BTW -Those are points 2, 4, and 7 on Herrington's scale

So another addendum of sorts fell into my lap. Remember when speaking about Candida, I mentioned Crook & Truss both had this notion that Candida was cancer or caused cancer. Long before Jillian began to spout this same bullshit.

Proponents of this theory say that cancer is caused by infection by Candida, and that tumors are actually the body’s attempt at protecting itself from this infection. But there’s no evidence to show that this is true and plenty of evidence that it starts from in our own cells.

While I can't be positive in my assumption, Jillian has a habit of bastardizing other peoples work. It wasn't until 2015 that Jillian began to spout “Candida over arches everything,” long after Crook and Truss published their works. 

 

What's even more interesting, it is also after Dr. Tullio Simoncini, an oncologist from Italy, makes the argument that fungus is the One True Cause of Cancer. (For a bit of added intrigue, at one point it was Joe Mercola that gave Simoncini a platform to tout his garbage. Mercola is one the “holistics” that Jillian rails on about along with allopathic medicine).

Basically, the body encapsulates the Candida and the shell is what is cancerous. At the center would be a mushy, squishy center of Candida fungus. Here' how Orac, a cancer researcher and surgeon describes it. (Please note that the article and video Orac references seem to have bee scrubbed from Mercola's web-site. There are numerous references to said article/video elsewhere.)   

I have to wonder what kind of oncologist he is if that’s all he’s seen. I can tell you that not all tumors are white. Many are, but a lot of them are brownish-colored, tan, or even greenish-colored. (Uh-oh, better not let Dr. Simoncini know that; that’s fungus-color we’re talking!) And what about leukemias and other blood cancers? Dr. Simoncini then shows a bronchoscopy and thoracoscopy demonstrating white tumors. I’m supposed to be impressed by this? He even claims that the reason all those oncological surgeons miss the fungus is because when they biopsy the tumor they only take the surface. Indeed, he likens a tumor to a “solid abscess” that has to be opened. This conveniently neglects the combined experience of every cancer surgeon who ever took out whole tumors and submitted them for analysis by pathologists. Oddly enough, we don’t see fungus in the center of all these tumors.

It is true that the centers of tumors are often soft and mushy, but that’s because the tumor has grown faster than its blood supply has, leaving dead cells in the middle and an active, growing front of malignant cells on the edges. There’s no real mystery as to why tumors appear this way. (On the other hand, why and how tumors induce their own blood supply through angiogenesis and why they often outstrip it, now there‘s an area where some interesting science is being done and interesting insights into the biology of cancer are to be had.) Sometimes the center of tumors becomes secondarily infected because it’s dead tissue. Uncommonly, that infection can even include fungus, because a patient is immunosuppressed. Even in tumors that are white are not white because they are made up of fungus. They are white because that’s the color of its main consituents, in particular the reactive connective tissue. The whole concept that tumors are caused by fungus because they’re white is just plain silly.

Note:: In one part of a snippet taken from Mercola, this article by Simoncini is referenced, candida and cancer always concurrent.  Orac notes that it is always a factoid the Candida pushers get wrong.

Yes Candida and cancer are correlated due to a suppressed immune system encountered during treatment – chemotherapy or radiation. No, Candida is not causing the cancer Cancer risk in patients with candidiasis: a nationwidepopulation-based cohort study.

What makes this kind of quack medicine so dangerous, when US lawmakers tout this bullshit. “Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said recently that she will propose a "Right to Try" bill in her state. But it's not the bill itself that gained national attention. Instead, it was Fiore's statement that she believes cancer is "a fungus" that can be cured by "flushing, let’s say, saltwater, sodium carbonate" through the body.” 

Which brings us back to Jillian,,,

 

While Epperly doesn't have the letters following her name, which makes it easy to discount her claims. She has stated on numerous occasions that academia and beyond is worthless. We “sheeple” only get what the corrupt elite and gov't wants us to hear.

I think that is highlighted well by two recent postings from this week (10/18.2018).

 

Just ignore the saladese, to paraphrase from a friend, “we have the best cytologists, working 24/7, attempting to decipher what you just said.” I suspect she runs her verbal vomit through the “Random Deepak Chopra Generator”.  As Ed Brayton says, “There is no more blatant and absurd fraud than Deepak Chopra, who specializes in the kind of mushy, new-agey word salad that makes my skin crawl. This site proves that you can make just as much sense by randomizing all the buzzwords and catchphrases he uses.”

Anywhoo,,, 

 

Remember what I said in BTTP's original episode concerning Epperly, and Candida, is not cancer,,, concerning Herrington's number one criteria of a cult – opposes critical thinking. Epperly opposes all science and medical information contrary to her protocol. Especially higher-education/academia.

