Is Cancer Actually Fungus?

mdimarco

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
15
I thought there may be a connection a while ago because of how cancer metastisizes and how that reminded me of fungus spreading via spores. Mabye certain virulent fungus could hijack cell regulation machinery like HIV hijacks white blood cells.

Prostate cancer may be:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/227317.php

Cancer:

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-high ... /81247216/

Colon cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1598747/

Candida antifungal actually makes skin cancer risk higher:

http://www.healthcentral.com/skin-cance ... 22-98.html

Mabye skin cancer is a highly invasive form of candida.


Also on RP's interviews on seritonin I beleive he talked about how if he goes off of Throid supp he gets melanoma's on his skin. That made me think back to my earlier supposition melanoma was related to fungus and candida in particular, and how RP more or less "feeds" his candida, which may give it a strong foundation to spread and change morphology if the body doesn't keep it in check.
 

key

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
122
Cancer is an adaptation to its environment, the cells revert to a primitive state where they can't differentiate and just proliferate. They can't use mitochondria to produce sufficient energy.

Cancer cells need the right environment then they can turn into normal cells.
 

Yves

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
80
It's an interesting theory. I know there was an Italian doctor that claimed the same and said he could kill the fungus by applying baking soda to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQuODiMlUsc


The skin connection with fungus is interesting. I've had GI candida for years (as confirmed by tests, likely all my life from years of antibiotics as an infant). I've always had a lot of moles and recall getting more while taking antifungals.. I've read antidotes of people taking garlic (a natural antifungal) and having their moles fall off.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
Cancer could actually be an infectious agent.
Simoncini is only the last doctor to have proposed it; Rife cured tens of terminal cases by just killing the infectious agents inside the cancerous cells. Him, and many others, isolated infectious agents from tumors, reinjected them and caused cancer with them; he confirmed the Koch infectious postulate many times over.

Gaston Naessens showed how infectious agents can pass from a bacterian to a virus form, then a spore form, etc... It's called pleiomorphism.

Virginia Livingstone treated many cancers with antibiotics and recorded many inexplicable remissions of desperate cases. Alan Cantwell wrote about it too.

Pleiomorphism is actually not disputable nowadays, but mainstream medecine does it's best to ignore it.

Ray himself talked about it in a radio program about cancer coverups; he spoke about Andrew Ivy and Krebiozen, which consists, if i'm not mistaken, of antiserum made from the cancer patient's own blood.

That proves there's an infectious aspect of cancer.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,775
Location
UK
Yves said:
It's an interesting theory. I know there was an Italian doctor that claimed the same and said he could kill the fungus by applying baking soda to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQuODiMlUsc


The skin connection with fungus is interesting. I've had GI candida for years (as confirmed by tests, likely all my life from years of antibiotics as an infant). I've always had a lot of moles and recall getting more while taking antifungals.. I've read antidotes of people taking garlic (a natural antifungal) and having their moles fall off.

Is candida an issue of modern times? What does Peat say about it and the difficulty of removing it?
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
burtlancast said:
Cancer could actually be an infectious agent.
Simoncini is only the last doctor to have proposed it; Rife cured tens of terminal cases by just killing the infectious agents inside the cancerous cells. Him, and many others, isolated infectious agents from tumors, reinjected them and caused cancer with them; he confirmed the Koch infectious postulate many times over.

Gaston Naessens showed how infectious agents can pass from a bacterian to a virus form, then a spore form, etc... It's called pleiomorphism.

Virginia Livingstone treated many cancers with antibiotics and recorded many inexplicable remissions of desperate cases. Alan Cantwell wrote about it too.

Pleiomorphism is actually not disputable nowadays, but mainstream medecine does it's best to ignore it.

Ray himself talked about it in a radio program about cancer coverups; he spoke about Andrew Ivy and Krebiozen, which consists, if i'm not mistaken, of antiserum made from the cancer patient's own blood.

