Tomorrow is WORLD CANCER DAY. To mark this important occasion, I intend to publish not just one but two posts. Today’s post discloses one of the more sickening alternative cancer scams I have seen for a long time (tomorrow’s post will be a lot more encouraging): baking soda as a cancer cure. Here is what some charlatans tell the most vulnerable of our patients.
START OF QUOTE
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments… Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates and oncologists know it…
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues. Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis. Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned doctors such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease…
When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold. It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere…
The pH of our tissues and body fluids is crucial and central because it affects and mirrors the state of our health or our inner cleanliness. The closer the pH is to 7.35-7.45, the higher our level of health and wellbeing. Staying within this range dramatically increases our ability to resist acute illnesses like colds and flues as well as the onset of cancer and other diseases. Keeping our pH within a healthy range also involves necessary lifestyle and dietary changes that will protect us over the long term while the use of sodium bicarbonate gives us a jump-start toward increased alkalinity…
Basically, malignant tumors represent masses of rapidly growing cells. The rapid rate of growth experienced by these cells means that cellular metabolism also proceeds at very high rates. Therefore, cancer cells are using a lot more carbohydrates and sugars to generate energy in the form of ATP (adenosine triphosphate). However, some of the compounds formed from the energy production include lactic acid and pyruvic acid. Under normal circumstances, these compounds are cleared and utilized as soon as they are produced. But cancer cells are experiencing metabolism at a much faster rate. Therefore, these organic acid accumulate in the immediate environment of the tumor. The high level of extracellular acidity around the tumor is one of the chief driving force behind the metastasis of cancer tumors. Basically, cancer cells need an acidic environment to grow and spread rapidly…
One does not have to be a doctor to practice pH medicine. Every practitioner of the healing arts and every mother and father needs to understand how to use sodium bicarbonate. Bicarbonate deficiency is a real problem that deepens with age so it really does pay to understand and appreciate what baking soda is all about.
END OF QUOTE
I am sure you agree: this is not just unethical and irresponsible; it is vile!
There are far too many falsehoods in this text (and most of them are too obvious) for me to even begin to correct them.
Why do I post this just before WORLD CANCER DAY?
Because I believe that cancer patients need to be protected from people and institutions who tout dangerous nonsense. Sadly, in the realm of alternative medicine, there are many of such charlatans.
“The closer the pH is to 7.35-7.45, the higher our level of health and wellbeing”
This is unarguably true – and if it strays outside those limits you will have acidosis or alkalosis and be very sick.
Fortunately, evolution has equipped us with a sophisticated biofeedback system which regulates bodily pH within precisely those limits. Which is why we don’t die when we eat an orange.
Very nicely phrased
IODINE WORKED FOR ME AND MANY OTHERS…AFTERALL CANCER IS ONLY A FUNGUS.
I try hard to be generous and understanding when people say silly things……but to hell with it, Gordon James Wanless you are an idiot.
He is correct… the germ theory has fallacies. Pretty much everything can be CURED with anti-fungus meds. Get mad if you want, but traditional medicine isn’t working now is it?
I am a farmer I raise pigs I have given iodoral supplements (potassium Iodide)to piglets with grotesque tumors. Tumors were all bad enough were the pigs would have normally been put down. After 3 weeks on iodoral all tumors on all pigs are cured. I also take it myself50 mhs a day for 6 years now for adrenal tumors.i also give it to my 15 year old dog who’s tumors all went away and he runs around like a puppy.Does it cure cancer I dont know ?I. Am not a Doctor I am just a dumb farmer.
not dumb, but ignorant: iodoral is not a homeopathic remedy.
i didn’t notice Mr Violanti claiming that the medication he was using was a “homeopathic remedy”, so not quite clear why you are making the point.
Perhaps you would be on safer ground if you challenged the man’s anecdotal evidence instead of insulting his experience.
I have no idea how much 50 mhs is as it doesn’t appear to be a standard measurement of anything. The usual daily requirement of iodine for adults is 140 micrograms per day – if you have too little then your thyroid becomes underactive which can have all kinds of effects, including enlargement of the thyroid gland itself (goitre). Too much iodine can also be dangerous, however, and can also cause goitre as well as damaging the thyroid gland and increasing the risk of thyroid cancer. Iodine can also interact with a number of drugs, including some used for heart conditions. You generally have to take more than 500 micrograms (0.5 mg) a day for it to be a problem.
Although I am an oncologist I don’t know a great deal about tumours in animals. However, there are a number of conditions which are characterised by lumps or swellings in the body (including enlarged lymph nodes) which are not necessarily cancerous however they might look, and which can resolve. There is even a kind of swelling under the skin of the legs which can occur in thyroid deficiency. I have no idea what was the matter with your piglets, but I should imagine that for many farmers it would make better commercial sense to put them down rather than spend a lot of money on vets’ fees having them investigated.
Most people aren’t lucky enough to have 15 years with their dog and I am pleased to hear about it.
It makes me laugh when people diss alternative possible cures for cancer. Let’s stick then with Mustard Gas derivatives that totally destroy people’s bodies.
Kill off their immune systems destroy red blood cells make their hair fall out and cause memory loss.
Why do people think that an alternative cure for cancer is a possible felony; see The Cancer Act 1939!!!!!
Let’s continue then with chemotherapy and radiation both toxic chemicals that actually are cancer causes.
The pharmaceutical companies are a multi BILLION £€$ industry. They haven’t come up with a CURE yet because it pays them not to.
Tesla came up with a cure apparently which is why he was murdered.
Cancer and a fungus called Candida Albicans go hand in hand, you are right.
So much utter, totally inaccurate nonsense in so few sentences. Most ridiculous: “They haven’t come up with a CURE yet because it pays them not to.” This makes about as much sense as opening a pork butcher’s shop in Riyadh. If a company came up with a surefire cure for any major form of cancer they’d be guaranteed enormous wealth.
Next most ridiculous: “Cancer and a fungus called Candida Albicans go hand in hand”. I’ve spent a 45-year career researching just about every aspect of Candida albicans infections and I can guarantee this is total drivel.
You should be ashamed of yourself to put so much sheer ignorance on display.
Whoever you are saying you have researched it you my friend obviously do not know how to research! All of the research linking candida albicans to cancer, baking soda curing cancer, alkalinity of the body healing cancer, and on and on is located right on the national library of medicine!
Are you not able to provide even one citation for a good quality randomised controlled trial? Just directing us to PubMed generally is not helpful.
It doesn’t pay pharmaceutical companies to inform the public of a way they can cure their problems naturally with stuff they can grow in their backyard.
Pharmaceutical companies that do studies to test the effectiveness of natural components, cannot make money back from those studies.
For instance, if they took the strongest natural antifungal and started testing it on cancerous cells and patients and it turned out that it worked more often than their chemo, they would UNDOUBTEDLY lose money.
Colloidal silver can’t be patented. Works wonders, but they discredit it and intentionally made a colloidal silver out of silver nitrate (toxic) to trick the public into believing it wasn’t all it was hyped up to be. They absolutely FLOOD the market with fake supplements like CBD, Emu Oil, Oil of Oregano. Even garlic they are trying to ruin by pushing out capsulatef garlic, which the allicin is only active in once its broken after the first 10 minutes, sure there is no allicin in anything they’re selling.
There have been doctors who have cured sepsis with vitamin C at a MUCH higher percentage than with their traditional medical route. What happens when they try to report their findings? They’re told the lab won’t do the widespread studies because since the treatment is so cheap, they can’t make their money back.
Go tell someone for instance that they can cure cancer with, let’s say, baking soda and you know it to be true and then who loses money when people did start taking baking soda and it works.
Once people question cancer therapy, they question the entire medical industry, who’ve derived most of what they use from natural sources and found a way to patent it and make it extremely expensive.
Do you really think that on this blog we have not seen your arguments recycled again and again? And always without significant evidence. Please read the red banner at the top, and come back when you have real evidence.
That is not the remit of pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmaceutical companies DO do these studies precisely because they can make money from identifying naturally-occurring compounds which are pharmacologically active. This is the source of a great many medicines.
For that matter, salt and water are both very cheap, but somebody makes a lot of money out of supplying saline drips.
Many chemo drugs ARE natural antifungals and antimicrobials – bleomycin, daunorubicin, doxorubicin, epirubicin…
“They”? Can you be a bit more specific, or is this a conspiracy theory?
“They” again? Though the only reason anybody makes fake supplements is that people are gullible enough to buy them.
How much money do you think hospitals spend on treating sepsis? It costs a fortune to run an intensive care unit. When a cheap intervention is found that can improve patient outcomes it rapidly becomes standard practice all over the world.
When doctors try to report their findings they do so initially by submitting case reports to journals – “the lab” doesn’t come into it. If it looks as though there might be something in it. The next step is organising clinical trials, which do have associated costs, but there are many sources of funds other than pharmaceutical companies (charities, governments, hospital research budgets…).
Given that you are claiming that the studies haven’t been done, how do you know it works?
It is very important that medicine is held up to scrutiny. Nobody knows this better than the people responsible for delivering healthcare themselves, who are always trying to find improvements and implement them.
I’m not sure how that follows from the first half of the sentence. And you seem to be contradicting yourself.
You have some very strange notions regarding how healthcare is organised and delivered.
It doesn’t matter if “they” lose fortunes because whoever had these cures, released the studies, and patented the new treatments, would make a fortune and win the Nobel Prize. This genius would have no incentive to protect “them.”
And yes, colloidal silver can be patented. Not every preparation is identical.
Prof. Odds was, for anyone’s information, Professor at the University of Aberdeen:
“If a company came up with a surefire cure for any major form of cancer they’d be guaranteed enormous wealth.”
The other definition for naive is stupidity by nature. The medical industry makes the bulk of it’s money from sick people, not healthy people. If they found the guaranteed cure for cancer and fewer and fewer people showed up for treatment the medical industry would go in the hole for the billions spent on radiation tools, chemo recipes and surgical set-ups. The threat to them is compounded if treatments take far less time and effort. They would HAVE to substitute some new fearful killer __ one that requires decades of lucrative, funding to
. ahhh, conquer? The med-cult , as is life n death is a BUSINESS for the, first and last.
Presumably you didn’t spot the red banner at the top of this blog – ” if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence”. Firstly, you are decades out of date regarding chemotherapy. Have you heard of immunotherapy for example? https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/what-is-immunotherapy
Secondly, it depends what you mean by `cured’. Nobody lives forever, but “Cancer survival in the UK has doubled in the last 40 years”. See https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival
In many cases cancer survivors live long enough to die of something else.
“…chemotherapy and radiation both toxic chemicals”… Do you know what radiation is? It’s not a chemical.
Please provide evidence that Tesla was murdered. His death was recorded as from natural causes, at the age of 86.
Frank Odds has dealt with your claims about baking soda.
You do yourself no favours with these wild fantasies.
@ Frank Odds
:Candida albicans is a fungal commensal and a major colonizer of the human skin, as well as of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. It is also one of the leading causes of opportunistic microbial infections in cancer patients, often presenting in a life-threatening, systemic form. Increased susceptibility to such infections in cancer patients is attributed primarily to chemotherapy-induced depression of innate immune cells and weakened epithelial barriers, which are the body’s first-line defenses against fungal infections. Moreover, classical chemotherapeutic agents also have a detrimental effect on components of the adaptive immune system, which further play important roles in the antifungal response. In this review, we discuss the current paradigm regarding the mechanisms behind the increased risk of systemic candidiasis in cancer patients. We also highlight some recent findings, which suggest that chemotherapy may have more extensive effects beyond the human host, in particular towards C. albicans itself and the bacterial microbiota. The extent to which these additional effects contribute towards the development of candidiasis in chemotherapy-treated patients remains to be investigated.”
And your point is RG? Are you confusing candida as an opportunistic pathogen with the bogus claim that it is the same as cancer?
“In many cases cancer survivors live long enough to die of something else.”
Les, that is your spin on the subject.
Others like me might conclude that the patients lived long enough for the cancer treatments of Chemo and Radiation to give them some other deadly illness.
No RG, you will have to provide evidence of causality. Is it your `spin’ that cancer survival has not doubled in recent years?
I think the authors of this paper were laying it on a bit thick – perhaps they were biomedical scientists rather than clinicians. Personally I have never seen systemic candidiasis in a cancer patient over the course of my career, so it isn’t actually very common. I have mainly seen it in AIDS. Opportunistic infections as a result of prolonged immunosuppression are more common in patients with haematological malignancies (which are the province of haematologists, not oncologists) as the treatment of leukaemias and some high-grade lymphomas tend to be much more toxic to the bone marrow than the regimens used for treating solid tumours.
For the small number of patients in this group that means that their treatment has given them decades of extra life. Obviously this can be improved on (oncologists are constantly striving to improve their treatments) but still worthwhile.
Dr. J Les Rose & Frank Odds
Strawheart made the statement that “there is a strong correlation between Cancer and the fungus Candida Albicans”.
Frank made the statement that his 45 years of research would put Strawheart’s statement in the “drivel” camp.
I was merely pointing out the NCBI findings that supports the statement from Strawheart.
From what I in fact read, there is more than a strong correlation.
I don’t think you read very carefully.
The NCBI excerpt that you quoted said nothing at all about the incidence or prevalence of candida in cancer patients, nor indeed the incidence of cancer in people with pre-existing candida infections. Without these two pieces of information it is impossible to calculate whether there is a correlation and how strong.
What it did say was that “It is also one of the leading causes of opportunistic microbial infections in cancer patients”. As I pointed out it my post earlier today, opportunistic microbial infections in cancer patients are not particularly common, although they are something that anybody treating cancer does worry about nevertheless. I should add that they worry more about infections related to a low neutrophil count, which ARE common in people undergoing chemotherapy and are also life-threatening.
Perhaps I should clarify what opportunistic infections are. These are infections by microbes which are normally present in the environment (and on the body, where they may be harmless commensals) and kept in check by the body’s own defenses, particularly by normal functioning of lymphocytes. Prolonged suppression of normal lymphocyte function, e.g. by repeated high doses of chemotherapy (as used by haematologists much more than oncologists), or as a result of immune disorders such as AIDS, can allow these otherwise harmless microbes to take hold, and the infections that result are frequently life-threatening.
Examples include Pneumocystis carinii (PCP peumonia), cytomegalovirus (blindness, severe systemic illness), Toxocara sp. (from cats and dogs – blindness again), toxoplasma (from cats – severe systmic illness, blindness, behavioural changes such as risk-taking) atypical mycobacteria (pneumonia, systemic illness, chronic anaemia), TB, disseminated herpes and herpes encephalitis, and disseminated fungal infections.
Many species of candida are found in the body, including in the gut, and do not cause any problems; I will defer to Frank’s expertise here. One of them, Candida albicans, quite readily grows in moist areas in skin folds and mucosal surfaces and can cause infections there, which we call thrush; the symptoms are itching, local inflammation and a distinctive smell (or taste if it is in the mouth). Candida likes sugar and is therefore more common in poorly-controlled diabetes. It also causes infections more easily when lymphocyte function is depressed.
Corticosteroids such as dexamethasone and prednisolone are frequently used in cancer treatment, and these have the side-effect of both suppressing lymphocytes and raising blood sugar, so it is very common to see candida infections in cancer patients, usually in the mouth. This responds readily and rapidly to anti-fungal treatment.
Opportunistic infection with candida is quite different. Here it can infect the lungs, heart, brain and other vital organs and cause a life-threatening illness which is difficult to treat, in someone who is already profoundly immunocompromised and very unwell. This is what the authors of your paper were talking about. Also they were writing for a readership who would be expected to know all this.
Please stop taking things that you don’t understand and quoting them out of context. It does not reflect well on you.
Again, this is your SPIN, please don’t belittle me as an attempt to prove me wrong because I don’t understand.
If you can’t see the correlation in the abstract. Then let’s move on to the conclusion.
” The central role that classical chemotherapeutic agents have played in the war on cancer cannot be denied. However, their non-specific nature makes them a double-edged sword, resulting in potentially life-threatening side effects, such as an increased risk of opportunistic microbial infections, of which C. albicans is a leading cause. Systemic candidiasis is highly prevalent in cancer patients and is associated with high morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Hence, in order to improve the overall survival and quality of life of cancer patients, we also need to consider ways to protect patients from such infections, alongside treating the disease itself. It is, therefore, necessary that we better understand how chemotherapeutic agents mediate the risk of opportunistic infection in order to find possible routes for disease interception. The disruption of epithelial barriers and alteration of host immune responses are well-established effects of chemotherapy that are known to increase susceptibility to systemic infection; furthermore, findings from recent studies suggest that chemotherapy may have wider-ranging effects on both C. albicans itself and on the commensal microbiota residing in the human host (schematically summarized in Figure 1). These unexpected effects could also directly contribute to, or indirectly modulate, the risk of opportunistic fungal infections in cancer patients and represent new and intriguing avenues for future studies and possible future interventions.”
And again, what is your point RG?
This is simply not true. Local candidiasis is very common in cancer patients, but systemic candidiasis is rare. They are correct that it is associated with a high mortality, and if it were highly prevalent then we would be seeing a lot of cancer patients dying of it which we don’t.
I have followed your link and read the paper. It is a summary of what is known about the mechanisms by which cancer treatment can promote the growth of various different species of candida (of which C. albicans is the most common). The authors state several times that systemic candidiasis is a leading cause of infection, but the only place where they actually come up with any pointer to numbers is here, at the start of the epidemiology section:
I followed reference 27:
27. Kao A.S., Brandt M.E., Pruitt W.R., Conn L.A., Perkins B.A., Stephens D.S., Baughman W.S., Reingold A.L., Rothrock G.A., Pfaller M.A., et al. The epidemiology of candidemia in two United States cities: Results of a population-based active surveillance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1999;29:1164–1170. doi: 10.1086/313450.
