Cancer is a Fungus: A Revolution in Tumor Therapy
By Dr. Tullio Simoncini – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
Not so long ago Dr Tullio Simoncini made headlines and was summarily destroyed and defrocked from medical society with his sodium bicarbonate cure for cancer tumors. Completely successful. Imagine, baking soda injected into a tumor, and tumor no more. As great as this information is, what good is it if any doctor who uses it has his license to practice, removed. We all know the capital made by AMA treatments will never allow a cure for anything. – CM Maccioli
Following on from my recent piece on baking soda:
Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda): Nature's Unique First Aid Remedy
Sodium bicarbonate has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of conditions, including cancer. The sources present evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, supporting the use of sodium bicarbonate as an adjunctive therapy for cancer. While acknowledging the controversy surrounding Dr. Tullio Simoncini's theories about cancer as a fungus, the sources highlight the role of an acidic pH in promoting cancer growth and the potential benefits of alkalinizing the body with sodium bicarbonate.
I thought I’d go deeper into Dr. Simoncini’s work by summarizing his book Cancer is a Fungus.
To understand “fungus” it is important to understand “valence”, this from Holographic Blood by Bigelsen.
Valence describes the state or form of the endobiont (the basic life unit present in all humans) on a scale from 1 to 10. The concept is central to understanding disease progression.
Valence levels are described as:
Level 1: Normal functioning, healthy state
Level 2: Bacterial infection (acute conditions)
Level 3-10: Various fungal adaptations, with cancer at level 10
The book explains that lower valence conditions (bacterial) develop and clear quickly - like strep throat lasting a few days. Higher valence conditions (fungal) develop slowly - like rheumatic heart disease taking fifty years to manifest.
When antibiotics or other suppressant treatments are used, they force the endobiont to adapt to a higher valence form. For example, when strep bacteria (level 2) are suppressed with antibiotics, they may adapt and move inward, potentially emerging years later as a higher valence fungal condition affecting the heart, kidneys, or joints.
The goal of biological medicine is to lower the valence of disease by addressing terrain conditions. This is achieved primarily through controlling acid-alkaline balance of the blood terrain, which provides the clearest picture of cellular activity. However, the book emphasizes that this must be done carefully to support the body's inherent healing ability rather than creating dependency on outside controls.
With thanks to Dr. Tullio Simoncini.
Analogy
Imagine a mighty fortress under siege. This fortress is the human body, and the invading army is cancer.
For years, the defenders of the fortress (medical researchers) have believed that the enemy's strength lies in its superior weaponry (genetic mutations). They have focused their efforts on developing powerful counter-weapons (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery) to combat this advanced technology.
However, a lone scout (Dr. Simoncini) proposes a radical theory: the enemy is not as technologically advanced as everyone believes. Instead, their strength lies in their sheer numbers and adaptability (Candida fungus).
The scout argues that the fortress is being overrun not by high-tech weapons but by a relentless, adaptable horde that can infiltrate even the most well-defended areas.
He proposes a simple yet powerful weapon (sodium bicarbonate) to target this overlooked enemy. While the fortress's commanders (medical establishment) scoff at the scout's theory, clinging to their belief in the enemy's superior weaponry, the scout demonstrates the effectiveness of his approach through unconventional means.
This analogy encapsulates the book's central message: cancer is not an unbeatable foe with invincible genetic weaponry; it is a pervasive, adaptable infection that can be effectively countered with a simple, readily available treatment if we shift our perspective and challenge conventional thinking. Just as the fortress could be saved by recognizing the true nature of the enemy and employing an effective strategy, the book suggests that we can conquer cancer by understanding its fungal nature and utilizing the power of sodium bicarbonate.
12-point summary
1. Modern medicine has made great strides, but cancer remains a major challenge. Despite advances in medicine, cancer remains a deadly and devastating disease. The fear of cancer pervades society, leaving many feeling powerless in the face of this disease.
2. The current understanding of cancer is limited, and the standard treatments are ineffective. Dr. Simoncini argues that the current understanding of cancer, which focuses on genetic mutations, is flawed. This flawed understanding leads to ineffective and harmful treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
3. Dr. Simoncini proposes a new theory: cancer is caused by a fungus, specifically Candida. Dr. Simoncini argues that cancer is not a result of genetic mutations but an infection caused by the fungus Candida. He believes that Candida can penetrate deep into the body, taking on different forms and causing a wide variety of tumors.
4. The medical establishment is resistant to new ideas, hindering progress in cancer research. Dr. Simoncini criticizes the medical establishment for its resistance to new ideas and its reliance on conventional approaches. He believes that this resistance is driven by a combination of factors, including financial interests and a fear of challenging established dogma.
5. Dr. Simoncini argues that the concept of multifactoriality in cancer is a misleading smokescreen. The idea that cancer is caused by a multitude of factors is often used to explain the disease. However, Dr. Simoncini argues that this concept is misleading and ultimately unhelpful in understanding the true cause of cancer.
6. Dr. Simoncini believes that the statistics used to support conventional cancer treatments are misleading. The 50% survival rate often cited for cancer is misleading, according to Dr. Simoncini. He claims that this statistic is based on flawed data and does not accurately reflect the true mortality rate of cancer.
