When first beginning my study of cancer in the early 1970s, textbooks said there were 900 different types of cancer. By now, there must be theories that double that figure. Dr. Tullio Simoncini says that in his first histology class, the professor said that “cancer is a mystery”; and he concluded that if it is a mystery, they do not actually know what it is. He went on to publish a book called “Cancer is a Fungus” — and as with most revolutionary new ideas, the book sparked controversy as well as some support, largely among patients and holistic practitioners.
It would be wise to place this theory alongside of the work of Geraldine Kaminski, 1918-1985, at the University of Adelaide, Australia. She found mold, not yeast but mold, in patients with cancer, the tumor being assumed to be malignant whereas the autopsies showed otherwise.
Dr. Simoncini reports that all tumors, when viewed by camera from inside the body, are white. He says the tumors are fungal colonies, specifically Candida albicans. As with most who do not toe the line, he has been widely ridiculed as well as censored and celebrated, the full gamut. His treatment is relatively non-invasive and inexpensive.
For now, I am not going to take a position on either the yeast or mold theories, but what I would like to do is reach out to a dot that is very far away. If one wants to make Roquefort cheese, one incubates the batch by dipping a skewer into the penicillium and allowing the mold to do the rest, which it will surely do. The amount of greenish-blue coloring attests to the extent of growth of the mold. So, if one even suspects that there might be a connection between fungi and cancer, the riskiest procedure for anyone would be a biopsy. That’s all I want to say right now. I am not in a position to evaluate the science or the treatment protocols, but I am sure that some mycelia are often mistaken for tumors . . . or some tumors are fungal. You can choose the language that fits your mind-set.
Now, I want to go back eight or nine centuries and compare the understanding of cancer from a spiritual perspective. Tibetans described a tiny copper-colored object that can only be seen by those who have mastered advanced meditation techniques and Hildegard of Bingen saw something with her spiritual vision that she referred to as “vermes”, a word that has been variously translated as either virus or worm. It is clear that what both the Tibetan monks and abbess saw was microscopic so this takes me to Royal Rife and cutting edge researchers today. Rife saw something he referred to as the BX cancer virus, something he could transplant into an uninfected animal and cause the same type of cancer as the animal from whom the virus was sourced. He was meticulous and proved to his satisfaction that tumors are viral. I have spoken with immunologists who phrase this a bit differently: after fifteen years, the viral infection may become malignant. This, however, was not the case with the laboratory animals since the tumors grew very rapidly.
There is ostensibly a line somewhere that separates the infection from the malignancy. The viral connection has been pursued by many other researchers and those who take this path invariably prove to their satisfaction the truth of their theories. The most serious contemporary viral connection is the one surrounding the Simian Virus 40 contaminant in certain batches of the polio vaccine. There is absolutely no doubt that the contaminants were in the vaccine and also no doubt at all about the fact that SV40 causes cancer in animals, usually cancer of the lymphatic system.
Then, we have Hulda Clark, 1928-2009, who popularized a theory that had probably been around for quite a while, but she gave momentum to the idea that cancers are caused by parasites. In the literature I have read, there were other exponents of this theory dating back more than a century and citing everything from microscopic organisms that are a fraction the size of single red blood cells to quite long intestinal parasites and tapeworms. There is also a lot of confused language in texts since many researchers refer to parasites as bacteria, which, quite frankly, I find bizarre.
What is interesting about these theories is that none of them correlate to the textbook idea that cancer is caused by some event that results in a mutation of a normal cell. These mutations run the gamut from anaerobic to aerobic cells and from deformities ranging from very slight chromosomal abnormalities to very severe abnormalities, the degree of deviation from the norm being correlated to how aggressively the cancer will replicate. The theory of the wayward cell has held much sway in conventional as well as unconventional circles but some researchers, such as Dr. Simoncini, say the event causing the mutation has never actually been observed. I hope I am quoting him correctly and apologize if his views have changed since I last touched base with his work.
The event would indeed be hard to observe. So, to bring this down to earth a bit, we could say that if cell phones cause brain and perhaps other kinds of cancer, which phone call was it that caused the first mutation? Was that an isolated event or one that was repeated countless times? If it was the cause, how would it affect the theories of microorganisms causing cancer?
There are lots more theories, some of them highly specific. Exposure to radiation, which obviously would be extra risky if one had the virus sourced from Dr. Mary’s monkeys, is one alleged cause, but even this theory has variants such as low dose radiation or radiation hormesis being somehow helpful. I doubt this because the vibration of radiation is faster than the fastest constituents of the body so the speed itself would cause unpredictable levels of excitement and the potential for damage.
