Cancer and Candida.

Torakx

ok so i have had one of these myself so far in my life.
can anyone show me why cancer is not infact candida?

will appreciate all comments and i will try find some links for info on why i think they may be the same thing.
so you got a headstart on me

ok heres one site with an overview and video links.
http://evidenceofhealing.blogspot.com/2008/08/cancer-fungus-dr-tullio-simoncini.html

link to a reading about the topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

ps it seems the conspiracy part isnt clear so i will try to explain.
at the moment cancer is ussually treated by cutting the tumor away and/or radiation therapy.
its been shown that the survival rate for chemo is quite low.
since candida is easily treated once its known. and the cure for cancer seems to be alot more simple than chemo
i am saying that the powers that be are trying to cover up this info to continue gaining money for chemo therapy etc.

because a simple diet to prevent cancer would be a disaster for the W.H.O and friends.
so i am saying cancer is a result of candida plus the gathering of toxins like a defensive reaction(tumor/lymphnodes)

King Mob

Candida is a type of yeast.
Cancer is not.

Fairly clear cut I think.

tony 2 tone

Gets the crystal ball out, sees Simoncini, Bicarb of Soda, claims of mainstream medicine/big pharma supressing the "facts"
Amiright?

Torakx

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Gets the crystal ball out, sees Simoncini, Bicarb of Soda, claims of mainstream medicine/big pharma supressing the "facts"
Amiright?

yep

6th

Outline the CT here or this thread gets locked/deleted.

Torakx

updated op

Jumpy

Apparently God told him this. It must be true.

6th

Still dont see the CT here. Will be locking this after I have a sandwich.

Spell it out to me OP.

Torakx

lol why are you locking it!
i only just opened the thread and your closing it down?
i admit i was slow to put a link up there but i mean the conspiracy theory is clearly there.
the mainstream doctors and W.H.O claim cancer and candida are totally not the same and carry on with chemotherapy etc killing most who attempt chemo iirc.
while this doctor has supposedly cured 12 out of 12 cases of cancer.
and he points out pretty clearly his reasons for believing what he does.
i saw a part where god was emntioned and that doesnt distract me from what is sitting in front of my face.

while researching my illness i came across cancer alot and it seemed to me aparent that they could be linked.

now take the fact that every or most afaik cancer patients dying has suffered with candida.so are we to believe it was not related in the least?

if you think it isnt a conspiracy theory i would dissagree.
as i dont know if its been proven or widely accepted enough for me to post in the medical forums.it will probably get moved here anyway.

King Mob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_%28genus%29

Candida is a genus of yeasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

Cancer (medical term: malignant neoplasm) is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues), and sometimes metastasis (spread to other locations in the body via lymph or blood).

I'm pretty sure evil mainstream medicine say cancer and dogs are definitely not the same as well.

But if he says he cured cancer he can't possibly be lying.
Unlike the rest of the medical profession who are apparently lying all the time.

Torakx

i just think his point is very valid about the links between the two.
and the idea that cancer is a mutated form of candida sounds plausible to me.
is it coincedence that candida is prevalent in cancer patients?
AND that it looks exactly the same as cancer?
AND that it repsonds exactly the same as cancer?

why is it cancer grows? what is it feeding off?
when i was researching candida i had come across links between that and cancer alot.
i dont think its coincedence.

Nearly all cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells.[4] These abnormalities may be due to the effects of carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents(from your link on cancer via wiki)

these things also cause candida in its many forms.

6th

Torakx wrote: »

lol why are you locking it!
i only just opened the thread and your closing it down?
i admit i was slow to put a link up there but i mean the conspiracy theory is clearly there.

20 hours of updating an opening post is taking the piss. In future either start a thread when you have the info or expect it to be locked. I'm surprised that doesnt come across as just common sense!

