Amanda thank you for sharing this. Dr Flora wants you to stay in your lane. I wasn’t going to comment until I saw his. My brother is still kicking after using an alt treatment for GBM. He’s doing great!! That particular conspiracy theory has kept him alive for almost 3 years.
The problem is that Dr Flora clearly hasn't read this theory. Nor does he know that I have patients with Stage IV who had seriously high Mycotoxins who are almost NED right now. It's different for each person and there are no guarantees but maybe this is a lot like other 'conspiracy theories', it's conspiracy until it suits the narrative, then it's true!
When I listened to the Mayo doc’s video that was referenced and realized how out of context it was — immediate red flag. No need to move on. Does Dr Vikram know you posted this video?
Please explain what you mean by out of context - I'm concerned you've misinterpreted the use of the video in the article, and have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion.
1. The link/video falls under both fair use policy (U.S.) and fair dealing policy (UK), especially for educational, critical, or research-oriented purposes. It does not require permission when cited/linked/embeded within a substack article.
2. Wow, just as I thought - your bias led you to an incorrect assumption. You judged our use of the content to mean something it doesn't - and then you ran with that strawman to falsely claim it is presented out of context. This would be funny if it weren't such a serious subject and you weren't a medical professional.
Amanda King ND and myself are not the one's misleading the public here.
My personal story is similar. I chose not to do conventional Chemotherapy or Radiation. I chose all holistic, alternative treatments. That was 4 years ago…
Very well done on your process. I do have to say though Raquel that we don't suggest that any interventions are ever as an alternative to conventional care, rather a complement to them. We look at what the research shows us. Thanks for your support.
I have Osteoporosis. Why on earth would I choose Radiation?
In addition, I knew my root cause of disease, so I was fortunate. Late-stage Lyme disease (4 strains), 3 strains of Bartonella, Babesia, Mycoplasma Pneumonia just to name a few...
That Dr. Flora comments is typical of someone that has to back the scam of conventional medicine. It's clear we can no longer trust them and their daddy big pharma.
BTW I tried subscribing to you and it kept rejecting my CC. And I know it's not my card.
There have been compelling arguments that cancer is virus mediated, a parasitic condition and now this fungus caused( I think fungus mediation has already been sounded). What remains is the possibility of a bacterial role. The usefulness of doxycycline in cancer strongly indicates this, though here its off label anti fungal property is highlighted. The fact that multi anti infectives like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole etc too respond strongly shows that cancer could be basically a pathogen indicated disease, a pathogen resident in us and for most of us staying inert. It means the pathogen could trigger cancer specific cell responses under some trigger, internal or external. While these ultimate triggers cannot be wished away ( environment exposures etc), the focus should be rightly on deactivating the pathogen, whatever the type it is. The pathogen need not be stand alone types, could be multiple types also. For example, depending on the situation it can behave like a virus or parasite. This fungus observation also indicates that cancer could be an auto immune disease also. All these possibilities are related to each other. That is why I feel that many common drugs, hundreds of them, from many different indications can be cancer fighting - both prophylactically and therapeutically. Each one could tackle one or two aspects of the disease, implying that the protocols of repurposed drugs must include three or four drugs, adjuvants apart. Cancer has often been related to the mechanism of aging. Physiologically, normal aging, without much undue baggage, could be barricade against cancer development. This article provides significant matter for thinking.
Thanks, Dr. When views like this with some observations are advanced, people often say that cancer is not a single disease implying that the source cannot be one. Actually there is no contradiction between these two positions. There could be quite a few fronts on which the disease is progressing each with its own symptom. If someone wants to call them different diseases, it is ok. What we see eventually is a single clinical manifestation. It is time that the metabolic nature of the disease was formally accepted by the medical community world over, while work can continue to unravel the details further. As more and more of these details emerge, it is necessary to expand the portfolio of repurposed drugs that can be summoned for the job, starting with matching of a drug metabolism with one aspect of the disease activity. There is also this need to integrate other working therapies like CDS ( chlorine dioxide solution) based on electrical charge changes in the cancer environment. Including the theories part. There is every reason to believe that the fungus ( or even a virus or parasite) is altering the electrical charge environment in the cells with its macromolecular chemical structure, causing the cell distress etc. And CDS with a favourable oxidation potential is dismantling the fungal structure and eliminate its activity.
From a consumer standpoint, i want to hear all opinions and data and make my own decision. It's obvious from the statistics on vaccines and chemo that they are not safe and they are not effective. So please allow practitioners to identify other avenues of treatment and their outcomes.
My work is not against standard of care treatments, not in any way. I believe that we all need to work together and stay curious, remain open to learning, all of us. We are interested in data, science, sharing, understanding and truth! Not censorship or dogma. A little intellectual humility goes a long way towards true learning and compassion.
Whilst I battle my own cancer, this theory resonates with me as I’ve just tested high positive for mycotoxins (amongst many others)!! Thank you for sharing your insights Amanda - truly appreciate all that you offer. I will indeed look at Marks book and consider his theory more closely (another one to add to my growing library…..😵💫😵💫😵💫😂)!!
