Italian Doc: Cancer is an easily treatable fungus.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It's astonishing that some people will believe anything they see.

This whole idea is absurd to say the least.

There are so many holes in this story that a first year medical student could debunk it, God! where do I start?

I. General concepts
-- white does not equal fungus, there are many tissues in the body that are white, the protate gland being an example.
-- cancers are not always white. Most skin cancers such as malignant melanoma and basal cell carcinoma are black.
-- the guy didn't even state what genus what species the cancer causing fungus belongs to.
-- If fungus were the cause of cancer we would have known that decades ago. Simple microscopic pathological exams of the tissue will reveal the fungus. He claims that tissue biopsy is inadequate to reveal the fungus implying that the fungus is deeper than the tissue biopsied, then what about when a whole lump of tumor is excised and the whole tumor mass is examined under the microscope--no fungus were found, only cancer cells with an increased nucleus/cytoplasmic ratio and prominent nucleoli.
-- And for the same logic, if he states that the fungus is too deep to be biopsied then how on earth did the sodium bicarbonate penetrate down to kill it?
-- What about leukemia? he did mention that he attended to children with leukemia, he should know that leukemia is cancer of the white blood cells where too many immature white blood cells are released from the bone marrow to the circulation system, no fungi are involved.

II. methodology of his research...
....what methodology? what research? there aren't any!
-- Has he done any clinical trials to prove his idea? no, obviously. No research ethics committee in their right mind would ever let this kind of idea be carried out as a research.
-- What concentration of the sodium bicarbonate is needed to achieve the claimed effects? Is he saying that let's eat baking soda folks! it'll cure your colon cancer.
-- How to administer the bicarbonate? If he says via arterial catheterization he should just turn in his medical license if he even has one. Too much bicarbonate causes alkalosis, potentially fatal, the cancer dies alright along with the patient.

About the host.

I didn't get his name but he was a total douchebag.

I can't believe this kind of show has been allowed to air for 12-15 years.

His data is incorrect, he pushes his beliefs on the viewers to accept it as fact.

--Radiation therapy and chemotherapy can cause cancer but the benefits of them outweigh the risks. There's a higher chance that your cancer will not be cured without the treatments than the chance that the treatment will give you another cancer.

Let this go folks. It's pure bull.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by mandrake]




posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Once again, everyone misses the bigger picture.

Ask yourself this: Why does mainstream science NEVER try the alternative therapies? Think about that for a moment. Why is high doses of intravenous Vitamin C not given for certain viral infections, even though doctors and scientists have reported success with this for YEARS.

Why is that $1 a pill drug that cures a certain type of cancer (I forget what it is, but I remember that there is no patent for it) not already being tried here in the US?

Why is it that Royal Rife's work was destroyed, and his books burned (only the 2nd person in U.S. history, as far as I know, to have this done to him) instead of having his methods and conclusions tested?

And here is the big one: IF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES "NEVER" WORKED, WHY DO DOCTORS NOW ASK IF YOU ARE ON ANY VITAMINS, HERBS, OR SUPPLEMENTS BEFORE PRESCRIBING MEDICINE OR PERFORMING SURGERY? If they were so "useless", they wouldn't care what you were taking.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandrake
It's astonishing that some people will believe anything they see.


No question about that.


This whole idea is absurd to say the least.


Very well.


There are so many holes in this story that a first year medical student could debunk it, God! where do I start?


I'm sure first year students can debunk just about anything. The ATS forums abound with them, but if you want comprehensive debunking, just go to a complete drunken ignoramus down at your local bar.


I. General concepts
-- white does not equal fungus, there are many tissues in the body that are white, the protate gland being an example.


For some reason teeth came to mind for me.


-- cancers are not always white. Most skin cancers such as malignant melanoma and basal cell carcinoma are black.


Maybe "cancer" is not one thing.


-- the guy didn't even state what genus what species the cancer causing fungus belongs to.


To my knowledge that question wasn't asked, but I take your point. Simoncini seemed to be referring to fungal deseases in a more general sense. Could there be more than one fungus involved?


-- If fungus were the cause of cancer we would have known that decades ago.


You mean the way we did with cigarettes? That's a long strange story. We should have known a lot of things decades ago. Maybe we did.



Simple microscopic pathological exams of the tissue will reveal the fungus. He claims that tissue biopsy is inadequate to reveal the fungus implying that the fungus is deeper than the tissue biopsied, then what about when a whole lump of tumor is excised and the whole tumor mass is examined under the microscope--no fungus were found, only cancer cells with an increased nucleus/cytoplasmic ratio and prominent nucleoli.
-- And for the same logic, if he states that the fungus is too deep to be biopsied then how on earth did the sodium bicarbonate penetrate down to kill it?


