 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / February 2008"Cancer is a fungus" --or fraud?
"Carole" <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote in message news:4788ceb0$0$5933$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > This is a story that appeared in Nexus magazine and concerns an Italian > oncologist, Dr Tullio Simoncini, who has had a very high success rate > treating patients with good old bicarbonate of soda. > He has a website at http://www.cancerfungus.com > > Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus? > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CancerIsAFungus.html > > According to this hypothesis based on years of scientific and clinical > research, the cause of cancer is infection by a common fungus, Candida > albicans. The good news is that it can be treated with a powerful > antifungal > agent that can't be patented. <snip> > "My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered > completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given > up." > > Carole > www.cellsalts.net 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.html 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 >> This is a story that appeared in Nexus magazine and concerns an Italian >> oncologist, Dr Tullio Simoncini, who has had a very high success rate [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >So, medical ignoramus, or out-and-out fraud? I think both. What do you >think, and why? I doubt the ignoramus part. The man has a real medical degree and worked as an MD in Italy until 2003, when he lost his license to practice. >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 > This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you can > see for yourself. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This one case is illustrated by the CT scans at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/hepatic-carcinoma-pulmonary-metastasis.htm 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 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > 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 - * He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me - 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. * He shows pictures of the fungus and has been in oncology for 20 years or so and is an independent thinking person, who likes to work things out for himself. * 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. * 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. * 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. Concluding, I think he's probably right, that cancer is a fungus. And I think there's probably some merit in his treatment regardless of the case histories, which may or may not be documented adequately. 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. Carole www.cellsalts.net : 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. From your subsequent comments, it is clear that you did not. : 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 - In what sense is ignoring the facts a better method than paying attention to them? : * He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me - 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. For a long time, people believed that the world was flat because it "made sense." Did that make them right? For a long time, people believed that Newtonian physics was an accurate description of the way the world works because it "made sense." Did that make them right? For a long time, people believed that women were less intelligent than men because it "made sense." Did that make them right? : * He shows pictures of the fungus and has been in oncology for 20 years or : so and is an independent thinking person, who likes to work things out for : himself. Does someone's having been in oncology for 20 years ipso facto prove that he is not incompetent? If he likes to work things out for himself, how does he find out when he has made a mistake? Or do you believe that anyone who works things out for himself is infallible by definition? : * 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. What evidence do you have that you had athlete's foot rather than dry skin from some other cause? Did you ever try *not* taking those salts to see how long it took for the "tinea" to go away on its own? According to your previous descriptions of how your therapy works, the amount needed to "cure" the athlete's foot varies from incident to incident. Why not take the *maximum* dose that you needed every day in order to prevent further recurrence of athlete's foot? Why do you not see it as a problem that according to the theory you claim to be following, the mixture of salts you take should not work? : * There is much research on the internet The internet? I hear they have it on computers nowadays. : about how an alkaline diet helps to : reverse cancer, bicarb being the main cellsalt (sodium phosphate and : sulphate) to reverse acidosis. What part of "Sodium bicarbonate contains neither phosphate nore sulfate" is too difficult for you to understand? : Concluding, I think he's probably right, that cancer is a fungus. : And I think there's probably some merit in his treatment regardless of the : case histories, which may or may not be documented adequately. On what basis do you conclude that what you "think" is a better indication of the merit of his treatment than his inability actually to cure anyone? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." > : 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. > > From your subsequent comments, it is clear that you did not. What I meant, was that I understand that from what he sees on the x-rays, it is not conclusive. Do I make myself clearer? > : 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 - > > In what sense is ignoring the facts a better method than paying attention > to them? In the sense that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are facts and there are facts. And until all the different facts are considered, cross checked and add up, then the problem isn't solved. > : * He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me - how a > : fungus can take different forms and behaves, also when a person is operated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > believed that women were less intelligent than men because it "made sense." > Did that make them right? No, men are a big part of what is wrong with the world. When you consider that all wars are conducted by men; all big multinational companies that raid, loot and lie and think anything is fair game as long as there is a buck to be made are run by men; all secret societies that plot and undermine normal process are run by men; most criminals are men and pedophiles are men. So, you're right, men aren't always very intelligent. > : * He shows pictures of the fungus and has been in oncology for 20 years or > : so and is an independent thinking person, who likes to work things out for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > he find out when he has made a mistake? Or do you believe that anyone who > works things out for