Thanks Andrea for sharing your story and Mark and I are very happy that this may add information in to the overall puzzle for you. That's what this is all about, looking at the evidence, making sense of it, thinking creatively, learning and applying knowledge. Itraconazole can be excellent against many mycotoxins, do find a Doctor to prescribe what is necessary. Deep rooted systemic mould can take a lot more than one round of antifungals to clear, discuss a plan with your Doctor.
Anti fungal plants? sure lots! Berberine (an extract from plants) might emulate Metformin for example (not entirely the same but similar mechanisms) best to work with a qualified health professional to make sure that this is the right plant for you. Plants can be very powerful medicines.
Dr. Tullio Simoncini, Rome. Pediatric Oncologist. His crime, "Cancer is a Fungus" was having great success with Bicarbonate of soda, rinsing tumors several days, daily tumors noticeably smaller until gone. I saw the videos of his procedures. I saw his lectures. Real, very real, very successful.
No. There is no credible evidence that cancer is caused by a fungal infection.
This theory veers far outside the bounds of legitimate science.
Amanda, while I respect your work on exercise/diet and metabolic health, articles like this only contribute to confusing scared and vulnerable patients into supporting conspiracy theories.
Happy to have a Substack live to “debate” topics likes this. It’s just too important and misinformation is getting out of hand. Our patients are reading this stuff and skipping out on established treatments to try different things and then show up in my office with stage IV disease.
I will donate $1000 to a cancer foundation of your choice if you find one credible oncologist or cancer researcher who agrees cancer is caused by a fungus.
Every new model, especially if it challenges conventional thinking, is met with resistance initially - and yes of course you will be hard pushed to find an oncologist who agrees that cancer is caused by a fungus - simply because the theory is so new - 99% of oncologists aren't yet aware of the evidence supporting it. But a lack of awareness or understanding, isn't confirmation that the theory in question isn't credible.
It took 40 years for the consensus to finally accept that the heart pumped blood around the body, William Harvey was derided and ridiculed for actually being correct, for 40 years. Let's not repeat the unscientific mistakes of the past and embrace new information with an open mind and with objectivity, as science demands.
My goal is to help patients by determining reality as much as it is possible to do so, to aid us combat the disease. It would be helpful if you identified what you perceive to be the flaws in the theory so that we can have a scientific discussion that's beneficial for all, as opposed to making unfounded claims that risk misleading others.
As an MD turned naturopath, I would like to weigh in: A quote from the above article says: "When a pathogen enters a cell, particularly one as stealthy and adaptive as certain fungi, the cell initiates what’s known as the Cell Danger Response (as described by Dr. Robert Naviaux).
This is a survival protocol: the cell changes its behaviour."
I would like to suggest that the stealthy and adaptive organism is not a fungus but in fact a parasite. I believe this is proven over and over again by the fact that there are not a couple of studies but hundreds of studies showing that anti-parasitics, not anti-fungals have been successful in healing cancer. Please look at my substack "How Do I Know If I Have Parasites?" and my first article, "Our Immune Systems Are Failing Us. Why" for a more lengthy explanations.
Before we can weigh your claims alongside decades of experimental cancer biology, could you share your laboratory experience in molecular biology, genetics, or tumor immunology? I don’t want to assume anything.
I note the very definite and specific choice of words here.
I will donate $1000 to a cancer foundation of your choice if you find one credible oncologist or cancer researcher who agrees cancer is caused by a fungus.
'Agrees cancer is caused'
Well there is no unified agreement on any cause of cancer, in fact it's myriad! We all know that!
No-one in the article is putting anything as a truth, this is a theory, like the metabolic theory of cancer and like the Somatic mutation theory.
It's a shame, I almost thought it was a genuine offer there and I was going to put that out in our network but of course, you are asking the impossible, science isn't there yet.
Daniel Flora is exposing himself by the language he is using. Doesn’t he know we are so done with the word “misinformation” and it is a huge red flag when people use it? It’s almost like he doesn’t want cancer patients to read or think critically! I wonder why?
You don’t need credentials to contribute to science. But you do need to respect the process. And if you’re not willing to do that, don’t pretend what you’re offering is truth. Because lives are at stake.
Amanda or Mark, I have loss of the LBK1 gene (PJS) which also means the AMPK pathway is severely impaired. Do you know if the loss of LBK1 and impairment of AMPK pathway makes someone more vulnerable to fungal infection? In other words, when there is a genetic component is there a susceptibility to fungal infections? If so how? I do not have cancer but I am actively reading and learning how to prevent cancer. (I happen to have a doctor who wants his patients to learn and think critically. Thank goodness. Also, he is also not an oncologist. Thank goodness to that too! Because apparently oncologists don’t want their patients reading!;))
Hi JJ, I haven't come across this cell deletion yet in my work but if the AMPK pathway is impaired that implies that you will be mostly in an anabolic state. It's interesting. I would say that vulnerability to fungal infection would come from weakened immune function, so that is one place to focus. Your Doctor sounds progressive, that's great!