You can read it here:
This is the abstract in full:
“We conducted prospective, active population-based surveillance for candidemia (defined as any Candida species isolated from blood) in Atlanta and San Francisco (total population, 5.34 million) during 1992-1993. The average annual incidence of candidemia at both sites was 8 per 100,000 population. The highest incidence (75 per 100,000) occurred among infants </=1 year old. In 19% of patients, candidemia developed prior to or on the day of admission. Underlying medical conditions included cancer (26%), abdominal surgery (14%), diabetes mellitus (13%), and human immunodeficiency virus infection (10%). In 47% of cases, species of Candida other than Candida albicans were isolated, most commonly Candida parapsilosis, Candida glabrata, and Candida tropicalis. Antifungal susceptibility testing of 394 isolates revealed minimal levels of azole resistance among C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. parapsilosis. These data document the substantial burden of candidemia and its changing epidemiology. Continued surveillance will be important to monitor the epidemiology of candidemia and to detect emergence of resistance to azoles."
So they are saying that in the population studied, the annual incidence of candidaemia (i.e. candida found in the bloodstream) was 8 per 100,000, of which 26% (i.e. about 2 per 100,000) were cancer patients.
Perhaps Teoh and Pavelka got the numbers the wrong way round – they may have misread it as saying that 26% of cancer patients had systemic candidiasis, instead of that 26% of patients with systemic candidiasis had cancer. Either way, the epidemiology of candidiasis was not the main thrust of their paper, which concerned possible mechanisms of infection.
In any case this has no relevance to the question of whether candida infection is an important cause of cancer, which is a pretty strange contention.
I am not trying to belittle you. I am answering what you are saying, not attacking who you are. I don’t know very much about you in any case, only the small amount that you have revealed and what little I can deduce about the way you think on the basis of your posts. However, I am a trained oncologist with 30 years’ experience practising as a doctor in the UK (now retired) and I do know something of what I am talking about.
You have repeatedly produced rather random excerpts from the medical literature, the popular press and elsewhere which are in the main completely irrelevant to the discussion in hand and don’t support your contentions. I have taken the trouble to read some of them and point this out. I don’t think you are wrong because you don’t understand. I think you are wrong because the evidence doesn’t support you. This includes the evidence which you refer to yourself.
I do also think that you don’t understand this evidence because if you did why would you produce it?
Oh no he didn’t! Please try to quote people accurately when any reader of this thread can see you’re way off with your wild paraphrase, destroying any vague shreds of credibility you might retain. Strawheart wrote:
I interpreted Strawheart’s statement as suggesting that Candida albicans is a cause of cancer. I’ve met many people who believe this: it’s an extension of belief in something called “chronic Candida syndrome” (it’s been given a lot of other names) which is diagnosed on the basis of a questionnaire.* One guy I met in the USA turned his body grey with daily self-dosing of silver nitrate to prevent Candida from taking over and causing him to suffer from cancer.
Dr Julian has given a fine account of the natural history of diseases caused by Candida species. C. albicans is the most common species associated with human (opportunist) infections but there are several others. I believe Julian when he says he’s never seen a disseminated Candida infection in a cancer patient: the common association is with haematological malignancy (blood cancers) which Julian doesn’t deal with.
The usual approach to treatment of leukaemias and lymphomas is with immunosuppression, and a patient with very low counts of polymorphonuclear neutrophils is indeed at risk of disseminated (bloodstream)Candida infection. Once PMN counts recover, the fungal infection usually disappears. Disseminated Candida infections also sometimes arise in patients who have undergone extensive gut surgery and severe oral thrush is one of the earliest markers of progression to AIDS in a patient infected with HIV.
In recent years a newly discovered species, C. auris, has been causing opportunist infections in the same settings as C. albicans. This species is cause for concern because some isolates are resistant to the main classes of antifungal agents. However, it remains an uncommon infectious agent. The CDC documented >500 cases in the USA to the end of January this year. That is a worry, but it still counts as a “rare disease”.
*You should take a look at the questionnaire if you’ve a sense of humour for totally doolally concepts of medicine. One question reads “Do you feel “sick all over,” yet the cause hasn’t been found?” The questionnaire comes from a qualified doctor (now RIP†)!
You wrote: “They are correct that it [candidaemia] is associated with a high mortality”. You raise a very important point, which even some of my fellow non-medicals in the medical mycology field seem not to grasp: the difference between attributable and associated mortality.
You cite the 1999 paper by Kao et al. from the CDC, whose focus is on the antifungal susceptibility of Candida spp. isolated from bloodstream infections. A more recent paper (2005) from the same institution by Morgan provides mortality data in candidaemia. The overall mortality figures from all the reports reviewed by Morgan ranged from 26 to 61%. (These figures include data from, e.g., neonatal ICUs which are lower and not relevant to the present thread). The mortality attributable to the Candida infections ranged from 23% to 30%. (N= only 6 publications.)
In other words, the fungus was incriminated as a cause of death in fewer than one-third of cases. People with a Candida bloodstream infection tend to die of the already life-threatening condition that predisposed them to opportunist infection with a fungus.
“Do you know what radiation is? It’s not a chemical.”
HELLOoo, not a chemical but does that matter SINCE IT HAS A CHEMICAL EFFECT ON THE BODY? Clue; That’s why it often renders damaging effects to the quality of life __ such that some might ask. “Is THIS living?”
PS: There are plenty of cases wherein ground beakers have been removed from the planet or hounded out of town. Read
I regularly come across web sites advertising dubious treatments of all kinds where words such as “quantum” are sprinkled liberally over the page as if to provide some sort of legitimacy, when it is clear that the authors have no idea what they mean. However, after reading your post I am not sure that you understand the meaning of alternative, cancer, kill, immune system, cell, chemical, fungus, possible…
The first cytotoxic agents 70 years ago were derived from mustard gas. By the early 1950’s, however, useful chemotherapy drugs were already being obtained from plants and fungi. Cancer treatment has come a long way since then, and current research is focused on understanding the biological pathways involved, which has already led to new drugs targeting the points where these are disrupted. Another area of research is the role of the immune system and how to harness it. Both of these have already had a huge effect on the treatment of many tumours, and I, for one, owe the fact that I am still alive to them.
Although mustards as such aren’t used very much by oncologists these days, there are still many millions of patients whose lives are saved or improved by alkylating agents, which owe their existence to the early research on the effects of mustard gas.
Many treatments used in cancer have specific effects on certain components of the immune system. These are well-known and are straightforward to manage. Sometimes it is necessary to use chemotherapy at such a high dose that it destroys the bone marrow, and the immune system along with it, in which case the patient has to be rescued by an infusion of their own stem cells. If the bone marrow itself is cancerous, then a donor’s bone marrow is transplanted instead.
I am significantly immunocompormised, but in my case it is the cancer doing it, not the treatment.
Not so. With the possible exception of mitomycin C in some cases.
Only a few chemotherapy drugs do this, and in many cases it can be prevented by scalp cooling. My hair fell out completely within 3 weeks of starting chemotherapy, but it grew back curly, which looked fantastic.
This is being increasingly recognised, but memory loss is not limited to chemotherapy. One of the first things a family doctor will do when somebody comes to them with possible dementia is to look for malignancy as a cause. Perhaps you should also google “paraneoplastic syndromes”.
Because it IS a felony, at least in the USA as far as I am aware. Why do people think it is illegal to exceed the speed limit when they are driving?
Radiation is a chemical????
It is true that certain chemotherapy drugs (alkylating agents again) can cause cancer, and this risk has to be weighed against their benefit in treating the cancer that is already there. Radiotherapy can also cause cancer, but it takes 30 – 40 years for most radiation-induced tumours to appear, and given that cancer predominantly affects older people this isn’t a major cause for concern. For neither of them is the risk particularly high.
Would you say that a surgeon should not use a scalpel when treating a knife wound?
Tesla was 86 when he died. He had produced no useful work for at least 15 years before that and by all accounts he had well and truly lost his marbles. He made a lot of barmy and fantastical claims about his discoveries and inventions in his later years. Who would benefit from murdering an old man with dementia? Not that the circumstances of his death suggested anything other than natural causes.
Cancer and a fungus called Candida Albicans go hand in hand
Candida infection is more common in cancer patients, largely due to their immune system being less able to fight it off. Mainly it is when they are given corticosteroids. It is straightforward to treat, however.
Really I despair, Mr Strawheart (or is it Tinbrain?) when I read posts such as yours. You clearly know very little about cancer, and have no idea at all how real doctors and medical researchers spend their time. Your beliefs about conventional cancer treatment are half a century out of date, and I can assure you that biomedical science has made as much progress as computing in that time (I can still remember writing FORTRAN programs on punch cards when I was twelve, and in machine code as a teenager because it was the only way of fitting the programs into 8KB of RAM). More importantly, you also seem to know very little about how to judge the reliability of your sources and how not to be fooled by b******t. Mostly I despair about the state of education these days.
Exactly, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! GOD Bless
There is a reason that anti-cancer drugs are so toxic, and a reason that most non-toxic “remedies” don’t work on cancerous tumors. There is actually a couple of thousand year history of battling cancer, with very little progress until the newer chemotherapeutic agents were discovered. The problem with cancer, is that to kill the cancer cells, you need to use agents which also kill normal cells. Recently, the scientific community is beginning to find effective solutions to this conundrum, with better ways of targeting therapies to the cancer cells while sparing the normal ones. However, the fact is, there is no magic cure that no one seemed to notice, or that the evil corporate pharmacy companies are concealing (although, I admit, they are evil in other ways), that people are randomly discovering, like iodine or dewormer. I wish it were, but it is just wishful thinking and inaccurate anecdotal reporting or coincidence.
Not only fungus but recent studies have shown that viruses present and absent can cause certain cancers. It has been shown that several antiparasitic medications can be effective against viruses. If you break down virus systemic basis, viruses are parasitic.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by that sentence. It makes more sense to me if you substitute “on a systematic” for “systemic”. Systemic and systematic mean completely different things, particularly in medicine where systemic has a very specific meaning.
Viruses are parasites in the sense that they require a host in order to reproduce. However, antiparasitic drugs are effective because they kill worms, not because they kill everything that is a parasite, which they don’t. They are better referred to as antihelminthics for that reason.
And yes, there are other types of parasites, such as Giardia, Toxocara and the various plasmodia which cause malaria. They, too, require specific medication which is not active against viruses.
I am with you read natural cures they (FDA, and government) doesnt want you to know. they chased down, and put the author in Jail its evryone for themselves LEARN and listen to your body and lets not forget apple cider vinegar
Apple cider vinegar is good for making delicious recipes but you need to be both ignorant and gullible to believe it is medicine.
BTW,this post is five years old. How about closing old posts so we make room for something new and exciting? 🙂
So you and I both have access to the same information. Kevin Trudeau, a convicted fraud artist, wrote a best selling book, made a ton of money, and went to jail for fraud.
One interpretation is that he’s a con man who made it all up; another is that tens of thousands of people who spent their whole lives trying to save people are conspiring to hide Kevin’s genius.
So which is it? Chemotherapy and other painful treatments have a plausible mechanism of action, have been validated in peer reviewed controlled trials, are supported by experts in the incredibly complex field of cancer biology, and have had tremendous success in saving lives.
Or, there is a conspiracy to keep us from making our bodies alkaline, which is impossible, and shows Kevin doesn’t even understand the original (wrong) idea that foods which leave alkaline ashes after being burned are healthier.
Your choice of what to believe will tell us a lot about you.
But what if variations in blood PH effects the degree of success of chemotherapy, what would you say then ? Have you considered this ?
There is no such thing as “blood PH”. It isn’t a typo by the author, James Joromat; it’s a demonstration of the author’s ignorance of basic chemistry.
1. ‘Technically, the term [typo] includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors, or changing and misuse of words such as “than” and “then”.’ — Wikipedia, Typographical error
As to the author’s knowledge of acid–base homeostasis, see:
PHYSIOLOGICAL pH FOR DUMMIES
As to the author’s knowledge of chemotherapy:
chemotherapy is individualized using somewhat more parameters than ‘blood pH’.
Local pH does affect the action of particular chemotherapy drugs, though it does not affect them all equally nor in the same direction. I am referring the the pH within tumours, though, not in the blood, which varies depending on the distance of the tumour cells from blood vessels. Tumours do not consist only of malignant cells, but also of supporting tissue, including their own blood supply. However, tumour blood vessels have a very abnormal architecture and on a microscopic scale the blood supply is very patchy. This means that many cells within a tumour are hypoxic (short of oxygen) which makes them acidic.
Tumour hypoxia is one of the reasons why cancers can be resistant to treatment, particularly radiotherapy, which relies on the presence of oxygen to generate free radicals which then react with DNA. However, usually there is quite a lot of day-to-day variation in which particular cells are hypoxic, which is one reason why radiotherapy courses are usually fractionated (divided into several doses).
This has very little to do with the pH of the blood, which is maintained within very tight limits by the body’s homeostatic mechanisms. Ingesting acids does not change it, as the kidneys respond by secreting more hydrogen ions and the respiratory rate increases to blow off more carbon dioxide, elimitaing more carbonic acid. If you ingest enough acid (or other poisons such as aspirin overdose) to cause acidosis you become very ill. This does not in any way assist the body in dealing with the stresses that arise from underlying illnesses such as cancer.
Look up Sebi, a Black man, who cure a whole range of diseases, including cancer. They took him to court to expose him. Surprise ! He won because his treatments proved to be valid. They plotted and he died in a jail. Medicine is a business. It, like any product needs to install problems in order to protect and increase profits. Therefore, no drug is ever created without insuring it has side-effects. Those side-effects stock returns that keep on giving
I looked him up. I couldn’t find anything about his treatments being proved to be valid in court. He was acquitted of practising medicine without a licence because the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove that he was diagnosing diseases, or that his products were medicines. There is a link in this article to a court document forbidding him from making medical claims.
Sebi was just another grifting quack.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687140/ Tippens Protocol has been called a scam but I have seen testimonials. GCMaf David Noakes and Lyn Thyer were illegally renditioned and jailed in France. https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/gcmaf-and-persecution-david-noakes-lyn-thyer-immuno-biotech. Anyone who understands how HCQ and IVM were sabotaged these last few years and the powerful forces behind it should be able to comprehend the point.
Yes, the point is that you reject scientific consensus among millions of scientists and doctors, in favour of N=1 anecdotal evidence from someone who may not even exist – or, even worse, from people who make and sell bogus cancer drugs without any medical or pharmacological qualifications, let alone the necessary permits. And then cry conspiracy if those people are punished because they broke several laws. Please note that those laws are in place to protect desperate cancer patients from being scammed and killed with ineffective quackery, not to deprive them of effective cures.
This is what the science says:
– The fenbendazole study is interesting but extremely weak (only 4 or 5 mice in each group). Also, positive mouse trials do not automatically translate to humans. More research is needed.
– GcMAF is not effective against cancer.
– Hydroxychloroquine is not effective against Covid-19.
Ivermectin is not effective against Covid-19.
– There are no ‘powerful forces’ keeping effective cancer and Covid drugs from the market – pharmaceutical companies are far too greedy for that: they would be extremely stupid to suppress drugs that could make then literally trillions of dollars. Big Pharma will never pass up an opportunity to make a sale. Who do you think makes all those ‘natural’ supplements and vitamin pills?
The only powerful forces at play here are stupidity and arrogance from quacks, science-deniers and of course conspiracy believers.
American medical professionals are weak clinical thinkers and very rigid in their protocols…..their intellectual diet of whatever the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and researchers choose to feed them is limited…… as long as they are thrown some type of incentive/perk or cling to their status with all the other hospital koolaid drinkers….. they will go along with what is being pushed……do they care…..????……lol……they used to……but…Medicine is no longer a profession…..doctors and other providers have become like every other pill pusher out their….they just wear a nice little white coat and parade around professing that what they do is the standard of care….the invention that some ding dong in government dreamed up….they no longer have wisdom or discernment and they are definitely not problem solvers…just problem creators……..and as we have seen with COVID and HIV and now Monkeypox…..they no longer have any ethical backbone….they have sold out to the US CORPORATION DOLLAR……too caught up in their GOD complexes, their 401k’s and Country Club memberships ….and don’t for a minute think that their Board Certification status makes them a better doctor…..it says absolutely nothing about what kind of doctor they are…. harsh on my own kind…..yes……..but that is the truth……not many doctors tell you folks the truth any more…..so you had better get proactive about your own health……and look to diverse sources for information
Everything on this earth has the potential for good and evil…..most medicine is plant based or animal based in origin……so ask yourself….what are they afraid of that they cannot entertain the possibility that there might be….just might be……something out there that works better than what they are peddaling…. …..what do people or animals with cancer really have to lose by trying alternatives…..??? Why are these doctors with so many letters after their name SO AFRAID….and ANGRY…..that they cannot explore the possibility of alternatives….is it CONCEIT that drives them???….why do they have to belittle the little guy who just wants to live life with better quality and a little longer than what they have been brainwashed to accept…Doctors DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING….even though they would like you to think that……they have a skewed perspective and limitations on what they can offer you….Fight for your Healing….and the Health of your family and furry friends…..YOU ARE WORTH IT!
Cancer is NOT A FUNGUS…. this is an idiotic, and totally ludicrous statement…… for shits sake do some reading……
You need to read a basic cellular biology text. It’s not a fungus. It may be a reaction to the presence of a fungus, but they are two different things.
Prostate cancer screening and early detection does NOT save men’s lives. Let’s do the math. Per the USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force): “Only one man in 1,000 could possibly have a life saving benefit from screening” and “A small benefit and known harms from prostate cancer screening”. However 1.3 to 3.5 deaths per 1,000 and up to 6.9% hospitalization from a prostate blind biopsy infection or complication. Also 5 men in 1000 died and 20.4% had one or more complications within 30 days of a prostatectomy. This does not include deaths, injuries and side effects from radiation and other procedures, medical mistakes, a 5 times higher suicide risk, ADT therapy complications, heart attracts, depression, low quality of life, etc, caused by prostate cancer screening and treatments. Detection and overtreatment of prostate cancer has killed or destroyed millions of men’s lives worldwide from understated and multiple undisclosed side effects. The doctor that invented the PSA test, Dr. Richard Ablin now calls it: “The Great Prostate Mistake”, “Hoax” and “A Profit Driven Public Health Disaster”. Follow the money!
