|
|
Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus? According to this hypothesis based on years of scientific and clinical research, the cause of cancer is infection by a common fungus, Candida albicans. The good news is that it can be treated with a powerful antifungal agent that can't be patented.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume
14, Number 5 (August - September 2007) by Dr Tullio Simoncini ©2007
My idea is that cancer doesn't depend on mysterious causes (genetic, immunological or auto-immunological, as the official oncology proposes), but it results from a simple fungal infection whose destroying power in the deep tissues is actually underestimated. The present work is based on the conviction, supported by many years of observations, comparisons and experiences, that the necessary and sufficient cause of the tumour is to be sought in the vast world of the fungi, the most adaptable, aggressive and evolved micro-organisms known in nature. I have tried many times to explain this theory to leading institutions involved in cancer issues (the Ministry of Health, the Italian Medical Oncological Association, etc.), elaborating on my thinking, but I have been brushed aside because of the impossibility of setting my idea in a conventional context. A different, international audience represents the possibility of sharing a view about health which differs from what is widely accepted by today's medical community, either officially or from the sidelines.
There is an opposition between the allopathic and the Hippocratic medical ideal.
The position that I promote represents instead a meeting point of these two
conceptions of health, since from the conceptual point of view it sublimates and
adds value to both, while highlighting how they both are victims of a common
conformist language. In considering the biological dimensions of the fungi, for instance, it is possible to compare the different degrees of pathogenicity in relation to the condition of organs, tissues and cells of a guest organism, which in turn also and especially depend on the behaviour of the individual. Each time the recuperative abilities of a known psycho-physical structure are exceeded, there is an inevitable exposure, even considering possible accidental co-founders, to the aggression--even at the smallest dimensions--of those external agents that otherwise would be harmless. In the presence of an indubitable connection between patient morale and disease, it is no longer legitimate to separate the two domains (allopathic and naturopathic) which are both indispensable for improving the health of individuals. Flaws in mainstream theories on cancer causation The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go through two separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations of oncology, and a constructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system based on a new theoretical point of departure. In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientific philosophy, which suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find a solution with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted,1 only one logical formulation emerges: to refuse the oncological principle which assumes that cancer is generated by a cellular reproductive anomaly.
However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductive anomaly is
questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories based on this hypothesis are
inevitably flawed. Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories about multiple causes that have an oncogenic effect on cellular reproduction sometimes seems like a concealing screen, behind which there is nothing but a wall. These theories propose endless causes that are more or less associated with each other; and this means in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation in turn of smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress, psychological factors, etc., without a properly defined context, causes confusion and resignation, and creates even more mystification around a disease which may turn out to be simpler than it is depicted to be. As background information, it is important to review the picture of presumed genetic influences in the development of cancer processes as they are depicted by molecular biologists. These are the scientists who perform research on infinitesimally small cellular mechanisms, but who in real life never see a patient. All present medical systems are based on this research, and thus, unfortunately, all therapies currently performed. The main hypothesis of a genetic neoplastic causality is essentially reduced to the fact that the structures and the mechanism in charge of normal reproductive cellular activity become, for undefined reasons, capable of an autonomous behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissular economy. The genes that normally have a positive role in cellular reproduction are, then, imprecisely referred to as "proto-oncogenes"; those that inhibit cellular reproduction are called "suppressor genes" or "recessive oncogenes". Both endogenous (never demonstrated) and exogenous cellular factors--that is, those carcinogenic elements that are usually invoked--are held responsible for the neoplastic degeneration of the tissues... From a very superficial analysis of the presumed oncological picture, however, it seems to be clear how the assertion of all this unstoppable genetic hyperactivity can do nothing more that unveil the abysmal stupidity that is at the basis of this way of conceiving things. All those who work in the field do nothing but repeat the stale litany of reproductive cellular anomalies on a genetic basis. It is better to look for new horizons and conceptual instruments that are capable of unearthing a real and unique neoplastic aetiology. Back to taxonomy
The common element of these organisms is the feeding system, which, being implemented (with very few exceptions) by direct absorption of soluble organic compounds, differentiates them both from animals and vegetables. Animals also feed as above, but especially by ingesting solid organic materials that are then transformed through the digestive process. Vegetables, by utilising mineral compounds and light energy, are capable of feeding by synthesising the organic substances.
