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


  1. You're kidding right?

  2. 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!

  3. 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'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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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.


    Jaded but not dead, yet.

  6. 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.

  7. 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


    1. That's ridiculous...Any rational person can agree that if something works then it should be able to be demonstrated by giving one group the treatment and the other group no treatment and seeing if more people die in the non-treatment group.

      If anything that's framing an issue in a perfectly understandable and rational way.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

    1. Molecules with the slightest rearrangements, even as simple as one single atoms difference, have entirely different effects. If vitamin E worked the same as Avastin you'd be taking that instead.

  10. 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 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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...

  15. 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

  16. 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 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...

  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  19. 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:

  20. 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.


  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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 :-))

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. @ 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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:

    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.....

  35. 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.

    Dr Simoncini Baking Soda Treatment for Cancer /Simoncini. html

    Listen and watch Dr. Tullio Simoncini
    demonstrate live fungi colonies and their
    destruction with sodium bicarbonate. 255508140&hl=it

    CANCER Therapy
    Sodium Bicarbonate, a natural way to treat

    http://www.curenaturalicancro. com/cancer-therapy-simoncini-protocol.html

    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

    A contact-activated kinase signals Candida
    albicans invasive growth and biofilm
    development candida causes cancer Sept 2004

    Hope this helps the true searchers!

  36. [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

    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
    And here -> 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.

  37. 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.

  38. Lots of things can be wrong with testiomonial "evidence" see for instance

  39. looks like a lot of people justifying their time, money and life by talking Sodium Bicarb. Therapy.

    Cancer is not a disease; it is a unresolved conflict in the immune system.

    We already know the cure :)

  40. Dr. Tullio is bringing more to the treatment and understanding of cancer than anyone on the earth suggesting and delivering radiation and chemotherapy.

    What a terrible thing the Medical Cabal is doing to Michael Douglas, who put himself through hell and bought the empty promises of toxic chemicals and allowed his throat, tongue and mouth to be burned to the point of NO FUNCTIONING.

    People are hypnotized about how cancer is caused and eradicated. The medical industry has not advanced a shred for the last 75 years about this subject. More people get sicker and die from the treatment than they do from the condition.

    I have watched so many people get butchered thinking and believing they are "saving" their lives only to be put through hell and got so ill from chemotherapy and radiation that their immune systems and ability to function had been so compromised that they might as well be DEAD.

    Dr. Tullio is a brave and brilliant doctor who has more clarity about cancer than most people walking the earth.

  41. United States used weapons with depleted uranium in my country when I was in my early teens. I am in my early 30's now, and suffer from endometriosis and interstitial cystitis. Also, I am not the only one-almost ALL of my high school friends suffer from endo, other reproductive problems, thyroid problems, and 10 of them were diagnosed with cancers before the age of 30! Even more interesting is the fact that all of my friends with cancers have no family history of ANY cancer, and all of them suffer from the samy types of cancers-thyroid, cervical and ovarian!!! It gets better-I had precancerous cervical cells removed twice, and both times I tested negative for HPV. My best friend who also lives in US now, had a cervical cancer when she was 27 years old-and she also tested negative for HPV. After three painful surgeries, and many rounds of chemo, she is now in remission, but will never had kids again. Chemo damaged her bladder, her uterus and ovaries were removed, and she entered menopause at 28 years old. Our other childhood friend who lives in Kentucky, survived thyroid and cervical cancers, and also tested negative for HPV. Our doctors said they have seen many cases of foreign females with cervical cancer (or precancerous cells), and no HPV infection. Our hometown cancer rates have increased by 400% since the bombings, but our doctors are being ignored, and some were threatened. Iraq and Afganistan are now raising questions about their own increased cases of cancers and reproductive problems that started since US war on "terror" started.

