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 thedeep 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 tobe sought in the vast world of the fungi, the most adaptable, aggressive and evolvedmicro-organisms known in nature.

I have tried many times to explain this theory to leading institutions involved in cancerissues (the Ministry of Health, the Italian Medical Oncological Association, etc.),elaborating on my thinking, but I have been brushed aside because of the impossibility ofsetting my idea in a conventional context. A different, international audience representsthe possibility of sharing a view about health which differs from what is widely acceptedby today's medical community, either officially or from the sidelines.

There is an opposition between the allopathic and the Hippocratic medical ideal. Theposition that I promote represents instead a meeting point of these two conceptions ofhealth, since from the conceptual point of view it sublimates and adds value to both, whilehighlighting how they both are victims of a common conformist language.

The hypothesis of a fungal aetiology in chronic-degenerative illness, able to connect theethical qualities of the individual with the development of specific pathologies, reconcilesthe two orientations (allopathic and holistic) of medicine. The hypothesis is a strongcandidate for being that missing element of psychosomatics that was sought but neverfound by one of the fathers of psychosomatics, Viktor von Weiszäcker.

In considering the biological dimensions of the fungi, for instance, it is possible tocompare 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 thebehaviour 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 theaggression—even at the smallest dimensions—of those external agents that otherwisewould be harmless. In the presence of an indubitable connection between patient moraleand disease, it is no longer legitimate to separate the two domains (allopathic andnaturopathic) which are both indispensable for improving the health of individuals.

Flaws in mainstream theories on cancer causationWhen facing the most pressing contemporary medical problem, cancer, the first thing to

do is to admit that we still do not know its real cause. However treated in different waysby both official and alternative medicine, cancer has an aura of mystery that still existsaround its real generative process.

The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go throughtwo separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations of oncology, and aconstructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system based on a new theoreticalpoint of departure. In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientificphilosophy, which suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find asolution with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted, 1 only one logicalformulation emerges: to r e f u s e the oncological principle which assumes that cancer isgenerated by a cellular reproductive anomaly.

According to thishypothesis based on

years of scientificand clinical

research, the causeof cancer is

infection by acommon fungus,Candida albicans.

The good news isthat it can betreated with a

powerful antifungalagent that can't be

patented.

by Dr Tullio Simoncini(oncologist)

© 2007

Email: t.simoncini@alice.itWebsite:

http://www.cancerfungus.com

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS • 27

However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductiveanomaly is questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories basedon this hypothesis are inevitably flawed.

It follows that both an auto-immunological process, in whichthe body's defence mechanisms against external agents turn theirdestructive capacity against internal constituents of the body, andan anomaly of the genetic structure implicated in the developmentof auto-destruction are inevitably disqualified.

Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories aboutmultiple causes that have an oncogenic effect on cellularreproduction sometimes seems like a concealing screen, behindwhich there is nothing but a wall. These theories propose endlesscauses that are more or less associated with each other; and thismeans in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation inturn of smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress,psychological factors, etc., without a properly defined context,causes confusion and resignation, and creates even moremystification around a disease which may turn out to be simplerthan it is depicted to be.

As background information, it is important to review the pictureof presumed genetic influences in thedevelopment of cancer processes asthey are depicted by molecularbiologists. These are the scientists whoperform research on infinitesimallysmall cellular mechanisms, but who inreal life never see a patient. Allpresent medical systems are based onthis research, and thus, unfortunately,all therapies currently performed.

The main hypothesis of a geneticneoplastic causality is essentiallyreduced to the fact that the structuresand the mechanism in charge of normalreproductive cellular activity become,for undefined reasons, capable of anautonomous behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissulareconomy. The genes that normally have a positive role in cellularreproduction 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 heldresponsible for the neoplastic degeneration of the tissues...

From a very superficial analysis of the presumed oncologicalpicture, however, it seems to be clear how the assertion of all thisunstoppable genetic hyperactivity can do nothing more that unveilthe abysmal stupidity that is at the basis of this way of conceivingthings. All those who work in the field do nothing but repeat thestale litany of reproductive cellular anomalies on a genetic basis.It is better to look for new horizons and conceptual instrumentsthat are capable of unearthing a real and unique neoplasticaetiology.

