The Fungal Theory

Julia...ok...since I just found out I have invasive cancer, I'll try it. My cancer is small so it might not work.

Impositive...I have a friend of my husband, who has had brain cancer for about 4 or 5 years. For the first 4 years he's treated it pretty much only with alternative medicine. He went home this past year, and his family encouraged him to do the whole nine yards, chemo and all. He didn't fair as much this past year, but is holding up. He's continuing the alternative medicine and diet. He sent me today something on bitter melon. Perhaps it has anti-fungal properties to it. http://www.naturalnews.com/028256_bitter_melon_brst_cancer.html



To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the effect of bitter melon extract on cancer cells," Dr. Ray stated. "Our result was encouraging. We have shown that bitter melon extract significantly induced death in breast cancer cells and decreased their growth and spread."



The research, published in the March 1 edition of Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, involved human breast cancer cells exposed to bitter melon extract in the lab. Dr. Ray cautioned that it is too early to jump to conclusions that the extract could help breast cancer patients -- but her findings are promising.



"Cancer prevention by the use of naturally occurring dietary substances is considered a practical approach to reduce the ever-increasing incidence of cancer. Studying a high risk breast cancer population where bitter melon is taken as a dietary product will be an important area of future research," Dr. Ray said in the press statement.



Dr. Ray and colleagues are currently conducting follow-up studies. They are looking at a number of different cancer cell lines in order to investigate how bitter melon halts cancer cell growth. They are also planning to test the vegetable extract in animals to see if it will delay or kill breast cancer cells. If that research goes well, clinical trials in human breast cancer patients could soon follow.



"Breast cancer is a major killer among women around the world, and in that perspective, results from this study are quite significant," Rajesh Agarwal, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado, Denver School of Pharmacy, and the Cancer Research associate editor for this study, commented in a media release. "This study may provide us with one more agent as an extract that could be used against breast cancer if additional studies hold true."



Bitter melon is widely grown in Asia, Africa and South America. Extracts of this vegetable are currently included in some dietary supplements in Western countries because bitter melon is known to contain healthful phytochemicals such as carotenoids, flavanoids and polyphenols, as well as vitamin C.

The Mitochondria



Inside each cell are mitochondria (pleural of mitochondrion). These mitochondria are where the energy of the cell is created in the form of a molecule called ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate). The chemical process by which ATP is made start with what is called "The Krebs Cycle" or the "Citric Acid Cycle." This cycle of chemical reactions leads to the creation of ATP.



But as a spin-off of the Krebs Cycle, the Electron Transport Chain (ETC), creates even more ATP molecules than the Krebs Cycle.



In a cancer cell, the Krebs Cycle is broken. Since the ETC is a spin-off of the Krebs Cycle, it is broken also. The result of breaking the Krebs Cycle is that the energy in the cell (i.e. the number of ATP molecules) drops dramatically.



The human cell is a very sophisticated living thing. When the Krebs Cycle is broken, the cell is generally able to fix the cycle, thus restoring the energy in the cell.



But with a cancer cell, the cell is not able to restore its Krebs Cycle. Instead the broken Krebs Cycle and broken ETC are maintained.



So what possibly could maintain the break in the Krebs Cycle and ETC? What could make it impossible for the cell to fix itself month after month and year after year.



The Chain of Events That Cause Cancer



Combining this question with the many discoveries which relate microbes to cancer cells, leads to the following explanation:



1) Due to a weakened cell membrane, which can be caused by a carcinogen or many other things, a microbe is able to enter inside a normal cell (as Dr. Young stated, the microbe is pleomorphic and this can help the microbe get inside the cell which is still normal at this point),



(Note: the microbe(s) can also get inside a cell during the cell division of a cancer cell. For example, when a cancer cell, which already contains microbes, divides, there will likely be microbes in both cells which result from the cell division.)



