I agree but maybe it is a consequence of the way pathology is taught at medical school. When I was a medical student most of the pathology teaching involved post mortem organ changes and a little bit of microscopy. We weren´t really presented to what the job as a pathologist consists of. Since then the amount of pathology teaching has been reduced even further. And it is not mandatory for any other specialty to work at a pathology department as a part of the specialist training.
Cutting is far from always involved in the first phase of establishing a malignant diagnosis. For instance a colonic cancer is usually discovered during colonoscopy. As part of the colonoscopy procedure a forceps biopsy is taken. This biopsy measures only a couple of milimeters, but it is enough for the pathologist to establish the malignant diagnosis. Next phase is as you say for the surgeon to cut out the affected bowel segment with adjacent normal bowl and lymph nodes. For other cancer types (eg. breast tumors) it is sometimes practical to remove the whole tumor (with its surrounding healthy tissue) as part of the diagnostic procedure. However this seems not to be the case with the dutch patient described by JennyJo.
Don´t be sorry. It was a relevant and true comment.
When he is talking about pathology he is. He claims that a cancer is a fungus because it is white, and the pathologist only get to see the superficial part of the tumor which in his opinion consists of reactive cells only.
You know that and I know that. But Simoncini and his followers are apparantly in total denial of this.
An oncologist doesn´t necessarily see cancerous tissue in his daily work. A normal scenario could be that a patient is referred to the oncology department after a malignant diagnosis has been established and the surgical procedure has been performed. All the oncologisst need is a summary of the pathology report (given by the referring surgeon) and perhaps the radiologic images to monitor the effect of the treatment. I don´t know if italian oncologists participate in "multidisciplinary team conferences", but that would be the place for them to actually see what cancerous tissue look like.
He says it but he is wrong. The only argument he presents is that the cancer is white. And no one has confronted him with the fact that a lot of stuff is white whitout being a fungus.
Yes - but perhaps he has experienced that the pathologists didn´t buy his fungus theory.
Just a question. Do you know if the various countries in the EU has standardized claims of specialization? Is there is a unified exam or group that certifies a physician's claim to specialization.
Thank you for sharing the report of actual damage caused by Simoncinis treatment.That probably is the case.
Thank you very much for educating me on this subject.
In Denmark we do. Briefly you obtain a specialist certification through employments at relevant departments - learning relevant procedures in combination with mandatory theoretical courses.
I think it has to do with hope. You see someone who presents (as an indisputable fact) what cancer is really all about, and how traditional medical science got it all completely wrong. If you on one hand is confronted with traditional medical science giving you a realistic estimation of outcome of therapy and on the other hand is presented with guaranteed cure with no side effects (backed up by a multitude of testimonials), it is tempting to accept it.
I agree with you there. I believe it is definitive answers that make these quacks so attractive. They have an answer and a fix all. Imagine, all disease is caused by fungus and here is a way to cure all your ills.
Sodium Bicarbonate is an alkali. I use it pretty often. When I treat cardiac arrest patients or patient with severe acidosis, I give bicarb. I've used it to alkalize patient's in some forms of poisonings to increase urinary excretion.
Those are very good reasons for not accepting their claims on right to freedom of speech. And subsequent allowing them to get of the hook when their treatments fail. In my view it is not enough that they post a disclaimer on their websites telling us that they are not giving medical advice.
Fortunately the histologic differentiation of a benign versus a malignant lesion is usually straight forward (provided adequacy of the biopsy). But you are right that there are malignant lesions that look deceptively benigne and vice versa.
You'd be surprised by the MRI guided radiotherapy machines nowadays...damn Radiation Oncologists get all the cool toys. One problem on modern cancer treatments is the extreme cost. Some of the new drugs are very effective...Gleevec is a miracle drug that has been remarkable in the treatment of several types of almost always fatal leukemias but the cost is hundred of thousands of US dollars per year. Some of the new very powerful radiotherapy devices are very effective but getting absurdly expensive to the point that only big cancer centers can afford it...so 10cent baking soda sounds like a magic cure.
That is true. And the surgeons know that of course. They have often schedueled definitive surgery before they have the biopsy report. On one occasion they had even begun surgery before I had the chance to look at the "preoperative" biopsy
Don´t let them. They are usually nice people, and some of us even have a "normal" sense of humor
I think trauma surgeons would have a much more stressful job. In the midst of panic they have to mobilize all of their skills in an instant. Pathologists usually have time to think before they act.
Remember what I told you about the friendliness of the pathologists
A few years ago it was successfully introduced in the treatment of a cancer type known as "Gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST).