The Fungal Theory

motheroffoursons · February 2011

Once again you cast aspersions on the medical field. My son is a doctor, double sepcialist, and his two brothers who majored in business earn more than him. Furthermore, he has student loans to repay for another 10 years at least. He volunteers free one day a week at a clinic for people without insurance. He is one of many.

Again, he would have earned more money in another field. Many doctors and researchers are not in the business for excess profits, but because they believe they can do some good.

If you talk about insurance companies, I will join a complaint. However, not about our doctors and medical professional.

Our Discussion Was:

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

Husband11 · February 2011

Here's a well thought out statement on fungus and cancer from the American Cancer Society. It does not however address the issue of fungal toxins contributing to some cancers, but rather deals with the assertion that cancer is itself a fungal infection or caused by a fungal infection.

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/sodium-bicarbonate

char123 · February 2011

I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone in the medical field as their are alot of great doctors and medical providers out there doing the very best they can to treat very ill people, but I gotta say impositive makes a great argument here in the last few posts. I am aware that has nothing to do with my opinion of the fungal theroy, but do you think someone could at least start walking for the cure instead of racing for more drugs and racing to keep that fancy slogan?

impositive · February 2011

Timothy, This was taken from the statement from the American Cancer Society you posted. I have posted links below the statements that may suggest otherwise.

"No peer-reviewed articles in medical journals were found supporting the theory that cancer is caused by a fungus infection or a yeast infection."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6166642?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4504082?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6703743?dopt=Abstract

http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=42&t=42

"There is no evidence that most people with cancer have any deep tissue yeast or fungal infections."

"http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/10/1543.abstract?sid=774603df-b13e-4c2f-a2c1-26b59d905c6e

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14045059

"But these fungi have not been found in tumors when biopsies are examined by methods capable of revealing fungi in infected tissue."

If the microbiology of fungi were simple, we would have already identified all species of fungi. There are various methods of identifying fungi. It's is not a one size fits all procedure. It's been mentioned previously in this thread that (according to the textbook Clinical Mycology) a lab must be told what fungi is suspected so that they may use the proper procedures for that particular strain or species. For example, when the fungal infection, Histoplasmosis, is suspected, a tissue biopsy is done to look for the fungi, H capsulatum. Routine hematoxylin and eosin stains will not show the tiny yeasts. Biopsy must be stained with Gomori methanamine silver or periodic acid Schiff. Once the correct stain has found the yeast, it then must be cultured for a definite identification. Also interesting, is what the textbook says about the fungal infection, Blastomycosis; the clinical picture of chronic pneumonia due blastomycosis may minic carcinoma of the lung.

If it mimics lung cancer, couldn't there be misdiagnosis if we aren't checking these for presence of this particular fungi?

impositive · February 2011

motheroffoursons, my statement wasn't meant to cast aspersions on doctors in particular. You appear to very proud of your son, as any mother would be. There are wonderful, caring doctors out there. Though I dont have a lot of faith in chronic care I have a great deal of faith in acute care. Furthermore, I dont blame my doctors for this. I blame an industry. I mentioned my derm as a subtle example but I love the guy and still see him for my annual check ups since I've had skin cancer.

The wording I used was "medical industry". That includes insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. It's a business and business are made to profit. Even the "not for profit" American Cancer Society.

The title: American Cancer Society: The Worlds Wealthiest "Nonprofit" Institution.

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

Anonymous · February 2011

Let's stick to the topic, please.

Impostive wrote:

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)

You made this up. Johannes Mueller was only given a paragraph in this book and it is in the first chapter which is the history of cancer. NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH ARE THE WORDS "TAILED BODIES" , NOR DOES HE POSTULATE THAT WHAT HE SEES IS A MEDULLARY FUNGAS. Why would you make this up? He only saw that cancer was a cluster of cells with nuclei and nucleoli. "tailed bodies of cancer cells" HA HA HA That's a good one. I have looked at hundreds of cells under a microscope and the only cells that I have seen tails on where sperm cells. Tailed bodies of cancer cells. Ha Ha I have to remember that one. That statement sounds like one of Robert Young's greatest hits.