2) The microbe, once inside, intercepts the glucose entering the cell (most microbes eat glucose),



3) The microbe excretes "mycotoxins," dangerous hormones and perhaps a thick slime (mycotoxins are the normal excretions of microbes),



4) Because mycotoxins are very, very acidic, the inside of the cell becomes highly acidic, which is a characteristic of cancer cells (in fact the longer a cell is cancerous, generally the more acidic it becomes),



5) The cell's mitochondria (which convert glucose into energy) get very little glucose because the microbe has intercepted most of the glucose,



6) What the cell's mitochondria does get is lots of mycotoxins and other harmful garbage, which it cannot convert into energy,



7) The mitochondria's energy level (ATP provides the key energy of a cell, but ATP is created by the Krebs Cycle and ETC) plummets because it is living in a sea of filth, meaning the ATP energy drops,



8) Signals are sent to the insulin receptors and glucose receptors on the cell membranes to grab more glucose,



9) More glucose enters the cell (about 15 times to 17 times more), but most of the glucose is intercepted by the microbe (which may be multiplying) and the mitochondria are bathing in an increasingly large sea of mycotoxins, dangerous hormones and possibly slime. Technically, the glucose is normally converted into pyruvate and it is the pyruvate that enters the mitochondria, but without glucose there is less pyruvate.



10) Because there is a limit to how high the activity of these two types of receptors can become there is no way for the mitochondria (and thus the ATP) to get enough glucose/pyruvate and energy,



11) The cell is now officially cancerous because its energy level drops (the ATP energy levels can be compared to the steps of a ladder) and it is defined to be anaerobic.



In this process, two things happen. First, because of the microbe(s) the break in the Krebs Cycle and ETC are broken as long as the microbe(s) are inside the cell.



Second, each sick cancer cell contains very healthy microbes living inside!! Because the microbe(s) are healthy, and the cell is sick, it makes it very difficult to kill the microbe without killing the cell.

Impositive,

I stand corrected. This is actually the only valid study that I have seen on this thread. Note that this study was done on plants. This is the first sentence of the article:

A research team led by scientists at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI) at Virginia Tech has discovered a fundamental entry mechanism that allows dangerous fungal microbes to infect plants and cause disease.

Stating that a protein from fungas that entered an animal's cells wall and caused a fungal infection was able to penetrate the DNA of the host and transform the cell into a hybrid cell is shear nonscience.

This is written by Orac (the blogger who is a cancer surgeon and cancer researcher) who backs up every article he writes with proven research.  Read on:

But to Young, besides being unhealthy, "excess acid" can change one cell type to another:

Young wrote:

The human cell cannot tolerate low alkalinity and can never tolerate ANY acid condition. The cell begins its biological transformation becoming bacteria in the first stage; then yeast in the second stage; then mold in the 3rd stage of transformation until the anatomical elements of the organized cell (microzymas) are released to become part of some other organized cell.

Orac wrote:

This is germ theory denialism, plain and simple. Basically, it's regurgitated Bechamps. Well, actually, it's regurgitated Enderlein, who proposed that "endobionts" that live inside the cells can change form from the Primitive Stage (microbe), to the Middle Stage (bacteria), to the End Stage (fungus). Although it might have been understandable that scientists could have mistaken these forms for being the same, but that's what science is good at: Figuring out that they aren't the same organisms and that human cells do not turn into bacteria; bacteria do not turn into yeast; and yeast do not turn into mold. Such a thing may have seemed plausible 150 years ago, but not today. Yet Young, and other germ theory denialist quacks, try to tell you that if you just keep your body "alkaline enough," you are invulnerable to bacteria, which is not just a font of burning stupid, but a dangerous font of burning stupid.

Young is a perfect example of one aspect of quacks that distinguishes them from practitioners of science-based medicine. Science-based medicine recognizes the complexity of disease; it delves into that complexity, trying to make sense out of it and use that knowledge to develop better treatments for disease. Quacks choose to make sense of disease another way, and that way would be insulting to disease, if disease had feelings, in that they often tend to boil all disease down to one cause or a handful of tightly related causes. I've often wondered why. It's more than just the fact that they don't understand the science behind disease. After all, Young appears to understand acid-base science, but he only understands it at a very superficial level, demonstrating once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing--particularly to those reading his tripe.

In the end, my guess is that boiling down all cancer--or even all disease--servess at least one purpose, besides soaking the marks by giving quacks a patter that even the uneducated can understand. Humans crave explanations and control. If science can't give it to them, maybe pseudoscience can. The sense of control then comes from embracing the alt-med idea that you can control everything about your health, that you will be invincible if you only eat the right foods, take the right supplements, and do the right exercises. The flip side of that, of course, is that if you become seriously ill--for instance, with cancer--it's your fault for not doing these things.