The Great Prostate Hoax by Richard Ablin MD (the inventor of the PSA test)
The Big Scare, The Business of Prostate Ca
I could not find any contact details for this site, other than the domain registrant who appears to be in Vietnam. The ad links to energiseforlife.com which is a British site, so subject to UK consumer law. There is a long list of references which I will try to get checked, as I suspect they don’t support the claims at all. Does anyone want to help me with this?
….and the first thing I find is that Dr Joe Pizzorno, corresponding author on the first paper cited, is a naturopath and affiliated with the Institute of Functional Medicine, and a founder of the quack Bastyr University. This is the paper which the site claims is `research’ from the `prestigious Cambridge University’ It isn’t, it’s a review paper published in the British Journal of Nutrition, which is published by Cambridge University Press. Goodness, this is going to be fun.
Definition of a SCAM:
“An illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people”
You are again making a serious allegation without supporting evidence!
SCAM = A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
I RECOMMEND SULFUR 30C
but watch it: you might have an aggravation!
Instead of ‘scam’, he could have just called it ‘a pack of lies’ – would you be OK with that, Colin?
If it is, then it is hard to disagree but where is the evidence of lies or fraud?
anyone with a functioning brain can see or find the evidence that baking powder does not cure cancer… except you, it seems
Your an idiot but your right Baking powder does not work on cancer!!!
Baking Soda is completely different than baking powder, obviously you have never laid foot in a kitchen either.
So it is fear that is what this scam of yours is all about to distract people from trying something that does not line your pocket with more money. That is what the article is talking about. The only reason you are calling it a scam is this could end the ability for you, if your really all you say you? DR!? is your ability to continue collecting that $3+ millions of Dollars for every cancer patient you treat with radiation.
And Les Rose, about the man you said was on trial for killing someone who knowingly went to him, hoping to be cured by something that gave him more hope than the chemo and radiation treatment that was a definite toe tag ticket to the other side. They got that trial all wrong. They fact that these Oncologist have the money to pay off whomever they need to in order to continue keeling people with the hope of beating cancer by killing the cells that one needs in order to have an immune system capable of fighting off even the comon cold. You certainly are brain washed by the government that has superficially implanted an image of what radiation and chemo really does to the body. Why don’t they show you what it does by sticking an Atom Bomb up ones a–. We all know what happened to Hiroshima, after the Atom bomb was dropped. To get rid of a small group of bad people millions died and the radiation affected the masses. So why? and how? could the use of directly injecting radiation into the bad cells of the body kill a small mass of bad cells give one person hope that it can be contained to just the bad cells… WELL YOU CAN’T.. And any person that claims to be a Dr. and continues to convince their cancer patients to try chemo and radiation and then loose the client in the end. Should be put on trial for what they put Simoncini on trial for. As well as any instructor or pharmaceutical company that claims that their chemo and radiation treatment is going to prolong your life as they know they are just extending your life long enought to collect Millions of dollars from the insurance companies who continue to pay out for these hanus crimes.
You need to really check the research that may be needing some research by someone who is as prestigious as you think you are. And please try the baking soda in your test!!! not baking powder
“We all know what happened to Hiroshima, after the Atom bomb was dropped. To get rid of a small group of bad people millions died”
I don’t think there is anything in your post that is based on fact, other than that baking powder is sometimes a mixture of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid. A lot of people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either outright or from the effects of radiation exposure, and a few hundred also developed radiation induced tumours, but it was not millions.
yours truly said:
well, then it must be true, mustn’t it?
As a survivor of prostate cancer, I feel I am qualified to tell you naysayers and non believers to fuck off.
Dr. Simon in cured me in one operation with a small cut into my prostate, which he then “fed” with baking soda, mixed with water, for 6 days. I am cancer free for over 12 years, still have my prostate, and have an active sex life at 62 years of age.
So, again, Fuck Off!
same to you
I used Tulio Simoncini’s bicarbonate of Soda regime to cure my bladder cancer, I’ve been clear for 10 years. Tulio Simoncini was an oncologist. Probably more qualified than you Edzard Ernst. Have you read his story, why he puts himself through all this shit. This unenjoyable shit, like your disgusting article. Which by the way is not unique
“As a survivor of prostate cancer, I feel I am qualified to tell you naysayers and non believers to fuck off.”
As a prostate oncologist I feel I am qualified to suggest to you that perhaps you don’t know very much about the natural history of prostate cancer.
A lot of early, low-grade prostate cancers are diagnosed as a result of somebody having a PSA test which are never going to progress or cause any ill-health to their hosts. Unfortunately, although they are very common, it is not always easy to distinguish them in advance from more aggressive tumours that are potentially fatal. Many patients choose to have them treated rather than live with the uncertainty, and there are gung-ho urologists who encourage them in this. However, it is usually better to adopt an approach known as active surveillance which involves regular MRI scans and some follow-up biopsies. That way unnecessary treatment can be avoided.
Of course I don’t know how your prostate cancer was diagnosed, what were your stage and grade of cancer at the time of diagnosis, or whether your results were properly reviewed by specialists in a multidisciplinary team meeting. I don’t even know what your PSA was, or indeed whether it could have risen as a result of prostatitis or minor trauma and then fallen again. I certainly don’t know by what criteria you are now cancer-free – I would regard a series of MRI scans and a template biopsy (taking about 40 cores across the prostate and additional samples targeting any MRI abnormalities) to be a reasonably reliable test.
I also don’t appreciate your language. Are you always this rude to strangers?
I doubt very much whether injecting bicarbonate into your prostate will have achieved very much, apart from putting you at risk of infection from the procedure.
I’m a survivor also, I survived the Urologist.
He wanted to do I biopsy on my Prostate gland to check for cancer. I went home and did some googling. It didn’t take me long to expose his folly and greed.
10 years later…. no sign of any cancer.
“I’m a survivor also, I survived the Urologist. ”
Yes, I think you may have been quite wise there…
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
It matters little for this discussoin, but I’ll point it out to set the record straight, and to add doubt to your analogy.
The US military and the US government knew very well what would happen in with the Atom bombs in Japan. Don’t for a minute think they were uninformed about the A-bomb. They were NOT aiming at any speicific group of “bad” people. They were well aware that the colateral damage would be severe and large on the civilian population. As ugly as that sounds, they knew the losses would be great on both sides to attempt to occupy Japan. They may have estimated correctly… we’ll never know.
“Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
“It matters little for this discussoin, but I’ll point it out to set the record straight, and to add doubt to your analogy.”
With regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only thing that I said was that it was not true that millions died. About 250,000 were killed outright or died shortly afterwards from radiation sickness. Another 250,000 received a significant dose of radiation. Of those, after 40 years of follow-up there were about 300 excess cancers over and above the expected level. That is still a lot, but there are so many false beliefs about almost everything to do with ionising radiation that I felt that it was important to correct a factual error.
With regard to what the US Military and Government may or may not have known about the effects of dropping the A bombs, you may well be right. However, I don’t see how they could have anticipated all of the awful consequences of exposing a large population to a lot of radiation since nothing similar had ever happened before, and the science of radiobiology was in its infancy.
By the way, if you ever find yourself in Japan, it is worth making the trip to Hiroshima. Visiting the memorial and the museum is a very moving experience, and there are some interesting places to visit nearby.
“[Colin] You are again making a serious allegation without supporting evidence!”
A scam is generally considered to be the promotion of a product or a service that itself lacks adequately supporting evidence. Therefore, requesting evidence of its lack of evidence is both: a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof; a pathetic attempt to despise anyone and everyone who dares to either critique it, or dares to request from the vendor adequately supporting evidence!
I suggest that you properly study what constitutes medical fraud.
Criminals claim they do not commit burglaries, murder or fraud because they are sociopaths and narcissists. The recently popular and fraudulent “alkaline diet” must have “metastasized” from this “baking soda treatment.”
Is there a video about it? Videos are the only medium our Colin regards as evidence.
If the site is based in Vietnam, it is likely garbage copied from who knows where and being used as click bait. The ads are automatic, but the ad provider pays a fraction of a cent to the site owner for every click through. All they care about is generating traffic.
Alas, the baking soda cancer crazyness is all to real. If you wish to know where “God knows where is, then look up a madman named Tullio Simoncini, (http://www.curenaturalicancro(dot)com/en/) or have a look at the deranged woman exposed by Britt-Marie Hermeshere
Dear Bjorn : madman as you described has saved my life and also the life of Ronald Holmes from Tenessee USA . Ron riddled with bladder cancer for the last three years was in his 41 st day of his Simoncini treatment in Rome which is where i met Ron and his wife Kelly. After three operations and urinating blood fir three years the last operation of one and half hour duration in USA the doctors gave up and basically told him that in order to survive he would need to have his bladder and prostate cut out and do chemo and radiation if he wanted to live . He came to Rome where he was treated by Tullio Simoncini after two weeks his urine was clear it’s three months now and he is still cancer free and happily sailing his boat in Florida I got an email from him yesterday. A young German Canadian also was cured whilst I was there getting treatment he is 43 years of age a bladder cancer victim and of course they the oncologists in Canada told him his insides would need to be cut out if he wanted to survive! How many innocent people are killed each day with chemotherapy radiation hormone therapy all of which have horrendous effects I should know I’m a stage three prostate cancer patient!
Also have lymphoma and osephegas cancer Perhaps most people go to Tullio when they’ve exhausted the cut burn poison therapy of so called modern medicine and as a last resort go to Simoncini when it’s too late
I’ve had a CT PSMA pet scan done after the Simoncini treatment and I have no activity of cancer at the moment.
Clearly the professionals can’t be convicted because they follow a standard accepted protocol, do you know the percentage of people who die after chemo !
Open your mind and educate yourself ! My cousin who is a Kidney Specialist in Verona was concerned that I would be a Victim of Simoncini but the two lots of blood tests mid way and at the end of my treatment proved beyond doubt that my liver kidney pancreas red blood cells etc etc was better than when I started the treatment and I have had no side effects! I come from Melbourne Australia fortunately my relatives are in the medical field in Italy and I was able to be monitored. Ps I’ve had no side effects other than feeling thirsty about week 4 of treatment. my email is lou.s.silluzio@ gmail. com if anyone wishes to know more I have video evidence taken by myself of the success of the Sodium Bicarbonate treatment by Dr Tullio Simoncini
I know he can’t cure everything and everyone but the people I met had 100 % success with his protocol and have been spared surgery chemotherapy and radiation and all of the discusting side effects!
Lou, I have “opened my mind” and “done my research”. This is what I found:
“Simoncini was tried and found guilty of fraud and manslaughter in 2006 after a patient died receiving his treatment.”
In 2018, Simoncini received a 5-year jail sentence for culpable manslaughter of a cancer patient in 2011.”
This man kills people. You need to understand that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Please direct me to rigorous controlled trials published by Simoncini in quality journals.
Lou Silluzio said:
How do you know that?
“Ron riddled with bladder cancer for the last three years was in his 41 st day of his Simoncini treatment in Rome which is where i met Ron and his wife Kelly. After three operations and urinating blood fir three years the last operation of one and half hour duration in USA the doctors gave up and basically told him that in order to survive he would need to have his bladder and prostate cut out and do chemo and radiation if he wanted to live . He came to Rome where he was treated by Tullio Simoncini after two weeks his urine was clear it’s three months now and he is still cancer free”
You clearly don’t know very much about the natural history of bladder cancer. It usually starts as small warty growths on the surface of the bladder which can be easily removed and although they tend to recur, it often never progresses beyond that stage. However, once it starts to invade the bladder wall then it is only a matter of time before it spreads further and becomes incurable. However, conventional treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (either surgical removal of the bladder, or radiotherapy together with a chemosensitiser, not both) are very successful treatments, and the cure rate can be further improved by combining this with a course of chemotherapy.
It is not unusual for bleeding from a bladder tumour to stop for a while, and your friend’s history is entirely in keeping with the expected progression from early, superficial tumours, to muscle-invasive but still curable disease.
“madman as you described has saved my life”
I doubt it. If you have stage III prostate cancer, depending on the TNM stage there is still a possibility of cure with conventional treatment, and in any case it can certainly keep you well and prolong your life.
“I’ve had a CT PSMA pet scan done after the Simoncini treatment and I have no activity of cancer at the moment”
What did it look like before the treatment? What was the interval between the scans? Have you had any other treatment at all?
“Also have lymphoma and osephegas cancer”
If that is the case why are you worrying about prostate cancer?
“How many innocent people are killed each day”
Innocent of what? Are you saying that it is OK to kill the guilty?
“with chemotherapy radiation hormone therapy all of which have horrendous effects I should know I’m a stage three prostate cancer patient!”
Are you saying that you have had chemotherapy, radiation and hormone therapy? Chemotherapy certainly isn’t standard treatment for stage III prostate cancer, though hormone therapy to reduce your testosterone level certainly is. Modern radiotherapy to the prostate and pelvic nodes isn’t horrendous at all for most people. Have you tried talking to anybody who has had it? In any case, it is very rare that anybody is killed by hormone treatment or radiotherapy; chemotherapy is more dangerous, but this has to be balanced against the greater number of lives saved.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this very useful information. It is greatly appreciated! I am amazed at the lack of capability in the medical research as I investigate these issues. All research which I have conducted leads me to believe Otto Warburg’s investigations were the last serious science until Tullio Simoncini’s. Thes negative responses you address have actually caused several of my relatives to ignore Dr. Simoncini’s treatment and undergo the chemo and radiation which ultimately took their lives in a cruel, painful manner.
Thank you for stepping up!
“Otto Warburg’s investigations were the last serious science until Tullio Simoncini’s”
You do a disservice to Warburg by this comparison. Though to suggest that physiology research conducted a century ago was the last serious science is a bit dismissive of what has been discovered since then.
“Thes negative responses you address have actually caused several of my relatives to ignore Dr. Simoncini’s treatmen”
I’m not clear what you are referring to. Do you mean negative responses of cancer to bicarbonate? In which case your relatives seem to have been acting rationally.
“chemo and radiation which ultimately took their lives in a cruel, painful manner”
Are you sure of this? It is rather unusual for anybody to die from the effects of radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-related deaths are more commmon, though still only represent a small fraction of patients treated (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)30383-7/fulltext). However, most deaths following palliative cancer treatment are from the cancer itself.
Irrefutable!!! Thank you so much and may God bless you always for speaking out. I will send you a private email.
Truth be told NO medical personnel today was taught alternative cancer treatment in college. Though they know it works in some cases, they are too scared to prescibe it for fear of their license.
I am treating Rectal cancer. I am open to ALL treatment except surgery. When I mentioned cannabis to my doctor, he was stunned and in a low voice, he said ” Please use it”. I wish he had guts to tell their central medical body his experience.
Bill Hanem said:
How do they know it works?
One–many doctors use alt-med treatments and make a fortune off of it, and they rarely lose their licenses. Even if they do they can just open a clinic in Mexico.
Two–the first doctor to do a peer-reviewed, well designed and controlled study that proves alt-med works will become famous and make a fortune. There’s no downside. Everyone loves an underdog with a miracle cure.
Three–Cannabis doesn’t cure cancer, and there’s evidence for that. The doctor was probably recommending it for pain and nausea.
Delusional bullshit can still be a scam. The term is informal.
I notice you “forgot” to condemn this transparent quackery. No doubt you’ll be correcting that.
What money passes hands just the bi-carbonate of Soda and maple syrup! I had breast cancer that metastasised into my liver and after taking the mixture that I made myself I have now no cancer at all in my liver or anywhere else in my body, so tell my body that it doesn’t work, because it really does cure cancer!
NO, IT DOESN’T!
either you had other treatments,
or it was a spontaneous remission,
or you never had cancer.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WORKS; CLAIMING OTHERWISE RISKS THE LIVES OF OTHERS.
I’ve realised that the energiseforlife.com ad is an automatic one, but I’m grateful to the mighty Google for pointing me to what is undoubtedly a scam. So far none of the references supports any of the claims. It is clearly illegal, at least in the UK, to make health claims without evidence, and especially to solicit payment.
Gee, isn’t Tulio Simoncini in prison for killing people exactly this same way? He would inject baking soda (BS!) directly into breast tumours. All his patients died, of course, and he was stripped of his medical license and thrown in jail in Italy.
Let’s not forget Robert O. Young, who got rich selling his entire pH quackery to vulnerable, desperate and misguided patients. He’s also in jail, for pretending to be a doctor.
Funny that uber-quack Julian Whitaker is cited. He’s an anti-vax, anti-psychiatry “detox” advocate and loon. Unfortunately he’s a real MD, which brings a certain implied (and undeserved) credibility.
For a few years Whitaker served on the board of a scientology front group called the Citizen’s Coalition for Human Rights (CCHR), a militant anti-psychiatry organization. Their motto is “Psychiatry: an industry of death.” I didn’t know he had bought into the whole baking soda scam.
Whitaker has also tangled with Orac and there’s a very amusing video of this crackpot showing graphs that make no sense.
Oh, and stupid me, I forgot the best part! Whitaker is also one of the few doctors on the planet willing to speak on behalf of Stan Burzynski. That alone tells you all you need to know about his level of credulity.
He sells a ton of supplements, anti-aging potions and other garbage on his website too, like all good quacks.
Are you talking of Burzynsky who has been acquitted again quite recently, and who has a spectacular cure record, and hundreds of cured patients testifying and gathering at the court? I bet you also think Hillary is a virgin.
So this is Burzynski’s spectacular cure record?
30+ years, 60+ `trials’ and still no product licence? Your level of debate does you no credit.
