a fungous infection always forms the basis of every neoplastic formation, and this formation tries to spread within the whole organism without stopping.
http://www.cancerfungus.com/en/
Girl, 11, with cancer is free to refuse chemotherapy
- Thread starter say what
- Start date
a fungous infection always forms the basis of every neoplastic formation, and this formation tries to spread within the whole organism without stopping.
http://www.cancerfungus.com/en/
You will believe anything you read that supports your perception wont you.
Ok this guy is well known as a (to use the vernacular) quack. He is not a good oncologist, and his methods are completely false.
Before I bring up an actual article, I'm just going to use two basic logical arguments that prove this guys theory wrong.
Ok so first you need to know what cancer is. Cancer is when a cell mutates (from whatever cause) in a way that its self-destruct mechanism fails, and it replicates itself uncontrollably. Because of this, an abnormal cell growth develops, also known as a neoplastic formation. It is because the mechanism that drives cellular reproduction is damaged by something and the cell continues to replicate. That is what cancer is. There are many variations in the way the cell can be mutated (cellular reproduction has many parts to it that can be altered) and many different causes of the mutation. This can be caused by radiation or certain chemicals. In fact, every day you get at least one cancer cell technically (meaning damaged reproduction cycle usually caused by random mutation of the cell. Expected considering there are trillions of cells in the human body). Its just that the immune system or the cells self-destruct is triggered. That's healthy.
Now assuming that fungus could cause cellular mutation (which as far as I know it almost never does if at all, fungus is a foreign organism effecting the body like bacteria does. Cancer is the body itself mutating), then fungus could possibly cause cancer. But how does that say anything about all of the other possible causes of cancer such as radiation and chemical toxins. Those aren't fungal related. However they cause cellular mutation.
Also, his supposed cure is sodium bicarbonate. Commonly known as backing soda. Now if fungus is the cause of cancer, why would you treat it by using something that isn't even a fungicide. Why not use something like Fluconazole or other triazole treatments that are usually used to treat Candidiasis (the fungus he claims is causing cancer). Why use something that doesn't even kill fungi rather than well known and effective fungicides? It doesn't make sense. This guy is a quack.
Now I will post a few quotes from a guy who seems to have explained these things more specifically.
Obviously, this shows the bad science Dr. Simoncini uses. He makes a bad hypothesis (I will be kinder than the guy I'm quoting) that all tumors are white. That is simply not true.
Yes it is true. Dr. Simoncini thinks that if you look in the center of a tumor, you will find fungus (because he claims fungus is the cause). Well the problem is most of the time when they remove a tumor, they DO cut them open and they DO NOT find fungus. That's quite the blow to this guys theory.
This is truly ridiculous because again, why use backing soda that doesn't even treat fungi instead of an actual fungicide.
I think I also read somewhere that this guy lost his medical license and served (or is serving) time in jail for man slaughter. I didn't bother to verify it. I can't read Italian.
This guy seems nothing more to me than a classic "snake-oil salesman". Backing soda is a very cheap "medicine" and he was still pocketing the normal cost of an oncologist WITHOUT having to pay the normal expenses of medicine. He didn't even want to "waste" any of the money on an actual fungicide.
Don't you see muir? Just like in our last discussion, you looked for anything that supported your presumption that "the man" is out to get people, kill them, and make money off of them. Whether or not this is true is besides the point, but the fact is that such an assumption is not something to base an argument off of. Especially since it seems to lead you to discredited professionals (with very good reason) and pseudoscience, and made worse because you rationalize this by saying those people were put down by "the man". Well if you can use such an argument on one thing then you can use it on every argument that disagrees with you. If everything that disagrees with you is a part of the conspiracy, then how is that realistic? I could say the moon is made of cheese. The only reason we think its not is because the American and Russian space programs are part of the conspiracy to convince us the moon is not made of cheese so we don't all build spaceships to feast on the moon's cheese goodness. Even though we have brought moon rocks to Earth for study? Oh no, those aren't REALLY moon rocks. They are just part of the conspiracy to convince us that the moon is not made of cheese. Obviously the moon is really made of cheese.