Torakx

point taken i am fairly new to these forums and not used to its rules.
will try to keep on the right track.mate even told me on these forums most dont update OP only read new posts ^^ i found this suprising so will do both to cover all types of people. hope thats ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

latest vid i found of a woman reading from simoncinis book on the link between cancer and candida.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

i just think his point is very valid about the links between the two.
and the idea that cancer is a mutated form of candida sounds plausible to me.
is it coincedence that candida is prevalent in cancer patients?
AND that it looks exactly the same as cancer?
AND that it repsonds exactly the same as cancer?

why is it cancer grows? what is it feeding off?
when i was researching candida i had come across links between that and cancer alot.
i dont think its coincedence.

Nearly all cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells.[4] These abnormalities may be due to the effects of carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents(from your link on cancer via wiki)

these things also cause candida in its many forms.

Ok you're not getting this.
Cancer is not a fungus.

Candida is a normal part of your body.
It's not "caused" by tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents.

There is no chance at all that doctors are confusing the two.

How do you know this "doctor" isn't lying exactly?

tony 2 tone

Torakx wrote: »

i just think his point is very valid about the links between the two.
and the idea that cancer is a mutated form of candida sounds plausible to me.
is it coincedence that candida is prevalent in cancer patients?
AND that it looks exactly the same as cancer?
AND that it repsonds exactly the same as cancer?

why is it cancer grows? what is it feeding off?
when i was researching candida i had come across links between that and cancer alot.
i dont think its coincedence.

Nearly all cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells.[4] These abnormalities may be due to the effects of carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents(from your link on cancer via wiki)

these things also cause candida in its many forms.

Candida is a species yeast, living organisms in their own right. Candida albicans is a natural inhabitent of moist epithelia(tissue composed of cells that line the cavities and surfaces of structures throughout the body)
Under certain circumstances it can grow too rapidly and become pathogenic, leading to yeast infections. (P651 Biology Eight Edition, Campbell, Reece, Person Education Inc)
Cancer cells reproduce like normal cells through mitosis, but are not stopped from growing by the normal signals, such as density-dependence inhibition or anchorage inhibition. In normal cells the growth stops when there is no more space, or the cells are not attached to a particullar surface.
What is cancer feeding off? Mitochondrian in the cell break down sugars and fats using oxygen, or cellular respiration.
Show me a few pictures of Candida and cancer that shows them "looking exactly the same"
Milk is white, will that give you cancer too?

samson09

Simoncini's protocol is pretty much useless in late stage cancers although it has apparently worked for some early stage tumours of the digestive system. TBH, I wouldnt recommend that anyone with cancer would take this approach as there numerous other alternative protocols with far higher success rates.

Torakx

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Candida is a species yeast, living organisms in their own right. Candida albicans is a natural inhabitent of moist epithelia(tissue composed of cells that line the cavities and surfaces of structures throughout the body)
Under certain circumstances it can grow too rapidly and become pathogenic, leading to yeast infections. (P651 Biology Eight Edition, Campbell, Reece, Person Education Inc)
Cancer cells reproduce like normal cells through mitosis, but are not stopped from growing by the normal signals, such as density-dependence inhibition or anchorage inhibition. In normal cells the growth stops when there is no more space, or the cells are not attached to a particullar surface.
What is cancer feeding off? Mitochondrian in the cell break down sugars and fats using oxygen, or cellular respiration.
Show me a few pictures of Candida and cancer that shows them "looking exactly the same"
Milk is white, will that give you cancer too?

i think alot of that is covered in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

candida shows the same genetic structure as candida.it is found in all cases of cancer from what i have read.so it should be reasonable to at least consider it.
if you listen to what the woman reads out in this youtube vid you will have a very clear explanation of the doctors opinion and much better explained from his writing than my own.i dont have a medical background.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

i think alot of that is covered in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

candida shows the same genetic structure as candida.it is found in all cases of cancer from what i have read.so it should be reasonable to at least consider it.
if you listen to what the woman reads out in this youtube vid you will have a very clear explanation of the doctors opinion and much better explained from his writing than my own.i dont have a medical background.

Candida is a fungus.
It does not have the same genetic structure as cancer.

Why are you buying this nonsense?
How do you know these people aren't lying or just wrong?

