This was sent via a reader tip, and the video offers a new way of looking at cancer, as a fungus. Being I am a blogger and not a medical professional, I can't offer any opinions one way or another, but would certainly welcome any comments from those in a position who can and this would in turn answer the reader's questions possibly as well. Does it have the potential to perhaps treat some forms of cancer?
Is sodium bicarbonate a potential cure if cancer is in fact a fungus? Watch the video and follow the links for more information. BD
Cancer is now the leading cause of death in the United States. This video featuring Doug Kaufman interviewing Italian Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini, details a new theory of cancer that carries the promise of a safe, speedy, and effective cancer cure.
Dr. Simoncini’s research has led him to believe that something as simple as a fungus, Candida, is the leading cause of cancer; that cancer itself is in fact a fungus. What we refer to as a tumor, is nothing more than your body’s attempt at protecting itself from that fungus.
He brings up an analogy between psoriasis – an “incurable” disease of the skin that many treat as a fungus – and tumors, which are also an “incurable” disease of your body. Several studies have linked the presence of Candida with cancer, showing that anywhere between 79 to 97 percent of all cancer patients also have Candida.
Dr. Tullio Simoncini - Website
Fungus Causing Cancer -- A Novel Approach to the Most Common Form of Death - Articles
Posts
38 comments:
You're kidding right?
Hey give me some comments! As you can see this was a reader inquiring and I would rather have the word of another oncologist for sure!
Well, here goes:
1. I have personally seen the tissue pathology (biopsy) specimens of hundreds of cancer patients, and I have never seen Candida fungus mixed in with the tumors. The fungus would ordinarily be visible with light microscopy, but are not found in cancer specimens, and certainly not "every" specimen.
2. I have given antifungal medications, powerful antimicrobials, to patients with cancer, and these have not induced remissions.
3. Usually, the declaration of an infectious agent causing a disease should be accompanied by proof of Koch's Postulates (see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates
for acceptable definition of this)
There is no evidence that this researcher, or anyone else, has shown that Candida fulfills these postulates.
4. There have been breakthroughs in chemotherapy treatment in almost all areas of oncology since 1998, the year of the Australian Radiation Oncology review article. Even were than not true, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a large amount of randomized trial data supporting a benefit to chemotherapy, while there is no randomized trial data supporting the use of bicarbonate in cancer patients. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is no evidence that Dr. Tullio Simoncini or anyone else has performed any rigorous scientific testing on his theories.
5. I have seen many patients with documented Candida infections (oral thrush or systemic fungal sepsis) who did not have cancer.
The hallmark of a strong theory is the ability to withstand scientific testing. With most of these "alternative" theories of cancer treatment, there has been almost no human testing. Dr. Tullio Simoncini's theories have not been subjected to scientific testing. If he is so certain that he is correct, he would welcome the opportunity to have others test the validity of his theories.
I think medical oncology is certainly not perfect, and there is certainly toxicity. We have reproducible successes, which we take to mean that there is a true benefit to what we do. We are continually subjecting our treatments to testing under controlled conditions, and when something better comes along, we use it.
Really, there is nothing stopping anybody from coming along and constructing a narrative about any conceivable theory of cancer genesis and treatment. Some people can be found to believe almost any narrative out there, but that speaks more to the natural human tendency for us to believe in narratives, than the veracity of the narrative.
We in "conventional" medicine acknowledge that people have a natural tendency to believe narratives, so we have constructed techniques besides narrative to ascertain the truth. So far, the randomized clinical trial is the best way we have found, but when a better way comes along, we will embrace it.
The clinical trial has a long history, from the first clinical trial of Vitamin C to treat scurvy in sailors in the 1700s. We are slowly inching towards the truth, building on 300 years of careful, diligent research. Dr. Tullio Simoncini would have us throw all that out to embrace his theory, and while his words are persuasive, his ideas are inadequately documented.
Let him invest the same amount of time and effort making a controlled study of his techniques. If he shows success in this context, we will cheer him and embrace him. Until then, he is just another snake oil salesman.
Hope that helps.
Great input and thank you for the detailed response. This will no doubt help answer some questions here. I agree there's more documentation and study information needed, but not being a professional, I didn't want to suggest or speak out of line!
Thanks again!
As a patient to cancer, I have to say (not as a Dr.) that we too, do our homework, because there is There is applied knowledge and there is obervational knowledge.