7. Dr. Simoncini presents evidence of successful cancer treatment using sodium bicarbonate. Dr. Simoncini claims to have successfully treated numerous cancer patients using sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate, he believes, can effectively target and destroy Candida colonies in the body.
8. Dr. Simoncini emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach to health and healing. Dr. Simoncini stresses the importance of considering all aspects of a person's health, including physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. He advocates for a more balanced and integrated approach to healthcare.
9. Dr. Simoncini provides detailed descriptions of sodium bicarbonate treatment for various types of cancer. The book outlines treatment plans using sodium bicarbonate solutions for different types of cancer, including instructions on dosage, administration methods, and potential side effects.
10. Dr. Simoncini emphasizes the simplicity and accessibility of sodium bicarbonate as a treatment option. Sodium bicarbonate is readily available and inexpensive, making it an accessible treatment option for many people. Dr. Simoncini emphasizes the simplicity of administering the treatment, which can often be done at home.
11. Dr. Simoncini includes clinical case studies of patients who have been treated with sodium bicarbonate. Dr. Simoncini provides detailed accounts of several patients with various types of cancer who have undergone treatment with sodium bicarbonate. These case studies aim to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of his approach.
12. Dr. Simoncini concludes by calling for a shift in the medical paradigm and a more open-minded approach to cancer research and treatment. Dr. Simoncini challenges conventional medical thinking and calls for a more open-minded and holistic approach to cancer. He believes that his approach, based on targeting Candida, offers a promising alternative to conventional cancer treatments.
Introduction
The successes recorded by modern medicine in the last 100 years are unquestionably of great importance for the life of man, as medicine has acquired instruments to help him navigate effectively through the vast ocean of disease.
The organization of knowledge, the consciousness of public hygiene, health education, and the abundant use of scientific discoveries from other branches of science such as chemistry and physics are important factors that have allowed a milestone of quality to mark the end of the obscure medical practices of the past.
The relentless development of pharmacology and the evolution of surgical technology and sophisticated diagnostic instruments are the expression of a growing scientific world that has supplied a solid base for obtaining results that have greatly improved the average state of health of the world community.
An imaginary time traveler coming from the 1800s seeing the progress that has been made would certainly be struck positively by the current state of public health.
That notwithstanding, the goals of earlier generations cannot have the same value for those who are experiencing current medical problems as they had for people in the past. In other words, the level of health that we have reached—never to be taken for granted or as a stable situation—needs continuous improvement towards ever greater and more satisfactory levels of well-being. These can be reached only with relentless vigilance and commitment to the elimination of errors and distortions, the prevention of abuses, and the conceiving of new solutions.
These aspects are becoming more pressing because, for a number of years, many have begun to sense that medicine is becoming stalled. It has become too anchored in outdated concepts, and incapable of proposing innovative ones upon which to build new foundations for medical knowledge.
There is a pressing need for new, life-giving sap to impart vigor to an asphyxiating theoretical structure whose philosophy, research, and practice no longer seem attuned with our times. The advanced and demanding society in which we live is no longer satisfied with knowledge from physics and chemistry dominating the combating of any disease. The need to research and introduce therapies that take the integrity and the permanence of a human being into account is emerging more and more forcefully in our society. This must be in the widest economic field of health as possible, and that is adequate to face those degenerative and chronic diseases that today can no longer be fought with current therapies that are narrow, limited, and obsolete.
There has been a transition in the last century from the predominance of sthenic pathologies, that is, those that occur in a young, fit body, to that of asthenic diseases that occur in patients who are older and less fit. The notable scientific and social consequences of this change have not been paralleled with the increased medical consciousness necessary to favor a widening of the theoretical boundaries of a disease.
Quite the contrary, there has been a myopic preference for ignoring the consequences of a way of perceiving which is excessively specialized and short-sighted. Priority has been given to the immediate effects of a treatment, leaving the rest to chance.
This attitude demonstrates a deep and grave impasse in the treatment of disease, confirmed by the lack of theories and perspectives that enable us to see a physical disease in a new manner different from the old. So far, there have been partial diagnoses that include only pathogenic analyses in a therapeutical perspective that is only symptomatological. Conversely, it is the entire individual who must be considered, both in his vital dynamics and from a psychological and even spiritual perspective, even if these cannot be measured.
The soul and the body are not two separate and non-communicating domains, but two manifestations of the same being, and equally responsible for the health of an individual.
Because medical orthodoxy is closed a priori to this concept, the need for a deep renewal is inducing thinkers and doctors to adopt alternative positions with increasing frequency. This is demonstrated by the growth of writing and testimonials that are not in step with the dictates of official medicine. This happens especially in the area of oncology, where a deep state of confusion and resignation is felt the most.
It is in this area, in fact, that the failure of medicine is most glaring; it is here where the symptomatological approach reveals its limitations; it is here where medical theories end in an infinite number of cul-de-sacs.
Genetics, the battle horse of modern oncology, is about to give up the ghost, together with its endless explanations based on enzymatic and receptor processes. Actually, it has already failed—it is just that no one can think of anything else that can take its place. The consequence of the oncological establishment's inability to admit the failure of this line of research, which is at this point scientifically indefensible, is the continuous waste of a great quantity of economic, scientific, and human resources.
