The only reason why Dr. Simoncini has been struck off from the medical order is because he as an oncologist administrated Sodium Bicarbonate instead of the conventional chemo in the treatment of cancer patients. His lawyers have started a rehabilitation court trial at the international Court of Justice in Strassburg
Law of 8 April 1998, No. 94
“Conversion into law, with amendments, of the Decree Law of 17 February 1998, No. 23, concerning urgent provisions relating to clinical trials in the field of oncology and other measures relating to health”
Compliance with authorised therapeutic indications
1. Except as provided in paragraphs 2 and 3, the physician, in prescribing a medicinal specialty or other industrial medicinal product, shall comply with the therapeutic indications, the ways and means of administration provided by the marketing authorisation issued by the Ministry of Health.
2. In individual cases, the physician may, under his direct responsibility and after informing the patient and acquiring their consent, use an industrial medicinal product for an indication or a way of administration or a means of administration or use different from that authorised, where recognised for the purposes of the application of Article 1(4) of the Decree Law of 21 October 1996, No. 536, converted by the Law of 23 December 1996, No. 648, where the physician considers, on the basis of documentable data, that the patient cannot usefully be treated with medicinal products for which that therapeutic indication or way or means of administration has already been approved and provided this use is known and is consistent with works that have appeared in accredited scientific publications in the international field.
This law, now promulgated by Minister Bindi because of the known events of the DiBella cure, does in fact allow sodium bicarbonate to be used to treat cancer.
“…where the physician considers, on the basis of documentable data, that the patient cannot usefully be treated with medicinal products for which that therapeutic indication or way or means of administration has already been approved and provided this use is known and is consistent with works that have appeared in scientific publications in the international field ”
Set out below are a few international studies…
Studies relating to the antacid power of sodium bicarbonate in tumours:
Anne McLean, “Malignant gliomas display altered pH regulation by NHE1 compared with non transformed astrocytes (Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 278: C676-C688, 2000).
Marion Stubbs, “Causes and consequences of tumour acidity and implications for treatment”, Molecular Medicine: Today, January 2000 (vol.6).
Robert J. Gillies, “Causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity in tumors – Novartis Foundatíon symposium”, Molecular Medicine Vol.7 N° 2 February 2001; “Causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity in tumour microenvironments”.
J.R. Griffiths, “Causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity in tumour microenvironments”, Glia 1994 Nov:12(3):196-210.
Tannock, I.F., “Acid pH in tumors and its potential for therapeutic exploitation”
Cancer Res 1989 Aug 15;49(16):4373-84.
Raghunand, N., “Enhancement of chemotherapy by manipulation of tumour pH”
Br J Cancer 1999 Jun;80(7):1005-11.
Davydova, I.G., “Dynamics of bioelectric activity of the brain and erythrocyte ultrastructure after intravenous infusion of sodium bicarbonate to oncologic patients.” Biull Eksp Biol Med 1992 Apr;113(4):352-5.
Davydova, I.G., “Characteristics of the effects of artificial alkalosis on electrical activity of the brain and ultrastructure of blood cells in oncologic patients”, Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 1995;(4):24-5.
Star, R.A., “Regulatory volume decrease in the presence of HCO3- by single osteosarcoma cells UMR-106-01”, J Biol Chem 1992 Sep 5;267(25):17665-9.
LeBoeuf, R.A., “Intracellular acidification is associated with enhanced morphological transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells”, Cancer Res 1992 Jan 1;52(1):144-8.
Raghunand, N., “Acute metabolic alkalosis enhances response of C3H mouse mammary tumors to the weak base mitoxantrone.” Neoplasia. 2001 May-Jun;3(3):227-35.
Raghunand, N., “pH and chemotherapy pH and chemotherapy” Novartis Found Symp. 200 1;240:199-21 l; discussion 265 -8.
Raghunand, N., “Enhancement of chemotherapy by manipulation of tumour pH.” Br J Cancer. 1999 Jun;80(7):1005-1 I.
Raghunand, N., “Tumor acidity, ion trapping and chemotherapeutics. IL pll-dependent partition coefficients predict importance of ion trapping on pharmacokinetics of weakly basic chemotherapeutic agents.” Biochem Pharmacol. 2003 Oct 1;66(7):1219-29.”