That proves there's an infectious aspect of cancer.
tens of thousands of cases of terminal cancer have been cured by prayers to God. Does that prove cancer has a tutelary aspect as well?

no...it proves nothing. Because 10 cases of anything could be "cured" by anything due to pure randomness of the body healing it's self. You could wave a magic wand or plant a rife device with equal effect on cancer cells in the body.

I'm glad that you think he confirmed the Koch postulate, now I'll go ahead and disconfirm it so you'll be able to view the situation again with a open mind: HSV-1, polio, EBV, etc. Many people have strong concentrations of the viruses and never experience symptoms of the disease associated with it. And the same can be said about...almost every single virus in existence. No need to go past condition one to disconfirm a hundred year old theory that was based on observation, not function.

The simplest answer is that via everything we know about cancer, it's a completely internal malfunction of cellular metabolism. There are many causative agents, all of which certainly are not yet know, but the key condition that allows cancer cells to proliferate is a dysfunctional metabolism. Chasing down ghosts in the form of cancer spreading viruses and bacteria detracts from the real issue (as the people who bought the 1990's rife devices and died found out), you have to stop the aberrant cell's multiplication (first and foremost) and fix your metabolism.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
11,825
Location
USA
Asimov, a most excellent post. :rockout
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
Am I crazy to think that cancer is a physical manifestation of a mental paradigm or belief, some sort of belief about yourself, others, or the world...generally reflected therefore
in certain habits, lifestyle, attitude, and/or way of self expression...that lead to a discomfort or stress in your interactions and daily life...aka 'cancer'. The debilitating belief is always wrong, false, or missing the mark in some way but perpetuated by yourself due to the inability to change the belief due to fear, ignorance, or ego. Usually this is accompanied by urges or intuition to reconsider / alter the belief but when / how you actually do so and listen to the intuition is based on you ability to let go of old or stagnant beliefs / experiences, and / or the willingness and ability take risks or experiment....which generally requires a degree or courage, faith, and/or support

The connotation is something that eats itself or its surroundings alive...basically the manifestation in your physical reality and belief system will be in some way
a self detrimental or offensive habit or way of expressing / treating yourself that will ultimately eat yourself or your surrounding ecosystem/society alive, per se
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
Anything is possible, but I'd guess that if negative self-talk is correlated with cancer (and I'm not saying it is, I haven't seen data one way or the other) that it's due to the inherent nature of metabolic dysregulation. Both negative moods and cancer are strongly correlated with lack of cell energy. Destress the human cells the a human organism and both cancer and negative moods are likely to go away. Similarly stress out a human organism and cancer and bad moods are likely to come in abundance.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
Asimov said:
tens of thousands of cases of terminal cancer have been cured by prayers to God. Does that prove cancer has a tutelary aspect as well?

no...it proves nothing. Because 10 cases of anything could be "cured" by anything due to pure randomness of the body healing it's self. You could wave a magic wand or plant a rife device with equal effect on cancer cells in the body.

I'm glad that you think he confirmed the Koch postulate, now I'll go ahead and disconfirm it so you'll be able to view the situation again with a open mind: HSV-1, polio, EBV, etc. Many people have strong concentrations of the viruses and never experience symptoms of the disease associated with it. And the same can be said about...almost every single virus in existence. No need to go past condition one to disconfirm a hundred year old theory that was based on observation, not function.

The simplest answer is that via everything we know about cancer, it's a completely internal malfunction of cellular metabolism. There are many causative agents, all of which certainly are not yet know, but the key condition that allows cancer cells to proliferate is a dysfunctional metabolism. Chasing down ghosts in the form of cancer spreading viruses and bacteria detracts from the real issue (as the people who bought the 1990's rife devices and died found out), you have to stop the aberrant cell's multiplication (first and foremost) and fix your metabolism.

A rather " angry" post.
Why ?