He believed that tubercles and cancer cells were germs from the outside that had made their way into the body

Wrong again. Germ cells are not germs from outside influences. He simply said that he thought that cancer originated from germ cells within the tissues. He is refering to anatomy and not pathogens. Human anatomy is the structure of the body. You misunderstood (or rather Robert Young did) this because you do not know basic biology terminology. See what I mean about needing a foundation of the life sciences.

Here's a link to the book. I have the link open to the page on Mueller. It's page 21 paragraph 3:

http://www.archive.org/stream/neoplastictumor00ewinrich#page/20/mode/2up

Impositive wrote:

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.

Wrong again. Here's a link to the index from the back of the book Microbe Hunters and Hodgkins ain't in it.

Thanks for the heads up on the book, though. I'm reading it. I find the history of microbiology fasinating. Don't try to claim the author of the book believed in the fungal theory because he rants about what great men Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch were. Louis Pasteur proved pleomorphism did not exist and if you believe that cancer is a hybrid human and fungas cell you are basically stating that Pasteur and Koch did not know what the heck they were talking about and were idiots. Robert Young has trashed Pasteur many times. He states that he has single handily proved Pasteur wrong because Robert Young has seen fungas morph into cancer. I've never seen Young state that Koch's postulates were rubbish, though. Weird.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pH24vLpivRgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=microbe+hunters&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=G19TTZqBIpGWsgPomsS2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Impositive wrote:

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.

You don't know what myco means or you would not have used it out of context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are ignorant of the word's complete definition and did not try to deliberately twist this information around to fit your arguement.

Mycobacterium

The Latin prefix "myco-" means both fungus and wax; its use here reflects the "waxy" compounds that compose parts of the cell wall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium

Mycobacterium is so named because the cell wall has a waxy appearance. This is all about structure and not fungal related.

I see the same theme throughout your postings. You don't understand what you are reading and you are learning theories of biology, micobiology and human physiology from bogus books written by a man that does not understand these sciences.himself.

I'm not even going to comment on the your Big Pharma paragraph. I recognise 2 people in your list of sources and I certainly would not use them to back up my arguement. One was an absolute crackpot that not only believed that cancer was a fungas but also believed that HIV was the government unleashing biological warfare to rid the world of homosexuals. He wrote a book or two on this theory. I'll check them out tomorrow if I have time.

squidwitch42 · February 2011

I work as a Nurse in Public Health. Our clients are uninsured, under insured, and the homeless. We started as a homeless van, and now have many clinic sites and work directly with the shelters and Department of Corrections. Trust me, not one of us is getting rich doing this. We regularly provide chronic disease care and help to keep people out of the emergency rooms. I did work in the Hospital and Emergency Room as well, so I know both populations.

I would strongly suggest volunteering at any Public Health clinic, shelter, mammogram outreach, HIV testing center, homeless Hospice care....there are so many people out there rolling up there sleeves and working with their hearts. (and this is just the tip of the iceberg as there is also the mental health field and social workers that we should recognize for their work with chronic mental illness.)

Many of us have a second job to help with finances.

I realize I am off topic, but I think I can best speak for my profession.

Hindsfeet · February 2011

I don't think impositive is arguing that doctors or volunteers in the medical field is the problem.The whole system is messed up.

Also to mention, squidwitch, it's also sad that the working class can't afford insurance or even get it at the free places. I know...because for years I was one of them. Because I worked, I didn't qualify for free medical services, and I.didn't make enough to afford insurance. I was caught in the middle. Initially, first 2 dx's, I chose a lumpectomy only because that was all I could afford. I knew if I didn't do further treatments, I needed to seek out the alternative to prevent cancer. That is what brought me here to alternative thread and or natural approach to cancer prevention. I am glad, because now knowing what I know, I am glad I had a lumpectomy only.

so again...I don't think this is what impositive is talking about. We have a broken system in the medical arena. How things are done could be done better.

