The Fungal Theory

1.0 out of 5 stars Sick and Tired of pseudoscience, October 6, 2003 By  Mrs A M Martin (Drongan, Scotland) - See all my reviews This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) Dr Roberts has a Ph.D. and D.Sc, reading his book I wonder in what field of science. The book endeavours to resurrect a nineteenth century of microbes and disease called the pleiomorphic theory -that microorganisms can spontaneously change their form and that microorganisms are a product not the cause of specific diseases. Ignoring 100 years of scientific evidence that the teory is wrong; he claims that a conspiracy - what else - of scientists starting with Pasteur buried the theory for their own ends. He claims that disease is caused solely by an imbalance of acidity in the body which causes mysterious elementary bodies -unobserved in 60 years of electron microscopy of the cell- to start changing form and evolving first into viruses then bacteria then fungi. Instead of a virus causing the common cold the common cold causes the virus! Amongst other disease conditions the fungi play a major role in the development of cancer. Perhaps unsuprisingly - Dr Roberts's own Inner Light Institute will sell you various curative preparations whose effectiveness is vouched for by unsolicited testimonials cited at length in the book!
The book is illustrated by many photographs which are either meaningless without information as to how they were produced or as with his photographs of 'yeast' in blood simply do not show what they claim to.
This book would harmless tosh but for the fact that its persuasive but nonsensical pseudoscience could lead vulnerable people to reject sound medical treatment for cancer or to leave themselves exposed to infectious disease by following Dr. Roberts's advice to reject immunisation

By  C. Mullin (France) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)    This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) Aimed at the American market, this book at times resembles a sponsored rant. Buyer beware, if you don't like your facts sugar coated and dumbed down, you will be frustrated by this book; useful details, (like how to actually proceed with the programme) are present but well concealed in acres of anecdotal rubbish. Ahh, and then there's chapter 4- the testimonials-God may bless Dr Young (according to his success cases), but God help us that have to read such emotive drivel. I would not recommend buying this book- choose another title if you want to know about the acid alkaline diet

1.0 out of 5 stars WHERE did he go to school?, July 23, 2005 By  Mountain Mama "mountainchick" (Colorado) - See all my reviews This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) He claims to be a doctor and names degrees, but not schools. I e-mailed his website and asked them where he went to school. They didn't give me a straight answer, but told me to do a "biographical search". Why would I need to do that? Why bother to answer me if they couldn't just name a school? I still couldn't find his alma mater.

He got his "degree" from an online course, I'm now told.

I've seen his videos - he doesn't come across as being very bright. I was surprised, until I found out that he isn't really, truly a doctor the way he would have us believe.

I'm no doctor myself, but I know the human body is made up of various channels and conduits and systems. Some are supposed to be slightly alkaline; others slightly acidic. It's a delicate balance and if you really want to learn more about it, you might try a legitimate source like Dr. Susan Lark or Dr. Andrew Weil. Acid is not "bad"; what would we do without amino acids (proteins), for instance, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or deoxy-ribonucleic acid (DNA)???

I'm no dummy, either, but I fell for this book until I found out more about the man. He is not to be trusted. And I wouldn't be saying this if I couldn't stand behind my statement 100%

1.0 out of 5 stars Researcher? Where are your papers?, February 12, 2002 By A Customer
This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) After several friends recommended the book, I picked it up. To keep it short: If Young has "years and years of research" to his credit, why are there no peer-reviewed papers by him on this subject? This is more pseudo-science, written in that Oprah-testimonial style. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not Anthony Robbins endorsements and man on the street testimonials

What a Crock of..., March 10, 2000 By A Customer
This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) I was very, very disappointed in this book, and in the seemingly intelligent people, including Tony Robbins, who recommended it. I don't know where Dr. Young got his degree, but his ideas are completely unscientific, something out of pre-20th century proto-science. This book apparently appeals to those who (a) flunked their high school biology classes and didn't make it quite as far as college, or (b) have a strong and paranoid need to believe everything ever discovered by the scientific "establishment" is totally mistaken, including all genetic research done in the past century.

