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

[Delayman]

you need to read the book

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

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



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 And since his work is not peer-reviewed and there is no mechanism that subjects him to criticism, he is free to make mistakes or even make stuff up without being corrected.

Linda

Sorry forgot the quote. I've got your point. See my note to jli. regards

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

@ Delayman,

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

Sorry JennyJo forgot the quote. This is truly heartbreaking news.May she rest in peace.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Delayman

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm going to assume you don't have a pubmed account, or have not read these in full or you would realize they do not in any way shape or form support your fungus cancer theory.

Here's a hint: Quoting what you think is support from a short abstract doesn't actually support your position. But ok, let me comment directly on the abstracts you provided:

1) Describes the process by which a tumor cell is forced to ingest a common fungus. Does not in any way state the tumor actually was fungus. Goes on to note that in vitro it shows no effect, however in vivo it showed that the tumor digested the fungus and grew faster. Hardly a surprise that when you feed cancer cells, they multiply faster.

2) Candida species is the most common found in immuno-compromised patients. Fail to show anything here other than without a strong immune system, you get infections.

3) Reinforces #2, since it flat out tells you that immuno-compromised blood-based cancer patients die of infections. Nowhere does it state the cancer is fungus.

4) Describes a way to gene splice with fungal dna to cancer cells to allow for better typing in tests. Does not support that cancer is fungus, in fact shows that in order to get cancers to react to fungal tests, you have to inject fungal DNA and grow it.

So you have failed to show any support whatsoever for your cancer=fungus theory.

You do, however, show a vast lack of understanding in what you are talking about.

[JennyJo]

The mere fact that an idea has no scientific underpinning and is completely at odds with al proven scientific knowledge, does not make it by definition a plausible possibility.
Such a way of thinking ignores all logical and empirical boundaries and can lead people to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous or dangerous.
It's obvious where this can lead to.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

you need to read the book

Why? Unless the book takes back everything he claims on his websites and admits that it would be grossly premature to suggest the use of bicarb in the treatment of cancer, it can't be informative.

He lacks peer-reviewed publication and he grossly misunderstands (deliberate or not) the available information. Whether he writes stuff in a book or on a website, it still suffers from the same criticisms I raised earlier. There is no constraint on his deceit or his ignorance when he takes his argument to people who do not have the ability to take him to task. Why do you think he directs his words at lay-people instead of physicians? You cannot tell that the list of references he provided (and you copied for us) does not support his argument, but we can. Instead, you simply credulously accept what he says and blame us for using our knowledge to recognize his abhorrent behaviour.

He does not open up new avenues of research. The connection between infection and cancer has already been well-established as an area of exploration. If he did actually have the information that he claims to have, then by purposefully presenting it in a way that makes it highly doubtful so that other physicians cannot act on it, he ensures that he alone can profit from it, making him responsible for the deaths of millions. Fortunately for him, it is clear that he does not actually have this information, so he is responsible only for the deaths of those who fail to get life-saving treatment in favour of lining his pockets.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by Ducky

I'm going to assume you don't have a pubmed account, or have not read these in full or you would realize they do not in any way shape or form support your fungus cancer theory.

Here's a hint: Quoting what you think is support from a short abstract doesn't actually support your position. But ok, let me comment directly on the abstracts you provided:

1) Describes the process by which a tumor cell is forced to ingest a common fungus. Does not in any way state the tumor actually was fungus. Goes on to note that in vitro it shows no effect, however in vivo it showed that the tumor digested the fungus and grew faster. Hardly a surprise that when you feed cancer cells, they multiply faster.

2) Candida species is the most common found in immuno-compromised patients. Fail to show anything here other than without a strong immune system, you get infections.

3) Reinforces #2, since it flat out tells you that immuno-compromised blood-based cancer patients die of infections. Nowhere does it state the cancer is fungus.

4) Describes a way to gene splice with fungal dna to cancer cells to allow for better typing in tests. Does not support that cancer is fungus, in fact shows that in order to get cancers to react to fungal tests, you have to inject fungal DNA and grow it.

So you have failed to show any support whatsoever for your cancer=fungus theory.

You do, however, show a vast lack of understanding in what you are talking about.

First of all, it is not my ‘fungus theory’.Secondly, I was not at that point quoting, but merely setting out some footnotes for the attention of people on this thread who have not read the book in the hope, as I said, of ‘shedding some light on the matter’, but if I can’t quote from a peer reviewed article, even in the abstract, then please tell me what I can quote from according to your rules?

Once again, I need to repeat in this thread that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no particular peer reviewed articles, in vitro tests or clinical studies that state that cancer is a fungus, so, if those are your only criteria then obviously there is nothing to discuss.

If however, instead of rubbishing everything I do and say, you are seeking even the merest clues to the cause (not the risks) and the cure (which we do not have) of cancer, then that, in my humble opinion, is a worthwhile pursuit.

So, ok let me comment using your numbering:-

1) The only part of the first footnote that interests me is the last sentence ‘These data indicate that the in vivo behaviour of malignant tumor cells can be modulated by microbial particles, which are often present in the microenvironment of the growing tumor.

2) The second footnote is not a big deal but does as the title suggests refer to the prevalence of yeasts in clinical specimens from cancer patients. The conventional medical wisdom is as you, so predictably, state the result of a compromised immune system. The fungus theory, which I repeat is not mine, is that this is anti hoc, but certainly the footnote gives no view one way or the other.

