Paul Stamets (host defence) on the use of mycelium on grain.

This is an argument I can at least work with. It's the argument that a biotransformation is happening, creating a new product that is different than the sum of its parts. This would be similar to yogurt. It's not just milk and bacteria. The bacteria transforms the milk into something new. Even so, we gave yogurt a name. We do not call it milk. I believe IF this is truly what is happening (we still need scientific verification that this is not just marketing), but if this is truly what is happening, then we need a new name for this newly created biomass. We should not call it a mushroom, since it is not a mushroom. It would be something new; potentially with its own set of benefits and side effects.

My two biggest issues with it are the fact that there are no studies or independent verification that shows the biomass is being transformed into something that works as good or better, and the fact that this position from Paul Stamets only began after people started calling out the mycelium on grain issue. If this truly was the case, why was Paul not talking about this biomass transformation for years? If it is truly something new, why was this not made into a larger discovery? He's been selling mycelium on grain for decades. In my opinion, this seems like an afterthought to try and re-take the narrative. I could be wrong, but there is currently no independent scientific evidence showing what Paul is saying is correct. We have run mycelium on grain products through the lab before, and they are full of starch. The alpha-glucan profile matches rice almost exactly, and the beta-glucan numbers are laughably low. Paul Stamets claims that is because the testing is wrong, but that's bullshit. The AOAC has approved multiple testing methods for beta-glucans now, and we have worked closely with a number of labs over the world to verify them first hand. Analytical testing is one of my passions, and I get involved in discussions weekly with our in-house and 3rd party lab partners to fully understand the abilities and limits of the current methods. This is why I get so worked up when he tries to shift the narrative into the direction that the testing showing his products have incredibly low levels of active ingredients are inaccurate. If you can get the people thinking the testing is false, you can control the narrative as to why your products don't stack up. It's an incredibly disingenuous way of defending oneself. The testing methods are accurate and repeatable, and a number of extremely reputable labs over the world have put their names behind the results. I'll copy the exact quote from Host Defense below.

Q: Why don’t you list beta-glucan content on your products?

A: Because we want to be accurate. The testing methods used to determine beta-glucan content are highly inaccurate.

Over the years, Fungi Perfecti LLC has spent thousands of dollars on product testing for beta-glucan content at various laboratories. The reported beta-glucan values from several independent laboratories vary greatly even though identical assays were performed. The most commonly employed assays for determination of beta-glucan content can only detect soluble beta-glucans; the insoluble beta-glucans remain undetected. Beta-glucans differ in their solubilities depending on their size, functionality, and interaction with other molecules. In agreement with other organic chemists specializing in beta-glucan analysis, we have concluded that the currently employed methods are unreliable!

Their assertion that only the soluble compounds can be detected is laughable... Ask any real analytical chemist to read Host Defense's statements, then look at the actual methods approved by the AOAC. The current beta-glucan testing uses H2SO4 for acid hydrolysis, then the glucose is measured using a glucose oxidase/peroxidase reagent. Alpha-glucan (starch/glycogen) plus free glucose and glucose from sucrose are then measured after hydrolysis of starch/glycogen to glucose with glucoamylase and sucrose to glucose plus fructose with invertase and the glucose specifically measured with GOPOD reagent. β-Glucan is then determined by the difference. HCL is used to optimize some methods, but H2SO4 is the most accurate acid to use, and results in better numbers on a few mushroom species. Host Defense's assertion is that the beta-glucans in the mycelium on grain products are just not able to be acid hydrolyzed by sulfuric acid? They are super special beta-glucans that are different than the ones in the fruiting bodies, and just won't hydrolyze with sulfuric acid? If that's the case, then how would our bodies even absorb them? They would be non-bioavailable at that point.

As for the traditional use of the mushrooms, that is of course correct, and I'd prefer to use the fruiting body too because it has a longer track history of use, but I think it would be unfair to write off mycelium+rice without more public unbias and high quality published data

The issue is that the onus is on the party making the claims to prove their assertions. It's not up to us, or anyone else, to prove Paul Stamets is wrong about this biotransformation. It's up to him to prove he is right. That has not happened yet. The testing of mycelium on grain products that we have done all points to it being largely starch. Until some evidence is shown to me that explains that, or shows how it is active/different, I have to go off those results from a scientific perspective. Trust me, I would sell mycelium on grain if I thought it was a good product. It's WAAAAAAY cheaper than whole fruiting bodies. So if it was as good or better than fruiting bodies, it would be a no-brainer. I am just not scientifically satisfied that it is.

There is almost no money in complementary medicine and I am not surprised there is another matter where we don't have strong enough evidence to say much with strong certainty.

I think you would be very surprised how much money Host Defense makes. They have the money to run these studies. Furthermore, the supplement industry is estimated to be worth 278 billion by 2024. There is a lot of money in this. There is just a lot more money in selling extremely cheap products for insane markups. I would not be so upset about this if their prices were not so insanely high, either. It's literally the cheapest product to produce, being sold for insane amounts.

If we read what Paul is saying, he thinks the rice actually has been modified by the organism to become more bioactive. There is no strong science to contradict that possibility. I also think he seems like a decent guy and is a trained scientist so his opinion is not to be sneered at.

We should avoid appeals to authority and evidence of absence. If someone that seems to be an experienced and educated person on a subject makes assertions, those statements should make scientific sense. If they don't, we should question those assertions. That's the quintessential hallmark of what makes science, science. We question people's postulations, and attempt to test and verify them. When Stephen Hawking came out with new theories, did his peers in the theoretical physicist community just say: "Ohh, well Stephen is a smart dude. He's probably right." No! They questioned him, and tried to prove or disprove his theories. This is what needs to happen with Paul Stamets. There is a cult of personality surrounding him that seems to lift his statements to a higher level than others. If some nobody off the street comes up with some novel postulations that refute the words of an authority, but his theories make sense and they are accompanied by quality scientific data, then those should be given just as much weight as the statements from the perceived authority.

To that point, where is the scientific data showing the assertions made on the blog you linked? The blog says: "In 2017, Paul Stamets and his team at Fungi Perfecti, LLC (FP) have partnered with Natural Immune Systems, Inc. (NIS) to further clarify the immune-enhancing impacts of various mushroom ingredients." However, I have been trying to find any published peer-reviewed study on the matter, but I am coming up empty. Was it not published or peer-reviewed? I love this stuff, and I would be more than willing to completely flip on the matter, and admit I am wrong, if I can see the scientific data they are using to come to these conclusions. The problem is that this is all shrouded in vague statements that have morphed over the years, seemingly to counteract the growing sentiment around the mycelium on grain products. If they created a new biomass that is unique from mushrooms, AWESOME! That's a really cool advancement. Now show me the peer-reviewed scientific data published in a reputable journal so that I can read it and come to my own conclusions. Again, I am not saying you personally should show me. Host Defense should show all of us this scientific data, and then we can try to recreate and confirm it. Then, if there is a scientific consensus as to the validity of the findings, it should be named something new to delineate that it is a new biomass that is distinctly, structurally and functionally, different than a mushroom.