3 ms·

The book "Tripping over the truth" is a great history of the failure of the genetic mutation theory of cancer to cure cancer. It argues that it's a dead end an

The book "Tripping over the truth" is a great history of the failure of the genetic mutation theory of cancer to cure cancer. It argues that it's a dead end and we should go back to exploring Otto Warburg's metabolic theories.

sjg007 7y ago
Mutations impact pathways. Studying genetics and epigentics is fine. Metabolism is another angle but the brain itself consumes a lot of energy... it’s not just dividing cells. If you target metabolism you run a huge risk of killing the patient before the cancer does.
killjoywashere 7y ago
Warburg's metabolic theory is an important part of current cancer care and many prospective efforts. However, tumor metabolism is an effect, not a cause. The simple-as-possible-but-no-simpler model of cancer is that mutations occur, breaking the blueprint code for cellular processes. In most cases this leads to cell death. In rare cases, the mutant survives and either fails to interpret a death signal or over-interprets a growth signal, or the growth switch is constitutionally activated. This leads to more mutations and some number of daughter lineages also survive. This all stems from very straight forward underlying rates of mutation predicted by the laws of thermodynamics, requiring no other input. There are plenty of example problems available to work through on Rosalind.info. That is, cancer is a disease of information. And this is extremely compatible with the genomic evidence in every cancer we've encountered, many, many times over. Viruses you say? They insert into the genome and interfere with normal cell processes. UV radiation. Chemical exposures, oxidative stress, etc, etc. Those are intermediary chains of causation. Interesting for specific examples (wear gloves, wear sunscreen, be careful about sex, etc). One of the blueprints that tends to fall apart is the complex aerobic respiratory pathway, including the Kreb's cycle, etc. But there are other, usually latent energy pathways, like glycolysis, that are available. It is the loss of aerobic respiration that unmasks the glycolysis pathway and all its associated inefficiencies and metabolic stress effects.
delhanty 7y ago
I have that book, but regret buying it. Frankly, it's lightweight for a HN audience. The original technical book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" by Thomas N. Seyfried and published by Wiley seems pretty accessible to me. I'm not advocating for or against the theory. It seems though a lot of time and money has been invested into the genetic mutation approach, without the expected returns in actual health outcomes, so that there is least a case to answer.

sjg007 7y ago

Mutations impact pathways. Studying genetics and epigentics is fine. Metabolism is another angle but the brain itself consumes a lot of energy... it’s not just dividing cells. If you target metabolism you run a huge risk of killing the patient before the cancer does.

killjoywashere 7y ago

Warburg's metabolic theory is an important part of current cancer care and many prospective efforts. However, tumor metabolism is an effect, not a cause. The simple-as-possible-but-no-simpler model of cancer is that mutations occur, breaking the blueprint code for cellular processes. In most cases this leads to cell death. In rare cases, the mutant survives and either fails to interpret a death signal or over-interprets a growth signal, or the growth switch is constitutionally activated. This leads to more mutations and some number of daughter lineages also survive. This all stems from very straight forward underlying rates of mutation predicted by the laws of thermodynamics, requiring no other input. There are plenty of example problems available to work through on Rosalind.info. That is, cancer is a disease of information. And this is extremely compatible with the genomic evidence in every cancer we've encountered, many, many times over. Viruses you say? They insert into the genome and interfere with normal cell processes. UV radiation. Chemical exposures, oxidative stress, etc, etc. Those are intermediary chains of causation. Interesting for specific examples (wear gloves, wear sunscreen, be careful about sex, etc). One of the blueprints that tends to fall apart is the complex aerobic respiratory pathway, including the Kreb's cycle, etc. But there are other, usually latent energy pathways, like glycolysis, that are available. It is the loss of aerobic respiration that unmasks the glycolysis pathway and all its associated inefficiencies and metabolic stress effects.

delhanty 7y ago

I have that book, but regret buying it. Frankly, it's lightweight for a HN audience. The original technical book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" by Thomas N. Seyfried and published by Wiley seems pretty accessible to me. I'm not advocating for or against the theory. It seems though a lot of time and money has been invested into the genetic mutation approach, without the expected returns in actual health outcomes, so that there is least a case to answer.