Today I saw a pain doctor in preparation for my upcoming surgery. I brought up a fact about my dx that a doctor shared with me several years ago. He said, yes, we told our RSD patients that several years ago. We still don't understand a lot about that kind of pain, but we no longer believe that FACT. I smiled. I thought, yep, you are still learning, and getting it together. I love my doctors, but one thing I've learned in my journey of life is... doctors aren't God, and they don't know it all.

None of us know it all.

impositive · February 2011

Very well said Barry.

squidwitch42 · February 2011

Barry,

There are two sides to every story, and I think it is important to present the side I know very well. Just as you know the side of being a patient trying to get care without insurance. I do understand both sides of the issue, and this was before I got BC. I too ran out of insurance (Cobra) due to repeated misdiagnosis and still suffer the financial repercussions. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I fight every day for my patients, and having access to medicaid has been one of the most wonderful changes for how we deliver care. It's so much easier to practice preventative medicine and to intervene before catastrophic illness. Alternative medicine has an important place in medicine, as after all, herbs are medicine and other modalities (acupuncture,) meditation, and on and on. (I used to partake in acupuncture when I had money, oh well Now, how to deliver these services without the client having to pay out of pocket.

So, that being said, I do stand by my feelings regarding the tone and wording of more than one post I have read here. I will respectfully disagree and continue to proudly represent my wonderful colleagues. Yesterday, I waved to one of the MD's as he raced to the airport. He is going back to Africa to set up a clinic and uses his vacation time to do this.

It's too easy to blame a system and to forget the people within working hard to make things better.

impositive · February 2011

squidwitch42, It is easy to blame the system but we continue to agree that there are great women and men on the front lines out there.

I used to have a different photo as my avatar. It was myself and two young women, one was my daughter, the other was my niece. My niece is a beautiful, smart, caring young woman....and she is a nurse.

It is the systemthat leads to uninsured patients being denied medical care or repeated misdiagnosis like you and evebarry has experienced.

No one is forgetting all the great men and women who are helping others.

luv_gardening · February 2011

Black-cat,

I'm sure your scientific knowledge is far superior to those of us who have never studied science at higher levels. I'm sure you have more than enough knowledge and critical thinking skills to see through the beliefs and 'theories' of Robert Young. I can see your explanation of the biology of cancer and fungi makes sense. I agree, I think what he is doing is most likely criminal. Murder disguised as heroics.

I also know you have enough critical thinking skills to know that Impositive may have cut and pasted the Mueller quote from any number of sources without checking the original source. So to say "You made this up" cannot be proved and is blunt and hurtful.

You also wrote:

Ha Ha I have to remember that one.
Wrong again.
NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH... (capitals = shouting)
Why would you make this up?
HA HA HA That's a good one.
Wrong again.
Don't try to claim...

I know the internet doesn't allow us to see people's facial expressions and tone of voice, but, ???

What's wrong with someone making an attempt to nut out a controversial theory in a public forum, putting lots of time and work into it? If we are to make decisions that may affect our life then we may need to make sense of difficult concepts and we may have good reason to distrust the existing system with all it's historic and current, albeit well intentioned, mistakes.

If it becomes obvious, from the volume of knowledgeable readers gently and respectfully agreeing that there are major flaws in the theory, then It's likely Impositive will eventually be able to see the light and be grateful for the expert guidance from her lovely BCO sisters and brothers.

Eventually Impositive may turn out to be your biggest and most enthusiastic ally in converting those who are conned by Robert Young and Co, assuming he is a conman. Looking at his site and the money he is charging to teach allegedly incorrect biology is sickening, but it's him I'm mad at, not those who have fallen for his alleged lies.

Alternatively, if you want to keep writing in this tone, then these theories may go underground where they will be uncontested and could influence people to drop their treatments and risk losing their lives.

Take your choice.

impositive · February 2011

Black-cat, I am "sick and tired" of my character being attacked here. I really do appreciate all the work you put into this but attacking my character really just reveals yours. Why would I make something up?

