We are 144,853 members in 73 forums discussing 114,686 topics.

Help with Abbreviations

All TopicsForum: Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment → Topic: baking soda...cancer cure?

Topic: baking soda...cancer cure?

Forum: Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment — Complementary medicine refers to treatments that are used WITH standard treatment. Holistic medicine is a term used to describe therapies that attempt to treat the patient as a whole person.

Posted on: Dec 2, 2008 09:08PM

Hindsfeet wrote:

I found this video fancinating. I would like to get your reactions. Watched it last night...I am not sure if it adds to my confusion or clears it up??????  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx?source=nl

Log in to post a reply

Page 5 of 8 (230 results)

Posts 121 - 150 (230 total)

Log in to post a reply

Aug 2, 2009 09:58AM hollyann wrote:

Hello dear posters.....I have read the last few pages on this board and am just blown away by the claims of bicarbonate soda and maple syrup curing cancer.......At first I thought this post was a hoax and just making fun of research but surpirsingly a number of you believe this.......I don't know about anybody else's tumor but mine was composed of my own DNA gone amuck....There was absolutely no fungus involved in my tumor.....Trust me I got the whole entire pathology report not just what the docotr noted in my chart.....I absolutley respect everyone's right to an alternative treatment but it saddens me that some will believe this Itialian doctor.......I personally do not believe him but that is the beauty of freedom......We can believe what we want......I know for a fact that sugar feeds cancer......My oncologist told me so and I believe her as she is one of the leading oncologists in America......Also I have a high family history of breast cancer and my genetic counselot told me cancer is genetic.........My question is this, if cancer is fungal then why do genetic testing for the BRCA genes?....Why would cancer be prevalent in some families and not in others if it is not genetic?.....I am only asking because I read a lot of reasons why it could be fungal yet I recall no one sayng it could be genetic and just bad genes.......No disrepect meant I am just concerned that some newly diagnosed patient will see this and think ..OH so all I need is bicarbonate and maple syrup.....I personally had never hear of this til I read this thread......I thank you in advanced for your time and responses..........

Hugs and Love....Lucy Dx 1-15-07 IDC stage 1b grade 1, 1.6 cm.....Also DCIS grade 3, both in left breast

Dx 1/15/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage Ib, Grade 1, 0/6 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 2, 2009 11:15AM, edited Aug 3, 2009 02:59PM by Beatis

All the relevent research can be found through this link: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/#more-1514

There are links in the text to the relevant research, all you have to do is click on them. Since sodium bicarbonate turns out to be ineffective at best and in many cases to stimulate cancer growth, there is not much sense for testing it in humans. But if Simoncini has substantial evidence that baking soda is effective in humans against cancer, then perhaps he could show us this and carry out a study in humans; it would not have to be very expensive.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 2, 2009 11:24AM, edited Aug 2, 2009 11:25AM by anondenet

Beatis, with all due respect, you referred me to catch-all blog with a mish-mash of links.

I asked you for an actual study to support your claim that baking soda "often stimulates cancer growth" in humans.

Thanks so much!

anom

Don't want to be defined by my stats-- this would be medical hexing.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 2, 2009 11:41AM Beatis wrote:

  

Re: anomdenet:

I said:

"On the contrary, research has shown that baking soda often stimulates cancer growth." I did not say "in humans."

What you call a mish-mash of links: all the links point to legitimate scientific research. Research Simoncini should have performed before making his outrageous claims.

I also explained there is no sense in testing baking soda in humans, since it hasn't shown to be effective in vitro or in animals.

There is another, even bigger, problem with Simoncini's theory, namely the fact that cancer is not a fungus. Ono of the blog members is jli.  He is pathologist-scientist who has been evaluating cancer on a daily basis. Never once in his professional life has he seen cancer being a fungus: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/tullio-simoncini-and-bladder-cancer/#comment-1529

There is no basis for Simoncini's theory. There is no reason to think that cander is a fungus and research has shown that baking soda 1) does not cure cancer and 2) in many cases stimulates cancer growth rather than slowing it down.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 2, 2009 11:56AM anondenet wrote:

So you don't have a source for your claim "backing soda often stimulates cancer growth."

Probably not a good idea to keep repeating the claim then. Or the hearsay of a pathologist with a blog.

I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs. But they are YOUR beliefs.

Best of luck.

Don't want to be defined by my stats-- this would be medical hexing.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 01:00PM, edited Aug 3, 2009 01:41PM by Beatis

re: anomdenet:

"So you don't have a source for your claim "backing soda often stimulates cancer growth."

I'm sorry?? The links to the research in question are in the blogpost.

