Is cancer a fungus?
 |
| Is Cancer A Fungus |
I have not created a blog to deny everything that is not aligned with drugs (I, for example, accept a great deal in the placebo impact, a word can frequently heal more than a pill); however, to clarify who lies and who reality.
After all, who better than the person who created declarations and "proof" in favor of his care, could clarify them? However, I have not gotten a smidgen of single additional proof on the cases I have refuted.
They blame me...
Although it would appear glaringly evident, it is acceptable to repeat that on the day that somebody discovered the complete solution for cancer, they would all appreciate it, me, my family and companions, the same as all the people who care about their lives and all specialists (indeed, even the bad ones who kill people ... with chemotherapy).
I would be inhuman not to accept a solution to the disease that scares everyone.
And I can't help thinking that even a leader of a multinational pharmaceutical company, for example, the wealthiest politician, banker or mogul, could just respect with wonder, cash and eternal section into history, the individual who discovered the answer for cancer.
Although this is trivially obvious, the "alternatives" insist that their "discoveries" are concealed and battled by others.
However, specialists, bankers, politicians, the heads of state, and even incredible cancer, the occultist who bites the dust as the mysterious would be a virtuoso, not sneaky but idiocy.
Anyway, back to Simoncini.
The standard from Tullio Simoncini is that cancer is caused by a fungus (Candida albicans) and is relieved by an antifungal (low), baking soda.
We should analyze his hypothesis from the parts that allowed him to formulate the idea.
For Tullio Simoncini, the idea that candida causes cancer came from the fact that the tumors are all white, similar to candida. The idea is trivially elementary and irrelevant.
It is false that all tumors are white; we won't list all the shades of malignant tumors (basically consider the skin melanomas, black). In any case, cancer takes tones and aspects of all sorts (and I save you images).
This assumption is, along these lines, wrong.
Asked on the off chance that he had ever looked for candida in tumors, Tullio Simoncini answered: NO.
His idea is, consequently, not based on immediate or experimental observation, strange, alright, but in this case to be confirmed, but ... his belief, based on compatible components, for example, the shadow of tumors.
Here too, therefore, it is not understood by what, candida, should cause the tumor.
Following the same reasoning, I could say that cancer is caused by parsley because many diseases are green, although I have never sought parsley in tumors, I remain of my idea. What's the point?
The negation of reason in short.
In any case, could the candida "could" be the cause of malignant tumors?
Truly. In principle, yes. It is as yet an irresistible agent, mycotic type, that like so many different compelling agents, could play a causal job.
Up until now, nonetheless, never substantiated.
It is also clear that the claim that candida (as well as infection or chemicals, for example), causing ALL tumor is off-base, it is because we know, even based on the evidence, that the cause of cancer is unique, also if some standard components to connect them.
It is known, for example, that certain types of cancer can be caused by a chemical, physical agents, bacteria (Helicobacter Pilory), infection (human papillomavirus, HCV, HBV), it will subsequently not so remarkable to consider candida a causative agent of the type certain cancers or even from a single sample.
If this is the reason, the parasite is known to cause certain tumors straightforward (mushroom cereal is the main responsible for malignant liver tumors, usually in countries with immature).
Consequently, to say that candida Albicans causes all of the tumors, there is a chasm. Above all, the observation. In a vicious ferocity and friendly, there was no statistically significant closeness candida.
On the off chance that we consider, at the time that candida is an opportunist (i.e., taking advantage of lowering barriers of the body, such as on account of therapy substantial or significant diseases, for example, malignant tumors, ed.), Proximity is not visible, and it can take even less meaning.
There is an investigation called by Simoncini in the hypothesis, that of Hopfer.
Simoncini claims that this study reports that in 79% of cancer, candida is found. THAT Wrong. The study says that of the 19 457 cancer tissue samples, 193 networks (of 76 patients) to an organism, 79% of the candida.
Percentage of candida in cancer tissue, in this way, a little. Simoncini's statement also indicates that the previous specialist, by and by, caught manipulating data, that is to say, the opposite of what he said.
Different examples of studies that Simoncini call demonstration confirms the hypothesis that is not yet quite another thing if not reversed:
Simoncini said that in 97.1% it is was discovered, it isn't valid, the survey indicates instead that companies in the positive for fungus, the cancer patients 97.1% of the microorganism is Candida. It consists of one and said he Simoncini is written B (where B is a test for him, obviously).
All this bibliography is listed on the site Simoncini to show that literature speaks of Candida found in tumors! Simoncini has been struck off the medical register of the bar because he treats patients based on ideas not scientifically proven and argues that the radiation is unfair.