    Two years after the bombings, I experienced my first vaginal yeast infection while still a virgin. I was 15 years old. I lost my virginity at 18 years of age, and by that time, I already had multiple yeast infections, and was tested for diabetes (has something to do with yeast). My yeast infections continued for three more years, and then the symptoms of endometriosis started. During my 20's, I was treated for recurrent yeast infections over 50 times!!! My doctors refused to believe that candida had anything to do with my endometriosis. Finally, when I was 31 years old, I was diagnosed with interstitial cystitis that almost ruined my life. For years, I suspected candida as a root for all my problems, but I did not have the courage to try alternative treatments. I started research on my own, and found Dr. Simoncini's website. Somebody finally confirmed my suspicions-depleted uranium damaged our immune systems, Candida could no longer be controlled by my weak defense system, and I started to get sick. Simple as that.
    Also, many interstital cystitis patients entered remission when being treated by antifungal drugs for other problems. Patients with interstitial cystitis are told that yogurt can trigger flares. Some of us experimented with yogurt anyway, and found out that after first few painful days (it did cause a flare), our flare went away, and we can now consume probiotics again. Most people assumed that we became "desentisized" (not sure how to spell that). However, now I know that our bladder problems were related to yeast infection, and repopulating our digestive system with beneficial bacteria, helped us reach remissions.

  42. Doctors who made comments on this website clearly need to go back to school, and study some history. In my nursing classes, we learned a lot about medical history and theories. Did you know that for 1000 years, European "doctors" and "scientists" believed that human heart has small halls that enable blood to cross from from one side to another!!! Our corrupt schools want us to believe that during those 1000 years, NOT ONE doctor decided to cut up an animal's heart, and look for holes??? Nobody decided to examine a dead man's heart in ONE THOUSAND YEARS??? I don't think so. This is just one example of how our "doctor's" ignorance. There are HUNDREDS of examples like that, and we can start with Galileo. Financial reasons mixed with most doctor's inflated egos are the reason why we are still dying from an ancient disease such as cancer.

  43. @ Kim Greenhouse
    I am sorry to say this, but you haven't been very good at checking out your "facts". Surely Simoncini presents his idea in such a manner that you are convinced if you don't dig deeper into his claims. I am sure you have seen the Kaufmann video, and everything presented in it makes perfect sense to you. I think you should compare what is explained in the video with what is explained at
    And if you still believe that cancer is a fungus you, should tell us what kind of observation that would convince you otherwise.
    And you have obviously also fallen for the altie propaganda that no progress in cancer treatment has been made in 75 years. To balance your information you should really read this article:
    If it is too long for you to read you can just take a look at figure 2. If that doesn't tell you that progress in treatment has improved survival, you should again tell us what kind of observation would convince you that progress has being made.

    It is really important that you understand what you are doing. This is cancer we are talking about, not just some minor inconveniences in life.

    @ anonymous of October 27 2010.
    Your rant doesn't really address the issue of cancer being/not being a fungus. But since you hate and mistrust doctors so much, one can't help wondering why you want to become a nurse in the first place.

  44. So many voices. So many opinions. So few facts. If nothing else, this debate stands as astonishing evidence that human beings fail in the fundamentals of communication, or better yet, excel in the art of the "spin".

    I don't have cancer. I hope I never do. But if I did, I believe that I would want to explore modalities that would provide the greatest hope for cure while preserving my life and my quality of life.

    The problem, which is at very least as large as the cancer, is knowing to which voice one should hearken.

    The Internet, for all of its bloggers, charlatans, self-proclaimed experts and know it alls, is an ineffective and inefficient means to determine facts about much of anything.

    How can we hope for a cure for cancer, when we cannot communicate the simple need of its victims for clarity as to its treatment?

  45. For all you medically trained or shall I say medically brain washed "professionals" out there: Let's say hypothetically something as simple as sodium bicarbonate squirted directly onto the tumor destroys it then you tell me, would you pour millions of dollars of your own money into the research hoping for a patent deal? I think not as there is no way to get your money back nor profit as if you did own exclusive rights to a drug, but it's Baking Soda so why waste your money on such research unless you actually did care about your fellow human being.

    Furthermore, hypothetically if this sodium bicarbonate cancer cure is affective then what industries would be completely destroyed? Let's start with people actually wasting money on college classes strictly to go into Cancer Research, entire hospitals built only for research, the industry that builds the chemo machines, cancer drugs, it's endless.

    Then you cut off FREE MONEY. This is money for Cancer Drives, concerts etc that feeds a labor force who hope there never is a cure because when they find a simple cure they become unemployed. This is human nature to do this.

    Given the tremendous loss of revenue for so many, could it seem possible that some industry leaders could actually suppress such a simple cure? If you had your own industrial empire raking in millions and one man could pull the rug out from under your feet then what would you do to stop him? Have his license pulled? Black ball him? Have his bank accounts frozen? Put him in Prison or hire out a hit to bury it once and for all.

