I don't much like Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com (formerly NewsTarget.com). Indeed, I haven't yet been able to find a more blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet, with the possible exception of Whale.to. However, Whale.to is so utterly, outrageously, incoherently full of not just quackery but paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories and other paranormal silliness that any but the most deluded can easily see it for what it is with just a cursory reading of a few of its many, many pages. It's just that crazy.
It occurs to me, though, that in focusing my not-so-Respectfulâ¢ Insolence mainly on Mike Adams that I may have allowed a certain, perhaps equally bizarre purveyor of quackery to escape unscathed. We just can't have that. I'm talking about Dr. Joseph Mercola, of course. I've seen something now being pushed by Dr. Mercola that is truly disgusting. Indeed, it's some incredible woo, so much so that I briefly considered prematurely resurrecting Your Friday Dose of Woo to take it on. But then I remembered my experience taking on the German New Medicine, and this new woo on Mercola.com is such despicable cancer quackery that I couldn't do it. Indeed, it's some of the most concentrated pseudoscience I've ever seen. What am I talking about?
It starts with this video. Watch it if you dare.
I couldn't actually watch the whole thing, so great was my desire to retch. It shows an interview with Dr. Tullio Simoncini, billed as an oncologist from Italy, who, while hawking his book Cancer Is A Fungus, makes the argument that fungus is the One True Cause of Cancer and that the medical establishment is Too Deluded or Too Blind to realize it. Worse, he proposes a treatment that, even if cancer were a fungus, is completely implausible and wouldn't work. Indeed, we don't treat fungal infections that way even when we are treating a diagnosed fungal infection.
You can get an idea of just how dumb this video is by listening to Dr. Simoncini opine in the first couple of minutes of the vide that whenever he sees a cancerous tumor in the body, the lumps are "always white." He emphasizes this amazing observation several times, so apparently important is it. Yes, that was the observation that supposedly led him to his idea (I refuse to dignify it with the term "hypothesis") that tumors are in fact due to fungus. In response, the host gushes about how brilliant that is and how obvious it is. Just crush up a mushroom! Of course, it would be a major blow to Dr. Simoncini's idea, would it not, if not all mushrooms are white/. I suppose that neither he nor the interviewer would be happy to know that a lot of them are brightly colored, which makes their stupid truly burn ever more hot with a bright fungal yellow. Dr. Simonici has shown me the the ultimate in taking a flawed observation and running with it straight off the cliff, as this description of his book shows:
The book "Cancer is a fungus" describes how a fungous infection always forms the basis of every neoplastic formation, and this formation tries to spread within the whole organism without stopping.
I have to wonder what kind of oncologist he is if that's all he's seen. I can tell you that not all tumors are white. Many are, but a lot of them are brownish-colored, tan, or even greenish-colored. (Uh-oh, better not let Dr. Simoncini know that; that's fungus-color we're talking!) And what about leukemias and other blood cancers? Dr. Simoncini then shows a bronchoscopy and thoracoscopy demonstrating white tumors. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? He even claims that the reason all those oncological surgeons miss the fungus is because when they biopsy the tumor they only take the surface. Indeed, he likens a tumor to a "solid abscess" that has to be opened. This conveniently neglects the combined experience of every cancer surgeon who ever took out whole tumors and submitted them for analysis by pathologists. Oddly enough, we don't see fungus in the center of all these tumors.
It is true that the centers of tumors are often soft and mushy, but that's because the tumor has grown faster than its blood supply has, leaving dead cells in the middle and an active, growing front of malignant cells on the edges. There's no real mystery as to why tumors appear this way. (On the other hand, why and how tumors induce their own blood supply through angiogenesis and why they often outstrip it, now there's an area where some interesting science is being done and interesting insights into the biology of cancer are to be had.) Sometimes the center of tumors becomes secondarily infected because it's dead tissue. Uncommonly, that infection can even include fungus, because a patient is immunosuppressed. Even in tumors that are white are not white because they are made up of fungus. They are white because that's the color of its main consituents, in particular the reactive connective tissue. The whole concept that tumors are caused by fungus because they're white is just plain silly.
Here's how it's described on Mercola.com:
Dr. Simoncini's research has led him to believe that something as simple as a fungus, Candida, is the leading cause of cancer; that cancer itself is in fact a fungus. What we refer to as a tumor, is nothing more than your body's attempt at protecting itself from that fungus.