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..

4) As a layman the terminology in this one is not easy, but you know what? I can read so I will have a go! And, what I get from this is: a DNA fragment of Candida Albicans hybridizes to biopsied tumor cells and guess what, samples of DNA from head and neck SCC biopsies, Candida g and Candida p were found to contain homologous sequences.

So what does all this mean? Of course I am only being selective to suit my purpose, I have a vast lack of understanding, my comments have not been peer reviewed, I am not a member of pubmed, I am not a pathologist or microbiologist, I have not conducted any clinical trials and quite possibly I am a complete moron but it seems to me that:-

1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients
2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
3) fungal infections are a major cause in some malignancies
4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok
5) if you thought that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells, then in vitro tests show that this is possible under certain conditions.

And, you know what? I never knew all that until I read the footnotes!

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I do not think that Simoncini has necessarily done himself any favours by aligning himself with Kaufman because that interview focuses on certain aspects which are, once again, not mentioned in the book (particularly the histological comment).

But the Kaufman interview is not the only place where he speaks of this in front of a camera. On his website he links to a couple of lectures he has given. Also in those he states that white masses visible to the naked eye are candida colonies. He says that once candida enters the body they join together and form colonies/large congregates. In one of his examples he shows a colonic cancer, and he states that the reddish layer covering the white mass are the reactive cells. So according to his very own words, the white mass in ther cancer is the fungus, and the red represents the reactive cells.
In this picture:


you can get an idea of what Simoncini is talking about (and pointing at) in the videos. It is a cross section of a rectum with a cancer. This is after "fixation procedure", which is why the surface appears brown instead of red. According to Simoncini the only thing a pathologist gets to see in the microscope is the reactive cells on the surface. As you can see there is no brown rim around the white mass.

If I understand you correctly, there is a discrepancy between what he writes in his book and what he has explained repeatedly on camera after his book has been published. If that is the case - wouldn´t you expect that his newer perception should be more accurate than the old one he wrote about in his book?

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

Why? Unless the book takes back everything he claims on his websites and admits that it would be grossly premature to suggest the use of bicarb in the treatment of cancer, it can't be informative.

He lacks peer-reviewed publication and he grossly misunderstands (deliberate or not) the available information. Whether he writes stuff in a book or on a website, it still suffers from the same criticisms I raised earlier. There is no constraint on his deceit or his ignorance when he takes his argument to people who do not have the ability to take him to task. Why do you think he directs his words at lay-people instead of physicians? You cannot tell that the list of references he provided (and you copied for us) does not support his argument, but we can. Instead, you simply credulously accept what he says and blame us for using our knowledge to recognize his abhorrent behaviour.

He does not open up new avenues of research. The connection between infection and cancer has already been well-established as an area of exploration. If he did actually have the information that he claims to have, then by purposefully presenting it in a way that makes it highly doubtful so that other physicians cannot act on it, he ensures that he alone can profit from it, making him responsible for the deaths of millions. Fortunately for him, it is clear that he does not actually have this information, so he is responsible only for the deaths of those who fail to get life-saving treatment in favour of lining his pockets.

Linda

Wow, sorry if I hit a raw nerve.

Let me explain something, I am not a wet liberal or left wing ideologue, my friends describe my political views as a little to the right of Genghis Khan. I do not believe in homeopathy, naturapathy, or reflexology. When I have a headache I take aspirin or paracetamol so, my dear doctor (I assume you are a physician) do not treat the layman with such contempt.

When it comes to cancer, where have all your peer reviews, in vitro tests and clinical trials got us in the last 30 years, precisely nowhere. Vincristine, Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Carboplatin, Paclitaxol, the new miracle drugs de jour Tamoxifen, Arimidex, Avastin, and all the steroids to control the side effects - it’s all poison. Surgery, I am in awe of surgeons, but oncologists, what are their qualifications apart from their own ego’s.

The statistics of so called cancer cures rates hide behind one thing and one thing only - early diagnosis. You would think that was a good thing, but no, the medical profession, so famed for drilling peoples heads to cure otitis, take early diagnosis and pump people full of poison so that they can claim that they have extended their lives.

Back in the day, I worked as an assistant in a hospital laboratory feeding sugar to rats to see whether they became diabetic, and you know what, after years of research they came to their professional conclusion, no it did not. Yet when a prominent oncologist at Hammersmith Cancer centre tested hyperthermia at the hospital (which apparently made treatments easier and more efficacious) and then went public with the claim that every ‘cancer unit in the country should have one’, the establishment, your colleagues, shut it down over lousy funding cost of £200,000.

I have been visiting cancer clinics for many years, seeing patients made to sit for hours and hours desperate for some recognition of their individuality but destined to see some trumped up physician in their mid thirties who has just been promoted from house to consultancy in 12 months, for a consultation of 20 minutes. Why even bother when he knows before they walk in the exact protocol that he is going to offer, the gold standard poison in the latest peer reviewed article which is going to destroy their immune system, make them lose their hair, their dignity and ruin their quality of life, and you know something, you would think that with all the sophisticated treatments and statistics of cure rates of your medical establishment, that the internet would be littered with patients claiming that they had been cured by conventional treatment, but instead – deafening silence.

