|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#201 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
you need to read the book
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#203 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 346
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#206 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
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 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#207 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#208 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 331
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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 Ł200,000. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#210 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 346
|
@ Delayman,
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! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#211 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 346
|
@ 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#212 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#213 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
Really? My protest against lying to patients for profit and concern over avoidable deaths can only be explained by an unreasoning sensitivity?
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#214 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#215 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#216 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#217 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#218 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#219 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#220 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#221 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,108
|
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. |
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#222 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#223 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
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:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#224 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,583
|
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-...le-cancer.html
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3...gdbfrom=pubmed
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#225 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#226 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#227 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#228 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,583
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#229 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
There is yeast in most people, since Candida is a commensal organism.
Quote:
Quote:
Fungi can produce carcinogens and have been implicated in the initiation of esophageal cancer. Is that what you mean?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#230 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#231 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#232 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,583
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#233 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 331
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#234 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
What I mean is that you are challenging a mindset that does not seem to exist as you present it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#235 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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 ? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#236 |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
|
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. |
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#237 |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
|
|
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#238 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 331
|
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:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#239 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#240 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
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 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|