He brings up an analogy between psoriasis - an "incurable" disease of the skin that many treat as a fungus - and tumors, which are also an "incurable" disease of your body. Several studies have linked the presence of Candida with cancer, showing that anywhere between 79 to 97 percent of all cancer patients also have Candida.
Actually, if you look closely enough, most, if not all, healthy people are colonized with candida. It's part of the normal flora that lives on and in us all. Normally our immune systems keep it in check so that it doesn't cause problems, but when patients become immunosuppressed for whatever reason, cancer included, it can cause problems.
Now here's the "rationale" behind this whole dubious idea:
Dr. Simoncini's explanation for how this phenomenon works - how Candida leads to deadly cancer - is that it's a consequence of the weakening and exhaustion of your organs, and eventually your entire body, in the following stages:Â
- Candida roots itself in your deep connective tissue in various organs
- As a result, this evokes an organic defensive reaction as the connective tissue of your invaded organ attempts to encyst the fungin colonies through cellular hyper-production, which results in the formation of tumors
- Growths continue as the fungi spreads, both in your surrounding tissue, and remotely (aka "metastatis"). It is still always the same Candida attacking different tissues, but due to its highly adaptive qualities it is able to mutate to adapt itself to whatever environment it finds itself in, hence the various types of tumors
- Your body becomes progressively more exhausted, which allows the fungi to spread and take over more rapidly
- You die from "cancer"
Yes, it's the favorite "alt-med" trope that cancer isn't really the disease but rather a manifestation of "something else," which is the true disease. In that, the whole "cancer is really a fungus" thing really is just like the German New Medicine or Robert O. Young's cancer quackery. The only difference is the One True Cause of Cancer that is being sold, which is in this case fungus, rather than a secret conflict, acid-base imbalance, or even a liver fluke.
So what is the answer, according to Dr. Simoncini? Baking soda. Yes, baking soda, a.k.a. sodium bicarbonate. Dr. Simoncini injects sodium bicarbonate into tumors and claims to be able to cure any cancer using these injections. One thought that immediately comes to mind whenever I see a claim like this is: If Dr. Simoncini can actually do what he claims he can do, where are his publications? Where is his Nobel Prize? To be able to cure cancer by something as simple as injections of sodium bicarbonate directly into tumors would be such an incredible breakthrough that there's no way it could be kept quiet. Yet somehow only Dr. Simoncini knows this remedy, which is not only physiologically incredibly implausible and isn't even used to treat real, biopsy- or culture-proven fungal infections but has no evidence to support it.
Naturally, Dr. Simoncini has been "persecuted" by the medical authorities in Italy:
Unfortunately, Dr. Simoncini is yet another brilliant doctor who has been ousted from the medical community due to his revolutionary simple ideas of how to cure profit-making diseases.
So many people refuse to believe that this is true and that it's happening to good doctors, since "everyone knows" you must be a liability to human life if you're stripped of your medical license.
But the reason why Dr. Simoncini was kicked out is because as an oncologist - a cancer specialist -- he refused to use conventional cancer treatment methods, choosing instead to administer sodium bicarbonate, which is HARMLESS, as opposed to the often lethal use of chemotherapy.
Gee, you don't think it has anything to do with Dr. Simoncini being a quack and his claims about the causes and treatment of all cancers being nothing more than the rankest and most despicable form of quackery, do you? Perish the thought! It has to be that evil "allopathic" medical establishment trying to protect their turf and inject cancer patients with that horrible, nasty poison (a.k.a. chemotherapy). I tried to find out more about Dr. Simoncini, but there was precious little I could find that didn't consist of glowing testimonials and websites promoting his "cure." All I could find was this thread on the JREF forums. According to various commenters, not only was Dr. Simoncini expelled from the Italian Medical Order (Ordine dei Medici e Chirurghi) but he was condemned in the first degree by an Italian court for cheating and homicide. Here's one report from a woman by the 'nym of JennyJo:
I live in the Netherlands.
Last year, tullio simoncini was giving his treatments with sodium bicarbonate in a private clinic for alternative 'medicine' in Bilthoven in the Netherlands.
October 2007, a woman with curable breast cancer, who was afraid of operation and chemo therapy, came into contact with simoncini and was treated by him. He injected large doses of baking soda into her breast.
On the fourth day of the therapy, the woman became very ill and was transported to a university hospital in Amsterdam, where she died the following day.
The matter is since under investigation by the Dutch Justice Department. Simoncini denies he ever treated the woman, although various staff members have seen him administering injections. The clinic maintains the woman died of dehydration (sic).