Burzynski has been researching these since the 70s. He’s conducted many trials (64), but never managed to produce any credible evidence that they work for any type. Not only that but when others have tested them they can’t either https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366171/ In my view they have been sufficiently studied and now should be regarded as a disproven treatment.
Burzynski has not been “acquitted”, there are findings against him despite the court being swayed in a way they really should not have been by emotional appeals. The TMB would yank his license in a heartbeat if they could. The FDA inspected several times, and found massive violations every time.
Burzynski has no credible evidence to support his treatments. He’s been selling them for decades, latterly under the pretence of clinical trials. At no point has he produced a single publication in a credible journal that gives any reason to suppose his treatment works.
The Houston cancer quack is probably the most unethical doctor still licensed to practice in the US.
George, thank you for defending healthy approaches ans those who strive towards healing our bodies and not just throwing drugs and radiation at us.
Linda, do you have any conception of what evidence is? Burzynski has never published any credible results. No rigorous controlled trials, not even any anecdotal evidence:
I had a patient who took Dr Whitaker’s milk thistle supplement for his liver and who declined to treat his diabetes, right up to the point of going on urgent dialysis. Freaking irresponsible.
And speak of the devil. This was published a week ago:
The BBC reported that Young advised a woman who was dying from breast cancer, British army officer Naima Houder-Mohammed, to pay him thousands of dollars for his alkaline treatment, which predominantly consisted of baking soda administered intravenously. According to the BBC, Houder-Mohammed and her family ended up paying Young more than $77,000 (£62,700) for the treatment and his advice.
Houder-Mohammed stayed at Young’s facility, the “pH Miracle Ranch,” for three months, according to the BBC, until her condition worsened and she was taken to the hospital. She died at age 27.
In 2011, the Medical Board of California began an investigation at Young’s ranch, where it discovered that none of the 15 cancer patients Young treated there outlived their prognosis. One woman died from congestive heart failure after being given 33 intravenous sodium bicarbonate drips over 31 days at a cost of $550 each, according to the BBC.
And how many people have survived simply by doing chemotherapies and radiotherapies? Neither of them work. I have lost six people to cancer from my close circle of family and friends. They all did chemos and radiotherapies and NONE survived!! So, selling “treatments” that do not really work, isn’t that also a scam?
Very good point!
The truth is so difficult to find regarding Cancer and other diseases. Chemo destroys the immunity system. Period. End of story. How can that be a good thing?
the best cancer treatment usually is the one which enables the patient to live longest with a decent quality of life; and that can be measured in months and years. so the truth is often not so difficult to determine.
I didn´t see any comments about what Mr. Theodore stated by those who vouch for the traditional medicine…..if those using sodium bicarbonate on cancer are thrown to jail, what about the doctors using “legal” chemicals to kill not a few but thousands since chemotherapy has been used on us?….
Not because something is generally accepted or done by the masses is necessarily the right thing to do….or else, killing Jews would be ok nowadays…but it is not, right?….perhaps killing black people, or let us put it in a more politically correct term, Afro-descendants for those who might be tempted to let their sensitivity rise….what about killing indigenous people….back in the days it was ok doing so…they were just considered animals by those conquering the world….subjects that most people do not want to talk about….something pretty similar to what is happening with the chemotherapy usage around the world……big companies making a lot of money with those infected by the same governments who are supposed to protect them in the first place….is it right?….of course not!!!…But they all do it for the sake of money and power…and whoever steps on their way is simply thrown to jail making examples on each one who dares to gain a piece fo their cake.
Doctors around the world (no all of them) are just a bunch of corrupted members of one of the biggest cartels in the world – The Pharmaceutical Industry – dress in white…like the second biggest cartel – The Catholic Church – dress in white and purple…both just a bunch of criminals pretending to be there to help those in need.
This is about money and power, it is not about helping those in need….
you should see a good doctor about your paranoia!
Really Doc?……Shouldn’t we say most doctors in the world should be persecuted and hanged to death for knowingly helping spread a killing enterprise?
If I mention to you that governments do so in regular bases, you might disagree with me..but I going to give you a simple example just to see if you agree with me on this point…..cigarettes/tobacco….it´s sold everywhere, right?
The government taxed it and allow this multimillion-dollar enterprise to keep doing business as usual as if nothing happens, but we know that lots of people are dying from cancer induce by tobacco….but the government keeps their eyes closed and permit such companies to get away with murder…isn´t the same government who are supposed to protect it´s citizen from getting harm?
Do you get my point Doc?
Pharmaceutical corporations keep doing illegal shit thanks to the money they invest..the hands they grease constantly..doctors included…and because you have a ph degree or whatever piece of paper hang into a wall, being haft deaf and fully blind doesn´t make you less innocent than most prigs running this multi-million dollar business….if you keep silent you become a partner in crime..an accessory..and THAT is what you are!!!
“if you keep silent you become a partner in crime..an accessory..and THAT is what you are!!!”
I much rather keep silent than utter such nonsense as you do.
All your arguments are EXCELLENT untill you touched The Catholic Church, PLEASE DON’T MESS WITH JESUS!!!!
Louie, which Jesus? It’s actually the Latinised version of the name Joshua, and the middle east was overrun with Joshuas in 1st century CE. Many of them were apocalyptic preachers.
Bicarbonate “deficiency”? My fridge had one the other day, so I opened a new box of baking soda and put it in.
Good on you, Les Rose. It would be interesting to see who started this nonsense and why.
The why is probably self-evident: to make money.
The site mentions that a certain Mark Paget at the University of Arizona received a grant of $2 million to conduct a study of baking soda in cancer patients. That study has been completed, but the results have not been posted.
It will be interesting to see the results of this study and if positive, what will be posted on this blog!
as you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake, let me explain this to you:
even if the study turns out to be convincingly positive, the claims I exposed in this post are bogus and irresponsible, not least because they were made before clinical trials were available.
somehow, I doubt it!
Your original post would have been more acceptable if you had made reference to this study and that the outcome is still to be published. All I am suggesting is a more balanced approach on your behalf. As a professional investigator I believe that all the known facts should be presented in any report so that balanced and informed choices and decisions can be made. Call that delusional if you will!
there is no balance way to disclose ruthless quackery!
Two and a half years later there is still nothing on “paget m arizona” on Pubmed!
It appears to me that, given the focus of Dr. Paget’s previous work, his study on oral dosing of sodium bicarbonate has more to do with imaging tumors and revealing their pH in an effort to develop more effective cancer chemotherapeutics than anything else. Given the acidic environment of the human gastrointestinal tract, it will be surprising if even that works. As near as I can tell, the idea of treating cancer patients with baking soda is based on tumor inhibition in rodents. But just because something seems to work in rodents doesn’t mean that it will be effective in humans.
I have one simple question: Has anyone really survived cancer simply by doing chemo and radiotherapies? Like, really beat cancer and live a long life without cancer coming back? And if the are success stories, how many do we count? Three, five, ten, 600, 10.000, 3.000.000? Let’s start talking about scam then!
Theodre, you are asking the wrong question. The simple answer is yes, millions of people survive cancer with chemo and radio. Many of them survive long enough to die of something else. In that case cancer never came back because the patient was dead. You really need to be looking at how long they survived. There is a huge amount of data on this, eg:
In contrast, patients who refuse chemo and radio, in favour of alternative medicine, die earlier:
It took me 5 minutes to find these studies. It really isn’t hard.
it appears that this link takes you to studies that are somehow related to American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute which are supported by…you guessed it…Pharmaceutical companies. The problem is most articles written that are in any way related to either Big Pharma OR someone that they support simply cannot be trusted. Period. It’s unfortunate yes. But true.
I like the ‘period’; no discussion needed/wanted – it could prove the nonsense you write wrong.
Please advise us why Big Snakeoil is in any way more trustworthy than Big Pharma.
Another answer to your question is to look at childhood cancers. Among the most common of these is acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and the usual treatment modality for ALL is chemotherapy, with radiotherapy and surgery added if necessary. For childhood ALL the 5-year survival rates are 85-90%, and according to the American Cancer Society “children who are free of the disease after 5 years are very likely to have been cured, because it’s very rare for these cancers to return after this long.” About 3,000 people below the age of 20 are newly diagnosed each year with ALL. So the number of people cured by chemo and radiotherapy in the USA alone numbers in the 10 thousands. Those are people who “really beat cancer and live a long life without cancer coming back”.
(Sources: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-in-children/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html, https://www.stjude.org/disease/acute-lymphoblastic-leukemia-all.html)
Now, children are more easily cured of any form of cancer than adults: take a look at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia-all/survival for differential survival in ALL. But your implication that chemotherapy is ineffective and a scam is way out of line. Response rates and 5-year survival rates depend on the type of cancer (there are more than 200 different types), the patient’s age, and how early the cancer is diagnosed. Your other comment is ripe with indignation, but provides no indication of the ages, cancer types or stage of diagnosis among the six of your family and friends who succumbed to cancer despite treatment.
Can you not see how worthless anecdotes are compared with properly obtained data, as Les Rose pointed out to you? Your blanket conclusion that chemo “doesn’t work” and is a “scam”, based on your personal experience, has the same value as comments on this blog from people who ate broccoli and their cancer went away. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is ‘anecdotes’, not ‘data’!
It has taken you nearly a year to come up with this response! The National Cancer Institute is a government agency of the National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society is a charity. Your claim is worthless unless you can provide evidence that both are in the pay of pharma companies.
Even so, should I take more notice of a charlatan who makes money by selling baking soda for cancer?
Edzard Ernst is a large stock holer in big pharma. This douche waffle is nothing more than controlled opposition . YES. cancer must have a low metabolic ph to take hold and spread. And yes. ..Sodium Bicarbonate is crucial to both blood pH and metabolic pH.
[for this clear evidence of your deluded state of mind]
Well there we go. Adam’s ten minutes reading Natural News beats everyone else’s medical degrees.
You might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, Adam. You might develop a little self-awareness.
But I doubt it.
Water only fasting rapidly cures cancers. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I HAD LIVER AND BOWEL CANCER AND IT RAPIDLY DISAPPEARED.
water only fasting leads to death within a few weeks
I see. In other words, doctors who don’t do water fasts when they have cancer are simply suicidal.
Simon jenks I am very interested in your water only therapy. Can you please explain a bit more of exactly what you did? I would really appreciate knowing this because I am currently looking into alternative therapy methods to help my partner who has bowel lung and liver cancer and has not been offered radio or chemo or any operation, thank you in advance
I am afraid that the comment by “Simon Jenks” is a tasteless joke, intentional or not. Your desperation is understandable but your search for miracles is misguided. Please try to help your partner live with dignity rather than become a victim of stupid pseudotreatments that will onlymake whatever life he or she has left, more miserable.
In this world, there are no alternatives. There is no general conspiracy to suppress or hide cures. We who work in medicine know this all too well, we would grab the chance ourselves if needed and a miracle,even as simple as water fasting would be worth billions. There is no miracle cure, only money making schemes and false hope.
My question was not directed at you.
How dare you come on here and reply telling me what you think I should do.
This site does not belong to Simon Jenks and only Mr. Ernst has the right to decide who can comment. Mr. Geir has as much right to persuade you to avoid unnecessary suffering as you do to ask Mr. Jenks about water fasting.
“How dare you come on here and reply telling me what you think I should do.” Wow! So you think this is a forum for your personal private communications? Not a blog open to any and all readers?
Get real, man! This is a comments section on a publicly accessible blog. Any reader can “dare” to respond to anything.
I dare because I can, I care and because I know what I am talking about.
I could consider taking your indignant blurt personally if you were somebody who had the courage to show his or her identity.
Any incognito “Tom”, “Dick” and “Harry” can say almost anything they want on this blog, from behind the rocks they are hiding under. The professor is quite liberal with allowing comments. But they can not expect to be taken seriously, especially when they exhibit ignorance and profound gullibility.
Even if you directed your question to another commentator, as others have pointed out, nothing in the rules of this open blog prohibits me to comment on your question or offer my opinion, which was mostly directed towards the inane suggestion you responded to in your evident desperation.
Many of us who frequent this blog are professionals in medicine, and related sciences and many of us display our identity out of honor and pride. We do so at risk, not the least of being personally attacked like you have done. Please try to respect that.
My comment to you was meant in good faith as a friendly offering of help to a person in obvious need of sensible advice. Even if my advice does not in any way constitute professional services or be taken as individual medical advice, I have a right to offer my opinion in this discussion on cancer-scams, as a medical professional with extensive knowledge in the field of cancer. That you choose to bite the hand that offers you good, only reinforces the image of blind desperation that you display.
I feel sorry for you, whoever you are, but even more so for your partner, who needs anything but useless advice that will only waste his or her time, money and well-being.
I wish you both well.
What really impresses the mainstream’s android doctors is fancy names of the unknown chemistry like (menziolacrozapronecitepilanic) instead of simple elements like baking soda, Iodine and Selenium. Anything natural and common is called enemy of big Pharma’s wallet and hence a lot of bankrupt physicians.
If you are going to contribute to this discussion at least try to say something meaningful. And don’t forget to provide evidence for what you claim.
Lou, have just started on my search for Simoncini and your msg had the ring of truth we all need in this world. Thank you.
Is Simoncini still practicing – can you tell me where to find him ? Or have “they” silenced him …..
The simplest cures, the closer to nature, are the way to go – and Simoncini (one of the rare doctors who dares to be a seeker of truth) is an Archangel on earth.
(You will notice that his opponents have a nasty feel when they denounce him … proof (to me) that they are to be ignored. The nastier they are, the more threatened they must feel!
Bless you for your msg to everyone, it will help a lot of people. Warmest regards
“They got that trial all wrong.”
How convenient! You are also a medico-legal expert?
“…continue collecting that $3+ millions of Dollars for every cancer patient you treat with radiation.”
I think you need to check your facts before making accusations of conflicts of interest. That comment is defamatory.
“You need to really check the research”.
Translation: Trawl the internet for inflammatory conspiracy theories that support your prejudices.
“…continue collecting that $3+ millions of Dollars for every cancer patient you treat with radiation.”
That would be nice. I would have been able to afford to build my own cancer centre after just a few weeks in practice.
I hate it when personal testimonies are refuted…. what gives with that ? I would believe a personal testimony wayyyy before I beleive the AMA FDA CDC or big Pharma
… a very good advice for going straight back to the dark ages!!!
From what experience do you speak, have you done so ? I speak from my own expereince with the FDA and big Pharma. I wouldn’t claim that my experience nulifies science, but neither can science nulify my experience. Big Pharma almost killed me, and did it with prior knowledge that it might do so…without warning the public ! Why should I trust them ? And why shoud I doubt somebodys testimony that has nothing to gain ?
Cannabis was a staple medication the late 19th century & early 20th century, when big Pharma came along around the year 1930, they quickly outlawed the cannibas and hemp plants. Without the cannabis med as a legal substance, generations soon lost the knowledge of the benefits. Now after more generations of again using cannabis, the health bennefits have been rediscovered for many. Yes, some found true relief in “going back to the dark ages”. However, the oppostion from Gov. agencies and big Pharma continues…. hmmm
“Big Pharma almost killed me, and did it with prior knowledge that it might do so”
How? Did you experience a rare but recognised toxicity, or are you saying that they falsified or suppressed trial results?
“And why shoud I doubt somebodys testimony that has nothing to gain ? ”
Because such testimonies are nevertheless generally very unreliable.
“Cannabis was a staple medication the late 19th century & early 20th century”
It has been a staple of Chinese traditional medicine for much longer than that (and as an aside, its name in Mandarin – ma (2nd tone) – is an interesting example of how tone changes the meaning of words in that language: ma (1st tone) is mother, ma (3rd tone) is horse, ma (4th tone) means to scold and ma (no tone) at the end of a sentence turns it into a question). In Western medicine I don’t think it had that much of a foothold. During the period you are talking about, there weren’t very many effective drugs of any kind, and it was the advent of better alternatives, as well as the problems associated with its use, that led to its demise.
“when big Pharma came along around the year 1930, they quickly outlawed the cannibas and hemp plants.”
I think you will find that the Government were the ones to outlaw cannabis. Do you think Big Pharma was also responsible for Prohibition in the USA at the same time/
“generations soon lost the knowledge of the benefits”
Are you saying that cannabis use in the last 90 years has been so rare that nobody knows its effects any more?
“Now after more generations of again using cannabis”
How many generations do you reckon there have been since 1930? A generation is normally regarded as 25 years.
” the oppostion from Gov. agencies and big Pharma continues”
Pharmaceutical companies are actively researching into cannabis as a source of useful drugs, though this is hampered by laws restricting its supply and use, which in any case have not been very effective in addressing the social problems associated with recreational drugs.
Gee doc, thanks for correcting me on every count, I was’nt aware I could be so wrong. I can quickly see that you know more than anybody here. I see though your BS
“I was’nt aware I could be so wrong.”
And yet you make it look so effortless.
… hallmark of the true homeopath
BTW – The drug was Vioxx, the perpetrator was Merck. Yes, they knew and didn’t disclose it to the public.
“BTW – The drug was Vioxx, the perpetrator was Merck. Yes, they knew and didn’t disclose it to the public.”
Did you have a heart attack while taking Vioxx? Did you have a preexisting heart condition?
Vioxx, which was taken off the market, along with other COX2 inhibitors (except for celecoxib) when it was found that people taking it had a higher risk of coronary heart disease. It does, of course, have many of the other toxicities associated with NSAIDs, such as renal failure and fluid retention. Was that your problem, or something else?
What are you ? … and idiot, or a shill for big Pharma.
This isn’t about pot or Coca-Cola
yes, everyone who objects to woo is a pharma shill; makes sense.
That is correct. So you did learn something after all. Well done. I am proud of you. How did you find it out?
I think he is heeding ancient wisdom, and we all know how irrefutable that is.
He that is not with me is against me (Jesus, in the infallible Bible)
So was Coca-Cola.