I would hate to squelch your laughter but maybe you should read on in J Ewing Book on neoplastic disease where it says J Mueller described the cells he saw as elongated, or "racquet shaped" cells. (Picture a racquet shape in your head...they are round with a handle...tail). It goes on to say that there was urgent demand in the search for specific characters in the tumor cells and that different men disagreed. For instance, Virchow disagreed because he saw the same "tailed corpuscle" (which for those who might not know, is a "tailed free floating cell") in the normal bladder epithelium (which is basically the lining of the bladder).

Now...if you have fungal cells in your body, they can disseminate (metastasize). Also your body is working hard to eliminate them. This could be the reason they were found in the lining of the bladder by Virchow.

I dont know in what capacity you have viewed cells under a microscope but it's obviously not to the extent that these gentleman did, as they all saw the "tailed body", they just disagreed on what it meant in the search for cancer.

I wrote: He believed that tubercles and cancer cells were germs from the outside that had made their way into the body.

You wrote: Wrong again. Germ cells are not germs from outside influences. He simply said that he thought that cancer originated from germ cells within the tissues. He is refering to anatomy and not pathogens. Human anatomy is the structure of the body. You misunderstood (or rather Robert Young did) this because you do not know basic biology terminology.

????? I'm not sure what you are saying here because the above paragraph totally agrees with Robert Young. He believes germs are from within and that all sickness is a result of being too acidic. Pasteur believed the opposite. He believed germs come from outside the body. I agree with both these gentleman by the way. There are germs inside and out.

I'm glad you've decided to read Microbe Hunters. I think you'll find that I'm right there as well. You also say Louis Pasteur proved pleomorphism didnt exist. Please give your reference for this statement.

I could go on and talk about Koch's Postulates, mycobacteria and Alan Cantwell, the MD you call a "crackpot." However I spent a lot of time posting the theory of fungus and I'm not wasting any more of my time right now responding to your ridiculous offensive post.

Husband11 · February 2011

Impositive, do you have access to the full length articles in those journals? I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I took a quick look at the links you posted to abstracts, and I couldn't find any reference to fungii. They all seemed to deal with bacteria, and two of which were Staphylococcus epidermidis, a bacterium, not a fungii.

Was there some reference to fungii causing cancer in those articles?

Quote from you above:

Timothy, This was taken from the statement from the American Cancer Society you posted. I have posted links below the statements that may suggest otherwise.

"No peer-reviewed articles in medical journals were found supporting the theory that cancer is caused by a fungus infection or a yeast infection."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6166642?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4504082?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6703743?dopt=Abstract

http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=42&t=42

luv_gardening · February 2011

Impositive,

Definitions of Germ:

1. Biology A small mass of protoplasm or cells from which a new organism or one of its parts may develop.
2. The earliest form of an organism; a seed, bud, or spore.
3. A microorganism, especially a pathogen.
4. Something that may serve as the basis of further growth or development: the germ of a project.

Germ cell refers to the 1st definition, not the 3rd (bacteria).

I hope that helps you to understand.

On another matter you said.. "attacking my character really just reveals yours", Beautifully put.

Husband11 · February 2011

Impositive:

I took a look at the other two links (re "most people with cancer having a deep tissue yeast or fungal infection"). One I couldn't get anything meaningful out of because I don't have access to the whole article. The one that I could get some meaning out of the abstract does refer to a possible mechanism for one instance of cancer:

Possible mycological etiology of oral mucosal cancer: catalytic potential of infecting Candida aibicans and other yeasts in production of N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine

Sorry for the big print. It just cut and paste that way. This falls short of evidence that most cancers have a coincidental fungal or yeast infection. Maybe you have more articles, but this one is just about one particular precancerous lesion of a particular oral tissue.

thenewme · February 2011

Hi impositive and Shiela,

I think part of the problem here is a lot of misunderstanding. I don't believe anyone is trying to deny a right to free speech or stop any rational discussion of new theories. I don't think anyone is trying to squelch research or "force anything underground."

