Re: "Cancer is a fungus" --or fraud?

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:04:07 +1100, "Carole" <hubbca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Martin" <idontwantno@spam> wrote in message
news:v2sko35jkovv7talm6o3ud61ihg4j0gdqi@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:35:12 +1100, "Carole" <hubbca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13oig0i99m18t57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you
can
see for yourself.

(My advice, for anyone wanting to learn more about alternative cancer
methods, is to skip all the hype, skip all the theorising, and look at
the
testimonials or case reports. Try to understand not only what they
tell
you
about the patients, but *what they tell you about the author*. )

I looked at about ten case reports on this site and found only one
that
seriously tries to demonstrate clear-cut regression of cancer with this
extremely unlikely treatment method. Most are skimpy very short term
accounts showing highly dubious benefits.

This one case is illustrated by the CT scans at


http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/hepatic-carcinoma-pulmonary-metastasis.ht
m
l

The top two are supposed to show the disappearance of lung metastases
and
the bottom two regression of the primary cancer in the liver ( they are
labeled the wrong way round).

But look at the shape of the heart in the centre of the first lung scan
(the
large round white blob). The second scan, supposedly showing the
metastases have gone, is taken at a very different level. It is
MUCH
higher up, above the level of the heart, at the level of the aorta and
pulmonary vessels. We cannot tell from these films whether the
metastases
are gone or not! (you must click on the films to enlarge them).

It is also highly suspicious that the patient's name and the text
showing
the level of the "cut" have been lopped off the top left hand corner of
the
second scan, yet this information is present on the other three scans.
This looks like an amateurish attempt to obscure what is obvious enough
from
the anatomy, but it also means we can't even know for sure that the
second
scan belongs to the same patient.

There's more. Both liver scans are taken at the same level, as shown
by
the consistent anatomy and the +270 in the top left hand corner of both
films. But they actually show no change in the overall size of the
cancer.
The cancer sufferer is expected to interpret the obvious darker area
in
the
liver (towards the left of the picture) as the extent of the cancer,
but
this is merely some necrosis or liquefaction in its centre. The full
extent
of the cancer is shown by the larger surrounding area of circular
shading.
The cancer appears slightly darker than the rest of the liver in the
first
liver scan. Intravenous contrast has been used during the second
liver
scan to allow blood flow to show up, so the living cancer thus now
shows
up
as a lighter shadow. The increased vascularity (blood vessels) at the
edge
of the cancer only shows up in this later film. The cancer is about
the
same size, if not larger.

So, medical ignoramus, or out-and-out fraud? I think both. What do
you
think, and why?

Thank you for this Carole. I will add this case to my piece on how to
read
a cancer testimonial
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm

PM


Good on you Peter. I can see you have done some serious research and
although I don't know how to interpret x-rays myself, I can understand
what
you're saying.

However, I decided that Dr Simoncini was probably onto something, but I
use
a different method to arrive at my conclusion, rather than studying his
case
histories -

You mean that you have a preconceived notion and if anyone says
something that agrees with that, you like the idea, period. You do not
see any reason to investigate the facts, like Peter Moran does.

Peter checks out the facts and judges them according to certain scientific
standards that he thinks are the industry standard.
Part of his rationale for including or excluding a therapy is if there are
scientific studies to support it.
However, what he doesn't take into account is that in the corrupt world of
conventional medicine, there is no support for people who wish to do certain
studies that aren't in conformity with the system.

Uhm, no. Peter Moran noticed the x-rays on Simoncini's website are not
what Simoncini says they are. They do not show a cancer that has been
cured, not by any standard, period.

* He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me

He doesn't have any evidence though, but you don't care about that.
All you care about is the fact that it agrees with your preconceived
notion.

Yes, but the orthopaths (do you know about orthopathy Martin?) claim that
there are seven stages of disease, the final one being fungation. Do you
know what fungation is?
See http://www.seedsforchangewellness.com/ArticleSevenStagesOfDisease.html

Is there any evidence for those claims? Oh yeah, that´s right, you
don´t care about evidence, only about what sounds good to you. Sorry I
asked.

- how a fungus can take different forms and behaves, also when a person
is operated
on the cancer spreads which he describes as the spores getting into the
system.

Without any evidence, again.

When the tumour is cut open it is common knowledge, even amongst the general
public, that this often spreads the cancer.

That common knowledge happens to be as wrong as the once common
knowledge that the earth is flat.

This could be because it spreads the spores which were otherwise locked
inside the tumour.

Since it doesn´t spread, your idea is wrong.

In the article Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus?
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CancerIsAFungus.html Dr Simoncini
describes the typical behaviour of a fungus and how it mutates according to
its environment, and how it needs a certain environment to sustain itself.
Its a good read and very interesting.

It´s a good read if you´re interested in pathological thinking.

