A different outlook on the cause of cancer

[Guest guest]

Dr. Simoncini makes some profound statements in his lengthy discourse shown

below. I have only reproduced the first page or so to show you why he believes

that the current thinking on Cancer is wrong.

http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/simoncini-writes.html

SIMONCINI CANCER THERAPY - DR. TULLIO SIMONCINI WRITES

My idea is that cancer doesn't depend on mysterious causes (genetic,

immunological or auto immunological as the official oncology proposes, but it

comes down from a simple fungal infection, whose destroying power in the deep

tissues is actually under estimated.

Premise

The present work is based on the conviction, supported by many years of

observations, comparisons and experiences, that the necessary and sufficient

cause of the tumour is to be sought in the vast world of the fungi, the most

adaptable, aggressive and evolved micro-organisms known in nature.

I have tried many times to explain this theory to leading institutions involved

in cancer issues (the Ministry of Health, the Italian Medical Oncological

Association, etc.) elaborating on my thinking, but I have been brushed aside

because of the impossibility of setting my idea in a conventional context.

A different, international audience represents the possibility of sharing a view

about health, which differs, from what is widely accepted by today's medical

community, either officially or from the sidelines.

There is an opposition between the allopathic and the Hippocratic medical ideal.

The former has the disadvantage of its inability to consider the individual as a

whole. Therefore it brings with it all the distortions and aberrations which

such a point of view entails (excessive specialisation, therapeutic

aggressiveness, superficiality, harmfulness etc.). The latter approach instead

tends in the direction of being too generic, non-scientific, and devoid of

therapeutic incisiveness.

The position that I promote represents instead a meeting point of these two

conceptions of health, since, from the conceptual point of view, it sublimates

and adds value to both, while highlighting how they both are victims of a common

conformist language.

The hypothesis of a fungal aetiology in chronic-degenerative illness, able to

connect the ethical qualities of the individual with the development of specific

pathologies, reconciles the two orientations (allopathic and holistic) of

medicine. The hypothesis is a strong candidate for being that missing element of

psychosomatics that has been sought but never found by one of the fathers of

psychosomatics, Wiktor Von Weiszäcker.

In considering the biological dimensions of the fungi, for instance, it is

possible to compare the different degrees of pathogenicity in relation to the

condition of organs, tissues and cells of a guest organism, which in turn also

and especially depend on the behaviour of the individual.

Each time the recuperative abilities of a known psycho-physic structure are

exceeded, there is an inevitable exposure, even considering possible accidental

cofounders, to the aggression -- even at the smallest dimensions -- of those

external agents that otherwise would be harmless.

In the presence of an indubitable connection between patient morale and disease

it is no longer legitimate to separate the two domains (allopathic and

naturopathic) which are both indispensable for improving the health of

individuals.

The Platonic separation of the human mind from the human body, responsible for

the present mechanistic and materialistic character of today's medicine, is

outdated. So is the pessimistic Kantian position concerning integration of the

rational and emotional sides of man ( " the starred sky above me, the moral law

within me " ), which generates the present myopia of today's medical epistemology.

With such outdated cognitive frameworks inevitably come all the mindsets that

carry similar restrictive and limiting presuppositions.

Candida Albicans: Necessary and Sufficient Cause of Cancer

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. However

treated in different ways by both official and alternative medicine, an aural of

mystery still exists around its real generative process.

The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go

through two separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations

of oncology, and a constructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system

based on a new theoretical point of departure.

In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientific philosophy, which

suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find a solution

with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted, only one logical

formulation emerges; that is, to refuse the oncological principle which assumes

cancer is generated by a cellular reproductive anomaly.

However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductive anomaly is

questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories based on this hypothesis are

inevitably flawed.

It follows that both an auto-immunological process, in which the body's defence

mechanisms against external agents turn their destructive capacity against

internal constituents of the body, and an anomaly of the genetic structure

implicated in the development of auto-destruction, are inevitably disqualified.

Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories about multiple causes that

have an oncogenic effect on cellular reproduction sometimes seems like a

concealing screen, behind which there is nothing but a wall. These theories

propose endless causes that are more or less associated with each other; and

this means in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation in turn of

smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress, psychological factors, etc.,

without a properly defined context, causes confusion and resignation, and

creates even more mystification around a disease which may turn out to be

simpler than it is depicted to be.

As background information, it is important to review the picture of presumed

genetic influences in the development of cancer processes as they are depicted

by molecular biologists. These are the scientists who perform research on

infinitesimally small cellular mechanisms, but who in real life never see a

patient. All present medical systems are based on this research, and thus,

unfortunately, all therapies currently performed.

The main hypothesis of a genetic neoplastic causality is essentially reduced to

the fact that the structures and the mechanism in charge of normal reproductive

cellular activity become, for undefined causes, capable of an autonomous

behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissular economy.... [MUCH MORE -

see link above for complete analysis].