The United States pharmaceutical giants also do not welcome people like this Dr. with open arms.
They will fight this at every turn.
There is much resistance here, because I don't believe for one moment that the cancer industry is after my best interest. I am no longer fooled.
Captain Cook's surgeon discovered that there was something in the food that was saving sailors from dying of scurvey, but the Royal Society denied the study for over 40 years as hundreds of thousands of sailors died unecessarily if they simply took it seriously before they demanded to know what the heck was in the limes that cured it.
So in conclusion, I can't help but see the same case with this Baking Soda treatment, here.
Signed,
Jaded but not dead, yet.
I am not a medical professional but have observed family members and fellow workers suffer with cancer, be treated with chemo and only two out of nine survived and are now cancer free. The rest are dead. We, in America, spend buckets of money on conventional healthcare that does not work. The system is broke and as long as the pharmaceutical companies are turning big profits, it is not going to be fixed.
Our children are being over-vaccinated with substances that contain mercury and aluminum causing autism and other serious effects to the underdeveloped immune systems of the very young.
Our government bureaucrats okay the poisoning of America so that Big Pharma and Big Agriculture will profit aka celebrex, vioxx, anti-statin drugs, aspartame, transfats, etc.
We perform invasive biopsies which have been shown to spread cancer rather than using technology for cancer detection. We have blood tests and urine tests that have proven to be more reliable indicators of prostate cancer but we stick with the very unreliable PSA test. Only 25% of high PSA cases turn out to be cancer. The medical community uses scare tactics to further pad their pockets.
It is disgusting that supposedly scientific proven methods are purported as being the gold standard when in actuality they are no better than the alternative methods that the majority of the medical community are quick to criticize.
Jaded, you are right on in your thinking. Keep up the fight and do what you think is right.
I love it how the so called pundits spout out their factoids...and say..."The hallmark of a strong theory is the ability to withstand scientific testing". this is simply the practice of framing an issue according to their terms and rules. unfortunatly when it come to cancer the commerce and industry of it is controlled by the pharma corporations. The up side is that things will change as the masses become educated, thats the war we wage now. I watched our son die of cancer last june and our Harvard educated prima donna doctor used terms such as "we are dealing with a mixed bag here" wtf!! after he died they all stated they knew he was gonna die they just wanted to give us hope....HOPE!!...isnt that what the FDA and other agencies say about alternative cures???
they are just selling people hope
interactmd is a sham...stop validating your own beliefs at others expense
MIKe
It would be interesting to find out how much interactmd benefits from Big Pharma...I also wonder if they know the 5 year survival rate for chemo patients is 2%. Let's see, that leaves 98% WHERE ?
T Lee Brooks
Well...one of my friends who is a pathologist told me that it is the whiteset white you can imagaine. so maybe there is some truth to this.
Ya know...if it only takes so many days to see if it works i'll freakin' fly to Italy to get it done! considering i endured 2 major surgeries and 12 rounds of chemo to remove my cancer (6 months of chemo and 2-3 months each recovery from each surgery). you know insurance won't cover it without having it tested...then having some big drug company giving them money.
ask yourself what Avastin is (that stops new blood vessels from growing)...what was it developed from...vitamin E. so not all that 'alternative' stuff could be off.
If you believe on it...go for it. If I tell you (as was said above) that the only way to know if something is true is to use an unbiased approach (also known as SCIENCE), you will tell me that Big Pharma is manipulating the definition of Science. So, this discussion is pointless. Science (if you choose to believe in it) has shown that the placebo effect is real (i.e. if you believe in something it will have a positive effect..at least a perception of a positive effect).
Let me tell you that if there was something simple that works (proven by the scientific process), there are hundreds of thousands of scientists that do not work with the big Pharma companies that would jump on it, both to help humanity and to inflate their egos.
I hope he is right.....but words and unproven statements...are cheap
Your unbiased approach theory is completely false, history and common sense prove it...many people get a biased idea...set out to prove it is right or wrong (which ever way you may view it). I agree being able to have a nuetral or unbiased view is good but it is not essential.
Our current medical system is one dimentional and now it is crooked (look up- Bayer aids). Any thing for $$$$$, If i found a way to cure cancer using dirt for free...what would happen to the multi billion dollar Cancer industry??