Great advice to work on immune system. Loss of LBK1 is rare so I am not surprised that you have not come across it. I just learned about the impairment of the AMPK pathway due to the loss of the tumor suppressor gene. This is when I started understanding the connection of the metabolic theory and the cancer is genetic theory. It is very confusing to me so I am very thankful for people like you.
Amanda — let’s go live. Let’s debate it online for your readers. Bring Mark. It won’t take but 15 minutes and I can clearly explain in clear scientific or layperson language why this is dangerous. I would love to have an opportunity to explain the red flags of pseudoscience.
I offer honesty when I don’t know something. And when I’m not an expert, I don’t pretend to be, especially when vulnerable people are searching for answers.
Graphic designers promoting cancer theories based on misinterpreted data is deeply concerning. What’s worse is that patients read this, believe it is true, and act on it, often in isolation.
I don’t know if you’ve ever witnessed someone with an 80 to 90 percent chance of cure die because they followed an internet theory instead of real treatment. I have. It is beyond heartbreaking.
This article, and the broader theory it promotes, is full of red flags, scientific misinterpretations, and dangerous messaging. Even using a Mayo Clinic physician’s name while misrepresenting his work is unethical and misleading. Whether intentional or not, it is clear the author lacks the training to interpret the science. This should not be promoted in any way.
Dr Flora, I understand your concerns for your patients and of course they are valid. But please be careful you are not jumping to conclusions and making unverified statements (the very thing you are warning others about), based on the prejudices and assumptions you hold about someone outside of the field offering something worth considering - no one here is claiming to be correct, the title of my book has a question mark in it for a very good reason.
Good scientists don't make statements or judgements, they ask the right questions, that's the entire premise of my work, asking the questions that stimulate debate to push the boundaries of our understanding so that we may make progress.
If we all trusted the consensus view and never questioned it we'd all still believe the Earth was the center of the universe.
Please enlighten us to the many 'red flags' you refer to because my theory has been out for over two years, without a credible challenge to it.
I'm constantly conversing with leading scientists and clinicians - such as Ravid Straussman (Israel), Dr Robert Nagourney (USA) and Professor Angus Dalgliesh (UK) just to name a few - the latter of which is the most respected scientist/oncologist in Britain.
I'm also collaborating with some high-profile medical professionals (we meet once a month) to develop a trial to test my theory (medical professionals who are volunteering their time I might add).
Please advise what these other medical experts are clearly missing.
Mark — my concern is that what you have presented may have been to an echo chamber of folks interested in alternative medicine, not researchers who study cancer mycobiome and TME for a living.
But, if you want comments from someone who studies this everyday, my main points would be:
1. Cancer is a collection of distinct diseases: It’s not one uniform disease, but rather many, each driven by unique factors. Some cancers arise from specific genetic mutations (like BRCA in breast cancer or BCR-ABL in leukemia), others from viral infections (such as HPV leading to cervical cancer), or disruptions in metabolism or immune dysregulation.
Laboratory evidence disproving fungi as direct cancer cause:
Cancer cell lines grown in sterile laboratory conditions completely free of fungi or other microbes readily multiply and spread, showing that fungi aren’t necessary for cancers to develop or persist.
Fungal presence in cancer cells is not consistent. Highly sensitive techniques, like genomic sequencing, fail to identify fungal DNA or fungal cells universally within cancer tissues. If fungi were directly causing cancer, researchers would detect fungal signatures consistently across all tumors, but this has not been demonstrated.
Fungi can indirectly influence cancer, but indirect does not equal causation: While fungi within the body (the “mycobiome”) can affect inflammation or immune responses around tumors, this indirect impact is fundamentally different from causing a normal cell to become cancerous.
Promoting fungi as a universal cause of cancer contradicts decades of rigorous scientific evidence and this commonly shows up on misinformation websites (along with parasites as a cause).
Such misinformation diverts attention and resources away from proven, evidence-based treatments and genuine cancer prevention research.
If you could point me ton a cancer researcher that supports your theory (email) I would invite them onto my Substack to share their thoughts.
That's a valid concern, but not one you have enough insight to draw a valid conclusion.
You may want to look up the credentials of Professor Michael Lisanti, Professor Brigitte Konig, Dr Ahmed Elsakka, & Dr Penny Kechagioglou - all conventionally trained scientists and clinicians who were part of the 10 strong panel I debated.
1. "Cancer is a set of distinct diseases" - possibly, although this has not been proven, it is our best guess based on the limited data we have available - and yet every cancer follows a distinct pattern despite being in different tissue and harbouring wildly random DNA mutations, some without any driver mutations at all, arguably suggesting we've misunderstood the disease and that it is the same disease (driven by infection) - just that it occurs in different tissue (explaining the nuances we see from tissue to tissue).
