Lactobacillus a worthy ally, not mortal enemy of Candida (kinda long)

Embedded in Epperly's first claim is the notion that Lactobacillus is Candida’s mortal enemy. Overgrowth of Candida causes/or is cancer. The issue with such a claim, it is currently unsubstantiated by research. As noted in a previous post, Candida is a fungus not “cancer”; current research only shows that Lactobacillus may control the growth of cancer cells. Within that assertion, supported by research, is the question of which strain of Lactobacillus are we speaking about as Lactobacillus currently contains over 180 species and encompasses a wide variety of organisms, a point that Epperly doesn't even acknowledge.   

I will remind you again that cancer, is not one condition but takes many forms with different etiologies. To clarify a bacteria belonging to the genus Lactobacillus are members of the lactic acid bacteria (LAB), a broadly defined group characterized by the formation of lactic acid as the sole or main end product of carbohydrate metabolism. So which species combats which form of cancer?

Whatis interesting about Lactobacillus, "it exhibits a mutualistic relationship with the human body as it protects the host against potential invasions by pathogens, and in turn, the host provides a source of nutrients. Lactobacillus is the most common probiotic. L. acidophilus has been used to control certain types of diarrhea. It may be especially helpful for diarrhea due to oral antibiotics. These medicines destroy the normal flora of the intestine. L. acidophilus replenishes the intestine with a beneficial bacterium. This often stops diarrhea. It may also help keep vaginal yeast infections in check." 

What is baffling about Epperly's claim (#1) concerning Lactobacillus, she not only contradicts herself but refute her own claim only a few pages later.

  

While cabbage is nutritious (not the super-food Jillian claims), the woo she attaches to Pink Himalayan Salt (PHS), ie the trace minerals, is not.  The “trace minerals” present are labeled such for a reason. There is not enough present to make a damn bit of difference, even at the amount of consumption Epperly suggests for her slop. Salt poisoning would occur first before any benefit would be applicable.

Epperly reiterates the confusion in a recent FB post,

So which is it Jillian – the PHS or the Lactobacillus? I can guarantee her response will be along the lines that PHS initiates the ferment of the Lactobacillus, the're both special. But by that token, ANY NaCl product (Sea Salt, Celtic Salt, etc) would do such as salt is salt. PHS has no special magical properties. (One caveat I would throw in for good measure, iodized salt is not recommended for ferments or canning.)

My point being, Jillian is not very concise as to what the important component is, in her brew. I believe that is due to her cherry picking nature as well as ignorance of what she reads concerning the science. It's my-way or the high-way!

Sorry Jillian, there is no two-sides to this debate. You claim throughout your book that your JJ will reverse all sorts of conditions, from aging to regrowth of limbs.  Mega doses of salt will kill. Candida is not cancer. Lactobacillus is not Candida's mortal enemy.

Soooo,,, I'm not sure how to broach what Lactobacillus is or the benefits of consumption. It is a VERY broad topic with many ramifications. I could write 1000 pages (which would be really boring) and not even scratch the surface. So, I am going to approach this, I hope, a bit differently. I am going to let this 2008 review, Ecological Role of Lactobacilli in the Gastrointestinal Tract:Implications for Fundamental and Biomedical Research by Jens Walter speak for me.


Jillian's self refutation/contradiction aside, does Lactobacillus treat Candida?


Short answer – quite possibly!


A necessary qualification needs to be made. According to Walter's review, there are 17 Lactobacillus species that are associated with the human GIT, some of which were only recently detected. Jillian, as far as I can tell does not specify which strains she is speaking of in her book, The Jilly Juice Protocol. Since she considers book one (The Lies Exposed) “retired “ and superseded by book 2, I am not revisiting book one.
 

