If you’re willing to take my rude and unfiltered response (and not complain about it) here it is:
This is very fucking stupid.
Otherwise (written in about half an hour):
Fungal infections would lead to the vast majority of cancers being in skin, gut, lung i.e. exposed tissue. These are relatively common, but this does not explain the high prevalence of breast and prostate cancers. It also doesn’t explain why different cancers have such different prognoses, etc.
Around half of cancers have a mutation in p53, which is involved in preserving the genome. Elephants have multiple copies of p53 and very rarely get cancer. People with de novo mutations in p53 get loads of cancer. The random spread of DNA damage is downstream of the DNA damage causing cancer: once p53 is deactivated (or the genome is otherwise unguarded) mutations can accumulate all over the genome, drowning out the causal ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53
Antifungals are relatively easy to get ahold of. Why hasn’t this man managed to run a single successful trial? Moreover, cryptococcal meningitis is a fungal diseas which is fatal if untreated and, from the CDC: Each year, an estimated 152,000 cases of cryptococcal meningitis occur among people living with HIV worldwide. Among those cases, an estimated 112,000 deaths occur, the majority of which occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Which implies 40,000 people are successfully treated with strong antifungals every single year. These are HIV patients, who are more likely to get cancer and under this theory would be more likely than anyone else to have fungal-induced cancer. How come nobody has pointed out the miraculous curing of hundreds or thousands of patients by now?
I think the fungal theory is basically completely wrong. Perhaps some obscure couple of percent of cancers are caused by fungi. I cannot disprove this, though I think it’s very unlikely.
It’s certainly possible that a small subset of cancers are caused/initiated by a fungal infection, but it’s extremely unlikely that our basic understanding of what causes most cancer is wrong at this point.
Also an interesting recent paper showing the potential for cancer to be driven by epigenetically (rather than through direct DNA mutations).
Epigenetic cancers are super interesting, thanks for adding this! I vaguely remember hearing that there were some incredibly promising treatments for them, though I’ve not heard anything for the past five or ten years on that. Importantly for this post, they also fill out the (rare!) examples of mutation-free cancers that we’ve seen, while fitting comfortably within the DNA paradigm.
If you’re willing to take my rude and unfiltered response (and not complain about it) here it is:
This is very fucking stupid.
Otherwise (written in about half an hour):
Fungal infections would lead to the vast majority of cancers being in skin, gut, lung i.e. exposed tissue. These are relatively common, but this does not explain the high prevalence of breast and prostate cancers. It also doesn’t explain why different cancers have such different prognoses, etc.
Why do different cancer subtypes change in prevalence over the course of a person’s life if they’re tied to infection?
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-One
Around half of cancers have a mutation in p53, which is involved in preserving the genome. Elephants have multiple copies of p53 and very rarely get cancer. People with de novo mutations in p53 get loads of cancer. The random spread of DNA damage is downstream of the DNA damage causing cancer: once p53 is deactivated (or the genome is otherwise unguarded) mutations can accumulate all over the genome, drowning out the causal ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53
If it was infection-based, then you’d expect immunocompromised patients to get more of the common types of cancer. Instead they get super weird exotic cancers not found in people with normal immune systems.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/hiv-and-aids/aidsrelated-malignancies
Chemotherapy, does work? I don’t know what to say on this one, chemotherapy works, are all the RCTs which show it works supposed to be fake? Do I need to cite them:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30629708/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00285-4/fulltext
https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(07)00996-0/fulltext
I feel like a post which uncritically repeats someone’s recommendation to not take chemotherapy has the potential to harm readers. You should at least add an epistemic status warning readers they might become stupider reading this.
Antifungals are relatively easy to get ahold of. Why hasn’t this man managed to run a single successful trial? Moreover, cryptococcal meningitis is a fungal diseas which is fatal if untreated and, from the CDC:
Each year, an estimated 152,000 cases of cryptococcal meningitis occur among people living with HIV worldwide. Among those cases, an estimated 112,000 deaths occur, the majority of which occur in sub-Saharan Africa.
Which implies 40,000 people are successfully treated with strong antifungals every single year. These are HIV patients, who are more likely to get cancer and under this theory would be more likely than anyone else to have fungal-induced cancer. How come nobody has pointed out the miraculous curing of hundreds or thousands of patients by now?
Scientific consensus is an extremely powerful tool.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/17/learning-to-love-scientific-consensus/
I think the fungal theory is basically completely wrong. Perhaps some obscure couple of percent of cancers are caused by fungi. I cannot disprove this, though I think it’s very unlikely.
+1000
It’s certainly possible that a small subset of cancers are caused/initiated by a fungal infection, but it’s extremely unlikely that our basic understanding of what causes most cancer is wrong at this point.
Also an interesting recent paper showing the potential for cancer to be driven by epigenetically (rather than through direct DNA mutations).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07328-w
Epigenetic cancers are super interesting, thanks for adding this! I vaguely remember hearing that there were some incredibly promising treatments for them, though I’ve not heard anything for the past five or ten years on that. Importantly for this post, they also fill out the (rare!) examples of mutation-free cancers that we’ve seen, while fitting comfortably within the DNA paradigm.