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

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:20:25 +1100, "Carole" <hubbca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Martin" <idontwantno@spam> wrote in message
news:k1qso31p4bu604icoke52b0j5sula0kkb5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:04:07 +1100, "Carole" <hubbca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





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.


I can't read x-rays, so I don't know if its true or not.

The problem is not that can not read them, the problem is that you do
not care what the x-rays show. For you, Simoncini is right, no matter
what the facts are, because he says something you like.

* 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.

You should be sorry for a lot, Martin.


- 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.

You're full of it Martin, everybody knows when you cut a tumour the cancer
spreads.

Oh yes, I forgot. It's hijacked orthodox medicine that says it doesn't
spread, so that makes it untrue.

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

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

Rubbish.

Evidence please.

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.

Its all to do with bacteria, microbes, fungi and parasites being pleomorphic
ie, they change according to their environment.
Oh, but that's right, that has been doctored from your medical course,
hasn't it, along with the concept of acid/alkaline and some other things.

Even it's out of the books, then why hasn't anyone seen it through
their microscope, apart from the cooks you get your info from?
Scientist don't just read books you know. You really think that the
evil conspiracy has a team standing by to make every scientist who
happens to see this pleomorphy through their microscope disappear
without a trace?

* 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.

Yes, I do care about evidence and my own research -- NOT that promoted by
the pharmaceutical cartel which can't cure anything, just offer lifetime
management.

Didn't I read you have to take cellsalts all the time, to manage your
health, your whole life so far? Seems to me that indicates it's
cellsalts that don't cure anything.

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?

Oh that's right. You're not into preventive medicine, or alternative, so its
irrelevant. Shame about that.

I am into preventative medicine Carole, just not the alternative kind.
But the point is that Simoncini is not using cellsalt preventative,
and his treatment was the subject, so why do you bring it 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.

The mere fact he comes up with the theory of cancer being a fungus, it more
than conventional medicine comes up with.
It is still BAFFLED about what causes cancer.

Well, the only problem about Simoncini's idea is that it's wrong. At
least conventional medicine is humble enough to admit they don't know
(at least, not all of it). Humility is not something that alt-med
practioners seem to have.

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.

Maybe.


* 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.

Gee, touched a nerve there, when I suggested there are similarities between
cancer and athletes foot.
If cancer is caused by a fungus, why aren't there similarities?

Since you refuse to learn anything about biology and the explanation
of this has to do with biology, I don't see how I can explain this.
Even if I explained why not, would you even listen?

* 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.

Just like the pharmaceutical cartel.

How old are you Carole? It'll be just a matter of time before you
either die prematurely or have to do what your (conventional) doctor
tells you. Sad.

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.

I think you're into bullshit myself.

Horseshit, occasionaly (I ride).

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.

Yes, he has raised some questions. On the balance of things, I would say he
might have missed something or is being overly pedantic.

So, he demonstrates that the x-rays Simoncini shows are not the same
patient, do not show cancer that has gone away, contrary to
Simoncini's claim and you say he's pedantic???

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.

I'm into logic. I asked you to do the silica test for underarm odour. Have
you done it?

I can't. I shower every morning and every evening and somehow, that
prevents underarm odour. You should try it sometime Carole.

And I asked you to do a homeopathic proving of silica. Have you done
it? You want me to try that for you?

You want me to trust "experts" and "reliable sources" when all the time they
use corrupted science?
In your dreams.


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?

Is he? -- I hadn't noticed.

Yes he is. They're clearly not on his website, as Peter Moran showed.

How come only registered oncologists are allowed to treat cancer, and only
allowed to treat it according to certain guidelines, and why is all research
only permitted along certain guidelines, and why are cheap simple cures that
can't be patented, banned?

This shows a level of ignorance and stupidity that I'm not going to
answer this. It seems you're proposing that even someone like you, who
refuses to learn about stuff like biology should be allowed to treat
people. Incredible.

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

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Peter B on Curing Cancer
    ... > conventional methods to treat cancer. ... > you have offered no evidence. ... > Watch how Peter now redefines the issue away from whether nutritional ... > conventional medicine does not help reduce the mortality of cancer. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Peter B on Curing Cancer
    ... > conventional methods to treat cancer. ... > you have offered no evidence. ... > Watch how Peter now redefines the issue away from whether nutritional ... > conventional medicine does help reduce the mortality of cancer. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: The future of our country
    ... facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. ... The evidence seems pretty clear to ... Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on ... A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: The secrets of Armstrong
    ... how any of those facts were instead opinions. ... sport had no drug testing and doping was rampant ... is indeed a rare cancer, it ... from Armstrong to aid in the purchase of anti-doping testing equipment. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: England cancel Thailand friendly
    ... you're consistent in ignoring the facts and holding onto your baseless claims. ... 'To someone sitting in England that won't be very sexy, ... Don't sit here and have a go at Qatar for not having a brick 12 years before they host when the US hadn't laid even one for a new stadium by the time tournament had started. ... So you don't have any evidence to show England had the #1 bid according to the technical reports. ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)