Guest guest Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 There is such a great variety of opinions, experiences, and observations on bicarb for cancer at: http://www.topicalinfo.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=80 Ethical questions abound. Should Tulio Simoncini have been charged with the murder of three patients by using bicarb, when conventional oncologists kill so many more? Where is the fairness? Should Simoncini be criticized because there is zero science behind his use of bicarb, when his conventional competitors tailor their science by excluding testing and avoiding the seeking of approval for anything that is inexpensive or non-toxic? Should Simoncini be criticized for accommodating his theories to the audience when cancer theories are a dime a dozen anyway? Should Simoncini be scorned for posing as a cancer authority when his conventional competitors are all poseurs? Perhaps he is hated by the cancer industry because he is a grandstanding ham, when at least he should be praised for his entertainment value. It is amazing how people align in support or attack of this man. Maybe his followers just like his cool first name (Tulio). Would they be just as enamored if his parents named him Whimpy? What if instead of being a suave presenter he was a flatulent, hairy mole infested, cross-eyed, slobbering, pizza faced, booger flicker with a squeaky voice and dressed in drag? If his followers liked his theories despite all that then I would have to pay serious attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.