2026 · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Notes from the Field : Molecular Detections of Cladophialophora bantiana at a Clinical Reference Laboratory — United States, 2009–2026
Verdict
UNSCIENTIFIC
Neither the paradigm nor the study inside it passes. The verdict is unscientific.
1·Study methodology · inside the paradigm
UNSCIENTIFIC
Does not follow the scientific method within Germ Theory.
2·Paradigm · Germ Theory
UNSCIENTIFIC
Fails the tests. The worse layer decides.
How the verdict is decided
The verdict grades both layers: the paradigm this study assumes, and how the study was carried out inside it. Both must be scientific for the whole thing to be scientific. A clean method inside an unscientific paradigm is unscientific. An unscientific method inside a better paradigm is unscientific. A split on either layer is mixed. The worse layer decides.
1·Study methodology
Did this study test its claim with methods that are independent, falsifiable, and non-circular?
UNSCIENTIFIC
This study claims that brain and lung infections caused by the mold Cladophialophora bantiana jumped fourfold in the United States between 2023 and 2025, based on 49 cases detected at one laboratory. All three tests fail.
Independently Verifiable
Fail
A machine copied and lit up chemical fragments from liquefied brain and lung tissue, and the model declared those signals confirmed cases of a brain-targeting mold infection.
Falsifiable
Fail
When patients had no entry wounds, no shared exposures, and negative spinal fluid tests right at the time of biopsy, the authors explained those facts away as presumed inhalation and unknown reservoirs instead of questioning the infection claim.
Non-Circular
Fail
They built chemical primers from letters the model already assigned to this mold to flag tissue samples, then counted the flagged samples as proof that infections by that mold are surging.
Why
Hospitals across 22 jurisdictions sent brain and lung biopsy tissue to a Washington laboratory between 2009 and 2026. Technicians treated the tissue with chemicals to get a liquid the model calls fungal DNA, changing their chemical recipe in 2021. A machine heated and cooled that liquid with primers to copy chemical fragments and produced a signal whenever the fragments matched letters assigned to a specific mold. The authors logged every matching signal as a proven mold infection. Because matching signals rose after 2023, they declared a fourfold surge in brain infections and recommended three antifungal drugs. Nobody has seen DNA, or any genetic code that identifies a disease-causing mold. Even when spinal fluid tested negative during biopsy, the infection claim stood.
2·Paradigm · Germ Theory
Does the framework this study assumes pass the three tests?
UNSCIENTIFIC
Independently Verifiable
Fail
Finding microbes or chemical fragments in damaged tissue does not show what caused the abscess; the germ model names them invading pathogens by assumption.
Falsifiable
Fail
Whenever sick patients lack exposure to the claimed microbe or test negative in body fluids, the germ model protects itself by blaming hidden reservoirs, unrecorded cuts, or shifting virulence.
Non-Circular
Fail
The framework defines a brain abscess as what it calls a fungal infection whenever its molecular test flags a biopsy, then uses those flagged biopsies to prove the mold causes brain abscesses.
Why
Germ theory assumes that microscopic organisms found in sick tissue invaded from outside and caused the illness. Today, laboratories do not even need to find a whole organism. They run chemical amplification reactions on biopsied tissue, match the signals against a database of letters they call fungal sequences, and label the lesion an infection. When half the patients have intact immune systems, no entry wounds, and no shared exposures, the framework never questions whether the mold caused the brain abscess. It blames unrecorded inhalation, hidden reservoirs, or evolving virulence instead. The model treats a tagged chemical signal in damaged tissue as the disease itself instead of asking what injured the patient's brain and lungs in the first place.
From the study
All cases of C. bantiana detected by broad-range fungal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at the UW laboratory during January 2009–July 2026 were compiled.
The DNA extraction method was changed in February 2021; the remainder of the assay has not changed substantially over time.
Broad-range fungal PCR testing of cerebrospinal fluid was performed antemortem for the single, fatal case managed at the UW Medical Center and was negative for C. bantiana in samples collected concurrently and 1 month before biopsy.
most cases occur as brain abscesses, often with no extracranial disease and no clear source of inoculation. Furthermore, C. bantiana has only rarely been isolated from environmental sources, and many patients do not have similar exposure histories or risk factors