Back to taxonomy In order to find the possible carcinogenic ens morbi on the

horizon of microbiology, it appears useful to return to the basictaxonomical concepts of biology where we can see, incidentally,the existence of a noticeable amount of indecision andindetermination.

Already in the last century, a German biologist, Ernst Haeckel(1834–1919), departing from the Linnaeian concept that makesfor two great kingdoms of living things (vegetable and animal),

denounced the difficulties of categorising all those microscopicorganisms which, because of their characteristics and properties,could not be attributed to either the vegetable or the animalkingdom. For these organisms, he proposed a third kingdom,Protista (protists).

"This vast and complex world includes a range of entitiesbeginning with those that have sub-cellular structure—existing atthe limits of life—such as viroids and viruses, moving through themycoplasms to, finally, organisms of greater organisation:bacteria, Actinomycetes, Myxomycetes, fungi, protozoa andperhaps even some microscopic algae."2

The common element of these organisms is the feeding system,which, being implemented (with very few exceptions) by directabsorption of soluble organic compounds, differentiates them bothfrom animals and vegetables. Animals also feed as above, butespecially by ingesting solid organic materials that are thentransformed through the digestive process. Vegetables, byutilising mineral compounds and light energy, are capable offeeding by synthesising the organic substances.

The contemporary tendency of biologists is once again to pickup, though in a more sophisticated way,

the concept of the third kingdom. Onegoes even further, however, arguingthat within that kingdom, fungi mustbe classified in a distinct category.

O. Verona 3 says that if we putmulticellular organisms provided withphotosynthetic capabilities (plants) inthe first kingdom and the organismsnot provided with photosyntheticpigmentation (animals) in the secondkingdom—and organisms from boththese kingdoms are made of cellsprovided with a distinct nucleus(eukaryotes)—and, furthermore, if weput in another kingdom (protists),

those monocellular organisms that have no chlorophyll and havecells that are without a distinct nucleus (prokaryotes), the fungican well have their own kingdom because of the absence ofphotosynthetic pigmentation, the ability to be monocellular andmulticellular, and, finally, their possession of a distinct nucleus.

Additionally, fungi possess a property that is strange whencompared to all other micro-organisms: the ability to have a basicmicroscopic structure (hypha) with a simultaneous tendency togrow to remarkable dimensions (up to several kilograms), keepingunchanged the capacity to adapt and reproduce at any size.

From this point of view, therefore, fungi cannot be consideredtrue organisms, but cellular aggregates sui generis with anorganismic behaviour, since each cell maintains its survival andreproductive potential intact regardless of the structure in which itexists. It is therefore clear how difficult it is to identify all thebiological processes in such complex living realities. In fact, eventoday, there are huge voids and taxonomical approximations inmycology.

Fungi characteristicsIt is worthwhile to examine more deeply this strange world,

with such peculiar characteristics, and try to highlight thoseelements that somehow may be pertinent to the problems ofoncology.

1) Fungi are heterotrophic organisms and therefore need, as faras nitrogen and carbon are concerned, pre-formed compounds. Ofthese compounds, simple carbohydrates, for example

28 • NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007

When facing the most pressing contemporary

medical problem, cancer, the first thing to do is to admit that we still do not

know its real cause.

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS • 29

monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and mannose), are among themost utilised sugars. This means that fungi, during their lifecycle, depend on other living beings which must be exploited indifferent degrees for their feeding. This occurs both in as a p r o p h y t i c way (that is, by feeding on organic waste) and in aparasitic 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 beobserved simultaneously in the same mycete), combined with agreat morphostructural variety of organs. All of this is directedtoward the end of spore formation, to which the continuity andpropagation of the species is entrusted.

3 ) In mycology, it is often possible to observe a particularphenomenon called h e t e r o k a r y o n , characterised by thecoexistence of normal and mutant nuclei incells that have undergone a hyphal fusion.

Nowadays, phytopathologists are quiteworried about the creation of individuals thatare genetically quite different even from theparents. This difference has taken place bymeans of those reproductive cycles, whichare called p a r a s e x u a l. The indiscriminateuse of phytopharmaceuticals has in fact oftendetermined mutations of the nuclei of manyparasitic fungi with the consequent creationof heterokaryon—and this is sometimesparticularly virulent in its pathogenicity.4

4 ) In the parasitic dimension, fungi candevelop from the hyphas more or less beak-shaped, specialised structures thatallow the penetration of the host.

