able to pick up the essentials.

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592

Not him again....
Please people....Cancer is not a fungus

We know. and on http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus it is explained why we know. The site does not bring any information that hasn´t been presented in this thread already.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by sanguine

why is Simoncini suggesting the use of sodium bicarb?

Cuz you can use it in baking, therefore it is "all natural" and safe to eat and isn't a drug or chemical.

What is cancer?

Cancer is your OWN cells gone haywire and growing out of control and not acting like the tissue it was meant to be. Non benign cancer acts like a virus, spreading all over your body once it spreads, and growing all over the place.

It seems "dr." S missed the section on cancer during his training, or is ignoring it to fleece people like quacks do with their bad simplistic ideas and complaining about the rest of the doctors who do actual real doctoring.

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

Cuz you can use it in baking, therefore it is "all natural" and safe to eat and isn't a drug or chemical.

And maybe because it's alcaline ?

As everyone knows cancer is caused by acidity*.

*Defined very, very loosely, of course. As in, nothing to do with the real definition of an acid.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

And maybe because it's alcaline ?

As everyone knows cancer is caused by acidity*.

*Defined very, very loosely, of course. As in, nothing to do with the real definition of an acid.

OHHH Yeahhhh, and the mixture is making the body neutral, which it is all time... NOT. AND fungus grows very well in an alkaline environment... NOT. Ugh. How anyone can not understand the sheer ridiculousness of this guy's "treatments" is beyond me. I do blame our educational systems to some degree though, although there is much more to why laypeople can't understand why this guy is a con and a quack.

[JennyJo]

It seems Mr Simoncini is actively trying to set up business in the USA:
http://journeytowardhealth.blogspot.com/

[Eos of the Eons]

I don't know, it seems the blog writer has swallowed the altie hook, line and sinker, including his. She is fasting and doing other things that certainly won't help her condition.

Quote:

Last week I received my most recent bloodwork from Colorado . . . my numbers are the highest they’ve ever been! (My immune system started at a 1 and now it is at 126!) My nutritionist says I have turned a corner and my body is NOW ATTACKING THE CANCER! This is wonderful news and we are rejoicing!

What kind of immune system measureable is that I wonder? I haven't been able to determine what kind of cancer she has or who diagnosed it. It would be easy for an altie to diagnose a nonexistant cancer and/or imaginary fungus/cancer and then tell her later that it's cured.

She just linked other quacks on her blog, like the baking soda/fungus one.

Ugh. She links mercola too. OMFSM!!! If she really does have cancer, then she's done for.

[JennyJo]

She has visited a "regular" doctor if I understand correctly. She also had a biopsy. Then her parents saw Simoncini on tv and she decided that was what she would do. There has also been an extraordinary bloodtest, measuring tumour markers "around the tumour" - fascinating.

When you look at the photo's, her healthy lifestyle doesn't seem to have done her much good. It's tragic as well as extremely annoying.

[JennyJo]

Quote:

It would be easy for an altie to diagnose a nonexistant cancer and/or imaginary fungus/cancer and then tell her later that it's cured.

I hadn't even thought of that!

[Eos of the Eons]

This is the team she is getting treated by:
http://www.goninowellness.com/index.php/the-group/

Quote:

Although the drives to Rockwall (several times a week) are quite time consuming and somewhat taxing, I am receiving sodium bicarbonate I-Vs there as a continuation of Dr. Simoncini’s protocol.

Quote:

God spoke to me through her and she is the reason I have chosen to fight this cancer with nutrition instead of doing what my oncologist wants me to do: Chemo drugs, surgery, more chemo and then radiation.

Oh, I get it. chemo and other conventional medicine is bad. Shooting up Baking Soda is good, since it is not a "drug", I bet she figures it's not a nasty chemical either. It's just nutrition since you can bake with it. Not that it will accomplish any more for her than just baking with it would.


Soon, she will be sleeping with the daisies.

[JennyJo]

The body can heal itself with the help of god the Great Healer. Bad luck though he's sleeping on the job most (well, all...?) of the time. So yes, I think she'll join him soon, pushing the daisies.

[JennyJo]

Quote:

This is the team she is getting treated by:
http://www.goninowellness.com/index.php/the-group/

This is so odd. When you look at the staff, there's no relationship with cancer whatsoever. And they are treating a woman with breast cancer. What's wrong with these people?!

Thank god they have an office manager though.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

Soon, she will be sleeping with the daisies.

No she won't. It will take several years for this to kill her. In the meantime she will continue to believe and spread the word to dozens or hundreds of people. When she dies very few people will hear about the story of someone who abandoned her children unnecessarily by succumbing to magical thinking.

Linda

[JennyJo]

@ Linda,

Quote:

It will take several years for this to kill her. In the meantime she will continue to believe and spread the word to dozens or hundreds of people. When she dies very few people will hear about the story of someone who abandoned her children unnecessarily by succumbing to magical thinking.

Yes. You're right. And thus these sad histories repeat themselves.