The contemporary tendency of biologists is once again to pick up, though in a
more sophisticated way, the concept of the third kingdom. One goes even further,
however, arguing that within that kingdom, fungi must be classified in a
distinct category. Additionally, fungi possess a property that is strange when compared to all other micro-organisms: the ability to have a basic microscopic structure (hypha) with a simultaneous tendency to grow to remarkable dimensions (up to several kilograms), keeping unchanged the capacity to adapt and reproduce at any size. From this point of view, therefore, fungi cannot be considered true organisms, but cellular aggregates sui generis with an organismic behaviour, since each cell maintains its survival and reproductive potential intact regardless of the structure in which it exists. It is therefore clear how difficult it is to identify all the biological processes in such complex living realities. In fact, even today, there are huge voids and taxonomical approximations in mycology. Fungi characteristics 1) Fungi are heterotrophic organisms and therefore need, as far as nitrogen and carbon are concerned, pre-formed compounds. Of these compounds, simple carbohydrates, for example monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and mannose), are among the most utilised sugars. This means that fungi, during their life cycle, depend on other living beings which must be exploited in different degrees for their feeding. This occurs both in a saprophytic way (that is, by feeding on organic waste) and in a parasitic way (that is, by attacking the tissue of the host directly). 2) Fungi show a great variety of reproductive manifestations (sexual, asexual, gemmation; these manifestations can often be observed simultaneously in the same mycete), combined with a great morphostructural variety of organs. All of this is directed toward the end of spore formation, to which the continuity and propagation of the species is entrusted. 3) In mycology, it is often possible to observe a particular phenomenon called heterokaryon,
characterised by the coexistence of normal and mutant nuclei in cells that have
undergone a hyphal fusion. 4) In the parasitic dimension, fungi can develop from the hyphas more or less beak-shaped, specialised structures that allow the penetration of the host. 5) The production of spores can be so abundant as to include always, at every cycle, tens, hundreds and even thousands of millions of elements that can be dispersed at a remarkable distance from the point of origin5 (a small movement is sufficient, for example, to implement immediate diffusion). 6) Spores have an immense resistance to external aggression, for they are capable of staying dormant in adverse conditions for many years while preserving unaltered their regenerative potentialities. 7) The development coefficient of the hyphal apexes after the germination is extremely fast (100 microns per minute under ideal conditions) with ramification capacity, thus with the appearance of a new apex region that in some cases is in the neighbourhood of 40-60 seconds.6 8) The shape of the fungus is never defined, for it is imposed by the environment in which the fungus develops. It is possible to observe, for example, the same mycelium in the simple isolated hyphas status in a liquid environment or in the form of aggregates that are increasingly solid and compact, up to the formation of pseudo-parenchymas and of filaments and mycelial strings.7 9) By the same token, it is possible to observe in different fungi the same shape whenever they must adapt to the same environment (this is called dimorphism). The partial or total substitution of nourishing substances induces frequent mutations in fungi, and this is further proof of their high adaptability to any substrata. 10) When the nutritional conditions are precarious, many fungi react with hyphal fusion (among nearby fungi) which allows them to explore the available material more easily, using more complete physiological processes. This property, which substitutes co-operation for competition, makes them distinct from any other micro-organism, and for this reason Buller calls them social organisms.8 11) When a cell gets old or becomes damaged (e.g., by a toxic substance or by a pharmaceutical), many fungi whose intercellular septums are provided with a pore react by implementing a defence process called protoplasmic flux, through which they transfer the nucleus and cytoplasm of the damaged cell into a healthy one, thus conserving unaltered all their biological potential. 12) The phenomena regulating the development of hyphal ramification are unknown to date.9 They consist of either a rhythmic development or in the appearance of sectors which, though they originate from the hyphal system, are self-regulating,10 that is, independent of the regulating action and behaviour of the rest of the colony. 13) Fungi are capable of implementing an infinite number of modifications to their own metabolism in order to overcome the defence mechanism of the host. These modifications are implemented through plasmatic and biochemical actions as well as by a volumetric increase (hypertrophy) and numerical hyperplasy of the cells that have been attacked.11
14) Fungi are so aggressive as to attack not only plants,
animal tissue, food supplies and other fungi, but even protozoa, amoebas and
nematodes. From the short notations above, it therefore seems fair to dedicate greater attention to the world of fungi, especially considering the fact that biologists and microbiologists constantly highlight large deficiencies and voids in all their descriptions and interpretations of fungi's shapes, physiologies and reproductions.
