Relapsing bladder neoplasm; nephrectomy due to renal metastasis
In June 1996 clinical history begins for a patient affected by a polyp formation with a diameter of 28 x 21 mm.
A twice-yearly check-up program is begun, during which continuous endoscopic resections are performed as well as instillation cycles with mitomicine and BCG.
The neoplastic formations continue to reproduce constantly, and not only that: in February 2001 surgery is performed to remove the left kidney because of a renal tumour of the pelvis.
An intra-vesical instillation therapy is proposed again, but the therapy must be suspended in May 2001 because of intolerance.
At this point an understandable mistrust on the continuation of a conventional treatment arises. Upon suggestion of an homeopathic doctor in Florence who obtained positive results in a test for Candida, I am contacted to attempt a new therapy.
After 15 months of vesical “rinsing” performed in cycles with sodium bicarbonate at 5% solution and oral administration of the same substance, the patient is doing well, and has not undergone painful instillations for over one year.
Furthermore, lab tests turn out negative for neoplastic disease and, most importantly, the fear and the anguish for the danger of the disease attacking the other kidney begins to disappear.
In the UCS (cystoscopic) report of September 18, 2002, where the diagnosis and the previous nephrectomy intervention is reported as well, we read: “No repetitive lesions”. (doc1 and doc2)
doc 1: before treatment – open PDF
doc 2: after treatment – open PDF
Declaration of the patient's daughter
“I, the undersigned, G… P…, born in …, living in …, declare the following as to my personal experience concerning the doctor-patient relationship of my father and Dr. Tullio Simoncini.
On my own initiative I contacted Dr. Simoncini by phone in May 2001 after the nephroureterectomy operation my father underwent in February 2001, as he was affected by vesical neoplasia, first seen in June 1996 and since then continuously treated with alternating and repeated cycles of endovesical chemotherapy, followed by repeated vesical resections due to continuous relapse (vesical neo-formations).
Even after the last intervention, another endovesical chemotherapy cycle was proposed once again, and this time was interrupted voluntarily by my father at the seventh application because of intolerance, as stated by the medical report. In reality my father not only was no longer able to physically tolerate these specific applications, but in general was no longer willing to undergo the series of treatments that had been applied, given the discouraging outcome and the stress of constant physical and psychological suffering.
I then convinced my father to try a new approach to the disease, the homeopathic one. In this way, we got to the cyclic endovesical instillations with sodium bicarbonate solution that started in September 2001 as proposed by Dr. Simoncini. He visited my father at home upon my specific request. The doctor was available for that and satisfied in that way, my father’s expectations, by avoiding any traumatic discomfort and by ensuring the most favourable situation for the physical and psychological comfort of the patient.
Since then, I have constantly and systematically stayed in phone contact with Dr. Simoncini, who has always been available. During those contacts, I kept him informed as to developments of the status of my father’s disease, and on the progress of the therapy, after the doctor examined the laboratory and diagnostic reports following the cycles of endovesical instillation of sodium bicarbonate solution.
All of the above has been performed without demand for any compensation or professional fee except for one payment for the first house call, for which [the doctor] issued a regular invoice. I would like to highlight that the aforementioned examination and endoscopic checkups have always been performed, through ambulatory visits or hospitalisation, with periodic scheduling at the department of urology of the civil hospital of the city where my father has been treated since the beginning of the disease.
Dr. Simoncini has always been, since the beginning of this relationship, of exemplary correctness, clarity and transparency concerning the information on the method of approach to the disease and on the nature of the proposed therapy. The therapy was centred, on one hand, on a diet that changed as time went on, and on the other hand on cycles of endovesical instillations with sodium bicarbonate solution that was available in drugstores and could be administered in the house of the patient, without need for hospitalisation, since we stated our availability to function as nurses as needed for the treatment with the catheter. I must also recognise to Dr. Simoncini a clear human sensitivity and a shared solidarity towards my father, especially by encouraging him to lead a normal life, while delicately sharing at the same time my original choice to keep my father uninformed about the true nature of his disease – a vesical carcinoma – for the mere knowledge of that would have surely devastated him, given his subjective psychological fragility.
It is over one-and-a-half years now that we have not seen relapsing and vesical neo-formations through constant and systematic endoscopic examinations and without the need to turn to chemotherapy. My father is well from the physical and psychological point of view, and in a condition of full well-being.
This is intended to be my testimonial concerning the case of the disease of my father, and a recognition of the behaviour and the correct professional conduct of Dr. Tullio Simoncini as well as concerning this specific case of the positive effects and results of the new therapeutic approach that has been adopted.
Faithfully, G… P.., February 14, 2003