    Anybody in big business knows how brutal it is, Patent theft, personal attacks, tying up the competition in court battles to bankrupt them. Just look at ENRON and the many violations and fines paid of very well known corporations, they are all dirty to the core.

    The Manufacturer of Vioxx has killed approx 50,000 people with a drug they knew caused blood clotting but fudged the science reports to pass FDA. MDs have patients die under their care ALL OF THE TIME and sometimes due to errors yet Dr. Mercola had one patient die under his care and he gets his lic pulled, just imagine if your lic got pulled every time a patient died under your care or especially for a wrong diagnosis causing death for giving the wrong treatment and since his practices are not profitable for the existing medical industry just exactly where do you expect to read about this proof you seek, in the biased Medical Journal? Not a chance.

    Are you MDs so naive to not realize the Medical Association to be an industrial power based upon profits? Where would the medical industry be if it prescribed and sold you
    Broccoli as a known cancer preventive or sold it's patients well known herbs to prevent and heal? ... Well then I guess the medical industry would turn into the Sun Flower Vitamin Super Market but there is no way near the profits so if you only cared about how fat your wallet is then drug pushing is where the money is.

    After my experiences with MDs I only trust them to run tests, I will study the results and first turn to diet and holistic medicines, the rest is quackery. Yes, the MDs and even the animal vets who follow strict medical protocol are the true quacks, I have proven this a few times.

    MDs & Paramedics are what I want in an emergency like a car accident or gun shot wound but it ends there, I do not trust them at all with my long term health. When the body is sick it is not because it lacks drugs, it's because it lacks substances that detoxify the body of heavy metals and chemicals, nutritional deficiencies and other factors but not because we forgot to dose up with drugs, seriously, you guys are the quacks. Only true healing is found within the Holistic field and maybe, just maybe temporary assistance from some drugs like antibiotics and such.

  46. "Let's say hypothetically something as simple as sodium bicarbonate squirted directly onto the tumor destroys it then you tell me, would you pour millions of dollars of your own money into the research."

    I haven't got millions of dollars. And it doesn't have to cost so much to do research. Sodium bicarbonate has been researched, and the results are that it doesn't work.

    "why waste your money on such research unless you actually did care about your fellow human being."

    It has been researched, so because we care about fellow human beings, we advice against sodium bicarbonate instead of real effective treatment.

    "Given the tremendous loss of revenue for so many, could it seem possible that some industry leaders could actually suppress such a simple cure? "

    The tobacco industry failed miserably at suppressing information on the dangers of smoking. Besides industry leaders and their love ones get cancer too. That alone would be a big incentive not to suppress any effective treatment.

    "The Manufacturer of Vioxx has killed approx 50,000 people with a drug they knew caused blood clotting but fudged the science reports to pass FDA."

    A very good example of how the medical establishment expose and deal with wrongdoings of the pharmaceutical industry. You never see that sort of actions within the ranks of alternative medicine - wonder why.

  47. Here's a little schgoogling on the Relationships between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry and if their are any real doctors or surgeons on this blog...I sure hope you're aware of this

    Go to:
    Their offical tag line is:
    "Serving Those Who Have Served"
    seems pretty obvious already. hah

    Look under FDAAA Leadership
    Lets take one of these guys into google
    James S. Benson
    Here's an offical bio off a main stream media outlet

    It says Mr. Benson earned a B.S. degree in civil engineering from the University of Maryland and a M.S. degree in nuclear engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Seems fitting for FDA...i guess

    Do alittle more googling and you start to see the bigger picture.

    James S. Benson, a member of the FDAAA board of directors, is also on the board of Medical Device Consultants, “a leading consulting and contract research organization for the medical device industry,” according to the press release announcing his appointment to that company’s board. He was formerly executive vice president for technology and regulatory affairs at AdvaMed (formerly HIMA), which he has described as “a trade association that represents more than 800 manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products, and medical information systems.” The press release said Benson was the “lead strategist for the association’s regulatory agenda.” FDAAA board member Elizabeth Jacobson is executive vice president of AdvaMed.

    Look up some of the other "FDAAA Leaders" and you see a trend of ex and current members of the medical industry/big pharm.

