I have wondered about the relationship between the malignant and benign tumors. I have tried to find a good description between the differences of the two but so far haven't come across any good source. Anyway, while researching the internet I came across the old idea that some cancers might occure because of fungi. The Italian oncologist Dr. Simoncini has long ago proposed a simple cure for cancer: Sodium Bicarbonate. He describes that the Sodium Bicarbonate in the number on killer of a certain fungi that he thinks causes many cancers.

As I read the related websites and articles I noticed this quote:

Could you please explain how to treat lipomas?
In my opinion lipomas are like cysts caused by fungi. If they are big they are to be treated with direct injections into the lumps, otherwise around them.

I haven't studied the material on his site http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/en/ too much yet but as far as I understand there can be beneficial effects eating pure Sodium Bicarbonate orally. But before you rush to the local supermarket please study some more!

Sodium Bicarbonate is the main substance in baking soda. Note baking soda differs from baking powder. Also the Sodium Bicarbonate should be as pure as possible (some of them include aluminium which you do not want into your system).

As I understood from Dr. Simoncini's site, the most effective way to treat the tumor is to get the Sodium Bicarbonate to as close of the tumor as possible. This would mean some kind of an infusion or injection. I have no idea what would be the ideal composition.

I found also this post about cancer and benign tumors which had disappeared from the internet but I was able to retrieve it by using the Waybackmachine:

Benign tumours
To that end, it seems useful to consider briefly the "benign tumour" nosological entity. This is an issue that always appears in general pathology but is brushed aside most of the time too easily, and it is overlooked because it usually doesn't create either problems or worries. It constitutes one of those underestimated grey areas seldom subjected to rational, fresh consideration.
If the benign tumour, however, is not considered a fully fledged tumour, it would be advantageous, for clarity, to categorise it in an appropriate nosological scheme.
If it is thought that, instead, it fully belongs to neoplastic pathology, then it is necessary to consider its non-invasive character and consequently to consider the reasons for this.
It is in fact evident how in this second scenario, the thesis based on a presumed predisposition of the organism to auto-phagocytosis, having to admit an expressive graduation, would stumble into such additional difficulties such as to become extremely improbable.
By contrast, in the fungal scenario, the mystery of why there are benign and malignant tumours is exhaustively solved, since they can be recognised as having the same aetiological genesis.
The benignity or malignancy of a cancer in fact depends on the capability of tissular reaction of a specific organ expressing itself ultimately in the ability to encyst fungal cells and to prevent them from developing in ever-larger colonies. This can be achieved more easily where the ratio between differentiated cells and connective tissue is in favour of the former.
Situated between the impervious noble tissues, then, and the defenceless connective tissues, the differentiated connective structures (the glandular structures in particular) represent that medium term which is only somewhat vulnerable to attack because of an ability to offer a certain type of defence.
And it is in these conditions that benign tumours are formed; that is, where the glandular connective tissue is successful in forming hypertrophic and hyperplastic cellular embankments against the parasites. In the stomach and in the lung, instead, since there are no specific glandular units, the target organ, provided with a small defensive capability, is at the mercy of the invader.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning how several types of intimate fungal invasion do not determine the appearance of malignant or benign tumours but a type of particular benign tumour (specific degenerative alterations), as is the case with some organs or apparatuses that do not have peculiar glandular structures but nevertheless are attacked in their connective tissue, although in a limited way.
In fact, if we consider multiple sclerosis, SLA, psoriasis, nodular panarthritis, etc., the possible development of the fungus in a three-dimensional sense is actually limited by the anatomic configuration of the invaded tissues, so that only a longitudinal expansion is allowed.
Going back to the precondition of areactivity that is necessary for neoplastic development in a specific individual, it is permissible to affirm how in the human body each external or internal element that determines a reduction of well-being in an organism, organ or tissue possesses oncogenic potentiality. This is not so much because of an intrinsic damaging capability as much as a generic property of favouring the fungal (that is, tumoural) flourishing.
Then the causal network so much invoked in contemporary oncology, which involves toxic, genetic, immunological, psychological, geographical, moral, social and other factors, finds a correct classification only in a mycotic infectious perspective where the arithmetical and diachronic summation of harmful elements works as a co-factor to the external aggression.

Source: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200801 ... icleid=570

Just wanted to share this with you guys... I suggest you read through those sites.

This is all speculation BUT WHAT IF lipomas were caused by fungi...

Plants have their own ways of dealing with fungi. It has been proposed that at least some forms of tumors and cancers might be because of fungi. What if lipomas were caused by fungal infection?

Ozone infusion therapy has been known to treat lipomas and have very good results with Madelung's patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10741810 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156950
Ozone is known to disinfect blood from any microorganisms.

Baking soda or Sodium Bicarbonate is toxic to fungi (read above post).