 
Assuming I read this review correctly, only a small number of Lactobacillus species are true inhabitants of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT ) and most lactobacilli present are allochthonous, IOWs derived from fermented food. So based on that, Epperly's contention of consuming lacto-fermented cabbage juice is not a far out statement. Just consuming her slop where the salt content could inhibit ferment and possibly kill you is. BUT,,,


The ecological status of most intestinal isolates, including the strains for which genome sequences are available, is at best uncertain. Furthermore, most of the Lactobacillus strains currently used as probiotics are not adequate model organisms with which to study ecological aspects of gut colonization, as they belong to species that have never been shown to form stable populations in this ecosystem. It would be of great value to include Lactobacillus strains, having strong evidence as autochthonous organisms, in comparative and functional genomic investigations.


the health claims are tenuous at best and need more study. As stated in the beginning of this post, the claims made, not just by Epperly, are unsubstantiated. As noted,


Lactobacilli offer exciting research opportunities, both in terms of biomedical applications and in acquiring fundamental knowledge about the functionality of gut microbes,,, it is important to consider the ecological characteristics of individual species and their relationship with their host in such studies. Unfortunately, the ecological status of Lactobacillus species in the human gut has generally not been taken into consideration by researchers working in the field, despite its important implications.

,,,

It is now generally recognized that the health benefits of probiotics are conferred mainly though a stimulation or modulation of the immune system. Several animal and human studies have provided unequivocal evidence that specific strains of probiotics are able to stimulate as well as regulate several aspects of natural and acquired immune responses, which opens opportunities to treat or prevent specific diseases that have an immunological etiology. When host immune functions are targeted, it is again likely that the evolutionary history of the probiotic strain is of paramount importance. The autochthonous microbe-immune system relationship in healthy animals is characterized by tolerance, while the exposure to allochthonous bacteria results in a stronger immune response,,, As a consequence, autochthonous bacteria might be more promising candidates for probiotics aimed at suppressing an inappropriate immune response, desirable in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). L. reuteri, which is autochthonous to rodents and humans, has been shown to modulate macrophage and dendritic cell functions in a way one would expect to favor immunological tolerance. Accordingly, strains of L. reuteri are especially successful in the prevention of colitis in several animal models. On the other hand, the activation of the immune system (such as enhanced phagocytosis and adjuvant effects) observed after the administration of some probiotic strains may reflect the allochthonous nature of the bacteria, and these bacteria might be more effective for the treatment or prevention of infectious and rotavirus-caused diarrhea. One would assume that allochthonous organisms are also more successful in the prevention of atopic diseases in early life because the immune system will experience novel antigenic complexes with the encounter of the bacterial strains.

A note of caution, that does not mean probiotics or JJ should be given to children under three. “Some manufacturers recommend that Lactobacillus preparations not be used in infants and children <3 years of age unless under the direction and supervision of a physician.” 

It has been shown that virtually all health benefits and effects on host cells reported for probiotics are strain dependent. Mechanistic explanations for this strain specificity are so far lacking, but it is likely that the distinct evolutionary histories of currently used probiotic strains are at least partly responsible for their different effects.


Notice what is not mentioned specifically? Candida or “cancer”! Jillian, in making her all encompassing claim ignores the minutiae. Colon cancer is mentioned but as an adjunct to it being a part of the GIT to which these members of the microbiota flourish. As Walter makes clear, it is still important to determine which stain of Lactobacillus is responsible for any gains made in combating colon cancer.


In concluding their review, Walter states,

The scientific data presented in this review indicate that most Lactobacillus species found in the mammalian intestinal tract are in fact not true intestinal inhabitants. They probably originate from more proximal or exogenous sources where the nutrient requirements of these fastidious organisms are satisfied. Future research is needed to identify the autochthonous Lactobacillus microbiota of the mammalian intestine.
,,,
It is important to note that the majority of traditional probiotic strains are probably allochthonous to the intestinal tract, and they show very little ability to persist in the human gut.
The BIG BUT,,,
These strains might nonetheless be excellent probiotics with respect to activation of the immune system. As there is no indication that colonization is required for the health benefits of these strains, research of traditional probiotic strains should focus less on the investigation of ecological fitness and the identification of putative colonization determinants and more on the provision of mechanistic explanations for the health benefits that have been achieved in clinical trials.