Is it any wonder why I despise these quacks too much?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/04/compared_to_robert_o_young_andrew_weil_l.php

This is who orac is:

http://www.bcrfcure.org/action_0809grantees_gorski.html

Hi Jane,

You said, "Quacks--you mean those great folks who brought you Avastin!"

Once again, your comments are completely out of context and out of the blue.   The topic of this thread is "The Fungal Theory."  Do you have an opinion on the topic at hand?  

I've read the links provided by Black-Cat, and I can see how some would find "Orac's" writing style to be harsh, it seems to me that the information he presents is very evidence-based, as well as based on his own professional experience as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher.  Even if one doesn't care for his manner, I wonder if any of the "fungal theorists" here would care to comment on this part of the article...?

"Although it might have been understandable that scientists could have mistaken these forms for being the same, but that's what science is good at: Figuring out that they aren't the same organisms and that human cells do not turn into bacteria; bacteria do not turn into yeast; and yeast do not turn into mold. Such a thing may have seemed plausible 150 years ago, but not today."

I know some people will say that they've *been* providing evidence that this cancer-is-fungus theory is plausible, but so far, everything presented has been so marginal and speculatory that it  defies reason.  

Again, one could claim the moon is made of cheese, and likely even find some credible and authoritative research studies that happen to include both words "cheese" and "moon." It just doesn't follow that the moon is therefore proven to be made of cheese.  Nor is it reasonable to expect to get a lot of rational discussion or debate, unless you look to knowthecause or whale.to as your sources.  Yikes.  

Jane maybe I am missing something but what did your post mean?

Well said Jane,

If Swayze had taken CAMS then his death would probably have been blamed on them or at least people would say "they didn't work".  So why is no one getting angry at the oncologists who were unable to save him?   There is so much bias.

Can people please stop using the word quack which is just as derogatory and judgemental as the N word or any similar slur?  If someone is acting fraudulently then that is how it should be phrased.

Impositive,you can speak to Lance Armstrong about this and get back to me, or for that matter any women that has taken care of herself her entire life only to find out the she was stricken with breast cancer because she has the Brac1 or Brac 2 mutation. 

Black-cat, no one claims that cancer can be completely 100% eradicated from the face of the earth. It's been around since ancient times, including when people's diets and environments were much cleaner than today. Nowadays, the vast majority of people are too lazy to clean up their entire diet and lifestyle (they would rather pop a pill instead), so compliance is an issue that will prevent cancer from being eliminated through diet/lifestyle alone. BUT -- don't you think it's reasonable to expect that for the small population that is able to clean up their diet/lifestyle to the point that it's truly anti-cancer (i.e. not all the "junk food vegans" who think they're eating the way they should be), then the cancer rate should at least be as rare as it was 100 years ago? Personally, that's my goal... to make cancer as rare as it should be and always was historically until the last 100 years or so. Obviously the latest chemo isn't what made cancer so rare in the past -- why is it so bizarre for you to think that hmmm, food, exercise, lifestyle, environment must be at play here??

Crunchy said:

Personally, that's my goal... to make cancer as rare as it should be and always was historically until the last 100 years or so. Obviously the latest chemo isn't what made cancer so rare in the past -- why is it so bizarre for you to think that hmmm, food, exercise, lifestyle, environment must be at play here??

Age is the biggest risk factor in cancer....the average human's life span is much, much longer than it was 100 years ago, hence the higher incidence of cancer.    

One more suggestion..perhaps some of you should hop on over to the stage IV forum and present the fungal theory and diet, exercise, etc manifesto.  You want to see some angry women?  You're going to preach that they didn't live "pure enough" lives, thus now have stage IV?  

And it's sheer hubris to presume anything about Patrick Swayze's treatment plan or what was going through his mind while battling pancreatic cancer.  It's sheer hubris to claim that he was killed by conventional therapy.  Seems to me he lived alot longer than most do with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. 

Hubris killed Patrick Swayze? I thought it was Pancreatic Cancer. Who knew?