I think some of us (definitely me!) get frustrated with the endless citations of sources that don't say what they're being claimed to say, that have been disproven, taken out of context, or aren't accessible. We get exasperated by the accusations and the refusal to acknowledge factual errors or illogical/unreasonable concepts. The misleading attempts at trying to establish credibility get tiresome. BCO is such a valuable source of good and valid information, and it's a HUGE magnet for newly-diagnosed (or not) breast cancer patients. I personally feel BCOs integrity is compromised when disinformation is uncontested, and so I appreciate discussion and debate, especially when opinions are backed up by evidence.

Impositive - I'm asking this in all sincerity - do you understand the difference between "germs" and "germ cells?" Differences between fungus, yeast, and bacteria? Difference between correlation and causation? These terms are absolutely critical for your theories.

luv_gardening · February 2011

thenewme,

I can understand everyone's frustration, but that is no reason for people to attack anyone's character, assume or generalise.

Timothy is a great example of how to take someone seriously and communicate with the utmost respect despite seeing things a different way. He is trying to narrow down where the misunderstanding lies instead of assuming some ulterior motive or conspiracy theory. Your above post is also respectful and factual, though you can come across as disrespectful as I'm sure you've been informed LOL. Me too. I must put that soap box away. (Oh, except that Impositive isn't refusing to accept anything, maybe she just can't understand it as she has taken on a big task and may be overwhelmed by so much to learn while running a business. So that was an assumption on your part... no judgement, we all do it.)

I didn't mean to imply people were purposely driving anything underground but the exact opposite, that they may unintentionally drive things underground by being so oppositional. What you resist, persists as I've found out many times, often when it's too late.

Now, it's nearly time to get up and I'm still on the net.

MJLToday · February 2011

Oh, except that Impositive isn't refusing to accept anything, maybe she just can't understand it as she has taken on a big task and may be overwhelmed by so much to learn while running a business. So that was an assumption on your part... no judgement, we all do it.

But Sheila -- WHY has impositive taken on a big task, for which she is undereducated? If she really wants to understand cancer and microbiology -- why doesn't she start from the basics? Reading basic high school and college text books, readily available at public libraries? I know it's rude to question someone's motives -- but you seem to be defending the indefensible. For instance, saying Mr. Young's theories of cancer are "interesting" -- is really indefensible.

You could argue she just wants to "chat" about this theory -- but she argues and defends on the basis of links and references she either hasn't read or doesn't understand.

I think some of us (definitely me!) get frustrated with the endless citations of sources that don't say what they're being claimed to say, that have been disproven, taken out of context, or aren't accessible. We get exasperated by the accusations and the refusal to acknowledge factual errors or illogical/unreasonable concepts. The misleading attempts at trying to establish credibility get tiresome. BCO is such a valuable source of good and valid information, and it's a HUGE magnet for newly-diagnosed (or not) breast cancer patients. I personally feel BCOs integrity is compromised when disinformation is uncontested, and so I appreciate discussion and debate, especially when opinions are backed up by evidence.

Thank you newme -- I completely agree.

thenewme · February 2011

Hi Sheila,

Thanks for your reply. I absolutely agree that Timothy is always very respectful and insightful - I always look forward to his posts. And I agree that I'm not always as patient and unruffled as I wish I could be! I admit that I tend to get riled up about certain topics, and this thread really touches some raw nerves with me.

I have to disagree, however, about some people refusing to accept facts and indulging in conspiracy theories. I'm intentionally leaving out specific names, since unfortunately it's not limited to one particular person. If you look back through this thread and others, I think you'll see that some people do indeed refuse to accept facts and evidence.

I'm not sure why you think I'm assuming that some people believe in conspiracy theories when it's clear from their own posts, whether they call them "conspiracy theories" or just relate unsubstantiated stories of "suppressed" research or whatever.

