Is Cancer a Fungus?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Learn how sodium bi-carbonate (baking soda) which costs very little gets rid of cancer this is a must see for all.?
(click on the link below to watch video)
Fungus Causing Cancer -- A Novel Approach to the Most Common Form of Death (http://articles.mercola.com/redirect/view.aspx?Email=rozday@paradise.net.nz&ReturnURL=http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx)???
Video interview with a prominent Italian oncologist expanding on his alternative views.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

The Role Of Fungus In Cancer

Doug A. Kaufmann

Thousands of research papers report the presence of yeast and fungus in cancer patients. The problem is that all refer to the development of fungal conditions after cancer treatment has begun. Researchers contend that cancer therapies, aimed at destroying cancer, also destroy the immune system of the patient. At this point, left without the immunity to fight disease-causing germs, yeast and fungus multiply rapidly and the patients often succumb to "secondary" fungal infections. Hence, according to cancer experts, much attention needs to focus on methods of controlling fungal proliferation while taking chemotherapy.

What if patients with cancer already had yeast and fungal infections that grew out of control when their immune systems were damaged by chemotherapy? What if a lump was found that was an ascomycete (sac fungus) that appeared to diagnosticians to be cancer? What if cancer wasn't cancer at all? I have pondered questions like these for over 25 years.

According to The Home Medical Encyclopedia, in 1963 about one-half of all Americans suffered from an "unrecognized" systemic fungal condition. My guess would be that far more Americans suffer from fungal infections today as antibiotics, hormone replacement therapies, and birth control pills continue to be consumed like candy. My point in bringing this to your attention is simple - doctors are not accurately diagnosing medical conditions. A case in point: A medical textbook used to educate Johns Hopkins medical students in 1957, Clinical and Immunologic Aspects of Fungous Diseases, declared that many fungal conditions look exactly like cancer! Whereas, we do not educate today's medical students on accurately detecting deeply imbedded fungal conditions and differentiating these from cancer, we certainly do teach them to diagnose cancer, and lots of it!

Years ago, I published the book, The Germ That Causes Cancer. I feel that cancer is one of the most maligned and misunderstood diseases of the past millennium. There is also reason to believe it is one of the most misdiagnosed maladies. When my research kept providing clues as to the real etiology (root cause) of cancer, a chapter in a book or a newsletter just didn't seem to suffice. The purpose of this article is neither to malign nor replace your health care provider's recommendations. Rather, it is to gently introduce you to a concept that is so incredible that it almost defies logic: deep tissue fungal growth may be commonly diagnosed as cancer.

The day I wrote this, a young lady phoned into my syndicated radio talk show. Her three-year-old daughter was diagnosed last year with leukemia. She believes antifungal drugs and natural immune system therapy has been responsible for saving her daughter's life. She is now telling others with cancer about her daughter's case. After hearing her story, a friend of hers with bone cancer asked her doctor for a prescriptive antifungal drug. To her delight, this medication, meant to eradicate fungus, was also eradicating her cancer. She dared not share this with her physician, telling him only that the antifungal medication was for a "yeast" infection. When she could no longer get the antifungal medication, the cancer immediately grew back. Her physician contended that a few antifungal pills surely should have cured her yeast infection. It is my contention, however, that the reason this medication worked was because she did have a yeast infection… not a vaginal infection for which this medication was prescribed, but a fungal infection of the bone that may have been mimicking bone cancer. These are well documented in scientific literature.

As you read these articles, you will see that many cancer patients find the true fungal link to their cancer only to succumb to heart disease or immune deficiency caused by traditional cancer treatment. If this case were an isolated event, it might be referred to as "coincidental." I have been able to plead with doctors of advanced cancer patients to at least try antifungal drugs for their patients. Afterwards, simply amazing reports have come forth. Several of these have been published in The Germ That Causes Cancer.

Unfortunately, many researchers and physicians do not share my passion. Getting a physician to prescribe simple antifungal drugs for a deadly disease is often impossible. The mentality seems to be, "if cancer were fungus, we'd have learned that in medical school." Couple this with what the medical industry refers to as "the standard of care,” and real problems evolve. That "standard" rejects anything but chemotherapy, radiation or surgery for cancer patients. Even if physicians wanted to try antifungal therapy for their patients, doing so would, perhaps, be perceived as being at odds with the "standard of care."

A few months ago, cancer specialists declared that 30 to 50 percent of breast cancers were linked to diet and were therefore preventable. Despite this revelation, diet is still not even remotely considered as one of the "standards of care" for cancer patients. This is intolerable. Hundreds of cancer survivors have documented their remarkable disease reversals which occurred while adhering to specific diets. Those diets seem to universally be yeast and sugar free. And is it any wonder? You see, in 1931, Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize in science for his discovery that cancer cells rapidly proliferated in the presence of fermented sugar. (Ironically, so do fungal cells!)