5) The production of spores can beso abundant as to include always, atevery cycle, tens, hundreds and eventhousands of millions of elements thatcan be dispersed at a remarkabledistance from the point of origin 5 ( asmall movement is sufficient, forexample, to implement immediatediffusion).

6 ) Spores have an immenseresistance to external aggression, forthey are capable of staying dormant inadverse conditions for many yearswhile preserving unaltered theirregenerative potentialities.

7) The development coefficient of the hyphal apexes after thegermination is extremely fast (100 microns per minute under idealconditions) with ramification capacity, thus with the appearanceof a new apex region that in some cases is in the neighbourhoodof 40–60 seconds.6

8) The shape of the fungus is never defined, for it is imposedby the environment in which the fungus develops. It is possible toobserve, for example, the same mycelium in the simple isolatedhyphas status in a liquid environment or in the form of aggregatesthat are increasingly solid and compact, up to the formation ofpseudoparenchymas and of filaments and mycelial strings.7

9 ) By the same token, it is possible to observe in differentfungi the same shape whenever they must adapt to the sameenvironment (this is called d i m o r p h i s m). The partial or totalsubstitution of nourishing substances induces frequent mutationsin fungi, and this is further proof of their high adaptability to anysubstrata.

10) When the nutritional conditions are precarious, many fungireact with hyphal fusion (among nearby fungi) which allows themto explore the available material more easily, using morecomplete physiological processes. This property, whichsubstitutes co-operation for competition, makes them distinctfrom any other micro-organism, and for this reason Buller callsthem social organisms.8

11) When a cell gets old or becomes damaged (e.g., by a toxicsubstance or by a pharmaceutical), many fungi whose intercellularseptums are provided with a pore react by implementing a defenceprocess called protoplasmic flux, through which they transfer thenucleus and cytoplasm of the damaged cell into a healthy one,thus conserving unaltered all their biological potential.

1 2 ) The phenomena regulating the development of hyphalramification are unknown to date. 9 T h e yconsist of either a rhythmic development orin the appearance of sectors which, thoughthey originate from the hyphal system, ares e l f - r e g u l a t i n g ,1 0 that is, independent of theregulating action and behaviour of the rest ofthe colony.

13) Fungi are capable of implementing aninfinite number of modifications to their ownmetabolism in order to overcome the defencemechanism of the host. These modificationsare implemented through plasmatic andbiochemical actions as well as by avolumetric increase (hypertrophy) andnumerical hyperplasy of the cells that have

been attacked.11

1 4 ) Fungi are so aggressive as toattack not only plants, animal tissue,food supplies and other fungi, but evenprotozoa, amoebas and nematodes.

Fungi hunt nematodes, for example,with peculiar hyphal modifications thatconstitute real mycelial criss-cross,viscose or ring traps that immobilisethe worms.

In some cases, the aggressive powerof the fungus is so great as to allow it—with only a cellular ring made up ofthree unit—to tighten its grip, captureand kill its prey within a short time,notwithstanding the desperate

struggling of the prey.

From the short notations above, it therefore seems fair todedicate greater attention to the world of fungi, especiallyconsidering the fact that biologists and microbiologists constantlyhighlight large deficiencies and voids in all their descriptions andinterpretations of fungi's shapes, physiologies and reproductions.

So the fungus, which is the most powerful and the mostorganised micro-organism known, seems to be an extremelylogical candidate as a cause of neoplastic proliferation.

Imperfect fungi (so called because of the lack of knowledge andunderstanding of their biological processes) deserve particularattention, since their essential prerogative sits in theirfermentative capacity.

The greatest disease of mankind may therefore hide within asmall cluster of pathogenic fungi, and may after all be locatedwith just some simple deductions able to close the circle andprovide the solution.

Fungi can well have their own kingdom

because of the absence of

photosyntheticpigmentation,

the ability to bemonocellular and

multicellular and, finally, theirpossession of a

distinct nucleus.

Candida albicans: a necessary and sufficient cause ofcancer

Considering that among the human parasite species theDermatophytes and Sporotrichum demonstrate an excessivelyspecific morbidity, and that experience shows that Actinomycetes,Toluropsis and Histoplasma rarely enter the context of pathology,the Candida albicans fungus clearly emerges as the sole candidatefor tumour proliferation.

