My idea is that cancer doesn’t depend on mysterious causes (genetic, immunological or auto immunological as the official oncology proposes, but it comes down from a simple fungal infection, whose destroying power in the deep tissues is actually under estimated.
Premise
The present work is based on the conviction, supported by many years of observations, comparisons and experiences, that the necessary and sufficient cause of the tumour is to be sought in the vast world of the fungi, the most adaptable, aggressive and evolved micro-organisms known in nature.
I have tried many times to explain this theory to leading institutions involved in cancer issues (the Ministry of Health, the Italian Medical Oncological Association, etc.) elaborating on my thinking, but I have been brushed aside because of the impossibility of setting my idea in a conventional context.
A different, international audience represents the possibility of sharing a view about health, which differs, from what is widely accepted by today’s medical community, either officially or from the sidelines.
There is an opposition between the allopathic and the Hippocratic medical ideal. The former has the disadvantage of its inability to consider the individual as a whole. Therefore it brings with it all the distortions and aberrations which such a point of view entails (excessive specialisation, therapeutic aggressiveness, superficiality, harmfulness etc.). The latter approach instead tends in the direction of being too generic, non-scientific, and devoid of therapeutic incisiveness.
The position that I promote represents instead a meeting point of these two conceptions of health, since, from the conceptual point of view, it sublimates and adds value to both, while highlighting how they both are victims of a common conformist language.
The hypothesis of a fungal aetiology in chronic-degenerative illness, able to connect the ethical qualities of the individual with the development of specific pathologies, reconciles the two orientations (allopathic and holistic) of medicine. The hypothesis is a strong candidate for being that missing element of psychosomatics that has been sought but never found by one of the fathers of psychosomatics, Wiktor Von Weiszäcker.
In considering the biological dimensions of the fungi, for instance, it is possible to compare the different degrees of pathogenicity in relation to the condition of organs, tissues and cells of a guest organism, which in turn also and especially depend on the behaviour of the individual.
Each time the recuperative abilities of a known psycho-physic structure are exceeded, there is an inevitable exposure, even considering possible accidental cofounders, to the aggression — even at the smallest dimensions — of those external agents that otherwise would be harmless.
In the presence of an indubitable connection between patient morale and disease it is no longer legitimate to separate the two domains (allopathic and naturopathic) which are both indispensable for improving the health of individuals.
The Platonic separation of the human mind from the human body, responsible for the present mechanistic and materialistic character of today’s medicine, is outdated. So is the pessimistic Kantian position concerning integration of the rational and emotional sides of man (“the starred sky above me, the moral law within me”), which generates the present myopia of today’s medical epistemology. With such outdated cognitive frameworks inevitably come all the mindsets that carry similar restrictive and limiting presuppositions.
Candida Albicans: Necessary and Sufficient Cause of Cancer
When facing the most pressing contemporary medical problem, cancer, the first thing to do is to admit that we still do not know its real cause. However treated in different ways by both official and alternative medicine, an aural of mystery still exists around its real generative process.
The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go through two separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations of oncology, and a constructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system based on a new theoretical point of departure.
In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientific philosophy, which suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find a solution with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted, only one logical formulation emerges; that is, to refuse the oncological principle which assumes cancer is generated by acellular reproductive anomaly.
However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductive anomaly is questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories based on this hypothesis are inevitably flawed.
It follows that both an auto-immunological process, in which the body’s defence mechanisms against external agents turn their destructive capacity against internal constituents of the body, and an anomaly of the genetic structure implicated in the development of auto-destruction, are inevitably disqualified.
Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories about multiple causes that have an oncogenic effect on cellular reproduction sometimes seems like a concealing screen, behind which there is nothing but a wall. These theories propose endless causes that are more or less associated with each other; and this means in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation in turn of smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress, psychological factors, etc., without a properly defined context, causes confusion and resignation, and creates even more mystification around a disease which may turn out to be simpler than it is depicted to be.
As background information, it is important to review the picture of presumed genetic influences in the development of cancer processes as they are depicted by molecular biologists. These are the scientists who perform research on infinitesimally small cellular mechanisms, but who in real life never see a patient. All present medical systems are based on this research, and thus, unfortunately, all therapies currently performed.
The main hypothesis of a genetic neoplastic causality is essentially reduced to the fact that the structures and the mechanism in charge of normal reproductive cellular activity become, for undefined causes, capable of an autonomous behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissular economy.
The genes that normally have a positive role in cellular reproduction are, then, imprecisely referred to as proto-oncogenes; those which inhibit cellular reproduction are called suppressor genes or recessive oncogenes.
Both endogenous (never demonstrated) and exogenous cellular factors — that is, those carcinogenic elements that are usually invoked — are held responsible for the neoplastic degeneration of the tissues.
In J.H. Stein (Medicina Interna – Internal Medicine, Mosby Year Book inc.1994, St. Louis, Missouri, 4th edition, Milano, 1995, page 1186 -1187) the following is reported:
The mitogenic signals, from the microenvironment or from more distant areas of influence, are transmitted to the cells through numerous receptive structures that are associated to the plasmatic membrane.
Among these structures, the ones that have been studied most exhaustively are receptors with an external domain for the binder, a transmembranic domain and a cytoplasmatic domain with a thyrosinkinase activity.
Besides these, it is thought that at least seven distinct classes of molecules participate in the transmission of the mutagenic signal:
1) receptors coupled to G proteins
2) ionic channels
3) receptors with intrinsic activity guanil cyclase
4) receptors for many lymphofokines, cytokines and growth factors (interleukine, eritropoietine, etc.)
5) receptors for the phosphothyrosine phosphorilase activity
6) nuclear receptors belonging to the supergenic family of the receptor for steroidal estrogenic and thyroidal hormones
7) Finally, increasing numbers of tests suggest that the adhesion molecules expressed on the surface of the cells communicate with the microenvironment in ways that produce very important consequences for cellular growth and differentiation.
From a very superficial analysis of this presumed oncological picture, however, it seems to be clear how the assertion of all this unstoppable genetic hyperactivity, generated by elements that almost seem to lurk in the realms of the sinister and the monstrous, and that therefore suggest the existence of God-knows-what abysmal mechanisms that can only be deciphered with equally abysmal conceptual mechanisms — all this can do nothing more that unveil the abysmal stupidity that is at the basis of this way of conceiving things.
What is even more serious is the fact that nobody in the present health establishment seems to question the above-mentioned stupidities. All those who work in the field do nothing but repeat the stale litany of reproductive cellular anomalies on a genetic basis.
Since in this state of affairs the present medical theory shows an impoverishment and a superficiality that are indeed abysmal, it is better to look for new horizons and conceptual instruments that are capable of unearthing a real and unique neoplastic aetiology.
After so many years of failure and suffering it is time to rejuvenate minds with new and productive juices. Arguments for mysterious and complex genetic factors, a monstrous reproductive capacity by a pathologic entity capable of tearing apart any tissue, the idea that there is an implicit and ancestral tendency of the human organism to deviate in an auto-destructive sense — these and other similar arguments, spiced with