Having explained the theory and having briefly illustrated the cases, it seems appropriate to analyse, in a critical and self-critical spirit, what may emerge in neoplastic pathology that is new and concrete.
If we closely observe the proposed therapeutic approach it is possible to see that, independently of its real effectiveness, it has value as an innovative theory. First, it challenges the present methodology and especially its assumptions. Second, it offers a concrete alternative proposal to a mountain of conjectures and postures that sound authoritative but are too generic and therefore ineffective.
The identification of one tumoral cause, even with all the possible general provisos, would represent a step forward that is indispensable for escaping that passivity determined by a lack of results, and which is responsible for medical behaviours that are based too much on faith and not enough on real confidence.
Given, therefore, that an unconventional medical approach can benefit some patients better – from any point of view – than the official treatments, and since valuable results can be demonstrated, this should stimulate us to pursue further research while avoiding patronising postures that are both limiting and non-productive.
We can therefore discuss whether or not sodium bicarbonate is the real reason for the recoveries or if, instead, those recoveries are due to the interaction of a number of conditions that have been created, the results of unidentified neuro-psychical factors, or maybe the results of something totally unknown. What is beyond question, however, is the fact that a certain number of people, by not following conventional methods, have been able to go back to normality without suffering and without mutilation.
The message of this experience is therefore a call to search for those solutions that are in accord with the simple Hippocratic premise of man’s “well-being”; that is, we must be a stimulated to a critical evaluation of our contemporary oncological therapies which indubitably can guarantee suffering.
One thing is certain: nowadays it is no longer legitimate (for we are the prey of panic and of the “tumoral syndrome”), to tolerate the slaughtering of patients in the name of a “compassionate” obligation to help and be helped, without the support of solid etiological foundations.
If, for a moment, we take a different point of view and try to look at the world of the tumour with new eyes, that is, by hypothesising a simpler genesis of neoplastic proliferation, even the fungal one, we may be appalled and frightened by the ignorant hand of official medicine – a hand that is armed, however, with great cynicism and profound superficiality.
One could argue that the failures represent the inevitable price to pay to save people’s lives. But when the suffering and the “authorised deaths” overwhelm the patient recoveries (that seem, indeed, to be random or due to factors not related to the therapies performed), then it is no longer acceptable to operate at all costs and regardless of the consequences, for in doing so, we are destined only to hurt people.
One can rebut that the recoveries obtained by using present oncological protocols are not so few, and that in certain types of tumour recoveries are a high percentage. It is easy to see, however, that these results are nothing but the outcome of propaganda sustained by surreptitious argumentation shedding false light on the subject of tumoral nosological entities.
When we group together both malignant tumours that are occasionally or never healed (such as lung and stomach), tumours that border with benignity (such as the majority of thyroid and prostatic tumours, etc.) or put them together with those that have an autonomous positive outcome notwithstanding chemotherapy (i.e. infantile leukaemia) – all of this appears to be devious and misleading, having only the purpose of forging a consensus that would otherwise be impossible to obtain with intellectually ethical behaviour.