After all, instead of science shows and it would be proof, it would be because, in reality, they are certainly not. One more evidence of manipulation of data by Simoncini? Candida Silastic cancer. "
Candida was found in prostheses Silastic (silicone material used for the manufacture of catheters, implants, tubes, probes ..., NDR). In practice, Candida colonizes these materials. It is notable. And what does this have to do with candida cancer? For example, bladder catheters are colonized by various bacteria, so the bacteria cause disease?
This further examination, again quoted by Simoncini, is one of those who demonstrate the accuracy of his hypothesis:
Case A, Bistoni F, E Cenci, Fish Album, Tissi L, P. Marconi
Immunopotentiation anti-1ncer chemotherapy Candida albicans, different yeasts, and insoluble glucan in the experimental lymphoma model.
Intraperitoneal infusions of 2x10-7 organisms (Candida, Saccharomyces, Cryptococcus, and repeated in mice) with the end of induced mouse lymphoma infection be an excellent immune adjuvant, synergistically to advance the treatment of chemotherapy.
The impact was so overlapped throughout the body, or only membrane (ghost cell) was used. In practice, candida enhances the effects of chemotherapy.
Great decision, Simoncini is an article examining the use of Candida to treat tumors.
Random what we want to be done, there are many "alternative remedies" against cancer that use parasites precisely (Krestin, Shiitake, Maitake, Reishi, ...) as therapy, especially in traditional Chinese medication (even these "therapies" are not demonstrated) ... for what reason should utilize the fungus as a fix has less nobility than calling it into question as a reason for the disease?
The former doctor says the candida is not found because she is not wanted. Forget also that candida is not a being so small as to go unnoticed, so much so that if it is collected in colonies, it can be seen with the naked eye. If we have a small optical microscope, the candida would also know a layman. It also has an unmistakable appearance.
Is it any more to show that the scientific literature has studied it in correlation with cancer?
Then the evidence: Simoncini says that the candida is instilled by healthy tissues, as a reaction to her presence and that "insecure" form the tumor. For him, "the mass" is formed by the candida, what surrounds it is instead a reaction of the organism to contain it. But this "mass" then, from what has created if not a candida since no one finds it.
If she's inked, then she disappears?
Simoncini, despite saying he's an oncologist, seems to have never seen a tumor. Who said all cancers are masses or cysts? And when I am, where did the candida end, since she's not inside? And when they're not?
And the "endometriosis cysts" (for Simoncini also caused by candida) that have a very dark content (so much so that they are called "chocolate cysts")? What happened to the white candidate?
He responds evasively, and we don't know.
But does bicarbonate cure tumors?
It also applies here, Simoncini's unlogical reasoning.The former doctor came to this conclusion because he observed that for thrush (common disease of children, caused by candida), bicarbonate had a healing role. It's true. But that's not to say that the same position can have it for tumors (and for everyone, especially) and he has never studied this role and has not even tried it, that it is discussed to do then?
They have existed for decades, studies showing that the alkalinization of the human organism, is beneficial in the treatment of tumors. Bicarbonate is alkaline.
Hundreds of scientific publications demonstrate the effect of tissue alkalinization, Simoncini also cites some of the works as "proof" of his theories (many of those mentioned with his methods have nothing to do with it, as we have seen).
Still, the former Roman doctor does not note that in many of those publications there is no mention of the effectiveness of bicarbonate but of the efficacy of the alkalinization of the environment in which the tumor develops or the fact that variations in pH play a role in the development of the Tumors.
There are several substances (not only alcalinants) that slow down, inhibit tumor growth, but they are all experimental; it takes years to develop something useful, significantly valid, and especially without risk.
One example that can be compared to that of bicarbonate is that it has been observed that the hypertonic solutions of sodium chloride (e.g., the answer, in that physiological case, which is used in IVF in all hospitals in the world) seem to inhibit metastasization, mitigate the metastatic potential of a tumor (J Membr Biol. 2006 May;211(1):35-42. Epub 2006 Sep 18).
Precisely because of an alkalinization mechanism and sodium concentration. So it is a scoop (or rather, it would be a scoop for Simoncini's supporters); in fact, these are observations that have long existed, experimental, unusual, but not applicable in the current reality.
Other examples may be the effect of destroying cancerous cells of urease (alkalinizing, J Exp Ther Oncol. 2005;5(2):93-9), or those noted recently: umbilical cord stem cells; it seems to slow the growth of breast cancer (Cancer Lett. 2009 Mar 12.), as well as antiangiogenic factors. It also applies to antioxidants or specific vitamins.
Experimentally (even in guinea pigs), they seem to have a beneficial role in the development of tumors, in metastasization, in tumor growth, but the results are not unique. They are doubtful, uncertain, not applicable in humans.
Studies, however, continue, and it is not excluded that in the future, one of these molecules or a combination of them will improve the treatment of cancer. There's trust, there are studies, but it takes years.