(seriosly google Bayer aids and see how this company gave aids to innocent men women and children for a profit)
I am the anonymous from Dec 2. I work doing research in a major university. Bayer can manipulate the public by ads and manipulate their research, but if I can prove that dirt cures cancer (using the scientific methodology) I can publish it in a major Scientific journal and will win the Nobel Prize in the process. Most of the research done in US Universities is funded by the National Institutes of Health (not big Pharma). I understand that is tempting to be cynical about the influence of money, etc.. but believe me...there are thousands of people working without these influences and being serious scientists, they will only believe that dirt cures cancer if it can be shown by the scientific methodology (not by books, testimonial, gut feeling or common sense). Basically the gold standard for these kind of studies is: you have two large groups of patients (or animals) with similar types of tumors. A drug (or dirt) is given to half of them. The other half gets a fake pill/liquid/cream/different dirt. The person giving the compound does not know which patient or animal is getting what (they are coded). The person anaylizing the outcome (tumor regression) does not know who got what. At the end of the study the code is broken and you will have scientific evidence if the compound had any effect on the tumor or not. This is an unbiased approach, known as a double-blind study.
I enjoy your thoughtful responses and agree with your points in general. I feel the need to clarify that I am not anti science or of the opinion that most researchers/medical professionals are evil sell outs. With that being said, I will say that the system we have in the US of providing health care has fundamental flaws from top to bottom. To steer the discussion back to the original post, It appears that too much emphasis is placed on reacting to problems than preventing. Innovative ideas are and the people who originate or support them are villified and discredited by non credible sources.
An example of question concerns the Gardisil HPV vaccine. Fast tracked as a life saving emergency cure The FDA and the drug maker by passed science and proceedure to foist on us a questionable product.
So when it comes to sodium bicarbonate or the myriad of other ideas where is the funding ? where are the studies?
I under stand placebo effect...and the nature of double blind studies, and clinical trial. my criticism is not with scientific proceedure but with the policies,politics and propaganda machine backed by profit motive that derails the work and intent of a large segment of legitamate work by genuine people and institutions. I look forward to your response.
Hi Mike,
I just do not see the "machine" as powerful as you do. It is powerful, and it can manipulate information, but places like FDA try their best to control these. The HPV vaccine is a good example. Scientific studies showed it was safe (I do not know who sponsored them). The recent claims that it is not safe are not scientifically sound. There is no clear correlation that the vaccine causes the problems described in some girls. Now, the vaccine could save the lives of many, so the FDA needs to balance safety and benefits. The FDA is frequently critized for slowing down the availability of drugs..it is a tight hope to walk. Again, I do not deny the influence of big Pharma...but I do not buy that if there is something simple and cheap that works (and is public information), these influences would hide such discoveries for financial gains. The cancer is a fungus thing is a good example. There are thousands of serious scientists studying cancer. Do you think after all these years noone would notice that it is a fungus? Can fungus cause cells to become cancer...possible, but I would think that scientists would have shown these association by now. I search for Dr. Simonicini in PubMed (database for scientific publications) and could not find a single published study on the "cancer-fungus" link. It is just a testimonial...
Hi. I haven´t got a google account, so I´ll just be another anonymous. We know that cancers are not fungi, because we have checked. This is where Simoncinis misinformation begins. He claims that only the superficial parts of cancers are examined through a microscope, and there only reactive cells (which are healthy) are present. I am in the process of building a small web-site dealing with this aspect of his theory. I´m not discussing the bicarbonate treatment there. Only the pathology. If you find the fungus-idea plausible you really should visit the site. You can find it at
http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus
I'm not sure about this but I believe I remember that it took years before the medical powers-that-be recognized work that was done by a few researchers, or doctors, not sure which, that pinpointed a bacteria as the source of most ulcers. People had endured horrible operations for ulcers, but those are mostly unheard of these days. Could it be so simple that no one wants to believe it? Why doesn't some of money that's raised for "cancer research" go to explore this doctor's theory and other more natural remedies? Could it be that there is no money in baking soda? It sickens me that the wonderful ladies who march each year for breast cancer research are only funding the cancer cures that the pharmas deem worthy, those that they can make money from. I actually saw pictures of a patient of this doctor who had been suffering with stage 4 melanoma on his scalp. After a few weeks of treatment his scalp was healed of all of the dark black spots, covered with new pink skin. You could still see where the spots had been. I do believe there is something to this, since candida yeast does have some of the same properties as cancer...it is fed by sugar, as cancer is, it is white in the body as cancerous tumors are, and metastisizes as cancer does. What would be the harm of research? It seems obvious to me...
