Simoncini Cancer Therapy

Candida albicans

When facing the most pressing contemporary medical problem, cancer, the first thing to do is to admit that we still do not know its real cause. However treated in different ways by both official and alternative medicine, an aural of mystery still exists around its real generative process.

The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go through two separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations of oncology, and a constructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system based on a new theoretical point of departure.

In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientific philosophy, which suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find a solution with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted, only one logical formulation emerges; that is, to refuse the oncological principle which assumes cancer is generated by a cellular reproductive anomaly.
However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductive anomaly is questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories based on this hypothesis are inevitably flawed.

It follows that both an auto-immunological process, in which the body’s defence mechanisms against external agents turn their destructive capacity against internal constituents of the body, and an anomaly of the genetic structure implicated in the development of auto-destruction, are inevitably disqualified.

Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories about multiple causes that have an oncogenic effect on cellular reproduction sometimes seems like a concealing screen, behind which there is nothing but a wall. These theories propose endless causes that are more or less associated with each other; and this means in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation in turn of smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress, psychological factors, etc., without a properly defined context, causes confusion and resignation, and creates even more mystification around a disease which may turn out to be simpler than it is depicted to be.

As background information, it is important to review the picture of presumed genetic influences in the development of cancer processes as they are depicted by molecular biologists. These are the scientists who perform research on infinitesimally small cellular mechanisms, but who in real life never see a patient. All present medical systems are based on this research, and thus, unfortunately, all therapies currently performed.

The main hypothesis of a genetic neoplastic causality is essentially reduced to the fact that the structures and the mechanism in charge of normal reproductive cellular activity become, for undefined causes, capable of an autonomous behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissular economy.

The genes that normally have a positive role in cellular reproduction are, then, imprecisely referred to as proto-oncogenes; those which inhibit cellular reproduction are called suppressor genes or recessive oncogenes.
Both endogenous (never demonstrated) and exogenous cellular factors — that is, those carcinogenic elements that are usually invoked — are held responsible for the neoplastic degeneration of the tissues.
In J.H. Stein (Medicina Interna – Internal Medicine, Mosby Year Book inc.1994, St. Louis, Missouri, 4th edition, Milano, 1995, page 1186 -1187) the following is reported:

The mitogenic signals, from the microenvironment or from more distant areas of influence, are transmitted to the cells through numerous receptive structures that are associated to the plasmatic membrane.
Among these structures, the ones that have been studied most exhaustively are receptors with an external domain for the binder, a transmembranic domain and a cytoplasmatic domain with a thyrosinkinase activity.