himself is infallible by definition? Of course, 20 years in oncology doesn't necessarily prove anything except that he understands cancer pretty thoroughly. The fact that he likes to think for himself works both ways -- he can make mistakes that go unnoticed, but he also isn't hampered by groupthink. > : * I have firsthand experience treating athletes foot / tinea with > : bicarbonate of soda myself (taken orally). But I also use cream of tartar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What evidence do you have that you had athlete's foot rather than dry skin > from some other cause? Athletes foot is characterised by redness and itching, peeling skin, sometimes little itchy eruptions. The symptoms are fairly easy to recognise. > Did you ever try *not* taking those salts to see > how long it took for the "tinea" to go away on its own? I've experimented with the condition for years. It doesn't go away on its own. The condition seems to lie dormant in the skin and whent he conditions are right it flares up. The spores also lie dormant in shoes that haven't been worn for years. You mightn't have the condition, but put on a pair of shoes and within a short time, it begins to flare up. So there are two things to note about the athletes foot fungus: 1. The spores can lie dormant within the skin for a long time, maybe for life 2. The spores can be picked up from the environment > According to your > previous descriptions of how your therapy works, the amount needed to "cure" > the athlete's foot varies from incident to incident. Its a bit experimental how much bicarb (sodium), cream of tartar (potassium) and calcium it takes to treat each occurrence of the condition. I never seem to know how much beforehand and it varies each time. Sometimes bicarb and cream of tartar is the primary remedy, and sometimes calcium. > Why not take the > *maximum* dose that you needed every day in order to prevent further > recurrence of athlete's foot? I don't take any maximum dose of anything before the symptoms occur. How it works is that the underlying deficiency builds up over days which isn't noticeable until some symptoms occur, the symptom in this case being athletes foot. Its not until you get this symptom that you realise that you need to intervene and that the body has become out of balance, that some action is needed to get things back in order. At first sign of athletes foot, I take 1/4 heaped tspn each of bicarb and cream of tartar. Sometimes I take a couple of grams of calcium as well depending on if I have typical calcium deficiency symptoms (teeth sensitive to hot or cold, toothache, certain mental symptoms, heartburn). I then take one or two repeat doses of bicarb and cream of tartar after a certain interval. By this time the athletes foot attack has usually cleared up and won't come back again for a while -- maybe days, a week, whenever and its not predictable. > Why do you not see it as a problem that > according to the theory you claim to be following, the mixture of salts you > take should not work? Could you please rephrase the question. > : * There is much research on the internet > > The internet? I hear they have it on computers nowadays. The internet is on computers? Or the information about acidosis is on computers? Clarification needed. > : about how an alkaline diet helps to > : reverse cancer, bicarb being the main cellsalt (sodium phosphate and > : sulphate) to reverse acidosis. > > What part of "Sodium bicarbonate contains neither phosphate nore sulfate" > is too difficult for you to understand? Yes, I should have explained that one. I used to take the Blackmores sodium tablets which contained sodium phosphate and sulphate. However, they became unavailable and through some experimentation I discovered that bicarb seems to treat the same symptoms. I can't give you the chemistry details because I don't understand chemistry. > : Concluding, I think he's probably right, that cancer is a fungus. > : And I think there's probably some merit in his treatment regardless of the > : case histories, which may or may not be documented adequately. > > On what basis do you conclude that what you "think" is a better indication > of the merit of his treatment than his inability actually to cure anyone? It is my opinion that sodium as found in bicarb is a good beginning to treating acidosis. My understanding from my experience, is that acidosis is a big part of the disease process. Why do you think that he hasn't cured anyone? Do you realise that there is suppression of any cures that aren't based on chemo, cutting out of tumours and radiation (slash, cut and burn)? I have zero confidence in conventional medicine's ability to cure chronic disease and think a person would have to be either very naive and inexperienced to think otherwise. Have you read "The truth about the Rockefeller drug empire - The Drug tory" - by Hans Ruesch? Carole www.cellsalts.net > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, > but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." :> In article <478a21a1$0$30823$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, : Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: :> : 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. :> From your subsequent comments, it is clear that you did not. : What I meant, was that I understand that from what he sees on the x-rays, it : is not conclusive. : Do I make myself clearer? It was already perfectly clear that you did not understand the original objection -- it was conclusive that the X-rays had been misinterpreted. :> In what sense is ignoring the facts a better method than paying attention :> to them? : In the sense that there is more than one way to skin a cat. : There are facts and there are facts. I think that you do not understand the meaning of the expression "there is more than one way to skin a cat." And it doesn't matter how many types of facts there are -- ignoring them is not normally considered (at least by rational people) a better way of arriving at a conclusion than paying attention to them. : And until all the different facts are considered, cross checked and add up, : then the problem isn't solved. I realize that you revel in your complete ignorance of science, but the whole point of the endeavor is that we can never know *all* of the different facts; the reason that science is so successful is that it provides a methodology for making extrapolations from those facts that are known. In the case at hand, enough facts were presented that it was clear that the X-rays did not provide any evidence for the claims being made. :> : * He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me - :> For a long time, people believed that the world was flat because it "made :> sense." Did that make them right? For a long time, people believed that :> Newtonian physics was an accurate description of the way the world works :> because it "made sense." Did that make them right? For a long time, :> people believed that women were less intelligent than men because it "made :> sense." Did that make them right? : So, you're right, men aren't always very