What road to take? Where to look for those minimal logical elements that can shed light on the ignorance that pervades oncology?
Many thinkers—especially biologists—believe that by applying the Darwinian theory to the evolution of living beings, it may be possible to progress down a new path when it comes to the so-called degenerative diseases such as cancer, cardiopathies, and mental illness. According to this line of thought, these diseases are not attributable to environmental or genetic factors as is presently believed, but to infections.
Therefore, the answer to the question of what causes a degenerative disease can be found in the discipline that more than anything else has given luster to medicine and which has promoted medicine from a mere practice to a science: microbiology.
It is, in fact, clear that, with the exception of bacteriology, the state of knowledge in this field of research is still quite limited, especially when it comes to viruses, sub-viruses, and fungi, whose pathogenic valence, unfortunately, is little known.
It is true that scholars have given more attention to these biological entities recently, and in fact, the concept of "innocuous co-existence" attributed to many parasites of the body has begun to be questioned with much greater conviction. More determination is needed, however, in this process of the revision of microbiology so that the close connection between micro-organisms and degenerative diseases can be clarified.
I believe that it is by focusing on just one of these shadowy areas—on mycology, the realm of fungi—that it will become possible to discover the correct answers to questions concerning the problem of tumors.
Much evidence indicates that this is the road to take. The analogy between psoriasis—an incurable disease of the skin that many treat as fungus—and tumors, which are also an incurable disease of the organism, the symptomatological overlapping of systemic candidosis and cancer, and the strict genetic relationship between mycetes and neoplastic masses make this clear. These are all elements that support and confirm the point of view that all types of cancer, as happens in the vegetal world, are caused by a fungus.
A fungal infection—that of the candida species—could supply the explanation for why a tumor occurs, and it is in this direction that research should move in the attempt to solve the problem of cancer once and for all.
In my personal experience, the only substance that is effective against diffused neoplasms is sodium bicarbonate. Years of parenteral administration—that is, administration directly into the tissue through veins, arteries, or in cavities—have shown that it is possible to obtain a regression of neoplastic masses in many patients, and sometimes to resolve their state of disease up to the point of healing it.
It is the purpose of this book to explain this new, simple approach that fights a disease that is extremely devastating and variegated.
It is my firm hope that the fundamental role of fungi in the development of neoplastic disease will soon be acknowledged, so that it will be possible to find, with the help of all the existing forces of the health establishment, those anti-mycotic drugs and those systems of therapy that can quickly defeat, without damage and suffering, a disease that brings so much devastation to humanity.
Dr. T. Simoncini,
Rome, October 12, 2005
30 Questions & Answers
Question 1: What is Dr. Simoncini's core assertion about the nature of cancer, and how does it deviate from conventional medical perspectives?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini contends that cancer is not primarily a genetic disease, as is commonly believed, but rather a complex fungal infection. He challenges the prevailing view that cancer arises from uncontrolled cell growth driven by genetic mutations. This assertion directly contradicts conventional oncology, which focuses on targeting these mutated cells through surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.
Dr. Simoncini posits that Candida albicans, a common fungus typically present in the human body, plays a central role in cancer development. He suggests that under certain conditions, Candida can become pathogenic and invade various tissues, leading to tumor formation. This alternative perspective shifts the focus from targeting abnormal cells to addressing the underlying fungal infection.
Question 2: Could you elaborate on Dr. Simoncini's argument that cancer is fundamentally a fungal infection, as opposed to a genetic disease?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini argues that the genetic mutations observed in cancer cells are not the root cause of the disease, but rather a consequence of the fungal infection. He suggests that as Candida albicans invades tissues, it triggers an immune response and inflammation. This chronic inflammatory environment, he believes, leads to cellular damage and ultimately to the genetic alterations seen in cancer cells.
He contends that conventional oncology's focus on targeting these mutated cells is misguided, as it fails to address the underlying fungal infection driving the process. Dr. Simoncini argues that by directly addressing the Candida infection, the inflammatory cascade can be halted, potentially leading to tumor regression and ultimately, a cure.
Question 3: What specific evidence does Dr. Simoncini present to substantiate his theory of cancer's fungal origin?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini draws on several lines of evidence to support his theory. He cites research demonstrating the prevalence of Candida albicans in tumor tissues, suggesting a strong correlation between the presence of the fungus and cancer development. He points to the ability of Candida to invade and destroy various tissues, mimicking the invasive behavior of cancer cells.
Furthermore, Dr. Simoncini presents case studies of patients treated with his sodium bicarbonate therapy, which he claims targets Candida infections. He highlights cases where tumors regressed or disappeared following this treatment, suggesting its effectiveness against the underlying fungal cause. However, these case studies lack the rigor of controlled clinical trials.
Dr. Simoncini’s Theory of Cancer
Dr. Simoncini's theory of cancer is centered around the idea that cancer is a fungal infection, specifically caused by Candida. He believes that Candida, a type of fungus commonly found in the human body, can penetrate deep into tissues and organs, leading to the development of tumors. Simoncini argues that Candida is able to thrive in acidic environments within the body and draws a parallel between cancer and psoriasis, another incurable disease that he believes is also caused by a fungus.