In other words, if true this account is very much like other accounts of alternative medical cures leading women to forego effective conventional treatment, and Dr. Mercola is promoting this utter quackery. There's also the question of whether there have been "clean kills" by this quack:
On the 7th of Feb 2002 T. Simoncini injected SB on a 34 y. old male patient with an intestinal carcinoma (diagnosed as terminal by other oncologists) which perforated his intestine and died the day after. Moreover he treated 2 other women which died in the same year. On May 2006 he was convicted to 3 y. for manslaughter of the first patient and 16 months for having charged 7.500 EUR each to the other 2 patients. He brought to his defence about 20 of his patients claiming that their carcinomas have "disappeared" thanks to him. None of these patients were charged with false testimony.
Again, I can't find verification in English of these stories, given that the only English language websites that describe Dr. Simoncini appear to be either his or "alternative" medicine sites sympathetic to anything that is not "allopathic" medicine. So take them for what they're worth. However, given how utterly ridiculous Dr. Simoncini's claims are, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the above stories are accurate.
Finally, Dr. Mercola can't resist taking the usual slam at chemotherapy:
In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin's disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively.
As opposed, I guess, to a virtually 100% chance of death without treatment.
There is at least one study that I know of that addresses this very question. Published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004, the results of this study were astounding, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers!
I'm familiar with that study, which can be found here. There are a number of serious problems with it. Indeed, it seemed custom-designed to underestimate the effect of chemotherapy. For example, it used all newly diagnosed adult patients with cancer as its denominator even though not all cancers are treated with chemotherapy. This alone tends to obscure the magnitude of the benefit in many of the subgroups. It also only follows five year survivals, which for some cancers will also underestimate the benefit of chemotherapy. For example, breast cancer can have late recurrences, and the magnitude of benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is greater at ten years than it is at five years, because the control and chemotherapy survival curves keep separating beyond five years.
There are also some oddities that all serve to underestimate the benefit of chemotherapy in cancer. The most glaring of these was the failure to include leukemias, which, when they are cured, are always cured with chemotherapy. They also ignore benefits of chemotherapy other than cure in terms of improved median survival in many advanced cancers that, while chemotherapy may not represent a cure, is nonetheless important to cancer patients. Moreover, there is also benefit in terms of improved quality of life and alleviation of symptoms--even in advanced disease. Of course, it comes as no surprise that purveyors of dubious "alternative" medicine therapies love this study and cite it endlessly. Don't get me wrong. There are legitimate criticisms of how we as oncologists use chemotherapy and just how much benefit (or additional benefit when used in the adjuvant setting) chemotherapy really provides, but this study doesn't provide a good evidence-based list of them, and the quotes that Dr. Mercola cites from others are even worse.
It would appear that I've ignored for far too long one big fat, fungus-filled pustule of an "alternative" medicine website. I had mostly ignored Mercola.com, having concluded, erroneously as it turns out, that it wasn't as bad as NaturalNews.com. That was a mistake on my part. I'll definitely be keeping a closer eye on Dr. Mercola's website from now on.
Hey, don't forget yellow and brown tumors (in the kidney alone, you have renal cell carcinomas and oncocytomas that typically feature those colors), pink and black as well.
How dare those people claim Candida causes cancer, when we already know thanks to Crazy Hulda that it's the liver fluke?
Ummm, hello. Mycologist here.
I haven't watched the video... and probably won't. If tumors were in fact Candida-generated abscesses, we'd be culturing them on MSA plates in my lab.
I suggest that these folks have their heads inspected for Ganoderma white rot, though. They may be susceptible, as I suspect that their crania may be composed of hardwood.
It's more likely that one will find a useful cancer therapeutic adjuvant in a fungus (e.g., Irofulven from Omphalotus olearius or androgen blockers from Ganoderma lucidum that show promise in treating prostate cancer) than one will find a fungus that actually causes cancer.
Ok, so then wouldn't anti-fungals cure cancer? If this was true the evil drug companies in conjunction with the Illumnati and the fed shock troops from the FDA simply produce the cure and make oodles of money. Then once their coffers are bursting start research on new and improved cancers to keep getting out money?
He would actually amuse me if it weren't for the fact that he's killing people and getting paid lots to do it. I'm sure there is not allopathic conspiracy by the simple (and unfortunate) fact that this guy is not serving 20 to life for multiple murders.