However, since you obviously refuse to read it, here are some of the links you are so interested in:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10654592?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
"A tumour protective effect of urinary acidification by NH4Cl was not found. In fact, both acidification and prolonged alkalinization tended to aggravate the malignancy of bladder carcinomas."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1429206
"These results indicate that environmental carcinogens or promoters can exert synergistic or additive actions on bladder cancer induction."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045953?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
"The present study indicated that the calculi induced by TPA had a strong promoting activity on urinary bladder carcinogenesis and the precipitate containing calcium terephthalate (CaTPA) may also have weak promoting activity on urinary bladder carcinogenesis."

This is scientific research, it has nothing to do with personal belief.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 02:36PM, edited Aug 3, 2009 02:38PM by anondenet

Beatis,

Please read studies before you send them. Your case against baking soda involves studies on rats given toxic, corrosive chemicals and then baking soda for bladder cancer.

This is why reading the the collected impressions of a blogger with an axe to grind is a waste of time. Did he really think no one would check?

Which is why I asked for the actual studies. The actual studies do not support your belief.

You will not be able slip bogus studies by the people on this group. Tho, please try as we are a friendly group and like the mental excercise. Smile 

Cheers,

anom

Don't want to be defined by my stats-- this would be medical hexing.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 02:54PM Beatis wrote:

Of course we have an axe to grind. Simoncini's treatment has killed several people already and held many back from conventional treatment that could have saved them. He is a danger to cancer patients.

Think what you will about the studies, but bogus they are not.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 02:56PM anondenet wrote:

Could you please document those accusations?

Don't want to be defined by my stats-- this would be medical hexing.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 03:20PM hollyann wrote:

can we please let this subjest drop?.....This is supposed to be a support site not a cat fight!....PLease let's all just get along!>....

Hugs and Love....Lucy Dx 1-15-07 IDC stage 1b grade 1, 1.6 cm.....Also DCIS grade 3, both in left breast

Dx 1/15/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage Ib, Grade 1, 0/6 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 3, 2009 03:27PM Beatis wrote:

Simoncini was convicted in Italy for involuntary manslaughter. Also, his medical license was revoked because he asked people money for non-proven cancer treatments with sodium bicarb. It was all over the Italian media, here is the link to the article in the Corriere della Sera: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2006/maggio/21/Medico_condannato_omicidio_colposo_co_10_060521029.shtml

You can run it through Google translate, for it is in Italian.

In the Netherlands a patient died after being treated by this man - a patient with early stage breast cancer. She was diagnosed a short time before me. His treatment is declared illegal by the Dutch public prosecutor's office and the clinic where the treatment was given was closed on order of the Health Inspectorate. The Health Inspectorate also issued a statement that the treatment is ineffective and can be dangerous, as was done in Italy as well.

Telling people they do not need conventional cancer therapy and convincing them to undergo an unproven treatment instead, is dangerous. It can cause patients to lose valuable time, making curable cancers become incurable.

An Italian physician has started a blog to warn his fellow Italians for this man. He knows everything about Simoncnini there is to know. His email address is on his blog, you can email him if you don't believe me: http://medbunker.blogspot.com/

I know you don't like what I say. But it is a terrible thing to see someone die who could have lived. This man is one of the many trying to take advantage of scared and vulnerable cancer patients.

But hey, believe what you will.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Aug 4, 2009 12:57AM, edited Aug 4, 2009 03:56PM by Beatis

Re: anomdenet:

You might have read the research, but have not understood it. The toxins you mention are carcinogenic chemical compounds, given to the lab animals in order to induce cancer in them. When the animals have developed cancer, the effect of sodium bicarbonate on the cancer is tested. The outcomes were that sodium bicarbonate is not effective against cancer and that in some instances it even induces cancer growth.

I'm sorry you misunderstood, but these are the facts.

That's all as far as I'm concerned regarding this subject.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 01:19AM, edited Feb 13, 2010 01:23AM by biodoc

This Post was deleted by biodoc.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 03:30AM MsBliss wrote:

Simonici has the right concept with the wrong message.  The fungus argument sadly diminishes the actual effect of baking soda on hyperplasia and solid tumors.  Baking soda as an infusion causes shrinkgage of solid tumors in vivo.  I saw it work at a university Recombinant DNA lab in 1978.  It was shockingly effective.  It was also written up and shelved.

Dx 3/09 Triple negative, stg1,SNB0/2, BRCA neg, 1.4cm plus 7mm DCIS, ki67 70-90%, lumpectomy w/re-excision, no chemo/no rads due to delays from secondary health issues; SonoCine every 6 months

Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 08:47AM vivre wrote:

MsBliss, why do you think it was written up and shelved? Hmm, could it be that they have no interest in proving cheap alternatives work???

Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 01:08PM apple wrote:

i would not rely on baking soda to fight cancer. (just my opinion). 

  it does however, make a pretty awesome facial scrub.. very very effective (don't scrub too long).

peace and love, apple - ..... Mary Magdalen

Dx 4/10/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IV, Grade 3, 4/9 nodes, mets, ER+, HER2+
Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 01:40PM MBJ wrote:

Hi MsBliss!  It is I-Mary!

I think that it is dangerous to look for a cure-all.  Some of the deaths this dr has caused with baking soda have been completely horrible and unnecessary.

I have just posted a question about a book recommended by a man in my group who has pancreatic cancer.  His oncologist actually recommended it!  It is called The China Study.  This book has the key to our getting well, not baking soda.

MBJ-Unilateral MX-METS ENTIRE LIVER, BONES

Dx 2/3/2012, 3cm, Stage IV, Grade 3, 0/2 nodes, mets, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 13, 2010 06:48PM MsBliss wrote:

Well, this is a loaded issue for sure.

Vivre, I feel there are many forces that lead to not the best treatments making it to market.  It is no secret that many potential drugs and molecules are not being exploited in the treatment of cancer because it is more viable to pull the profits out of the R and D that has already been spent, then to jump to new drugs that are not yet proven and would take hundreds of millions of dollars to reach market--if they even get there.  Many of the drugs are owned by the companies already--but not ready for exploitation yet, or would compete with one of their current "block buster" drugs from which they already have such a massive income stream it would hurt their bottom line.  Some are not patentable, so there is no motivation at all.  So I share your view that we are not benefiting from the best there is to offer. 

BUT, Mary, I also agree with your understanding.  The concept of a "cure all" is mistaken.  Cancer has too many pathways and mechanisms for survival.  It takes a combined protocol--lifestyle, supplements too, with or without cytotoxics to gain the upper hand.  Those who promise "cure alls" are not being realistic and are potentially dangerous. 

What I was referring to was a interesting effect that was part of a "short study".   They were doing recombinant DNA research, but separarately, did a short study on the effects of hydrogen peroxide, and baking soda, not in combination. The results were provocative, largely positive, for baking soda.  None of the work was published however;   They were doing recombinant DNA work and this study was never meant for publication.  But I also think they did not have long term data--and they did not continue the infusions to see what would happen long term, but I was always troubled by how the study dead-ended.  One thing for sure:  it did not cause more tumor growth, at least not in the short term.

Dx 3/09 Triple negative, stg1,SNB0/2, BRCA neg, 1.4cm plus 7mm DCIS, ki67 70-90%, lumpectomy w/re-excision, no chemo/no rads due to delays from secondary health issues; SonoCine every 6 months

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 10:11AM, edited Feb 14, 2010 10:13AM by Beatis

@MsBliss,

In 1978, you saw baking soda shrink tumours in vivo, you say...

There has been quite some research since then which shows no such thing at all. Why then should we believe your unsubstantiated information from 1978 and disregard all the scientifice evidence that has come to light since then? 

Simoncini claims that cancer is a fungus - candida albicans to be precise - which is obviously not the case. To explain the fungus, Simoncini argues this is due to "excess acidity" of the body, which allows the fungus free rein. This is also plainly wrong, as it is not possible for us to have "excess acidity." The only way we can have excess acidity is when we are very ill, or when the pH-balance of our bodies is disturbed on purpose, for example by administering substances that will have this effect, but that is very dangerous. 

He then claims that cancer can be cured with baking soda (or sodium bicarbonate). But there is no evidence for that either. On the contrary, research has shown that baking soda is useless for curing cancer. Also, administering large doses of baking soda intravenously can be dangerous.

Baking soda is useless for systemic fungal infections as well btw; there is good medication for that, but baking soda is not one of them.

I think the whole baking soda theory is dangerous nonsense.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 10:45AM mollyann wrote:

Beatis,

Could you please some evidence for your claims?

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 12:23PM, edited Feb 14, 2010 12:33PM by Beatis

I did in my comment, as well as in my earlier comments in this thread.

Here is detailed information about the pH balance theory: http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/your-urine-is-not-a-window-to-your-body-ph-balancing-a-failed-hypothesis/ 

And here a pathologist/scientist explains that cancer is not a fungus: http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/ 

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 01:34PM vivre wrote:

 MsBliss, I totally agree with this statement:

"BUT, Mary, I also agree with your understanding.  The concept of a "cure all" is mistaken.  Cancer has too many pathways and mechanisms for survival.  It takes a combined protocol--lifestyle, supplements too, with or without cytotoxics to gain the upper hand.  Those who promise "cure alls" are not being realistic and are potentially dangerous. "