Almost always the first problem in these cases is the time factor: a substance seems to inhibit or slow down tumor growth but does so relatively quickly, failing to exceed the rate of tumor growth, to understand us, if a tumor develops 100 cancer cells a day and the physiological solution (for example) slows down the formation of 50, of course, the positive effect, present, is unfortunately useless.
Another problem is that of doses, the doses possibly suitable for a human of certain substances with the apparent beneficial effect would be too high and, therefore, toxic if not lethal.
Alcaline solutions are, therefore, more than known and studied, and their effect is experienced.
This is because the tumor proliferates in an acidic environment, consuming more oxygen, the pH of tumors is acidic.
The alkalization of cancer (reducing it in a primary environment), has affirmative action in the treatment of cancer and for example increases the effectiveness of some chemotherapy (doxorubicin and vinblastine among all, it seems in fact that the acidic environment of tumors triggers "chemoresistance") or would seem to slow the growth of certain tumors (in size).
This is true again, for some cancers, and some districts of the organism, for others, it seems to have no influence.
Those who support Simoncini say: "But bicarbonate has never been tested tumors! Touch too many interests!"
That's not true. First of all, vitamins or antioxidants would also touch too much interest (vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant... and we have kilos in citrus fruits.) Bicarbonate on tumors has been tested. With mixed results but that belie Simoncini.
About a year ago, a study, for example, showed that the administration of bicarbonate to guinea pigs caused an increase in gastric cancer cells (Int J Cancer. 2008 Feb 15;122(4):727-33.). Such a negative effect.
Recently there has also appeared a study (Cancer Res. 2009 Mar 10) that in guinea pigs shows that some tumors (the breast one, for example) benefit from an alkalization of tissues (just by the administration of bicarbonate) decreasing the incidence of metastases and also increasing survival.
The same administration of bicarbonate is ineffective for the metastases of other types of cancer and has NO EFFECT IN THE PRIMITIVE TUMORE (the initial one, from which metastases originate) in NO tumor among those studied (breast, prostate, melanoma, liver) and does not change other parameters.
Besides, to achieve the effect of slowing down and decreasing in size on metastases, bicarbonate administrations at 200 mmol/L (at a concentration of very high bicarbonate, between 30 and 40%) were required.
That can buffer the protons produced by formations no larger than one mm cube (1-millimeter cube... when Simoncini claims to have healed tumors of 7-10 centimeters and more with concentrations of 5%).
It seems that in practice to achieve some results, you have to go well beyond the saturation limit of the water/bicarbonate solution, a solution that cannot be obtained. This, however, is something to be clarified, the concentration data is unclear... for me at least, but also chemists.
==
Small technical note:
I am looking for a chemist who clarifies some aspects of this research that have not fully understood me (those on the concentration of bicarbonate), I have already had beneficial opinions, but it is good, for obvious reasons, to be sure and who had a few minutes to lend me contact me, thank you.Update (3/29/09): I have received opinions from chemists (thanks to D) regarding this aspect. In humans (approximate calculations, estimating an average weight and not calculating the buffering capacity of the human body), the dose that had those effects in the guinea pigs, would be reached, intravenously with 2 500 cc iv. 1.25% concentration.
==
This is to say that part of Simoncini's idea has also been experimented, studied repeatedly, not only in vitro but also in vivo. It is not true that "his discovery" is hidden, not least because he is not a discovery but is part of existing observations that demonstrate much more than what he says.
This also responds to the paranoid theories of an international conspiracy that wants the idea of Simoncini boycotted by who knows who. This persecutory attitude, you can declare closed for the simple reason that is not true. Simoncini's approach has also been tried repeatedly by major cancer centers and has not cured any cancer.
Simoncini and his collaborators have been invited to experiment privately with their idea, at least on animals (not on humans as he does...) to see if there is anything that scientists around the world have always missed.
This trial has never happened to this day, and the excuses are quite trivial: lack of funds, adversity of the pharmaceutical industries (an initial test can be done even at home, wanting...), and grand conspiracy. Serious experimentation, however, has already been done by researchers all over the world, so either they take those results for good or if they do it, controlled, of course.
What remains to us then and that is transmitted to us by Simoncini and partners, are only the testimonies on the site, which, and the analyses are here in my blog, have never shown the effectiveness of the "miracle cures" of the former Roman doctor.
The rest, usually, just chatter. And for those who embark on "ethical and moral" considerations about chemotherapy, tell me what "ethical and moral" there would be in using human beings to experiment with their theories, telling them that they are valid.
Needless to add, as I always do, that I have not received any clarification from Simoncini's staff about the "errors" present in his testimonies...
Next up, in preparation for an article about Tullio Simoncini's hilarious resume and another fake case.