Here are the key points of his theory:
Candida's Opportunism: Simoncini contends that Candida, often considered an opportunistic microorganism, is more aggressive and invasive than commonly believed. He suggests that its ability to adapt and change its form makes it difficult to detect and allows it to effectively colonize various parts of the body.
Connective Tissue as the Battlefield: He emphasizes the role of connective tissue, which provides nourishment to cells, as the primary site of Candida's attack. He believes that when connective tissue is weakened or compromised, it becomes easier for Candida to establish colonies and proliferate, leading to tumor formation.
Metastasis as Fungal Spread: Simoncini rejects the conventional view of metastasis as the migration of cancerous cells. Instead, he proposes that metastasis is the result of Candida spreading from the primary tumor site and establishing new colonies in other parts of the body.
Sodium Bicarbonate as the Solution: Simoncini believes that sodium bicarbonate, a readily available and inexpensive substance, can effectively target and destroy Candida colonies. He posits that sodium bicarbonate's antifungal properties create an alkaline environment that is hostile to Candida's growth, thus leading to tumor regression.
Question 4: What is Candida albicans, and what is its typical function within the human body?
Answer: Candida albicans is a type of fungus commonly found in the human body, particularly in the mouth, gut, and skin. It typically exists in a harmless, commensal state, coexisting with other microorganisms without causing any problems. Candida plays a role in nutrient absorption and digestion.
However, under certain conditions, such as a weakened immune system, antibiotic use, or hormonal imbalances, Candida can overgrow and transition into a pathogenic state. This overgrowth can lead to various health issues, ranging from mild infections like thrush to more serious systemic infections.
Question 5: Under what circumstances can Candida albicans transition from a harmless commensal to a disease-causing agent?
Answer: Candida albicans can become pathogenic when the delicate balance of the body's microbiome is disrupted. Several factors can contribute to this disruption, allowing Candida to overgrow and invade tissues. A weakened immune system, often due to illness, stress, or medications, can make the body more susceptible to Candida infections.
The use of antibiotics can also disrupt the normal balance of bacteria in the body, creating an environment where Candida can thrive. Other factors that can contribute to Candida overgrowth include hormonal imbalances, high sugar diets, and certain medical conditions like diabetes.
Question 6: How does Dr. Simoncini characterize the behavior of Candida albicans in connective tissue, and how does this differ from its behavior in other types of tissues?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini suggests that Candida albicans exhibits a particularly aggressive behavior in connective tissue. He describes how it can infiltrate and "eat" the structural components of these tissues, leading to the formation of tumor masses. This aggressive behavior, he believes, is due to the abundance of nutrients and the relatively weaker immune surveillance in connective tissue compared to other tissues.
He contrasts this with Candida's behavior on epithelial surfaces, where it tends to grow more superficially and is more readily controlled by the immune system. Dr. Simoncini argues that this difference in behavior is a key factor in the development of cancer.
Question 7: What are Dr. Simoncini's primary criticisms of standard cancer treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini strongly criticizes conventional cancer treatments, arguing that they are ineffective and often harmful. He contends that surgery, while removing the visible tumor, fails to address the underlying fungal infection and may even spread Candida cells to other areas of the body.
He argues that chemotherapy and radiotherapy, while intended to kill cancer cells, also weaken the immune system, making the body more vulnerable to further fungal invasion. He believes these treatments create a vicious cycle where the weakened immune system allows Candida to thrive, contributing to tumor recurrence and metastasis.
Question 8: Why does Dr. Simoncini contend that these conventional treatments are often ineffective and potentially detrimental to patients' health?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini argues that the ineffectiveness of conventional cancer treatments stems from their failure to address the root cause, which he believes is the Candida infection. He contends that by targeting only the symptoms – the mutated cancer cells – these treatments provide temporary relief at best, while the underlying fungal infection continues to grow and spread.
He further suggests that these treatments, particularly chemotherapy and radiotherapy, weaken the immune system, paradoxically making the body more susceptible to further fungal invasion and tumor recurrence. This, he believes, explains why cancer often returns despite aggressive treatment, and why patients often experience debilitating side effects.
Question 9: What does Dr. Simoncini mean by the "bluff" of cancer statistics, and what specific concerns does he raise regarding their accuracy and interpretation?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini challenges the validity and interpretation of cancer statistics, arguing that they create a false sense of progress in cancer treatment. He contends that the often-cited 50% survival rate is misleading, as it often includes patients with less aggressive cancers and those who died from treatment side effects, rather than the disease itself.
He criticizes the methodology used to collect and analyze cancer data, suggesting that it is often biased and manipulated to support the conventional oncology paradigm. Dr. Simoncini calls for more transparent and accurate reporting of cancer statistics to provide a more realistic picture of the effectiveness of current treatments.
Question 10: According to Dr. Simoncini, what inherent properties of sodium bicarbonate make it a potentially effective treatment against Candida infections?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini proposes that sodium bicarbonate, a common household substance, possesses properties that make it an effective antifungal agent, specifically against Candida albicans. He highlights its alkalinity, suggesting that it creates an environment hostile to Candida, which thrives in acidic conditions.
