Re: Both when it comes to Simoncini

Somehow I was not notified of your reply and I had not come around here until today so I just found out.

I have troubled believing that Dr. S only wants to promote his book, I haven't heard even heard him mention it in several of the videos I've seen, besides, ask yourself WHY he gives the protocol to treat different types of cancer for FREE in his website.

I have no way of telling if the negative reports about him were concocted in order to defame him and shut him up, which is a great possibility, not just for him, but for anyone who "dares" to defy conventional medicine and "Big Pharma" so I will wait and see, time is really what will tell if he's a fake or not.  For now, I'm satisfied with the fact that several authorities in complimentary medicine give him his support (i.e., Dr. Mercola, Doug Kaufmann).

The only thing I can agree with you is that it may be a little extreme for him to claim that cancer "is a fungus".  However, to me it's not all that farfetched, we've all known that cancer is associated with high levels of toxicity and Candida/fungus produces mycotoxins which can cause many illnesses.  To me it makes sense because I've read about iodine which appears to prevent and/or cure many of the same diseases associated with fungus.  Coincidence?  Not really if you consider that iodine itself is a powerful antifungal.  I watch Doug Kaufmann's show "Know The Cause" and I always Google anything he says that I hadn't heard of before and have not found anything he's said so far to be untrue, therefore, if he's right about fungus and its connection to so many illnesses and he supports Dr. S, would you say he's a fake too?  Even though his shows always promote some kind of supplement or another, well, it hardly is way better than harmful drugs being advertised on TV 24/7.  Besides, he even tells people on his show that if they can't afford his books they can still follow the diet by reading the guidelines in the FAQs at the site (and in any case people can get the books to read through their public libraries).

All I'm saying is that we are all free to believe what we want and I personally don't need someone to treat me as if I had the mentality of a 5 y.o. and try to scare me away from something on the guise of trying to "protect" me.  And if anyone happens to not be smart enough to not research whatever treatment they want to follow, well, let them pay the consequences, it's still part of their God given freedom.  It's true that in their desperation some may not choose wisely but then whose to know that they would have faired better doing chemo and radiation?  It appears to me, however, that the voices from "that side" yell too loud to get attention, perhaps they are just trying to drown out something they're afraid of...?

As for Hulda Clark, from the very first time I read about her, my intuition told me she couldn't really be right in sustaining such a dogmatic stand.  I do believe that maybe she found a piece of the puzzle since her cleanses are supposed to help flush toxicity out of our bodies so at least her intentions were good.  I believe she may have cured people b ecause improving health in general gives the body a much better chance to heal from anything, period.

So until I have STRONG  evidence to the contrary I will continue to point whoever I think needs it in the "fungus/cancer" direction and, therefore, to Dr. S.  And if you really had respect for other people's freedom, instead of busying yourself with giving very negative opinions perhaps it would be better to take a neutral stand or simply issue a mild caution as most adults don't really take well being treated as if they cannot think for themselves.