If we stop for a second and reflect on its characteristics, we canobserve many analogies with neoplastic disease. The mostevident are:

1) ubiquitous attachment—no organ or tissue is spared;2) the constant absence of hyperpyrexia;3) sporadic and indirect involvement of the differential tissues;4) invasiveness that is almost exclusively

of the focal type; 5) progressive debilitation;6) refractivity to any type of treatment;7) proliferation facilitated by multiplicity

of indifferent co-founders;8) Symptomatological basic configuration

with structure tending to the chronic. Therefore, an exceptionally high and

diversified pathogenic potentiality exists inthis mycete of just a few microns in size,which, even though it cannot be traced withthe present experimental instruments, cannotbe neglected from the clinical point of view.

Certainly, its present nosologicalclassification cannot be satisfactorybecause, if we do not keep the possiblyendless parasitic configurations inmind, that classification is toosimplistic and constraining.

We therefore have to hypothesisethat C a n d i d a, in the moment it isattacked by the immunological systemof the host or by a conventionalantimycotic treatment, does not react inthe usual, predicted way but defendsitself by transforming itself into ever-smaller and non-differentiated elementsthat maintain their fecundity intact tothe point of hiding their presence both to the host organism and topossible diagnostic investigations.

C a n d i d a's behaviour may be considered to be almost elastic.When favourable conditions exist, C a n d i d a thrives on anepithelium; as soon as the tissue reaction is engaged, it massivelytransforms itself into a form that is less productive but imperviousto attack: the spore. If, then, continuous subepithelial solutionstake place, coupled with a greater areactivity in that very moment,the spore gets deeper into the lower connective tissue in such animpervious state that colonisation is irreversible.

In fact, C a n d i d a takes advantage of a structuralinterchangeability, utilising it according to the difficulties, e.g., infeeding, to overcome its biological niche. In this way, Candida isfree to expand to maturation in the soil, air, water, vegetation,etc.—that is, wherever there is no antibody reaction. In theepithelium, instead, it takes a mixed form, which is reduced to thesole spore component when it penetrates the lower epitheliallevels, where it tends to expand again in the presence ofconditions of tissular areactivity.

The initial mandatory step of an in-depth research endeavour

would be to understand if and in which dimensions the sporetranscends, what mechanisms it engages to hide itself or, again, topreserve its parasitic characteristic, or if it has available a neutralquiescent position which is difficult or even impossible to detectby the immunological system.

Unfortunately, today we do not have the appropriate means,either theoretical or technical, to answer these and similarquestions, so the only valid suggestions can come solely fromclinical observation and experience. While not providingimmediate solutions, these sources can at least stimulate furtherquestions.

Assuming that Candida albicans is the agent responsible fortumour development, a targeted therapy would take into accountnot just its static and macroscopic manifestations but even the

ultramicroscopic ones, especially in theirdynamic valency, that is, the reproductive. Itis very probable that the targets to attack arethe fungi's dimensional transition points inorder to perform a decontamination withsuch a scope as to include the wholespectrum of the biological expression—parasitic, vegetative, sporal and evenultradimensional and, to the limit, viral.

If we stop at the most evident phenomena,we risk administering salves and unguentsforever (in the case of dermatomycosis or inpsoriasis), or clumsily attacking (withsurgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy)

enigmatic tumoural masses with thesole result of facilitating theirpropagation, which is alreadyheightened in the mycelial forms.

Why, one may ask, should weassume a different and heightenedactivity of Candida albicans, since ithas been abundantly described in itspathological manifestations? Theanswer lies in the fact that it has beenstudied only in a pathogenic context,that is, only in relation to the epithelialtissues.

In reality, C a n d i d a possesses anaggressive valency that is diversified in

function in the target tissue. It is just in the connective or in theconnective environment, in fact, and not in the differentiatedtissues, that C a n d i d a may find conditions favourable to anunlimited expansion. This emerges if we stop and reflect for amoment on the main function of connective tissue, which is toconvey and supply nourishing substances to the cells of the wholeorganism. This is to be considered as an environment external tothe more differentiated cells such as nervous, muscular, etc. It isin this context, in fact, that the alimentary competition takesplace.

On the one hand, we have the organism's cellular elementstrying to defeat all forms of invasion; on the other hand, we havefungal cells trying to absorb ever-growing quantities of nourishingsubstances, for they have to obey the species' biologicalimperative to form ever larger and diffused masses and colonies.