By the way, I'm a small business owner too, although I'm not sure what that has to do with fact finding and cancer research unless one happens to be in that field (and my business is most definitely not related to medicine or research!). In fact, I work as a subcontractor in medical transcription, but also own my own business (a retail-type business), so I understand being busy. All the more reason to rely on experts and trained professionals who know far more than I do about cancer research, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel myself and discover the cause/cure for cancer!

I'm also confused about what you mean about "driving things underground." In fact, if there's anything I'm "about," it's openness - honesty - keeping things aboveground. I'm glad we have this thread! It would be a real shame, in my view, if the "cancer-fungus theory" was kept a secret. I think it's important to bring it up and talk about it so that people reading here can see for themselves the merits and flaws of the theory and come to their own conclusions.

MJL - you bring up some really good points, and I don't think it's rude at all to question people's motives when they're discussing something as important and potentially influential as cancer treatments. I think it's CRITICAL to question motives, and of course I expect my motives to be questioned, as well. I think your question pretty much sums it up! Thanks!

luv_gardening · February 2011

MJL, I'm merely asking for people to follow the example of Timothy and talk in a respectful way to get down to the nitty gritty of where the theory doesn't hold up. That way the misunderstandings can be more easily understood by those others who may try to follow this theory to the detriment of their health. It's the KISS principal. To get through to someone we need to meet them at their level on any subject.

No doubt we all feel a pressing need to find some solution and reassurance that we won't have a recurrence so the prospect of years of study is not a good option when the peak time for recurrence is in the first two years, not reducing much till we hit the five year anniversary.

Since so-called experts are behind this theory, it's difficult to know who's right and wrong, especially to the lay person. I know in academia there's an accepted way to do things, but to the outsider like myself we are not tied to those standards as we are not submitting our work to a reputable journal. In fact it seems that the red tape could be responsible for stopping many discoveries along with reluctance to step outside the status quo, which is an recognised phenomena. One new research centre in Australia is deliberately hiring only young, keen, academically bright researchers who would normally find it hard to get jobs in the field as they don't have enough experience. I think they are medical researchers, possibly looking at cancer though my memory is a bit dim. Of course I'm not suggesting they would look at old theories, but they are trying to get new thoughts and break away from the status quo.

I guess the point of individual amateur research is to use our own research on ourselves in the hope our theory works and we can report our success and hope others take it from there.

char123 · February 2011

Wow thenewme, that is worth repeating!

All the more reason to rely on experts and trained professionals who know far more than I do about cancer research, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel myself and discover the cause/cure for cancer!

luv_gardening · February 2011

thenewme,

So you know where my motivation is coming from, whenever I've taken career counselling or looked at options, I know a career in medical research would have been my top choice and the thing I'd be good at, but I didn't get the choice to take up further studies and didn't have the confidence. I guess that's why I'm driven to read as much as I can and I've always been an independent thinker. I started nursing but my impractical nature and the authoritarian hierarchy at that time drove me away. I started a naturopathic course but was put off by the blind faith of some students and the lack of proof behind many modalities plus the need to work full time to support myself. That was a long time age and standards have improved. My medical knowledge comes from an intense interest in the subject rather than any formal training. My younger sister is a nurse and she recognises my knowledge and limitations.

You said "All the more reason to rely on experts and trained professionals who know far more than I do about cancer research, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel myself and discover the cause/cure for cancer! "

That's about different personality types. I have the type that I described above. A natural curiosity and impatience to do things myself. Cancer researchers may know more than me, but they haven't succeeded yet and millions (I think) die around the world every year.

Anyone who studies medical history and understands the natural progression of medical practice, then looks at the work of Dr John Ioannidis and the sheer amount of iatrogenic illnesses and deaths knows that we still have a long way to go in medicine. And that's not to take away from the progress we have made and the good work of our health professionals. But they can only work with current knowledge and when our lives are on the line it's obvious that there is no cure for most cancers beyond surgery. For me that's the bottom line.

I've had dealings with people who believe in conspiracy theories and I don't get the impression this is the case on this thread. Yes, some here believe medicine has it's faults and limitations on many levels, but conspiracies are a deliberate banding together of people to achieve some goal which Impositive has clearly stated she doesn't believe.