Albert Einstein once state, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Certainly, I would never accuse our stethoscoped brethren of having mediocre minds; the contrary is quite true. As stated earlier, physicians are beholden to an industry in which the "standard of care" is their roadmap. Cancer failures point to a "standard" which can only be regarded as, at best, hit-and-miss, and at worse, an accomplice to such failures. With few exceptions, doctors are good, caring, intelligent individuals. Surely they will not indefinitely support decades-old therapy modalities that so frequently fail. Physicians must unite in an effort to learn why mediocrity prevails in medicine today. If a conspiracy exists against natural immune building therapies and dietary cancer control in favor of cytotoxic, (cell poisoning), life-threatening "standards of care," physicians must expose such abominations without fear of retaliation. Physicians must take back their continuing medical education, (CME), which is most often created by drug companies who can arguably and quite naturally be biased. Moreover, the FDA must investigate whether this should be allowable at all. Shouldn't our healers and their watchdog organization be concerned about these clear conflicts of interest?

In truth, every organization that promotes a particular philosophy has bias. Bias isn't the problem. Instead, it's the monopoly of ideas in our health care system with which I take issue. Physicians have medicine as their tool. It's a valuable tool, and should be used when needed. Chiropractors and nurses and herbalists and nutritionists and naturopaths all have tools, as well. (So do mycologists!) But the tools of the latter practitioners are considered suspect, while the tools of the physicians, laden with side-effects, are considered the benchmark against which all other modalities are judged. Instead of relegating other treatments to the status of "alternative," why don't we give patients the opportunity to fully explore all possibilities, and choose any combination that is right for their situation?

This year, we published a Handbook that accompanies The Germ That Causes Cancer. It's a quick read, and may be easier to follow than the larger book. Use this information as a tool, not a replacement for their current cancer therapy. If someone you know is dealing with cancer, perhaps this Handbook will serve as a motivator and reminder that they do have options which are well-documented, and should, therefore not be considered suspect. Their physicians should be involved in all aspects of cancer therapy. Of course, their family and friends and places of worship will also be critical tools. Hopefully, we can be a source of support, as well. May our resources end up in the hands of that one special person who desperately needs this information!

Mycotoxins: Risks in Plant, Animal, and Human Systems. Task Force Report No. 139. Jan 2003. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Ames, IA.
ISBN: 1-887383-22-0. Phone 515-292-2125. cast@cast-science.org (cast@cast-science.org). www.cast-science.org (http://www.cast-science.org/). 199 pp.
The Fungalbionic® Series: The Fungal/Mycotoxin Etiology of Human Disease, by A.V. Costantini, et al.
Website for ordering: click here (it’s best to call the number to order)
Clinical Mycology. (Chapter 30: Mycotoxins and Human Disease) Anaissie, Elias, et al. Churchill Livingstone. Philadelphia, PA. 2003.
ISBN: 0-443-07937-4. 608 pp.


Cover
N/A
Mycotoxins, Cancer, and Health. PenningtonCenter Nutrition Series, Vol. 1. Bray, George and Ryan, Donna, eds. LouisianaStateUniversity Press, Baton Rouge and London. 1991. ISBN: 0-8071-1679-3. 331 pp
Principles and Practice of Clinical Mycology. C.C. Kibbler, et al. eds. John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England. 1996. ISBN: 0-471-961043. 275 pp.
Fundamentals of the Fungi. 4th ed. Elizabeth Moore-Landecker. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. ISBN: 0-13-376864-3. 1996. 574 pp
A Practical Guide to Medically Important Fungi and the Diseases they Cause. Sugar, A & Lyman, C. Lippincott-Raven. Philadelphia and New York. ISBN: 0-397-5186-X. 1997. 153 pp.
The Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine. Mowrey, Dan, PhD. Keats Publishing. New Canaan, Connecticut. ISBN: 0-87983-534-6. 1986. 316 pp.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

CANCER STATISTICS 101: WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, BLAME THE PATIENT
By Doug A. Kaufmann

You know me. I believe that cancer is caused by fungus. All but a handful of physicians wholeheartedly disagree with my belief, but the truth will eventually surface as the mystery of cancer unravels.