Torakx

also there is a piece written i found that may explain more about the mitotic cell deivision of candida in certain forms.
http://ec.asm.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/90?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cerevisiae&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=470&resourcetype=HWFIG

Quote "Taken together, these results show that, in C. albicans, Cln3 has assumed a critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation."

cln3 is a gene in the human body.
i think this is saying that candida fungus does cause mutation of the cells.
if that is true and right how i am saying it then is it possible the fungus candida could start the mutation of cells to form tumors later pronounced to be cancerous?

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

also there is a piece written i found that may explain more about the mitotic cell deivision of candida in certain forms.
http://ec.asm.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/90?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cerevisiae&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=470&resourcetype=HWFIG

Quote "Taken together, these results show that, in C. albicans, Cln3 has assumed a critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation."

cln3 is a gene in the human body.
i think this is saying that candida fungus does cause mutation of the cells.
if that is true and right how i am saying it then is it possible the fungus candida could start the mutation of cells to form tumors later pronounced to be cancerous?

No that's not what it's saying at all.

The CLN3 gene according to wikipedia has an entirly different propose to the cln3 gene in Candida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLN3

Candida is a fungus, cancer is not.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

Candida is a fungus.
It does not have the same genetic structure as cancer.

Why are you buying this nonsense?
How do you know these people aren't lying or just wrong?

i dont mate. i am searching for truth. i dont automatically disregard it because the W.H.O arent agreeing. i have learned at this stage that because a group of people say something doesnt mean it is actually true. by group i mean any group.

by flat out denying it before properly looking at it.we are possibly encouraging ignorance.
so while im not saying this is the case. i am putting the idea out there for me fellow CT's and see what everyone thinks AFTER looking at the "facts"

remember the W.H.O could do a lab test and doctor the results also.
i dont believe them out of pure faith.i believe science has proven over centuries that not always the first and most common theory about something is the right one.

if the mass consensus has always been true and everything disregarded without proper investigation we would still be living on a flat planet.

i do understand it is possibly a hoax for some money or credit. but after looking into it i am more convinced this is at least more effective than chemo in many circumstances.
this is not to say that a very late stage cancer is easily treatable as there is alot of tissue damage and organ damage done i would imagine by this time.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

No that's not what it's saying at all.

The CLN3 gene according to wikipedia has an entirly different propose to the cln3 gene in Candida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLN3

Candida is a fungus, cancer is not.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

i am presuming the CLN3 gene is the same.as in there is only one gene named so.
is there 2 cln3 genes? can you link me to the two so i can see what the other is please?

also you can repeat candida is a fungus cancer is not as much as you like. it has no bearing on this conversation until you show me exactly how.

i have shown that in labs they have produced a mitotic cell division using the gene CLN3 and candida albicans
now ive been told that cancer works the same way. so what is the issue with that part ?


im not making this thread for the sake of argueing with people.
i made it because i have been thinking about this a while and wanted help in forming this "theory"

so i do appreciate some forms of confrontation but also some evidence that is clear to me. so i can eliminate certain arguements and get a true understanding for myself without having to listen to anyone else just telling me what to believe.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

i dont mate. i am searching for truth. i dont automatically disregard it because the W.H.O arent agreeing. i have learned at this stage that because a group of people say something doesnt mean it is actually true. by group i mean any group.

But it's not just the evil bastards of the WHO. It's every oncologist in the ****ing world.

Torakx wrote: »

by flat out denying it before properly looking at it.we are possibly encouraging ignorance.
so while im not saying this is the case. i am putting the idea out there for me fellow CT's and see what everyone thinks AFTER looking at the "facts"

And maybe you should put out the idea that dogs are actually cancer?
By flat out denying it before properly looking at it we are possibly encouraging ignorance.

And what "facts" have you presented exactly?

Torakx wrote: »

remember the W.H.O could do a lab test and doctor the results also.
i dont believe them out of pure faith.i believe science has proven over centuries that not always the first and most common theory about something is the right one.

And what peer reviewed scientific evidence shows that candida is cancer?

Torakx wrote: »

if the mass consensus has always been true and everything disregarded without proper investigation we would still be living on a flat planet.