There's a project for you Jillian, use your Google U degree and identify the autochthonous Lactobacillus microbiota of the mammalian intestine, specifically human. You could then provide us sheeple “[a] better understanding of the ecology of lactobacilli will help us to more systematically develop probiotic applications.” 

The above is but one review, but I think it illustrates well how Jillian erred in the use of her “deductive reasoning” (reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logically certain conclusion.)

With that information, my deductive reasoning and the ability to make connections between patterns and trends, I came to the conclusion lifestyle, belief systems, vaccines, food choices, cultures and habits, all factor in why all of us had different medical issues. (Exposing the Lies, 3-4)

While the review gives an overview Lactobacillus use in facilitating the gut microbiome and the need for further research, it does not address specific use in combating Candida. According to Matsubara, et al in Probioticsas Antifungals in Mucosal Candidiasis (2016), probiotics may serve in the future as a worthy ally in the battle against chronic mucosal candidal infections.


Candida albicans is the most common Candida species inhabiting the mucosal surfaces both in health and disease, whereas other Candida species such as C. tropicalis, C. guilliermondii, C. krusei, and C. glabrata are less frequently isolated,,, Candida is considered to be an opportunistic pathogen, causing “diseases of the diseased”,,, The limited spectrum and toxicity of available antifungals and the gradual emergence of resistance to these drugs are a concern; thus, alternative therapies are urgently warranted,,, The use of probiotic bacteria against microbial infections has emerged as an alternative therapeutic technique for Candida infections in view of the limitations of the currently available antimicrobials. 
,,,
Bacteria belonging to the genera Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium and, to a lesser extent, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and Saccharomyces have often been used as probiotics in food supplements for a considerable period of time.


Again remember what I said in regard to Jillian not specifying a species.


A safe probiotic needs to be of human origin, devoid of intrinsic and transmissible antibiotic resistance genes. The functional requirements of a probiotic include acid and bile tolerances, adequate adherence and colonization on epithelial surfaces, immunostimulation, and antagonistic activity against pathogens


In therapeutic terms, probiotics are known to reduce Candida infections in different organ systems of the human body, and are generally considered to be beneficial for overall health,,, Organisms of the genus Lactobacillus have been traditionally used as probiotics for decades, and they are deemed worthy as an alternative biological approach to combat bacterial and fungal pathogens in the oral cavity, GI tract, and urogenital system,,, the selection of probiotics for therapeutic purposes should be targeted for specific pathogens and their beneficial effects cannot be generalized.


A number of in vitro studies have demonstrated the antifungal effect of polymicrobial combinations of probiotics against human C. albicans isolates from the oral cavity, GI tract, and genitourinary tract,,, Candida albicans was found to be more susceptible to the antifungal effect of Lactobacillus than C. tropicalis.


Here's a specific we can bite into, see: The in vitroActivity of Vaginal Lactobacillus With Probiotic Properties AgainstCandida


Keep in mind the above information is all in vitro, and there is no guarantee that would translate to in vivo. “The challenge now is to clarify the mechanisms involved and harness these in further translational work. Investigations of the molecular mechanisms underlying the probiotic effect using gene expression and related technology are likely to yield interesting data in this regard.”


As opposed to the in vitro studies reported above, a number of in vivo studies have also been performed over the past decade or so to substantiate the antifungal activity of probiotics in humans,,, The oral cavity, GI tract, and urogenital tract have been the major loci of investigation, as these sites are susceptible to Candida infections.


Matsubara et al then go on to discuss “,,,the Antifungal Effects of Probiotics in the Oral Cavity, Urogenital Tract, and Gastrointestinal Tract of Humans .”
 
Clearly, the major attribute of probiotics appears to be the restoration of a natural healthy microbiome in a given habitat, turning it from a catastrophic, disease-inducing, dysbiotic microbiota to a healthy, symbiotic, stable equilibrium. A number of hypotheses, most unproven as yet, has been proposed for the genesis of this well-balanced state from disease to health,,, Despite such in vitro data on the inhibitory effect of probiotic products on yeasts, the direct effect of probiotics on mucosal candidiasis is yet be shown in a laboratory environment mimicking the oral cavity, vagina, or GI tract.