For the disbelievers, everything from moon dust to meat has been implicated as the cause of cancer and, while cancer experts highly recommend eating “wholesome” foods like corn and peanuts in an effort to prevent this devastating disease, I say avoiding them prevents cancer. About 560,000 Americans die annually of cancer, so it just can’t be moon dust or meat, otherwise we’d all be dead! It was recently announced that breast cancer incidents and death rate is decreasing. Of course, every newspaper in the country wrote about this and rotator cuffs were torn as cancer experts twisted to pat themselves on the back. Then it was revealed that the reason breast cancer rates declined was because women stopped following their physicians' advice. Yes, tens of thousands of women stopped taking their prescribed hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after research showed that it actually caused significant and deadly health problems, including cancer. The very experts who were recuperating from rotator cuff surgery were now being identified as “the cause!” Maybe it wasn’t meat after all.

An interesting fact that was apparently not as newsworthy, but occurred at almost the exact same time that newspapers were publishing their congratulations to oncologists for their breast cancer successes, was the announcement that women were not getting their scheduled mammograms. In a “shame on them” attitude (radiation is known to cause cancer), the media and cancer experts were apparently blind to this interesting fact; as mammograms rates declined in America so did breast cancer rates. Where were the statisticians and experts now?

As truly unbelievable as all of this was, it appeared as though high- level damage control was immediately underway. After all, it was the media that announced “the cause” to the public. All they did was to simply regurgitate exactly what had been published in respected medical journals…that HRT’s caused an increased risk of breast cancer and, since only a licensed physician can prescribe HRT’s, the media did their work brilliantly. Why was damage control even necessary?

Implicating doctors and pharmaceutical companies as the cause of breast cancer is probably OK in medical journals because we lay people don’t read them! The experts might, but we don’t. But magazines, newspapers and news anchors came directly to us with this horrible news! Remember, pharmaceutical advertising money outweighs almost all other advertising in America, and pharmaceutical advertising generates income that becomes media paychecks! The media was, in essence, biting the hand that fed them! It was time for them to divert attention and immediately place blame for cancer on something else. But what…or whom?

With their printing press ink still wet from the shocking cancer news, the newspaper headline from Atlanta, Georgia (The Centers for Disease Control are headquartered in Atlanta, GA) read:

Study: Uninsured cancer patients nearly twice as likely to die within five years as insured.

That was it! Brilliant! We silly Americans just don’t have enough common sense to buy health insurance! Surely that had to be the real cause of cancer! But wait, there was more! The article went on to say, “An Associated Press estimate — based on hospital cancer deaths in 2005 gathered by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality information and other data — suggests that at least 20,000 of the nation’s 560,000 annual cancer deaths are uninsured when they die.”

Does that say what I think it says? Does it say that 560,000 Americans died of cancer in 2005 and 20,000 of them were uninsured? Thanks…I thought it did! I’m not a doctor, mathematician or a statistics expert, but I’m thinking that if 20,000 people died of cancer WITHOUT health insurance in 2005….then 540,000 Americans died of cancer WITH health insurance!

I’ve speculated on this until my speculator was sore and I think they have finally admitted that my decades old suspicions were correct! The correct and honest Atlanta headline should have read:

Having health insurance increases your risk of dying of cancer by 95%.

Isn’t the media brilliant? Not only did they divert one of the known causes of cancer from doctors and pharmaceutical drugs to us, but they quickly sent us packing to our insurance companies for health assurance, because without it we could die of cancer! If I were a betting man, I’d say that insurance company ads will increase dramatically in 2008.

So there you have it as food for thought as we enter 2008! In a nutshell, certain FDA approved drugs and the doctors that prescribe them are now one of the documented causes of cancer. And just in case you are already have cancer, it seems to me that if you also health insurance, you have about a 95% increase risk of dying of it. Be prudent medical consumers and don’t always believe what you read…unless, of course, you’re reading this newsletter!

Blessings to all of you in 2008…and way beyond!

Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 (Archive on Monday, January 07, 2008)
Posted by host Contributed by

[jul511riv]

wow. just wow.:eek:

[cartersmom]

:eek:....yikes. But you know it really does make sense since dcotors and their drugs are the third leading cause of death (at least here in the US).

yet all the sheep still bow down..I don't get it!

[Lexie]

This (http://www.ouralexander.org/) is somewhat relevant. A vaccinated child died of cancer. A much safer treatment that may have saved him isn't FDA-approved. According to his parents:

...the FDA requires that children first be treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation and have the cancer return before they can qualify for therapy.
It's no wonder his treatment doesn't work for everyone. They're likely making it to his office completely ravaged by the medical community.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Exactly.... and how dictatorial is that, when you have no say over which first line treatment you want? What say the chemo and radiation doesn't work at all, let alone the cancer come back :(

[Lexie]

And he looked so terrible after it too... :( It's just not fair.