intelligent. Most of them (and most women, fortunately for the species) are considerably more intelligent than you are. So I going to reprint that paragraph minus two sentences to see if you can figure out the point that was being made: :> For a long time, people believed that the world was flat because it "made :> sense." Did that make them right? For a long time, people believed that :> Newtonian physics was an accurate description of the way the world works :> because it "made sense." Did that make them right? : The fact that he likes to think for himself works both ways -- he can make : mistakes that go unnoticed, but he also isn't hampered by groupthink. And since you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, how would *you* be able to notice any mistakes that he might have made? [re: the "cellsalt cure" for athlete's foot] :> According to your previous descriptions of how your therapy works, the :> amount needed to "cure" the athlete's foot varies from incident to incident. : Its a bit experimental how much bicarb (sodium), cream of tartar (potassium) : and calcium it takes to treat each occurrence of the condition. I never seem : to know how much beforehand and it varies each time. Sometimes bicarb and : cream of tartar is the primary remedy, and sometimes calcium. :> Why not take the :> *maximum* dose that you needed every day in order to prevent further :> recurrence of athlete's foot? : I don't take any maximum dose of anything before the symptoms occur. : How it works is that the underlying deficiency builds up over days which : isn't noticeable until some symptoms occur, the symptom in this case being : athletes foot. Its not until you get this symptom that you realise that you : need to intervene and that the body has become out of balance, that some : action is needed to get things back in order. Every time that I read a usenet post and think "no one can possibly be that stupid," someone else comes along and proves me wrong. If you take the proper amounts of sodium and potassium, then you will never develop a deficiency in the first place. Or did that minor point not occur to you? :> Why do you not see it as a problem that :> according to the theory you claim to be following, the mixture of salts :> you take should not work? : Could you please rephrase the question. According to the theory that you claim to be following, there are several "essential cellsalts." Your "cures" include salts not on that list, and exclude anions that appear on it. According to the "cellsalt" theory, how could these "cures" possibly work? :> : about how an alkaline diet helps to :> : reverse cancer, bicarb being the main cellsalt (sodium phosphate and :> : sulphate) to reverse acidosis. :> What part of "Sodium bicarbonate contains neither phosphate nore sulfate" :> is too difficult for you to understand? : Yes, I should have explained that one. : I used to take the Blackmores sodium tablets which contained sodium : phosphate and sulphate. : However, they became unavailable and through some experimentation I : discovered that bicarb seems to treat the same symptoms. I can't give you : the chemistry details because I don't understand chemistry. Among other things. According to the "cellsalt" theory, sulfate and phosphate are essential components of the diet, and yet you claim to have success without ingesting them at all. How can they be essential if you are not ingesting them and yet not showing any negative effects? :> On what basis do you conclude that what you "think" is a better indication :> of the merit of his treatment than his inability actually to cure anyone? : It is my opinion that sodium as found in bicarb is a good beginning to : treating acidosis. Bad news -- sodium "as found in bicarb" is identical to sodium as found in table salt, which is identical to sodium as found in sodium fluoride, which is identical to sodium as found in trisodium phosphate. . . [etc.] : Why do you think that he hasn't cured anyone? Because he cannot produce one example of his having cured someone; presumably, he would want to do so if he could. : Do you realise that there is suppression of any cures that aren't based on : chemo, cutting out of tumours and radiation (slash, cut and burn)? Have you ever heard of "spontaneous remission"? : I have zero confidence in conventional medicine's ability to cure chronic : disease and think a person would have to be either very naive and : inexperienced to think otherwise. Given your demonstrated ignorance of just about everything -- including the therapy that you claim to be promoting -- your opinion, frankyl, does not count for very much. : Have you read "The truth about the Rockefeller drug empire - The Drug : tory" - by Hans Ruesch? No. Have you ever read an elementary textbook on chemistry, biology, or physics? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly." -- Deborah Lipstadt . > Given your demonstrated ignorance of just about everything -- including > the therapy that you claim to be promoting -- your opinion, frankyl, does > not count for very much. lolololololol................ Hey Carole! Just lookie at Richard's ignorance. > :> In article <478a21a1$0$30823$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > : Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It was already perfectly clear that you did not understand the original > objection -- it was conclusive that the X-rays had been misinterpreted. That's what I said before you unjustly accused me of not understanding what he said. Do you think you have a corner on understanding things? I doubt it very much if you insist on arguing the point on the side of big pharma. > :> In what sense is ignoring the facts a better method than paying attention > :> to them? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by rational people) a better way of arriving at a conclusion than paying > attention to them. I am the rational one. You are the one who is probably being paid to write your comments in this ng, so will say anything to get your money. > : And until all the different facts are considered, cross checked and add up, > : then the problem isn't solved. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are known. In the case at hand, enough facts were presented that it was > clear that the X-rays did not provide any evidence for the claims being made. I don't revel in my complete lack of science. I do revel in my ability to think for myself and not have to depend on "experts" and "reliable sources" to spin and twist to their suiting. I can extrapolate alright. I extrapolate that science has been hijacked by vested interested starting off with the Rockefeller Drug Empire 100 years ago, giving donations to universities in exchange for teaching things their way. You haven't got the corner on rationality or extrapolation, not even on commonsense. > :> : * He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me - > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > more intelligent than you are. So I going to reprint that paragraph minus > two sentences to see if you can figure out the point that was being made: There are different types of intelligence. Unfortunately men are more interested in domination, control and groupthink than real science. Rest of rubbish snipped as it is purely argumentative for the sake of it. I don't think Richard has anything to add in content, just to argue for the sake of arguing. No doubt he's being paid for his comments. Probably applied for one of those positions you see advertised online here and there. "People wanted to earn money, giving comments in medical / scientific matters. Please apply to ....giving details of your qualifications." Carole www.cellsalts.net : You are the one who is probably being paid to write your comments in this : ng, so will say anything to get your money. I am not being paid to write comments in this or any other newsgroup. And, unlike you, I am not advertising a dubious "health" care product in the hope that I can make a few bucks off of ignorant or deluded shills. : I don't revel in my complete lack of science. You certainly give that impression. : I do revel in my ability to think for myself and not have to depend on : "experts" and "reliable sources" to spin and twist to their suiting. If you do not even know the most basic things about science, you cannot possibly reach any sensible conclusions from your "thinking for yourself." : I can extrapolate alright. I extrapolate that science has been hijacked by : vested interested starting off with the Rockefeller Drug Empire 100 years : ago, giving donations to universities in exchange for teaching things their : way. Do you believe that GPS positioning systems work? Do you believe that nuclear power plants produce electricity? Do you believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? : You haven't got the corner on rationality or extrapolation, not even on : commonsense. I never claimed that I did -- only that you have yet to show any evidence of having either rationality or common sense. : There are different types of intelligence. : Unfortunately men are more interested in domination, control and groupthink : than real science. Thank you for proving that you were incapable of understanding the point that was being made. : No doubt he's being paid for his comments. No doubt among idiots, that's for sure. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." > : You are the one who is probably being paid to write your comments in this > : ng, so will say anything to get your money. > > I am not being paid to write comments in this or any other newsgroup. And, > unlike you, I am not advertising a dubious "health" care product in the > hope that I can make a few bucks off of ignorant or deluded shills. I don't sell any products. Alternative health is a hobby and I like to share my knowledge. > : I don't revel in my complete lack of science. > > You certainly give that impression. I just don't believe I need a science degree to be a valid thinking person. You do know that science that is taught is a dumbed-down version where all the ideas that would lift humanity out of the dregs of sickness and poverty are removed? > : I do revel in my ability to think for myself and not have to depend on > : "experts" and "reliable sources" to spin and twist to their suiting. > > If you do not even know the most basic things about science, you cannot > possibly reach any sensible conclusions from your "thinking for yourself." I'll get further than you by the mere fact I don't believe conventional medicine has all the answers. > : I can extrapolate alright. I extrapolate that science has been hijacked by > : vested interested starting off with the Rockefeller Drug Empire 100 years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you believe that nuclear power plants produce electricity? > Do you believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? Yes, yes, not necessarily. > : You haven't got the corner on rationality or extrapolation, not even on > : commonsense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thank you for proving that you were incapable of understanding the > point that was being made. No valid point was made. I just find myself in a situation where I have to work things out for myself. But I get a little help here and there from different sources -- eg different books on cellsalts and alternative health, DrCee, Dr Dennis Myers of www.eurohealth.com and others here and there. All you've got is some schooling that is mass taught from textbooks with standardised teachings. And you know you're right and infallible because? Carole www.cellsalts.net > I just don't believe I need a science degree to be a valid thinking person. No, you don't. Aristotle was certainly a "valid thinking person," for instance, and he didn't have a science degree. I'm not sure that you're his intellectual equal, though, so I would think it only fair that you get a few more things "wrong" [1] than he did. > You do know that science that is taught is a dumbed-down version where all > the ideas that would lift humanity out of the dregs of sickness and poverty > are removed? Yes, I'm well aware that the usual State schools have removed mathematics and critical thinking from the curriculum as much as possible. Since this is your declared position I would expect you to approve. [1] Always assuming, of course, that "wrong" is an applicable concept in this context. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ :> : I don't revel in my complete lack of science. :> You certainly give that impression. : I just don't believe I need a science degree to be a valid thinking person. I never said that you did. What I have said is that you show no evidence of being a thinking person. I know plenty of thinking people who do not have degrees in science -- but you are not one of them. : You do know that science that is taught is a dumbed-down version where all : the ideas that would lift humanity out of the dregs of sickness and poverty : are removed? How would you know what science is taught? And how would you know whether it was dumbed-down or not, since you obviously know neither the dumbed-down version nor the correct one? When I studied science, I was not taught a dumbed-down version, except in the sense that in elementary courses, it is sometimes necessary to simplify matters because the students do not have the background required to understand the real version -- e.g., there's no point in teaching the details of quantum mechanics to a high school class, because they will not have the necessary mathematical skills. In my years as a teacher at the university level, I did not teach a "dumbed-down" version. It's true that I did not bother with (for example) a full mathematical treatment of ligand field theory, but all of the results that I presented were correct ones. :> : I do revel in my ability to think for myself and not have to depend on :> : "experts" and "reliable sources" to spin and twist to their suiting. :> If you do not even know the most basic things about science, you cannot :> possibly reach any sensible conclusions from your "thinking for yourself." : I'll get further than you by the mere fact I don't believe conventional : medicine