The Fungal Theory

Interesting read...lack of oxogen, then fermination (could be a type of fungi)

Written by Dr. Robert Rowan, MD (exerts)

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Anti-Glycolytic-Therapy-Proved-to-be-Effective-Against-Tumors-11802-3/

 Dr. Warburg was a brilliant German scientist who found the common denominator of all cancers. It's a very simple thread that connects every cancer - and exposes cancer's weakness. His meticulous research won him the Nobel Prize in 1931. And subsequent groundbreaking work earned him a second Nobel Prize offer in 1944. Unfortunately, the Nazis wouldn't let him receive it.

Warburg studied cancer in real time. That means he studied cells as they transformed from normal to cancer as it was happening. His incredible paper was called "The Metabolism of Carcinoma Cells." It was published in America in the Journal of Cancer Research in 1925.

The connection he discovered was a common metabolic link in all cancers. And it was not pesticides, preservatives, radiation, chemicals, poisons, or any other carcinogen. Wait a minute! Weren't we taught to believe that carcinogens damage DNA and cause cancer by genetic injury? It's true all of these are factors. But they all lead to only one simple bottom line - they all prevent your cells from getting or using oxygen.

Warburg's story is all about oxygen. You know that I, too, love to use oxygen to treat disease. It's the stuff of life. Consume more oxygen and live longer. Consume less and your life will be shortened with more chronic degeneration. Just what kind of degeneration? Not just circulatory diseases and infections, but cancer!

He also found that cancerous tumors produced far more lactic acid than benign tumors. Lactic acid is what cells produce when they burn sugar without enough oxygen. It's also what yeast produces when it ferments. Warburg argued that, malignant cancer cells are essentially cells that are fermenting. As the degree of fermentation increases, so does the degree of malignancy.

Warburg emphasized that you can't make a cell ferment unless a LACK OF OXYGEN is involved. In 1955, two American scientists, R.A. Malmgren and C.C. Flanigan, confirmed Warburg's findings. They found that oxygen deficiency is ALWAYS present when cancer develops.

"Why do cells lose oxygen in the first place?" I mentioned earlier that poisons, preservatives, radiation, or other carcinogens all affect a cell's ability to use oxygen. But there's something far more common that has the same impact - glucose.

Quote from above:

"Warburg said that glucose brings a cell's ability to use oxygen to a standstill. So if you flood your cells with glucose, your cells won't get the oxygen they need to function correctly. That will begin fermentation, which leads to cancer. This is why I repeatedly call for you to avoid all refined foods. That's the best way to stop the flood of glucose into your cells."

He said no such thing.  He knew just as well as scientists today that glucose metabolism is essential to both healthy and cancer cells.  His observation was that cancer cells tend to have a higher rate of anerobic glucose metabolism than healthy cells.  He did not condemn glucose, the only source of energy to cells.  I repeat, both cancerous and normal cells die in the absence of glucose.  It is their food and energy source.

Its also  incorrect that he studied cancer cells development in real time -meaning that he studied them as they transformed from normal cells to cancerous cells.  Absolute BS.  He studied tissue slices in the laboratory and observed their respiratory and fermentation rates.  He compared the respiration rates of normal tissue slices to those from various cancerous tumours.  The author of that article is full of nonsense and misunderstandings of his experiments, methods and observations. 

Warburgs observations remain valid and respected to this date.  His hypothesis, (something entirely different from his observation ), that glycolysis by fermentation is the cause of cancer has never been accepted, and he never got a Nobel prize for that hypothesis.

I need to backtrack here a bit with an edit / addition after a good night's sleep.  None of Warburg's accepted or prize winning work made the point that oxygen deprivation or anaerobic glycolysis (fermenation) was the cause of cancer.  Today its simply accepted that fermentation is a feature of cancer cells, and not the cause of their uncontrolled proliferation.

 You make an interesting point about the parallels to fungi, in particular yeasts.  I hope someone continues to explore this parallel and see if there is a connection.

Only intellectual dwarves would mock unfamiliar ideas/theories they haven't explored yet.

It would be one thing if the Cancer Industry had the cure... but it doesn't. Until then, it's absurd to dismiss theories that don't happen to fit tidily into one's preconceived notion of what "sounds" scientific.

Here's an example of something similar that's outside the cancer realm. I just got back from lunch with a friend who has had two major cases of kidney stones. Repeated courses of medicine and other treatment from her doctors did absolutely nothing.

So, she found on the Internet (*gasp* no, not the Internet!!) a remedy that involved -- of all things -- asparagus and Coca-Cola.

As my friend was telling me this, I was thinking, "Mmmkay... that's pretty much the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard..." but I politely listened.

Well, this outrageous-sounding remedy helped her pass the kidney stone within less than 24 hours. It worked the first time (two years ago), and now that she was pregnant again, she decided to try it again -- because her doctor told her this time she was going to have to have immediate surgery or her kidney was going to fail. The surgery would to be under general anesthesia which would be risky to her unborn baby.