I can't recommend this book at all, a waste of money and time. Will only appeal to the extremely gullible or undereducated Tony Robbins cultists. Oh, to be fair, there are a few recipes that look like they may be good, if you have vegetarian leanings

Is Acid the Cause of Your Problems?, February 28, 2006 By  S. Hochman (Boca Raton, FL United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)    This review is from: Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain (Paperback) I have read this book and I do not agree with it. Certainly eating vegetables is a good way to go and will help you lose weight- no doubt about it!
However, the author cites acid as the cause of all of our ills and diseases. Let us take a good look at that. Ascorbic Acid, you know Vitamin C, which is said to be the closest thing to cure the common cold. Guess what that is an acid.
Linaus Pauling, a real doctor, not what that got his degree online at some school that he can not reveal, used to take up to 15,000 mgs a day of ascorbic acid. Did it kill him, no he lived into his nineties, over twenty years longer than the average man. So much for acid being bad.
And the stomach what is that composed of? HCL, Hydrochloric acid, and if it did not, you would not be able to digest your food. Also that acid, destroys bad bacteria, parasites and yeast.
In addition to this there are other acids which we need to survive on, such as Amino Acids, which are in every protein you eat. Also I am sure you heard of Essential Fatty Acids, Omega 3's. Scientists will tell you they are some of the best things to eat, and are essential to the body.
The bottom line is the authors credentials are dubious at best, and he should have stuck to what is true in his book. That is that vegetables are the best thing for you and will help you lose weight and get healthier

!

Barry,

I will send you a personal message.  Debating the fungal issue on this thread would be like beating a dead horse.  I only have so much energy.   Everbody buying the fungal theory seems to not have a foundation of the basic life sciences. That is why it is really really really easy to get duped by scam artists like Robert Young and his ilk  This is also why I took the time to find fact based  life science books used as textbooks by undergrad college students.   .

If you don't have time to take these courses buy the textbooks. Learn fact based science and  get some good critical thinking skills.   I listed 2 good critical thinking textbooks.  The books I suggest buying are:  intro to microbiology, human physiology, and human anatomy. You may want to start with an intro to biology. 

I really would suggest taking the courses. One course a semester. 2 nights a week.This route is not easy and it takes time and  a great deal of work.   The easy route is reading fluff anecdotal books with sciency words and ideas thrown in just to look like the author knows what they are talking about.  They all have the ulterior motive of getting into your pocketbook.

The idea that cancer is a fungas is not thinking outside the box.  It's taking cancer and putting it into a one size fits all box. It's narrow minded thinking is what it is.

It really ticks me off to read about people with serious illness that have died because they have been conned by a snake oil saleman.   I know of two people that claimed they had the cancer cure and  have put cancer victims through hell and ended up dying of cancer themselves. Maybe karma does exist.

We all have one common denominator here and that is breast cancer. All breast cancer patients  have a right to choose whether to get treatment or not.  I have no problem if a women who is fully educated and informed on the consequences of having treatment or not having treatment makes a decision.   I have a huge problem seeing women turning down treatment because they bought a con hook, line and sinker. 

Knowledge is power.

Robert Young is not a microbiologist. He has no education or credentials what so ever.  He received his credentials from a bogus internet school that has been shut down. He cannot even produce a high school diploma. He claims he has an undergrad degree in microbiology but cannot produce any proof of this and yes he has been challenged to do this ad nauseum. Even if he had an undergrad degree in microbiology(as he claims)  that would not make him a microbiologist.   He would not even qualify to teach introduction to microbiology at a junior college. Yet he is curing cancer and he calls himself a doctor.  Young has been prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.

 Anybody that understands even the basics of human physiology and biology gets a really bad case of the giggles when they read his whacked out theories. He just claimed another victim. She paid with her life.   I hope this time there is enough evidence to put him away for a long time and not just a slap on the wrist for practicing medicine without a license.   Impositive, I hope you are not the next Kim Tinkham.   She was stage 3 and had a shot at being saved with a mastectomy, chemo and rads but guess what? Young used his hocus pocus on her and declared her cancer free.  He posted numerous videos of himself and Kim. Kim told the world how he saved her life by getting her to alkanalize her body and free herself of fungas.  Western medicine wanted to take her breast but not Robert Young. He gave her green drinks and other woo. I think there was a machine with a flashing LED light at some point. To rid her body of the acids or something of that sort.   He performed one of his bogus live blood analysis tests on her by doing a finger stick and declared her cancer free.  She stated that the tumor was still there but Young told her that the cancer was gone and the tumor was her badge of courage.   She even wrote a book on the experience but the publisher pulled out for legal reasons.   Kim died the same day Elizabeth Edwards died but most people never heard of her.  