has all the answers. You have neither the tools nor the ability to judge truth from falsehood. I seriously doubt that you will get very far lacking that ability. :> : I can extrapolate alright. I extrapolate that science has been hijacked :> : by vested interested starting off with the Rockefeller Drug Empire 100 :> : yearsago, giving donations to universities in exchange for teaching things :> : their way. :> Do you believe that GPS positioning systems work? :> Do you believe that nuclear power plants produce electricity? :> Do you believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? : Yes, Did you know that GPS positioning systems rely on corrections from General Relativity, a theory that was developed within the last 100 years? : yes, Did you know that nuclear power plants depend on a theory of nuclear structure that was developed within the last 100 years? : not necessarily. If you want to convince people that you are not a lunatic, I would suggest that you find a more efficient method. If, on the other hand, you want to convince people that you *are* a lunatic, you're doing a fine job of it. :> Thank you for proving that you were incapable of understanding the :> point that was being made. : : No valid point was made. A valid point was made -- that many things that are "perfectly reasonable" or consistent with our common sense turn out not be true. By relying on what *seems* reasonable to you as a means of making judgments, you are relying on a method that has been demonstrated to be faulty. : All you've got is some schooling that is mass taught from textbooks with : standardised teachings. And you know you're right and infallible because? I never claimed to be infallible. Nor am I relying on "standardised teachings" from textbooks. I have actually gone into the laboratory and done experiments, the results of which do not make sense if the structure on which my interpretations are based is wrong in any significant manner. When I did my Ph. D. research (in mass spectrometry), the results that I got made perfect sense if what I learned about atomic theory, electricity and magnetism, kinetics (in both the physics and the chemistry sense of the word), etc. is true, and no sense if not. My postdoctoral research (as well as my independent research) made perfect sense if what I learned about the structure and reactivity of transition-metal complexes, spectroscopy, etc. is true, and no sense if not. How do you think that the articles I published in peer-reviewed journals would have been accepted if I were incapable of independent thought? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > How do you think that the articles I > published in peer-reviewed journals would have been accepted if I were > incapable of independent thought? Hate to break it to you, but in some circles your publication in peer-reviewed journals is proof that you *aren't* capable of "independent thought." Depending on definitions [1], they're right. [1] "Independent" of _what_? | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > :> : I don't revel in my complete lack of science. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of being a thinking person. I know plenty of thinking people who do not > have degrees in science -- but you are not one of them. That is because you're so dumbed down you wouldn't know a thinking person from a parrot. > : You do know that science that is taught is a dumbed-down version where all > : the ideas that would lift humanity out of the dregs of sickness and poverty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it was dumbed-down or not, since you obviously know neither the dumbed-down > version nor the correct one? The reason I know science is dumbed down is because of what it doesn't teach. Medical science doesn't teach nutritional remedies and can't explain how homeopathy works. Physics is dumbed down because it suppresses all ideas of free energy and teaches the dumbed down version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can only come from fossil fuels. > When I studied science, I was not taught a > dumbed-down version, except in the sense that in elementary courses, it is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > treatment of ligand field theory, but all of the results that I presented > were correct ones. I understand that at the lower levels you need to teach basic concepts. But what I'm saying is that certain concepts are written right out of science. For example, even stephen hawking says its a scandal that certain areas of science contradict each other or can't be brought together. see www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk > :> : I do revel in my ability to think for myself and not have to depend on > :> : "experts" and "reliable sources" to spin and twist to their suiting. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You have neither the tools nor the ability to judge truth from falsehood. > I seriously doubt that you will get very far lacking that ability. OK, but you are the dumbed down one when you deny that certain things are possible. The ether theory which says that there is a substance that permeates space and all matter and acts according to certain laws. Free energy which tesla invented but which was subsequently suppressed. Anti-gravity -- germany had the technology for ufos at the end of ww2 which was then transferred to the us under operation paperclip where top nazi scientists were brought into the us. Rife and Reich were working with technology that dealt with certain energies and were subsequently shut down by the establishment. They use any and every pretext to shut these guys down. They write the textbooks and take out certain concepts the public isn't allowed to know about. This is why they can't explain how homeopathy works, it has something to do with energies. But they teach you the materialistic concept that homeopathy doesn't work. Carole www.cellsalts.net > :> : I can extrapolate alright. I extrapolate that science has been hijacked > :> : by vested interested starting off with the Rockefeller Drug Empire 100 [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." >Physics is dumbed down because it suppresses all ideas of free energy and >teaches the dumbed down version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says >that energy can only come from fossil fuels. I will remember that when I drive past the wind farm at Carcoar tomorrow on my way to the GMO-infested Grenfell. http://www.carcoar.org/pages/history/interest.htm And I must have been dreaming when I spent an enjoyable holiday touring the dams in the Snowy Mountains Scheme http://svc097.wic010v.server-web.com/levelTwo.asp?pageID=66&parentID=4  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com :> : I just don't believe I need a science degree to be a valid thinking :> : person. :> I never said that you did. What I have said is that you show no evidence :> of being a thinking person. I know plenty of thinking people who do not :> have degrees in science -- but you are not one of them. : That is because you're so dumbed down you wouldn't know