It is complete ignorance and foolishness to trust the FDA is doing the job they are requierd to. People are quick to forget the tainted dog food and lead paint in toys imported from Asia. The FDA's execuse was they did not have the resource. No matter how you cut it, it was an admission to failing their duty. Please check who head and run the FDA and their connections to the pharmaceutical industry.
But why isn´t it complete ignorance and foolishness to blindly trust ex. dr. Simoncini?? The pathologists link given in the post on december 11 th. clearly shows why cancer is not a fungus, and how Simoncini has gotten his facts wrong in a way no qualified MD should. Besides the scientists have already tested the idea on rats. And it didn´t work. Don´t you think it would be irresponsible to try this out on humans when it doesn´t work in rats?.
And about the bacteria as source of ulcers: Isn´t it so that doctors believe in this today because evidence shows it to be correct?
The FDA and pharmaceutical industry will not back research for fungus/mycology, therefore this approach doesn't have the chance to prove if there is truth in it or not. Read this article for more information: http://www.knowthecause.com/Articles/tabid/56/newsid614/28/Why-Physicians-No-Longer-Know-About-Fungi-An-Expose-On-Nystatin-/Default.aspx
Just check the course schedule of any major medical school. Classes on fungal mycotoxins-the harmful, chemical by-products produced by fungi-are practically nonexistent. Most laboratories remain incapable of performing rapid, accurate diagnostic tests for fungal diseases.
Although doctors are key in any effort to generate better data as to the impact of fungal diseases, federal law continues to exempt them from reporting such diseases to the CDC. What's more, when the states write their own laws as to which diseases require reporting to state-based disease organizations, they exclude fungi, as well.
It appears that the United States does not stand alone with regard to this problem. Speaking before a Biological Conference in Israel in 1976, the CDC's Ajello maintained that fungal diseases remained unreported worldwide.
Why is it important to require that fungal diseases be reported?
Moreover, why has the study of viruses and bacteria received so much funding, while fungi remain virtually ignored? The answer is that, without proper stats, increased funding for training and diagnostic centers, as well as research, is difficult if not impossible to obtain. Researchers who study fungi must compete for the limited funds available for disease research in general. In this, they are at a disadvantage. While scientists who study bacteria and viruses can point to convincing, up-to-date, concrete data on sickness and death rates, until fungal diseases are changed to reportable status, scientists who study fungi are forced to use old data and anecdotes that may or may not still be relevant.
http://www.knowthecause.com/Articles/tabid/56/newsid614/28/Why-Physicians-No-Longer-Know-About-Fungi-An-Expose-On-Nystatin-/Default.aspx
http://www.knowthecause.com/Articles/tabid/56/newsid614/28/Why-Physicians-No-Longer-Know-About-Fungi-An-Expose-On-Nystatin-/Default.aspx
I am the Anonymous from Jan 19. Please read my post again - it is not that long, and it is clear that my point was about the fallibility of the FDA, not whether cancer is truly a fungus. Nowhere did I mention I trusted Dr. Simoncini's research or suggest that cancer can be fungus. (If you ask my personal opinion, I will say I don't think so). But that is not the point. Being a teacher of mathematical statistics and having done research in biomedical engineering, I have come to the realization that many medical professionals are really poor with fundamental logics (as indicated by the response to my post) and really don't have a clue on how to infer from statisitcs and probability.
I am the Anonymous from January 19. Please read my post again - it is not that long, and clearly the point was about the fallibility of the FDA. Nowhere did I mention I trusted the research of Dr. Simoncini or suggest that cancer was fungus. (If you ask my personal opinion, I will say I don't think so.) But that was not the point. Saying the FDA is fallible does not equate endorsing Dr. Simoncini. Being a teacher of mathematical statistics and having done research in biomedical engineering, I have come to the realization that most medical professionals are really poor in fundamental logics (as shown by the response to my post), and do not understand how to infer from statistics and probability.