Overall what they found in determining the possible mechanisms on how probiotics work,


Administration of probiotics in tandem with antifungal drugs synergizes clearance of Candida. Apart from the obvious antifungal effect of the drug, the role of the probiotic under these conditions remains to be elucidated. The increased expression of stress-related genes and decreased expression of genes involved in drug resistance in Candida, promoted by the probiotics, would possibly increase the fungus's susceptibility to the antifungal agent administered.


In some cases, it was not the probiotic working alone but the addition of an antifungal. As stated, research is not clear on this point. Translation, Lactobacillus is not necessarily the “mortal enemy” of Candida.
 
Clinical studies indicate that probiotics may reduce Candida colonization on human mucosal surfaces, relieve signs and symptoms of fungal infection, and enhance the antifungal effect of conventional therapy, implying that probiotics have the potential to sustain a healthy mucosal microbiota by acting both as prophylactic and adjunctive therapy against candidiasis. In vitro studies indicate that the antifungal effect of probiotics is likely to be due to their interference with Candida biofilm development and hyphal differentiation. However, it is premature to designate probiotics as an alternative to antifungals as yet, due to the paucity of available clinical trials.


Funny that, neither review addressed systemic Candida nor cancer-treatments. Both reviews discussed that Candida showed promise in vitro, translating those results into humans was another issue.


The whole point of this very long exercise was to show that, Jillian does not have the science to back her claim. She has cherry-picked information that confirms her bias. In some cases Epperly has left out important information, ie. what strain of Lactobacillus would appropriately combat Candida. While drinking properly fermented cabbage juice (or eating properly ferment veggies) appears to be harmless, her slop is not. As shown previously what Epperly demonstrate primarily via FB, is dangerous regardless of the salt content. The ferment is done improperly and she encourages her minions to ingest rotten cabbage and mold.

Overall I rule Epperly's first claim as false.

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.

Candida is not cancer,,,

 
As I begin this series of posts, my focus is going to be some of the asinine claims Jillian makes in her second book The Jilly Juice Protocol.  As I find them, I may throw a few contradictions between her book and what she states on FB and FB Live videos.  I'm currently only half through her book, and have about 10 claims, so not sure if I will do them all; but I will note them.

My approach to this is strictly as a layman, an important point to remember. I work in food-service, never graduated from college, but I have a good understanding of basic science. Something Jillian lacks or totally ignores.  If I don't  understand, I ask. I am lucky to have many friends in the field of medicine, as well as chemistry.

Pages 7 & 16
As much as I wanted to avoid science-y stuff, we are going to address Candida. Epperly states (basis for such is in Exposing the Lies), “Candida has been weaponized with virus microbes fostering an immunocompromised body allowing parasites and other bacteria to foster.” (7)  Further along she adds, “Candida is yeast overfed and when it starts to overcome the body, it’s also known as cancer. Candida is a fungus with virus microbes introduced via vaccines and the environment working together symbiotically to destroy parts of the body it was programmed to obliterate.” (16) She believes that lactobacillus is Candida’s mortal enemy. Hence, her cabbage slop drink.

Her CLAIM:: “There is a direct association with my protocol to perfect health” (7)  IOWs her slop, of a questionable nature, is the panacea we have all been missing.  My response to such a claim(s), actually three claims, where's the data showing her highly salted goop is said cure-all.  Personal experiences is not data, it's anecdotal at best.

I'm not going to specifically address Epperly's individual claims concerning Candida.  What I am going to try and address is the underlying premise that Candida causes or is cancer.  (Keep in mind during this discussion that “cancer” is not one encompassing diagnosis, but over 100 differing types with different etiologies.)

As Steve Novella notes, 

Savvy consumers have learned over the years that the primary goal of marketing is to create demand for a product or service. This has risen to the point of inventing problems that do not really exist just to sell a product that addresses the fake problem. Who knew that my social status could be destroyed by spotty glassware?