You talk about spontaneous remissions and use the "prayer" argument to downplay the infectious theory exactly like official medicine does for alternative cancer therapies. One aspect that has been proven is that nearly all of these so called spontaneous remissions modified their diets after being diagnosed ( but of course, no medical journal will report it). So i'm afraid "prayer" doesn't really cut it...

I suppose Burzynski never cured anyone either with his antineoplastons peptides, since he doesn't concentrate on faulty metabolism ?...

Proven cancer therapies like Gerson, laetrile, Hoxsey or Burzynski, aren't incompatible with the virus/ bacterium theory. They all might intervene at different stages of the disease.

Even Max Gerson couldn't cure his own daughter of cancer ( if you read his autobiography written by his grandson, Howard Strauss), or Hoxsey couldn't cure his own prostate cancer.

Yet we have evidence of 100% cure rate of all advanced cases by Rife. You don't seriously suggest because Rife's machines available in the nineties don't work that he was a quack ? Do you seriously believe the medical mafia will allow functional machines on the market ?

We have total evidence in these last 30 years that cervical cancer is associated at 90% with Human papillomavirus. The more sexual partners a woman has, the more chances are she commes down ( proven study) . No need for faulty cellular metabolism.

The Koch postulate was established by multiple researchers well before these discoveries; are you suggesting they were all wrong/ quacks, and "you" know best ?

Scores of serious researchers proving pleimorphism of infectious agents and being silenced by the medical establishment, and that's all the evidence i need for me to understand they were on to something .

Ignore evidence at your own perils.
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
Rather than write a book on the subject (which I had previously done, and just deleted) I'm gonna sum up my points succintly.

A) There IS a correlation between SOME (not all, not even most) cancers and infections. BUT it's not causative.

B) The cancers that CAN be caused by infections aren't always caused by those viruses, and those viruses don't always (or even predictably) cause cancer.

C) ALL known infections that can cause cancer either correlate with, or a directly causative, of a disruption of normal human metabolic functions.

D) ALL known cancers that can be caused by infections CAN also be caused by other cellular disrupting events.

E) In viruses known to induce cancer to rats, the healthier the rats, the less likely the injection of said viruses into those rats will cause tumors to develop and/or the less likely those rats are to die from those tumors. Bluntly speaking, the rats health is much more strongly correlative to cancer development/survival than pathogenesis.

F) Treatment of cancer often has very little to do with treatment of cellular energy. They merely exploit the fact that cancer cells are weaker and more fragile than healthy cells due to their dysfunctional metabolism. Nothing more. An effective treatment in no way needs to deal with the true pathogenesis of cancer morphology.

These factors alone VERY STRONGLY suggest that infection can be a contributing factor to cancers, but are in no way the pathogenic route by which these cancers develop.

MUCH more likely is that these infections are aiding in the disruption of cellular metabolism, which is the necessary factor for cancers to develop.

As to the medical mafia comments: occams razor
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
Actually, if one indulges in your grandstanding and reads attentively your last post, you're contradicting yourself...

If anyone's interested in the infectious theory of cancer, there's
- Virginia Livingston Wheeler
- Royal Rife
- Alan Cantwell
- John Gregory
- Thomas Glover
- Tom Deaken
- John E White
- Robert E Netterberg
- Michael J Scott
- William Mervyn Crofton
- Kiichiro Hasumi
- Antoine Bechamp
- Gaston Naessens
- Clara Fonti
- Tulio Simoncini
- Franz Gerlach
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
There's absolutely nothing inconsistent with anything I said, simply because reality is not inconsistent.

Cancer is not an infectious disease. It's a metabolic event that has a few hundred thousand exogenous triggers. Saying that the disease of cancer is caused by infectious pathogens is no more accurate than saying that the disease of missing leg is caused by a chainsaw. You spend your life avoiding chainsaws and you lose your leg anyways in a motorcycle crash.