Mahoney, B.P., “Tumor acidity, ion trapping and chemotherapeutics. I. Acid pII affects the distribution of chemotherapeutic agents in vitro.” Biochem Pharmacol. 2003 Oct 1;66(7):1207-18.
Schornack, P.A., “Contributions of cell metabolism and H+ diffusion to the acidic pH of tumors.” Neoplasia. 2003 Mar-Apr;5(2):135-45.
Giffles, R.J., “MRI of the tumor microenvironment.” J Magn Reson Imaging 2002 Dec; 16(6):75 l.
Torigoe, T., “Vacuolar H(+)-ATPase: functional mechanisms and potential as a target for cancer chemotherapy.” Anticancer Drugs. 2002 Mar; 13 (3):23 7-43.
Griffiths, J.R., “Why are cancers acidic? A carrier-mediated diffusion model for H+ transport in the interstitial fluid.” Novartis Found Symp. 200 1;240:46-62; discussion 62-7, 152-3.
Webb, S.D., “Modelling tumour acidity and invasion.” Novartis Found Symp. 2001;240:169-8 l; discussion 181-5.
Gillies, R.J., “The tumour microenvironment: causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity. Introduction.” Novartis Found Symp. 200 1;240:1-6.
Gillies, R.J., “Causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity in tumors” Novartis Foundation symposium. Trends Mol Med. 2001 Feb;7(2):47-9.
Griffiths, JR. “Causes and consequences of hypoxia and acidity in tumour microenvironments. Bioessays. 2001 Mar;23(3):295-6.
Gillies, R.J., “Causes and effects of heterogeneous perfusion in tumors.” Neoplasia. 1999 Aug; 1 (3):197-207.
Stubbs, M., “Causes and consequences of tumour acidity and implications for treatment.” Mol Med Today. 2000 Jan;6(1):15-9
Stubbs, M., “Causes and consequences of acidic ph in tumors: a magnetic resonance study.” Adv. Enzyme Regul. 1999;39;13-30.
Webb, S.D., “Mathematical modelling of tumour acidity: regulation of intracellular pH.” J Theor Biol. 1999 Jan 21; 196(2);237-50.
Yamagata, M., “The contribution of lactic acid to acidification of tumours: studies of variant cells lacking lactate dehydrogenase.” Br J Cancer. 1998 Jun;77(11):1726~3 I.
Martin, G.R., “Non invasive measurement of interstitial pH profiles in normal and neoplastic tissue using fluorescence ratio imaging microscopy.” Cancer Res. 1994 Nov 1;54(21):5670-4.
Boyer, M.J., “Regulation of intracellular pH in subpopulations of cells derived from spheroids and solid tumours.” Br J Cancer. 1993 Nov;68(5):890-7.
Newell, K., “Studies with gIycolysis-deficient celIs suggest that production of lactic acid is not the only cause of tumor acidity.”
Also the Court of Cassation…
Notwithstanding the therapeutic freedom of the physician
The Court of Cassation (Sentence No. 301/2001, Section IV, deposited on 25 January 2005) confirms the principle of therapeutic freedom of the physician. According to what is established: it is right to value the autonomy of the physician in therapeutic choices, since the art of medicine – lacking by its very nature mathematically-based scientific protocols – often views various practices and solutions that experience has shown to be effective, to be chosen with a careful evaluation of a number of alternatives that only the physician can assess; this value of freedom in therapeutic choices cannot be repressed, on pain of degrading the physician to a simple bureaucrat; the choice of the physician cannot be rushed or founded on simple personal experience. Once the choice is made, the physician must remain a vigilant observer of the evolution of the situation, so as to be able to take immediate action in case of urgency, where he understands that the choice made was not appropriate; when all that has been carried out, the physician may not be responsible for any failure; the judge, in assessing the correctness of the therapeutic choice made by the physician and the possible lack of skill in his action, must make a judgment “ex ante”, that is mentally placing himself in the time when the physician was called upon to make the choice and also considering its scientific substance.
But then… if a law exists, …if even the Court of Cassation has spoken in favour of the therapeutic freedom of the physician…
why does EVERYONE allow it to be ignored?
And above all…
WHY HAS DR. SIMONCINI BEEN STRUCK OFF?