You mean wrong mass consensus like the idea that every one in the past used to think the Earth was flat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Torakx wrote: »

i do understand it is possibly a hoax for some money or credit. but after looking into it i am more convinced this is at least more effective than chemo in many circumstances.
this is not to say that a very late stage cancer is easily treatable as there is alot of tissue damage and organ damage done i would imagine by this time.

Really?
Have any scientific evidence to back that up?
Or more youtube videos and revelations from god?

Quite frankly this whole idea is completely ridiculous.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

i am presuming the CLN3 gene is the same.as in there is only one gene named so.
is there 2 cln3 genes? can you link me to the two so i can see what the other is please?

You mean like the wikipedia link I provided and you didn't read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLN3

This gene encodes a protein that is involved in lysosomal function.

The other Cln3 however:

"Taken together, these results show that, in C. albicans, Cln3 has assumed a critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation."

Torakx wrote: »

also you can repeat candida is a fungus cancer is not as much as you like. it has no bearing on this conversation until you show me exactly how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_%28genus%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

Torakx wrote: »

i have shown that in labs they have produced a mitotic cell division using the gene CLN3 and candida albicans
now ive been told that cancer works the same way. so what is the issue with that part ?

All cells in all living things divide that way.
Kinda shows your level of knowledge in biology.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like the wikipedia link I provided and you didn't read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLN3



The other Cln3 however:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_%28genus%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer


All cells in all living things divide that way.
Kinda shows your level of knowledge in biology.

lol i have already said i have a limited knowledge on this topic.talking down to me doesnt help.
as i said i am trying to understand these processes myself.
it doesnt make me wrong just ignorant and eager to learn.
i dont have alot of time to be looking these things up so i will try my best to keep up with you.

ok so taking it that i am ignorant if it pleases you
i havent yet pinned the difference between the gene CLN3 and CLN3
all they are saying in the study i posted was that gene played a
critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation.(my question would be what differentiation?what does that mean?)

the wiki you showed me on CLN3 says its a human gene.
now again being ignorant i am presuming this is the same gene but it reacts with different things.therefore causing different effects like
causing neurodegenerative diseases commonly known as Batten disease or collectively known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs) WHEN mutated.

Shepherd3

Torakx wrote: »

lol i have already said i have a limited knowledge on this topic.talking down to me doesnt help.
as i said i am trying to understand these processes myself.
it doesnt make me wrong just ignorant and eager to learn.
i dont have alot of time to be looking these things up so i will try my best to keep up with you.

ok so taking it that i am ignorant if it pleases you
i havent yet pinned the difference between the gene CLN3 and CLN3
all they are saying in the study i posted was that gene played a
critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation.

the wiki you showed me on CLN3 says its a human gene.
now again being ignorant i am presuming this is the same gene but it reacts with different things.therefore causing different effects like
causing neurodegenerative diseases commonly known as Batten disease or collectively known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs) WHEN mutated.

Think it makes you wrong. You can't say you're eager to learn if you start with the result you want.

tony 2 tone

Torakx wrote: »

i think alot of that is covered in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

candida shows the same genetic structure as candida.it is found in all cases of cancer from what i have read.so it should be reasonable to at least consider it.
if you listen to what the woman reads out in this youtube vid you will have a very clear explanation of the doctors opinion and much better explained from his writing than my own.i dont have a medical background.

Candida is considered to be an opportunistic pathogen, ie it is some thing that would not cause harm to a healthy body but would in a body with a compromised immune system.
So, cancer patient getting chemo, immune system is taking a beating, the candida yeast is no longer being kept in check by the bodies immune system and starts to reproduce to an extent where it causes an infection.
Sounds like a better explaination than candia causes cancer.

Torakx

Shepherd3 wrote: »

Think it makes you wrong. You can't say you're eager to learn if you start with the result you want.

this is a conspiracy forum.without a conspiracy this thread is deleted.
on a medical forum this would be moved to conspiracy or deleted for another reason i think.so im between a rock and a hard place on that one lol

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

the wiki you showed me on CLN3 says its a human gene.
now again being ignorant i am presuming this is the same gene but it reacts with different things.therefore causing different effects like
causing neurodegenerative diseases commonly known as Batten disease or collectively known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs) WHEN mutated.

