Chicago - You don't really believe that the Democrats want to suppress viable and beneficial drugs do you? There is only one reason for 'big Pharm' to buy the rights to a drug....to either make money or keep it off the market. In 9 out of 10 cases when a drug is developed that actually works, it 'can't' be released because of the population explosion it would cause or the money it would take away from the medical establishment.

skeptic - why does it have to get political? there's hope for melanoma victims. can't politics stay out of one discussion??????????????

Kay, I apologize for my sarcastic post but I am still resentful at the image Obama and team painted of big pharma back during the health care "debate" - the notion that big pharm is an enemy of the people and only bigger government can protect us from their evil made me literally ill.

And Fisherman, let me remind you that if you take away the opportunity to profit from building, developing, inventing and curing then corporations will simply stop doing it. To bring it to a personal level, if you have a job or if you know someone who has a job, do you work for free, do you work for just barely enough money to survive, do you feel that you are evil if your employer gives you enough money to pay your bills and also allows you to save a little bit so you can buy a TV or a car or a home?

We are all mini corporations that try our best to maximize the profit from the work we perform. It is human nature to want to succeed. God bless the corporations and the investors behind them for enriching our lives far, far beyond what any government could ever do.

If cancer is just a fungus, wouldn't thousands of pathologists worldwide have noticed Candida in most of the millions of tumor biopsies they have observed over the years? Wouldn't they have compared notes, and perhaps done something about it? Since this has not happened, it must be that these pathologists are not seeing Candida in these biopsies. Cancer is not fungus.

If cancer was just a fungus, and could be cured by simple anti-fungal treatments, wouldn't Simoncini be praised the world over for his insight? Where is his Nobel Prize? Wouldn't his name be up there with the likes of Pasteur, Koch, Fleming, and Salk? Even if the reports of his medical license being revoked are true (look it up), the groundswell of support for his ideas would surely have swept the globe by now. Not even Big Pharma would be able to compete against these treatments if they really cured cancer, right? And if the preventions and treatments you mention were truly effective, why does anyone die from cancer these days, or get it at all? It should be easily cured with over-the-counter medications. And yet...I still don't see the fluconazole combo-pak for tumor reduction at my local Walgreens. Cancer is not fungus.

The human cell and the fungal cell are impossible to differentiate on a cellular level...What do we know..cancer eats sugar(yeast eats sugar). To find cancer they inject dyed sugar into the bodsy and it heads for "cancer". It often takes about 50 years for conventional wisdom to recognize a new truth. Scientists only find what they look for. Simoncini has posted videos on his site of cancer and it looks like candida albicans to me..its white. What is cancer? "Science" thinks its a mutated cell.. I thinks its fungus growing in the body. Why is tamoxifen effective in preventing breast cancer reoccurence..wow its been found to be a potent destroyer of candida albicans lately. They wish to use it now to treat yeast infections. Why does vitamin D prevent cancer: because it allows T cells to destroy invaders and prevents fungal invasion by what is termed "cadherence". Dr Simoncini will be proven correct but millions will die because of willful ignorance by the medical community in the meanwhile.

Wow...where to start?

Candida, like most fungal cells, have cell walls. Human cells do not. Simple staining techniques make it easy to tell the difference between the two. A junior-high school science student could do this.

Animal cells, plant cells, fungal cells, protozoa and bacteria all eat sugar. This is a non-starter.

The "white" thing I don't get -- you do realize that cancerous tumors come in a variety of colors? And what about the other "white" tissues found in the body (cartilage, tooth enamel, scar tissue, etc.)? Are they cancerous, or Candida, just because they are white? Again, there's nothing of substance here.

Tamoxifen -- yet another drug that has been found to have multiple uses. Tamoxifen keeps breast cancer cells from growing by blocking their use of estrogen. A preliminary study shows it also may be effective against Candida. Great! But you cannot deduce from this that Candida is cancer! Use of Tamoxifen has also been shown to increase the risk of uterine cancer. So if Candida is cancer, and Tamoxifen kills it, then why the increased risk of uterine cancer with its use?

As far as vitamin D goes, the scientific jury is still out on its relationship to cancer prevention. It does help T-cells do their jobs. Vitamin D has been used as a supplement to dairy foods for decades now, and as a result nations that have access to such fortified foods have seen an extreme drop in cases of rickets (Vitamin D helps to calcify bone). Why then have we not seen a similar drop in cancer cases with the introduction of D-fortified foods? Because no matter how good our T-cells are working, no matter how much vitamin D they have to use, they cannot prevent every cancer. Some studies have shown that Vitamin D decreases some cancer risks, some show no change in risk, and at least one study has shown that increased levels of Vitamin D in the blood increases the incidence of prostate cancer. And remember, reduced risk of cancer is not the same as prevention.