Better yet, if you can make people worry about a nonexistent problem, something that they were not previously aware of and don’t understand, they might buy your solution just to relieve their worry.

This is exactly what Epperly and others are doing, creating a nonexistent problem (Candida overgrowth) and offering the solution – Jilly Juice+her restrictive diet.

In general, chronic candidiasis (Candida albicans) is a fungus that lives on and around the human body.  They're usually harmless, but if your immune system is compromised, such as by cancer or cancer-treatments, the fungus can invade the body. There are many papers that show higher rates of Candida infections in cancer patients; the fungal infection is correlated with cancer, but is not the cause.  But note that pretty much all humans have Candida on them!  The most common manifestations are thrush (a superficial Candida infection in the mouth) and vaginitis, also commonly referred to as a yeast infection.

Fake candidiasis is the idea that some people have a chronic yeast infection through large parts of the body. Not in a skin fold, or the inside of the mouth, or the genitals, but actually inside the body, like sepsis. This can't happen unless your immune system is nearly comatose, and if your immune system is that bad, wandering around in public for a few hours would probably kill you.

To borrow again from Novella,

Candida became the focus of a fake illness beginning in 1986 with the publication of The Yeast Connection by Dr. William Crook. In this book Crook proposed the idea that systemic candidiasis, or Candida hypersensitivity, was responsible for a host of common conditions and non-specific symptoms, such as fatigue, sexual dysfunction, asthma, and psoriasis.

Over 25 years later Candida hypersensitivity remains an unproven claim, but popular among “alternative” practitioners.
,,,
While there is precious little in the published literature about Candida hypersensitivity, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology did review the claims and evidence and concluded:

1. The concept is speculative and unproven.
2. Elements of the proposed treatment program are potentially dangerous.

I could only find a single double-blind placebo controlled trial of treatment for Candida hypersensitivity, which found:

In women with presumed candidiasis hypersensitivity syndrome, nystatin does not reduce systemic or psychological symptoms significantly more than placebo. Consequently, the empirical recommendation of long-term nystatin therapy for such women appears to be unwarranted.

 Dr. Crook himself conducted no research to demonstrate the claims he made in his popular book. He essentially bypassed research, peer review, and scientific consensus and went straight to public promotion. (Sound familiar!!)

Note:: Crook got his ideas from an earlier book The Missing Diagnosis (83) by C. Orian Truss.


Just to be clear, this notion of Candida causing cancer, or is cancer, is not ”new”.  The premise of Epperly's thesis is NOT original.  What is delusion, “Candida has been weaponized with virus microbes fostering an immunocompromised body allowing parasites and other bacteria to foster.” What is delusional, stating that Candida is cancer.

WTF does that even mean? A virus is a microbe,,,fostering,,,huh?

I asked some friends their opinion.  The first works or is studying (can't remember) in the bio-medical field.  The second friend, tracks conspiracy theories and their proponents. (Both responses edited for clarity.)

Fungi can be infected by what is called mycophages (literally Latin for fungi virus). But can they be weaponized... nope! Simply put, they are adapted to live within fungi and not mammalian cell types. Also “parasites and other bacteria”?? Umm parasites are not bacteria. They are far more complex and well just different.

If someone has a fungal infection, you would know!

The reality is it would be FAR more easier to weaponize the flu virus but her devolved mind thinks that Candida has been weaponized to weaken the immune system.  I don’t think you would need to have a deep scientific understand to say HIV would be the virus of choice.

She’s crazy and honestly has no clue what she’s talking about.

Epperly is a con-nutter extraordinaire.

She believes in conspiracy theories, so the "weaponized" might means an intentional GMO-type of deal. Get everyone sick so you make money trying to get them healed, which is why the allopathic and alt-healers are paying trolls to cause her trouble. 

She will put them out of business, because only she, in all the ages of man, has figured out the salt-cabbage swill cures 100% of everything.  Except fixing eyeball musculature, and stopping the formation of milia.