Laying the blame for cancer on Candida sounds exactly like the naturopaths here in the states. It's almost funny how often quacks blame a whole host of health problems on a single problem (yeast, food allergies, out-of-tune vibrations, whatever). And of course only they have access to the simple substance or device that cures The Problem.
In fact, I'd suggest that it's common enough to warrant status as an internet "law," like Scopie's or Poe's:
"Anyone claiming that a broad range of unrelated symptoms or diseases are caused by a single agent, and that they can all be cured with a single substance or device, is a quack."
OK, since I'm Dutch I'm looking at Dutch news sources.
This one is his own:
www.kankeriseenschimmel.nl (cancer is a fungus)
And an article in a large newspaper:
Translation of the meat of the article:
He acknowledges speaking to the woman, but claims she reconsidered the treatment and her death was a coincidence, she might have taken antibiotics or a painkiller. Besides, his treatment is completely harmless.
Simoncini also claims the director of the clinic was present at her consultation, he in turn denies she was ever there.
It's such a damn clichÃ©, you could use a checklist for these cranks.
[X] Global cross-specialty conspiracy
[X] I'm the only one who knows the obvious truth
[X] Here is my treatment, BigPharma can't patent it or make money off it, so I will
[X] Why publish in scientific journals if you can publish books
[X] Deaths are coincidental or because of the illness, recovery is due to my treatment
Damn, that is one awefully concentrated woo. I can't believe people actually make up stuff like that. I wouldn't be able to make up stuff like that even if I tried.
You know, that darned Candida albicans is an amazingly versatile fungus - at least it is in the minds of the "alternative" medicine community.
I've heard from a number of "worried well" friends and relatives that their headaches, constipation, diarrhea, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, anxiety, mood swings, depression, bipolar disorder, migraines, muscle aches, obesity, bad breath and arthritis were all the manifestation of this simple fungus.
And know we find out that it can cause cancer, too.
Seriously, though - is Candida some sort of idee fixe with these people? After all, in the real world, fungal infections are not that hard to diagnose. I'm not a mycologist, but I can't imagine that a pathologist examining a tumor removed at surgery would have overlooked the characteristic appearance of Candida cells or filaments.
Or is the "Brave Maverick Doctor" proposing that Candida is able to mimic human cells, down to including the surface proteins and genetic markers from its host?
There are days - like today - when my hopes for the human race are at a low ebb. That anybody, no matter what their education, could believe what this lunatic is saying does not bode well for the future of humanity. I see us splitting into two tribes: those few who embrace our rational abilities and are able to comprehend and use science and technology and the great masses who are regressing more and more into superstition and magic.
Yes, Candida is responsible for all those things and more (two more that I've heard of are plantar fasciitis and a wide collection of skin disorders). I don't know whether the idea originates with them, but naturopaths are certainly fixated on yeast. And undiagnosed food allergies (whose symptoms magically appear 3-4 days after consuming the offending food, and almost always involve meat). And the use of pharmaceutical products instead of natural ones (i.e. "bioidentical" hormones).
My experience with naturopaths has been such that if one were to tell me to moderate my diet and exercise a little more, I'd sit immediately on the couch and order a lot of pizza to be delivered as I thought it over.
Guess he's never seen melanoma.
Oh wait, that's Aspergillus niger.
So cancer is just a yeast infection gone crazy? Who knew?!
I think thrush and vaginal yeast infections are legitimate candida related diseases, but if according to this man fungus is the cause, there would be a deluge of infants and toddlers with oral cancer (or a significant drop of those in the 70's and 80's when kids were bottlefed in significant numbers). But that would be applying logic.
Maybe he was thinking of mycosis fungoides?
Italian sources here:
omicidio colposo = culpable homicide Perhaps what we would call "negligent homicide"
My Italian sucketh royally, but with a bit of Babelfish, here's the reason for the homicide charge: "E l' oncologo, in cambio di 400 euro, tentÃ² il miracolo: con un' iniezione a base di bicarbonato di sodio, miscelato ad acqua, perforÃ² la massa tumorale. L' effetto non fu quello sperato: la sera dopo, 8 febbraio 2002, il giovane morÃ¬ con l' intestino perforato, tra dolori lancinanti. The oncologist, for 400 Euros, attempted a miracle: with an/one injection of bicarbonate of sodium mixed with water, he punctured/perforated the tumor mass. The results were not what he had hoped for. The evening after, Feb 8, 2002, the man died of a perforated intestine, among/with stabbing/piercing pains.