From the combination of various factors pertinent to both thehost and the aggressor, it is possible to hypothesise the evolutionof a candidosis.

First stage: Integer epitheliums, absence of the debilitatingfactors. Candida can only exist as a saprophyte.

30 • NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007

... among the human parasite species, the

Candida albicansfungus clearly

emerges as the solecandidate for tumour

proliferation [cancer].

Second stage: Non-integer epitheliums (erosions, abrasions,etc.), absence of stage debilitating factors, unusual transitoryconditions (acidosis, metabolic disorder, and microbial disorder).C a n d i d a expands superficially (classic mycosis, both exogenousand endogenous).

Third stage: Non-integer epitheliums, presence of debilitatingfactors (toxic, stage radiant, traumatic, neuropsychic, etc.).Candida goes deeper into the subepithelial levels, from which itcan be carried to the whole organism through the blood andlymph (intimate mycosis).12

Stages one and two are the most studied and understood, whilestage three, though it has been described in its morphologicaldiversity, is reduced to a silent form of saprophytism. This is notacceptable from a logical point of view, because no one candemonstrate the harmlessness of the fungal cells in the deepestparts of the organism.

In fact, the assumption that C a n d i d a can behave in the samesaprophytic manner that is observed on integer epitheliums whenit has successfully penetrated the lowerlevels is at least risky, because theassumption would have to be sustainedby concepts that are totally aleatory(i.e., dependent on chance).

In fact, we are asked not only toaccept a priori that the connectiveenvironment is (a) not suitable tonourish the C a n d i d a, but also at thesame time to accept (b) theomnipotence of the body's defencesystem towards an organic structurethat is invasive but that then becomesvulnerable once lodged in the deepertissues.

As for point (a), it is difficult toimagine that a micro-organism so able toadapt itself to any substrata cannot find elements to support itselfin the human organic substance; by the same token, it seems riskyto hypothesise that the human organism's defence system is totallyefficient at every moment of its existence.

As for point (b), the assumption that there is a tendency to astate of quiescence and vulnerability in the case of a pathogenicagent such as fungus—the most invasive and aggressive micro-organism existing in nature—seems to carry a whiff of theirresponsible.

It is therefore urgent, on the basis of the abovementionedconsiderations, to recognise the hazardous nature of such apathogenic agent which is capable of easily taking the mostvarious biological configurations, both biochemical and structural,regardless of the conditions of the host organism.

The fungal expansion gradient in fact becomes steeper as thetissue that is the host of the mycotic invasion becomes lesseutrophic and thus less reactive.

Benign tumoursTo that end, it seems useful to consider briefly the "benign

tumour" nosological entity. This is an issue that always appearsin general pathology but is brushed aside most of the time tooeasily, and it is overlooked because it usually doesn't create eitherproblems or worries. It constitutes one of those underestimatedgrey areas seldom subjected to rational, fresh consideration.

If the benign tumour, however, is not considered a fully fledgedtumour, it would be advantageous, for clarity, to categorise it inan appropriate nosological scheme.

If it is thought that, instead, it fully belongs to neoplasticpathology, then it is necessary to consider its non-invasivecharacter and consequently to consider the reasons for this.

It is in fact evident how in this second scenario, the thesisbased on a presumed predisposition of the organism to auto-phagocytosis, having to admit an expressive graduation, wouldstumble into such additional difficulties such as to becomeextremely improbable.

By contrast, in the fungal scenario, the mystery of why thereare benign and malignant tumours is exhaustively solved, sincethey can be recognised as having the same aetiological genesis.

The benignity or malignancy of a cancer in fact depends onthe capability of tissular reaction of a specific organ expressingitself ultimately in the ability to encyst fungal cells and toprevent them from developing in ever-larger colonies. This canbe achieved more easily where the ratio between differentiatedcells and connective tissue is in favour of the former.

Situated between the impervious noble tissues, then, and thedefenceless connective tissues, thedifferentiated connective structures (the

glandular structures in particular)represent that medium term which isonly somewhat vulnerable to attackbecause of an ability to offer a certaintype of defence.