It appears that we have another tame idiot unhappy that their anecdotes can be deconstructed and demolished by experts.
Welcome to the bearpit, RG. You might want to Google “Dunning Kruger” before contributing further.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the ‘experts’ on here who are so sure that they are experts are in fact suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.
The doc didn’t respond to this, he preferrs to change the subject or ridicule, I’m still waiting.
Perhaps. The subject is “This must be the most sickening cancer scam I have seen for a while”. How does Vioxx fit into this?
Even the authors of this article, who have an interest in representing Merck as badly as they can, are mentioning that “few academic researchers publicly questioned the company before its voluntary withdrawal of the drug”. What part of the meaning of the word “voluntary” escapes you? Or are you simply objecting to the fact that Merck withdrew it?
Which doc? Are you referring to me, only I can’t find any question that you have addressed to me directly?
The BMJ article you link to makes very interesting reading. Clearly Merck behaved very badly by failing to follow up a suspicion that cyclo-oxygenase inhibition may increase the risk of endothelial thrombosis, and indeed designed their trials to play down such cardiac events as could result from that. Unfortunately this is what happens when a pharmaceutical company, whose primary legal responsibility is to their shareholders rather than their customers, is not subject to adequate government regulation.
I am assuming that you must have suffered a cardiovascular event (i.e. a myocardial infarction) while taking (or after taking) Vioxx. On the basis of the article you are referencing, however, it is not possible to conclude that Vioxx nearly killed you. The data clearly show a substantially increased risk of cardiovascular events resulting from the drug, but not a doubling, so it is more likely than not that your illness was not caused by the Vioxx. Also, the data did not show an increase in mortality in subjects taking Vioxx (there were more deaths, but still within the range that would be expected by chance). That is not to say that Vioxx does not increase the risk of death, simply that the trials did not demonstrate such a risk. Since there weren’t very many deaths at all, the numbers were insufficient to know.
I am not defending Merck, and clearly the decision to withdraw Vioxx was correct. But it is not possible in an individual case to attribute an adverse event to a specific cause, unless the event is something highly unusual, such as phocomelia and thalidomide. Certainly not when the event is something common such as cardiovascular disease. Curiously, the Courts don’t always see things that way, but legal proof and scientific proof are very different.
“The data clearly show a substantially increased risk of cardiovascular events resulting from the drug, but not a doubling.”
Just to put numbers behind this comment… From the Bresalier et al. study (NEJM 2005; 352:1092-1102), which led to the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market, there were 1287 patients in the Vioxx group, of whom 46 had confirmed thrombotic events and 1299 patients in the placebo-treated group, of whom 26 had confirmed thrombotic events. That’s 3.6% and 2.0%, respectively, so Vioxx was associated with an 80% increase in relative risk of myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke..
Merck’s corporate behaviour in connection with Vioxx was inexcusable: the drug should not have been marketed in the first place. But it’s always worth knowing the absolute risks (3.6% vs. 2.0%) to get a proper perspective.
Personally I thought Lenny’s comment needlessly a bit rude. (High ground, mate.)
Speaking for myself, I am happy to declare that I am anything but an expert. I know my limitations. OTOH, I do at least have first-hand familiarity with both critical and delusional thinking (and reasonably confident of the difference between the two), alongside a layman’s understanding of scientific principles and the basic capacity for logical thought.
Nice tu-quoque, by the way.
Please enlighten me. Who on here has declared herself/himself/itself an expert?
More than a couple people sounding off here, I like that. In fact, I responded more than once to the wrong person…. apologize for my harsness and ineptness. Apoligize also to take the subject off coarse to Merck/Vioxx, my point was that I don’t trust Pharma anymore, and I think it’s justitfied in light of my expereince. Merck was at fault and they new it, they killed alot of peopel and they paid a price, not a big enough price in my opinion. Some estimate as many at 60K people or more died, actually some estimates much higher. In spite of personal testimony being poo pooed here, I’ll tell a little. Yes I experienced heart attack, and quite severe. I survived only by what I consider divine intervention, I’ll say no more about that. Long before it became public that people were dying from Vioxx, and fortunalely for me, I switched my perscription back to the Celebrex (anaother COX-2 inhibitor) which I had previously being taking before the Vioxx. I did recover once off the med, my case was never reported to Merck, as I believe many were not, and in fact many related deaths (and heart attacks) were not reported, or tied to Merck/Vioxx. On the Cancer front, my mother is my main reference, she died after an eleven year battle with Multiple Myeloma (a bone cancer). From closely monitoring her experience, my current outlook regarding Oncology is largly that… it’s a business. I have been an investor in Pharma for more than 25 years, and followed the stories/news, test trials, science, patents, failures, drug apporval process and lawsuits throughout. I’m currently invested in Amgen, Bristol Myers, Regeneron, Neckter Therapudics, AbbVie and Gilead Science, I’ve owned hundered over the years. I know enough to know they are powerful corporatons, corporations with a huge lobby in DC.
Most Meds efficacy rates are marginally better than that of the placebo, that doesn’t impress me. There are few Meds that can cure anything. My opinion has evolived to the place where I believe most Pharma drugs can be summed up as a non-lethal dose of a toxic substance. Many times the side effect being not worth the risk of treating the symptom. My preference would be to take a placbo and forfeit the ill side effects. So my conclusion is that the Pharma industry has created CUSTOMERS…. not cures.
Many of the chronic diseases modern man is experenecing today are diet related, and curable by altering diet. It’s the food that is killing us. Food, envrionmental toxins, pills… and stress.
Just another opinion.
Just curious…if you consider divine intervention allowed you to survive your heart attack, how come the divine power didn’t intervene to influence the people developing Vioxx at Merck to do the right thing and not take the drug to market? That would have been far more efficient and saved (according to you) as many as 60k lives. I guess your life is just more special to the divine power than the other 59,999.
That reply, and the queston you pose is just plain nonsense. If you don’t believe in devine intervention, just say so. After all, if there is a good and soverign God, we can just question why we have sickness and disease at all. I can see that there is no room here for personal testimony of mine. Even though I see that Dr. Julian brought in his testimony in as a doctor. And Les Rose his testimony as surviving MM. Why nobody here questions Les Rose personal testimony ? On the contrary, Edzard supports his personal testimony. However, if you’re not part of the club here on the MB, leave your personal testimony at the door.
You misunderstand. Nobody is saying that what you claim happened didn’t happen. We are saying that anecdotes are not reliable evidence. You never answered my related question. If anecdotes are reliable, do you think we should abandon clinical trials and license medicines on the basis of anecdotes?
“if there is a good and soverign God, we can just question why we have sickness and disease at all.”
Correct. That’s known as theodicy, a branch of theology in which people use weasel words to dissemble their way round the embarassing problem of why a loving and all-powerful god permits so many evil things to happen.
“I can see that there is no room here for personal testimony of mine. Even though I see that Dr. Julian brought in his testimony in as a doctor. And Les Rose his testimony as surviving MM. Why nobody here questions Les Rose personal testimony ? On the contrary, Edzard supports his personal testimony. However, if you’re not part of the club here on the MB, leave your personal testimony at the door.”
That’s a very sad comment. It means you can’t distinguish subjective testimony from informed, rational debate.
“My opinion has evolived to the place where I believe most Pharma drugs can be summed up as a non-lethal dose of a toxic substance.”
That is one of the first things that I was taught in my undergraduate pharmacology course.
“On the Cancer front, my mother is my main reference, she died after an eleven year battle with Multiple Myeloma (a bone cancer). From closely monitoring her experience, my current outlook regarding Oncology is largly that… it’s a business.”
It is unsafe to draw conclusions from a trial wher N=1. As a counter-example, my survival (so far) from myeloma is entirely due to the drugs I am on.
“Most Meds efficacy rates are marginally better than that of the placebo”
What do you mean by that?
“There are few Meds that can cure anything.”
From my experience as an oncologist: Testicular cancer, high-grade lymphoma, acute leukaemia are all curable by drugs alone. And what about such killers as meningococcal meningitis?
“Many of the chronic diseases modern man is experenecing today are diet related”
I don’t think that is in dispute, though since diet has a lifelong influence it is difficult to dissect out which components are important.
“and curable by altering diet”
That is a different matter entirely, and plainly not true in the case of malignant disease.
….and my 10 year survival with myeloma is the result of treatment with…..nothing at all. What if I had spent my savings on homeopathy, fad diets, or Gerson therapy? The quacks would claim me as a success.
I hope the no-treatment continues to do the trick for at lease another 10 years
Luckily, Les, your myeloma is following a more typical course than mine is (progression through first and second-line targeted therapies and through chemotherapy given as third line, stabilisation for the past 18 months with immunotherapy as fourth line, thought unlikely to benefit from high-dose chemo and stem cells).
I hope you are able to remain off treatment for a good while longer, but if you do require it, despite my own experience, the response to treatment is usually excellent.
Meanwhile why not spend your savings on holidays, spending quality time with relatives and catching up on all the things you always meant to do?
As it happens, I encountered this blog when googling some of the well-meaning but misguided advice given by various friends and acquaintances after I received by diagnosis.
You make my case
Why no Chemo for you ?
How do I make your case? What case do you mean? No chemo for me because I have smouldering myeloma and paraprotein levels are rock steady. Had I not known better, I might have been terrified into throwing money at quacks in the hope of preventing the myeloma from progressing. Then when it didn’t they would have claimed success.
Yes Julian I am doing exactly that – off to S America next month.
The Chemo works alright, it works at keeping you a customer. Try going off of it. Meanwhile, the Chemo is causing a myriad of other problems.
Just what the word says:
to only a limited extent; slightly.
“inflation is predicted to drop marginally”
I disagree, there is not a pill or drug alone that cures those problems.
You are wrong on that, thousands of people have been cures of cancer by diet.
“You are wrong on that, thousands of people have been cures (sic) of cancer by diet.” How about some evidence for that? No, testimonials will not do, only properly peer-reviewed published clinical trials.
Then don’t take them. You will live less long and die in agony in the happy knowledge that the chemo did not cause you any problems. It’s ideal if you’re suicidal and a masochist.
I’m sorry. Are you saying (for
Instance) that testicular cancer can’t be cured by chemotherapy? Or
Meningococcal meningitis by benzylpenicillin?
Or why did the divine power (DP) give him the heart attack in the first place? A lot of time, effort and inconvenience could have been saved if the DP intended to intervene anyway. Why bother?
Hey…. you guys with your cancer, I wish the best to ya, I really do. I don’t wish ill health on anyone, but much of if is a result of lifetime choices. A life free of pill popping, steering away from contaminated food and environmental toxins has keep me in perfect health @ 65 years old. I don’t have heart disease, diabetes, cancer or any other chronic diseases some folks here have. I know what has worked for me. Keep taking your pills, eat your shit food, keep your faith in Pharma and keep on exposing yourselves to toxins…. enjoy your life on Chemo and Meds.
pity that you are so slow in the uptake!
lifestyle may reduce the risk of certain cancers; however, lifestyle changes will not cure a cancer once it has occurred.
not so difficult, is it?
??? Slow ? …. why because you say so ? I’m in no hurry to accept the BS on this MB
Lifestyle changes may not cure cancer for everyone, but neither does the AMA approved methods…. not even close.
as I said: slow; very slow even.
Don’t hold your breath, that could for sure kill ya.
not just ignorant but also stupid,
One thing is certain. “RG” knows less than nothing about cancer and cancer management!
You also sir, make my case for me. I know nothing about having cancer
Slight but significant difference between doesn’t cure everyone (real medicine) and doesn’t cure anyone (every quack nostrum), you know.
Speaking for me and mine, modern mainstream oncology has won 2 out of 2 battles, irrelevant of healthy vs unhealthy living. Part of that is down to plain luck: both common cancers, detected early, with effective treatments and very good prognosis when treated in time. Living in a first-world society with excellent public and private healthcare also greatly helped. While professional oncologists do not like to say “cured”, 15+ years of remission following end of treatment and still clear sounds pretty damn cured to layfolks like me.
OTOH, one friend of the family was not so lucky, developing an aggressive brain tumor with no warning symptoms. Time from first symptoms, through diagnosis and palliative care, to the end: just a few weeks. Still in the 50s; barely time to put affairs in order and say goodbyes. Tragic. Another family friend was diagnosed in their 70s with an incurable, but very controllable, indolent cancer. (One of those diseases of old age that many more die with than die of.) Lived well into their 80s, still active with good quality of life up to the end.
I think your biggest problem is that your understanding of cancer is hopelessly simplistic and naive, if not outright nonsense. For starters, cancer is not one disease but a couple hundred different diseases with some common etiology but massive variations not only between different cancers but even between in the same cancer in different cases.
I can’t recommend strongly enough that you immediately get yourself a copy of The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee, consume it cover to cover (it really is an excellent and accessible read), and come back here when you’re done. Honest enquiry and a degree of humility will attract you a far more productive response here than the arrogance of ignorance and ideological hooey.
Or, you know, you can just continue being idiot chew toy of the week and never grow any the wiser.
Interesting viewpoint, RG. Enjoy yourself on your self-constucted pillar of sanctimoniousness.
Your position is entirely anecdotal. obviously. So I’ll pass on mine regarding two patients of mine. Lovely ladies. Lifelong vegetarians who followed ridiculously healthy lifestyles and popped fistfuls of supplements. One died of breast cancer, one of oesophageal cancer. Both diagnosed in their early 50s.
You left out three of the four main factors that I attributed to chronic diseases, the other three
Pharma meds, environmental toxins, and stress.
Boy, you sure keep digging when you’re in a hole!
So you were telling us lies when you said on Tuesday “I switched my perscription back to the Celebrex (anaother COX-2 inhibitor) which I had previously being taking before the Vioxx.” Or are you telling us lies now when you claim a “life free of pill popping”? Why were you taking Celebrex if you’re so free of disease?
And you were telling us lies when you said on Tuesday “Yes I experienced heart attack, and quite severe.” Or does a heart attack you attributed to Vioxx (which may or may not have been the cause, but you seem not to understand anything about evidence) not count? Or are you simply telling us lies now when you say “I don’t have heart disease”?
Please give us the name of one of the ‘environmental toxins’ you’ve kept free of.
Oh yes, the environmental toxins I’ve eliminated or reduced
BPA in plastics (water bottles & food storage)
Fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste
Formaldehyde in flue shots
Pesticides around my home and as much as possible in my food
Fabric softener in wash and dryer
Soaps and cleaning agents that contain toxins
Cell phone handling
Specific clothing made from hydrocarbons
How about responding to the blatant inconsistencies between your posts?
Your list of ‘toxins’ seems to be based on scary material provided by the Environmental Working Group, an extreme US lobbying group whose data and recommendations have been widely criticised. Some of your items are blatantly ludicrous, e.g. cell phone handling, formaldehyde in flue [sic] shots*, soaps and cleaning agents that contain toxins (the question you’re answering is what toxins?), specific clothing made from hydrocarbons (that would be the emperor’s new clothes then; you can’t make clothes from hydrocarbons — they’re all gases, liquids of waxes!)
It’s the concentration of potentially poisonous things you ingest or inhale that matters. Botulinum toxin (which is produced naturally by a bacterium, so must be good, right?) is lethal to mammals at a median dose of just 10 ng/kg, yet it’s used cosmetically (as Botox) to smooth skin wrinkles!
Sorry, RG, but your comments cumulatively add you to the ranks of the ‘irrationally worried’. You are unknowledgeable about most aspects of biology and medicine and you therefore pick up material from the web without any basis to discriminate what’s reality from fantasy. When you read things that reinforce your cognitive biases you end up coming to blogs like this one and posting nonsense that’s not even consistent from post to post!
*The highest amount of formaldehyde present in any vaccine is .02 mg per dose. An average two-month-old baby would have around 1.1 mg of formaldehyde circulating in their body, with higher naturally-occurring amounts for older children.” [https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/goes-vaccine/]
“Formaldehyde in flue shots”
I think he is talking about toxic gases resulting from combustion.
It’s the soot in my flue I’m worried about. Gets everywhere.
As for Cologne, I quite like it as a city. The cathedral there is a monstrosity though. All black on the outside. Looks like it’s covered in that nasty soot…
But fluoride is naturally present in lots of peoples’ domestic water. It’s present in most brands of natural mineral water. It’s natural. Fluoride in toothpaste. Do you swallow toothpaste?
Although too much fluoride can stain the teeth while they are forming, and even damage them (look up fluorosis), in smaller quantities it strengthens them and prevents tooth decay and all the health problems that go with it.
Interestingly there has been some research recently suggesting that gum disease may be implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (Porphyromonas gingivae – I hope I have remembered the name correctly – was found in all the brains examined of people who had died of Alzheimer’s, but only a few of the controls). OK, this was a case-controlled retrospective study and only about 30 or 40 brains were examined, but food for thought.
I’m afraid I don’t know whether fluoride can help prevent gum disease. But while it may be RG’s toxin, to dentists it is an essential trace element.
If fluoride is so good for you, and not toxic in high levels. If a little is good for you, then more should be even better.
Go ahead, read the warning on the fluoride toothpaste tube, start munchin … and swallow.
I’ve just said that fluoride is toxic at high levels – can’t you read my post properly before replying to it?
Almost anything that has an effect on the body is toxic at high enough levels, which I have also said , more or less, in an earlier post. It is completely wrong to say that if a small amount of something is good then more is better.
I don’t get this. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever said that fluoride is not toxic in high levels. In fact, I am unaware (please enlighten me if you have better information) of any substance at all that is not toxic in high levels. One example:
Water is not just good for you, it is a basic requirement for human life. The lack of it will kill you. Yet, as the sad reality of marathon runners (among others) has shown, it can also kill you if you have too much of it.
No, I don’t swallow toothpaste. In fact, since our bodies absorb through our mouths, I rinse out very well.