He further suggests that sodium bicarbonate can penetrate tissues and reach deep-seated fungal colonies, where it disrupts their cellular structure and metabolic processes, leading to their destruction. Dr. Simoncini contends that this direct targeting of the fungal infection is key to achieving a lasting cure for cancer.
Question 11: How does Dr. Simoncini link the concept of "moral presuppositions" to health and disease, and how does this perspective influence his understanding of cancer?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini suggests that health and disease are not solely determined by physical factors but are also influenced by an individual's "moral presuppositions," encompassing their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. He proposes that maintaining a balanced and harmonious state of mind, along with positive moral principles, can strengthen the nervous system and enhance overall well-being. Conversely, negative emotions, stress, and moral conflicts can weaken the body's defenses and create a predisposition to disease.
Dr. Simoncini extends this concept to cancer, suggesting that emotional distress and negative thought patterns can create an internal environment conducive to fungal growth and tumor development. He emphasizes the importance of addressing these underlying psychological and spiritual factors as part of a comprehensive approach to cancer treatment.
Question 12: How does Dr. Simoncini's philosophical perspective on the interconnectedness of "bands of existence" shape his approach to medicine and cancer treatment?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini embraces a holistic view of human existence, proposing the concept of "bands of existence" to represent the interconnectedness of the physical body, neurological structure, mind, intellect, psyche, and spirit. He argues that each of these levels influences the others and that imbalances in one area can manifest as disease in another.
This philosophical perspective underlies Dr. Simoncini's approach to medicine, emphasizing the need to treat the whole person, rather than solely focusing on physical symptoms. He contends that understanding and addressing the interplay between these various "bands of existence" is crucial for achieving true healing, particularly in the case of complex diseases like cancer.
Question 13: What does Dr. Simoncini mean by the "bluff of multifactoriality" in cancer research, and why does he consider it a hindrance to finding effective treatments?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini criticizes the concept of multifactoriality in cancer research, arguing that it serves as a convenient excuse for the lack of progress in understanding the true cause of the disease. He contends that attributing cancer to a multitude of factors, ranging from genetics to environmental toxins to lifestyle choices, obscures the possibility of identifying a single, primary cause.
Dr. Simoncini argues that this "multifactorial" approach leads to a diffusion of research efforts across countless variables, without a clear focus or direction. He believes this approach is inherently flawed and ultimately unproductive, diverting attention from the potential of a single, unifying cause, such as the fungal infection he proposes.
Question 14: According to Dr. Simoncini, how do conventional research methods and practices in oncology contribute to perpetuating the "bluff" of scientific progress?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini criticizes the prevailing research methods and practices in oncology, arguing that they prioritize molecular and genetic investigations while neglecting the potential role of microorganisms like fungi. He contends that the emphasis on complex and expensive genetic studies, often fueled by pharmaceutical interests, creates an illusion of progress without yielding tangible benefits for patients.
Dr. Simoncini accuses the medical establishment of suppressing alternative perspectives and treatments that challenge the conventional paradigm, particularly those that focus on infectious causes like Candida. He argues that this resistance to new ideas and methods hinders genuine scientific progress and perpetuates the "bluff" of effectiveness surrounding current cancer treatments.
Question 15: What are the key features of fungi, particularly Candida albicans, that Dr. Simoncini highlights to explain their potential role in tumor development?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini emphasizes specific characteristics of fungi, particularly Candida albicans, to support his theory of their involvement in cancer. He points to their heterotrophic nature, meaning they rely on external sources of nutrients, suggesting they could exploit the nutrient-rich environment of human tissues.
He highlights their ability to penetrate and invade solid surfaces, even cell walls, using hyphae, thread-like structures that allow them to grow and spread through tissues. Dr. Simoncini contends that this invasive capacity mirrors the behavior of cancer cells, supporting their potential role in tumor formation.
Dr. Simoncini also notes the remarkable adaptability and polymorphism of Candida, enabling it to thrive in diverse environments and evade the immune system. He suggests that this resilience makes Candida a formidable opponent and contributes to its persistence in the body, potentially leading to chronic infections and tumor development.
Question 16: What specific properties of sodium bicarbonate does Dr. Simoncini believe make it an effective therapeutic agent against cancer, and how does its mechanism of action differ from conventional treatments?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini posits that sodium bicarbonate's alkalinity creates an environment hostile to Candida, which prefers acidic conditions. He suggests that by increasing the pH of the surrounding tissues, sodium bicarbonate inhibits fungal growth and disrupts its metabolic processes.
He also notes that sodium bicarbonate can penetrate tissues and reach deep-seated fungal colonies, effectively targeting the source of the infection. He believes this direct approach contrasts with conventional therapies that focus on killing mutated cells without addressing the underlying fungal cause. This fundamental difference in mechanism of action, Dr. Simoncini argues, explains the potential of sodium bicarbonate as a more effective and less harmful treatment for cancer.