Robert Young claimed she went off his therapy and that's why she died.  He's laughing all the way to the bank.  How much money did he scam her out of?

Young is asking for money on his site for a bogus legal defense fund.  He really is beneath contempt.

 I have to walk away from my desk before I write something I really regret.  I've wasted my time here.

http://cancerangel.com/   She left behind a husband and son.

Here's an informative article on Robert Young:

http://www.skepdic.com/robertoyoung.html

Thanks for the informative book references Black-cat.  I'm tempted to read a few but have other things I should be doing.  I've saved them in my wish list anyway and I might see what's in my library.

Some of the other links really make me groan.   Their science may be right but the sarcasm, name-calling and arrogance are so awful.  Robert Young seems just as arrogant and I wonder why he's not locked up if he's treating patients illegally and advising them against mainstream treatment.  I'm not a big fan of chemo and rads but surgery is definitely a proven treatment for early BC, surely no-one can argue with that? 

So many try to ram logic and facts down people's throats in such a self righteous or rude way yet they know little about psychology or they'd realise they are just alienating the very people they say they want to influence.  Of course many people in our society are that way and I hope one day people will learn that respect and humility works better for all parties.

My eldest son is an active skeptic who is very respectful and has many friends he's met while debating their opposing views.  All the same I occasionally catch him saying disrespectful things and generalising about his opposition and I remind him what is more important than being 'right'.

You haven't wasted your time here.  As long as you keep to the facts and are respectful you will win people's respect.   It's so much easier to influence friends than enemies, don't you think?.

(Edited to remove the word 'why' in the wrong place.)

That doesn't say what I meant.  It's late and I'm over-tired.  I meant anyone contradicting the fungal theory is not thought of as negative, a troll etc. including Black-cat.

digger, I find it curious that you describe anyone who responds with a point of view differring from 'credible, factual scientific studies' is 'batting' it away, or that blackcat was 'dragged' back into this discussion.  Blackcat has literally tens of thousands of posts to choose from, and this is where most of them appear.  Blackcat's posts clearly rely heavily on writing of Steven Barrett at quackwatch, or blogs or books reviews of similar persuasions.  I am certainly one of the people who very occasionally post on this thread who took the minimal science requirements in school.  I don't pretend otherwise.  Maybe some books on science will trickle up to the top someday, but I sure won't be taking my reading suggestions from blackcat.  Steven Barrett's words are toxic.  The only reason I looked at them today was to discern where blackcat was getting her information. 

editing to add a ps
impositive, we were posting at the same time with very similar thoughts. lol 

I dont know about you, but when I read a book, a blog, or an article to gather information on a subject esp. one so dire as how to treat my cancer, the first thing I do is research the author.  If his background information is sketchy at best; and he cannot submit proof to me that he is an expert in his field, I look elsewhere.

If he passes the above background check, I look for his motives. On the subject of cancer:

1) What is his personal motive on writing  this article,blog or book? What is he trying to accomplise? Is he trying to inform and educate me so that I can make better decisions on my health or is he out to scam me for the sole purpose of making money off of me.

A BIG, BIG, BIG red flag is if he is trying to sell me something such as a miracle cure, supplements, books, ect.

2) What legitable studies or research can he back up his words with? Can he prove to me what he is saying? If he has done his own studies, where did he get his funding?  Where can I and everyone else see these studies so we can assertain if they were indeed non biased and peer reviewed.

3) Has he published in The New England Journal of Medicine Or JAMA ? And do his peers with the same expertise respect him, especially the ones with dissenting opinions?

4) What is he doing with his life?  Is working in the cancer field or is he a loose cannon out doing his own thing? If he is employeed in the cancer field; what hospital or university is it under?  Is it in Mexico or is it a legitimate accredited  hospital in the states?   What is his job title at this institution?   I would rather get my information from a cancer specialist than a lab tech.

5)  What are his ethics?   Does this person have a criminal background?  Has he made a geographic from from one state to another due to the law "harrassing him"  Has he been arrested before and if so for what? Practicing medicine without a license is another BIG BIG BIG red flag.