If you look into some of her videos (I admit to getting so frustrated I can hardly make it through) she talks about chem-trails, which is something I have debunked for over 10 years. The theory behind those is that the Dread and Unknowable Them™ have been using airplanes to seed our sky with just about anything you can imagine for just about every reason. None of it makes a lick of sense, and it's easily shown to be nonsense, yet the believers continue to believe.

For JMTE, it would be a short hop to believing that somehow, some time, some one, spread viruses to make people sick. Because she believes candida is the major contributor to everything wrong with the human body; somehow contaminating it with malice fits her model of human illness/disease/malady.

From a more cynical view, it also opens up a new market for her swill. There are already many detoxes available for "chem-trail flu." They are expensive, her swill is cheap, which means more money for tin foil for hats.  It's always been a mystery just WHAT she means by the title. It makes no sense. But no one questions her or the question is removed and the questioner banned. (Edited for flow of reading.)

Anyways, back to Candidis,,,

Vaginal candidiasis is very real. So is oral thrush, thrush on the nipples of nursing women, and thrush in various skin folds or in the stomachs of very young babies. The symptoms are quite distinctive, and there are visible signs and lab tests to confirm it. Most of the time, it resolves with treatment, but some women develop recurring infections. (As a diabetic, I am prone to infection if my sugar is out of control.)

What is not real, cancer cells are fungal in origin (cancer cells are not fungal, cancer isn’t always white,  the color of fungus is not all white – go look at some mushrooms in a forest.)

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.  (One, assumption I am making, Epperly believes the same or similar, which is dangerous considering how she bastardizes everything she touches.)

Speaking of bastardizing, I really liked this explanation from a Metabunk forum that gives a general understanding of cancer. 

There is no easy why to describe what cancer is as; as I noted, there are 100+ types.  In general, DNA becomes damaged through mistakes made during replication or exposure to carcinogens or mutagens.  Some damage persists and if the gene is a tumor suppressor gene, that cell takes a step closer to becoming cancerous. When enough of the right damage accumulates over time, we get cancer.

Much of the complexity of cancer can be described from the simple fact that this genetic damage that accumulates over time is random. This randomness makes every cancer different. Most of the time, getting cancer is not as simple as damaging one or two tumor suppressor genes and it does not happen overnight. Cancers have many mutations in many genes gathered over many years. The nature of these mutations can influence the aggressiveness of cancer and its susceptibility to treatment.

To make things even more difficult, mutations continue to arise at a faster rate in cancer cells, so a single tumor could harbor cells with many different combinations of mutations. This is one major reason why so many patients relapse into cancer after what looked like a successful remission.

Considering how cancer develops, it is easy to see how many alternative treatments won't work. Even cancer treatments that do work won't yield the same results on every kind of cancer or even every case of one particular cancer. In fact, designing a treatment that works has arguably been the biggest challenge ever in medicine, even back to the first medical records we have of cancer ever written in ancient Egypt. The complexities of cancer and difficulties involved in treating it makes it reasonable to say we may never cure every cancer. The knowledge accumulated in the past century, however, has led to incredible progress in treating and preventing cancer. (Internal URLs removed)

IOWs, the idea that “cancer is a fungus” is incompatible with a large body of scientific knowledge about the causes of cancer and the molecular changes that distinguish cancer cells from normal ones. Believing this myth not only implies an ignorance of biology and medical science, but even more troubling, rejection all information from reputable sources.

As mentioned on BTTP,  that rejection of information is what makes Jillian and her minions a cult.  Only Jillian has the truth (#1 on Boze Herrington's scale) and that truth is gospel.  Relying on Epperly's ideas and slop to treat both alleged Candida overgrowth or cancer at best will lead to further discomfort (Candida) or death (cancer).  Why risk it!

As I stated in the beginning, I wasn't going to get too overly science-y. Makes for a very long posts and this series is going to be long enough.   Embedded in her first claim is the notion that lactobacillus is Candida’s mortal enemy  We will take a look at that next post but first I have an addendum to previous information to address concerning the dangers of the high salt intake she suggests.