If anyone wants to read up on the non-infectious disease model of cancer, read.....anyone other than those people. Because the other 19,999,980 cancer researchers in the world do NOT believe that it's an infectious disease.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
An important thing to realize is that you don't either 'HAVE' or 'DONT HAVE' cancer...everybody makes and destroys cancer cells every day
Once you create more than you eliminate past a certain threshold then a doctor can legally say you 'HAVE' cancer, but its subject to change day to day,
week to week, as well as what the medical community defines as the threshold of 'HAVE' or 'HAVE NOT'

Think about the phrase: 'He's a cancer to the team' ....what does that imply? Something about that person's behavior is detrimental to the team, whether
it be their inability to contribute, them being a drain of resources, or just in general having a negative outlook or perspective, or a draining behavior in some way

Translate that out to anyone who has cancer, and change it to 'He's a cancer to society' , or 'He's a cancer to the balance/stability of the ecosystem'

Then it is easy to see how someones behavior and lifestyle are directly related to their level of cancer, as well as where they are living on the earth and who
they are around / in contact with. A carcinogen maybe a carcinogen to some people in certain places at certain times but not others at other places at other times, depending
on how it influences the balance of the multitude of variables that individual is in relation to.

Take this for example: Wood smoke is a carcinogen to a person who is burning more than necessary to survive, where their behavior would lead to an eventual deforestation in that particular region they are living. Another person in a particularly woody area of the world could burn the same amount of wood as the first person in their woody habitat and not run the risk of deforesting the area due to the regeneration being able to happen quicker than the depletion, therefore that same amount of wood smoke is not a carcinogen to the second person whereas it would be to the first...until the second person . That is why objective science can't pinpoint these kind of things...they try to define rigid thresholds without considering the balance of people, time, and place, and other variables. Unnecessary factory farm consumption of meat in America for example, slowly ruining the environment is carcinogenic. The same amount of meat from the same animals, but sustainably harvested in a different region of the world where that particular food was necessary
to survive would not be carcinogenic, even though it would be considered the exact same substance buy science
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
Insulting....and quite convenient for the therapist.

If he can't cure you, that's because it's your own fault...
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
theres no cure...everyone, like I said, always has a certain, fluctuating degree of cancer and it is something that's causes are constantly changing and dynamic based on
your interactions, surroundings, and the time. The more in harmony you are with your surroundings and interactions generally correlates to the degree of cancer you are currently carrying. I'm sure I am carrying some right now that I am unaware of but if I realized the causes would immediately try to adjust
 

nwo2012

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,107
pboy said:
theres no cure...everyone, like I said, always has a certain, fluctuating degree of cancer and it is something that's causes are constantly changing and dynamic based on
your interactions, surroundings, and the time. The more in harmony you are with your surroundings and interactions generally correlates to the degree of cancer you are currently carrying. I'm sure I am carrying some right now that I am unaware of but if I realized the causes would immediately try to adjust