a thinking person : from a parrot. Luckily for me, I am under no obligation to attempt to figure out what that was supposed to have meant. :> : You do know that science that is taught is a dumbed-down version where :> : all the ideas that would lift humanity out of the dregs of sickness and :> : poverty are removed? :> How would you know what science is taught? And how would you know whether :> it was dumbed-down or not, since you obviously know neither the :> dumbed-down version nor the correct one? : The reason I know science is dumbed down is because of what it doesn't : teach. Science does not and cannot teach matters that cannot be understood by the process of scientific induction. That does not make it "dumbed down" -- it only limits the number of problems that can be solved by the scientific method. : Medical science doesn't teach nutritional remedies As far as I know, "medical science" teaches nutritional remedies for, inter alia, beriberi, night blindness, rickets, scurvy, and pellagra. : and can't explain how homeopathy works. Since homeopathy does *not* work, no such explanation exists either within or without medical science. : Physics is dumbed down because it suppresses all ideas of free energy and : teaches the dumbed down version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says : that energy can only come from fossil fuels. Since fission power was developed by physicists before the engineers took over, and since physicists are working on the development of alternative energy sources from nuclear fusion to solar power, I'd say that you do not know what you are talking about. (That you don't know that there is an entire family of "free energy" devices that violates the first law of thermodynamics is only a small added bonus.) : I understand that at the lower levels you need to teach basic concepts. : But what I'm saying is that certain concepts are written right out of : science. For example, even stephen hawking says its a scandal that certain : areas of science contradict each other or can't be brought together. My guess, based on the above, is that you have no clue what Stephen Hawking was talking about (assuming that he actually said what you claim he did.) : see www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk This website is, as far as I can tell, by lunatics and for lunatics. That is, right up your alley. :> You have neither the tools nor the ability to judge truth from falsehood. :> I seriously doubt that you will get very far lacking that ability. : OK, but you are the dumbed down one when you deny that certain things are : possible. I deny that it is possible to trisect an angle using a straightedge and a compass. Is that dumbed down or what? : The ether theory which says that there is a substance that permeates space : and all matter and acts according to certain laws. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved definitively that either there is no ether or that the earth is not moving. Even without that experiment, it's hard to understand how the earth could be moving through a medium as stiff as the ether without us noticing. : Free energy which tesla invented but which was subsequently suppressed. Yawn. : Anti-gravity -- germany had the technology for ufos at the end of ww2 which : was then transferred to the us under operation paperclip where top nazi : scientists were brought into the us. I think that you have that one mixed up with the top secret warehouse in which the Ark of the Covenant is being kept. :> :> Do you believe that GPS positioning systems work? :> :> Do you believe that nuclear power plants produce electricity? :> :> Do you believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? :> : Yes, :> Did you know that GPS positioning systems rely on corrections from :> General Relativity, a theory that was developed within the last 100 years? Note that this question received no response. :> : yes, :> Did you know that nuclear power plants depend on a theory of nuclear :> structure that was developed within the last 100 years? Note that this question received no response. :> : not necessarily. A member of the research group in which I did my Ph. D. studies served as a Mission Specialist on two shuttle missions. I received an invitation to the launch of the first of the two. If the space program is a big fake, they certainly are doing a good job of hiding that fact. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > As far as I know, "medical science" teaches nutritional remedies for, > inter alia, beriberi, night blindness, rickets, scurvy, and pellagra. Also Maple Syrup Urine Disease and phenylketonuria, among many others. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > In article <4798f92d$0$17240$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > the launch of the first of the two. If the space program is a big fake, > they certainly are doing a good job of hiding that fact. Odd how people like Carole believe the US has a flying saucer from Roswell, engineered HIV, and use cell phones for mind control, but that we couldn't put a man on the moon. Un-Freakin'-Believable! > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > Athletes foot is characterised by redness and itching, peeling skin, > sometimes little itchy eruptions. > The symptoms are fairly easy to recognise. Does this mean that any condition characterized by redness and itching, peeling skin, and sometimes little itchy eruptions is athletes' foot? | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > > Athletes foot is characterised by redness and itching, peeling skin, > > sometimes little itchy eruptions. > > The symptoms are fairly easy to recognise. > > Does this mean that any condition characterized by redness and itching, > peeling skin, and sometimes little itchy eruptions is athletes' foot? If its on the feet, probably yes. > -- > | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | > | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >> In message <478c8aef$0$30812$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > Carole wrote: >> > Athletes foot is characterised by redness and itching, peeling skin, >> > sometimes little itchy eruptions. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If its on the feet, probably yes. I should perhaps apologize. If the treatment is the same for all of the conditions with the same symptoms (per homeopathy) then I asked the wrong question. I should ask, "Does this mean ... eruptions" should be treated with the same cellsalt treatment you describe? If not, how do you decide? | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > >> In message <478c8aef$0$30812$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > > Carole wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with the same cellsalt treatment you describe? If not, how do > you decide? I can only answer for cellsalts and am no expert on homeopathy. Do you mean should all eruptions on the skin be treated with the same cellsalts? I would say probably not. There would probably be a different combination of cellsalt deficiencies involved. How you would work it out would be to see what other indications there were. For example, if a person had pain in their their filled teeth it means calcium, or teeth sensitive to hot, cold or touch it is calcium. (This is just an example) If they have coating on the tongue it is probably potassium, if they have knotted muscles it is sodium. But really, what you would do is get hold of a book on cellsalts and study the symptoms and associated remedies and work it out from there. If the cellsalts don't work it is because you are either not taking enough of them or it is the wrong cellsalt/s. Sometimes a person needs a lot of a certain cellsalt and sometimes just a small dose will fix a symptom. Some experimentation is needed to find the remedy and adjust the dosage. With acute symptoms the remedy is taken at close intervals (say 5 mins) for longstanding problems the dosage is taken at longer intervals ie daily. Hope this answers what you had in mind. Carole www.cellsalts.net > -- > | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | > | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >> This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you >can [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >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. >* 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. > - 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. >* 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. > 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. >* 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. >* 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. >* 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? >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. >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. >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? 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. >Carole >www.cellsalts.net > >> This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you > >can [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > 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. > >* 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 > > - 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. This could be because it spreads the spores which were otherwise locked inside the tumour. 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. > >* 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. 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. Also the reason he may not have as much success as he should is because of this same reason. > > 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. > >* 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. 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? > >* 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. > >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. > >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. > >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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. 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 >> >> This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something >> >> you [quoted text clipped - 260 lines] > > I don't believe Simoncini can't produce any cured patients. Why? You think he has gone ot the trouble to put up a promotional web site, but he is not using is very best cases? PM > If killing a patient is reason to bar a doctor, then all the conventional > oncologists should be barred. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Carole >> >www.cellsalts.net Is there some reason that you quoted 312 lines of text in order to add two of your own? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > Is there some reason that you quoted 312 lines of text in order to add > two of your own? Sorry. I will try ot be more careful. PM > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." >> Is there some reason that you quoted 312 lines of text in order to add >> two of your own? > > Sorry. I will try ot be more careful. > > PM When? ot........... lol. >> ----- >> Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il >> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel >> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University >> ----- >> "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > > I don't believe Simoncini can't produce any cured patients. > > Why? You think he has gone ot the trouble to put up a promotional web site, > but he is not using is very best cases? He has probably picked a good case of each type of cancer. Frankly, I don't see that his patients haven't been cured. You point out some irregularity in the x-rays which doesn't prove conclusively that he is a fake. I think he is a bloke who has discovered a cure that big pharma doesn't want known, and as a result he now joins the ranks of other suppressed medical scientists. http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html Some of more well-known (to alternative medicine people) cancer researchers who were shut down, or were severely harassed, by the AMA (or its state or Canadian equivalent) are: Harry Hoxsey (herbs), Dr. Royal Ray Rife (microscope and electromagnetic microbe killer), John Clark (did follow up to Royal Rife's research), Dr. William F. Koch (synthetic antitoxins), Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski (Antineoplastons), Dr. Max Gerson (diet and supplements), Lawrence Burton, PhD (Immuno-Augmentative Therapy), Dr. Andrew C. Ivy (Krebiozen), Gaston Naessens (microscope and 714-X homeopathic), Dr. John A. Richardson (laetrile), Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr. (laetrile). There have been numerous medical doctors and other health practitioners who used nutrition and supplements to treat cancer who had far higher "total life" cure rates on terminal cancer patients than any current orthodox treatment!! But the direction of cancer "research" is not to improve these natural treatments and determine why they work so well, but the direction of research is to test "theories" that lead to more profitable treatments!!! Carole www.cellsalts.net > PM > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> >Carole > >> >www.cellsalts.net >> > I don't believe Simoncini can't produce any cured patients. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He has probably picked a good case of each type of cancer. > Frankly, I don't see that his patients haven't been cured. Nominate one case that where you think cancer has been cured by his treatment. > You point out some irregularity in the x-rays which doesn't prove > conclusively that he is a fake. "Irregularity"? That is what you call outright misrepresentation of what the xrays show? > I think he is a bloke who has discovered a cure that big pharma doesn't > want > known, and as a result he now joins the ranks of other suppressed medical > scientists. I would be intrested in knowing why you think he has a cure for cancer, and how you would demonstrate that to a cancer sufferer. > http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html > Some of more well-known (to alternative medicine people) cancer > researchers > who were shut down, or were severely harassed, by the AMA (or its state or > Canadian equivalent) are: That is the version of events that the quacks want you believe. You can see that doctors might have an incentive for shutting down competitors (although any GP could use these simple treatments and thereby greatly expand his practice, if they actually worked ) but you cannot see that you are having the wool pulled over your eyes by experts in fraud, deception and self-delusion. PM > Harry Hoxsey (herbs), > Dr. Royal Ray Rife (microscope and electromagnetic microbe killer), [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> >Carole >> >> >www.cellsalts.net > >> > I don't believe Simoncini can't produce any cured patients. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nominate one case that where you think cancer has been cured by his > treatment. I believe all his cases are as he describes. > > You point out some irregularity in the x-rays which doesn't prove > > conclusively that he is a fake. > > "Irregularity"? That is what you call outright misrepresentation of what > the xrays show? I can't read x-rays, so am unable to confirm to otherwise, if they are accurate or not. > > I think he is a bloke who has discovered a cure that big pharma doesn't > > want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would be intrested in knowing why you think he has a cure for cancer, and > how you would demonstrate that to a cancer sufferer. Look I don't think he has the whole answer, but think he's on the right track. I could suggest to a cancer sufferer that he look into the treatment, but really there are many other treatments for a person that might be more suitable. Actually, I wouldn't recommend his treatment as it is because bicarb on its own is a bit dicey. In my experience bicarb is a substitute for sodium phosphate and sulphate, only two cellsalts. And if you take a lot of just these two cellsalts, it will unbalance the system. Well that's what I think anyway. But if his system has cured people, maybe some people have a big deficiency in these two cellsalts and maybe these two cellsalts are enough to reverse cancer, although with athletes foot it isn't enough (another fungus). Do all fungi respond to the same treatment? Do all people have the same deficiencies? Who knows? I don't. But I think its brilliant that he has worked out as far as bicarb and its a good start. And maybe he does use some other cellsalts and supplements and other things. Give the guy a break, he was an oncologist you know before he got barred for using bicarb. If you ask me all oncologists should be barred for using chemo. > > http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html > > Some of more well-known (to alternative medicine people) cancer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are having the wool pulled over your eyes by experts in fraud, deception and > self-delusion. The way I see it Peter, it that when people like myself, who are absolute ignoramuses when it comes to science and medicine, are forced to take our own health care upon ourselves, because the orthodox system is so stuffed up, this is what you get. You get people, like myself, who can't explain how anything works, and why it should, just that it does work. And you will have to wear it and that is just too bad. Because I have had to wear the total incompetence of orthodox medicine to diagnose and help me with my health problems. I have now fixed them on my own without any help from conventional medicine, and discovered to boot just how stuffed they really are. I shouldn't have to spend my life studying bloody health stuff. I should be able to depend on doctors to fix any health problem I have. They cost enough and spend enough time and money getting their education. But all for nought I'm afraid, and the more I hear about the corruption of the pharmaceutical cartel and how they manipulate the whole system to sell their useless products, the more it makes my blood boil. Carole www.conspiracee.com www.cellsalts.net > Dr. John A. Richardson (laetrile), > Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr. (laetrile). Anyone who promotes Laetrile is a murderer. It murdered my aunt. >> Dr. John A. Richardson (laetrile), >> Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr. (laetrile). > > Anyone who promotes Laetrile is a murderer. It murdered my aunt. *Anecdotes are pure bullshit.* Mark Probert. Mark wouldn't care though.. that Dr Wilson murdered a kind loving, and giving teenager...... >> >> This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you >> >can [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >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 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 a.s 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Carole >> >www.cellsalts.net > >Peter checks out the facts and judges them according to certain scientific > >standards that he thinks are the industry standard. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > >> >* He explains how cancer is really a fungus, which makes sense to me > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. > >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. > >In the article Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus? > >http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CancerIsAFungus.html Dr Simoncini [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. > >> >* He shows pictures of the fungus > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. > >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. > >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. > >> > and has been in oncology for 20 years or > >> >so and is an independent thinking person, who likes to work things out [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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? > >> >* There is much research on the internet about how an alkaline diet helps > >to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So it´s just as I thought, all claims and no science. Just like the pharmaceutical cartel. > >> >Concluding, I think he's probably right, that cancer is a fungus. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I can pull answers out of my a.s too, just like you. But unlike you, I > care about what´s true and what isn´t. I think you're into bullshit myself. > >> >And I think there's probably some merit in his treatment regardless of > >the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > >> >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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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? 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh, then why aren´t they prominently on his website? Why and where is > he hiding them? Is he? -- I hadn't noticed. 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? If killing a patient is reason to bar a doctor, then all the conventional oncologists should be barred. Carole www.cellsalts.net |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message