Can't comment. Over my head.


-- What about leukemia? he did mention that he attended to children with leukemia, he should know that leukemia is cancer of the white blood cells where too many immature white blood cells are released from the bone marrow to the circulation system, no fungi are involved.


Is cancer more than one thing?


II. methodology of his research...
....what methodology? what research? there aren't any!


At least not in the video. Have you looked elsewhere for it?


-- Has he done any clinical trials to prove his idea? no, obviously. No research ethics committee in their right mind would ever let this kind of idea be carried out as a research.


If that's true then heaven help us all, or at the very least, give us back our tax dollars.


-- What concentration of the sodium bicarbonate is needed to achieve the claimed effects? Is he saying that let's eat baking soda folks! it'll cure your colon cancer.


Maybe he gets more into the detail elsewhere. It is only a video interview after all.


-- How to administer the bicarbonate? If he says via arterial catheterization he should just turn in his medical license if he even has one. Too much bicarbonate causes alkalosis, potentially fatal, the cancer dies alright along with the patient.


You're such a wit. So, according to you, he kills a roomful of cancer patients and then rushes out the door, shouting "Eureka, I've found the cure for cancer!" Are you one of those famous first year med students yourself. If so then go on down to the bar and have a beer.


About the host.

I didn't get his name but he was a total douchebag.


I love it when an intellectual gets into a thread. It elevates the tone of the discussion.


I can't believe this kind of show has been allowed to air for 12-15 years.

His data is incorrect, he pushes his beliefs on the viewers to accept it as fact.

--Radiation therapy and chemotherapy can cause cancer but the benefits of them outweigh the risks. There's a higher chance that your cancer will not be cured without the treatments than the chance that the treatment will give you another cancer.


www.curenaturalicancro.com...


“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)



Let this go folks. It's pure bull.


And your bull is so much better?



[edit on 7-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
There is an extensive FAQ for the layman and possibly the casually curious professional on Dr.Simoncini's website. Here is a link to it.

www.curenaturalicancro.com...

From the website I infer that his standing with Italian authorities governing medical practice is in flux. His license to practice may have been suspended. He seems to be going through some sort of reinstatement process. (From the video, you can tell that he , though a caring person is not a diplomat.) I haven't been able to find out anything specific about his educational backround.

If you are interested in what this man has to say, I would suggest giving the FAQ (which scrolls down) a thorough reading. The translation, unhappily is not professionally done, so it appears to be written in clear but slightly hobbled English.

Some of the earlier posters would get a much clearer idea of what his treatment is like from the FAQ than from the video interview.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Cancer is made of human cells. That's why it's so hard to treat in the first place! They've been proven to be human cells, not some kind of magical fungus. How stupid can you be to buy into this guy? Christ!


Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Ask yourself this: Why does mainstream science NEVER try the alternative therapies? Think about that for a moment. Why is high doses of intravenous Vitamin C not given for certain viral infections, even though doctors and scientists have reported success with this for YEARS.

Because treatments that "sort of" work don't get much attention. Doctors want things that work, and are proven to work. They're actually studying Vitamin C's effect on cancer now. There have been some positive results in prior, limited tests. Check this out.
www.cmaj.ca...
Bottom line is: it might work, so they're doing some trials now of IV-delivered Vitamin C. I'm a strong supporter of vitamin C supplements (at least 500mg a day, maybe every 12 hours) since you can't really overdose on it.


Originally posted by sir_chancealot
And here is the big one: IF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES "NEVER" WORKED, WHY DO DOCTORS NOW ASK IF YOU ARE ON ANY VITAMINS, HERBS, OR SUPPLEMENTS BEFORE PRESCRIBING MEDICINE OR PERFORMING SURGERY? If they were so "useless", they wouldn't care what you were taking.

Huh? Yeah they would. They want to make sure there's not something that you're taking that will interact and kill you. Yes, even some supplements. BUT LET'S SCREAM IN ALL CAPS.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit


Simple microscopic pathological exams of the tissue will reveal the fungus. He claims that tissue biopsy is inadequate to reveal the fungus implying that the fungus is deeper than the tissue biopsied, then what about when a whole lump of tumor is excised and the whole tumor mass is examined under the microscope--no fungus were found, only cancer cells with an increased nucleus/cytoplasmic ratio and prominent nucleoli.
-- And for the same logic, if he states that the fungus is too deep to be biopsied then how on earth did the sodium bicarbonate penetrate down to kill it?