We don't currently know the origin of the disease, so from a problem-solving/scientific standpoint the phrase that cancer is a set of distinct diseases is by definition incorrect. This highlights to me a HUGE red flag in terms of your thinking - making definitive statements on something that is unproven - it may be the consensus interpretation but that doesn't make it correct.
If you'd have read my book you would have noted that I deal with the link to DNA mutations and how they can help to facilitate infection. The p53 gene, for instance (the most mutated DNA gene alleged to cause the disease), regulates immunity impairing immune function, facilitating infection.
2. Regarding cancer cell lines grown in the lab in sterile conditions: This is incredibly nuanced and you are making general assumptions that risk misleading the reader. Case in point: Ravid Straussman performed NextGEN DNA sequencing on lab samples of cancer tissue assumed to be sterile. He discovered that bacteria and fungi existed within all cancers (microbes made up 2.1% of DNA reads), 6.3% of DNA reads were unknown to science suggesting many pathogens we have yet to discover could be involved. To that point, we have only discovered less than 5% of all micro-organisms estimated to be present on the planet - and have a limited capacity to identify them. New pathogens are being discovered all of the time - A new type of micro-organism - an Obelisk - was discovered in 2024. A new organ in the human body (Interstitium) discovered in 2019 - so there is a great deal we don't know.
Cancer even arises spontaneously in germ free mice - only to discover that actually a virus appears to be involved, so they are not entirely germ free. They are only germ free to the extent of our limited capacity to identify known micro-organisms within our current limited database.
There is a huge danger in making the assumptions and assertions you make because human biology is much more complex and nuanced than your opinion suggests - Prior to 2014 and even now, the consensus asserted that tumuors were sterile (free of micro-organisms) - they were wrong, it was also assumed that the brain was sterile because of the BBB, again the consensus appears to be wrong. Could your world view be wrong? Sure, that's something that as a scientist should be ingrained in your thinking - but appears to be lacking in this thread.
In Nature, an article discussing these findings suggests that fungal infection should be considered as one of the hallmarks of cancer such is the significance of their perceived involvement.
Of course, what you can do in the lab and what occurs in the human body, are two very different things. And this is something that needs to be reviewed in light of my research/theory.
3. The universality of fungi in cancerous tissue - again, if you'd read my book you'd have seen that I explain this.
4. Promoting fungi as a cause of cancer is found on misinformation websites. A) Who are you or any 'fact checker' for that matter, to determine truth, in order to label something misinformation? Science doesn't provide truth per say, it is constantly evolving and updating - what was deemed truth and misinformation yesterday can be overturned the next and often is. B) My theory is the first to provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the exact mechanisms through which fungi may generate the disease - discounting fungi based on its mention on so called 'misinformation' websites, is no way to scientifically evaluate the plausibility of the premise.
"Promoting fungi as a cause goes against decades of science" < how to unpack that loaded and misinformed statement?! I'm presenting the science that suggests fungi are the cause in a open and objective manner - your statement contradicts the foundational principles of science itself - creating a strawman argument that suggests that the science on cancer is settled and that the science has tested fungi as the origin of the disease and proven it not to incorrect - nothing could be further from the truth! My point being that science hasn't yet tested to see if fungi are the origin of the disease - so making claims to contrary is the definition of presenting misinformation.
Just maybe it is the universal ability of intracellular fungal infection to cause the disease and drive it - and the haste to dismiss such a concept so readily, that is the problem in medical science - and that it is this dismissive attitude lacking in objectivity that is responsible for the continued misinterpretation of the disease and failure to treat it effectively. Just a thought.
Did you see this piece of research that shows chemotherapy has a 98% failure rate?
"The attached scientific research study over 15 years found the contribution of chemotherapy to the 5-year survival rate was 2.1% USA and 2.3% in Australia, that’s almost 98% failure rate”
While you know by now that I never promote alternative medicine, only complementary therapies to standard of care. I won't stand by and watch you rip a credible article and diligent researcher to pieces on my page and not speak up.
Are you aware that Mark's theory 2 years ago, was subjected to a live debate with 10 Cancer Experts, both clinicians and scientists?
In front of an audience of 200 Medical Professionals who took a vote after the debate a confidence rating of 85% was given to the Cell Suppression Theory.
You were clearly not a part of that audience and I have to wonder how you might have voted if you had been a party to it.
Amanda thank you for sharing this. Dr Flora wants you to stay in your lane. I wasn’t going to comment until I saw his. My brother is still kicking after using an alt treatment for GBM. He’s doing great!! That particular conspiracy theory has kept him alive for almost 3 years.
The problem is that Dr Flora clearly hasn't read this theory. Nor does he know that I have patients with Stage IV who had seriously high Mycotoxins who are almost NED right now. It's different for each person and there are no guarantees but maybe this is a lot like other 'conspiracy theories', it's conspiracy until it suits the narrative, then it's true!
When I listened to the Mayo doc’s video that was referenced and realized how out of context it was — immediate red flag. No need to move on. Does Dr Vikram know you posted this video?