So, she tried the remedy again... and it worked... she passed a 10mm kidney stone.

As it turns out, there is a sound scientific reason why the bizarre combination softens the stone and allows it to pass.

If someone went by how kooky it sounded, and looked up an article on Quackwatch that ridiculed it, they'd smugly dismiss it and take the potent drugs and invasive surgery, and maybe that would be fine for them.

But for those of us with the intellectual inquisitivity to look into new theories -- even ones initially called kooky or quacky by the medical industry -- to see if just maybe there is sound science behind it, we can benefit greatly... and will be saying "I told ya so" in 10, 20 years when the medical industry finally catches up and declares to the world that yes, there is sound science behind it.

I'm thinking the intellectual dwarf is one who does not realize that a severe lack of fundamental knowledge of a particular subject opens one up to every quack theory on the planet. One does not even know enough to know what they don't know.

Without a good basis in theoretical AND practical physics, the Warp drive abilities in Star Trek seem perfectly plausible.Without any medical education, or solid college level coursework in biology, biochemistry, etc., the quack theories so popular on this forum seem plausible too.

Poo is still poo.

Impositive, It's been over a year when I first brought up Simoncini. It caused quite a stir on that thread. I felt at time I would be linched for defending him. I gave up that fight a while back...until my recent bout with Candida. My recent study in search for a cure from my "Mystery Dx" brought me to the conclusions I now have. Only after treating the bacteria infection, and then treating Candida did I find healing.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof .  . . . Christopher Higgens

There are a few people on this thread who prefer to throw stones rather than have a intelligent discussion. Impositive put forth a fungal theory for discussion. I find that people who find their only defense is to "put down" other opinions, name calling or mocking statements tell me a lot about their maturity and intelligence. I'm sure these people don't have their P.H.D.'S, or won a Nobel Peace Prize. They are common folk who find nothing else to do than to bully people who have different opinions. If you don't agree with the opinions or what is said on this thread go elsewhere. Meanwhile I'm listening to those who have positive imput or questions that make for good discussion.  

The interactions and displacements of various microorganisms is fascinating.  Penicillin is an antibiotic derived from a fungus.  It prevents the reproduction of certain types of bacteria.  On the other hand, some bacteria, such as acidophilus bacteria, create an acidic environment that can preclude yeasts, a type of fungus.  I remember being taught that fungii are a strange creature in classification, somewhat of a tossup between a plant and an animal.  We can't forget that many chemotherapy drugs work by intering with cell division, the process of mitosis.  So do many antibiotics.  As with the chemo drugs, the art is in finding one that only interferes with the undesirable cell division.  It's not suprising that taxol, an antimitotic drug, also interferes with fungii.  A common element between the two is cell division.

Ladies & Timothy, I've been following this thread with interest, and it's gotten me thinking this morning about the latest wave of immune building supplements like the one I use (Thorne Myco-Immune) that are derived entirely from mushroom extracts.  These are based on research that compounds in Shitake, Reishi, Maitake and other mushrooms prevent cancer by boosting our immune function.  I'm wondering if those of you who have read extensively about "The Fungal Theory" can see any connection or explanation as to why some fungi are being touted as immune builders.  Does this in anyway tie into the fungal theory, or is there anything about the fungal theory that would explain this?  It just seems like such an odd coincidence.    Deanna

This is all very interesting but I haven't read anything that would lead me to believe that cancer is a fungus. Furthermore, even if cancer and a fungal infection are both present you can't imply that a causal relationship exists between them. Add the immune system and then you have a chicken and egg situation. Which came first, the cancer and/or fungal infection or the suppressed immune system? What if there are other unknown factors?

It's one thing for science to prove a theory, it's another thing entirely to simply believe that science will eventually prove it. People are making life and death decisions about their treatment options so I agree 100% that rational discussion has to take place. Those who come to this board looking for information deserve to hear from all sides.

Science may not have offered up "the cure" yet but that's not a valid argument against it. Keep in mind that many people are still being cured every day. What science might be telling us is that we are going to end up with different cures for different cancers, not because science has failed but because the single cure may not be possible.

That's one the reasons a diet rich in vegitables is so good for us. They have those compounds that help fight bacteria, fungi, etc. Carrots for example have farcarinol. That's how they survive growing underground, where lots of fungi and insects reside. I posted a report earlier here about this agent and how it was shown to cut the tumors in rats by one third.

Now that's intriguing... for lunch today I wanted to eat some raw organic beets, but first did a search in case they need to be cooked in order to destroy any harmful substances or anything.

I found articles about how raw beets are outstanding at fighting cancer; in fact one site claimed they're almost too good at fighting cancer, in that if you eat too many at once, the attack of the cancerous cells creates a strain on the liver which can't eliminate them fast enough. (Or something. I didn't have time to research the scientific literature on it, but plan to.)

Of course, beets, being a root vegetable, would have similar properties as carrots, so what you said makes sense.