This thread is about ex.dr. Simoncinis theory. In support of him the idea of supression of information by the pharmaceuticals has been introduced. The last sentence in your post suggests that you have the opinion that the pharmaceuticals control the FDA. In that context it was not unreasonable to think that the probability that you were a Simoncini proponent was higher than the probability that you were a Simoncini skeptic. I´d say it was fundamentally logic ;-). However that changes with your latest post.
Oh well... Another medical (or legal, etc) professional who has no real grasp of what "fundamental logic" means. It reminds me of a mathematician friend from MIT who dropped out of Harvard law school after the first month. When asked why, he said, "... these lawyers have no idea what statistics or probability means..."
Please try to understand it is very DANGEROUS to make assumptions and believe that "... it was not unreasonable to think...." without facts or acceptable evidence to back it up. (That is one of the reasons, by the way, there are so many unsubstantiable claims in the medical, conventional or alternative, industry, Dr. Simoncini's being one of them.) The "fundamental" flaw in this statement is that it is a very personal and subjective judgment ("not unreasonable" for whom?). Different individuals might believe "it is not unreasonable" to make a completely different conclusion based on their own personal emotions and feelings.
I often have the same difficulty with my statistics students; I guess I can't expect everytone in the medical profession to have studied some basic mathematical logic.
Why am I not suprised that your students often have difficulty in understanding your kind of logic?;-) If it is important to you I´d be happy to apologize for assuming (finding it probable) that your ranting against FDA in a thread about Simoncini was a support to Simoncini proponents ranting against "big pharma" and FDA. Now since we are in agreement that Simoncinis idea is wrong I dont´t see any reason to quarrel with you. And should you choose to keep on ranting, you will either be ignored or met with smileys, so you might as well lighten up :-))
I am a cancer patient who has spent a long career writing about technical subjects in collaboration with scientists and engineers. This is my first visit to this blog. I am delighted that most of the posts regarding Dr. Simoncini seem intelligent, balanced and thought-provoking, except for some tit-for-tat in the past few days. I'd love to see a continuing injection of fresh ideas and thoughtful analysis.
Like thousands of patients, hosting this remarkable disease has led me to explore many different strategies and therapies. Today was my first exposure to the fungal idea. It saddens me that many therapies with a strong narrative or anecdotal evidence are so lacking in data from controlled studies. Perhaps Dr. S. should spend less time evangelizing and more time designing, implementing and documenting rigorous studies. That would benefit all of us, if study outcomes support what he insists is true.
The fungal hypothesis of cancer is not alone in its depressing lack of formal studies. For instance, there's an extremely promising approach (some of you may have heard of it) called dendritic cell immunotherapy. The FDA has approved it for treating one rare type of melanoma. Outside the US, a number of clinics worldwide -- from Mexico to Germany to the Philippines -- use it in various protocols to treat a wide variety of solid tumors. I've corresponded with a few of the researchers and clinicians. While there are some great anecdotes, relatively few controlled clinical studies exist; their results are inconclusive as to effectiveness. Some patients appear to be in full remission.
I wish some billionaire would fund a major cancer center devoted exclusively to open-minded, unbiased clinical studies of alternative strategies and treatments. What a gift to humankind!
Perhaps we could then stop poisoning patients (like me) to within an inch of their lives to kill tumors.
By the way, I have a sobering admiration for the tumors that are trying to kill me. They demonstrate awesome resilience and resourcefulness against medieval onslaughts of specially tailored poisons and, soon, radiation. Respect the adversary.
There needs to be a convergence of alternative ideas and the discipline of controlled research. The next generation of cancer patients deserves more enlightened treatments than the statistically validated ones available today.
Hi Ari.
I don´t think that money is the greatest obstacle to your wish of open-minded, unbiased clinical studies of alternative strategies and treatments. It is the practitioners themselves. Many of them think that it is unethical to perfom studies on something that "they know works". You might want to look into the works of Edzard Ernst. See for instance http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/iscador-not-effective-against-cancer-and-often-harmful/
Just wondering - if Simoncini is so convinced of the efficacy of his sodium bicarbonate therapy and cannot afford decent scientific research, why hasn't he applied for a grant from the NCCAM? The NCCAM has an annual budget of approx. $ $125,000,000 for research into CAM-therapies.
