The Fungal Theory

digger, Your posts are so filled with contemptuous sarcasm.  I cant imagine going through life that way.

I just want clarification, are you saying that it's not a fact that chemo and rads have been shown to destroy our immune systems or to cause cancer and that "fact" only exists in my world?

Sheila, once again, you are right. I will absolutely remove those names from my original post if that is what is bringing people to react so.  I'm not so sure it will matter but I'm all for it if it does. 

Bluedahlia, of course I'm scared, if I weren't there would definitely be something wrong. Fear is what prompted my search but fear is no longer what drives me.  My search started because I couldn't accept what conventional medicine had to offer me.  My Onc was assigning me the same protocol as a stage IV patient, I'm stage I.  He said basically because of my age and the fact that I could withstand chemo, let's throw everything at it.  I asked for research and studies statistics and many other questions, like what are my chances if I take rads with no chemo or mx with chemo, lumpectomy and rads or nothing at all....I went home armed with this information and began to study and try to determine how I was going to attack this.  I even posted early on with questions about mastectomy (because I was scared).   The studies were so conflicting and sometimes I learned, even skewed, that I felt I couldn't rely on them to predict my outcome.  My Onc kept saying "five year survival".  Five years?  I want to make it past five years so I asked what what are my chances past that?  Well, that's pretty much all he knew because most studies dont go beyond that.  Women who have had chemo, rads, etc., who have recurrance past 5 years are still considered cured by most studies. Others have told me to listen to the "cancer experts" but if you dont know what causes cancer or what cures it, you are not an "expert" in my book.  I had a lumpectomy because I wanted the tumor out so I could focus on repairing my body and trying to figure out what got me here in the first place. (Something else the "experts" dont know.)  Conventional treatment is basically hit and miss.  That just wasn't good enough for me.  I'm not saying my thinking is the only way to go and that everyone should feel the way I do. Treatment is a very personal decision. 

That is my explanation as to why I turned away from chemo, rads, and mx. It may not be right for everyone but I wish everyone would respect my choice.  Posts like yours wont change the my thought process but I think you knew that when you posted it.

I appreciate your opinion bluedahlia, even though it differs from mine.

Hi, Timothy, good to see you here again.  I have to agree with thenewme for once, that is a good question.  I guess I should be the one to attempt to answer.  This wont be a simple endeavor so bear with me.

For those attacking me....THIS IS A THEORY, not my theory but one I am attempting to explain.  It has not been proven.  There are reputable studies and links I have posted here on this thread that support the theory but do not prove it. 

The theory that fungus causes cancer or itself is cancer has been hypothesized by many.  Some earlier researchers may simply have said there is a "microbial" link because their studies only recognized an "unidentifiable organism" in tumors.  Throughout the centuries, many doctors and researchers have linked cancer to a microbe.  For time's sake, I will only mention a few here.  One doctor I've mentioned in a prior post is Dr Thomas Hodgkins (pathologist), from the early 1800s. (The same for whom Hodgkins cancers were named)  According to the book Microbe Hunters, Paul DeKruif. 1926, Dr Hodgkins believed, based on his research, that cancer tumors were parasitic cysts.  Johannes Mueller, physiologist, also of the 19th century, microscopically discovered "tailed bodies" of cancer cells that were described as medullary fungus.  He believed that tubercles and cancer cells were germs from the outside that had made their way into the body.  (According to Neoplastic disease: a treatise on tumors, 3rd ed., J. Ewing, 1928)  Today according to the National Tuberculosis Center, tuberculosis is a disease causes by bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis.  Anyone reading this thread enough knows what "myco" is. 

As I said there were many others who were linking the two and by the end of the 19th century, the consensus seemed to lean toward cancer being a microbe.  However, by the beginning of the 20th century John D Rockefeller entered the cancer research field and created the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.  Knowing the American Medical Association  was suffering financially, the board of directors came up with a plan to organize medicine.  The plan included the endowment of specific medical schools which met their criteria and grants for accredited medical degrees.  While improving accreditation in general, their financial power began to dictate to med schools and research labs the standards for acceptable care.  The medical chemical industry was basically born (and profit).  It seems focus was then turned to creating chemicals to eradicate this "mysterious" disease instead of searching for its cause.

During the 20th century, others continued to link cancer to microbes and pleomorphic forms.  They were medical doctors, microbiologists, cellular biologists, pathologists, dentists, veterinary scientists and plant pathologists.  Dr TJ Glover, Dr John Nuzum, Dr Michael Scott, Dr Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, Dr Eleanor Alexander Jackson, Irene Diller, Cellular biologist with the Institute of Cancer Research, Drs Krough, Hald and Holmstrup published findings linking oral cancer to C albicans (1987, journal Carcinogenisis), Dr Milton White, Dr Alan Cantwell, Dr Mark Bielski publishes info correlating C albicans to leukemia. (1997)  The list goes on. 