Please explain what you mean by out of context - I'm concerned you've misinterpreted the use of the video in the article, and have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion.
1. Did you ask permission?
2. Are you aware he was talking about how fungal infections can mimic cancers until we biopsy to confirm histology?
1. The link/video falls under both fair use policy (U.S.) and fair dealing policy (UK), especially for educational, critical, or research-oriented purposes. It does not require permission when cited/linked/embeded within a substack article.
2. Wow, just as I thought - your bias led you to an incorrect assumption. You judged our use of the content to mean something it doesn't - and then you ran with that strawman to falsely claim it is presented out of context. This would be funny if it weren't such a serious subject and you weren't a medical professional.
Amanda King ND and myself are not the one's misleading the public here.
My personal story is similar. I chose not to do conventional Chemotherapy or Radiation. I chose all holistic, alternative treatments. That was 4 years ago…
Very well done on your process. I do have to say though Raquel that we don't suggest that any interventions are ever as an alternative to conventional care, rather a complement to them. We look at what the research shows us. Thanks for your support.
I have Osteoporosis. Why on earth would I choose Radiation?
In addition, I knew my root cause of disease, so I was fortunate. Late-stage Lyme disease (4 strains), 3 strains of Bartonella, Babesia, Mycoplasma Pneumonia just to name a few...
Awesome Raquel! I have seen it work on most but a certain segment it didn’t have any impact. Thankful for you and your story.
My pleasure. Thank you for sharing your brother's great story!
I wish you well my friend.
That Dr. Flora comments is typical of someone that has to back the scam of conventional medicine. It's clear we can no longer trust them and their daddy big pharma.
BTW I tried subscribing to you and it kept rejecting my CC. And I know it's not my card.
I'll message you and let's investigate what is going on - thanks for your support. Interesting comment wasn't it. :)
Please check your messages Jack!
There have been compelling arguments that cancer is virus mediated, a parasitic condition and now this fungus caused( I think fungus mediation has already been sounded). What remains is the possibility of a bacterial role. The usefulness of doxycycline in cancer strongly indicates this, though here its off label anti fungal property is highlighted. The fact that multi anti infectives like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole etc too respond strongly shows that cancer could be basically a pathogen indicated disease, a pathogen resident in us and for most of us staying inert. It means the pathogen could trigger cancer specific cell responses under some trigger, internal or external. While these ultimate triggers cannot be wished away ( environment exposures etc), the focus should be rightly on deactivating the pathogen, whatever the type it is. The pathogen need not be stand alone types, could be multiple types also. For example, depending on the situation it can behave like a virus or parasite. This fungus observation also indicates that cancer could be an auto immune disease also. All these possibilities are related to each other. That is why I feel that many common drugs, hundreds of them, from many different indications can be cancer fighting - both prophylactically and therapeutically. Each one could tackle one or two aspects of the disease, implying that the protocols of repurposed drugs must include three or four drugs, adjuvants apart. Cancer has often been related to the mechanism of aging. Physiologically, normal aging, without much undue baggage, could be barricade against cancer development. This article provides significant matter for thinking.
Thank you Moro
Thanks, Dr. When views like this with some observations are advanced, people often say that cancer is not a single disease implying that the source cannot be one. Actually there is no contradiction between these two positions. There could be quite a few fronts on which the disease is progressing each with its own symptom. If someone wants to call them different diseases, it is ok. What we see eventually is a single clinical manifestation. It is time that the metabolic nature of the disease was formally accepted by the medical community world over, while work can continue to unravel the details further. As more and more of these details emerge, it is necessary to expand the portfolio of repurposed drugs that can be summoned for the job, starting with matching of a drug metabolism with one aspect of the disease activity. There is also this need to integrate other working therapies like CDS ( chlorine dioxide solution) based on electrical charge changes in the cancer environment. Including the theories part. There is every reason to believe that the fungus ( or even a virus or parasite) is altering the electrical charge environment in the cells with its macromolecular chemical structure, causing the cell distress etc. And CDS with a favourable oxidation potential is dismantling the fungal structure and eliminate its activity.
I’ll write about CDS in the next couple of months! Interesting
From a consumer standpoint, i want to hear all opinions and data and make my own decision. It's obvious from the statistics on vaccines and chemo that they are not safe and they are not effective. So please allow practitioners to identify other avenues of treatment and their outcomes.
This is exactly the point Elizabeth, thank you!
Empowerment, Education & Understanding.
My work is not against standard of care treatments, not in any way. I believe that we all need to work together and stay curious, remain open to learning, all of us. We are interested in data, science, sharing, understanding and truth! Not censorship or dogma. A little intellectual humility goes a long way towards true learning and compassion.
Whilst I battle my own cancer, this theory resonates with me as I’ve just tested high positive for mycotoxins (amongst many others)!! Thank you for sharing your insights Amanda - truly appreciate all that you offer. I will indeed look at Marks book and consider his theory more closely (another one to add to my growing library…..😵💫😵💫😵💫😂)!!