And it is in these conditions thatbenign tumours are formed; that is,where the glandular connective tissueis successful in forming hypertrophicand hyperplastic cellularembankments against the parasites.In the stomach and in the lung,instead, since there are no specificglandular 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 ofmalignant or benign tumours but a type of particular benigntumour (specific degenerative alterations), as is the case withsome organs or apparatuses that do not have peculiar glandularstructures but nevertheless are attacked in their connectivetissue, although in a limited way.

In fact, if we consider multiple sclerosis, SLA, psoriasis,nodular panarthritis, etc., the possible development of the fungusin a three-dimensional sense is actually limited by the anatomicconfiguration of the invaded tissues, so that only a longitudinalexpansion is allowed.

Going back to the precondition of areactivity that is necessaryfor neoplastic development in a specific individual, it ispermissible to affirm how in the human body each external orinternal element that determines a reduction of well-being in anorganism, organ or tissue possesses oncogenic potentiality. Thisis not so much because of an intrinsic damaging capability asmuch as a generic property of favouring the fungal (that is,tumoural) flourishing.

Then the causal network so much invoked in contemporaryoncology, which involves toxic, genetic, immunological,psychological, geographical, moral, social and other factors,finds a correct classification only in a mycotic infectiousperspective where the arithmetical and diachronic summation ofharmful elements works as a co-factor to the externala g g r e s s i o n .

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS • 31

The benignity or malignancyof a cancer depends on the

capability of tissular reactionof a specific organ expressingitself ultimately in the abilityto encyst fungal cells and to

prevent them from developingin ever-larger colonies.

32 • NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007

Conventional treatments vs antifungal therapyWith the theoretical basis of the tumour/fungus equivalency

demonstrated, it is clear how this interpretative key offers a longseries of questions concerning contemporary therapies, bothoncological (used without reference indexes) and antimycotic(utilised only at a superficial level).

Which path is best to walk today, then, when faced with acancer patient, since the conventional oncological treatment, notbeing aetiological, can only occasionally have positive effects andmost of the time produces damage?

In the fungal perspective, in fact, the effectiveness of surgery isnoticeably reduced because of the extreme diffusibility andinvasiveness characteristic of a mycelial conglomerate. Surgeryto solve the problem is therefore tied to the case; that is, toconditions in which one has the luck to be able to remove theentire colony completely (which is often possible in the presenceof a sufficient encystment, but only where benign tumours areconcerned).

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy produce almost exclusivelynegative effects, both for their specific ineffectiveness and fortheir high toxicity and harmfulness to the tissues, which in the lastanalysis favours mycotic aggressiveness.

By contrast, an antifungal,antitumour-specific therapy would takeinto account the importance of theconnective tissue together with thereproductive complexity of fungi.Only by attacking the fungi across thespectrum of all its forms, at pointswhere it is most vulnerable from thenutritional point of view, would it bepossible to hope to eradicate themfrom the human organism.

The first step to take, therefore,would be to reinforce the cancerpatient with generic reconstituentmeasures (nutrition, tonics, regulation ofrhythms and vital functions) that are able to enhance the generaldefences of the organism.

Concerning the possibility of having available pharmaceuticalcures, which unfortunately do not exist today, it seems useful, inthe attempt to find an antifungal substance that is quite diffusibleand therefore effective, to consider the extreme sensitivity ofCandida towards sodium bicarbonate (i.e., in the oral candidosisof breastfed babies). This is consistent with the fact that Candidahas an accentuated ability to reproduce in an acid environment.

Theoretically, therefore, if treatments could be found that putthe fungus in direct contact with high sodium bicarbonate(NaHCO3) concentrations, we should be able to see a regressionof the tumoural masses.

And this is what happens in many types of tumour, such ascolon and liver—and especially stomach and lung, the formersusceptible to regression just because of its "external" anatomicposition, and the latter because of the high diffusibility of sodiumbicarbonate in the bronchial system and for its highresponsiveness to general reconstituent measures.

By applying a similar therapeutic approach, it has been possiblein many patients to achieve complete remission of thesymptomatology and normalisation of the instrumental data.

It is important to emphasise that these cases are just an exampleof what could be a new way of perceiving the complexity ofmedical problems, especially in oncology.