Apricot seeds have helped people with tumors and cancer.
Apricot seeds include Amygdaline (cyanogenic compound) which is known to be toxic to fungi:

Cyanogenic Compounds as Defensive Substances

Cyanogenic glycosides and their decomposition products almost cerainly play a role as defensive substances in plants (Nahrstedt, 1992). However, the exact nature of these interactions is complex. Hruska (1988) and Seigler (1991) (in an improperly strong manner) have criticized many of the classical papers concerning this role. Although many of these studies should be reexamined in view of newer concepts and with improved satistics, there is little question that cyanogenic compounds and their decomposition products can play sucs a role.
One role of cyanogenic glycosides in plants is related to their ability to produce toxic amounts of hydrogen cyanide (Conn, 1981; Nahrstedt, 1985, 1992; Poulton, 1893), which is extremely toxic to most organisms because it inhibits cytochrome oxidase and other respiratory enzymes.
Many plants that contain cyanogenic glycosides are well known for their poisonous plant literature (see, for example Kingsbury, 1964; Nahrstedt, 1985; Poulton, 1983). Although these effects may be due to cyanide [or unrelated compounds in the plants (e.g., in Taxus species)], both cyanide and aglycones (aldehydes or ketones) resulting from hydrolysis of these compounds can be toxic to nonadapted animals, fungi, and other organisms (Davis, 1991). Despite this toxity, most animals have the ability to detoxify limited amounts of cyanide. Intact cyanogenic glycosides do not appear to be highly protective against insects; these animals often are effective in detoxification of cyanide (Bernays, 1983; Hruska, 1988). Although it has been suggested that cyanogenic glycosides serve as deterrents to herbivory (Jones, 1988; Nahrstedt, 1985), the glycosides themselves seem to be relatively nontoxic to most organisms.
...
Intact cyanogenic glycosides appear to be relatively non-toxic to mammals when injected. These compounds are secreted rapidly via the urine (Nahrstedt, 1987a); they are not especially toxic when taken orally unless the corresponding Beta-glycosidase is consumed at the same time (Nahrstedt, 1987a; Poulton, 1983).

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=hmYbjb ... &q&f=false

I drank some three days of baking soda and water. Not such a wise thing as my stomach got angry about the laxative substance. At least it was for me so I had to skip the oral consumption of baking soda. I took about one large spoon per day and a glass of water.

Baking soda is commonly used to reduce levels of uric acid - this might be the reason why it could help against lipomas. Please see my last post under the 'ozone therapy'- heading, regarding levels of uric acid - think we might be onto something here! If uric acid is a key factor in this condition, there are medicines to take against it, and certainly very specific diet recommendations. An interesting thread indeed!

R.

Hi matt,
you are half way right with Sodium Bicarbonate or Bi-Carb Soda, but it does not eleminate the Lipoma it reduce the uric acid level which than will help to reduce the storrage of fat in the body

Regards

Klaus

Hi Klaus!

Ok, so you think our uric acid level is too high for some reason?

HI matt,

there are several studies made in different countries about this problem. Yes, the uric acid is a real problem and for that reason it blocks to absorb the normal quantity of fat in the body. The rest will hang in particular areas and can not move. Therefore natrium bac and the oldest medicine known as Silicea is a very good product to help. Have you heard about Schuessler Salts? I used both of them and wrote an article in The Way to Health.

I saw here a lot of comments about diet. Ok, but it is not the main problem for having Lipoma. I believe after all my studies it is a chemical problem in our body. It has nothing to do with drink alcohol or not. Prof. Dr. Dercum found that the change of food consumtion is not the problem of all Lipoma problems. Compare people! if we looking at people which have really to much weight, why they don'T have Lipomas? Why not all beer drinkers have Lipoma problem, only a few of them? The list can go on and on. I'm looking for help to find somebody to go deeper in the my experiences. I'm aware that there is a simple problem, but I need help to use this knowledge and develop that further.

Re.

Klaus

Hi Klaus and thank you for your interesting post! I have studied lipomas and treatments for about 6 years now and I haven't heard about uric acid or the salts you mentioned. I'm not a medical person. But I will definitely take a look now. Do you happen to have a link to your article or the studies about uric acid?

I tend to agree with you that diet or alcohol or anything else we eat or drink originally causes the lipomas. Still I have noticed that junk food and alcohol can have an effect to my lipomas, since they can be more tender afterwards. But definitely not the cause.

Cheers!

Hello Matt,
firstly you asking me about any information about uric acid. I have these articles only in German. But I give you one email address and if you contact this gentleman's office, may they can help you: Title: Acid in the body. Written by Prof. Dr. A. D. Sherly, University of Dallas, Department of Chemistry email: sherry@utdallas.edu

The second is: Dr. Robert O. Young, no further details

The third is: If you send me your email than I can copy the English version for you. Please send your email if you like to me: klausg@amnet.net.au

Regards

Klaus

Hello Matt

the only links I can offer you are: www. lipomaaktuell.blogspot.com Somw articles written in German and English