1. I have personally seen the tissue pathology (biopsy) specimens of hundreds of cancer patients, and I have never seen Candida fungus mixed in with the tumors. The fungus would ordinarily be visible with light microscopy, but are not found in cancer specimens, and certainly not "every" specimen.
2. I have given antifungal medications, powerful antimicrobials, to patients with cancer, and these have not induced remissions.
3. Usually, the declaration of an infectious agent causing a disease should be accompanied by proof of Koch's Postulates (see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates
for acceptable definition of this)
There is no evidence that this researcher, or anyone else, has shown that Candida fulfills these postulates.
4. There have been breakthroughs in chemotherapy treatment in almost all areas of oncology since 1998, the year of the Australian Radiation Oncology review article. Even were than not true, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a large amount of randomized trial data supporting a benefit to chemotherapy, while there is no randomized trial data supporting the use of bicarbonate in cancer patients. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is no evidence that Dr. Tullio Simoncini or anyone else has performed any rigorous scientific testing on his theories.
5. I have seen many patients with documented Candida infections (oral thrush or systemic fungal sepsis) who did not have cancer.
The hallmark of a strong theory is the ability to withstand scientific testing. With most of these "alternative" theories of cancer treatment, there has been almost no human testing. Dr. Tullio Simoncini's theories have not been subjected to scientific testing. If he is so certain that he is correct, he would welcome the opportunity to have others test the validity of his theories.
I think medical oncology is certainly not perfect, and there is certainly toxicity. We have reproducible successes, which we take to mean that there is a true benefit to what we do. We are continually subjecting our treatments to testing under controlled conditions, and when something better comes along, we use it.
Really, there is nothing stopping anybody from coming along and constructing a narrative about any conceivable theory of cancer genesis and treatment. Some people can be found to believe almost any narrative out there, but that speaks more to the natural human tendency for us to believe in narratives, than the veracity of the narrative.
We in "conventional" medicine acknowledge that people have a natural tendency to believe narratives, so we have constructed techniques besides narrative to ascertain the truth. So far, the randomized clinical trial is the best way we have found, but when a better way comes along, we will embrace it.
The clinical trial has a long history, from the first clinical trial of Vitamin C to treat scurvy in sailors in the 1700s. We are slowly inching towards the truth, building on 300 years of careful, diligent research. Dr. Tullio Simoncini would have us throw all that out to embrace his theory, and while his words are persuasive, his ideas are inadequately documented.
Let him invest the same amount of time and effort making a controlled study of his techniques. If he shows success in this context, we will cheer him and embrace him. Until then, he is just another snake oil salesman.