Why do you believe Simoncini? Because you saw his video on his own web site? If Simoncini is truly confident in his ideas (and not just a snake oil salesman) then he should put his work into peer-reviewed scientific journals for all to see. Let others use the scientific method to critique his work and attempt to duplicate his results. If his ideas are solid, they will withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community and we will have a new accepted treatment for cancer. If not, they will be discarded. Until his ideas stand up through the peer review process, there is no reason to believe his claims.

You might googe UCTV for a variety of lectures on vitamin D and various diseases: cardiovascular, diabetes, autoimmune, and cancer. The amount needed is much more than supplemented in foods and vitamin d in dairy is destroyed by light. Nvertheless a recent study showed mothers with higher vitamin d levels had children less prone to MS. In addition SIDS is now thought to occur because of low serotonin levels, something vitamin d raises. Vitamin d and calcium combine to cause cellular adherence and prevent fungal, bacterial, and viral invasion of tissues. Those with adequate levels have no autoimmune diseases and no cancer. This has been measured. Everyone I know who has these diseases has tested low in vitamin d and this has been confirmed by many medical professionals to me. personally.

I believe DR Simoncini because his theory is supported by my own research into fungal etiology in disease and the healthy skepticism I have towards a hypocritical medical profession. Surveys show oncologists professing unwillingness to take the same drugs they prescribe if they had cancer. Fungal mycotoxins are implicated in many diseases as well as the fungi themselves. I disagree on why tamoxifen works and would point out that ketoconazole also shrinks prostate cancer and BPH in studies. It is used as an adjunctive therapy usually because its misunderstood as well.

Vitamin D is actually quite stable if stored properly. If it was destroyed in dairy, then why the drop in rickets cases after Vitamin D fortification of foods began? The problem with getting too much Vitamin D is that it is fat soluble. You retain what you don't use. (I am sure you know this, but some reading this may not.) If you take much more D than is found in foods it can become toxic, causing a variety of problems including vomiting, nausea, and kidney damage. It is beneficial in the proper amounts. Did these mothers you mention have higher amounts of D in their systems compared to women who had normal amounts, or did they have normal amounts compared to those women who were deficient? The distinction is important -- if it is the former, then why aren't OB-GYNs providing megadoses of Vitamin D to their patients? I've not heard of this happening.

Closer to the point of your original claim, is the amount of vitamin D needed to "prevent" cancer at or near the amounts needed to cause toxicity? You say that "Those with adequate levels (of D) have no autoimmune diseases and no cancer. This has been measured." What are these adequate levels? Are they toxic? And is this universal? Will every single person that attains these levels of the vitamin be disease-free and cancer-free? Where are the data? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Again, someone somewhere needs to publish this work for peer review if the experimentation has been performed.

I checked out UCTV -- I found the Univ. of California, the Univ. of Connecticut, and a quack site -- which one did you mean? You can disagree about why tamoxifen works if you wish. Peer-reviewed science is against you. Also, if tamoxifen kills Candida (remember, you said Candida was "cancer") then ketoconazole (or anything else) would not be needed -- the cancer (yeast?) would be cured.

I'll agree with you that mycotoxins cause disease, as would the vast majority of those in the medical profession. But you say you have done actual research into fungal disease, and this research supports Simoncini -- is your work published in a legitimate scientific or medical journal? If so, let us know where. If not, then I will urge you to do what I urged Simoncini to do in my previous post -- submit your research to peer review.

I was referring to the University of California TV..UCTV. And the lectures in their medical schools clearly establish the levels needed for prevention of cancer. Viamin D has never been shown to be toxic unless taken in massive dosages above 30K IUs a day for extended periods. Even then it probably takes close to a million IUs a day for any toxicity. This is established by DR Holick, a lecturues on UCTV and the foremost world authority on vitamin d. Most cancers are prevented when blood levels excced 65 nanomoles but Holick believes adequate levels occur at 120 nanomoles. Medical "science" is catching up and in my area vitamin d testing is routine for patients. Diabetics are usually prescribed 150k IUs a week by doctors here. There are literally hundred of articles online about viamin d and levels needed to prevent disease and a local newspaper evebn ran an article on flu prevention touting 5,000 IUs a the dosage to prevent flu for adults. This was not a small article but in a major article. It costa 5 cents a day versus vaccinations costs and dangers.

Ketoconazole is used as an antifungal for prostate problems and tamoxifen for beast cancer control. They are normally not prescribed together.

I have no desire to have a two person dialogue but if you are seriously interested you may go back to UCTV and search vitamin d lectures. I have watched them all and am particularly impressed with DR Holick's lecture on viamin d and chronic illness and the short one on Viamin D ,CAn IT Prevent CAncer?