So the fungus, which is the most powerful and the most organised micro-organism
known, seems to be an extremely logical candidate as a cause of neoplastic
proliferation. The greatest disease of mankind may therefore hide within a small cluster of pathogenic fungi, and may after all be located with just some simple deductions able to close the circle and provide the solution. Candida albicans: a necessary and sufficient cause of cancer
1) ubiquitous attachment -- no organ or tissue is spared;
Therefore, an exceptionally high and diversified pathogenic potentiality exists
in this mycete of just a few microns in size, which, even though it cannot be
traced with the present experimental instruments, cannot be neglected from the
clinical point of view. We therefore have to hypothesise that Candida, in the moment it is attacked by the immunological system of the host or by a conventional antimycotic treatment, does not react in the usual, predicted way but defends itself by transforming itself into ever-smaller and non-differentiated elements that maintain their fecundity intact to the point of hiding their presence both to the host organism and to possible diagnostic investigations. Candida's behaviour may be considered to be almost elastic. When favourable conditions exist, Candida thrives on an epithelium; as soon as the tissue reaction is engaged, it massively transforms itself into a form that is less productive but impervious to attack: the spore. If, then, continuous subepithelial solutions take place, coupled with a greater areactivity in that very moment, the spore gets deeper into the lower connective tissue in such an impervious state that colonisation is irreversible. In fact, Candida takes advantage of a structural interchangeability, utilising it according to the difficulties, e.g., in feeding, to overcome its biological niche. In this way, Candida is free to expand to maturation in the soil, air, water, vegetation, etc.--that is, wherever there is no antibody reaction. In the epithelium, instead, it takes a mixed form, which is reduced to the sole spore component when it penetrates the lower epithelial levels, where it tends to expand again in the presence of conditions of tissular areactivity.
The initial mandatory step of an indepth research endeavour would be to
understand if and in which dimensions the spore transcends, what mechanisms it
engages to hide itself or, again, to preserve its parasitic characteristic, or
if it has available a neutral quiescent position which is difficult or even
impossible to detect by the immunological system. Assuming that Candida albicans is the agent responsible for tumour development, a targeted therapy would take into account not just its static and macroscopic manifestations but even the ultramicroscopic ones, especially in their dynamic valency, that is, the reproductive. It is very probable that the targets to attack are the fungi's dimensional transition points in order to perform a decontamination with such a scope as to include the whole spectrum of the biological expression -- parasitic, vegetative, sporal and even ultradimensional and, to the limit, viral. If we stop at the most evident phenomena, we risk administering salves and unguents forever (in the case of dermatomycosis or in psoriasis), or clumsily attacking (with surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy) enigmatic tumoural masses with the sole result of facilitating their propagation, which is already heightened in the mycelial forms. Why, one may ask, should we assume a different and heightened activity of Candida albicans, since it has been abundantly described in its pathological manifestations? The answer lies in the fact that it has been studied only in a pathogenic context, that is, only in relation to the epithelial tissues. In reality, Candida possesses an aggressive valency that is diversified in function in the target tissue. It is just in the connective or in the connective environment, in fact, and not in the differentiated tissues, that Candida may find conditions favourable to an unlimited expansion. This emerges if we stop and reflect for a moment on the main function of connective tissue, which is to convey and supply nourishing substances to the cells of the whole organism. This is to be considered as an environment external to the more differentiated cells such as nervous, muscular, etc. It is in this context, in fact, that the alimentary competition takes place. On the one hand, we have the organism's cellular elements trying to defeat all forms of invasion; on the other hand, we have fungal cells trying to absorb ever-growing quantities of nourishing substances, for they have to obey the species' biological imperative to form ever larger and diffused masses and colonies. From the combination of various factors pertinent to both the host and the aggressor, it is possible to hypothesise the evolution of a candidosis.