@ Prometheus Or is the "Brave Maverick Doctor" proposing that Candida is able to mimic human cells, down to including the surface proteins and genetic markers from its host?
It mutates as it invades the tissues, of course.
Step 3: Growths continue as the fungi spreads, both in your surrounding tissue, and remotely (aka "metastatis"). It is still always the same Candida attacking different tissues, but due to its highly adaptive qualities it is able to mutate to adapt itself to whatever environment it finds itself in, hence the various types of tumors
A truly amazing yeast, able to transmogrify from the common one into all the glioblastomas, melanomas and ductal carcinomas ... truly amazing.
Speaking of doctors writing books, Orac, do you ever think about writing a book on woo?
But...But...If tumors are all Candida, why doesn't fluconazole cure tumors?
Simoncini = Cartman
Holy Burning-Stupid Orac-Man!
This is awful. Horrible. and just downright dangerous!
I know little of oncology other than what I read in the reports and on this and other sites, but . . even I know that cancer is not fungus! Has this quack ever looked at either cancer cells or fungus cells under a microscope ?
Would he snarf down some frozen manure because I made it look like chocolate ice cream ? Excuse me while I reset my stupid-o-meters, they all just went into fail-safe.
I'm also Dutch, and the info re the manslaughter and fraud comes from a translation of a verdict from an Italian court by a Dutch ex-health inspector with an Italian background. As a result of that case, Simoncini can no longer (legally) practice medicine because he had his license stripped from him. On Dutch television, when the death of the Dutch woman was investigated, he said he does not treat any patients because he has no license anymore. All he does is advise other doctors what they should do. Apparently, at least in Italy, he has found some doctors (who still have their license) who believe in his treatment and are willing to follow his orders, erm, sorry, advice (wink wink, nod nod).
Confronted with the information that Simoncini had had his medical license removed, was found guilty of the death of a patient and of fraud, the director of the alternative clinic in the Netherlands where the patient died said he didn't know all that and if he had known, he might not have let him in. So here's a guy who shows up at your doorstep, claims to be a doctor who can cure cancer and you don't even do the simplest background check? Is that gross negligence or plain criminal?
Dear Orac, still practicing surgery I see ... skillfully. Many thanks.
Sweet Jesus, there are so many levels of stupidity in this video. I lack the words to express just how stupid it is. These people are far worse than merely worthless human beings. They're just purely detestable, loathsome creatures.
My colon cancer wasn't a fungus, even if the early polyps had a bit of a mushroom shape to them if you watched them on the video monitor as my GI guru did his exams. It was a collection of cells that had progressed beyond "high-grade dysplasia".
Maybe I'm biased against lunatics because, oddly enough, my dad's a cancer doc/researcher and my mum's an oncology nurse and I wasn't born with brain damage?
I reckon a conspiracy theorist could come up with a good case that they intentionally birthed me as such so that they would have a new research subject. =]
I wonder what he would make of a teratoma?
You accidentally repeat this twice:
"Dr. Simoncini's explanation for how this phenomenon works - how Candida leads to deadly cancer - is that it's a consequence of the weakening and exhaustion of your organs, and eventually your entire body, in the following stages:"
That's funny - aren't fungal infections supposed to be an effect of a cancer weakening a body, not the other way around?
Sounds like Dr. Simoncini kept falling asleep in his med classes.
Speaking of wonky medicine, Orac, when are you going to start up the Friday Doase of Woo again? That was my favorite part of the blog.
Everyone is so certain that this is ridiculous. However, what if you would just take a moment and consider that for a hundred years we have been wrong. I have had a number of close relatives die of cancer and probably you have too. If something isn't working in anything that we try time and time again, it is time to try something new. Think "out of the box", invent create. The chemotherapy is killing people. If I told you that I could cure cancer by pouring toxic chemicals into your veins and completely wipe out your natural immune system, I hope you would think that is a crazy idea. Just please open your mind and consider what Dr. Simomcini is saying. His treatment is non-toxic and he has hundreds of testimonials of success. He would devastate the multimillion dolllar cancer business so his and many, many more doctors have had their licenses revoked for finding cures for cancer. Go to www.cancercontrolsociety.com and see the long list of Medical Doctors who are treating patients with non-toxic treatments
IÂ´d like to give you my reasons for dismissing the theory that cancer is a fungus. I work as a pathologist and as such I have seen a few thousand cancers (stopped counting years ago). From the video it appears that Simoncini thinks that the only thing a pathologist get to see is the superficial part of the lump, obtainable by a biopsy forceps.That is incorrect. A typical cancer operation involves removal of the whole lump and its surrounding normal tissue. The removed tissue is sliced by the pathologist. Several sections of the white stuff (or whatever colour the lump has)are sampled for microcopy. In addition sections from the surrounding tissue and sometimes lymphnodes (Depending on the tumor site) are also taken. In this way the pathologist get to see the superficial as well as the central parts of the lumps including the white stuff. If (white) cancers were fungal colonies, we (pathologists) would see it without any difficulty. Also candida in the vicinity would be seen. And the pathologists paycheck is exactly the same whether he classifies a lump as a candida colony or a cancer. As you see in the video, Simoncinis argument for cancer being a fungus is that it is white. If you think about it there are lots of structures in the body that are white without being fungal colonies. I could mention teeth, eye balls, nails, tendons and white matter of the brain. As a side note I could add that the cases of psoriasis that I have seen in the microscope werenÂ´t candida colonies either.