* He shows pictures of the fungus

No he doesn't. He shows a picture and *claims* it's a fungus. No
evidence of course. The presence of a fungus should be easy to prove,
but alas, he offers none.

Point noted.
However, I don't need to have this proof for my own purposes because I can
get rid of athletes foot with cellsalts, some of which are found in bicarb.

See, you don´t care about evidence, only about your preconceived
notions. You´re so arrogant that even the possibility that you might
be wrong or that things may be more complex than you know doesn´t even
occur to you. Bare that in mind next time you accuse doctors of being
arrogant.

However, there are 12 essential cellsalts and taking any one or two for a
prolonged period without understanding the need for balance, isn't good. A
person needs to do a little research on cellsalts because symptoms change
during the course of treatment.
I don't think Dr Simoncini understands cellsalts and says that bicarb
shouldn't be used as a preventive treatment, probably because of this
reason. It can unbalance the body.

But he isn´t using it preventative, so why do you bring this up?

Also the reason he may not have as much success as he should is because of
this same reason.

So now he doesn´t have success? But despite the fact he doesn´t have
success, you still believe his method works. Incredible.

and has been in oncology for 20 years or
so and is an independent thinking person, who likes to work things out
for
himself.

Which means he's so full of himself that he thinks he knows it all.

Maybe he is an INTJ (Myer briggs type test -- look it up).
You see Martin, some people are ESTJ's which are the type who follow orders,
go along with groupthink easily, and like to keep the system running like a
well oiled machine.

INTJ's like to think for themselves and don't like groupthink.

It´s not about groupthink. It´s about the arrogance of the presumption
that you know everything better than everyone else. Maybe that´s why
you like the man so much, he´s a kindred spirit.

* Fungation ( fungate - to assume a fungal form or grow rapidly like a
fungus) is the last stage of the 7 stages of disease that orthopaths
subscribe to: enervation - toxemia - irritation - inflammation -
ulceration - induration - fungation.

Which is one of the reasons osteopathy is quackery - they're wrong.
Oh, and osteopaths, at least in the USA, basically get a normal
'orthodox' medical education.

That's "orthopath" Martin, not osteopath.
Orthopaths are a type of nature cure people who believe in natural hygiene,
vegetables and fruit, and nutritional remedies.

Oh sorry, orthopaths. The guys who think you can cure AIDS with
vitamin C. Yeah, they´re different. They´re insane, whereas
ostheopaths are (usually) not.

Osteopaths are a type of alternative service providers.



* I have firsthand experience treating athletes foot / tinea with
bicarbonate of soda myself (taken orally). But I also use cream of tartar
(potassium) and calcium carbonate (taken orally) and this mixture in
various
combinations, gets rid of it.

Which has zero to do with cancer.

If cancer is caused by a fungus, it has certain similarities to athletes
foot. Yes?

NO.

* There is much research on the internet about how an alkaline diet helps
to
reverse cancer, bicarb being the main cellsalt (sodium phosphate and
sulphate) to reverse acidosis.

Can any of that research be called science?

Can peer review be called science Martin?
Apparently it has no more reliability than a throw of the dice, yet it is
called scientific.
Can marketing be called science, which apparently much of what passes for
science is just marketing.

So it´s just as I thought, all claims and no science.

Concluding, I think he's probably right, that cancer is a fungus.

Not based up on the facts. You haven't even looked at the facts.
Something you seem to be proud of.

I've got more answers than you, which isn't hard to do.

I can pull answers out of my ass too, just like you. But unlike you, I
care about what´s true and what isn´t.

And I think there's probably some merit in his treatment regardless of
the
case histories, which may or may not be documented adequately.

So it doesn't matter to you that his case histories show it doesn't
work, all you care about is that he makes claims that you like.

His claims back up and support some of the things I believe, yes.

Peter Moran has just shown you that his case histories do not back up
his claims.

I don't put any weight in the fact he's been barred (if true)
as this is a common theme amongst anybody who goes outside accepted
mainstream channels
to treat cancer.

Pretty often I see the claim in this group that Dr. Stephen Barrett
has been disbarred. If that's true, then why aren't you a big fan of
him too?

He's on the wrong side -- he bags alternative medicine practitioners.

Yep, screw logic, screw intellectual honesty, all that matters is your
preconceived notions. It´s all about *you*, that´s all that matters to
you. I got it, loud and clear.

And may I point out again that Simoncini has not been barred for
treating cancer, he's had his license to practice yanked because he
killed at least one patient, and recently one more is under
investigation. And as you can see from Peter Moran's analysis, he can
not produce a single patient that he cured.

I don't believe Simoncini can't produce any cured patients.

Oh, then why aren´t they prominently on his website? Why and where is
he hiding them?

If killing a patient is reason to bar a doctor, then all the conventional
oncologists should be barred.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net


Carole
www.cellsalts.net


.

Loading