[Reports of seven cases of patients, several of whom have been

documented for 10 years following sodium bicarbonate treatment,are summarised in the complete article at the web pageh t t p : / / w w w . c u r e n a t u r a l i c a n c r o . c o m / s i m o n c i n i - w r i t e s . h t m l ;Editor]

Critical considerationsIt seems appropriate to analyse, in a critical and self-critical

spirit, what may emerge in neoplastic pathology that is new andconcrete. If we closely observe the proposed therapeutic approach,it is possible to see that, independently of its real effectiveness, ithas value as an innovative theory. First, it challenges the presentmethodology and especially its assumptions. Second, it offers aconcrete alternative proposal to a mountain of conjectures andpostures that sound authoritative but are too generic and thereforei n e f f e c t i v e .

The identification of one tumoural cause, even with all thepossible general provisos, would represent a step forward that isindispensable for escaping that passivity determined by a lack ofresults, and which is responsible for medical behaviours that arebased too much on faith and not enough on real confidence.

Given, therefore, that an unconventional medical approach canbenefit some patients better—from any point of view—than the

official treatments, and since valuableresults can be demonstrated, this shouldstimulate us to pursue further researchwhile avoiding patronising postures thatare both limiting and non-productive.

We can therefore discuss whether ornot sodium bicarbonate is the realreason for the recoveries or if, instead,those recoveries are due to theinteraction of a number of conditionsthat have been created, the results ofunidentified neuropsychical factors, ormaybe the results of something totallyunknown. What is beyond question,however, is the fact that a certain

number of people, by not following conventional methods, havebeen able to go back to normality without suffering and withoutm u t i l a t i o n .

The message of this experience is therefore a call to search forthose solutions that are in accord with the simple Hippocraticobligation to man's "well-being"; that is, we must be stimulated to acritical evaluation of our contemporary oncological therapies whichindubitably can guarantee suffering. When we group together bothmalignant tumours that are occasionally or never healed (such aslung and stomach) and tumours that border with benignity (such asthe majority of thyroid and prostatic tumours, etc.) or put themtogether with those that have an autonomous positive outcomenotwithstanding chemotherapy (i.e., infantile leukaemia)—all ofthis appears to be devious and misleading, having only the purposeof forging a consensus that would otherwise be impossible to obtainwith intellectually ethical behaviour.

The fact that modern medicine not only cannot offer sufficientinterpretative criteria but even uses dangerous methodologies thatare also harmful and meaningless—even if carried out with goodfaith—is something which must push us all to search for humaneand logical alternatives. At the same time, it is necessary tocarefully, open-mindedly and logically consider any theory or pointof view that is dared to be advanced in the battle against thatmonstrous and inhuman yoke that is the tumour.

To this end, a note of acknowledgement is to go to all those whoare aware of the harmfulness of conventional therapeutic methods

... if treatments could be found that put the fungus in

direct contact with highsodium bicarbonate

concentrations, we should be able to see a regression

of the tumoural masses.

and constantly try to find alternative solutions. People like DiBella, Govallo and others, although guilty of utilising the sameinauspicious principles of official medicine (thus showing anexcessively conformist mindset), are actually using common senseby trying to relieve the suffering of cancer patients through the useof painless methodologies, and in some cases are able to achieveremissions, even though they're in the dark about the real causes ofc a n c e r .

In an alternative perspective, then, it would be necessary toconceive a new approach to experimentation in the oncologicalfield, setting epidemiological, aetiological, pathogenic, clinical andtherapeutic research in line with a renewed microbiology andmycology that would probably drive us to the conclusion alreadyillustrated: that is, the tumour is a fungus—Candida albicans.

The possible discovery that not only tumours but also themajority of chronic degenerative disease could be reconciled tomycotic causality would represent a qualitative quantum leap,which, by revolutionising medical thinking, could greatly improvelife expectancy and quality of life. Such reconciliation mightinclude a wider spectrum of fungal parasites (for example, indiseases of the connective tissues, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis,some epileptic forms, diabetes type 2, etc.).

In closing, considering that the world of fungi—those mostcomplex and aggressive micro-organisms—has been bypassed andleft unobserved for far too long, the hope of this work is to promoteawareness of the hazards of these micro-organisms so that medicalresources can be channelled not up blind alleys but towards the realenemies of the human organism: external infectious agents.