So, get off your high horse and if you want to do something useful, collect together some cancer patients who have refused chemotherapy and run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure jli will help you) and then we can all get out of this nest of vipers and go back to our lives.

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

Quote:

So, get off your high horse and if you want to do something useful, collect together some cancer patients who have refused chemotherapy and run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure jli will help you) and then we can all get out of this nest of vipers and go back to our lives.

Let me offer a slight amendment to the above quote:

So,Tullio Simoncini, get off your high horse and if you want to do something useful, collect together some cancer patients who have refused chemotherapy and run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure Delayman will help you) and then we can all get out of this nest of alternative vipers and go back to our lives.

The burden of proof for his 'theory' lies with Simoncini and with him only.
Good luck with your trial!

[JennyJo]

@ Delayman,

By the way, I am of those who lost their hair - and a breast for that matter, but never once have I lost my dignity. My quality of life has returned and so has my hair.
I find the way you describe cancer patients undergoing chemo therapy offensive and insulting.
Speak for yourself, and leave us out of it please.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

So, get off your high horse and if you want to do something useful, collect together some cancer patients who have refused chemotherapy and run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure jli will help you) and then we can all get out of this nest of vipers and go back to our lives.

I believe the point would be that Simoncini should be doing this, rather than asserting that this works with no evidence to back it. If it worked the other way around, then I could say, "Eating marshmallows cures the flu" and then just recommend people eat marshmallows rather then pursuing other medical options, and when my irresponsible approach to a deadly illness was challenged, insist that it's valid until someone else tests it.

Also, again -- why bicarb? If it's really fungal, why does Simoncini not recommend one of the many available systemic antifungal drugs? His proposed solution isn't even the best one available for his idea of how the disease works. That speaks heavily to crankery -- especially since Candida and other fungi have a reasonably robust survivable pH range compared to the pH changes you can safely induce within a patient's blood.

Simoncini really seems like the biomedical equivalent of those people who think they have an insight that overturns all of modern physics, yet don't know how to do the math involved.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Wow, sorry if I hit a raw nerve.

Really? My protest against lying to patients for profit and concern over avoidable deaths can only be explained by an unreasoning sensitivity?

Quote:

Let me explain something, I am not a wet liberal or left wing ideologue, my friends describe my political views as a little to the right of Genghis Khan. I do not believe in homeopathy, naturapathy, or reflexology. When I have a headache I take aspirin or paracetamol so, my dear doctor (I assume you are a physician) do not treat the layman with such contempt.

Interesting. I am contemptuous because I don't think one should take advantage of someone's naivety?

Quote:

So, get off your high horse and if you want to do something useful, collect together some cancer patients who have refused chemotherapy and run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure jli will help you) and then we can all get out of this nest of vipers and go back to our lives.

Resources are limited. If we choose to spend our time and money proving to you that various ill-conceived ideas are wrong, we have lost the opportunity to pursue endeavours that are likely to be fruitful. While you and Simoncini may choose to be cavalier with the lives of others, I cannot.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

@ Delayman,

By the way, I am of those who lost their hair - and a breast for that matter, but never once have I lost my dignity. My quality of life has returned and so has my hair.
I find the way you describe cancer patients undergoing chemo therapy offensive and insulting.
Speak for yourself, and leave us out of it please.

I sincerely apologize if I have offended you. I did think long and hard before posting my last message but the mindset of the medical establishment as epitomised here is , a rigid, ‘we do it this way’ attitude which in regard to this particular subject is anathema to me. So far no one involved in this thread has challenged any of my claims about cause, cure and the state of oncology, but instead are obsessed with attacking an individual, with such viciousness and condemnation that it suggests to me that deep down they are embarrassed because they know that they have very little else to offer.

You are a strong lady and are entitled to your views, with which I disagree, but at least you are not pulling out the ‘I am a professional, you are just a layman’ card.

My wife had breast cancer, three operations,radiotherapy and chemotherapy and died, so I do know how the system works. You have obviously tolerated your treatment well and I hope and pray that it works for you.

As for Simoncini, as far as I can make out from the book he considers that his case studies are the best that he can do at the moment to prove his case. Frankly, I don’t really care if cancer is a fungus or not, only whether sodium bicarbonate, which is a relatively harmless medication used in hospitals for all sorts of other treatments, works as a cure. I cannot understand why people are so vehemently opposed to experiments with this. After all, what is the difference between a patient who agrees to be treated in this way, as opposed to a patient who agrees to take part in a clinical trial. I know that you and others will say oh well this new drug has been reviewed and tested in a petri dish and on mice, but most people are not stupid they know what they are getting into and should be given more credit.
I wish you well

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

Really? My protest against lying to patients for profit and concern over avoidable deaths can only be explained by an unreasoning sensitivity?



Interesting. I am contemptuous because I don't think one should take advantage of someone's naivety?



Resources are limited. If we choose to spend our time and money proving to you that various ill-conceived ideas are wrong, we have lost the opportunity to pursue endeavours that are likely to be fruitful. While you and Simoncini may choose to be cavalier with the lives of others, I cannot.

Linda

1. He may be wrong, but how can you accuse him of lying and how are these 'deaths' you refer to, avoidable, if you have no cures?

2. Oh, by naivety you mean someone like me?

3. I see the last $100m was not enough and a patient should rely on your assurance that your endeavours are 'likely to be fruitful' well maybe you can forgive your naive patient for going with something a little more positive. Cavalier? nine million people are dying a year and you are accusing others of being cavalier?