This gene encodes a protein that is involved in lysosomal function.

"Taken together, these results show that, in C. albicans, Cln3 has assumed a critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=607042


The only thing you have that actually connects the two is that one is involved in mitosis and cancer undergoes mitosis like every other cell.

You have provided nothing except your own ignorance of biology to connect cancer and candida.

So can you actually show some kind of actual scientific evidence to support this idea?

Torakx

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Candida is considered to be an opportunistic pathogen, ie it is some thing that would not cause harm to a healthy body but would in a body with a compromised immune system.
So, cancer patient getting chemo, immune system is taking a beating, the candida yeast is no longer being kept in check by the bodies immune system and starts to reproduce to an extent where it causes an infection.
Sounds like a better explaination than candia causes cancer.

ye that is a very good point and the one i first came too when i was researching candida.
but i then started coming onto other researchers in america saying there seemed to be a link..then a few months later an italian guy claiming a cure for some forms of cancer.
i dont have these other ones bookmarked but if i come across them i will post.
so far my interpretation of all this is that candida is indeed oppurtunistic and in the right enviornment can multiply.
also this http://ec.asm.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/90?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cerevisiae&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=470&resourcetype=HWFIG

is telling me that candida combined with cln3 can cause mutation.
i believe cancer is a form of mutation of cells or tissue.
if im way off here i would appreciate help understanding how this is literally impossible.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

is telling me that candida combined with cln3 can cause mutation.
i believe cancer is a form of mutation of cells or tissue.
if im way off here i would appreciate help understanding how this is literally impossible.

The paper is talking about mutation of the cln3 gene in the candida, not in the person.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=607042


The only thing you have that actually connects the two is that one is involved in mitosis and cancer undergoes mitosis like every other cell.

You have provided nothing except your own ignorance of biology to connect cancer and candida.

So can you actually show some kind of actual scientific evidence to support this idea?

In developmental biology, cellular differentiation is the process by which a less specialized cell becomes a more specialized cell type.
so i guess i they are saying candida combined with cln3 gene can cause the cells to change.
is this mutation?

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

In developmental biology, cellular differentiation is the process by which a less specialized cell becomes a more specialized cell type.
so i guess i they are saying candida combined with cln3 gene can cause the cells to change.
is this mutation?

That's not what they are saying at all.
They are saying the cln3 gene in candida can mutate.
Like every other gene.

And still waiting for a scientific paper that explicit says that candida is or causes cancer.

tony 2 tone

Torakx wrote: »

also there is a piece written i found that may explain more about the mitotic cell deivision of candida in certain forms.
http://ec.asm.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/90?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cerevisiae&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=470&resourcetype=HWFIG

Quote "Taken together, these results show that, in C. albicans, Cln3 has assumed a critical role in coordinating mitotic cell division with differentiation."

cln3 is a gene in the human body.
i think this is saying that candida fungus does cause mutation of the cells.
if that is true and right how i am saying it then is it possible the fungus candida could start the mutation of cells to form tumors later pronounced to be cancerous?

I only mentioned mitosis as you asked why is it cancer grows and what was it feeding off.
Also can't find a mention of mutation in the paper you linked to. The paper is taking about the way it reproduces asexually.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

The paper is talking about mutation of the cln3 gene in the candida, not in the person.

so that isnt possible in a person?
candida can grow around tissue eat through it. and from what i am reading cause cell differentiation.now just because the cln3 gene and candida cause this doesnt mean that others dont.im just saying i havent yet ruled out my original line of thought about candida causing cell mutation.
maybe candida is one of the causes of cancer?
maybe cancer is a mutated form of candida?
maybe cancer is the cause of candida?

i will be looking into all these questions as best i can.
any links to support any of these would be helpful from all thanks

Torakx

tony 2 tone wrote: »

I only mentioned mitosis as you asked why is it cancer grows and what was it feeding off.
Also can't find a mention of mutation in the paper you linked to. The paper is taking about the way it reproduces asexually.

so by saying differentiation they mean only a certain type of change of direction or structure the cell makes?
i will reread it and try figure what type they mean.its tough reading that one

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

so by saying differentiation they mean only a certain type of change of direction or structure the cell makes?
i will reread it and try figure what type they mean.its tough reading that one

you seem to be searching for a conspiracy rather than looking at the facts and realising there is none.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

so that isnt possible in a person?

