A Critique of Richard Anderson's Explanation For Mucoid Plaque

What Richard Anderson has been saying about mucoid plaque is not quite right. To be sure, his explanation as to what mucoid plaque actually is is closer to reality than his predecessors' explanation. Benard Jensen[1] and Robert Gray[2] both thought it was primarily feces. Richard Anderson on the other hand thinks it is primarily coagulated mucus, which is actually more accurate but still technically wrong.

His explanation for mucoid plaque is scattered throughout his two volume work Cleanse & Purify Thyself. On pages 36 and 37 of book one he defines mucoid plaque as being primarily mucin. Mucin is the chief component of mucus. On page 65 of book two he mentions that mucoid plaque is created by the body to protect itself when it is under attack by, among other things, aspirin, alcohol, and salt. On page 59 of book two he says that acid then causes it to coagulate and that it compounds with other elements forming an increasingly firm substance.

Medical science does talk about how exogenous damaging agents such as alcohol, NSAID (aspirin), hypertonic saline (salt), and bile cause damage to the mucosa. They say a "mucoid coat" or "mucoid cap" forms over the damaged area protecting the vulnerable mucosa from pepsin as well as from renewed insult from the aforementioned exogenous damaging agents while it undergoes repair. Medical science also mentions that although mucoid cap is composed principally of a fibrin gel and necrotic cells with mucus being a relatively minor component, there are some researchers who wrongly designate it as "mucus".[3]

It appears, judging by some of the sources he cited on page 65 of book two, that Richard Anderson was looking at those researchers who were wrongly designating mucoid cap as "mucus". This apparently made him think that mucus production was unnatural and led him to the absurd corollary that mucoviscidosis is a good example of mucoid plaque. He announced on page 84 of book two that doctors were wrong for thinking that the adherent mucus layer is needed for protection and lubrication of the mucosal surface and claimed, without evidence, that it is actually the glycocalyx that provides these functions. Richard Anderson is of course wrong. The adherent mucus layer is in fact needed for protection and lubrication of the mucosa, and the glycocalyx does not in fact function as lubrication.[4]

Richard Anderson was referring to Forstner's work, which he misinterpreted, when he said that acid causes mucin to coagulate. Forstner [5] was studying the effect acid and serum albumin has on mucus. When he mixed albumin with mucin, viscosity increased dramatically. This, by the way, is probably why some types of mucoid plaque are incredibly viscous. He then added acid to the mix, which caused it to coagulate into a dense white precipitate.

Now, Forstner noted that neither albumin nor mucin alone coagulated when exposed to acid. This coagulation effect only occured when acid was added to a mucin-albumin mixture. Richard Anderson left the albumin part out. Forstner did think that it was the mucin itself that coagulates. But I think it's actually the albumin which coagulates. We already know that mucus helps fibrinogen to coagulate into fibrin.[3] Mucin with the help of acid probably does the same thing to albumin.

The components of mucoid cap itself adequately explain the texture, shape, color, and even smell of mucoid plaque without the need for any added explanations. Textbooks on wound healing, for example, clinically describe necrotic tissue and fibrin collectively as "black", "brown", "gray", "yellow", "green", "hard", "soft", "mucoid", "stringy", "sticky", "rubbery", "leathery", "putrid" and "foul".[6] This is exactly how Richard Anderson, Robert Gray, and Benard Jensen clinically described mucoid plaque. [7] It's a remarkable coincidence.

But Richard Anderson did not realize that mucoid plaque is mucoid cap. He attempted to explain the different colors of mucoid plaque in terms of bile. On page 93 of book two he writes: "In color, mucoid plaque can be gray, yellow, green or light green, or light brown to black, but often is blackish green, which may indicate a relationship to bile." This of course implies that bile can be black, which gives skeptics something more to laugh at. In medieval medicine, black bile is one of the four humors of the body.

In many respects, Richard Anderson is a crank. His work is full of medical ignorance, pseudoscience, and weirdness. He thinks vaccines are evil. He thinks emotions are stored in mucoid plaque. Etc. It's embarrassing. I can't help but think that the disrespect he receives from the scientific community is largely self-inflicted. But I submit to you that despite his failings he actually got something right. He was right about the general idea of mucoid plaque. He just messed up real bad on the details because he is not very good at science.


[1] See book called "Tissue Cleansing Through Bowel Management". It was written by Bernard Jensen.

[2] See "The Colon Health Handbook" by Robert Gray.

[3] See textbook called "Gastric Cytoprotection: A Clinician’s Guide". The ISBN-13 is 978-1-4684-5699-8. See pages 84 & 87.

[4] See journal article called "The gastrointestinal mucus system in health and disease". You can get it here. The PMID is 23478383.

[5] See journal article called “Intestinal Mucins in Health and Disease”. It was written by Forstner JF. The DOI is 10.1159/000198115. The PMID is 25218.

[6] There are three textbooks I got this from. The first is the third edition of "Wound Care: A Collaborative Practice Manual for Health Professionals". It was published in 2007 and written by Carrie Sussman & Barbara Bates-Jensen. Turn to page 197. It describes it as "gray", "yellow", "brown", "black", "mucoid", "stringy", "leathery", "hard" and "soft". The second is the second edition of "Comprehensive Wound Management". It was published in 2010 and written by Glenn Irion. Turn to page 150 and 151. It describes it as "yellow", "greenish", "hardened", "grayish", "brownish-yellow", "stringy" and "foul". The third is the fourteenth edition of "Tidy's Physiotherapy". It was published in 2008 and written by Stuart Porter. Turn to page 340. It describes fibrin as "sticky", "rubbery", and being visible as yellow-white "strands".

[7] Go to each of their books. See Richard Anderson's book called "Cleanse & Purify Thyself". I'm talking about book two. Go to pages 92-94. He described it as "soft", "gray", "yellow", "green", "brown", "black", "foul", "mucoid", and like "wet leather or rubber". Go to Robert Gray's book called "The Colon Health Handbook". See pages 8 and 67. He described it as "rubbery", "black", "hardened", "grey", "brown", "green" and "mucoid". See Bernard Jensen's book called "Tissue Cleansing Through Bowel Management". He described it as "black", "foul", "putrid", "stringy", and "hard as truck tire rubber".


1 comment:

  1. I appreciate the information. I'm a little brain foggy, so I am unsure of the advice, if any, that you are offering here. If someone has bad guts, which I believe I do because I do, and they are trying to calm things down and get them moving and they are mucousy in the output and make you feel ill, are you saying Anderson and those like him have nothing to say. When I eat the way Ehret suggests, I have to say there is an improvement in my system.
    You have provided many good links to follow up on. Thank you. And the fact that the science sees mucoid whatever, just shows me that they have been negligent in not directing sick people with proper advice. Anyhow, thank you for all the references. Best to you.