    The FDAAA Board of Directors adopted a strict Code of Ethics under which the Association functions on March 3, 2003.
    The FDAAA has established conflict of interest and whistleblower policies. See Conflict of Interest Policy, Conflict of Interest Statement, and Whistleblower Policy.

    Sounds nice except its all self governed and worded so a third grader could find ways to cheat it
    This parts good to:

    Violations of the ethical code are reviewed by . . . the board of directors. If a violation is corroborated, the executive committee “may” impose sanctions, including warning, suspension, and expulsion. So the worst that can happen for an attempt to influence an FDA employee that’s so flagrant it can’t be ignored is expulsion from the organization.

    I'm all about research and development, but instead of handing funding to "the old boys club companies" lets reach outside the box at least a little bit...A start would be accepting other "schools of thought" that aren't backed by The Royal Society

    We all have to come to the conclusion, "we are doing something wrong."

    Only when we are open to new ideas, do new ideas find us

  48. A few facts: I've had cancer 3 times and the 1st time did the chemo and 4 it again. My oncologist tells me they have no idea what cancer is so I'd better trust my own sense about how to heal it.

    I get sick every time I see a pink ribbon and people running for cancer. People are very proud of themselves for their heroic acts but they haven't done any research on where all that money goes and what good it's doing.

    The cure rate is highly over rated. The one thing research is doing right is getting more people going for early detection. That is the main reason cancer rates are down, but very little.

    The 2nd and 3rd times I had cancer it was healed via frequency based remedies, which has been around since the early 1900's. After having cancer healed this way the 2nd & 3rd times, not one doctor asked me how it was healed. Why? Because the system has brainwashed these very smart people to be very stupid. If it doesn't resonante with what they've been told most of them can't let it in. This is not science. I have never met a more closed minded group of individuals, with such a narrow view. People will complain about medicine but run to it with gusto. They will allow themselves to be poisoned but when told there is a cure that will not hurt them they cannot even entertain the idea. They've all been scared shitless so they run with open veins waiting for the poison to trickle in.

    The AMA was founded by the Rockefeller's way back when as a way to make drugs, keep people sick, make more money. They also closed many medical schools because they didn't want too much competition, and they developed the medical license.

    Hospitals are businesses...can't fill a hospital bed with someone who isn't sick. I can't help but think...if medicines were really working there would be fewer hospitals instead of more and more and more.

    Cancer is not that hard to heal...I've done it twice and have helped others do the same.

    My oncologist also told me that when the research stats come in for who was cured using chemo, all the people that died are not counted. If you don't do your own homework you will certainly be mislead. This doc was at the U. of Miami's cancer research institute. I could tell you horror stories of the surgeries I had at Albert Einstein in Philadelphia. But when I tell people they say, "No, really? That can't be". But guess is. We have protected the medical profession way too long. It is not what it's portrayed as...we've all been fooled even the people in it believe it. There is a ruse around every corner. The research is tainted. Can't wait to see that system fall and people take their health care back into their own hands. If 90% of all illness is stress related why isn't everyone on stress reduction routine? Because then they wouldn't have as many sick people to treat. I never go to docs...only if I have something traumatic happened; broken bone, spider bite, etc. As far as illnesses go; I take of them myself - very successfully!