Do you see what I'm trying to say muir? Please, this is not to be demeaning or insulting, only to try to get you to see the assumption you are making. Do you really think that many experts are wrong and you plus Dr. Simoncici are correct because all the experts are part of a massive conspiracy?
I did watch the video. Twice. I always listen to the evidence presented. It would be unfair of me to argue about something and not even consider the other side of the argument.
I apologize, I have obviously contributed to that if not triggered it directly. I wanted to correct a considerable oversight on the consideration of cannabis oil as a definite cure to cancer, and clarify what cancer was incase some weren't clear. It's a bad habit of mine to correct scientific inaccuracies to the best of my ability. I'm still learning when to not stick my nose in where it doesn't belong, so please forgive me
On the original point of the topic, I agree with Dragon as well. The parents have a responsibility to care for that child. While it is good to encourage the child to make decisions for themselves, however it is also necessary to help guide them to make proper decisions. You can't expect a child to make decisions like an adult (meaning properly considered and acted on because all adults obviously do that
). On something as serious as the child's life, the parents are fully responsible for what happens. The only reason they would let the child make a decision for herself in this case is because either they agreed with her decision (no reason to correct it), or they have very much missed the point of being a parent in my opinion.
Holy cow this is ridiculous. If cancer is a fungus then why don't they find fungus when they cut it open. And why do fungicides not treat cancer. If it we're a fungus, both of these things would be true, but in reality they aren't. This is basic medicine. They have done generic testing on cancer cells and seen it is caused by cellular mutations. .
If you had listened to the other stuff i said about the CFR, the club of rome and so on you would understand why synthetic based medicine is clinging to an outmoded paradigm regarding the approach to cancer, but you didn't
All that information i was giving you was the CONTEXT within which all these things can be viewed
Once you understand that context then you understand EVERYTHING that is going on
You know why cancer treatments fail, you know why there are endless wars, you know why the economy is failing, you knowwhy education is failing, you know why there are so many school shootings etc etc etc
You can only really understand these events by understanding who is behind them and what their agenda is
Once you know that....all the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place
But to do that you first have to understand that those very same people have been conditioning you since you were born through the education system, the massed media and various environmental factors to perceive reality a certain way.....a way that conceals the truth from you
They have lied about pretty much everything
It's only by unlearning what you've learned and then proceeding with an open mind that you will move closer to the truth. I'm not saying to move forward with a mind that accepts everything it is told because then it will just fill up with junk again (because there is a lot of junk being thrown about) but a mind that is searching, not instantly dismissing, holding multiple possibilites simultaneously whilst exlporing them all and which is building new perceptions from the bottom up
Copernicus told everyone the earth was not at the centre of the solar system. Galileo later supported what he said. The romancatholic church wanted to conceal that it was a sun worshipping school so it denied that the sun was at the centre of the solar ystem and punished Galileo into submission
The RCC wanted evryone to hold onto an outmoded paradigm because of its agenda to conceal that it is really a syncretic religious order using a range of religious sources to create a universal ('catholic' means universal) religion for the empire. Even today the RCC supports 'ecumenicism' as a way to create a new world religion. The pope can even be heard nowadays saying that atheists can go to heaven (ie the catholic church is even trying to pull atheism into its universal religion)
Don't blindly believe that your current perceptions are correct just because it is what you have always been told....the truth is an ongoing journey
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], this isn't really the place for this conversation. Would you like for us to move to a new thread, or would you rather use visitors messages to talk about this?
Well that's really upto the OP
I have things i want to say in public about the wider context to this issue
If you want to also discuss that wider context by PM i'm happy to do that but i'm going to say what i'm going to say on the open forum and i've heard no objections form the thread starter
The wider context concerning this thread about cancer is the forces at work behind the current mode of cancer 'treatments' and their suppression of alternatives
That statement is incorrect and misleading, even if cancer is actually fungus.
1. Fungus is also cells so if cancer is a fungus, it still also has cells, and the disruption and behavior of cells is what makes cancer problematic, and is also what makes fungus problematic. Same difference.