About "driving things underground", what's to stop anyone PMing supporters and taking this idea to a private yahoo group where there will be no constant interruptions and attacks on people's knowledge and character. I'm sure there must be existing groups for that purpose. I'd rather see people ease off and act with integrity. It's not about who is the busiest or who is right. It's about compassion for fellow BC sisters and applying the golden rule.

luv_gardening · February 2011

MJL, I read recently that the majority of people who use alternative therapies are well educated. That certainly conforms with my experience at the alternative school my boys attended. So to answer your WHY question, I can only answer for myself and what I've observed.

People with cancer may have limited time and medicine does not have the answer to terminal cancers. That's the bottom line. Our very life, the suffering involved in end stage cancer, and the effect on our loved ones is the motivation.

If others want to be at the mercy of possible stage IV with only the pain relief and time extenders offered by current treatments then that is their right.

Anonymous · February 2011

Impositive,

I apologize for being a snarky wiseacre. It was all done in fun. I was not yelling at you or mad. I really hope that we can debunk this fungal issue so we can move on to bigger and better things. IMHO, you have wasted so much precious time on nonsense and you could have researched so many more constructive subjects such as food and nutrition in legitimate publications. Let's get back to the fungal issue. I think this thread is so frustrating for many because it keeps going down different paths. I want to address your last post.

Impositive wrote:

I really do appreciate all the work you put into this but attacking my character really just reveals yours.

I was raised by a pack of rabid wolverines in the Yukon Territory.

Impositive wrote:

I would hate to squelch your laughter but maybe you should read on in J Ewing Book on neoplastic disease where it says J Mueller described the cells he saw as elongated, or "racquet shaped" cells. (Picture a racquet shape in your head...they are round with a handle...tail). It goes on to say that there was urgent demand in the search for specific characters in the tumor cells and that different men disagreed. For instance, Virchow disagreed because he saw the same "tailed corpuscle" (which for those who might not know, is a "tailed free floating cell") in the normal bladder epithelium (which is basically the lining of the bladder).

Uh, no, a corpuscle cell does not have a tail. I don't know where you are getting the information that a corpuscle cell has a tail, but it is wrong,trust me on this one. Yes, it is indeed a free floating cell.

I have a good educated guess as to what that "tailed corpusle" was and why they saw different anatomical shapes but I am not going into it here at length because it would be too confusing. From the text's description I think they were looking at transistional eptithelial cells. Again, this is all anatomical and has nothing to do with fungas.

To put it in a nutshell this chapter deals with the history of neoplastic diseases and this excerpt is from the beginning of the histology section. The date of the above event is 1838. The "tailed corpuscle" idea was discarded with "endogenous cell formation".

Impositive wrote:

Now...if you have fungal cells in your body, they can disseminate (metastasize). Also your body is working hard to eliminate them. This could be the reason they were found in the lining of the bladder by Virchow

Again, I don't think you are understanding what you are reading. There is no mention of fungal cells found in the lining of the bladder by Virchow. However, there is a chapter on the history of studies done trying to prove that cancer was a parasite but all were futile. This book was written in 1922. It was written for physicians and the language is very outdated, thus it is not an easy read and I can see why you are so confused. You don't have the fundamentals of high school biology down and you are trying to decifer a book written for physicians 90 years ago. This was not a good source for you to cite.

Impositive wrote:

I dont know in what capacity you have viewed cells under a microscope but it's obviously not to the extent that these gentleman did, as they all saw the "tailed body", they just disagreed on what it meant in the search for cancer.

Do you understand the year this happened was 1838 which was a hundred and eighty-three years ago. According to this text the microscope was invented in 1824. Do you want to put some more thought into that statement?

Impositive wrote:

I'm glad you've decided to read Microbe Hunters. I think you'll find that I'm right there as well

Ok, where in the text am I going to find out that you were right and right about what?