Thanks Andrea for sharing your story and Mark and I are very happy that this may add information in to the overall puzzle for you. That's what this is all about, looking at the evidence, making sense of it, thinking creatively, learning and applying knowledge. Itraconazole can be excellent against many mycotoxins, do find a Doctor to prescribe what is necessary. Deep rooted systemic mould can take a lot more than one round of antifungals to clear, discuss a plan with your Doctor.
are there plant substances that emulate your proposed antimicotic meds?
Anti fungal plants? sure lots! Berberine (an extract from plants) might emulate Metformin for example (not entirely the same but similar mechanisms) best to work with a qualified health professional to make sure that this is the right plant for you. Plants can be very powerful medicines.
Pau d’ arco is a powerful antifungal.
Dr. Tullio Simoncini, Rome. Pediatric Oncologist. His crime, "Cancer is a Fungus" was having great success with Bicarbonate of soda, rinsing tumors several days, daily tumors noticeably smaller until gone. I saw the videos of his procedures. I saw his lectures. Real, very real, very successful.
Dear readers:
No. There is no credible evidence that cancer is caused by a fungal infection.
This theory veers far outside the bounds of legitimate science.
Amanda, while I respect your work on exercise/diet and metabolic health, articles like this only contribute to confusing scared and vulnerable patients into supporting conspiracy theories.
I’ll respond to this properly shortly @Daniel Flora.
Happy to have a Substack live to “debate” topics likes this. It’s just too important and misinformation is getting out of hand. Our patients are reading this stuff and skipping out on established treatments to try different things and then show up in my office with stage IV disease.
I will give my readers, the details of how this very credible theory was approved, tomorrow. Tune in readers.
Have you even read the book?
I will donate $1000 to a cancer foundation of your choice if you find one credible oncologist or cancer researcher who agrees cancer is caused by a fungus.
Every new model, especially if it challenges conventional thinking, is met with resistance initially - and yes of course you will be hard pushed to find an oncologist who agrees that cancer is caused by a fungus - simply because the theory is so new - 99% of oncologists aren't yet aware of the evidence supporting it. But a lack of awareness or understanding, isn't confirmation that the theory in question isn't credible.
It took 40 years for the consensus to finally accept that the heart pumped blood around the body, William Harvey was derided and ridiculed for actually being correct, for 40 years. Let's not repeat the unscientific mistakes of the past and embrace new information with an open mind and with objectivity, as science demands.
My goal is to help patients by determining reality as much as it is possible to do so, to aid us combat the disease. It would be helpful if you identified what you perceive to be the flaws in the theory so that we can have a scientific discussion that's beneficial for all, as opposed to making unfounded claims that risk misleading others.
👏 👏 👏
As an MD turned naturopath, I would like to weigh in: A quote from the above article says: "When a pathogen enters a cell, particularly one as stealthy and adaptive as certain fungi, the cell initiates what’s known as the Cell Danger Response (as described by Dr. Robert Naviaux).
This is a survival protocol: the cell changes its behaviour."
I would like to suggest that the stealthy and adaptive organism is not a fungus but in fact a parasite. I believe this is proven over and over again by the fact that there are not a couple of studies but hundreds of studies showing that anti-parasitics, not anti-fungals have been successful in healing cancer. Please look at my substack "How Do I Know If I Have Parasites?" and my first article, "Our Immune Systems Are Failing Us. Why" for a more lengthy explanations.
Before we can weigh your claims alongside decades of experimental cancer biology, could you share your laboratory experience in molecular biology, genetics, or tumor immunology? I don’t want to assume anything.
I note the very definite and specific choice of words here.
I will donate $1000 to a cancer foundation of your choice if you find one credible oncologist or cancer researcher who agrees cancer is caused by a fungus.
'Agrees cancer is caused'
Well there is no unified agreement on any cause of cancer, in fact it's myriad! We all know that!
No-one in the article is putting anything as a truth, this is a theory, like the metabolic theory of cancer and like the Somatic mutation theory.
It's a shame, I almost thought it was a genuine offer there and I was going to put that out in our network but of course, you are asking the impossible, science isn't there yet.
Daniel Flora is exposing himself by the language he is using. Doesn’t he know we are so done with the word “misinformation” and it is a huge red flag when people use it? It’s almost like he doesn’t want cancer patients to read or think critically! I wonder why?
List one attendee that is practicing oncologist or PhD level cancer researcher.
Feel free to text me I’m not trying to hijack a thread
We will keep this thread public and online. It’s important that my readers see this unfold. There are many following.
You don’t need credentials to contribute to science. But you do need to respect the process. And if you’re not willing to do that, don’t pretend what you’re offering is truth. Because lives are at stake.
Do you offer truth, Daniel?