Stages one and two are the most studied and understood, while stage three, though it has been described in its morphological diversity, is reduced to a silent form of saprophytism. This is not acceptable from a logical point of view, because no one can demonstrate the harmlessness of the fungal cells in the deepest parts of the organism. In fact, the assumption that Candida can behave in the same saprophytic manner that is observed on integer epitheliums when it has successfully penetrated the lower levels, is at least risky because the assumption would have to be sustained by concepts that are totally aleatory (i.e., dependent on chance). In fact, we are asked not only to accept a priori that the connective environment is (a) not suitable to nourish the Candida, but also at the same time to accept (b) the omnipotence of the body's defence system towards an organic structure that is invasive but that then becomes vulnerable once lodged in the deeper tissues. As for point (a), it is difficult to imagine that a micro-organism so able to adapt itself to any substrata cannot find elements to support itself in the human organic substance; by the same token, it seems risky to hypothesise that the human organism's defence system is totally efficient at every moment of its existence.
As for point (b), the assumption that there is a tendency to a state of
quiescence and vulnerability in the case of a pathogenic agent such as fungus --
the most invasive and aggressive micro-organism existing in nature -- seems to carry a whiff of the irresponsible. The fungal expansion gradient in fact becomes steeper as the tissue that is the host of the mycotic invasion becomes less eutrophic and thus less reactive. Benign tumours
If the benign tumour, however, is not considered a fully fledged tumour, it
would be advantageous, for clarity, to categorise it in an appropriate
nosological scheme. By contrast, in the fungal scenario, the mystery of why there are benign and malignant tumours is exhaustively solved, since they can be recognised as having the same aetiological genesis.
The benignity or malignancy of a cancer in fact depends on the capability of
tissular reaction of a specific organ expressing itself ultimately in the
ability to encyst fungal cells and to prevent them from developing in
ever-larger colonies. This can be achieved more easily where the ratio between
differentiated cells and connective tissue is in favour of the former. And it is in these conditions that benign tumours are formed; that is, where the glandular connective tissue is successful in forming hypertrophic and hyperplastic cellular embankments against the parasites. In the stomach and in the lung, instead, since there are no specific glandular units, the target organ, provided with a small defensive capability, is at the mercy of the invader. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning how several types of intimate fungal invasion do not determine the appearance of malignant or benign tumours but a type of particular benign tumour (specific degenerative alterations), as is the case with some organs or apparatuses that do not have peculiar glandular structures but nevertheless are attacked in their connective tissue, although in a limited way. In fact, if we consider multiple sclerosis, SLA, psoriasis, nodular panarthritis, etc., the possible development of the fungus in a three-dimensional sense is actually limited by the anatomic configuration of the invaded tissues, so that only a longitudinal expansion is allowed.
Going back to the precondition of areactivity that is necessary for neoplastic
development in a specific individual, it is permissible to affirm how in the
human body each external or internal element that determines a reduction of
well-being in an organism, organ or tissue possesses oncogenic potentiality.
This is not so much because of an intrinsic damaging capability as much as a
generic property of favouring the fungal (that is, tumoural) flourishing. Conventional treatments vs antifungal therapy Which path is best to walk today, then, when faced with a cancer patient, since the conventional oncological treatment, not being aetiological, can only occasionally have positive effects and most of the time produces damage?
