My Malignant Melanoma

Seanty's experiences with Metastatic Malignant Melanoma. Part of Email us direct at

Friday, 26 March 2010


Weasel Words

Another illiterate quacktard has written in, to plug his overpriced fruit drink as a cure for cancer, and complain semi-incoherently about my treatment of killer quack Tullio Simoncini as follows:

"Now that's typical of you to discharge accomplishments. It is common knowledge about the pH balance in the body promotes an acidic or alkaline environment. Cancer CANNOT exist in a alkaline rich and oxygen rich environment. Legally we as practitioners cannot claim a cure, but the evidence is overwhelming. You on the other hand, leave no name nor any of your credentials. "The comment's author links to his quack products site, hoping that I'm going to send cancer patients there to be fleeced.

I'm not sure what "discharge accomplishments" means. Any suggestion that Simoncini has achieved anything other being struck off as a doctor, and killing desperately ill people is news to me. Can anyone offer objective evidence to suggest that Simoncini has achieved anything other than enriching himself at the expense of the desperate?

Neither am I aware of evidence that it is common knowledge that the pH balance in the body promotes an acidic or alkaline environment. Whatever common opinion might be, expert opinion is that the commenter's statement is confused nonsense.

"Legally we as practitioners cannot claim a cure, but the evidence is overwhelming." That sounds like you are in fact claiming a cure. If you were in the UK, that would be a criminal offence.

Someone who is attempting to sell overpriced fruit-juice to cancer patients with a promise it will cure them describing themselves as a "practitioner" also seems a new low to me, in a field already lower than snake-shit. Congratulations!

The evidence is in fact underwhelming in the extreme to scientists and qualified medical practitioners. Unless someone would like to offer scientific evidence in support of the acid/alkaline theory of disease?

As far as withholding my name is concerned, I have no wish to be subject to further legal harassment by libel tourists acting on behalf of quacks. I am a cancer patient, and harassing me just shows how callous quacks are.

I make no claims to personal medical expertise, but merely link to the opinion of those who are qualified.

Look, stupids-either show me the evidence which backs your outlandish claims in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or expect your ill-informed comments to be either simply rejected or held up to public ridicule.

Labels: , , , , ,


BRAF Inhibitors

I hear a rumour from fellow patients that GSK's "me-too" BRAF inhibitor is better than PLX4032. It seem that this is partly because of the account given by this MM patient as to the lack of a complete cure given by PLX4032.

I have heard a few other anecdotal accounts from patients on BRAF trials of this nature, but these do not contradict the previous trials at all. Only a very few people in the initial trials got a complete response. Whilst overall response was way higher than for the gold standard DTIC, this is a promising cancer drug. The very best cancer drugs we have for any cancer cure a tiny fraction, and give others a bit more time, ideally with a reasonable quality of life.

Back when I was diagnosed there was just DTIC, with its 15% response rate, and no chance of a cure. Now we may have a number of drugs with up to a 60% response rate and a small chance of a cure. Progress has seemingly been made.

We can't tell a thing from internet anecdotes in the meantime, other than the drugs aren't a complete bust so far. I can remember some promising-looking drugs which anecdotes made clear in short order were not going to hit the mark.

Labels: , ,

Friday, 19 March 2010


What needs to be added?

Some insane and illiterate comments I have received recently (web addresses deleted) in support of Tullio Simoncini and another quack are worthy of reproduction:


Do you have any evidense that what you say is true? Are you a doctor that profits from melanoma patients?I have spoken with several people who have cured their melanoma with the Iodine solution.The theroy should not matter if the therapy works, and cost almost nothing, and The Itakian doctor makes no profit from teaching pateints. Logic shows that you are the quack who seeks to protect your profits by such claims without any merit.

I can find no facts to be true from you, what I have researched is that Dr simoncini had tried to help a cancer patient who was in very late stage cancer and was in very bad condition because of chemotherapy. He did not have the chance to try therapy because the patient had died trying to recover from the chemotherapy. Dr. Josewph Gold has been put through almost the same attcks by the Cancer industry, Ifeel very sorry for the Doctors who are attacked by corrupt people like you ( for profit cancer Doctor)

Iodine treatment for Melanoma is almost free and Dr. Simoncini makes no money for this help. Are you a cancer doctor that is theatened by this free cure? You can still find work in Mcdonalds

Perhaps something does need to be added. The Dr. Gold mentioned by the nutter is the main proponent of hydrazine sulphate treatment of cancer, despite all of the evidence showing it to be of no benefit. He is a real doctor, hasn't been convicted of killing anyone (though there has been a death as a result of hydrazine treatment). I can see clear blue water between someone like Dr. Gold who is arguably merely mistaken, and an unrepentant killer like Simoncini.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 12 March 2010


This blog has moved

This blog is now located at
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to

Thursday, 11 March 2010


Cancer Code Cracked?

More duff reporting of melanoma stories last Sunday, this time by the Sunday Express, reheating a years-old story, and blowing more or less groundless speculation by scientists up into the most important discovery since chemotherapy. CRUK comment here. Nutshell? It's cobblers.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, 4 March 2010



A surfer has written in to say "How many patients die under the care of traditional doctors every year? If you figure up that total, you will see how ludicrous your accusations of Dr. Hamer are"

I'm glad you asked, dude. Cancer is, like, 65% survivable by conventional medical treatment. "Dr" Hamer's patients all die. Every freakin' one. Totally! Knarly!

Of course the big question is not how many of a doctor's patients die, but how many times they are convicted of killing people. That's one to Hamer vs. zero to the average doctor.

Best stick to surfing, bro.


August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   November 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   September 2012   November 2012   December 2012   January 2013   May 2013   June 2013   July 2013   August 2013   September 2013   October 2013   December 2013   July 2014   May 2015   July 2015  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]