That said…. I don’t use fluoride toothpaste. Fluoride in most natural water is much much lower levels, where I live Fluoride has been added to the drinking water.
Have you read the warning on a toothpaste tube ?
Hey Lenny, you swallow fluoride toothpaste if you choose, that’s your call.
I’ll answer that.
I had a disc bulge in my low back from lifting. I took Motrin/Ibuprofen for a couple years as needed for pain and inflammation with fairly good success. My doctor suggested changing the med to something other to take caution of “damaging my organs” from prolonged use, he did a blood test to make certain and recommended the change. My doc initially prescribed the Celebrex, I found it no more effective than Ibuprofen. A friend of mine suggested Vioxx, so I asked the doc if I could try the Vioxx. My doctor complied and changed my prescription to Vioxx. However the Vioxx was no more effective than Celebrex. So, for a short time I reverted to Celebrex. Not much after that I concluded that neither of the COX-2 Inhibitors was as effective for me as Motrin/Ibuprofen. It was many months later before the news of Vioxx killing patients became public and the drug was pulled.
That was almost 20 years ago. From my ordeal, I concluded that the change in medication my doctor recommended was largely a result of Pharma pushing newer and more expensive pills. It was also near that time that my distaste for modern medicine commenced. I eventually weaned myself of the Motrin, and learned other means of dealing with the back pain. Exercise and core strengthening, walking, good sitting and standing posture, and as needed I now take CBD oil if needed for pain relief…. and I’m doing quite well thank you.
You still haven’t explained how Vioxx nearly killed you.
As Frank Odds has pointed out, in the study cited the absolute risk of (non-fatal) thrombotic events attributable to Vioxx was about 2% (or 1 in 50).
Sorry Dr. J, no
You have enough information about the incident. All you really want to do is read between the lines, and dissect my post to discredit my experience. You folks here have no real interest in what I have to say.
That’s not true. I am not interested in discrediting anybody unless I think they pose a risk to others.
However, you have said quite a lot of things that are rather vague, which means that it is necessary to read between the lines in order to get at what you are trying to say at all. I have made it clear when I am doing this so that you have had the opportunity to correct me if I have drawn the wrong inferences.
You have also said things that contradict each other, and I will point that out if I think it is important.
I suppose I am used to discussing and debating things with my friends and colleagues in academia, and nobody pulls their punches there. If anybody suggests something which they cannot justify they are torn to pieces. It is a good way of clarifying your thoughts, and in particular helping you to distinguish between what is known, what is conjecture and what is merely opinion. I also enjoy discussions with friends who are lawyers, but they are mainly interested in winning the argument, whereas academics primarily want to arrive at the truth. This is in contrast to politicians, who have no interest in the truth at all, only in whether they can convince people to agree with them.
You have said a number of things in your posts which are not actually true at all (even if you genuinely believe them), and others which don’t seem to have been thought through. You surely don’t expect me, or anybody else with specific expertise, simply to sit back and keep quiet?
“You have enough information about the incident. All you really want to do is read between the lines, and dissect my post to discredit my experience”
Coming back to this, the information that you have given is that you have regularly taken a number of anti-inflammatory drugs, including Vioxx and others that are very similar, for a benign condition, and that you have had a serious heart attack, from which you have recovered. You have also stated that you have had a lifetime free of taking pills and remain in perfect health at the age of 65. What construction do you expect us to put on that?
Love the third para in your comment. My own attitude entirely. Some people (RG most recently) don’t seem to have the first idea how to interact in rational debate.
True. We haven’t seen you contribute anything of interest, yet.
Given the new (as of 3/20/2019) info from above link (tumors spread more aggressively in an acidic environment) it would seem that the basic idea behind bicarbonate cancer treatment has some scientific basis. The details and efficacy of the treatment are not fully quantified, but the potential to impact tumor growth seems to have factual support.
What am I missing since this new information seems to provide some hope for this scam treatment?
“Sodium bicarbonate would not be a feasible cancer treatment because it is not well-tolerated by humans, but other approaches that lower acidity could be worth exploring”
That kiboshes the sodium bicarbonate theory.
Riiiiiigggghhhttt, with respect Ernest, this is coming from you, the guy who spent most of his life learning how to maintain disease, and keep it going to maintain employment? and you’re claim to your own heroism? chemo? what that it works? at a whopping $100,000? its why most get sicker on it perhaps and most die maybe just maybe? what? by radiating our bodies through a microwave? and how much does are docs getting kickbacks? or any of the other FDA garbage? Perhaps the doctors of Europe who have been using Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide curing cancer for the past 170 yrs are all scams too right? okay then….. have you tried either method or this is just because one gets happy punting someone else’s work? btw, our bodies have to be a tiny bit more acidic than alkaline to work best, ? Besides if the person believes it will work it most likely will, study belief systems of the mind, and why not? how many of the prescription pills out there kill rather than help in any way at all, lets see, the answer is ‘most’ 99% of them. FDA have put out the medical books that you all supposedly educate yourselves with is what I read. 🙂
you managed to write a comment in which nothing is correct – not even my name.
a perfect display of ignorance.
A masterpiece, in fact ^_^
My guess is that you used the “ever-better” Google Translate or DeepL or some such ridiculous gadget to craft this nonsense. Any human with a remaining neuron or two would not gibber like this. Actual translators may make the odd mistake, but these programs are masters only at making mistakes. That is also the difference between the doctors you despise (they may make the odd mistake) and the quacks you adore (they are all but guaranteed at getting most everything wrong).
So please, for your own sake: learn to read, learn to understand what you read, learn to write an intelligible message and learn something about reality.
I have had to do a bit of hunting around to find out what this is all about. It seems there were a number of news articles in June 2018 based on this press release https://www.ludwigcancerresearch.org/news/how-might-baking-soda-boost-cancer-therapy from Ludwig Cancer Research following the publication of this paper https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)30586-5 (or as a PDF https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2818%2930586-5) in the journal Cell on 31st May 2018.
The paper is a very technical one dealing with the molecular biology of the control of the circadian rhythm (daily cycle) in cells in culture, the involvement of the mTOR gene, and how it is affected by pH (acidity). As a corollary to this the researchers investigated what effect bicarbonate might have on tumour cells in a live animal rather than a cell culture. They describe how they did this, using so-called nude mice (these are mice which are specially bred to have no immune system, and coincidentally they have no hair). In two experiments, cells from standard cultured cancer cell lines were put into an kind of growth chamber implanted into the skin of the mice, and in the third, cells from a third malignant cell line were implanted into breast tissue. The mice were then allowed to drink freely of either tap water or bicarbonate solution for the duration of the experiment. In two of the experiments, bicarbonate affected mTOR signalling, and in the third it did not.
In two of the experiments 8 mice were used and in one of them, 10 mice. The mTOR activation was measured by the use of an antibody-based dye staining the tissue, and then they took photographs from microscope slides prepared from the tumours, counting the number of pixels in each sample which had been stained by the dye. I have never been involved in this kind of research myself so I have no idea how accurately these measurements can be made, or indeed how much they might vary from one sample to another. I can only find one quantitative measurement given in the paper, where in one of the three experiments the percentage of pS6 positive pixels was roughly 60% in the bicarbonate-fed mice and 45% in the water-fed mice. The histogram has error bars going higher than the bar, but not lower, and they quote a p-value of 0.016 without explaining what this is or how it was arrived at. I am guessing that they highlighted this particular result as it gave better numbers than the other ones.
Given the small number of mice used, and what seems to me the difficulty of getting accurate and precise measurements here, I am not convinced that the findings in mice were not due to chance. Indeed, the authors themselves were rather surprised at this result, though the press release suggests that they seem to have believed it rather than considered the possibility that it was a statistical anomaly (which is the case for the majority of surprising results in biomedical research).
The title of the paper was “Acid Suspends the Circadian Clock in Hypoxia through Inhibition of mTOR”, which is more-or-less what it was about, but the press release is entitled “How might baking soda boost cancer therapy?” and extrapolates from this to the idea that “something as simple as baking soda could possibly… render quiescent cells susceptible to cancer therapies”.
This paper is important because it helps us to understand the mechanisms that control aspects of cell behaviour and division, which genes and proteins are involved and how they can be influenced. All of this can point us in the direction of further research that might eventually lead to new cancer treatments. It is unfortunate that the people writing press releases find it necessary to sex them up as if a new treatment were just around the corner, but of course if they don’t then they won’t get any coverage from the mainstream press, and more importantly it can help to persuade sponsors to fund further research (sponsors mostly are driven by what they see as results, rather than by curiosity, which is how progress is really made).
In reality this is a highly artificial system of cultured tumour cells (which are derived from an actual human cancer but not the same as one) growing in a mouse which is specially bred to be receptive to them. This is very different from the reality of a human cancer. Most of the cells in a real-life cancer are very much starved of oxygen due to their very abnormal blood supply, and exist in an acidic anvironment as a result. This makes them resistant to many forms of cancer treatment (though it sensitises them to some, such as mitomycin). However, in humans bicarbonate does not make the body less acidic, nor the tumours, and there is no evidence that taking it by mouth or intravenously is helpful (indeed the extra sodium load can be dangerous).
I suppose it is possible that this may lead to a treatment which involves isolating the vasculature of a tumour and perfusing it with bicarbonate in combination with a biological agent targeting the mTOR pathway. If so it is likely to take many years to get there and I probably won’t be around to see it.
What this person us saying is complete NONSENSE…it’s only the corrupt practices that don’t want this holistic cure out in the world, I got this cure from the late dear Nun Sister Rachel, she helped many people with this cure, so again I say that this comment from a ignorant information is strictly intended to muddy the healing process…
Which person, and which nonsense?
Hi, I was recently diagnosed with a muscle invasive bladder cancer. The invasion is not very big, the tumor is less than 1 cm there are no metastatic cancers in the surrounding organs, lungs or bones. Can I hope that bicarbonate soda AND chemotherapy will heal the cancer and I will not have to proceed to the dreaded cystektomy?
please forget about bicarbonate soda, and follow the advice of your oncology team
I don’t know what country you are in so I don’t know whether your urologist is in charge of your treatment or whether (as in the UK) you are under the care of a multidisciplinary team. I also don’t know whether the oncologist proposing to give you chemotherapy is purely as medical oncologist (as in the USA) or whether he is a clinical oncologist also trained in radiotherapy (most oncologists in the UK) as this is likely to affect the advice you are given.
I had to give up practising as an oncologist (treating bladder cancer) a couple of years ago when I was forced to retire due to developing an incurable cancer myself, so I am no up-to-date with the most recent research and current best practice. And of course I can’t give specific advice so someone I haven’t assessed personally.
If you have muscle-invasive bladder cancer, even if the area of invasion is small, it is still necessary to treat the whole bladder. The most commonly-used treatment is radical cystectomy (i.e. removal of the bladder and prostate) which requires some form of diversion of the urine collecting system. For people unable to have a cystectomy (e.g. those who are too old or who are medically unfit), or those who don’t want to lose their bladder, radiotherapy is an alternative. Radiotherapy has changed enormously over the past decade or so, both technically (intensity-modulated radiotherapy, online imaging etc. have allowed the treatment to be given with much greater precision), and in other ways (e.g. the use of chemosensitisation, changes in dose scheduling, boosting the primary tumour site).
Modern radiotherapy gives very good results. However, it has never been properly assessed against cystectomy in a randomised clinical trial. A few years ago a large, multicentre trial was set up in the UK to answer this question, but after agreeing to take part, the urologists (all over the country) scuppered the trial by not referring any patients. They had already decided that cystectomy was the right treatment and weren’t interested in seeking evidence that they were right or wrong. My experience is that many patients are cured by radiotherapy, and I have had some very good long-term results in patients who were thought to be incurable. I’m afraid that is anecdotal evidence, however.
I have found it very frustrating over the years dealing with urologists, some of whom seem quite happy to adopt new surgical techniques and other treatments (cryotherapy, high-intesity focused ultrasound) without subjecting them to proper assessment, and some of whom are unwilling to co-operate with other disciplines when it comes to clinical trials. At times their behaviour can seem depressingly similar to that of the alternative practitioners discussed on this forum.
Anyway, if you don’t want to lose your bladder it is worth exploring radiotherapy as an alternative, particularly in combination with simultaneous sensitising chemotherapy. Note that this is different from the chemotherapy that you have been offered, which is to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back (and which you should probably have whether your main treatment is surgery or radiotherapy).
As discussed elsewhere, treatment with bicarbonate is complete nonsense. It is based on a misunderstanding of physiology, homeostasis and cancer pathology, and as well as being useless it can be harmful or even frankly dangerous.
I wish you well whatever you decide on. Early muscle-invasive bladder tumours do very well with proper treatment and it sounds as though you stand a good chance of long-term cure.
” Modern radiotherapy gives very good results. However, it has never been properly assessed against cystectomy in a randomised clinical trial. A few years ago a large, multicentre trial was set up in the UK to answer this question, but after agreeing to take part, the urologists (all over the country) scuppered the trial by not referring any patients. They had already decided that cystectomy was the right treatment and weren’t interested in seeking evidence that they were right or wrong. My experience is that many patients are cured by radiotherapy, and I have had some very good long-term results in patients who were thought to be incurable. I’m afraid that is anecdotal evidence, however. I have found it very frustrating over the years dealing with urologists, some of whom seem quite happy to adopt new surgical techniques and other treatments (cryotherapy, high-intesity focused ultrasound) without subjecting them to proper assessment, and some of whom are unwilling to co-operate with other disciplines when it comes to clinical trials. At times their behaviour can seem depressingly similar to that of the alternative practitioners discussed on this forum. ”
Just listen to yourself. My my my, such admissions…. medical blasphemy.
Do one you nasty, specious, ignorant troll.
I think RG you need understand a simple thing, although I doubt you are up to it. Science checks itself, and looks for problems that need correcting. Everyone is subject to cognitive bias, and the comment you so nastily denigrate is a good example of peer review. Does any of this happen with SCAM? No, all the SCAM specialisms have their own disparate inventions about how the body works. When was the last time the homeopaths attacked the acupuncturists for getting it wrong? The reason they tolerate each other so cordially is that it’s big business. How someone who practises both homeopathy and acupuncture copes with the cognitive dissonance is beyond me.
Les, first of all. I don’t subscribe to all SCAM.
I have testified here that I subscribe to Reflexology, Paida Lajin, because in I experienced benefits. I do subscribe to Herbal Medicine. I also subscribe to healthy eating, and minimizing toxins from all paths for life.
If I’m ever given a cancer notice, I would likely expose myself to alternative cancer remedies before the FDA approved methods, depending on the cancer and the stage.
I have tried some of what is referred to here as SCAM, more specifically Chiropractic and Acupuncture. Personally I didn’t find success in those treatments. However, I don’t forbid them to others.
Why did I turn away from allopathic medicine, and turn towards CAM ? … easy answer. MD’s don’t have all the answers, lots of bad diagnosis, stringent AMA guidelines, useless and toxic meds, I could expound more, but what more reason did I need ? I won’t change your thinking anyway.
I could list a hundred links that support my findings.
Currently Big Pharma is getting taken to court over and over to make amends for toxic meds. I won’t waste you time and mine listing the links… likely you know what I’m talking about, it’s no secret.
Final word, if I’m going to subject myself to medical practices that don’t work (allopathic, CAM or Homeopathic), I’d rather subject myself to methods that have minimal negative effects…. that simple.
RG, it’s not as simple as you think. To avoid all side effects you have to avoid all effects. Because effective treatments interact with the body (by definition), and the body is very complex and variable between individuals, some people will get side effects. Anyone who claims that their treatment is effective with no side effects is lying or deluded.
You seem to write from the US perspective, where health care is a profit centre. This naturally leads to the abuses that concern you – and me. I’m not saying that we get none of this here in the UK. For example GPs get paid for doing certain screening tests. However when I attend hospital I am not encouraged to have a particular test for which I am then billed. Prescription drugs cost over twice as much in the US as in the UK, because here we have a price regulation scheme which provides a degree of balance. I’m as aware of pharma industry abuses as anyone, having worked with it for 40 years. I have blown the whistle a couple of times. The bottom line is that most drugs do work in some people, but not all, and they all have side effects. By the accepted standards of science, SCAM does not work for anyone, and can be harmful.
Can I advise you not to use the term `allopathic’? It was invented by Hahnemann, as the opposite of homeopathic, and you have agreed that homeopathy is not effective. It meant at the time “everything that isn’t homeopathy”. It is particularly meaningless in a modern context, when drugs are not developed from the standpoint of trying to oppose symptoms.
I would imagine that the number of Court cases arising from the use of private vehicles on public roads dwarfs the number of cases involving Big Pharma. Nevertheless I still believe that buying a car from Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen etc. is an all-round better and safer proposition than driving something that I had designed and built myself. Browsing the Internet and reading what is in the popular press is no substitute for professional training and years of practical experience when it comes to understanding a subject. As Harry Palmer was fond of saying, not a lot of people know that.
You are correct, because I don’t diss all modern medicine. I do support surgery where needed, as I support acute care, medical diagnostic imaging, scientific blood analysis…. etc.
I will attempt to make myself more clear in the future.
Yes, I do write from my US perspective, I know the world is bigger than my world. However, I formulate my ideology from my experiences.
I will continue to evaluate medicine from my personal experiences. In my view, I’d be a fool to do otherwise.
Oh dear. Do you think I’m going to be excommunicated?
@ Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
Thank you so much for your reply doctor.
One last question for I don’t want to monopolize the conversation with my personal problems: What is the difference between sensitizing chemo and classic chemo?
Thank you again doctor and I wish you all the best too.
What you are calling classic chemo is normally known as adjuvant chemotherapy. This is where chemotherapy isn’t the main treatment (which can be surgery or radiotherapy) but is given in addition in order to reduce the risk of the cancer returning. The idea is that it mops up any cells which have escaped from the primary site and spread elsewhere in the body, and prevents them from developing into secondary tumours (metastases).