Addendum: A Note on Cancer TreatmentThe implications from my hypothesis that cancer is a fungus

which can be eradicated with sodium bicarbonate are that:1) eighty years of genetic study and application has been for

nothing, especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer hasnever been demonstrated;

2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all thesuffering has been for nothing;

3) the billions of dollars spent on chemotherapy medicine,radiotherapy, etc. has been for nothing;

4) the recognition and prizes given to eminent researchers andprofessors has been for nothing;

5) the oncologist could be replaced by the family doctor; and6) the pharmaceutical industry will incur tremendous financial

losses (sodium bicarbonate is inexpensive and impossible top a t e n t ) .

My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of mypatients recovered completely from cancer, even in cases whereofficial oncology had given up.

The best way to try to eliminate a tumour is to bring it intocontact with sodium bicarbonate, as closely as possible, i.e., usingoral administration for the digestive tract, an enema for the rectum,douching for the vagina and uterus, intravenous injection for thelung and the brain, and inhalation for the upper airways. Breasts,lymph nodes and subcutaneous lumps can be treated with localperfusions. The internal organs can be treated with sodiumbicarbonate by locating suitable catheters in the arteries (of theliver, pancreas, prostate and limbs) or in the cavities (of the pleuraor peritoneum). (Note that sodium bicarbonate should not be usedas a cancer preventive.)

It is important to treat each type of cancer with the right dosage.For phleboclysis (drip infusion), 500 cc given in a series ofintervals—5% strength on one day and 8.4% the next—is required,depending on the patient's weight and condition; the stronger dosemay perhaps be needed in cases of lung and brain cancersaccording to the tumour type (primary or metastatic) and size. Forexternal 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 coloniesregress between the third and fourth day and collapse between thefourth and fifth, so a six-day administration is sufficient. Acomplete, effective cycle is made up of six treatment days on andsix days off, repeated four times. The most important side effectsof this care system are thirst and weakness.

For skin cancers (melanoma, epithelioma, etc.), a 7% iodinetincture should be spread on the affected area once a day, 20–30times consecutively in one sitting, with the aim of producing anumber of layers of crust. If, after one month of treatment, the firstcrust is gone and the skin is not completely healed, then thetreatment should be continued in the same manner until the secondcrust forms, heals and then comes loose without any assistance.(The procedure is also applicable for treating psoriasis.) After thistreatment, the cancer will be gone and stay away forever.

For more information, see "Protocol Treatments with sodiumbiocarbonate solutions" at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/cancer-therapy-simoncini-protocol.html and FAQ sections athttp://www.curenaturalicancro.com. ∞

AUGUST – SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS • 33

Editor's Note:Due to space constraints, we are unableto reprint Dr Simoncini's paper in full.To download the complete paperincluding case study summaries, go tothe web page ht tp:/ /www.c u r e n a t u r a l i c a n c r o . c o m / s i m o n c i n i -writes.html.

Endnotes1. Feyerabend, P.K., Contro il metodo("Against Method"), Feltrinelli, Milano,1994, p. 262. Verona, O., Il vasto mondo dei funghi("The Vast World of Fungi"), EdizioniNuova Italia, Firenze, 1973, p. 13. op. cit., p. 24. Rambelli, A., Fondamenti di micologia("Basics of Mycology"), Edizioni Guida,

Napoli, 1972, p. 355. op. cit.6. op. cit., p. 287. Verona, op. cit., p. 5 8. Rambelli, A., op. cit., p. 319. op. cit., p. 2810. op. cit., p. 2911. op. cit., p. 26612. op. cit., p. 273

About the Author:Based in Rome, I taly, Dr TullioSimoncini is a medical doctor andsurgeon special ising in oncology,diabetology and metabolic disorders. Heis also a Doctor of Philosophy. Anhumanitarian, he is opposed to any kindof intellectual conformity, which he seesas often based on suppositions without

foundation or, worse, on lies andfalsehoods. Dr Simoncini regularlyattends medical conferences and doesinterviews to explain what's wrong withconventional cancer theories andtreatments, to present his fungal theory ofcancer and to describe case s tudiesinvolving patients healed with sodiumbicarbonate, a powerful antifungal. Hisbook, Cancer is a Fungus: A revolutionin the therapy of tumours ( E d i z i o n iLampis), is available in Italian, Dutchand English from the websitehttp://www.cancerfungus.com.

For more information on DrSimoncini's theory, therapy and casestudies, and to view interviews andtestimonials, visit the portal websitehttp://www.cancerfungus.com.