Can't comment. Over my head.

Translation: They look at tumors over and over again, as close as possible (that's damn close!), and there are only cancerous human cells. No fungus!



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Cancer is made of human cells. That's why it's so hard to treat in the first place! They've been proven to be human cells, not some kind of magical fungus. How stupid can you be to buy into this guy? Christ!


You need to get some facts correct Johnmike!!!

1- nowhere does Dr Simoncini claim cancer cells are non-human. For those who can be bothered to research what they are decrying, you will find that this oncologist claims that the tumour itself ACTS in the same way as a fungal lifeform. Quite a bit of difference from your ignorant comments back there.

2- there is lots of research to back up his assertions, both on his website and in his book

3- it probably annoys you to learn that I know of about 6 people personally, and another score or so who have contacted me through the magazine, who claim their cancer is totally gone as a result of the bicarb soda prototcols. And that is just in Australia.

Please don't sit here and say this is all bunk, and insult those of us who actually know more about this subject than you do.

The bicarb soda protocols have worked miracles for those who have tried it - that is a fact.

The only people unhappy with this news are drug companies, and people who think they are medical experts - like several on this thread.

Duncan



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
To Byrd and Relentless...Thank you both.
I will mention the second opinion to my wife. She's had the mammogram and biopsy. I'm not sure that a second opinion will come up with anything different.

We've been told to find a support group. She is not crazy about the idea because she, like me, is pretty much a loner and not real great around other people. It is being considered though.

We don't know what stage it is but it has been determined that it is grade 3. She'll see the surgeon again on Monday.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixitHowever, on the face of it, considering the persistence and prevalance of these beliefs and the continued adherance to them, even today, and even where people have access to modern medicine, they must have worked in many more than just a few cases.


Check out the average lifespan of countries where they rely on traditional medicine because of a shortage of university trained medical doctors versus the other nations. I believe that you'll find the average lifespan is around 40, whereas in neighboring countries with access to university trained doctors and "modern medicine" the average lifespan is over 70... and sometimes is around 80.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
To Byrd and Relentless...Thank you both.
I will mention the second opinion to my wife. She's had the mammogram and biopsy. I'm not sure that a second opinion will come up with anything different.


The diagnosis will be cancer, but what may change is the idea about the type of surgical options needed. Since she's uncomfortable with support groups (I can sympatize) a better option might be to find some of the cancer survivors boards and lurk there. They often give tips about how to manage nausea and when a symptom is simply something odd or when to get to the doc IMMEDIATELY.


We don't know what stage it is but it has been determined that it is grade 3. She'll see the surgeon again on Monday.

My heart goes out to both of you.

For all of you wondering about cancer tumor grades, here's some info:
www.cancerbackup.org.uk...

www.medterms.com...

When considering supportive treatments (herbs, accupuncuture), you can check for "things that scientists have evidence work pretty well" on the clinical trials page:
www.cancer.gov...

If you need access to some research papers, I can use my university account to grab whatever you're interested in... just U2U me.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Personally, I think that modern medicine has less to do with these statistics than clean water, modern plumbing, modern agriculture, and mosquito netting, although I realize that modern medicine/science is a contributor to all of these other areas.

Modern medicine knows a lot about heart disease. Heart disease should be a negligible factor in the death rate in the US if the mere presence of modern medical understanding were the determining factor. Unfortunately other factors come into play.

I think that truly "modern", high end, esoteric medicine with it's advanced technologies has had almost no effect on average human lifespan, especially when you compare it to a super power like 20th century plumbing.

With regard to spirits. People still resort to them, even in the US, where modern medical knowledge is abundant. I'm not saying that spirits could supplant modern medicine, only that something more than psychology and the placebo effect is going on there.

In some ways what modern medicine is really all about is a race against the deleterious effects of other branches of modern science.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It has been written that it is difficult for any pathogen to thrive in a body that is alkaline.
Do you need underarm deodorant?
If you do, then your body is acid.
The smelly perspiration may be your body's attempt to detox.
So why not hivbe it the chance by changing your diet?
An alkaline body requires no deodorant.

You are what you eat.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
If the medical profession really wanted to CURE disease, they could.