Question 17: What general principles does Dr. Simoncini outline for the administration of sodium bicarbonate therapy, including dosage, concentration, and mode of delivery?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini emphasizes the importance of administering sodium bicarbonate therapy in a manner that ensures direct contact with the tumor mass, maximizing its effectiveness. He recommends using a 5% solution of sodium bicarbonate, with dosages adjusted based on the patient's body mass and tumor size.
Dr. Simoncini advocates for continuous administration of the solution over several days, typically 7-8 days for the first cycle, to achieve sustained suppression of fungal growth. He suggests that this aggressive approach is crucial for preventing the resurgence of the infection. The mode of delivery varies depending on the tumor location, with options including:
Oral administration for tumors in the mouth, throat, and stomach
Intravenous infusion for systemic effects
Direct injection into the tumor or arterial infusion for localized treatment
Catheterization of body cavities like the pleura or peritoneum for tumors in these areas
Dr. Simoncini stresses that these are general guidelines and that treatment protocols should be individualized based on the specific needs of each patient.
Question 18: Can you provide a concise summary of Dr. Simoncini's personal journey and the events that led him to develop his alternative theory of cancer and sodium bicarbonate therapy?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini's interest in challenging conventional cancer treatment began during his medical training, when he questioned the prevailing view of cancer as a mysterious and incurable disease. His early experiences in pediatric oncology, witnessing the suffering of children undergoing chemotherapy, further fueled his determination to seek alternative solutions.
Dr. Simoncini's initial inspiration came from observing the regression of tumors in patients with metabolic acidosis treated with sodium bicarbonate. He theorized that the antifungal properties of sodium bicarbonate could be the key to its effectiveness. Further observations, research, and the treatment of various types of cancers with sodium bicarbonate strengthened his belief in the fungal nature of the disease. Dr. Simoncini's personal journey is marked by a relentless pursuit of a more effective and humane approach to cancer treatment, driven by his compassion for patients and his willingness to challenge established medical dogma.
Question 19: What are the key points of contention between Dr. Simoncini's perspective on cancer and the prevailing views of conventional oncology?
Answer: The core disagreement lies in the understanding of the fundamental cause of cancer. Conventional oncology attributes cancer to genetic mutations that lead to uncontrolled cell growth, while Dr. Simoncini contends that it is primarily a fungal infection driven by Candida albicans.
This difference in perspective leads to divergent approaches to treatment. Conventional oncology focuses on targeting the mutated cells through surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, while Dr. Simoncini advocates for addressing the underlying fungal infection with sodium bicarbonate therapy.
Furthermore, Dr. Simoncini criticizes the research methods and practices of conventional oncology, arguing that they are overly focused on genetics and molecular mechanisms, neglecting the potential role of microorganisms in cancer development. He also questions the accuracy and interpretation of cancer statistics, suggesting they create a false sense of progress and obscure the limitations of current treatments.
Question 20: How does Dr. Simoncini address the potential for bias in his own work and findings, given his strong criticisms of conventional oncology and his advocacy for an alternative approach?
Answer: Dr. Simoncini acknowledges the potential for bias in his own work, stemming from his strong convictions and his role as both a researcher and a clinician. He emphasizes the need for transparency and rigorous documentation of his cases, encouraging others to independently verify his findings.
He invites scrutiny from the medical community, challenging them to examine his theory and clinical results with an open mind, despite their potential conflict with established medical dogma. He emphasizes that his primary goal is to find a more effective and compassionate treatment for cancer, urging others to prioritize patient well-being over adherence to conventional paradigms.
Question 21: What are the three categories of causes that Dr. Simoncini proposes for the development of tumors, and how do they differ from the conventional view of cancer etiology?
Dr. Simoncini categorizes the causes of tumors into three groups: autogenous, mixed, and exogenous.
Autogenous causes are internal factors that weaken the body's defenses and create conditions favorable for fungal growth. Examples include malnutrition, hormonal imbalances, and chronic stress.
Mixed causes involve the interaction of internal and external factors, such as a weakened immune system combined with exposure to environmental toxins.
Exogenous causes are primarily external factors, including exposure to infectious agents like Candida albicans.
This categorization differs from conventional oncology, which primarily focuses on endogenous factors, particularly genetic mutations, as the primary drivers of cancer. Dr. Simoncini's emphasis on exogenous factors, especially fungal infections, represents a significant departure from the prevailing view.
Question 22: How does Dr. Simoncini explain the phenomenon of benign tumors, and why does he consider it significant in understanding the nature of cancer?
Dr. Simoncini argues that benign tumors are often overlooked in conventional oncology, relegated to a less concerning category simply because they typically do not pose immediate threats. He believes that understanding the development of benign tumors could offer crucial insights into the nature of cancer itself.
He suggests that benign tumors could represent an early stage of fungal infection, where the body's immune system is still able to contain the growth of the fungal colony. He proposes that if left untreated, these benign tumors could progress to a more aggressive, malignant state as the fungal infection becomes more established and overwhelms the body's defenses.
Question 23: What specific arguments does Dr. Simoncini present to challenge the concept of genetic mutations as the primary cause of cancer?