I think this information is suppressed by way of failure to fund such research, proclamations from people of importance in cancer medicine to trivialize or negate research results and ommisions of this information from medical teachings.  We have established that fungi isn't taught to any extent in med schools and more recently a book suggested by another on this thread to teach us about microbiology only lists two pages out of 269 on fungi and antifungals.  The rest of the book is about bacteria and virus. 

We have talked about the fact that cancer cells and fungi share vital characteristics.  Based on this fact and the research that's been done, it may be more than just a coincidence and that's what needs to be studied.  The implication is we may be confusing fungal cells or human cells that are infected with fungi, for "cancer."  Mycologists say this confusion can and does take place when these cells are viewed under a microscope, especially if a fungal infection is never considered to be the problem.  I have posted a couple of news article here where this has indeed happened to people.  A nurse was diagnosed with leukemia. After treatment for "cancer", it was discovered that she had a fungal infection instead. If we never even consider the presence or possibility of fungi, we could be led down the path of "cancer" treatment such as mx, chemo, etc., having completely missed the opportunity to follow an antifungal treatment plan for your fungal infection.  Even worse, by way of the cancer treatment's immune suppressing effects, we could be hastening the established fungal infection and giving way to more opportunistic fungal infections.  The "secondary" fungal infections that a lot of cancer patients develop during the course of chemo, might not have been secondary at all, rather it has allowed the fungi to proliferate or surface elsewhere. 

We have also established that fungi metabolites, mycotoxins, have been found to cause cancer.  That is a fact, not theory.  Let's talk about estrogen dominance.  Many bc's test positive for these receptors.  Is there an environmental explanation for this increasing trend of ER+ bc's.  Is it hormones or mycotoxins?  Zearalenone, a mycotoxin produced by a Fusarium fungus, and a common contaminant of cereal grains in North America, could provide an explanation.  Zearalenone is highly estogenic: it cam mimic estrogen and can stimulate estrogen receptors in the body.  It can wreak havoc on our hormonal systems and cause infertility, miscarriages, fibroids, menstrual problems and precocious puberty.  You can talk to agriculturalists about this effect on their livestock after eating contaminated feed but our doctors are pretty much in the dark about it.  The food industry is not required to screen our food for zearalenone so it's up to us to try to minimize our exposure to it by minimizing our intake of corn, cereal grains, and grain fed meats,  There are many, many other mycotoxins that can be detrimental.  The only mycotoxin they are required to test for is aflatoxin.

I hope this covers it.... We need more research to find the cause and either accept or eliminate this theory that so many researchers have touched on.  As long a this information is suppressed, and profit can be made treating cancer but not curing it, I'm not hopeful that this will happen.    

Did I miss something? Did someone mention conspiracy?

In my mind, in order for there to be a conspiracy, there must be a meeting of the minds to conspire to join in something secret and use such means to accomplish an end.  I do not believe there is a "conspiracy theory" going on.  However, I did say that information gets suppressed.  This could happen by way of a person or group of people's inability to get funding for their research.  We all know what happens to a "theory" when there are no scientific stats and studies to back them up.  Someone could actually have stumbled upon something great but without funding for studies, their research becomes "dead in the water".   I also mentioned when someone brings something to the table and a prominent and respected figure(s) within cancer industry negates their research or dismisses it because it doesn't adhere to their way of thinking, others will follow... Not because they have researched it themselves but because this prominent figure "says so" and therefore it must be correct.  Virginia Livingston-Wheeler's story is a very interesting one.  Furthermore, if these people's discoveries are not mentioned or touched upon in med schools, people never hear about them.  Such is the story of fungus.  Most doctors think the only way fungus effects us is the occasional ring worm, athletes foot or vaginal yeast infection.  Because they are taught very little about it but loads about bacteria, when a patient presents with symptoms, most automatically prescribe a antibiotic.  Fungal infections are primarily not diagnosed and even when they are, they are not required to be reported to the CDC.

Rockefeller was a philanthropist and did some very good things but he was also a shrewd business man.  I am speaking in general here, business is about success and success is profit.  When you hold the power (and money does), you can dictate how things are to be done.  If chemicals are your profit mechanism within your business, that will be your focus for success.  I dont care if the business is labeled for profit or not for profit, money talks.  Hospitals are businesses, your family doctor is a business, your insurance company, the American Cancer Society is a business.  There are things those businesses do in favor of profits, at the expense of the patient.  A prime but subtle example is my dermatologist.  He's a great young doctor who has had to expand his practice 3 fold because of his popularity.  He's in a beautiful building and has an entire floor dedicated to his offices (and therefore, a huge lease payment.)  Due to these facts, he books his appointments 15 minutes apart.  Now I ask you, can a doctor to his patients justice if he's only spending 10-15 minutes with them?

You said "There is no plan for profits. The medical profession is looking for a cure, not profits."

Really? One only has to look at the profits and salaries in the medical industry to see that your statement is flawed.