Digger,  like Shelia said, it has nothing to do with you contradicting or holding a different opinion that causes people to think you are negative or a troll. motheroffoursons contradicted what's on these threads, as well as blackcat, and a few others. The difference is they didn't get into personal attacks. They also contributed to the discussion rather than trying to discredit the person. Yes, their intent was to disincredit the informaton, not the poster by belittling them. Dicussions or debates happen when information is gather and put out there back and forth. I'm learning a lot from both sides. However, I have a hard time respecting those who attempt to persuade people through bullying or throwing needless stones. I am more likely to listen to someone who is reasonable, logical, and caring.

I also think that those coming to this thread will get a good representation of both sides of the arugument. I wouldn't worry about anyone being persuaded one way or another. Anyone who has the patience to read through this thread has to have a good sense of humor and I'm sure a good mind to understand the different points of views presented.

Impositive has not initiated attacks. She has been pushed in a corner and in her defense she has defended her theory and treatment plan. She has told me if I chose chemo or whatever she would support me all the way. She is not one to push anyone into her choices or make fun of them. We all believe very strongly in what we consider is true. We all feel we have proof for what we consider as truth. Maybe we are all somewhat blindsided. Who has a corner on what is absolutely true. Years down the road we all maybe eating humble pie. Meanwhile, I'm remaining open, and learn as much as I can from all the wonderful bc sisters I've come to appreciate here on this thread and others.

I haven't read guidelines on this thread....???  I would hope the standard "respect" guideline would hold up on this thread and all threads on bco.

Who is to say had Kim Tinkham chosen a different route, she would be here today and those who are blogging to that effect are showing their insolent arrogance in doing so (IMO).

I am to say that if Kim Tinkham had chosen a different route (conventional evidence-based research driven chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery), she would have a BETTER chance of being here today.  That is not arrogant, it is just the facts. "Dr." Young's regimen was a death sentence.

What credible, factual, scientific studies have you pointed to? I keep asking for someone to point me to those. Blogs, opinions and incomplete microbiology manuals dont count. It's easy for people to bounce around and post inflammatory remarks but it's quite a different story when they themselves are asked for scientific studies to back them up. Arrogant ignorance indeed!!!  

 I can point to thousands of research studies on pubmed.gov where surgery, radiation, and chemo help to prolong the lives of those of us with breast cancer.  These are authored by people with extensive training in medicine and statistics, and published in journals after having been reviewed by MORE people with extensive training in medicine and statistics.

Where are your research studies? The burden of proof that a therapy works is on the one touting it, not the other way around.  It's impossible to prove a negative.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114274

J Nat Prod. 2010 Dec 27;73(12):2053-6. Epub 2010 Nov 29.
Mode of action of epoxyphomalins A and B and characterization of related metabolites from the marine-derived fungus Paraconiothyrium sp.

Mohamed IE, Kehraus S, Krick A, König GM, Kelter G, Maier A, Fiebig HH, Kalesse M, Malek NP, Gross H.

Department of Botany, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan.
Abstract

Epoxyphomalins A (1) and B (2) are highly potent cytotoxic fungal metabolites. During the course of purifying larger quantities of 1 and 2 from Paraconiothyrium sp. fermentation extracts, three new epoxyphomalins (3-5) were isolated and characterized, showing modifications to the oxidation pattern of the cyclohexene moiety or of C-9 of the decalin system. IC(50) values for cytotoxicity against a panel of 36 human tumor cell lines were determined for all new compounds. Compound 4 was found to be cytotoxic particularly toward prostate PC3M (IC(50) = 0.72 μM) and bladder BXF 1218 L (IC(50) = 1.43 μM) cancer cell lines. In addition, inhibition of chymotrypsin-, caspase-, and trypsin-like activity of purified 20S proteasomes was determined for epoxyphomalins A (1) and B (2). The results indicate that compounds 1 and 2 exert their cytotoxic effect through potent inhibition of the 20S proteasome.

PMID: 21114274 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), formerly the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), is a United States government agency dedicated to exploring complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science, training complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) researchers, and disseminating authoritative information to the public and professionals.

The NCCAM funds research into complementary and alternative medicine, including support for clinical trials of CAM techniques.