@ Ari,
You don't seem to realize that a lot of research into CAM-therapies has been done by the NCCAM since 1991. In the UK, professor Edzard Ernst, who, next to being trained in conventional medicine, was also trained in various CAM-therapies, has done a lot of scientific studies as well. Until now, the results have been very dissapointing. Most CAM-therapies offer no more than a placebo-effect.
If cancer was sorted, what would serve then as population control? Food for thought... would this planet survive if everyone was living into high hundreds... Do not know one family where at least 2 memebers of a close circle did nog go away with big C.
There almost certainly is a cure for cancer, but people don't realize how many billions and billions of dollars are made off of it. Even if there is not a cure for cancer now, if one is found it will be bought and kept secret. $$$ rules everything, that's the fucked up truth.
If doctors know as much about "statistics"
and "fungus" as they do about "nutrition",
then.....those who rely exclusively on
them are truly the ones taking the risk.
As a sidenote: Why is it that those who
haughtily screech about "Science" are
so frequently unwilling to fully
explore an idea?
(And by "fully explore" I do NOT mean "Wait
for GlaxoSmithKline to fund my double-blind
(wink wink) study with NIH, to appear in
PubMed, that backs their pet drug.")
"But GlaxoSmithKline doesn't FUND NIH
studies", some self-appointed pundit
dittoheads will crow. Well, he should
go read:
proliberty.com/observer/20061115.htm
or
www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance29.html
There's an industry/goverment revolving
door that works extremely well.
Good Luck to All who are sick, and Good
Will to All those who come bearing it.....
Dr Simoncini. practises in Rome, Italy. I
know a few doctors and others whom are
involved with candida and also cancer whom
have communicated with him a lot. He is a
very caring person, which is why he went
public. He is in the process of losing is
medical license because he won't back down
nor stop treating cancer with sodium
bicarbonnate. He has a 90% cure rate
evidently. He has a website - here are a
couple of urls.
Cancer Therapy
Dr T Simoncini - oncologist Rome. Sodium
Bicarbonate, a natural way to treat cancer.
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/
Dr Simoncini Baking Soda Treatment for Cancer
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer02 /Simoncini. html
Listen and watch Dr. Tullio Simoncini
demonstrate live fungi colonies and their
destruction with sodium bicarbonate.
http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-598800713 255508140&hl=it
CANCER Therapy
Sodium Bicarbonate, a natural way to treat
cancer A SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE THERAPY
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/summary-
whole-therapy.html
SIMONCINI CANCER THERAPY – PROTOCOL'S TREATMENTS
http://www.curenaturalicancro. com/cancer-therapy-simoncini-protocol.html
SAFETY OF SODIUM BICARBONATE AND ITS USE IN
OTHER PATHOLOGIES
http://www.curenaturalicancro. com/safety- sodium-bicarbonate.html
Interview With Doctor Tulio Simoncini
Is Cancer Caused by the Candida Fungus? -
interesting interview with Dr. Simoncini
himself:
http://candida-international.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-cancer-caused-by-candida-fungus.html
A contact-activated kinase signals Candida
albicans invasive growth and biofilm
development candida causes cancer Sept 2004
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/15/5576.abstract
Hope this helps the true searchers!
[Quote]Listen and watch Dr. Tullio Simoncini
demonstrate live fungi colonies...[Endquote]Those are not fungal colonies. The white things are made of cancer cells. And if Simoncini paid any attention during med school he would understand that fact. The only alternative explanation to him being ignorant of this is, that he is lying. Heck even I can understand what is explained at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus
And if he is lying about cancer being a fungus, why should he be trusted when he claims that he cures 90% of his patients?
How do we know that the before and after sodium bicarbonate videos are froem the same patients. He is doing a real sloppy job of documenting the effect of his treatment. See for instance http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/simoncinis-miracle-cure-in-cat-scans/
And here -> http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/tullio-simoncini-cures-woman-of-bladder-cancer-by-e-mail/ you have an example of how Simoncini takes the credit when the actual cure is brought by conventional medicine. Cancer is not such a great mystery to conventional medicine as Simoncini wants you to believe.
The sodium treatment does work, why try so hard to prove that Dr. Simoncini is wrong. You should be thankful that he continues to help those that are open to being cured. These stories don't need to be made up, these people are sharing their lives with others, so that they will question and seek answers.
My husband is one of those individuals, not made up, he is real.
Lots of things can be wrong with testiomonial "evidence" see for instance http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm
Post a Comment