Yes it is. Doesn't necessarily lead to cancer.
But the paper you're refering to is talking about the cln3 gene in Candida not in humans.

Torakx wrote: »

candida can grow around tissue eat through it.

And? This doesn't can cancer.

Torakx wrote: »

and from what i am reading cause cell differentiation.

Then you are reading it wrong.
Candida does not and cannot cause cell differentiation in humans.

Torakx wrote: »

now just because the cln3 gene and candida cause this doesnt mean that others dont.

Neither candida or the cln3 gene cause it at all.

Torakx wrote: »

im just saying i havent yet ruled out my original line of thought about candida causing cell mutation.

Actually your original point was that candida is cancer.

Torakx wrote: »

maybe candida is one of the causes of cancer?

There are many many causes of cancer.
Candida has never been shown scientifically to be one.

Torakx wrote: »

maybe cancer is a mutated form of candida?

Maybe it's a form of mutated dog.

Frankly there is no chance that cancer is a mutated form of candida

Torakx wrote: »

maybe cancer is the cause of candida?

Seriously?
Did you even read any of the links that explain what candida is?
That it's a natural part of your digestive system and is present in everyone?

Torakx wrote: »

i will be looking into all these questions as best i can.
any links to support any of these would be helpful from all thanks

Then maybe you should listen to actual scientists who do actual science rather than quacks who claim to have cured cancer.

Torakx

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/3/801

interesting article maybe somene can help me understand this one.

"Because defects in regulation of apoptosis are involved in the development of cancer, we evaluated the expression of CLN3 on both mRNA and protein levels in a variety of cancer cell lines and solid colon cancer tissue."

right so a defect in the regulation of a cells apoptosis can cause it to change (differentiate?) from its original course.
is that correct?

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/3/801

interesting article maybe somene can help me understand this one.

"Because defects in regulation of apoptosis are involved in the development of cancer, we evaluated the expression of CLN3 on both mRNA and protein levels in a variety of cancer cell lines and solid colon cancer tissue."

right so a defect in the regulation of a cells apoptosis can cause it to change (differentiate?) from its original course.
is that correct?

For one they are talking about the CLN3 gene in humans not the gene in candida.
In there is nothing in that article that has anything to do candida at all.

Torakx

King Mob wrote: »

For one they are talking about the CLN3 gene in humans not the gene in candida.
In there is nothing in that article that has anything to do candida at all.

i think you mean nothing to do with cancer because that study is using candida with a gene found in the human body.my aim with that paper was to try and see if candida and that cln3 gene could transform cells from there original path.and that study shows it does afaik.

here is a very good post i found just now.

http://www.energeticforum.com/health-fitness-nutrition/2456-candida-cancer-everyone-should-read.html#post26114

it agrees with you guys in that the person is stating that candida does not cause cancer.
they seem to be saying and i would tend to agree its likely that because of an acidic enviornment candida and cancer can appear.

so now i am hitting a stage where it may not matter if candida causes cancer. only that in the exact conditions candida is likely to grow so is cancer.
so this bi-carbonate idea could be very good.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

i think you mean nothing to do with cancer because that study is using candida with a gene found in the human body.my aim with that paper was to try and see if candida and that cln3 gene could transform cells from there original path.and that study shows it does afaik.

What the hell are you talking about?
That study does not mention candida at all.

And it is not saying that CLN3 causes mutation either.
I don't know where you're getting this.

Torakx wrote: »

they seem to be saying and i would tend to agree its likely that because of an acidic enviornment candida and cancer can appear.

Ok news flash.
Cancer can appear anywhere in the body not just in acidic environments.

And for the fifth time.
Candida is a natural normal part of your digestive system.
Everyone has it.

Torakx wrote: »

so now i am hitting a stage where it may not matter if candida causes cancer. only that in the exact conditions candida is likely to grow so is cancer.
so this bi-carbonate idea could be very good.

