I'm pretty sure 'easy' is not the word I'd choose to describe it. To pick one common fungal infection among many: Let's have a look at fungal nails (https://ww

I'm pretty sure 'easy' is not the word I'd choose to describe it. To pick one common fungal infection among many: Let's have a look at fungal nails (https://www.medicinenet.com/fungal_nails/article.htm https://www.medicinenet.com/fungal_nails/article.htm). As they note, "Onychomycosis is a fungal infection usually caused by a special type of fungus known as a dermatophyte. Since most of these infections are relatively superficial, it would seem that topical treatments ought to work well. This is not the case because the nail unit is relatively impenetrable." Where I live, typical treatments for an established fungal infection of this kind would apparently include medical nail varnish with Amorolfin (at least weekly) or Ciclopirox (daily), for 6-12 months in cases with small, highly localized infection, or, for larger infections, oral Terbinafine (daily, for 3 months) or Itraconazole. In my understanding (Life scientist here, but not really medical professional) Terbinafine is the nicer one of those last two as far as the patient's own body is concerned - a modern, effective, prescription-free antimycotic - and it still has a respectable list of side effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terbinafine#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terbinafine#Side_effects). This is not like procaryotes (Bacteria, Archaea, ...) where many aspects of their biology is almost alien compared to our own cells and possible to target with minimal host damage. Save for the fungal cell wall, and some exotic aspects to DNA reproduction and cell membrane biosynthesis, fungi are much closer to animal, and the game with them tends to be "let's see if we can find something that hurts you (much) more than it hurts me". If they are hiding inside human cells or tissues reaching them with antimycotics to a significant extent at all is tricky. Not sure about the pharmacological accessibility of the pancreas, to be honest, but many drugs don't even enter the brain without being specially designed for it, let alone get inside the nerve cells. And even if we can get in there treatments are fairly long, disagreeable and/or risky, and far from guaranteed to be successful. Is the drug effective against the particular fungus? Does it remain effective under the course of microbial evolution? Is the body capable of eliminating the fungus entirely with aid from the drug? (Arguably maybe not, if the fungus is very good at hiding.) So, I agree that looking at the existing outcomes after treatment with antimycotics could be a good first step, but as far as I can see, if you detect an effect you can be fairly sure there is one, but if you don't detect an effect that doesn't really tell us much because it could mean either there's no problem or, just as well, that the treatment has just been too ineffective in eliminating the deep covert infections for one reason or the other. And there's every reason to believe we may be in that latter scenario. But, with Alzheimer's and pancreatic cancer on the list of allegations so far, is it worth testing? On a society level, yes, unequivocally.