2. Cancer is not a cell to begin with, it's a property about a cell, or what the cell forms and how it behaves. This is the same as saying "skin cell" or "plant cell"
Edit:
Or more to the point this is like saying "blue is a berry not a car" It's nonsense. Blue is blue, cars can be blue and berries can be blue, and also not.
Last edited:
lol
you know what i mean!
The point here is that we have a whole load of people around the world saying that they have been cured using alternative methods
This warrants IMMEDIATE and SERIOUS investigation from the mainstream medical fraternity but instead what we see is hostility and denials
This is because there are powerful interests who want to uhold the current methods of chemo and radiology which benefit big pharma who provide the drugs used for chemo
Major scientific study now shows cannabis slows cancer growth:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-could-slow-cancer-tumour-growth-9605219.html
Scientists reveal how THC – found in cannabis – ‘could slow cancer tumour growth’
New study from University of East Anglia reveals important details of marijuana’s ‘poorly understood’ anti-cancer properties
Adam Withnall
Monday 14 July 2014
Scientists at a British university have made a major breakthrough in revealing how cannabis could be used as a treatment to prevent the growth of cancer.
Research carried out by a team from the University of East Anglia (UEA) has shed light on the still “poorly understood” theory that an ingredient in marijuana has anti-cancer properties.
There have long been reports that the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis – Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC – has been shown to have success in combatting the growth of cancerous cells, but Cancer Research UK says we need more research before we will know whether the substance can really help treating the disease.
By injecting THC into laboratory mice bearing human cancer cells, scientists were able to identify for the first time two specific receptors that are responsible for the compound’s disease-fighting effects.
The new study, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, could be a big boost for attempts to create a synthetic substitute for cannabis that can fight cancer in a targeted and safe way.
Dr Peter McCormick, from UEA’s school of pharmacy, said: “Our findings help explain some of the well-known but still poorly understood effects of THC at low and high doses on tumour growth.
“There has been a great deal of interest in understanding the molecular mechanisms behind how marijuana, and specifically THC, influence cancer pathology.
“By identifying the receptors involved we have provided an important step towards the future development of therapeutics that can take advantage of the interactions we have discovered to reduce tumour growth.”
Dr McCormick nonetheless insisted that studies like this should not encourage cancer patients to self-medicate.
He said: “Our research uses an isolated chemical compound and using the correct concentration is vital. Cancer patients should not use cannabis to self-medicate, but I hope that our research will lead to a safe synthetic equivalent being available in the future.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-could-slow-cancer-tumour-growth-9605219.html
Scientists reveal how THC – found in cannabis – ‘could slow cancer tumour growth’
New study from University of East Anglia reveals important details of marijuana’s ‘poorly understood’ anti-cancer properties
Adam Withnall
Monday 14 July 2014
Research carried out by a team from the University of East Anglia (UEA) has shed light on the still “poorly understood” theory that an ingredient in marijuana has anti-cancer properties.
There have long been reports that the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis – Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC – has been shown to have success in combatting the growth of cancerous cells, but Cancer Research UK says we need more research before we will know whether the substance can really help treating the disease.
The new study, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, could be a big boost for attempts to create a synthetic substitute for cannabis that can fight cancer in a targeted and safe way.
Dr Peter McCormick, from UEA’s school of pharmacy, said: “Our findings help explain some of the well-known but still poorly understood effects of THC at low and high doses on tumour growth.
“There has been a great deal of interest in understanding the molecular mechanisms behind how marijuana, and specifically THC, influence cancer pathology.
“By identifying the receptors involved we have provided an important step towards the future development of therapeutics that can take advantage of the interactions we have discovered to reduce tumour growth.”
Dr McCormick nonetheless insisted that studies like this should not encourage cancer patients to self-medicate.
He said: “Our research uses an isolated chemical compound and using the correct concentration is vital. Cancer patients should not use cannabis to self-medicate, but I hope that our research will lead to a safe synthetic equivalent being available in the future.”