There are many additional theories revolving around xenohormones and underwire bras and various chemical carcinogens and so on and so forth, truly ad nauseam. Then, of course, there are those who put the blame on genetics, i.e., the inherited genes rather than the life style proclivities are the culprit. We probably should not forget the metaphysicians with their own pet theories.
Now that we see a bigger picture — but surely no where near the whole picture — we have to examine the possibilities and decide whether one theory can account for 900 different forms of cancer or a handful of protocols can be realistically expected to cure everyone.
Turning back the pages of history, we do not find a distinction between benign and malignant tumors in most traditional systems of medicine. It is probable that most conditions were diagnosed only once the symptoms were quite severe, such as when a breast ulcerated or penetrated the chest wall. Typically, these conditions were referred to as swellings or enlargements or growths, not malignancies.
Speaking from my own experience of having seen many patients with ulcerations, I could describe conditions that were white, yellowish, yellowish-green, green, and greenish-gray. In short, visual inspection does not support any statement including the word “all” as this seems absurd to me. What might be true is that if cancer were defined solely on the basis of one specific abnormality, it might be possible to correlate that particular abnormality with a cause. To make this clear, if there is a chromosomal abnormality, that might in fact explain some theory of mutation, but if cancer is defined on the basis of its invasiveness, then the likelihood is that countless factors could produce the sort of swelling or growth of masses that are typically regarded as malignancies. I have probably stepped way over the line here and professionals may balk at some of my statements, but if cancer is a mystery, then it would take a mystic to figure out the cause, someone like Hildegard of Bingen.
If one thinks of the millions of pages written on cancer or its protocols, then we realize that research itself has become highly sensitive to single hypothesis approaches to enormous problems that might not have single variables. So, where do we go from here? The only truly dependable research is that done with real patients whose conditions arose independently of some laboratory experiment. By this, I mean it is difficult to compare a mouse or rabbit study in which a virus is inserted into an otherwise healthy animal with a human study of a person with a complex life history, highly individualistic life style, and very specific exposures to carcinogens, geopathic stressors, and so on and so forth. In a holistic clinic, protocols would be tweaked constantly whereas in an allopathic treatment facility, one generally agrees to endure the entire process with relatively few modifications.
What is needed is outcome research. What actually happens during treatment, a year later, five years later, ten years later, and so on and so forth. Outcome research requires an immense budget because the work goes on even after the treatment is completed so there is no income to cover the years and years required to sift through the data. Obviously, there is no incentive to perform the studies if the results of the outcome research do not support more of the same. This leaves people without the data required to make informed decisions, but the data hardly exists. There is a bit here and a bit there, but not nearly as much as is needed.
Now, when I think of a specific herb and all the literature surrounding the herb, I am fascinated by the range of conditions said to be alleviated by the herb. Normally, one starts with ethnobotanical or traditional studies and these often span a wide territory. Some herbs may be native to one place but introduced to another environment. You can think of some Polynesians or Vikings loading their boats for lands afar. What would they take with them? Everything they anticipate they will want or need where they land, right? Sometimes, transplantation occurs because of economics, such as the potato blight or failure of grape crops. Sometimes, it is prompted by recognition of the need for biodiversity, but if you take an Amazonian herb like cat’s claw, you will find that many cultures used it but not always for precisely the same conditions. It may be greatly revered and later researched by scientists who are looking for a new medicine or something to patent. The herbs may repair damaged DNA and address all sorts of problems, including both fungi and infection and sometimes even parasites as well. It is bewildering to those who think simplistically rather than mystically. It is hard to believe that a plant can have so many properties that it is useful in seemingly countless situations, but this is, in fact, the case with many herbs, including those used to address cancer.
Most of us cannot imagine a time when wheat was not a staple in European culture. We cannot imagine Russia without potatoes or Italy without spaghetti or the United States without corn. However, none of these foods are indigenous to the places just mentioned. Likewise, many herbs can be found in countless place but a few are rare and unique to certain areas. This is risky and diversity is needed to protect the species. The more diversity there is, the more diverse the ethnobotanical resources and the more there is to study and try.
Returning for a moment now to cat’s claw. We used it in Ecuador with the puppies who had parvovirus because it was locally available and very high quality. I had studied the work of ethnobotanists and knew it was effective for cancer and I was aware of studies in which it was combined with jergon sacha for treatment of AIDS and also studies in which is was shown to have neuroregenerative properties.
Why would a plant have so many uses? The answer might be that life in the Amazon jungle is dangerous: the humidity is high and the risk of fungal infections is great. What part of the plant do we use? We use the bark that protects the tree from fungi, termites, and all the infections that flourish in hot, humid places.
Plants step down light and make it usable to us. They offer us much more if we would just take the time to understand.
Take the time!
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2016
First Posted to Subscribers on 22 January 2016. Slightly edited in September 2020