Dr. Simoncini contends that the prevailing focus on genetic mutations as the primary cause of cancer is a misdirection of research efforts and a distraction from the true underlying cause: fungal infection. He presents several arguments to support his position:
Lack of scientific proof: He argues that the current understanding of genetic alterations in cancer is largely hypothetical and lacks definitive proof. He points out that the mechanisms by which these genetic changes supposedly lead to uncontrolled cell growth are still largely unknown.
Circular reasoning: Dr. Simoncini criticizes the logic used in genetic research on cancer, suggesting it often falls into a trap of circular reasoning, where one unknown phenomenon is explained by another equally unknown phenomenon.
Overemphasis on multifactoriality: He believes that attributing cancer to multiple factors, including genetic mutations, environmental toxins, and lifestyle choices, creates a confusing and ultimately unhelpful picture that obscures the potential of a single, primary cause.
Limited success of genetic therapies: Dr. Simoncini highlights the limited success of therapies targeting specific genes or genetic pathways in cancer treatment, suggesting that focusing solely on genetics is unlikely to lead to a cure.
Question 24: What are the key elements of Dr. Simoncini's proposed approach to cancer treatment, and how do they differ from conventional therapies?
Dr. Simoncini proposes an alternative approach to cancer treatment based on his theory that the disease is primarily a fungal infection caused by Candida albicans. His approach centers around:
Sodium Bicarbonate Therapy: He advocates for the use of sodium bicarbonate as the primary therapeutic agent, believing its antifungal properties can effectively target and destroy Candida colonies within tumors.
Direct Targeting of Tumors: He emphasizes the importance of delivering sodium bicarbonate directly to the tumor site, using various methods like intravenous infusion, catheterization, or direct injection, to ensure maximum effectiveness.
Holistic Considerations: While prioritizing the treatment of the fungal infection, Dr. Simoncini acknowledges the importance of addressing the overall health and well-being of the patient. He recommends lifestyle modifications, dietary changes, and stress reduction techniques to support the body's natural healing processes.
This approach contrasts sharply with conventional cancer therapies, which primarily focus on:
Surgery: Removing the tumor mass.
Chemotherapy: Using cytotoxic drugs to kill rapidly dividing cells.
Radiation Therapy: Using high-energy radiation to damage and kill cancer cells.
Question 25: What are some of the challenges and limitations that Dr. Simoncini has faced in gaining acceptance for his alternative theory and treatment approach?
Dr. Simoncini has encountered significant resistance from the medical establishment in gaining acceptance for his ideas. Some of the challenges he has faced include:
Dismissal as unconventional: His theory directly challenges the prevailing paradigm in oncology, leading to skepticism and dismissal from mainstream medical professionals.
Lack of large-scale clinical trials: Dr. Simoncini's work has primarily involved individual case studies and small-scale observations, which are not considered sufficient evidence by conventional medical standards. Conducting large-scale clinical trials requires significant funding and institutional support, which he has struggled to obtain.
Suppression of alternative perspectives: Dr. Simoncini argues that there is a systemic bias within the medical community against alternative therapies that challenge established practices, making it difficult to disseminate his findings and gain recognition for his work.
Difficulties in collaboration: He has encountered reluctance from other medical specialists, particularly radiologists and surgeons, to collaborate on his treatment approach, limiting his ability to reach certain tumor locations.
Question 26: How does Dr. Simoncini respond to the criticism that his theory lacks sufficient scientific evidence and rigorous testing?
Dr. Simoncini acknowledges the need for more rigorous scientific evidence to support his theory and treatment approach. He argues that his initial observations and case studies provide a compelling foundation for further investigation. He believes that the lack of large-scale clinical trials is due to the resistance he faces from the medical establishment and the difficulty in securing funding for research that challenges conventional paradigms.
He challenges the medical community to engage with his work in a more open-minded manner, suggesting that the potential benefits for cancer patients warrant serious consideration and investigation, even if his ideas deviate from currently accepted norms.
Question 27: What specific examples does Dr. Simoncini provide to demonstrate the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate therapy in treating various types of cancer?
Dr. Simoncini presents several clinical cases throughout the source to illustrate the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate therapy in treating various types of cancer. These cases include:
Lung Cancer: A patient with pulmonary neoplasm who showed significant tumor regression after treatment with sodium bicarbonate.
Hepatocarcinoma with Pulmonary Metastasis: A patient with liver cancer and lung metastases who experienced a dramatic reduction in tumor size following sodium bicarbonate therapy.
Terminal Carcinoma of Uterine Cervix: A patient with advanced cervical cancer who, despite a grim prognosis, showed remarkable improvement in health and tumor regression after treatment with sodium bicarbonate.
Endometrial Adenocarcinoma: A patient with endometrial cancer who opted for sodium bicarbonate therapy over conventional treatments and experienced a stabilization of the disease and improvement in overall health.
Relapsing Bladder Neoplasia: A patient with recurrent bladder cancer who, after undergoing sodium bicarbonate therapy, experienced no further relapses or tumor formations for over a year and a half.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: A patient with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma who showed a considerable decrease in tumor mass after treatment with sodium bicarbonate.
Prostate Adenocarcinoma: An 80-year-old patient with prostate cancer who experienced a significant reduction in tumor size after sodium bicarbonate therapy.
Question 28: How does Dr. Simoncini use the example of the "onion" to explain the mechanism of sodium bicarbonate's action on tumor masses?