There will never be a single cure for cancer, because cancers come in many forms. That is why chemo works for some, and not others. I just do not understand why some people continue to bash alternatives as quackery. I am not defending this Italian doctor. I have no idea if what he says is true or not. All I know is that just as many people are cured with alternatives as they are with traditional medicines, and people die from both as well. What irritates me to know end is that people on both sides continue to insist that only THEY know right from wrong. Until we get an honest dialogue with the FDA we will never know the truth. Until the powers that be are willing to weigh the benefits of alternatives in triple blind studies, we will not get anywhere towards actually curing cancer. All I know is that the reason I am strong and healthy today is because I did both. I know that my surgery saved my life. I am ambivalent that I was talked into rads, and I know that I can have the same results with alternatives, with only positve side effects, that I would have with taking drugs. Taking the alternative route has made me healthier than I have ever been in my life, and that gives me confindence in my choices.

Beatis, both of those sources you sited have ties to big medicine so it would make sense that their "research" is skewed. There is someone out there who will debunk every treatment. That does not mean we have to offer them up as proof. Many doctors have been targeted for thinking outside the box. The doctor (can't remember his name) who insisted that ulcers were a bacterial infection, not a physcological disease, was villified for decades, until his success stories were too numerous to deny. Now treating ulcers with antibiotics is standard. These doctors do not have the money for million dollar studies. All they have is their patients as proof. I think they are very brave.

That said, I regularly drink a concoction of apple cider vinegar, water and and baking soda, just as my great grandmother, who lived to be 90 did. It really settles my stomach. Sometimes, the old ways, which are tried in true by generations still work. The problem is, our modern medicine tries to convince us that they have a pill for everything, and continually try to convince us that the old ways were just "old wives tales".

And finally, I have a wonderful compounding pharmacist who studies both. He has been a wealth of information to me, and provides me with safe alternatives. It wasn't long ago when all pharmacists made their own concoctions. Now they have been become drug dispenseries.

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 01:58PM, edited Feb 14, 2010 02:12PM by Beatis

@Vivre,

You say: 

 "...Beatis, both of those sources you sited have ties to big medicine so it would make sense that their "research" is skewed..."

Excuse me??

If you are not prepared to go into the content of what is being said but only come up with ad hominems, any discussion is useless.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:12PM mollyann wrote:

Beatis, would you please provide us with evidence for your claims?

Calling somebody a "quack" doesn't count as evidence.

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:22PM, edited Feb 14, 2010 02:30PM by Beatis

I have provided evidence in this thread.

The man  was struck off the register in Italy.

During one of his baking soda treatments, a patient died because of a ruptured bowel. This was caused by the clumsy way in which the operation was performed. For this, he was convicted to 4 years imprisonment for wrongful death.

 http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/reports/simoncini.shtml

Lastly, he was convicted for fraud for selling useless medical treatments.

If that does not consitute quackery I don't know what does. 

He is no longer allowed to practice medicine, yet he still does. 

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:28PM mollyann wrote:

Evidence would be a link to the actual legal record, not your interpretation of it.

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:35PM Beatis wrote:

Main article in the Corriere delle Sera about Simoncini's conviction: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2006/maggio/21/Medico_condannato_omicidio_colposo_co_10_060521029.shtml

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:42PM mollyann wrote:

A newspaper article isn't documentation of baking soda not working or of medical accidents. Please locate the legal record which would present the case and the defense.

Notice we don't get our information on Herceptin from Dallas Morning News?

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 02:58PM, edited Feb 14, 2010 04:03PM by Beatis

Yes, I knew you would say that.

I did not present the article as evidence that baking soda does not work against cancer. I presented it as evidence that Simoncini was convicted for fraud and wrongful death and that he was struck off. But of course the Corriere della Sera newspaper made it all up.

And all the research showing that baking soda doesn't do anything against cancer was made up by the scientists.

And all the pathologists the world over are all in cahoots, claiming cancer is not a fungus while it is. 

Why don't you just ask Simoncini for some evidence that supports his claims?

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 06:37PM, edited Feb 14, 2010 06:38PM by Hindsfeet

At this point I am not sure if it works to get rid of cancer...maybe some cancers, as testified by a friend's, friend, whom was helped by the treatment.

Just because Simoncini lost one patient doesn't make him a quack. How many surgeons lost patients due to errors they made?  How many doctors throw whatever drugs at you to see what works and doesn't work? How many doctors mis-diagnois ailments? How was penecilliam first received, and other miracle drugs that we now take for granted?

It was interesting baking soda within a few days killed mushrooms. I saw it! I had a huge cancer sore in mouth that I couldn't get rid of. I tried akaline water and within hours it was gone. Baking soda maybe a miracle drug!

I wouldn't criticize the man without first talking to many of the patients that were helped. There are more than one side to any story.

Page 5 of 8 (230 results)