When it is given before the main treatment then it is called neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This has the additional benefit of shrinking the primary tumour so that the surgery is easier or the radiotherapy has less work to do. It can sometimes use shortened and more intense treatment regimens in order not to delay surgery (e.g. after surgery the chemotherapy might be something like gemcitabine and cisplatin given every three weeks for 6 cycles, whereas prior to surgery it might be “accelerated MVAC”, which is methotrexate, vinblastine, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and cisplatin, together with injections to stimulate recovery of the bone marrow, so that it can be given every 2 weeks for three cycles while surgery is being planned.
Chemosensitisation uses chemotherapy drugs that interact with radiotherapy and increase its affect. Some drugs (such as gemcitabine and Adriamycin) increase the side-effects of radiotherapy and are not normally given at the same time. Others (such as mitomycin-C and 5-flurouracil) increase the anti-tumour effect without increasing side-effects of radiotherapy (though they do add the side-effects of chemo). A typical regimen might be a single IV dose of mitomicin-C on the first day of radiotherapy combined with a continuous 5-day infusion of 5-FU delivered by an infusion pump during the first five days of radiotherapy and repeated four weeks later during the 5th week of treatment.
Please note that different cancer centres have different protocols, and I am mainly describing what we used to do at my centre three years ago; I haven’t kept up with the latest research since I stopped practising, and there may well be new advice as a result of more recent trial results.
Please also note that each treatment regimen has different side-effects, which can generally be managed quite successfully. There is a charity in the UK called MacMillan Cancer Care, and their Web site has a lot of useful information, including information sheets on all of the commonly used chemotherapy regimens.
No Doc… never, not you. In spite of not agreeing with you, I think you are one helluva nice guy.
@ Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
Mr Money-Kyrle I will never thank you enough for your useful information. I m going to talk about all this with my oncologist.
Thank you again.
I wish you all the best.
Anyone in your situation should get a second opinion (at least in IMHO). In your case you might want to seek out a teaching or research hospital. You could do some research and possibly find a doctor that does research in this field. You could even start with the name of the world’s leading specialists and contact them–even if you can’t see them directly you might be quite close to an expert without even knowing it.
And you can always ask your oncologist. Any doctor will be happy to give you a referral for a second opinion.
If they aren’t happy this is usually a worrying sign. I have always regarded a second opinion as a good learning opportunity.
Hi Dr Julian Money-Kyrle,
I’ve been reading this blog (or whatever it’s technical name is) and it’s clear to me that you are gifted. I love reading your concise and factual responses. I want you to know how sad I feel knowing now of your illness and I sincerely hope you are doing well. I don’t know much mate but I know this, if I was to ever to require treatment in your field of practise, I could only hope to have been treated by you. I bet you were loved and respected by all your patients. Take care Doc and thanks for sharing this smidge of your knowledge.
Thank-you for your kind words.
Well, I’m still here against all odds, despite a few close calls. I am very grateful for modern medicine, and everything seems stable for the time being. Unfortunately I don’t have the energy to do all the things that I used to love, particularly travel, but I concentrate mainly on what I can do, not what I can’t, and life is still good.
I hope it stays like this for a long while to come.
@ Christine Rose
Thank you ? Christine
Dr. Simoncini was telling the truth and he explains a lot in his book, “Cancer Is A Fungus” of which there is an English version but was not sold in the USA. He had a great and informative website with a lot of info on it; and he gave a fair number of interviews in English. Anyone-even now with Google/Social Media oligarchs’ deployment of massive censorship of the internet, one can find many of the many cures for cancer that have been discovered -usually by highly trained scientists and physicians, but also some notable cures stumbled upon by ordinary people. I think a worthwhile first one to look for is the brief article by Charles Toby Jr. son of senator Charles Tobey of NH circa 1950-52.
Also, look for the Benedict Fitzgerald Report which son Charles asked be included in the Congressional record and it was, in 1952-53. Was senator Tobey murdered?. There are others of note. Cancer Tutor .com has information about many alternative cancer treatment modalities. Exploring the reality of the American medical establishment through the portal of cancer and it’s 3 treatment modalities and it’s effectiveness and reliability of success rate stats is a worthwhile portal to grasping the reality of America today. Simoncini is in Italy and the medical regime seems much the same there and for the West. An it does not like cures.
Ignorant tinfoil-hatted Dunning-Kruger foolishness, Brendan.
Run along now.
Tullio Simoncini WAS a medical doctor who lost his mind and developed grandiose delusions about cancer being a fungus that could be treated with baking soda. He has caused suffering and deaths in desperate people who put their feeble hope on his madness. He lost his license to practice. As far as I know, Simoncini is still at it, hiding in countries that have no functioning defenses against incompetence and quackery.
I am genuinely curious as to how you have come to hold these strange views and what evidence you can offer to support them.
I am also wondering whether the three treatment modalities you are referring to might be targeted molecular therapy, immunotherapy in its many forms and monoclonal antibodies, all of which are widely used by oncologists.
My best friends husband was very sick from chemo they had to stop the treatments the cancer doctor gave him baking soda pills and he got better fast then he started drinking it in water and his cancer was gone. He had colon cancer. True story so maybe it works for some not for others when I read testimonials a lot of them are positive. Wake up people big pharma wants you to spend your life savings on your child’s cancer or yours or your father’s. Cancer is the biggest money maker the biggest fundraiser. They make so much money off of cancer. If you were to look it up there is more than one patent on cures for cancer. The government will never allow a cure for cancer until they are the only ones who make money from it. The cure for hep c was over 100,00.00 for a single treatment. When they reveal a cure for cancer trust me it will be expensive! Check the patents on cancer cures. Like I said wake up listen and educate yourself. Of course they’ll label Simonichi a fraudster because they want your money. Dr. Simonichi has the protocol listed for free on all his information sites. Theres no charge for that it’s right there. If you go to his clinic then yes it would cost money just like at any other clinic where you pay staff. But to day he does it for money is stupidity he gives you the protocol for treatment for free.
are you sure you are not a trifle paranoid, Michelle?
Michelle Epp, you have made a lot of claims here, eg “The government will never allow a cure for cancer until they are the only ones who make money from it.” Don’t forget the requirement on this site to provide evidence for claims. If you are going to endorse Tullio Simoncini at least get his name right. Yes I did my own research about him, eg:
“Tullio Simoncini (born 1951) is a convicted fraudster and former Italian physician known for alternative medicine advocacy. He is known for the false claim that cancer is caused by the fungus Candida albicans, and has argued that cancer is a form of candida overgrowth.” Wikipedia
I agree with your post. The only thing I would point out to you about the meds for Hep C is that the drugs actually are a CURE, one of the very few in EBM. At this time, the price can be condoned.
BTW- some countries have contracted to obtain the cure for much less per treatment, as low as $17,000 in China.
According to this article, negotiations for the treatment vary wildly around the globe.
“”As the Egyptian government began price negotiations with Gilead, the country was also scrutinizing the drug company’s application for a patent. (They did not issue one, allowing generic manufacturers to enter the Egyptian market.) “I’d call the conversations friendly but they are good negotiators,” recalled Gregg Alton, an executive vice president at Gilead who represented the company in the meetings.
Gilead ultimately agreed to license the drugs for sale in Egypt and a number of other countries at $300 per one-month supply, or $900 for the whole 12-week course of treatment. Generic manufacturers eventually drove the price in Egypt to $84 per patient.
Wahid Doss, the chairman of Egypt’s National Committee for Control of Viral Hepatitis, says that the country’s determination to provide treatment at a massive scale helped them make their case. “Part of the success story and why Gilead agreed was that they saw that we really wanted to have an impact in our country.” Gilead ultimately sold their hepatitis C drugs to over 160,000 Egyptian patients, according to Alton. “They made some money as well,” Doss points out. “It wasn’t an act of charity.””
It makes a person wonder why the treatment sold for more than $100K in the US while they can “make money” at less than a thousand dollars. It sounds more like dollar sales and cost averaging to me. All that said, given the cost of other meds in the USA, $100K is not exorbitant to save a life from Hep C… in my view.
report on a relevant court case:
What this confirms is that we have fascist governments that will do everything they can to prevent the public from exorcising their free choice in medicine.
While state sanctioned MD’s continue to kill people daily.
contender for most offensively stupid comment of the month
When Doctors stop guessing at this stuff, stop blindly mimicking the pamphlets put out by the drug manufacturers, and stop talking to people with their god complex, people may start listening to them and stop looking for other options.
The biggest killer of humans in industrialized nations is medical malpractice in the form of mis-diagnosis and badly prescribed treatments, either due to ignorance or bad data on the drugs being pushed by the drug manufacturers. but Doctors continue their belittling of anyone questioning their word. It’s no wonder people look to alternatives and become more deeply ingrained in their findings when Doctors tell them off. Loose your god complex, stop telling people “who is the doctor here” and have a conversation with them, they may start listening to you. If you can’t form a logical defense for your diagnosis or prescription when people question it and then tell them it was their decision to follow you when your treatment failed, maybe you shouldn’t be seeing patients.
Oh dear ebj, you are blindly recycling the standard alt med trope. It isn’t true:
Look before you leap.
Well if medscape has an article, it must be true.
I think you missed my main point. Loose the god complex and people might actually listen to you.
Biggest group of thugs demanding protection money.
ebj, why can’t you grasp the fact that there are people who care about evidence, and don’t need to be paid by anyone to ask for it? I’m happy to debate with you rationally, but will not respond to torrents of irrational abuse.
If you think that asking for evidence is putting you down, then that’s your definition not mine.
BTW, are you paid by Pharma to troll comment sections and belittle everyone with a differing opinion? It’s either that or you have a vested financial interest in putting down anyone who questions the standard medical talking points. You have put down everyone who has even asked a question and not just accepted this article. Maybe you just like putting people down.
Oh dear ebj
The lamentable Pharma Shill trope?
Is that all you have?
Always worth relying on when your argument has been eviscerated and you want to be laughed at.
Run along, now. This is a proper blog for grownups with proper arguments.
LOL, Care about evidence? so this is about asking for evidence? Funny, I don’t see any evidence in the article. Anytime someone has listed their personal experience with this you have just condemned them for being ignorant or at the least dismissed them and their experience in comment.
ebj, if you can’t see evidence in the article there is no hope for you. Yes I do dismiss personal experience as the sole source of evidence. So does any scientist worthy of the name. Here is some homework for you:
And do try to calm down, the noise level is inversely proportional to the value of the argument.
This was all that was in there other than the quote the article is trying to condemn.
“Tomorrow is WORLD CANCER DAY. To mark this important occasion, I intend to publish not just one but two posts. Today’s post discloses one of the more sickening alternative cancer scams I have seen for a long time (tomorrow’s post will be a lot more encouraging): baking soda as a cancer cure. Here is what some charlatans tell the most vulnerable of our patients.”
“I am sure you agree: this is not just unethical and irresponsible; it is vile!
There are far too many falsehoods in this text (and most of them are too obvious) for me to even begin to correct them.
Why do I post this just before WORLD CANCER DAY?
Because I believe that cancer patients need to be protected from people and institutions who tout dangerous nonsense. Sadly, in the realm of alternative medicine, there are many of such charlatans.”
If there is evidence in there, then it is on par with the lack of “evidence” that anyone has posted that you have dismissed. the only “evidence” argument that exists here is “There are far too many falsehoods in this text (and most of them are too obvious) for me to even begin to correct them.”
“the noise level is inversely proportional to the value of the argument.” = I’ve dismissed you because I am better than you please shut up.
Very professional. Thanks for proving your god complex.
ebj, I was referring to the Medscape article to which you also referred. Do keep up.
You’re worried about me keeping up? your “referring to the Medscape article” was in response to my referring to the article at the top of the page having no evidence in it. which is what stemmed this whole “noise level” you disapprove of.
you’re defending an article that has no evidence, by condemning people for not having enough lab test evidence to back up their personal experience.
this is my whole point for first post. too many doctors and scientists put evidences articles out expecting everyone to just take it because you know best, then condemn anyone for questioning it or putting forth their personal experience in contradiction to your article that had no evidence in the first place. Calling people ignorant idiots.
and your supposed to be the professionals. and you wonder why people don’t trust doctors, or supposed”settled science”, or “scientific consensus”.
I would never claim that baking soda is a cure, but it seems to have about as much “evidence” as most of the other cancer drugs out there that will be pulled off the shelf in 3-5 years because they are too dangerous and only end up working a fraction of the time anyway. Which could be just as well have been a misdiagnosis anyway.
The point is dont condemn peoples personal experiences in favor of some article that has provided no evidence one way or the other. You’re only driving people to distrust doctors, medicine and science.
I have nearly lost 2 children, 1 nephew and 2 sisters due to doctors misdiagnosing or ill-perscribed treatments. Fortunately only 2 had permanent damage. in the end the Drs and hospitals walked away with no problem salaaming that we should have researched better before taking their advice and agreeing to the treatment. So ya, I question and do outside research on everything. including alternatives. Yet still get condemned for questioning their findings.
Doctors have made it clear, people are responsible for their own health, they can not rely on science or doctors opinions for their own health.
people need to question everything their doctors tell them and Doctors need to be open to pointing them in the right directions instead of condemning their patients with they god complexes.
congratulations for finding this stupid platitude: god complex.
you seem to like it a lot!
Well, anyone who decides to make statements of factual authority and then condemns anyone for questioning it or insulting their personal experience as ignorant idiots for not providing evidence that you and your like minded minions can accept, or getting bent out of shape because someone believes your findings should be questioned and answered, you have a god complex.
Congratulations for having a site where you can post statements without any evidence, and then have a bunch of lacky followers who will belittle everyone who does not bow to your almighty infalible PHDs. I guess after spending insane amounts of money being told how to think, it should be expected that they also brainwashed you into knowing how everyone else should think as well.
but hey, it’s your site, you can work it however you like. Whatever gets you more publications so you can get more funding.
you did not mention the GOD COMPLEX!
hope you have not gone off this wonderful platitude.
sorry to learn that you know NOTHING about me or my work.
no I dont know much about your work. But I will be looking into it. I dont write people off for one mistake as no-one should.
My comments were based on the lack of evidence in this article, but utter disregard for peoples personal experiences. although your responses through this tread have been mild in most cases and blatantly harsh in other’s to their personal experiences with this issue.
and yes, “god complex”, many doctors, surgeons, scientists, and politicians have “god complexes” to the point where theories get published and taught as facts through aggression. Anyone who denies that many doctors believe their opinions are infalible and shall not be questioned, or at least act that way to their patients, is ignorant or just been damn lucky with the doctors they have seen.
you have to admit that this article does not contain any supporting evidence in it. Neither did the Baking soda quote, but this is your page. if your going require people post with evidence or you will belittle them, you should put evidence and not just say there is too much wrong to comment on. maybe instead of belittling them for telling what happened to them, responding with evidence of why baking soda could not have been the deciding factor.
I found this page simply because I was researching the claim to baking soda curing cancer. The first article I come across is this one condemning the claim with no supporting evidence. interesting I read down and see the anyone who questioned it is condemned for not using acceptable evidence to question it. Yup that looks like another Dr with a “god complex”.
I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I can admit that I got a little hot a little too fast. Can you admit that this article is missing what you expect from others who comment? If Les Rose’s comment are any indication I dont expect they can admit they were ever wrong. seems to just like to piss in everyones tea that doesn’t agree with their opinions.
wow, I was relay on a roll with the “god complex” there. Should make up for missing it on that last comment for you.
When doctors are faced with the task of assessing the available evidence in order to decide on treatment protocols they are usually faced with a large number of published studies, often with apparently contradictory results. However there are panels of specialists whose job is to examine the evidence in order to make it easier for clinicians to understand (most doctors are too busy to read everything in their field). One thing that they have to be very clear about is how strong the evidence is to support their recommendations and so they provide a kind of grading based on how the evidence is arrived at. The gold standard is a prospective randomised controlled trial, but there are other kinds of studies, such as cohort studies and observational studies that are more prone to misleading effects. Not all randomised controlled trials are equal, as many of the are badly designed, or analysed inappropriately (when the authors, who may not be professional statisticians, apply the wrong statistical tests and get “statistically significant” answers which are in fact meaningless). In particular case reports are not rated particularly highly due to the large influence of random effects (though they are important in alerting other doctors to rare conditions or previously unknown possible reactions to treatment). Self-reported case reports (i.e. testimonials) don’t figure at all as they are generally very unreliable indeed.
Here is some more information on this topic:
Edzard and others contributing to this forum are not dismissing personal experience because they are too arrogant to listen to it, but because it is not an effective way of arriving at the truth. Unfortunately the way the brain works we tend to value personal experience (and that of our friends) above objective evidence. Unfortunately personal experience can be very misleading. Doctors are just as susceptible to this as anybody else and so there have to be checks in place to rein in the rogue practitioners who believe they are above everyone else. Certain areas of medicine tend to attract that sort of personality more than others (e.g. surgery), but most doctors are well aware of the problem. Important decisions (e.g. in cancer care) are made by teams, not individuals, comprising a variety of health care professionals (surgeon, physician, oncologist, radiologist, pathologist, specialist nurse, dietician etc.), though of course the final decision rests with the patient.
I am based in the UK. It might be different where you live. For instance the health care system in the US is generally regarded by the rest of the world as being awful, as well as very expensive, as the way it is set up makes it primarily profit-driven.