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I cannot understand why people are so vehemently opposed to experiments with this. After all, what is the difference between a patient who agrees to be treated in this way, as opposed to a patient who agrees to take part in a clinical trial. I know that you and others will say oh well this new drug has been reviewed and tested in a petri dish and on mice, but most people are not stupid they know what they are getting into and should be given more credit.
I wish you well

The problem is that we're not talking about controlled, blinded trials where a possible medication for a potentially terminal illness is evaluated by piggybacking on known therapies. That would be okay. Instead, we're talking about Simoncini convincing people to forgo therapies with proven efficacy to try treatments that have no known therapeutic efficacy. That would not pass an institutional review board because it is unethical, and can (and has!) lead to potentially avoidable death.

A patient who takes part in an actual clinical trial goes through an informed consent process, and the people carrying out the trial are ethically bound to make sure that patient is receiving equivalent care in the case of potentially terminal illnesses. People are not stupid, but they are also not experts on medical treatments -- they're not supposed to be, of course, that's why we specialize and have doctors. But when a doctor comes along and says, "This treatment works, stop all that other stuff" without a good evidence base to make that assertion, they are misleading the patient. People are not stupid, but they can be lied to, and that's a problem.

Given the paucity of even empirical support for Simoncini's ideas, it is tremendously unethical for him to attempt to jump straight to telling people to abandon treatments with proven efficacy in favor of his imaginings.

And that's why people here are so upset about it.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by sanguine

I believe the point would be that Simoncini should be doing this, rather than asserting that this works with no evidence to back it. If it worked the other way around, then I could say, "Eating marshmallows cures the flu" and then just recommend people eat marshmallows rather then pursuing other medical options, and when my irresponsible approach to a deadly illness was challenged, insist that it's valid until someone else tests it.

Also, again -- why bicarb? If it's really fungal, why does Simoncini not recommend one of the many available systemic antifungal drugs? His proposed solution isn't even the best one available for his idea of how the disease works. That speaks heavily to crankery -- especially since Candida and other fungi have a reasonably robust survivable pH range compared to the pH changes you can safely induce within a patient's blood.

Simoncini really seems like the biomedical equivalent of those people who think they have an insight that overturns all of modern physics, yet don't know how to do the math involved.

Another one!! What is wrong with you people, it is you that insist on interminable trials, not him. He is just doing it his way and he will either be right or wrong.

Listen if you were a doctor and had worked for 25 years in the Health Service, worked for another 5 years with sufferers of a flu epidemic and then wrote a book translated into several languages about your experience backed by patient testimonials I would go for the marshmellows, sure, especially if the establishment had no cure for flu!!

Apparently Sodium Bicarb is the best stuff. Why, I do not know but perhaps because it is used in other medical procedures he feels more comfortable using it in the knowledge that it is harmless in other respects, to the patient

Yeah, maybe he's no good at the math, any other complaints?

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

1. He may be wrong, but how can you accuse him of lying and how are these 'deaths' you refer to, avoidable, if you have no cures?

Not having a 100% cure rate doesn't mean "no cures." Two of my relatives had cancer and, with appropriate interventions, survived for long periods after diagnosis. My grandfather, for example, lived for a couple decades after successful treatment for bladder cancer (into his eighties, when he died of unrelated natural causes).

In contrast, Simoncini's ideas have no demonstrated success rate, and are fundamentally nonsensical.

Given a choice between a completely unknown value and a significant, finite success percentage, I'll take the latter. My loved ones did, and they lived, and I'm glad.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Listen if you were a doctor and had worked for 25 years in the Health Service, worked for another 5 years with sufferers of a flu epidemic and then wrote a book translated into several languages about your experience backed by patient testimonials I would go for the marshmellows, sure, especially if the establishment had no cure for flu!!

Yeah, maybe he's no good at the math, any other complaints?

You're using a straw man here, and it's obvious.

There are successful treatments for many kinds of cancer. Their success can be measured in increased years of survival for cancer patients. I repeat my own anecdote -- my grandfather bought over twenty years of extra life by seeking medical intervention for his cancer.

No matter how many years a doctor has worked in the health service, if he advocates eschewing proven treatments for magical thinking, I would ignore him. People change. Even smart, experienced people can become kooks who advocate dangerous things. It happens.

No one wants "interminable" trials. In fact, there's no such thing. The average time to move a new drug from initial discovery is 12-15 years. That's long -- too long in many cases -- but no interminable. In Simoncini's case, his deployment cycle should be much shorter, if he's really using such low doses of bicarb as to not cause major side effects. Get initial VC funding. Do preclinical trials. Get picked up by a big company. Do phase I and II trials. Profit, and help people at the same time.

...or, be a hack, publish your results on the web and in your own little book, and lead people away from proven therapies. Again, this is the problem.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by JennyJo

@ Delayman,

By the way, I am of those who lost their hair - and a breast for that matter, but never once have I lost my dignity. My quality of life has returned and so has my hair.
I find the way you describe cancer patients undergoing chemo therapy offensive and insulting.
Speak for yourself, and leave us out of it please.

Agreed. I'm never impressed when someone tells me how much dignity I must have lost going through surgery, radiation and chemo.

It's a statement I've noticed only made by someone who has never gone through cancer and is trying to foist some indignity on treatment in order to try to hock quackery.