Amanda or Mark, I have loss of the LBK1 gene (PJS) which also means the AMPK pathway is severely impaired. Do you know if the loss of LBK1 and impairment of AMPK pathway makes someone more vulnerable to fungal infection? In other words, when there is a genetic component is there a susceptibility to fungal infections? If so how? I do not have cancer but I am actively reading and learning how to prevent cancer. (I happen to have a doctor who wants his patients to learn and think critically. Thank goodness. Also, he is also not an oncologist. Thank goodness to that too! Because apparently oncologists don’t want their patients reading!;))
Hi JJ, I haven't come across this cell deletion yet in my work but if the AMPK pathway is impaired that implies that you will be mostly in an anabolic state. It's interesting. I would say that vulnerability to fungal infection would come from weakened immune function, so that is one place to focus. Your Doctor sounds progressive, that's great!
Great advice to work on immune system. Loss of LBK1 is rare so I am not surprised that you have not come across it. I just learned about the impairment of the AMPK pathway due to the loss of the tumor suppressor gene. This is when I started understanding the connection of the metabolic theory and the cancer is genetic theory. It is very confusing to me so I am very thankful for people like you.
Thank you for appreciating my work. I am grateful to know that it makes a difference.
Amanda — let’s go live. Let’s debate it online for your readers. Bring Mark. It won’t take but 15 minutes and I can clearly explain in clear scientific or layperson language why this is dangerous. I would love to have an opportunity to explain the red flags of pseudoscience.
Daniel, it's already been done, in front of 200 of your peers. 85% confidence!
I offer honesty when I don’t know something. And when I’m not an expert, I don’t pretend to be, especially when vulnerable people are searching for answers.
Graphic designers promoting cancer theories based on misinterpreted data is deeply concerning. What’s worse is that patients read this, believe it is true, and act on it, often in isolation.
I don’t know if you’ve ever witnessed someone with an 80 to 90 percent chance of cure die because they followed an internet theory instead of real treatment. I have. It is beyond heartbreaking.
This article, and the broader theory it promotes, is full of red flags, scientific misinterpretations, and dangerous messaging. Even using a Mayo Clinic physician’s name while misrepresenting his work is unethical and misleading. Whether intentional or not, it is clear the author lacks the training to interpret the science. This should not be promoted in any way.
Dr Flora, I understand your concerns for your patients and of course they are valid. But please be careful you are not jumping to conclusions and making unverified statements (the very thing you are warning others about), based on the prejudices and assumptions you hold about someone outside of the field offering something worth considering - no one here is claiming to be correct, the title of my book has a question mark in it for a very good reason.
Good scientists don't make statements or judgements, they ask the right questions, that's the entire premise of my work, asking the questions that stimulate debate to push the boundaries of our understanding so that we may make progress.
If we all trusted the consensus view and never questioned it we'd all still believe the Earth was the center of the universe.
Please enlighten us to the many 'red flags' you refer to because my theory has been out for over two years, without a credible challenge to it.
I'm constantly conversing with leading scientists and clinicians - such as Ravid Straussman (Israel), Dr Robert Nagourney (USA) and Professor Angus Dalgliesh (UK) just to name a few - the latter of which is the most respected scientist/oncologist in Britain.
I'm also collaborating with some high-profile medical professionals (we meet once a month) to develop a trial to test my theory (medical professionals who are volunteering their time I might add).
Please advise what these other medical experts are clearly missing.
Mark — my concern is that what you have presented may have been to an echo chamber of folks interested in alternative medicine, not researchers who study cancer mycobiome and TME for a living.
But, if you want comments from someone who studies this everyday, my main points would be:
1. Cancer is a collection of distinct diseases: It’s not one uniform disease, but rather many, each driven by unique factors. Some cancers arise from specific genetic mutations (like BRCA in breast cancer or BCR-ABL in leukemia), others from viral infections (such as HPV leading to cervical cancer), or disruptions in metabolism or immune dysregulation.
Laboratory evidence disproving fungi as direct cancer cause:
Cancer cell lines grown in sterile laboratory conditions completely free of fungi or other microbes readily multiply and spread, showing that fungi aren’t necessary for cancers to develop or persist.
Fungal presence in cancer cells is not consistent. Highly sensitive techniques, like genomic sequencing, fail to identify fungal DNA or fungal cells universally within cancer tissues. If fungi were directly causing cancer, researchers would detect fungal signatures consistently across all tumors, but this has not been demonstrated.
Fungi can indirectly influence cancer, but indirect does not equal causation: While fungi within the body (the “mycobiome”) can affect inflammation or immune responses around tumors, this indirect impact is fundamentally different from causing a normal cell to become cancerous.
Promoting fungi as a universal cause of cancer contradicts decades of rigorous scientific evidence and this commonly shows up on misinformation websites (along with parasites as a cause).
Such misinformation diverts attention and resources away from proven, evidence-based treatments and genuine cancer prevention research.
If you could point me ton a cancer researcher that supports your theory (email) I would invite them onto my Substack to share their thoughts.
That's a valid concern, but not one you have enough insight to draw a valid conclusion.