Impositive wrote:

You also say Louis Pasteur proved pleomorphism didnt exist. Please give your reference for this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Enderlein

First paragraph, second sentence states:

His hypotheses about pleomorphism and cancer have now been disproved by science and have only some historical importance today.

paragraph four:

Theories on pleomorphism and the origins of diseases

He caused more sensation, however, when he developed and published his concepts about the pleomorphism of microorganisms. The concept of pleomorphism was quite controversial at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Eventually the monomorphism concept of Louis Pasteur was accepted by the scientific community.

The term pleomorphism comes from the Greek pleion = more, morphe = figure, and was apparently created by French chemist and biologist Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908). Similar concepts were known in ancient times as concepts of abiogenesis but these were disproved during the 18th century

Impositive wrote:

could go on and talk about Koch's Postulates, mycobacteria and Alan Cantwell, the MD you call a "crackpot."

You do understand that Koch's Postulates proves pleomorphism dosen't exist?

Mycobacteria has nothing to do with fungas. The prefix myco in this case has an anatomical meaning, which is waxy appearance. I thought I made this clear in my prior post.

Alan Cantwell was a dermatologist that claimed that HIV was biological warfare unleashed by the government to rid the world of homosexuals. He also said that cancer was a fungas. Nuff said.

Hindsfeet · February 2011

Shelia, I appreciate your support. Thank you. It means a lot although you differ that you care.

...................................................................................................................................

How much can impositive take before you chase her away. I would hope that bco is a place for support, no matter what opinions we have.

I visit bco a lot lately, because I do not want impositive to stand alone. I know there are a lot out there who get what she is saying, who don't post for fear in being attack. That's sad.

What I fear most for newbie's reading the fungal theory thread is reading hateful words and comments. They will fear to question your opinions in fear of being attack. They will not see bco as a support place. Who in their right mind would want to read anything more from bco?

When I first came to bco, I thought it was a place for the average breast cancer women for discussion and support. I didn't realize there were intellectual superiors here, who would pounce on us for disagreeing or holding a different opinion.

Even though in a few weeks, I'll have breast cancer surgery, I'm considering leaving bco. I don't want to because right now, I need support. I've been hurt as well. I'm tired. Right now with my upcoming surgery, I don't need stress, belittling or drama....although my named isn't always used...I'm smart enough to know whom people are talking about.

And, I am deeply pained for all that impositive has been put through. It feels so unfair.

squidwitch42 · February 2011

Impositive,

and that's all we can ask I'm one to try and bring out the positives within what appears to be a sea of negatives. Yes, the system is really messed up, but we can make a difference. It's what keeps me from hitting myself over the head repeatedly with a frying pan every time I run into another system failure. I am blessed to have others in the fight with me, and they are there. Just sometimes too busy to be vocal (isn't that the way? it's the quiet ones doing the work)

and speaking of work....

have a nice day all.

Anonymous · February 2011

May I suggest we put the fungal thread on hold until after evebarrys surgery. I move that we all go to the surgery thread to support her. We can share our experiences with her. We can give her our strength and compassion. Let's unite on the surgery thread. Let's support our friend, evebarry! Who is with me?

Anonymous · February 2011

Impositive, you already suggested that evebarry go to the surgery thread and you stated that you would join her there. This was your idea and I think it is a good one. Let's put aside our differences of opinion for a few weeks. The fungal theory will be there to come back to if you so wish.

thenewme · February 2011

Hi impositive and Black-cat - Good idea, and thanks for reminding us!

As much as we can disagree here, I think the one thing we would all come together for is to support a fellow traveler!

Evebarry, please know we're sending you nothing but strength and good wishes for your upcoming surgery.

The Fungal Theory

Comments

Possible mycological etiology of oral mucosal cancer: catalytic potential of infecting Candida aibicans and other yeasts in production of N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine

Sorry for the big print. It just cut and paste that way. This falls short of evidence that most cancers have a coincidental fungal or yeast infection. Maybe you have more articles, but this one is just about one particular precancerous lesion of a particular oral tissue.

Categories