BTW, @Delayman:

Your assertions and impressions of chemo and oncologists are not anything I have experienced, and I'm a surviving cancer patient. So between us, all I see you doing is spouting off at the mouth with no real experience or learning to support what you say.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Ducky

Agreed. I'm never impressed when someone tells me how much dignity I must have lost going through surgery, radiation and chemo.

Many years ago, a good friend had a bone marrow transplant and was in the oncology ward. We went to visit, and there were of course a lot of patients there. To be honest, they seemed to feel more embarrassed to have us see them than anything else. From my perspective, and that of the friends I was with, my response was more like pride than anything else. Despite the fact that they were weak and bald, there was an air of optimism that you could really feel. Seeing those patients who were actually going home that day was an impressive sight.

Anything but a lack of dignity.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I sincerely apologize if I have offended you. I did think long and hard before posting my last message but the mindset of the medical establishment as epitomised here is , a rigid, ‘we do it this way’ attitude which in regard to this particular subject is anathema to me.

I'm sorry if I come across as rigid. I am attempting to provide some useful information. If I say that one way is better than another, it is because we have discovered through experience that when we do it that way, we are far, far less likely to be wrong.

Quote:

So far no one involved in this thread has challenged any of my claims about cause, cure and the state of oncology, but instead are obsessed with attacking an individual, with such viciousness and condemnation that it suggests to me that deep down they are embarrassed because they know that they have very little else to offer.

I'm never quite sure what to do when bombarded with a barrage of misinformation and misinterpretation. I could attempt to address your claims, but I elected not to because I have the impression that you would not be receptive anyway. It's more important to me to address the topic of this thread.

The condemnation you see is because it angers us to see people engage in fraud in order to take advantage of people who are vulnerable. That is all.

Quote:

You are a strong lady and are entitled to your views, with which I disagree, but at least you are not pulling out the ‘I am a professional, you are just a layman’ card.

Do you really think that's fair? You have admitted that you have very little knowledge in this area, encountering much of the information for the first time from Simoncini's book. Do you really wish to disparage us because this information is not new to us?

Quote:

My wife had breast cancer, three operations,radiotherapy and chemotherapy and died, so I do know how the system works. You have obviously tolerated your treatment well and I hope and pray that it works for you.

I'm sorry to hear that. I had the sense that your complaints were personal rather than general.

Quote:

As for Simoncini, as far as I can make out from the book he considers that his case studies are the best that he can do at the moment to prove his case. Frankly, I don’t really care if cancer is a fungus or not, only whether sodium bicarbonate, which is a relatively harmless medication used in hospitals for all sorts of other treatments, works as a cure. I cannot understand why people are so vehemently opposed to experiments with this.

I don't think that anyone is vehemently opposed to experiments with this. I am vehemently opposed to Simoncini proceding to make claims in the absence of any experiments, knowing that he is likely to be wrong.

Quote:

After all, what is the difference between a patient who agrees to be treated in this way, as opposed to a patient who agrees to take part in a clinical trial.

Because it's highly unethical to experiment on people unnecessarily and to withhold informed consent.

Quote:

I know that you and others will say oh well this new drug has been reviewed and tested in a petri dish and on mice, but most people are not stupid they know what they are getting into and should be given more credit.

I wish this were true, but you are a prime example that it is not. Despite your intelligence and obvious background knowledge, you are unable to discern that Simoncini is feeding you ********.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

1. He may be wrong, but how can you accuse him of lying and how are these 'deaths' you refer to, avoidable, if you have no cures?

He may or may not be deliberately lying to others, although we've been given examples where he has. But even willful ignorance requires that you lie to yourself.

The deaths are avoidable because we do have progressively better cures.

Quote:

2. Oh, by naivety you mean someone like me?

Yes, someone who is unfamiliar with whatever they are being told and wouldn't be able to tell whether or not it is accurate.

Quote:

3. I see the last $100m was not enough and a patient should rely on your assurance that your endeavours are 'likely to be fruitful' well maybe you can forgive your naive patient for going with something a little more positive. Cavalier? nine million people are dying a year and you are accusing others of being cavalier?

But you're not going with something a little more positive. You are going with wishful thinking. It is cavalier to offer something that is worthless for the sake of false hope, when there are more worthwhile options.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-...le-cancer.html

Quote:

Dermatorphytesand sporotrichum are responsible for a morbidity that is too specific. We know from experience that Actinomycetes, Criptococcus, Hystoplasm, Chrysosporium, Paracoccidioides and other causal agents of Pheoiphomycosis ialiphmycosis, pennicilinosis, zigomicosis are very rarely part of a pathological context. Finally, Aspergillus can be considered a variation of Candida. Only one of the six kinds described above remains as the sole responsible agent for tumors: Candida.