Dr. Simoncini uses the analogy of an onion to illustrate how sodium bicarbonate disrupts and dismantles tumor masses. He explains that an onion is composed of multiple concentric layers, similar to the structure of a tumor that has successfully evaded the body's immune system.
He suggests that sodium bicarbonate penetrates these layers, progressively weakening and dissolving the fungal colonies that form the core of the tumor. This process disrupts the tumor's structural integrity, making it more vulnerable to the body's immune defenses. He emphasizes that the effectiveness of this approach depends on consistent and sustained administration of sodium bicarbonate to ensure complete eradication of the fungal infection.
Question 29: What are some of the potential risks and side effects associated with sodium bicarbonate therapy, and how does Dr. Simoncini address these concerns?
Dr. Simoncini acknowledges that sodium bicarbonate therapy can cause some side effects, primarily:
Thirst: A common side effect during treatment.
Pain: A general but temporary sense of pain can occur, especially during arterial injections.
Tachycardia: Rapid heart rate can occur in some cases.
Mental Performance Decline: In cases of large brain tumors, temporary cognitive impairment can occur after treatment.
Diarrhea: Can occur with oral or intestinal administration of sodium bicarbonate.
Flatulence and Fullness: Common with intraperitoneal administration.
He emphasizes that these side effects are generally mild and transient, often subsiding as the treatment progresses. He also stresses that the dosages of sodium bicarbonate used in his therapy are well within safe limits, having been utilized for decades in other medical contexts without significant adverse effects. He advises adjusting dosages and treatment schedules as needed to minimize discomfort and manage potential side effects.
Question 30: What are Dr. Simoncini's recommendations regarding diet and lifestyle changes as part of a holistic approach to cancer treatment?
Dr. Simoncini advocates for a holistic approach to cancer treatment, emphasizing the importance of lifestyle changes and dietary modifications to support overall health and enhance the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate therapy. He provides general recommendations:
Healthy Diet: He emphasizes the importance of a balanced and nutritious diet that supports immune function and overall well-being.
Oxygenation: He recommends practices that improve oxygen intake, such as deep breathing exercises and spending time in nature.
Hydration: He stresses the importance of adequate hydration, suggesting that water helps flush toxins from the body.
Salt Intake: He recommends moderate salt intake, suggesting that salt plays a role in maintaining electrolyte balance and supporting cellular function.
Regular Sleep and Rest: He emphasizes the importance of adequate sleep and rest for neurological health and immune system recovery.
Stress Management: He recommends stress reduction techniques, such as meditation, yoga, or spending time in nature, to promote emotional well-being and strengthen the body's defenses.
Prudence in Physical Activity: He advises against overexertion, suggesting that moderate physical activity is beneficial, but excessive fatigue can weaken the body.
Moderation in Social and Cultural Commitments: He recommends finding a balance between social engagement and personal time, avoiding excessive commitments that can lead to stress and energy depletion.
Moderation in Passions and Appetites: He suggests practicing self-control and avoiding excessive indulgence in desires and cravings that can drain vital energy.
Choosing the Superior Good: He encourages individuals to prioritize ethical principles and cultivate a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives, suggesting that these choices contribute to spiritual well-being and overall health.
He believes that these lifestyle and dietary recommendations, in conjunction with sodium bicarbonate therapy, create a synergistic effect that promotes healing and supports the body's natural ability to combat disease.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
After suffering a seemingly devastating blow that I was not recovering from I finally went to a homeopath because previous doctors thought my problem was psychosomatic. The look on Dr Maulfair's face when we first met told me how bad my outward appearance was. He chelated me immediately, a 3 hr intravenous, followed my a 2 hr nutritional and finally a 1 hr Vit C infusion, followed by exactly the same for the next 3 days.
The first thing Dr Maulfair checked for when we finally got to the physical exam was candida. An easy visual diagnosis by just opening your mouth, looking & swabbing. A list of foods was printed out for me by his wife and off I went to adapt, followed by continual checks to make sure the candida was resolved. It was during that time I found Dr Simoncini's work.
I know of no one personally but have read the testimonials of US citizens who flew to Italy to personally see Dr Simoncini. It went like this: The patient flew to Rome with a family member and checked into the hotel. At a designated time a nurse would arrive and take you to Dr Simoncini's clinic where treatment commenced. Duration was based on size and condition.
After release from clinic you would return to hotel for roughly a week accompanied by said nurse, who walked you thru every step of the procedure so that upon return to the US you could continue with your treatments in your own home.
I was like WHOA!! think of the magnitude of this. Can't remember, but somewhere around $20,000 comes to mind for treatment. No hospitals involved, that's a "hell no", no constant tests and blood draws, no doctors poking there noses into your room and charging you for a visit, no shit food, you're in Italy for God's sake, no followup doctor visits, no 1/2 million price tag when you leave the hospital. THAT'S how I know Dr Simoncini is the real deal. And THAT'S the reason he had to be destroyed, just like Dr Moulden, Kary Mullis etc, etc, etc.
Wrong. Cancer is just a symptom of continuing poisoning. Cancer cells are made by our bodies to contain those toxic substances.