In the fungal perspective, in fact, the effectiveness of surgery is noticeably
reduced because of the extreme diffusibility and invasiveness characteristic of
a mycelial conglomerate. Surgery to solve the problem is therefore tied to the
case; that is, to conditions in which one has the luck to be able to remove the
entire colony completely (which is often possible in the presence of a
sufficient encystment, but only where benign tumours are concerned). By contrast, an antifungal, anti-tumour-specific therapy would take into account the importance of the connective tissue together with the reproductive complexity of fungi. Only by attacking the fungi across the spectrum of all its forms, at points where it is most vulnerable from the nutritional point of view, would it be possible to hope to eradicate them from the human organism. The first step to take, therefore, would be to reinforce the cancer patient with generic reconstituent measures (nutrition, tonics, regulation of rhythms and vital functions) that are able to enhance the general defences of the organism.
Concerning the possibility of having available pharmaceutical cures, which
unfortunately do not exist today, it seems useful, in the attempt to find an
antifungal substance that is quite diffusible and therefore effective, to
consider the extreme sensitivity of Candida towards sodium bicarbonate (i.e., in
the oral candidosis of breastfed babies). This is consistent with the fact that
Candida has an accentuated ability to reproduce in an acid environment.
And this is what happens in many types of tumour, such as colon and liver -- and
especially stomach and lung, the former susceptible to regression just because
of its "external" anatomic position, and the latter because of the
high diffusibility of sodium bicarbonate in the bronchial system and for its
high responsiveness to general reconstituent measures.
It is important to emphasise that these cases are just an example of what could
be a new way of perceiving the complexity of medical problems, especially in
oncology. Critical considerations The identification of one tumoural cause, even with all the possible general provisos, would represent a step forward that is indispensable for escaping that passivity determined by a lack of results, and which is responsible for medical behaviours that are based too much on faith and not enough on real confidence. Given, therefore, that an unconventional medical approach can benefit some patients better - from any point of view - than the official treatments, and since valuable results can be demonstrated, this should stimulate us to pursue further research while avoiding patronising postures that are both limiting and non-productive. We can therefore discuss whether or not sodium bicarbonate is the real reason for the recoveries or if, instead, those recoveries are due to the interaction of a number of conditions that have been created, the results of unidentified neuro-psychical factors, or maybe the results of something totally unknown. What is beyond question, however, is the fact that a certain number of people, by not following conventional methods, have been able to go back to normality without suffering and without mutilation. The message of this experience is therefore a call to search for those solutions that are in accord with the simple Hippocratic obligation to man's "well-being"; that is, we must be stimulated to a critical evaluation of our contemporary oncological therapies which indubitably can guarantee suffering. When we group together both malignant tumours that are occasionally or never healed (such as lung and stomach) and tumours that border with benignity (such as the majority of thyroid and prostatic tumours, etc.) or put them together with those that have an autonomous positive outcome notwithstanding chemotherapy (i.e., infantile leukaemia) - all of this appears to be devious and misleading, having only the purpose of forging a consensus that would otherwise be impossible to obtain with intellectually ethical behaviour. The fact that modern medicine not only cannot offer sufficient interpretative criteria but even uses dangerous methodologies that are also harmful and meaningless - even if carried out with good faith - is something which must push us all to search for humane and logical alternatives. At the same time, it is necessary to carefully, open-mindedly and logically consider any theory or point of view that is dared to be advanced in the battle against that monstrous and inhuman yoke that is the tumour. To this end, a note of acknowledgement is to go to all those who are aware of the harmfulness of conventional therapeutic methods and constantly try to find alternative solutions. People like Di Bella, Govallo and others, although guilty of utilising the same inauspicious principles of official medicine (thus showing an excessively conformist mindset), are actually using common sense by trying to relieve the suffering of cancer patients through the use of painless methodologies, and in some cases are able to achieve remissions, even though they're in the dark about the real