If Siomoncini's hypothesis (i.e. that Candida is the sole cause tumors) is correct, attempting to induce normal cells to turn cancerous without Candida being present should not be possible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3...gdbfrom=pubmed

Quote:

Mammary epithelial cells from 4-month-old virgin BALB/c mice were cultured inside collagen gels in the following serum-free media: Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium:Hams's F-12 (1:1) supplemented with: insulin (10 micrograms/ml), bovine serum albumin (5 mg/ml), and epidermal growth factor (5 ng/ml); insulin, bovine serum albumin, progesterone (0.05 microgram/ml), and prolactin (1 microgram/ml); insulin, bovine serum albumin, progesterone, prolactin, and linoleic acid (10 micrograms/ml). Cells proliferated in all these media. The cells were treated with 0.01 micrograms/ml of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene or 100 micrograms/ml of N-nitroso-N-methylurea on day 3 of culture and, subsequently, at 1-week intervals for 3-6 weeks. Tetradecanoylphorbol acetate (0.1 micrograms/ml) was added to selected cultures. The cultures were maintained for up to 9 weeks; the cells were then removed from the collagen gels, placed in monolayer culture for 2 days, and removed from monolayer culture, and 5 X 10(5) cells were transplanted to each of the gland-free mammary fat pads of 3-week-old female mice. Approximately 10 weeks after transplantation, the transplanted mammary fat pads were examined for outgrowths. Cells that were not treated with carcinogen and cultured for up to 9 weeks in different serum-free media and transplanted to the gland-free mammary fat pad produced only ductal outgrowths similar in morphology to the ducts of the virgin host's mammary glands. Six treatments with 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, of cells grown in the presence of epidermal growth factor, induced 31% spindle cell tumors, 17% ductal hyperplasias, and 5% lobuloalveolar hyperplasias. Cells that were grown in epidermal growth factor and treated three times with N-nitroso-N-methylurea produced 23% ductal hyperplasias and 17% lobuloalveolar hyperplasias. Cells grown in the presence of progesterone and prolactin and treated three times with 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene produced up to 23% lobuloalveolar hyperplasias and 12% ductal hyperplasias. Three treatments with N-nitroso-N-methylurea of cells grown in progesterone- and prolactin-containing media produced a maximum of 50% lobuloalveolar hyperplasias and 33% ductal hyperplasias. The lobuloalveolar hyperplasias have the characteristics of the precancerous hyperplastic alveolar nodules found in mouse mammary tumorigenesis. The in vitro carcinogen-induced lobuloalveolar hyperplasias were transplantable, maintained their lobuloalveolar morphology in virgin hosts, and produced carcinomas.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...gdbfrom=pubmed

Quote:

Chemical carcinogenesis is a lengthy process that involves the rather loosely defined stages of initiation, promotion, and progression. Several model systems of mammary carcinogenesis have been designed to elucidate the mechanisms of chemical carcinogenesis. Most of these systems have included animal models. While organ specific chemical carcinogenesis can be initiated in these systems, the subsequent stages of promotion and progression are difficult to study in detail. Investigations on in vitro carcinogenesis have shown transformation of mammalian cells in culture; the transformational event, however, is difficult to discern within the monolayer culture. We have recently reported the development of an in vitro carcinogenesis system that allows both the initiation as well as the progression of mammary cells in a collagen gel matrix culture system. The cells transformed by a chemical carcinogen develop into discernible microtumors within the three dimensions of a collagen gel culture. Isolation of these microtumors from the collagen gel and subsequent culture in monolayer has produced cells capable of colony formation in soft agar. The present study further characterizes these microtumors originated in vitro by analysis of cell growth kinetics versus parallel control cells. In addition, flow cytometric and cytogenetic studies have been performed to investigate the chromosomal stability of these cells. It was also observed that the microtumors, produced in vitro from mammary epithelial cells of an inbred strain of rats, show the ability to form tumors upon transplantation into the fat pad of syngeneic hosts.

It appears Simoncini's hypothesis is incorrect. Tumors can be produced without Candida.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by Ducky

Agreed. I'm never impressed when someone tells me how much dignity I must have lost going through surgery, radiation and chemo.

It's a statement I've noticed only made by someone who has never gone through cancer and is trying to foist some indignity on treatment in order to try to hock quackery.

BTW, @Delayman:

Your assertions and impressions of chemo and oncologists are not anything I have experienced, and I'm a surviving cancer patient. So between us, all I see you doing is spouting off at the mouth with no real experience or learning to support what you say.

Ducky

Please know that it is difficult for me to post because fighting the conventional wisdom of the medical established is a tough fight and I know that some of my descriptions may be classed as offensive, to cancer sufferers although that is, by no means the intention. So, I apologize if my remarks are taken that way and if you or JennyJo feel I have overstepped the mark then no doubt you will tell me, indeed if you feel that my remarks are totally unacceptable I will withdraw from the thread.

I am glad to hear that your experiences are not the same as those gained by my family in the nursing of my dear late wife. It may well be that your facilities and attitudes in Saint Paul are different to London (UK), if so your are fortunate. And at a personal level, I wish you well.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

Ducky

Please know that it is difficult for me to post because fighting the conventional wisdom of the medical established is a tough fight

As far as I can tell, you are fighting a strawman. It would be made easier for you if, instead of arguing against the boogeyman you have created, you directed that same effort towards understanding how and what progress has been made.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-...le-cancer.html



If Siomoncini's hypothesis (i.e. that Candida is the sole cause tumors) is correct, attempting to induce normal cells to turn cancerous without Candida being present should not be possible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3...gdbfrom=pubmed



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...gdbfrom=pubmed



It appears Simoncini's hypothesis is incorrect. Tumors can be produced without Candida.

OK, that's a good point. Let's assume that Simoncini's claim that Candida is the sole cause is incorrect. I would be interested in your view on my post#207 with the following conclusions:-



1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients
2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
3) fungal infections are a major cause in some malignancies
4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok
5) if you thought that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells, then in vitro tests show that this is possible under certain conditions.