The four primary areas of focus are:

• Research - support clinical and basic science research projects in CAM by awarding grants across the country and around the world; we also design, study, and analyze clinical and laboratory-based studies on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland.
• Research training and career development - award grants that provide training and career development opportunities for predoctoral, postdoctoral, and career researchers.
• Outreach - sponsor conferences, educational programs, and exhibits; operate an information clearinghouse to answer inquiries and requests for information; provide a Web site and printed publications; and hold town meetings at selected locations in the United States.
• Integration - integrate scientifically proven CAM practices into conventional medicine by announcing published research results; studying ways to integrate evidence-based CAM practices into conventional medical practice; and supporting programs to develop models for incorporating CAM into the curriculum of medical, dental, and nursing schools.

The forms of medical systems covered include:^[3]

• Whole medical systems such as homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and ayurveda.
• Mind-body medicine such as meditation, prayer, mental healing, art therapy, music therapy, and dance therapy.
• Biologically based practices such as dietary supplements, herbal supplements, and other scientifically unproven therapies such as shark cartilage.
• Manipulative and Body-Based Practices such as spinal manipulation (both chiropractic and osteopathic) and massage.
• Energy therapies such as qi gong, reiki, therapeutic touch, and electromagnetic therapy

The NCCAM budget for 2005 was $123 million. For fiscal year 2009 (ending September 30, 2009), it was $122 million.^[4]

Research in alternative medicine is done elsewhere at NIH, notably in the National Cancer Institute. The NIH's Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine had the same budget as NCCAM, $122 million, for fiscal year 2009. Other parts of NIH had an additional $50 million for FY 2009; NIH's total budget was about $29 billion.^[4]

Black-cat, the NCCAM is a great start, it's the stringency of requirements and bias of research grants that slows everything down in both alt and mainstream research. The main influence for people to abandon conventional treatments is the urgency of approaching death.  When our doctors run out of options there is nothing else left and sometimes we don't want to wait till the cancer is that advanced before taking our health into our own hands.

I don't have the answers, but all I ask is for people to have the right to investigate options, and free speech to discuss their findings without the rudeness and outrage that may endanger people's lives if they rebel against that rude offensive behaviour.  Only a small proportion of people have critical thinking skills and it's unreasonable to get mad or rude when people are trying their best to find answers to their potentially fatal illness but sometimes using logical fallacies to reach their conclusions. 

If this thread is forced onto a private site then there won't be a chance for the conventional view to be heard and then maybe someone will really refuse surgery and end up like Kim Tinkham.  I welcome the voices of reason when they are kind and helpful and note similar responses from others.

I applaud you for mostly holding back from expressing your anger in counter-productive ways and sticking mostly to facts and research.

To those who are insulting and twisting words, all I ask is common respect, kindness, compassion and a little humility.  Please allow this discussion to continue on an open forum where incorrect conclusions can be respectfully challenged without driving it underground. Is that too much to ask?

Getting back to the fungal theory I would like to repost MJL's study findings that shows fungas cures cancer. This study was done in your neck of the woods, Sheila.

MJLToday wrote:

NEWSFLASH:  FUNGUS CURES CANCER

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21262985 ycologia. 2011 Jan 24. [Epub ahead of print]

Ethanolic and aqueous extracts derived from Australian fungi inhibit cancer cell growth in vitro.

Beattie KD, Ulrich R, Grice ID, Uddin SJ, Blake T, Wood K, Steele J, Iu F, May TW, Tiralongo E.

Griffith University, School of Pharmacy & Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research, Gold Coast, QLD.
Abstract

Fifteen Australian macrofungi were investigated for cytotoxic activity. Ethanol, cold and hot water extracts of each species were screened for cytotoxic activity against normal mouse fibroblast cells (NIH/3T3), healthy human epithelial kidney cells (HEK-293) and four cancer cell lines; gastric adenocarcinoma cells (AGS), two mammary gland adenocarcinoma cells (MDA-MB-231, MCF7) and colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (HT-29) using a validated MTT assay. Most extracts derived from Omphalotus nidiformis, Cordyceps cranstounii and Cordyceps gunnii demonstrated significant cytotoxic activity towards a variety of cancer cell lines. In contrast, only some extracts from Coprinus comatus, Cordyceps hawkesii, Hypholoma fasciculare, Lepista nuda, Leratiomyces ceres and Ophiocordyceps robertsii displayed significant cytotoxic activity which was usually selective for only one or two cancer cell lines tested. The least cytotoxic species evaluated in this study were Agaricus bitorquis, Coprinopsis atrametaria, Psathyrella asperospora, Russula clelandii, Tricholoma sp. AU2 and Xerula mundroola.

PMID: 21262985 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]