causes of cancer. In an alternative perspective then, it would be necessary to conceive a new approach to experimentation in the oncological field, setting epidemiological, aetiological, pathogenic, clinical and therapeutic research in line with a renewed microbiology and mycology that would probably drive us to the conclusion already illustrated: that is, the tumour is a fungus - Candida albicans. The possible discovery that not only tumours but also the majority of chronic degenerative disease could be reconciled to mycotic causality would represent a qualitative quantum leap which, by revolutionising medical thinking, could greatly improve life expectancy and quality of life. Such reconciliation might include a wider spectrum of fungal parasites (for example, in diseases of the connective tissues, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, some epileptic forms, diabetes type 2, etc.). In closing, considering that the world of fungi - those most complex and aggressive micro-organisms - has been bypassed and left unobserved for far too long, the hope of this work is to promote awareness of the hazards of these micro-organisms so that medical resources can be channelled not up blind alleys but towards the real enemies of the human organism: external infectious agents. Addendum: A Note on Cancer Treatment
1) eighty years of genetic study and application has been for nothing,
especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been
demonstrated; My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up. The best way to try to eliminate a tumour is to bring it into contact with sodium bicarbonate, as closely as possible, i.e., using oral administration for the digestive tract, an enema for the rectum, douching for the vagina and uterus, intravenous injection for the lung and the brain, and inhalation for the upper airways. Breasts, lymph nodes and subcutaneous lumps can be treated with local perfusions. The internal organs can be treated with sodium bicarbonate by locating suitable catheters in the arteries (of the liver, pancreas, prostate and limbs) or in the cavities (of the pleura or peritoneum). (Note that sodium bicarbonate should not be used as a cancer preventive [see my comment below].) It is important to treat each type of cancer with the right dosage. For phleboclysis (drip infusion), 500 cc given in a series of intervals - 5% strength on one day and 8.4% the next - is required, depending on the patient's weight and condition; the stronger dose may perhaps be needed in cases of lung and brain cancers according to the tumour type (primary or metastatic) and size. For external administrations, it is enough to taste if the solution is salty. Sometimes it is judicious to combine different administrations. For each treatment, take into consideration that tumour colonies regress between the third and fourth day and collapse between the fourth and fifth, so a six-day administration is sufficient. A complete, effective cycle is made up of six treatment days on and six days off, repeated four times. The most important side effects of this care system are thirst and weakness. For skin cancers (melanoma, epithelioma, etc.), a 7% iodine tincture should be spread on the affected area once a day, 20-30 times consecutively in one sitting, with the aim of producing a number of layers of crust. If, after one month of treatment, the first crust is gone and the skin is not completely healed, then the treatment should be continued in the same manner until the second crust forms, heals and then comes loose without any assistance. (The procedure is also applicable for treating psoriasis.) After this treatment, the cancer will be gone and stay away forever. For more information, see "Protocol Treatments with sodium biocarbonate solutions" at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/cancer-therapy-simoncini-protocol.html and FAQ sections at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com. Editor's Note: Endnotes About the Author: For more information on Dr Simoncini's theory, therapy and case studies, and to view interviews and testimonials, visit the portal website http://www.cancerfungus.com.
Comment by DrCee
* * * Dr Simoncini warns against using the bicarb treatment to prevent cancer, and I can understand why this would be the case. Bicarb (sodium) needs to be kept in balance with calcium, potassium and other cellsalts. If bicarb is taken on its own for a prolonged period, it would create a deficiency in other cellsalts. The only way a a person could take bicarb as a preventative measure would be if they gained a knowledge of cellsalts and were able to recognise deficiency symptoms as they arose. And yes, I have been taking sodium supplements myself in various forms, for over 30 years with no ill effects.
Link Video interview with Dr Simoncini at mercola website Cancer is now the leading cause of death in the United States. This video featuring Doug Kaufman interviewing Italian Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini, details a new theory of cancer that carries the promise of a safe, speedy, and effective cancer cure.
|
