4 ms·

> She rightly recognizes the key role of cell autonomous vs. cell non-autonomous processes in how multicellular organisms work. This is an odd comment: This re

by klmr 9y ago

> She rightly recognizes the key role of cell autonomous vs. cell non-autonomous processes in how multicellular organisms work. This is an odd comment: This realisation is quite literally at the core of cancer research, and every researcher in the field recognises this. Heck, it’s implied if not mentioned outright in the seminal Hallmarks of Cancer paper [1] that every cancer researcher (and probably generally most human biologist) has read. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer

iak8god 9y ago
> Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. This "article" in the Harvard Gazette is basically a press release about an invited lecture that happened at Harvard. If it manages to clearly and correctly explain any science, then it's already going above and beyond its main purpose. Edit: * Here is Athena Aktipis' lab site: http://www.aktipislab.org http://www.aktipislab.org * Here is a 2015 NYT article about her work that goes into more detail than this press release: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters-give-rise-to-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters... * This is the scientific article: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/20140219 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/2014...
tcj_phx 9y ago
> But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. A lot of "fundamental knowledge" in medicine is wrong. The genetic theory of cancer has always been a dead-end, because it reverses cause and effect. The cancer industry has encouraged "kill all the cancer cells" treatments because it's convenient for their business model. The cancer treatment situation is similar to how the use of bloodletting persisted for hundreds of years [0], in spite of the low rates of success. [0] http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-york/n8661?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-yo... There's no need for new insights, the old insight needs to be fully developed. Your link has a subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregulated_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregu... Warburg's nobel prize was in 1931; we're finally realizing he was probably right all along. (minor edit)
- epmaybe 9y ago
  Your comment is misleading. Certain cancers are indeed 'caused' by genetic changes, and researchers are actively looking for ways to prevent those genetic changes from occuring in the first place. But do you really tell someone with a familial mutation that we know causes thyroid cancer that they should be on a ketogenic diet? Most therapeutics today are developed knowing that they will not have a substantially more beneficial effect than current therapies. We still develop these because even if they are not better they could reduce adverse events caused by our current best meds. As far as I can tell in the last 80 years the Warburg effect has led PET scanning a viable way to detect the progression of many cancers. To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one.
  - tcj_phx 9y ago
    Your comment history suggests that you've been through medical school. I like to say that sometimes doctors do good work, and sometimes they make work for themselves. Please take this response as a gentle and well-intended effort to protest the standard practices that hurt patients by 'missing the forest for the trees', such as I've observed in my own family (who themselves are employed in the conventional approach to medicine), and my girlfriend (who is being harmed by allopathic psychiatry). Did you know that the term 'allopathy' was coined by a homeopath? At the time bloodletting, calomel, and blister agents were the standard of care. Homeopathic medicine held that the body can fix itself when properly supported (diet, clean environment, etc). Allopathic medical practitioners engage in the heroic struggle against disease [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_medicine Allopathic medicine never went away, it just changed form. While conventional medical practitioners are doing much better than 200 years ago (w.r.t. not killing their patients), from my perspective, conventional psychiatry and conventional cancer treatments leave much to be desired. > To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. I have some great anecdotes about cheap metabolic therapies. But they're just my non-rigorous anecdotes... The one person who I'd most like to experiment on, trusts her doctors because they wear the halo of 'conventionality'. > Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one. Consider the possibility that cancer is much simpler than the geneticists have led us to believe. Sometimes 'we must unlearn, what we have learned'. Edit: google scholar turns up some papers about 'spontaneous remission' of cancer. To figure out how to induce spontaneous remission of cancer cells would be a revolutionary advance.
fouc 9y ago
I agree, it also struck me as an odd comment. To be honest parent post gives me the feeling of having a mansplaining tone to it.
domnomnom 9y ago
I was talking to a friend in med school, and I feel the difference between what exists in biology as we understand it currently, and what is clinically relevant is gigantic. That paper definitely educated a generation.

by klmr 9y ago

iak8god 9y ago

> Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. This "article" in the Harvard Gazette is basically a press release about an invited lecture that happened at Harvard. If it manages to clearly and correctly explain any science, then it's already going above and beyond its main purpose. Edit: * Here is Athena Aktipis' lab site: http://www.aktipislab.org http://www.aktipislab.org * Here is a 2015 NYT article about her work that goes into more detail than this press release: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters-give-rise-to-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters... * This is the scientific article: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/20140219 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/2014...

tcj_phx 9y ago

> But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. A lot of "fundamental knowledge" in medicine is wrong. The genetic theory of cancer has always been a dead-end, because it reverses cause and effect. The cancer industry has encouraged "kill all the cancer cells" treatments because it's convenient for their business model. The cancer treatment situation is similar to how the use of bloodletting persisted for hundreds of years [0], in spite of the low rates of success. [0] http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-york/n8661?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-yo... There's no need for new insights, the old insight needs to be fully developed. Your link has a subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregulated_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregu... Warburg's nobel prize was in 1931; we're finally realizing he was probably right all along. (minor edit)

epmaybe 9y ago
Your comment is misleading. Certain cancers are indeed 'caused' by genetic changes, and researchers are actively looking for ways to prevent those genetic changes from occuring in the first place. But do you really tell someone with a familial mutation that we know causes thyroid cancer that they should be on a ketogenic diet? Most therapeutics today are developed knowing that they will not have a substantially more beneficial effect than current therapies. We still develop these because even if they are not better they could reduce adverse events caused by our current best meds. As far as I can tell in the last 80 years the Warburg effect has led PET scanning a viable way to detect the progression of many cancers. To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one.
- tcj_phx 9y ago
  Your comment history suggests that you've been through medical school. I like to say that sometimes doctors do good work, and sometimes they make work for themselves. Please take this response as a gentle and well-intended effort to protest the standard practices that hurt patients by 'missing the forest for the trees', such as I've observed in my own family (who themselves are employed in the conventional approach to medicine), and my girlfriend (who is being harmed by allopathic psychiatry). Did you know that the term 'allopathy' was coined by a homeopath? At the time bloodletting, calomel, and blister agents were the standard of care. Homeopathic medicine held that the body can fix itself when properly supported (diet, clean environment, etc). Allopathic medical practitioners engage in the heroic struggle against disease [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_medicine Allopathic medicine never went away, it just changed form. While conventional medical practitioners are doing much better than 200 years ago (w.r.t. not killing their patients), from my perspective, conventional psychiatry and conventional cancer treatments leave much to be desired. > To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. I have some great anecdotes about cheap metabolic therapies. But they're just my non-rigorous anecdotes... The one person who I'd most like to experiment on, trusts her doctors because they wear the halo of 'conventionality'. > Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one. Consider the possibility that cancer is much simpler than the geneticists have led us to believe. Sometimes 'we must unlearn, what we have learned'. Edit: google scholar turns up some papers about 'spontaneous remission' of cancer. To figure out how to induce spontaneous remission of cancer cells would be a revolutionary advance.

fouc 9y ago

I agree, it also struck me as an odd comment. To be honest parent post gives me the feeling of having a mansplaining tone to it.

domnomnom 9y ago

I was talking to a friend in med school, and I feel the difference between what exists in biology as we understand it currently, and what is clinically relevant is gigantic. That paper definitely educated a generation.