Thanks for your response. If you or any other pathologists are out there, I would like to ask you :
what is the white mass? what is the tumor made of? Could the tumor be made of fungus? Can you check it out and see if the tumor is actually a type of fungus. Instead of being certain that it is not a fungus. Try to scientifically approach this with an open mind. Maybe there is a chance there is a possibility. Be open,
Thanks for your response. If you or any other howling loons are out there, I would like to ask you :
what is the white mass? what is the tumor made of? Could the tumor be made of marshmallow? Can you check it out and see if the tumor is actually a type of delicious desert topping. Instead of being certain that it is not a foam of sucrose and glucose. Try to scientifically approach this with an open mind. Maybe there is a chance there is a possibility of a slight probability that crusty meringue might appear in the human body through quantum tunnelling. Be open.
Ok Snerd, calm down. You don't need to be so degrading because there are people out there looking into "alternatives". I read Mercola and most of his recommendations relate to healthy living, eating more fruits, vegetables, hormone free milk, meat, less high fructose corn syrup, less monsanto genetically modified food sources. Now that's not so bad is it? I'll admit the "cancer is a fungus" story intrigued me. People out there are waiting for the cure to cancer, the medical community has been working on this for what, over 100 years? It just seems to us that cancer rates are growing, not diminishing. Cancer therapies are torturous, we all worry about who the next person in our circle of friends or family will be that gets diagnosed, could it be me? So when someone comes along and has a different idea, different than what we see "isn't working" in the normal medical field, we just wonder, is this it? Could this be the cure we are all waiting for? You can't fault people for looking outside the norm for a cure. Instead of ridiculing this guy, maybe he's on to something. Why don't any of you scientific brain heads check it out, then debunk him. As for the unfortunate patients who died as a result from his treatment, I know a number of others who have died on the table during what would be routine procedures and treatments. Their families can't claim those doctors to be quacks because they followed accepted medical procedures. The bottom line is, find the cure! Think outside your box, and just find the cure!
IÂ´m certain that cancer is not some sort of fungus because I have checked.
Let us try to analyze the fungus theory and see if we can reach some sort of conlusion using a scientific approach. Before you read on - please be open yourself to dismiss the theory if this is the most reasonable thing to do.
The theory goes as follows:
The cancer itself is a fungus (a colony of Candida Albicans). It is surrounded by abnormal cells. These abnormal cells are normal cells that are reactive to the fungal infection. These reactive cells are perceived as malignant cells by traditional doctors.
What supports this theory?
The mass is white, and so is Candida Albicans.
One thing we could ask in a scientific spirit is:
Is there anything else in the body that is white?
I gave you examples of this in my previous post.
But does this invalidate the theory that cancer could be a Candida colony? Of course not, but it does make it possible that the white mass is made of something else.
The next thing we could ask is: How can we determine if cancer is made of Candida colonies or something else?
The answer is - Examine it with a microscope. If Simoncins theory is correct we expect to see reactive cells (perceived as malignant cells by traditional doctors) along the border of the mass and Candida colonies in the center, and the Candida must predominate the mass as it is what makes it white.
What do we see in the microscope?
1) The abnormal cells are all over the white mass - Not just along the border.
2) Nothing in the white mass remotely resembles Candida (or any other type of fungus).
In summary: Using a scientific approach with an open mind leads to the conclusion that the white mass is made of cancer cells (often embedded in connective tissue). Neither Candida nor any other fungus is a constituent of a cancer.