  49. Eat Well, sleep well, avoid stress. Don't drink alot, don't smoke, don't use a cell phone near the brain, don't eat a lot of candy or pop, don't get overweight, and don't eat processed foods. Don't eat too much of any one food but have a wide palette.
    Be a natural skeptic of anyone who thinks they know what cancer is or how to kill it, be open minded to all suggestion but remain skeptical. You should be very skeptical to professionals that make money from their guise,especially state sanctioned ones. But remember there are plenty of quacks on the other side of the aisle that will take advantage of people wary of the white robed scientist as in western doctor. I was an engineer that designed radiation equipment for cancer treatment, me personally I wouldn't get under one of those contraptions but hey it your money and your life. So choose your poison, radiation, and drugs from your favorite witch doctor if you wish, but remember nobody gives a shit about you than you, so the choices you make finally reside with you. Don't relinquish your right to heal yourself. Even when cures work its still your body that does the healing not the doctor or medicine, these things only assist what your body naturally has a desire to do anyway (keep you alive). You do the first things I mentioned and you'll probably live a decent length life, then when you get in your golden years and your time is up you can kinda choose what poison you think might add a few more days, months or years. But still you're going to die, life is a disease because its guaranteed you're going to die from it. No use fearing the inevitable, but why not try to beat death with your own brains as long as you can? Best way is not to relinquish yourself for somebody to use you as their case study, just try to ask your body what it needs and give it what you're sharpened brain knows it needs. Whatever that may be, you're body wants you to listen but sometimes we are too stupid to know it. Like when I had a tooth ache when I was younger, my body was telling me to grab a pair of plyers and you know what my experience is that I wasn't too far off from what dentist are eventually forced to do. Sure they can drill it out, and put a little mercury in there, but in a few year it will look like a gray dead corpse and taste like it too. Then in a good 20 the dentist will grab that pair of plyers that you knew was the answer so long ago. Sure you looked better than being toothless in your 20-30's but your all the mad the hatter because of it. So keep an open mind and realize that you're all going to die and no doctor or witch is going to save you long run and only one going to do that in the short term is yourself. Oh by the way it never hurts to surround yourselves with people smarter than you, just still be wary of their motives after all they aren't the ones reaping the side effects of their medicines or cures unless that be fame and money.

  50. I have read all of these comments and have learned nothing! Not to be rude but the same arguments and the same 'answers'. Clearly researchers and doctors will be steered towards certain methods, certain theories, and certain approaches because A) they apply their education B) the money has to come from somewhere and C) some doctors are better than others... luck of the draw. BUT I cannot believe that all the doctors and researchers across the globe have ALL been completely and totally manipulated by big money. I was first diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma at age 10 (right femur), endured chemo and a total femur replacement with removal of 3 quadraceps, to relapse with the same cancer in my left knee at 12 and to endure chemo with a total knee replacement, to relapse again at 15 in my left lung (no more chemo... body could not endure) but had part of my lower left lobe removed, to relapse again at 17 in my left lung having another surgery. In all my experiences and living at the hospital for the majority of my childhood I do know that my oncologists and orthopedic surgeons did their very best to help me. Yes there were bad doctors, and good ones, and dumb ones, and indifferent ones, but there are ones that will take you for lunch after your check up every year because they've known you for 18 years and have 'grown up' with you as you have with them. In my case they are leaders in there field and in research.
    There is an incredible amount of corruption but there is an incredible amount of good. Uncountable errors occured during my stay at Childrens Hospital, some that have left significant damage, but doctors and nurses are people and unfortunately aren't perfect. They are simply doing what they know best and I have a hard time believing there is some all seeing evil eye who has all the answers and who is making sure know one finds them out.

    I am curious to this baking soda theory HOWEVER highly skeptical that this therapy would cure bone cancer (like mine). Cancer of the digestive tract, maybe, but cancer of the bone with limited blood flow, unlikely.

    I embrace alternative therapies and traditional therapies alike. Whatever will keep us alive. Corruption and 'poisons' lie in so many places its impossible to avoid cancers. They are a product of MODERN LIVING. The earth is suffering, we are suffering, polutions and carcinogenics are everywhere. Simple.
    Our immune systems are designed to cure cancers and yet sometimes they don't. I wonder if a large group of Dr. Baking Sodas success rate have also simply started living a healthy lifestyle?

    I also suffer from Crohn's disease and have most presently started the Specific Carbohydrate diet which is very similar to a 'caveman' diet. No refined sugars, no grains, no lactose, etc. Eating they way one would before plantations and mass production of food... or at least trying to.
    But now I worry about my pesticide intake as I cannot afford to eat only organic.
    When we consider how many poisons and crap we intake everyday (try not eating refined sugar... it's in everything!) and actually make a real effort to buy organics and excercise it's no wonder cancer is on a rampage. Our bodies have not evolved to this lazy state and cannot endure all these toxins.

    If all of that fails modern medicine should be used in emergency situations to help 'reset' ourselves.

    Much of the onus is on us.
    Whatever therapies we use we should become informed.

    There are people out there that are genuinely trying to help and find cures... they just haven't found the answer yet and they aren't always right.

  51. Rather than write off Dr. Simoncini as a quack, you should look at his results. They are amazing. Whether or not cancer is a fungus, there's plenty of research that indicates that changing the pH around the tumor to alkaline inhibits Metastases.

    Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases

    Here's some more research:

    Acid pH in Tumors and Its Potential for Therapeutic Exploitation

    Tumor pH controls the in vivo efficacy of weak acid and base chemotherapeutics

    Recent progress in tumor pH targeting nanotechnology.

    Sodium Bicarbonate Appears To Slow Progression Of Chronic Kidney Disease

    "Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cancer are connected in a number of ways in both directions: cancer can cause CKD either directly or indirectly through the adverse effects of therapies; CKD may, conversely, be a risk factor for cancer; and both may be associated because they share common risk factors, often"

    These all confirm that Dr. Simoncini is on to something great and profound with the simple use of sodium bicarbonate, an alkaline substance.

  52. I love it. As long as we continue to use our common sense with regard to our health we won't have be having this conversation very much longer about big pharma. My understanding is our bodies are 70% water and our water needs to be ph balanced properly so our bodies can grow the good bacteria and a strong immune system to fend off fungus, or anything else that would compromise it. Every known natural cure for cancer is composed of highly alkaline foods. They are needed in large doses to offset the imbalance that has been imposed upon the body through the standard american diet (SAD) as well as the fungus found in the corn,wheat and cereal products due to the storage and handling processes.
    PREVENTION is to eat a balanced diet with many greens and foods that are high in vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and the like (GOOGLE IT the internet is full of good resources on this basic stuff that is so vital for our health) We've left our health in the hands of others for too long. We need to take responsibility for our diet, drink plenty of water exercise, rest. Again, its not rocket science its just good old fashioned caring about yourself enough to read up a little. If a doctor knows more about our health and how to keep our immune system strong than we do....there is a problem.

    There is also a very large link between stress and how it affects the alkaline balance in our bodies. Lots of information out there. There are several ways to reduce stress. Studies show that no matter how wonderful your diet is if you are under too much stress as in divorce, unemployed etc, it can degrade your health over time. There are over 400 chemical reactions that take place in the body when a person feels fear. Meditate, pray, take walks, think of something that makes you happy, be kind to someone, pet a dog, visit the sic. Your body will thank you
    Got to go take a walk now, it just got sunny, no time to proof read...this is Seattle. Don't know how long it will last.

    Here's to a healthier happier America.

  53. Our Bodies are an amazing gift! They can heal if given the proper food/water/balance to provide a healthy internal environment.
    I understand the "doctors" have gone to medical school, however, they are learning what they are being taught, for the most part. There is a place for conventional medicine as well as wellness management. Large Pharma is a huge contributor and a large part of the equation. Just look at all the ads and medications out there....In our society today, there is way too much disease and dysfunction. It is time we take our OWN HEALTH into our OWN hands!
    Avoiding carbonated drinks with corn syrup and artificial sweeteners, avoiding fast food and hydrogenated oils. Our culture today is way too dependent on overprocessed fast foods! Instead, start choosing heathly organic fruits & vegis, grass fed beef, organic poultry, and clean seafood. In addition, drinking clean water, moving our bodies daily and using common sense. Come on people...there is a lot of great info out there to help you change your life and take your health back!
    I find Doug Kaufman's program to be a blessing and very informational. And, it's free. You might just want to listen to him....he really does make sense.

  54. Simoncini hasn't been documented as an oncologist. He was working in a pathology department taking photos of cancer tissue and came to his own stance that cancer was a fungus because of the whitish color.

  55. Thunderball was written by Ian Fleming around 1961 and spent some time on the Best sellers list. James Bond was sent for de-tox regime which included drinking bicarbonate of soda to expell free radicals from the body. My guess is that big pharmacy and private health insurance companies have known about it for some time and have not done anything but increase their own profits since. Obama may not be elected for a second term because their profits have been threatend by Obama care. At $1,200 per month health insurance makes 5,000,000,000 per week off 150,000,000 people or half the population of the USA. Unfortunatley the other 150,000,000 can not afford to pay $1,200 a month premiums and that is why the USA needs Obama care but can't decide to give more benifits to more people for less revenue. Even at $400 per month x 300,000,000 the weekly income would be less than 3,000,000,000. That is the difference between an America with Obama or Bin Mitt Romney as president. Stop farting around, drink your bicarbonate of soda and if they tell you you have a tumor then plug it into your IV and catheter just like James Bond did back in 1961 you morones!


Google Analytics Alternative