Do you accept that those are reasonable conclusions? This question also to other contributors to the thread?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Delayman

OK, that's a good point. Let's assume that Simoncini's claim that Candida is the sole cause is incorrect. I would be interested in your view on my post#207 with the following conclusions:-



1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients
2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
3) fungal infections are a major cause in some malignancies
4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok
5) if you thought that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells, then in vitro tests show that this is possible under certain conditions.


Do you accept that those are reasonable conclusions? This question also to other contributors to the thread?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to reliably judge the above conclusions. However, I'm aware that chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cause a patient's immune system to be compromised, giving pathogenic organisms such as Candida more chance of establishing themselves.

BTW, if Sodium Bicarb is so good at treating serious systemic fungal infections, why do physicians opt for such drugs as Amphotericin B, which has some really nasty potential side-effects (including death) when administered intravenously?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

OK, that's a good point. Let's assume that Simoncini's claim that Candida is the sole cause is incorrect. I would be interested in your view on my post#207 with the following conclusions:-



1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients

There is yeast in most people, since Candida is a commensal organism.

Quote:

2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors

Microbial particles are often present wherever there is a disruption of normal protective barriers.

Quote:

3) fungal infections are a major cause in some malignancies

What is your source for this information?

Fungi can produce carcinogens and have been implicated in the initiation of esophageal cancer. Is that what you mean?

Quote:

4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok

Yes.

Quote:

5) if you thought that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells, then in vitro tests show that this is possible under certain conditions.

There isn't any particular reason to think that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells.

Quote:

Do you accept that those are reasonable conclusions? This question also to other contributors to the thread?

They are reasonable conclusions except for the one I asked for further clarification on. Unfortunately, none of them support the idea that an active or smoldering, ongoing fungal infection is the source of most (or even any) cancer, or that treating that infection would have any effect on the cancer once established, or that sodium bicarbonate would serve to eradicate that fungus given that fungi grow in the presence of sodium bicarbonate in culture media.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

As far as I can tell, you are fighting a strawman. It would be made easier for you if, instead of arguing against the boogeyman you have created, you directed that same effort towards understanding how and what progress has been made.

Linda

I have not set up a strawman I am challenging the mindset of the medical establishment. You are content with the progress being made and with potentially ‘fruitful’ research but I am not. Last night I got home and was told that a young friend of my family had finally succumbed to pancreatic cancer, eleven months from diagnosis. As you know that type of cancer is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage and he went through the usual protocol, but stood no chance. With ovarian cancer, for instance, which again is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage, after years of research it was discovered that Carboplatin was a better platinum based drug than Cisplatin which was the previous gold standard. What was the claimed increase in life expectancy with the new drug – approximately 6 months. As has been mentioned in this thread, the clinical trial process can take 12-15 years. There are researchers all over the world running tests in vitro on the most obscure subjects which are predicated on the ability to achieve funding, not on their usefulness in the real world.

Specialist doctors and researchers today are afraid to use their minds, for fear of being ostracised by their colleagues if they move out of their designated sphere. A team at the university of Cambridge is working on a new MRI technique using sodium bicarbonate which could detect a cancerous condition before tumor formation or tissue degeneration. This experimental alkalizing test measures tissue acidity and could gauge if medical or natural treatments are actually working. I wrote to the Professor with some questions on sodium bicarbonate as a natural buffer in the body and also tagged on a further question as to whether he thought that sodium bicarbonate could be used as a treatment for cancer. He answered all my questions most politely, but ignored the last one. He did not want to get involved.

I am not dismissing research, we need it but really, we all know that many of the greatest discoveries in medicine and science came through serendipity. As the American physicist Joseph Henry once noted, "The seeds of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they only take root in minds well prepared to receive them."

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by fls

There is yeast in most people, since Candida is a commensal organism.



Microbial particles are often present wherever there is a disruption of normal protective barriers.



What is your source for this information?

Fungi can produce carcinogens and have been implicated in the initiation of esophageal cancer. Is that what you mean?





Yes.



There isn't any particular reason to think that Candida could not coexist with tumor cells.



They are reasonable conclusions except for the one I asked for further clarification on. Unfortunately, none of them support the idea that an active or smoldering, ongoing fungal infection is the source of most (or even any) cancer, or that treating that infection would have any effect on the cancer once established, or that sodium bicarbonate would serve to eradicate that fungus given that fungi grow in the presence of sodium bicarbonate in culture media.

Linda

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.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Delayman

<snip>

I am not dismissing research, we need it but really, we all know that many of the greatest discoveries in medicine and science came through serendipity. As the American physicist Joseph Henry once noted, "The seeds of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they only take root in minds well prepared to receive them."

While I agree there have been many serendipitous findings in science and medicine, most of what we think of as our most useful technology has been produced by long and hard research and development. E.g., MRI.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

...run a clinical trial of sodium bicarbonate ( I am sure jli will help you).

Being a pathologist I dont´t treat anybody with anything for any condition. And Simoncini says that cancer patients are not to be biopsied or operated as this leads to release of fungi into the bloodstream, resulting in formation of metastasis. So in that trial I would probably just get in the way of Linda.
Unless of course you mean that my task in such a trial would be to perform the post mortem examinations. I´m not a forensic pathologist - so this would probably be unrealistic too. Besides we have already established that cancers are not fungi.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

I have not set up a strawman I am challenging the mindset of the medical establishment.