Here is an important overlooked option to many conditions.
hyperbaric oxygen

I have read that it can also cure some cancers.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Just to update our situation, my wife is having surgery tomorrow. They found a second "spot" and are going to do the mastectomy. The first spot was at the tip of the breast almost in the arm pit. The second spot is just under the nipple. That's all I know for now. Will update later.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
My father survived throat cancer. I'd hate to think that he endured all that chemo and radiation therapy when all he really needed was some baking soda.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
point out a few fallacies here. These people with cancer may be sick, but cancer patients are generally at no more risk for high Blood pressure, so salt really isnt a threat factor for them. Also, natural salts such as dead sea salt, etc, have very little effect upon BP anyhow, as opposed to that poisonous Sodium Chloride that most have on their tables.
As to "modern medicine" using proven and effective methods....alternative medicines as a total have about the same success in treating cancer as modern medicine, plus they dont leave the body destroyed the way western medicine does. There are some cancers that yes, chemo or rad work really well for, but for 80% of types of cancers these two treatments ARE completely useless, and yet they are still prescribed.... Just like that 15 year old boy last year who was taken away from his parents because he wanted to try alternative meds as opposed to the chemo his doctors wanted him to try....all this despite the fact that his cancer only gave a 1% chance of survival, and the chemo didnt raise the chances with this specific cancer at all. Its all just symptoms and signs of our lack of health freedom, and the medical industry is continuing to try to limit your freedom by limiting access, limiting education, and by rediculeing any other forms of medicine.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
Also, natural salts such as dead sea salt, etc, have very little effect upon BP anyhow, as opposed to that poisonous Sodium Chloride that most have on their tables.

Uh...no.


Originally posted by pexx421
As to "modern medicine" using proven and effective methods....alternative medicines as a total have about the same success in treating cancer as modern medicine

No.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Many people don't understand what exactly cancer is.
Its not a disease like an infection or a virus or a fungus.
Its healthy cells your body's own cells mutating into other cells and growing in the wrong place.
Like you might get bone cells growing in the brain or hair cells growing in the lungs.
The only treatment really is to stop the cells growing by killing and stopping the ability of all your cells to grow.
And then try and remove the mass from what has already grown.
But to stop the actual process of reforming the wrong cells in the wrong place is still experimental.
Its way more complex than just a fungus.
You almost need to be able to "talk" to cells and tell them what they are and are not going to do.Not that easy.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I know for a fact that some alternative, and suppressed, treatments/cures actually work.

My doctor was after me to take a blood pressure pill because my BP was always around 160/100. It is now staying around 127/78 after using one jar of Cardio-C (A product that follows the Pauling-Rath protocol).

The problem with almost every study ever conducted on Vitamin C is that they use pathetically low doses. The human equivalent to what most every animal on the planet produces is about 12 grams per day. They only use 200mg or (gasp!) a whopping 500mg. Even with these low doses they see some positive results.

The good news is that more and more studies are being conducted with higher doses of vitamin c and seeing much better results.

www.vitamincfoundation.org...
Has many articles and links to studies done on Vitamin C. Worth a read.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
johnmike, if you have no education in alternative therapies, then i dont imagine you have the ability to make comments about them.
As to people not understanding cancer, if the AMA understands cancer so well, then why are they unable to treat it?
In actuality, cancer is easy to understand, its an onslaught of the human body by toxins and oxidants, which cause the dna in certain cells to be damaged, and to begin replicating out of control. Now, we naturally have a system for fighting this off, and its called killer T cells, however, due to the massive amounts of toxins and chemicals that most of us "modern" folk expose ourselves to, our body is overloaded, and our killer T cells have to much work to do and so some of these cancers are getting more and more out of control leading to greatly increasing cancer in our society. Natural clean living is one of the best ways to avoid cancer, and indeed, removing toxins from your environ and switching to raw diet is a viable and effective treatment. I personally had a friend named Joe who was diagnosed with metastacized melanoma at age 20 and given 4 months to live. Chemo was ineffective for him and the docs said there was no more they could do. He went to a naturopathic clinic and they put him on a raw diet and changed his lifestyle habits and now he is 26, completely healthy, and became a naturopathic pratcitioner himself. This is NOT an isolated event. Alternative medicines are massively criticized when they fail to produce results, and yet they often only get people who have already been through traditional therapy and are condemned to death, and some of these DO go on to live when they had been abandoned by the western medicine. At the same time, People are constantly dieing of cancer who use chemo and rad, and yet thats considered ok because western cancer treatment is a work in progress, even though these people pay dozens to hundreds of thousands for this imperfect treatment. Dont make write off comments about subjects you have no education in.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join