You started with the position that candida is cancer.
You have provided no scientific evidence to back up any claims.
Just your personal misunderstanding.

Occam

Simoncini's "research" has been totally discredited by a number of people, and this is widely available if you search. these will give you a head start, and explain exactly what makes the two different :

http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/tullio-simoncini-and-the-research-that-wasnt/

and

http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus

However while we can debate the academics of a possible link, sadly the efficacy of his treatments ( and Simoncinis motives ) are best demonstrated by looking towards his patients.

A number of patients have died while undergoing his treatments, with one ladys death even ending in a conviction for wrongful death and fraud for Simoncinin, despite Simoncini charging almost 100 thousand euros for the treatment

Another lady, formerly a staunch advocate of Simoncini, Marjolein Bouwman,A 25 year old mother of one, who paid vast amounts for Simoncinis treatments, died of cancer in 2008. Before her death she revealed how she had been deceived by Simoncini, and retracted her support

http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/reports/simoncini.shtml

In general if your oncologist has been struck off, has a conviction for manslaughter, has been widely discredited, has a conviction for fraud, and encourages you to stop conventional treatments you should be be very wary.

Torakx

thanks for that post. most helpful indeed.
thats the info i really needed to find
i hope people atleast got a good objective look at both sides of this story.
i still havent double checked both sides fully.so much info to plow through and not enough time.
i will say i am not 100% convinced either way.
if i do happen to get cancer i would off the bat refuse chemo until i had fully researched everything.
i would also off the bat refuse bi-carbonate treatment depending on the severity of it.
i do sympothize with anyone faced with these decisions.
maybe i will come back sometime and bump this thread if i get any new info for you guys to "discuss" with me

tony 2 tone

Just a quick post on the point Cancer is a Fungus. Fungus cells differ from both plant and animal cells. Animal cells have no cell wall but a plasma membrane, plant cells have a cell wall which aids in suport, fungus also have a cell wall which contains a substance called Chitin, which neither plant nor animal cells contain. It is found in the exoskeleton of shell fish and insects.
So if "Dr" Simoncini ( I have read he is no longer allowed to practice in Italy) wanted to prove that cancer is in fact cadida fungus he would show the cell walls containing chitin.

r3nu4l

I haven't read the whole thread but I HAVE completed PhD research on systemic Candida infection in humans and I have done research on cancer cells so I'm qualified to talk about this to some degree.

1. As has been pointed out Candida infection is caused by a yeast.

2. Cancer is caused by mutation in genes controlling cell death and cell cycle control and the human cells in our bodies don't die when they are supposed to and instead keep multiplying in number.

3. It's true, plenty of people with certain cancers also get severe yeast infections, it's the same with AIDS patients and transplant patients.

Why is this? Well when the body is weakened and the immune system is compromised (chemo and cancer can do this), you can get a yeast infection because Candida is what's known as an 'opportunistic pathogen'. It's always present but our normal gut flora and immune system keep it's levels under control.

So are cancer and Candida the same thing? Definitely not. What causes the mutations that lead to cancer? Loads of things. Exposure to cancer causing chemicals, bad diet (low veg, lots of red meat etc.) and a myriad of other things. Could yeast also cause cancer through causing mutations in our cells? It's not beyond the realm of possibility but it doesn't mean that cancer and Candida are the same thing, far from it.

Torakx

ye i have come to more or less that conclusion.
when making the thread i knew how candida functioned.and that it needed a low immune system to kick off in the first place.

i just saw also alot of things with cancer that made them look similar.
this was before this italian doctor.
because basically i had candida myself and wanted to know was this a sign of cancer or a sign that i could be open to cancer after having candida so long.

so i looked for signs or research to do with candida and cancer to see if they were linked enough for me to look more into it.

i still feel that it might be possible that after a long term having candida there is a chance the cells around the infection that could mutate into cancer or tumors.

i would appreciate any links you have with maybe full explanations on exactly how cancer is formed.particularly any related to sugar or foods or acidity.

i want to compare these to candida and see how they match up.

thanks