Doctor in Rome Cancer is a Fungus cures it with Baking Soda????

by Witness 007 53 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • cruzanheart

    My uncle Spero swore that swallowing a tablespoon of Vaseline every day cured his throat cancer.


  • Finally-Free

    I smear birdie droppings on my forehead every night. That discourages the monsters hiding under my bed from coming out to annoy me when I'm trying to sleep.


  • shamus100

    Check out this link... there are many others.

    It's sad that people get desperate and sicko's prey on dying people.

  • Leolaia

    Sounds like the kind of claim that would be found in an old Golden Age.

    If cancer is a fungus, then how come tumors can be tested for mutations in our own DNA to find a genetic predisposition? My mother just had this kind of test a few months ago.

  • rebel8

    Ditto to what Mary said.

    Understand it is hard for those of us who have had cancer to hear this and it evokes strong emotions. Imagine if I posted a thread entitled, "Emotional recovery after being in a cult can be cured by eating flour daily", and you will get an idea of how I feel right about now. It is really invalidating. Add to that the bazillion people who are already preying upon cancer patients' hope against hope and bilking them of their money with fake cures.

    I eat really healthy, whole food, often organic. I rarely take medicines. I use very few household chemicals, etc. I'm having a hard time imagining there is anything unusually acidic in my body that caused my cancer.

    PS--I thought cervical cancer is usually caused by a virus but not always.

    PPS--I actually hope there is a cheap, safe, easy way to prevent cancer such as the one you wrote about.

  • metatron

    First, I strongly recommend the documentary "Hoxsey : When Healing Becomes a Crime". It exposes the sheer venality of the medical profession.

    So, somebody's lying..... and somebody's telling the truth? I don't endorse this reputed therapy but keep in mind one thing: Who has the most money to lose in the supposed war on cancer - and who has the most power to fend off alternatives? It isn't some guy in a garage peddling snake oil, it's the pharmaceutical companies and their allies.

    I raise my eyebrows in surprize when a recent episode of "House" portrays a man suffering near death from eating too many Brazil nuts and getting selenium poisoning. I ask myself 'does ever happen?" Why are they using this as a plot device on a medical show when, in fact, Selenium supplementation might save countless lives from cancer?

    I KNOW of an obscure Japanese study in which a cheap seaweed extract simply halted massive tumor growth in lab rats. Think a cure based on this potentially profitless finding will ever be developed in your lifetime?

    You are not seeing cures for terrible diseases because only the treatments with the potential to be massively profitable ( to pay for development costs) are developed. I know that ALT-711 - a drug designed to take away stiff, hardened arteries - was dropped because the company ran out of money and the 'use patent' probably isn't profitable. Heart patients, tough luck.

    I also observed, many years ago, that an inexpensive possible treatment for MS ( safflower oil) was given almost no attention while interferon based treaments were heavily funded. So, what does Avanex cost now, maybe $1000 or so a month? How about Copaxone - which does or doesn't work, depending on what official study you choose?

    The whole body of medical knowledge has been grossly distorted by this corporate drive to pay off regulatory costs and make profits for stockholders. Disease is being fought with 'one hand tied behind the back' because the simple and cheap will never be developed.

    My theory? We don't really know what is possible in disease treatment because 'half' the knowledge is never explored or is outrightly suppressed by moneyed interests. Check with Life Extension ( for their documentation on suppression of treatment by the FDA, likely in defense of drug companies.

    Did you know that the government can waive laws about conflicts of interest in drug approval cases? That the officials judging a treatment can have financial interests in the treatment under consideration? That 'being experts' somehow makes them honest?

    Sorry for the rant.......


  • drwtsn32

    Sigh... conspiracy theories about big pharma? Come on. Yes, a pharmaceutical company that is making millions off of a treatment for a disease may not be that interested in searching for a cure. But there isn't just one pharmaceutical company. Another would stand to make millions off of developing a cure. And what about all the independent researchers in universities looking at treatments for countless diseases? If you say our government is stifling cure research, what about all the other countries doing research? The conspiracy idea is weak at best.

    Yeah, chemo is harsh. But scientific tests show that it is effective in many cases. Are there risks? Of course, but sometimes treatments with higher risks are worth it if you're faced with a terminal illness. Would it be nice to replace chemo with something less harsh? Absolutely. In a perfect world we'd have a nice, mild treatment for all illness and disease. In reality sometimes treatments are not so gentle.

    This baking soda claim needs to be tested in a controlled way and results reproduced by independent scientists. One (or many) doctor's claims are not enough. Anecdotal evidence is worthless when it comes to medical treatment efficacy.

    The best thing to happen to modern medicine is the double/triple-blind clinical study.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Just a quick Google found this little nugget:

    This man is probably a crook. Let me show you why, with something you can see for yourself.

    (My advice, for anyone wanting to learn more about alternative cancer methods, is to skip all the hype, skip all the theorising, and look at the testimonials or case reports. Try to understand not only what they tell you about the patients, but *what they tell you about the author*. )

    I looked at about ten case reports on this site and found only one that seriously tries to demonstrate clear-cut regression of cancer with this extremely unlikely treatment method. Most are skimpy very short term accounts showing highly dubious benefits.

    This one case is illustrated by the CT scans at

    The top two are supposed to show the disappearance of lung metastases and the bottom two regression of the primary cancer in the liver ( they are labeled the wrong way round).

    But look at the shape of the heart in the centre of the first lung scan (the large round white blob). The second scan, supposedly showing the metastases have gone, is taken at a very different level. It is MUCH higher up, above the level of the heart, at the level of the aorta and pulmonary vessels. We cannot tell from these films whether the metastases are gone or not! (you must click on the films to enlarge them).

    It is also highly suspicious that the patient's name and the text showing the level of the "cut" have been lopped off the top left hand corner of the second scan, yet this information is present on the other three scans. This looks like an amateurish attempt to obscure what is obvious enough from the anatomy, but it also means we can't even know for sure that the second scan belongs to the same patient.

    There's more. Both liver scans are taken at the same level, as shown by the consistent anatomy and the +270 in the top left hand corner of both films. But they actually show no change in the overall size of the cancer. The cancer sufferer is expected to interpret the obvious darker area in the liver (towards the left of the picture) as the extent of the cancer, but this is merely some necrosis or liquefaction in its centre. The full extent of the cancer is shown by the larger surrounding area of circular shading. The cancer appears slightly darker than the rest of the liver in the first liver scan. Intravenous contrast has been used during the second liver scan to allow blood flow to show up, so the living cancer thus now shows up as a lighter shadow. The increased vascularity (blood vessels) at the edge of the cancer only shows up in this later film. The cancer is about the same size, if not larger.

    Edited to add: This comment I quoted above was made by:

    Dr P Moran MB, BS, BSc(Med), FRACS, FRCS(Eng) (Retired General Surgeon) Queens land, Australia

    He's got an excellent site on the dangers of using alternative medicines when it comes to cancer, as well as how to spot the frauds. Here's the link:

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    BTW, really interesting site this doctor has. Fascinating reading, although extremely detailed. Anyway I also found this:

    cancer is, in general, very predictable. In the absence of effective treatment it is nearly always a progressive condition. Thus, so long as the initial state of cancer is accurately known and the treatment effect is obvious, each patient can act as their own "control" (comparison case). This does NOT apply with subjective symptoms such as pain or depression or even with the symptoms that cancers can cause. They can fluctuate markedly in severity over a matter of hours. They can also appear to be responsive to sham treatment (placebo), for complex reasons related to non-specific patient reactions to medical care and biases in the reporting and observing of complaints.

    A conclusion: The true weakness of the dubious cancer claims lies not with the anecdotal or uncontrolled nature of the evidence provided, whether in the form of testimonial, case reports, or other clinical observations. The problem is the generally very low quality of the evidence.

    So anyway sounds like the fungus idea is a sham.

  • Mary
    metatron said: So, somebody's lying..... and somebody's telling the truth? I don't endorse this reputed therapy but keep in mind one thing: Who has the most money to lose in the supposed war on cancer - and who has the most power to fend off alternatives? It isn't some guy in a garage peddling snake oil, it's the pharmaceutical companies and their allies.

    I have no problem in believing that the pharmaceutical industry would be the big losers if a simple cure was found for cancer, hence, I don't believe that they're really looking for one. I also believe that there are natural/alternative therapies that can help and even cure cancer in some cases.

    However, this particular claim is just so far out in left field, it's not even worth considering. It' just plain crazy to assert that cancer is really only a fungus that baking soda can cure. I saw this doctor's book for sale on the subject: $49.95. Ya, I wonder how many millions he's going to screw people out of on this one.

    Thanks to Big Tex for finding the goods on this guy.....what a slimeball....He should lose his license for trying to promote this crap.

Share this