According to who? Prove it then please. Reading some webpages is no proof of any of that.
If someone has tumours evident and they change their lifestyle/eating and supplement and the tumour regresses then I would consider that a cure of that particular cancer. To say there is no cure is complete nonsense imo. :2cents
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
haidut The War On Cancer Is A Bust - No Real Progress And Actually A Regress Scientific Studies 63
Hans Zinc Is Useful Against HIV (any Infection Actually), Cancer And Tumors Minerals 17
A Does mouth breathing cure cancer ? Altitude, Bag Breathing, CO2, Light, Weather 3
LoryEl Research Mushroom consumption lowers the risk of cancer by 45% Carrot Salad, Bamboo Shoots, Mushrooms 0
egoy Brain Cancer stage 4 glioblastoma giant cells. What options are available? Ask For Help or Advice 147
L Sambar, an Indian Dish Prevents the Development of DimethColon Cancer Digestion 1
Mito Lowering and Stabilizing PSA Levels in Advanced-prostate Cancer Patients With Oral Methioninase Cancer 0
haidut Blocking cortisol may treat terminal pancreatic cancer Scientific Studies 1
haidut Vitamin D can force cancer cells to differentiate back into normal Scientific Studies 1
haidut DHT / Progesterone / aspirin treat, cortisol ineffective, PUFA promotes prostate cancer Scientific Studies 1
Soren Cancer Chemo internal bleeding, help Cancer 4
Jam Association Between Aspirin Use and Biliary Tract Cancer Survival Scientific Studies 18
N Milk, mTOR and cancer Dairy, Eggs 52
Soren Mouth Cancer women 95 Years Cancer 7
J Stage 4 Kidney Cancer Cancer 6
cupofcoffee Post-diagnostic coffee and tea consumption and breast cancer survival Coffee 0
haidut Androgens (e.g. DHT) curative even for treatment-resistant breast cancer Scientific Studies 0
haidut Even "non-carcinogenic" estrogens can cause cancer Scientific Studies 0
J Arginine and Glutaime in Gelatin, is it good or bad for cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 9
ecstatichamster Aspirin increases cancer and mortality — or does it? Scientific Studies 9
B Cancer of the womb Female Issues 2
O Doxycycline Inhibits Cancer Stem Cell-Like Properties via PAR1/FAK/PI3K/AKT Pathway in Pancreatic Cancer Scientific Studies 2
burtlancast Blood acidosis protects against cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 2
A Japanese women and breast cancer - what has been overlooked Cancer 24
P Pain under both armpits could i have cancer Ask For Help or Advice 22
A Consuming Milk Increase Your Risk for Prostate Cancer? Milk 35
Orangeyouglad My Mother Has Breast Cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 23
Mito Serotonin Pathway in Cancer Cancer 1
theantagonist Transcript of PMS, PCOS, and Breast Cancer [Generative Energy #17] Generative Energy Podcast 6
Mito The efficacy of Vitamin K in the treatment of cancer K 1
T Prostate Cancer Prevention Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 20
G Prednisone, lung transplant, breast cancer, appendicitis - where to start to improve health? Ask For Help or Advice 10
M “Mothers can give babies cancer through amniotic fluid” Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 2
L 11-Ketotestosterone main driver of malign prostate cancer Scientific Studies 33
haidut Stress-driven lipid peroxidation, inflammation re-awakens dormant cancer cells Scientific Studies 0
haidut Aspirin can cure liver cancer in just 24 hours (in rabbits) Scientific Studies 2
Tristan Loscha A Proposed Treatment With Clioquinol And Cabergoline For The Treatment Of Terminal Prostate Cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 16
L Aspirin As A Suppressor Of Cancer-related Epigenetic Aging Scientific Studies 2
haidut Estrogen May Be The Cause Of "estrogen-negative" Breast Cancer Scientific Studies 0
M Inflamatory Breast Cancer Treatment Causes? Female Issues 1
GreenTrails If You've Had Cancer, What Do You Think Causes Cancer? Ask For Help or Advice 74
ecstatichamster Would Exemestane Help Prostate Cancer Patients Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 0
rzero Breast Cancer Survivors Who Use Estrogenic Botanical Supplements Have Lower Serum Estrogen Levels Scientific Studies 20
UltraSuperior Is There Anything That Can Be Done For Pancreatic Cancer? Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 26
E Coffee Associated With Improved Survival In Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Scientific Studies 0
haidut Lipolysis / FFA Drive Breast Cancer By Promoting Estrogen Signalling Scientific Studies 0
Lewis Acid Colonoscopy’s Are Lethal And Do NOT Detect Cancer Labs 7
S Cancer Therapy Based On Metabolism Dysfunction Cancer 4
U Anti-Peat Progesterone-positive Cancer? Debate - Anti-Peat 1
L Possible Skin Cancer Help :/ Skin 6

Similar threads

Top