What I mean is that you are challenging a mindset that does not seem to exist as you present it.

Quote:

You are content with the progress being made and with potentially ‘fruitful’ research but I am not.

Here's your first example. Whoever said that we were content with the progress being made? We will not be content until all cancer can be cured - a goal that seems far, far away. And the rate of progress is excruciatingly slow for anyone who has to deal with people succumbing to cancer, over and over and over again. But to fail to recognize that we have made far more advances in the understanding and treatment of cancer in the last 30 years than we made in the three thousand years before that would be excessively foolish. If you have a better method, by all means, bring it on. But your suggestion that we resort to the methods used in the pre-scientific era, methods that gave us leeches and mercury and mustard baths, does not inspire confidence.

Quote:

Specialist doctors and researchers today are afraid to use their minds, for fear of being ostracised by their colleagues if they move out of their designated sphere.

Now you're just making stuff up. Researchers that push the boundaries, explore new pathways, and make novel discoveries receive academic rewards not ostracization. There is a strong incentive to use your mind, not fear. Yes, you may run into difficulty finding the resources to explore your ideas, but Simoncini does not have that excuse. If you are already in a position where you can offer a particular treatment to patients, without any apparent checks, then there is no constraint to you actually testing whether or not you are wrong.

Quote:

A team at the university of Cambridge is working on a new MRI technique using sodium bicarbonate which could detect a cancerous condition before tumor formation or tissue degeneration. This experimental alkalizing test measures tissue acidity and could gauge if medical or natural treatments are actually working. I wrote to the Professor with some questions on sodium bicarbonate as a natural buffer in the body and also tagged on a further question as to whether he thought that sodium bicarbonate could be used as a treatment for cancer. He answered all my questions most politely, but ignored the last one. He did not want to get involved.

How do you know you interpreted his response correctly?

Quote:

I am not dismissing research, we need it but really, we all know that many of the greatest discoveries in medicine and science came through serendipity. As the American physicist Joseph Henry once noted, "The seeds of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they only take root in minds well prepared to receive them."

Right. So why are you assuming that these seeds are not falling in fertile soil? Dedicated, ethical and knowledgeable minds are somehow toxic when it comes to new ideas? And it bears mentioning that the greatest discoveries in medicine did not come about by people failing to follow-up their original idea with any sort of research.

Linda

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by jli

Being a pathologist I dont´t treat anybody with anything for any condition. And Simoncini says that cancer patients are not to be biopsied or operated as this leads to release of fungi into the bloodstream, resulting in formation of metastasis. So in that trial I would probably just get in the way of Linda.
Unless of course you mean that my task in such a trial would be to perform the post mortem examinations. I´m not a forensic pathologist - so this would probably be unrealistic too. Besides we have already established that cancers are not fungi.

OK, let's forget about Simoncini, about his ethics and his claims, etc, and let's just concentrate, on the fungus and it's relationship, if any, with cancer.

I posted some conclusions which Linda commented on. I would be interested in your views on these?

1) there is a lot of yeast in cancer patients
2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
3) fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancies.
4) certain fungi can cause serious infection even in those patients whose immune systems are ok
5) Candida can coexist with tumor cells.
6) Fungi can produce carcinogens and have been implicated in the initiation of esophageal cancer

?

[Eos of the Eons]

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

2) microbial particles are often present in growing tumors
Microbial particles of what?

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.

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.

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.


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...

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

Then read up on what actually kills fungus.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer/article.htm

Decent link on cancer basics.

[jli]

Originally Posted by Delayman

OK, let's forget about Simoncini, about his ethics and his claims, etc

But that is what this thread is about. And that is what brought you here in the first place (apparantly). Does this reluctance to discuss it mean that you understand and accept what we have explained to you?

Quote:

I posted some conclusions which Linda commented on. I would be interested in your views on these?

I think Linda has answered you correctly. But I´m a pathologist, and your questions are not particularly pathology related. I could add to the answer to question number 5 that Candida sometimes is present in the superficial debris of peptic ulcers, but I´m not sure you would regard that as a relevant comment.

[Delayman]

Originally Posted by jli

But that is what this thread is about. And that is what brought you here in the first place (apparantly). Does this reluctance to discuss it mean that you understand and accept what we have explained to you?

When I came on to the thread I stated that I was not interested in who is for, or against Simoncini, but he had an idea which I found intriguing for all the reasons that I have explained in my posts. I am still interested in whether fungus causes cancer, but more particularly I am interested in whether sodium bicarbonate could be used as a treatment for cancer.

So, do I understand and accept what you have explained to me? Yes to some degree. I certainly accept that there is no proof of evidence as commonly accepted that fungus causes cancer and I also take your word that fungal colonies could easily be seen and identified under the microscope and that you have not seen any evidence of that in the many examples that you have examined and, by the way, notwithstanding the heated debate I am grateful to both you and Linda for your feedback.

However as Carl Sagan said ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ and 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.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Delayman

However as Carl Sagan said ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ and 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.

I think that what has been missed here is that there is also evidence of absence. Because it was your evidence for the idea which was subject to criticism, the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the idea didn't get discussed (referring to both ideas).

Linda