Over the last year there have been some very interesting developments in understanding the cause of cancer. Firstly Robert gallo af HIV fame as part of a research team discovered that mycoplasma was implicated in cancer development. Then we have Joe tippens remarkable story, my cancer story rocks that has gone viral world wide. Tippens protocol for those of you that haven’t read it uses fenbendazole, full spectrum vitamin e, curcumin, and cbd oil. Fenbendazole is an anthelmintic and a powerful antifungal, vitamin e succinate and full spectrum vitamin e add significantly to its efficacy. Further we had in October 2019 the research study that malassezia yeast is a promoter of pancreatic cancer. For more information on malassezia read Martin Laurence’s research and its implication in many other cancers and many other chronic illnesses. In addition cross reference azole drugs and cancer, ivermectin and cancer, pyrvinium and cancer, pyrantel and cancer, niclosamide and cancer, praziquantel and cancer, all of them are worming compounds and antifungals. If after reading all of the above and still think that fungal organisms are not implicated in cancer I can only say you are wilfully ignorant and in denial of an obvious truth that dr. Simoncini was right. And hopefully in time he will go after this highly organized mafia that masquerades as the medical establishment in the same way they treated him.
Can you provide links or DOIs for this research?
Happily this paper isn’t hidden behind a paywall and can be downloaded as a PDF here:
It is very interesting, though if you read the paper (have you?) you will find that Gallo et. all did not discover that mycoplasma was implicated in cancer development, since there was already epidemimological evidence that this was the case. What they did do was come up with some experimental evidence for possible molecular mechanisms.
When I was a trainee oncologist in the 1990’s we used to use levamisole (an antihelminthic) in combination with 5-fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence following surgery. This was abandoned in favour of more effective regimens. Ketoconazole (an antifungal) has been used in the US in the treatment of prostate cancer, but again more effective drugs have replaced it. However, in neither case was there any suggestion that the mechanism of action involved killing either fungi or parasites. Many chemotherapy drugs are antibiotics (within the strict definition of the word, i.e. produced by one microbe for the purpose of killing its competitors), for instance bleomycin and daunorubicin, but their effect on tumour cells (and their side-effects) have nothing to do with any antimicrobial propoerties.
It is certainly true that infections can promote tumour development. The hepatitis B virus is a well-known example. More recently the human papilloma virus has hit the news due to the furore arising from the development of a vaccine (which can complete prevent cervical, anal and penile cancer), on the basis that vaccinating children before they become sexually active will somehow encourage unerage sex (as if any teenagers are put off by the thought of dying of cancer in middle age).
With regard to vitamin E, I would like to refer you to the SELECT trial, a large, multi-centre prospective randomised cancer-prevention study examining the effect of selenium and vitamin E on the risk of prostate cancer. The findings were that selenium had no effect and vitamin E substantially increased the risk.
I should also point out that cucurmin is not absorbed when taken orally, and that (so far) there is no evidence that CBD is helpful in the treatment of malignancy.
Unfortunately Nature are asking $8.99 for online access to Akyut, Pushalkar et al.’s paper on malassezia and pancreatic cancer in mice, and what I can find in the popular press (e.g. Science Daily) is by journalists who don’t seem to have understood the research terribly well and omit important details. For instance, in the abstract the authors suggest that the presence of fungi may modify the immune response to malignant cells, but there is no mention of that in the Science Daily report, nor any description of what rodent model the researchers used.
Perhaps you could provide some references to the other research you quote about other infective agents and cancer as I would be interested to have a look? While we are gradually unravelling the molecular mechanisms that are disrupted in cancer, and the extremely complex workings of the immune system, there is still a long way to go.
It seems rather a leap of faith rather than logic to regard the research you mention as supporting Simoncini’s notions about candida and bicarbonate. Not only is there no evidence in his favour, but he is also a convicted fraudster who is currently serving time for manslaughter.
Can you justify this assertion, which on the face of it sounds like the ravings of a conspiracy theorist?
I have the Nature paper as a PDF. Have tried to contact you via your blog so I can send it to you. It looks very good. But it’s quite a stretch, as you say, to extrapolate from a respectable and intriguing piece of research in mice to the notion about Candida and bicarbonate for treatment of human carcinomas.
It a little careless when people think science know everything about biochemistry. Science knows almost nothing on how the body works and everything they once new is changing daily. There are many ways of reversing any disease, but first you have to stop feeding your disease. Since the primary job of the human body is to maintain or bring back balance, what are you doing to prevent its success?
yes, science does not know everything;
yes, science changes – it’s called progress.
yes, science – a clinical trial – can determine reliably whether a therapy works or not.
In the words of the great Dara Ó Briain…
Yeah, wow! Just WOW!!!?
You must be Bruce Almighty, the future Nobel laureate who cures cancer left, right and centre with baking soda and worm medicine or something. Right?
Can we now fire all the physicians and surgeons, their methods are all based on faulty knowledge anyway?
Get out of the way of science-free Bruce! He is going to save mankind!!
The crowds will chant on the streets: “Bruce knows best!! – Bruce knows best!” when they storm the hospitals and throw out all the murderous scientists, doctors and pharmacists, headed by Bruce waving a copy of the completely rewritten biochemistry textbook.
You cannot expect a different outcome or changes in your health when you do not change who you are.
Not sure how I arrived here, but I read every comment and reply as I have some experience with the pharmaceutical approach to illness. It seems as though the individuals with a medical degree have the ‘language of rational’ in which they were effectively groomed at the universities who receive 68% of their funding from the drug companies and who they essentially work for. If you step back and look at the big picture, what you see is a world population getting sicker and sicker from consuming toxic food and water and the industries that are toxifying them doubling down and offering pharmaceuticals as the only solution. Follow the money for Big Ag, Big Pharma and Big Chem to educate yourself. In the US alone, 400 BILLION prescriptions alone are written EVERY YEAR. This does not include OTC meds. Millions of herbicides antibiotics etc, flowing into the ground and ‘NO’ our water purification systems cannot filter out these smaller particles. And this –
“Pesticide use in agriculture is down slightly, from 948 million pounds in 2000 to 877 million pounds in 2007. But that’s only about 1% per year, and still close to a billion pounds of toxic chemicals intentionally introduced into the environment and our food supply each year.
Use of organophosphates continues to decline, and this definitely is a good thing, as these are among the most acutely toxic pesticides still used. But 33 million pounds is still 33 million pounds too many, and despite the decline these neurotoxins are still detected in the bodies of most Americans (see the CDC’s National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals) and commonly found on our food.
The herbicide glyphosate has more than doubled in use, from 85-90 million pounds in 2001 to 180-185 million pounds in 2007. According to a report from the Organic Center, this increase is likely a reflection of the rising popularity of Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready genetically modified crops. (Glyphosate is the active ingredient of RoundUp.)
When the folks who are raking in these kinds of profits are also paying the salaries of the folks who are treating the diseases from exposure to these products, we are in the wrong place. When my physician has to covertly slip me a note with all the vitamins I should take for covid, whilst plastering his walls with pro-vaccine posters to avoid being disciplined [ or worse ], we are in the wrong place. Doctors ARE incentivized to give you pharmaceutical products instead of steering you to fix the underlying problems and I have irrefutable evidence [ from my unfortunately illness ridden life ] that this is true and tragically true. Whether baking soda is a cancer cure we will probably never know given the current circumstances, but I can say this with confidence – if tomorrow all of the physicians et al ‘ decided not to request payment for services unless their patients were healed of whatever complaints they had brought to their offices, the medical’ industry’ would fold almost overnight. Healthy people are not lucrative to the sector that relies exclusively on sickness for its’ profits. Aside from all this, I was saddened to read so much gaslighting, rudeness and derision in the comments, it gives me little hope for the human race.
if I remember it correctly, I was not groomed but educated – you should try it once!
I was educated in the UK at Trinity College, Cambridge and then Westminster Medical School. These institutions were not funded by pharmaceutical companies; Trinity in particular had a substantial income from its foundatation, set up by Henry VIII. Doctors in the UK are mainly paid by the NHS, though if they see private patients they also get some income from medical insurance companies (which do not have the power to dictate practice that they do in the US). It is illegal for them to take back-handers from pharmaceutical companies or anybody else, and if caught doing so they are likely to lose their jobsand quite possibly their licence to practise.
Americans seem to forget that they are just one country out of 195, although a large one, making up just over 4% of the world population. They happen to live with a broken healthcare system, and for some reason continue to vote for governments that perpetuate it, but the rest of us aren’t like them.
Here in the Netherlands too, pharmaceutical companies have nothing to say about the medical curriculum, nor do they sponsor medical education in any way. As in the UK, we have very strict laws prohibiting industry influence and kickbacks.
Do you have any evidence supporting this claim? Again, here in the Netherlands an in other western European countries, people not only get older than ever before, but also keep in better health than ever before. There is no sign at all that populations suffer from mass poisoning.
Do you have any evidence supporting this claim? Because when I look at the 100 best-selling pharmaceutical products worldwide, not one of them is used for treating poisoning.
In fact, the only ones making claims like this about ‘ubiquitous toxins’ are the very same people who sell the gullible audience ‘detox’ products that do not work at all.
1. Vitamins do not help against Covid-19
2. Even in the US, doctors do not ‘covertly slip notes’ when advising the use of vitamin supplements (unless they are advising vitamins in lieu of effective treatments – in which case they are quacks).
3. Vitamins and other supplements also come from pharmaceutical manufacturers – you know, the subject of your rant. In fact, the annual sales of largely useless vitamin supplements ($120bn) exceeds annual Roundup sales ($8bn) BY FAR. Even all global pesticide sales combined do not even come close to global supplement sales.
Wrong again, I’m afraid. Doctors plaster their walls with pro-vaccine posters because contrary to vitamins and supplements, vaccines are hugely effective in preventing serious illness and death, and they are even safer than several vitamins (some of which can cause serious harm if overdosed, e.g. vitamin A, B6, and D). Doctors know this, and that is why they advise vaccination. They do not do this ‘to avoid getting disciplined’ – unless they are (again) stupid quacks who reject vaccination.
We ABSOLUTELY KNOW that baking soda is NOT a cancer cure – and even someone with just high school chemistry can understand this: baking soda is a simple chemical compound with the official name sodium hydrogen carbonate. It is mildly alkaline, and when ingested, it reacts with stomach acid (hydrochloric acid) by producing carbon dioxide, water and sodium chloride (kitchen salt). In other words: it gets neutralized right away, and does not even make it through the stomach, even in larger doses – as our stomach produces 3 litres of hydrochloric acid solution every day. Its propensity to react with stomach acid is also why it is used to treat reflux/heartburn. But it becomes even more interesting: your own pancreas makes significant amounts of sodium bicarbonate in order to neutralize the hydrochloric acid coming from your stomach. So no, administering baking soda cannot possibly have any health effects other than as an antacid, simply because your body is already making it in pretty large quantities.
Yes, there some quacks who administer sodium bicarbonate directly into the blood stream of cancer patients, bypassing the digestive tract. This is extremely dangerous and has killed patients worldwide. And no, even this way, it still does not work against cancer. The blood has several so-called chemical buffer mechanisms, aimed at keeping the blood pH level at 7.4 ± 0.05, and these mechanisms neutralize any excess alkaline or acid right away. Which is a good thing, because a blood pH of only 0.1 point higher or lower quickly becomes lethal.
That is not quite true. Sodium bicarbonate, as well as being alkaline, also contains sodium, which is important in the control of water balance and blood pressure. Too much sodium can lead to fluid overload and congestive cardiac failure if there is a pre-existing problem.
As well as alleviating the symptoms of acid reflux, sodium bicarbonate is useful in the short-term management of acute acidosis, for instance after a cardiac arrest and in acute renal failure. With careful control of blood pH (using sodium bicarbonate), blood potassium (using insulin and ion-exchange resins given by mouth or enema) and overall fluid balance it is often possible to avoid the need for dialysis or haemoperfusion for the eleven days that it takes the kidneys to recover, provided that other toxic substances don’t need to be removed from the blood (such as gentamicin or excess water, both commonly given by junior doctors who haven’t fully appreciated the situation).
@Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
Thank you once again for your corrections and elaboration on the subject; indeed I was not aware that sodium bicarbonate was used in the management of blood electrolyte levels.
Strictly speaking it is blood pH that sodium bicarbonate it is used for rather than electrolyte levels; the additional sodium is nearly always undesirable.
As Julian said “Strictly speaking it is blood pH that sodium bicarbonate it is used for rather than electrolyte levels; the additional sodium is nearly always undesirable.”
The sodium cations in the sodium bicarbonate solution are irrelevant to blood pH; it is the hydrogencarbonate (bicarbonate) anions that are involved in blood plasma pH.
The plasma pH can be altered by respiratory changes in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide; or altered by metabolic changes in the carbonic acid to bicarbonate ion ratio. The bicarbonate buffer system regulates the ratio of carbonic acid to bicarbonate to be equal to 1:20, at which ratio the blood pH is 7.4 (as explained in the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation).
END of QUOTE
Henderson–Hasselbalch equation, Biological applications, Wikipedia:
People demonize Big Pharma and “toxic chemicals” all over the place, but they don’t demonize Big Food nearly enough.
The former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler wrote a good book The End of Overeating, about how food companies engineer processed food to make it hyper-palatable, so people will choose their food brand and eat lots of it.
A big part of their technique is to make food with unnatural amounts of fat, sugar and salt, which are cheap ingredients that people love. But there are other aspects too.
So Big Food causes a lot of medical problems and expenses, by causing obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes in a great many people.
But hardly anyone demonizes Big Food. People love their products, and favorite foods become a big part of people’s lives.
Nobody enjoys taking pills, pumping gas or contemplating dead bugs – so Big Pharma, Big Oil and Big Pesticide gets demonized. But people do enjoy their favorite burgers, or whatever.
Yup, I would agree with you Robin that food is making people sick. Sugar being one of the largest issues. However, I wouldn’t conclude that the pharma industry are the good guys. Both industries do what’s good for them, not the consumer or the patient.
“The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.”
“That was an era when researchers were battling over which dietary culprit — sugar or fat — was contributing to the deaths of many Americans, especially men, from coronary heart disease, the buildup of plaque in arteries of the heart. Kearns said the papers, which the trade group later cited in pamphlets provided to policymakers, aided the industry’s plan to increase sugar’s market share by convincing Americans to eat a low-fat diet.”
“Science reports that sugarcane is now the world’s third most valuable crop after cereals and rice, occupying 26,942,686 hectares of land across the globe. However, it wasn’t always so widespread. Several hundred years ago, sugar formed a very small part of the human diet.
In 1700, the average person consumed approximately 4.9 grams of sugar each day (1.81 kg per year).
· In 1800, the average person consumed approximately 22.4 grams of sugar each day (10.2 kg per year).
· In 1900, the average person consumed approximately 112 grams of sugar each day (40.8 kg per year).
· In 2009, 50 per cent of Americans consumed approximately 227 grams of sugar each day – equating to 81.6 kg per year.
– In 2022, the number is higher
Today – In fact, the average American consumes 1610kg pounds of sugar in a lifetime. That’s nearly 2 tonnes! These figures are similar for people in the UK.
and what was the average life expectancy in 1700?
much lower, but for other reasons
C’mon, you’re no dummy… or are you ?
yes, there are many reasons and confounders;
but, of course, the correlations you posted are unconfounded and prove a causal link.
Rising life expectancy around the world 1770–2019, Our World in Data
It’s combinations of fat, sugar and salt that mostly produce the hyper-palatable foods that people can’t stop eating. Those are the foods that make people fat.
e.g. chocolate, ice cream: fat and sugar.
Potato chips, nachos: fat and salt.
Sugar by itself in foods doesn’t tend to be that appetizing. For example, sherbet is sweet but low in fat and salt, and it’s a lot less popular than ice cream. And people don’t tend to consume lots of calories in fruit, even very sweet fruit like bananas and grapes.
The exception is sugar-sweetened soda pop, which is associated with weight gain, especially in children. It’s low in fat and salt – just lots of sugar.
Perhaps what makes drinks hyper-palatable is different from what makes food hyper-palatable. Or maybe what makes things hyper-palatable is different for children than for adults. Children are notoriously fond of sugar, but fat and salt, not so much.
Have you considered that the difference in popularity between ice cream and sherbet could be due to marketing rather than palatability?
It may also be the case that the preference is cultural. For instance in China, the most populous country in the world, dog meat is considered to be a delicacy and costs at least twice as much as pork in restaurants, whereas the idea of eating dogs causes revulsion in the UK and any restaurant caught serving it would be closed down very quickly. Rather like the reaction to eating pork in the Middle East. Other things I have seen on the menu when I visited China included bee larvae and stewed donkey tendon.
I used to love eating sherbert as a child and preferred it to ice cream. Sharbat (spelled various ways in English) is very refreshing and popular in much of the Arab world. Do you mean one of these or are you referring to something peculiar to where you live?
See the paper on food preferences of obese adults. The foods that people tend to overeat are generally high in fat.
Children do love sugary foods, even if they aren’t also high in fat.
From a paper on food preferences of obese adults:
In 1700 people consumed large quantities of fruit cider and grape juice, as well as honey, and sweet fruits like dates.
Cane sugar is geographically limited.
As for what foods make children fat, from a study on children in the UK,
We are not in the age of Star Trek medicine, where people can be cured of almost anything with a short intervention by a mysterious machine. Being a doctor is not like being an auto mechanic – the doctor can’t just fix the patient and give them a warranty.
And people make their own choices, too, and a lot of people’s health is under their own control. If a car enjoyed not lubricating its engine well enough, an auto mechanic wouldn’t warranty engine repairs either.
The iodine protocol is saving my life – I was officially diagnosed with ME/CFS in 2019 after 15 years and many doctors. Could barely get out of bed and had horrible POTS. I’ve been on the protocol since 2020 and back to working full time and physically doing more then I could do compared to the previous 15 years. People can say it’s not real … their words mean nothing to me when compared to my real life experience. I was doubtful and terrified to try it – but I’m glad I did. Low and slow dosing is an must for me. If it ends up killing me over the long run; I have already told my family that I have lived more in the last few years then the previous 15 so I’m okay with it. I tried the allopathic path – it failed me miserably. That’s my first hand experience after nearly three years –
I’m inquiring what specific iodine protocol you are using ?
Appears ol Ed here is sucking off the Big Pharma and AMA teet, lol, how’s that working out for your patients? Burying more than saving?? Uh huh.