You may want to look up the credentials of Professor Michael Lisanti, Professor Brigitte Konig, Dr Ahmed Elsakka, & Dr Penny Kechagioglou - all conventionally trained scientists and clinicians who were part of the 10 strong panel I debated.
1. "Cancer is a set of distinct diseases" - possibly, although this has not been proven, it is our best guess based on the limited data we have available - and yet every cancer follows a distinct pattern despite being in different tissue and harbouring wildly random DNA mutations, some without any driver mutations at all, arguably suggesting we've misunderstood the disease and that it is the same disease (driven by infection) - just that it occurs in different tissue (explaining the nuances we see from tissue to tissue).
We don't currently know the origin of the disease, so from a problem-solving/scientific standpoint the phrase that cancer is a set of distinct diseases is by definition incorrect. This highlights to me a HUGE red flag in terms of your thinking - making definitive statements on something that is unproven - it may be the consensus interpretation but that doesn't make it correct.
If you'd have read my book you would have noted that I deal with the link to DNA mutations and how they can help to facilitate infection. The p53 gene, for instance (the most mutated DNA gene alleged to cause the disease), regulates immunity impairing immune function, facilitating infection.
2. Regarding cancer cell lines grown in the lab in sterile conditions: This is incredibly nuanced and you are making general assumptions that risk misleading the reader. Case in point: Ravid Straussman performed NextGEN DNA sequencing on lab samples of cancer tissue assumed to be sterile. He discovered that bacteria and fungi existed within all cancers (microbes made up 2.1% of DNA reads), 6.3% of DNA reads were unknown to science suggesting many pathogens we have yet to discover could be involved. To that point, we have only discovered less than 5% of all micro-organisms estimated to be present on the planet - and have a limited capacity to identify them. New pathogens are being discovered all of the time - A new type of micro-organism - an Obelisk - was discovered in 2024. A new organ in the human body (Interstitium) discovered in 2019 - so there is a great deal we don't know.
Cancer even arises spontaneously in germ free mice - only to discover that actually a virus appears to be involved, so they are not entirely germ free. They are only germ free to the extent of our limited capacity to identify known micro-organisms within our current limited database.
There is a huge danger in making the assumptions and assertions you make because human biology is much more complex and nuanced than your opinion suggests - Prior to 2014 and even now, the consensus asserted that tumuors were sterile (free of micro-organisms) - they were wrong, it was also assumed that the brain was sterile because of the BBB, again the consensus appears to be wrong. Could your world view be wrong? Sure, that's something that as a scientist should be ingrained in your thinking - but appears to be lacking in this thread.
In Nature, an article discussing these findings suggests that fungal infection should be considered as one of the hallmarks of cancer such is the significance of their perceived involvement.
Of course, what you can do in the lab and what occurs in the human body, are two very different things. And this is something that needs to be reviewed in light of my research/theory.
3. The universality of fungi in cancerous tissue - again, if you'd read my book you'd have seen that I explain this.
4. Promoting fungi as a cause of cancer is found on misinformation websites. A) Who are you or any 'fact checker' for that matter, to determine truth, in order to label something misinformation? Science doesn't provide truth per say, it is constantly evolving and updating - what was deemed truth and misinformation yesterday can be overturned the next and often is. B) My theory is the first to provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the exact mechanisms through which fungi may generate the disease - discounting fungi based on its mention on so called 'misinformation' websites, is no way to scientifically evaluate the plausibility of the premise.
"Promoting fungi as a cause goes against decades of science" < how to unpack that loaded and misinformed statement?! I'm presenting the science that suggests fungi are the cause in a open and objective manner - your statement contradicts the foundational principles of science itself - creating a strawman argument that suggests that the science on cancer is settled and that the science has tested fungi as the origin of the disease and proven it not to incorrect - nothing could be further from the truth! My point being that science hasn't yet tested to see if fungi are the origin of the disease - so making claims to contrary is the definition of presenting misinformation.
Just maybe it is the universal ability of intracellular fungal infection to cause the disease and drive it - and the haste to dismiss such a concept so readily, that is the problem in medical science - and that it is this dismissive attitude lacking in objectivity that is responsible for the continued misinterpretation of the disease and failure to treat it effectively. Just a thought.
Did you see this piece of research that shows chemotherapy has a 98% failure rate?
"The attached scientific research study over 15 years found the contribution of chemotherapy to the 5-year survival rate was 2.1% USA and 2.3% in Australia, that’s almost 98% failure rate”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630849/
While you know by now that I never promote alternative medicine, only complementary therapies to standard of care. I won't stand by and watch you rip a credible article and diligent researcher to pieces on my page and not speak up.
Are you aware that Mark's theory 2 years ago, was subjected to a live debate with 10 Cancer Experts, both clinicians and scientists?
In front of an audience of 200 Medical Professionals who took a vote after the debate a confidence rating of 85% was given to the Cell Suppression Theory.
You were clearly not a part of that audience and I have to wonder how you might have voted if you had been a party to it.