As I noted in a discussion concerning said jumble of words (paraphrase for better readability),

I have been pondering this saladese. Think Jillian may be reading the critiques as all of us hammering on her misinterpretation of papers and studies and her use of her own definitions to words; sometimes very important words – ie mutant/mutation, pathogen, antibiotic, etc. As well as noting her ideas are  

not original (ie candida causing or is cancer).

Think she is trying to justify anecdotal evidence (testimonies) being used over established science, "Anytime you give a specific or you reference any person or entities you give people room to dispute and the information,,,"and "but it's very important when you are officially talking about any protocol you don't drop any other names to elicit an emotional reaction because we have no idea who people are,,,"

I also noted, that this may have to do with her early involvement with Landmark, (a company offering personal development programs) along with some metaphysical woo. (I currently do not want to go down that rhino hole, as it entail Scientology, Werner Erhard, and the belief that there is “a difference between the facts of what happened in a situation, and the meaning, interpretation, or story about those facts. It proposes that people frequently confuse those facts with their own story about them, and, as a consequence, are less effective or experience suffering in their lives.” Should sound very familiar!!   

Some scholars have categorized Landmark or its predecessor organizations as a "self religion" or a (broadly defined) "new religious movement". Others, such as Chryssides, question this characterization. Landmark makes clear that its own position is that it is purely an educational foundation and is not a religious movement of any kind. Landmark has threatened or pursued lawsuits against people who call it a cult. Religious authorities in several faith traditions (for example, Episcopal Bishop E. Otis Charles) have publicly endorsed Landmark's programs.

In 2004 the French channel France 3 aired a television documentary on Landmark in their investigative series Pièces à Conviction. The episode, called "Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous" ("Journey to the land of the new gurus") was highly critical of its subject. Shot in large part with a hidden camera, it showed attendance at a Landmark course and a visit to their offices. In addition, the program included interviews with former course participants, anti-cultists, and commentators. Landmark left France following the airing of the episode and a subsequent site visit by labor inspectors that noted the activities of volunteers, and sued Jean-Pierre Brard in 2004 following his appearance in the documentary. (Internal links removed) 

Whether Landmark itself is a cult is to-be-determined We'll just leave it that. But bear in mind this :personal development course” has had direct influence on Epperly. (If time permits and inspiration hits I may delve more into Landmark at a later time.)

That brings us to this recent post,,,

At first I thought Epperly was referencing her “thesis” concerning Candida being cancer/causing cancer. Nope, the article is about different types of tumors, aka neoplasms, that could develop into cancers. Well maybe the article discusses these differing tumors in the light of Candida being the root of cancer. Nope, the article is about different types of tumors, aka neoplasms, that could develop into cancers.

Then I looked to see if there was any mention of the immune system. Nope, no mention of that either. How about mutations or variants. Nope. Closest thing is the article stating, “an abnormal mass of tissue that may be solid or fluid-filled,,, A tumor is a kind of lump or swelling and does not necessarily pose a health threat.”

  

So, what is the point of this article? It discusses nothing of relevancy to Epperly?

It comes down to this, Epperly's minion are too under or uneducated or so full of her woo too notice that she throws random factoids to the wind. While she touts how well read she is, she misinterprets (I think willfully) data and conclusion presented. She ignores any science or medical conclusions that counter her agenda of maiming and killing people. (Remember she is a Georgia Guidestones believer.)

It goes back to her screed about how “your personal testimony which is perfectly fine because,,, “[t]here is a fine line with how you speak about the protocol in a private capacity such as Facebook and how you speak about the protocol publicly in a public venue and it's best to always err on the side of caution and choose your words carefully.” IOWs telling lies in her forum is A-OK, but when someone like Jeff Holiday (A song of Salt and Poo) or Katie Paulson (Without a Crystal Ball) get involved, you better mind your Ps-n-Qs.

You can see her arrogance and narcissism with DrPhil and the aftermath,

 

Do not attempt to question or disagree publicly with her. What is disconcerting, her minions lap this shit up,,, sigh!

BTW - those are points 2, 4, and 7 on Herrington's scale,

2. Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving – She deletes and blocks anyone who even slightly disagrees with her methods. Threatens lawsuits, ie libel, slander, defamation. Considering her dispute with Ohio AG about substantiating her claims, she has no leg to stand on. She has no scientific backing for any of her claims despite her stating otherwise.

4. Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders - It's my way or the highway!

7. Separation from the Church – Shunning/deletions.