4 ms·

For comparison, what kinds of diseases are not metabolic?

by jp555 6y ago

wonder_er 6y ago
I'm not an expert in any means. I'm a software developer who has had some friends died of cancer, and then two years ago I read "Tripping over the Truth" and felt a sense of rage. To take a stab at your question, at least in the context of cancer, cancer is almost never seen as a "cell metabolism" problem, it's viewed as a "damaged DNA" problem Quoting from an article[0] that discusses the somatic vs. metabolic theories of cancer. This is how the "somatic theory of cancer" describes the cancer pathways: > Cancer is caused by damage to DNA, which leads to damaged genes. Those genes, oncogenes, are responsible for the reproduction of cancer cell lines (which one could think of as multi-generation families), which grow unchecked to the point of being a tumor. Those tumors can be tested for damaged genes and will allegedly show those genes. [0]: https://colleenhuber.com/metabolic-theory-of-cancer-and-common-misconceptions/ https://colleenhuber.com/metabolic-theory-of-cancer-and-comm...
- jhbadger 6y ago
  As a cancer biologist, separating the metabolic from the somatic causes is complicated. Yes, ultimately cancers arise from the replication of cells with mutations in their DNA. But our immune system is on constant lookout for such cells and kill them once identified. So in a sense cancer is a failure of the immune system, and many things can depress the immune system, including metabolism.
  - wonder_er 6y ago
    I appreciate your response! I'm a layperson, so I am the last person qualified to give an informed response to your comment. That said, I perceive a conceptual gap between your response, and my understanding of the metabolic theory of cancer. I believe this gap exists because the 'metabolism' piece refers not to human metabolism, but cellular metabolism, specifically how mitochondria create energy. I would be thrilled and honored if you'd read "Tripping Over the Truth"[0], but I know we all live in resource-constrained environments. You're not going to read a book because a random person on HN suggested it. Because of this, and the fact that I dislike even hinting at "do unpaid labor", I am paying people to read this book. I've allocated $5000 (5% of my pre-tax annual income when working, though I'm on a sabbatical right now) to getting certain well-positioned individuals to read Tripping Over the Truth[1]. Not to force or coerce anyone into agreeing with me, but I find the general theory to be so persuasive, I wonder if others might as well. I want expert insight into this topic. Would you be willing to accept some of that "fund" and read the book? If, after reading, you'd be willing to give me a paragraph of your commentary on the book, I'd be eternally grateful. I'd pay you $500 to read the book. If $500 isn't compelling, how about $1000? I'd send half when you agree to reading it, half when done (paypal, venmo, bitcoin, whatever). I hope you're interested. My email is in my profile! [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164-tripping-over-the-truth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164-tripping-over-t... [1]: https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-cancer https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-...
- JPLeRouzic 6y ago
  Did you have a look at this article? "Here we show that metabolic alterations that occur with age can produce a systemic environment that favours the progression and aggressiveness of tumours." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2630-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2630-0
saiya-jin 6y ago
Genetic diseases, those caused by random mutations ie due to exposure to various radiation, and probably tons more. Even those eating very healthy do get ie cancer, just less than average.

For comparison, what kinds of diseases are not metabolic?

by jp555 6y ago

For comparison, what kinds of diseases are not metabolic?

I'm not an expert in any means. I'm a software developer who has had some friends died of cancer, and then two years ago I read "Tripping over the Truth" and felt a sense of rage. To take a stab at your question, at least in the context of cancer, cancer is almost never seen as a "cell metabolism" problem, it's viewed as a "damaged DNA" problem Quoting from an article[0] that discusses the somatic vs. metabolic theories of cancer. This is how the "somatic theory of cancer" describes the cancer pathways: > Cancer is caused by damage to DNA, which leads to damaged genes. Those genes, oncogenes, are responsible for the reproduction of cancer cell lines (which one could think of as multi-generation families), which grow unchecked to the point of being a tumor. Those tumors can be tested for damaged genes and will allegedly show those genes. [0]: https://colleenhuber.com/metabolic-theory-of-cancer-and-common-misconceptions/ https://colleenhuber.com/metabolic-theory-of-cancer-and-comm...

jhbadger 6y ago
As a cancer biologist, separating the metabolic from the somatic causes is complicated. Yes, ultimately cancers arise from the replication of cells with mutations in their DNA. But our immune system is on constant lookout for such cells and kill them once identified. So in a sense cancer is a failure of the immune system, and many things can depress the immune system, including metabolism.
- wonder_er 6y ago
  I appreciate your response! I'm a layperson, so I am the last person qualified to give an informed response to your comment. That said, I perceive a conceptual gap between your response, and my understanding of the metabolic theory of cancer. I believe this gap exists because the 'metabolism' piece refers not to human metabolism, but cellular metabolism, specifically how mitochondria create energy. I would be thrilled and honored if you'd read "Tripping Over the Truth"[0], but I know we all live in resource-constrained environments. You're not going to read a book because a random person on HN suggested it. Because of this, and the fact that I dislike even hinting at "do unpaid labor", I am paying people to read this book. I've allocated $5000 (5% of my pre-tax annual income when working, though I'm on a sabbatical right now) to getting certain well-positioned individuals to read Tripping Over the Truth[1]. Not to force or coerce anyone into agreeing with me, but I find the general theory to be so persuasive, I wonder if others might as well. I want expert insight into this topic. Would you be willing to accept some of that "fund" and read the book? If, after reading, you'd be willing to give me a paragraph of your commentary on the book, I'd be eternally grateful. I'd pay you $500 to read the book. If $500 isn't compelling, how about $1000? I'd send half when you agree to reading it, half when done (paypal, venmo, bitcoin, whatever). I hope you're interested. My email is in my profile! [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164-tripping-over-the-truth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164-tripping-over-t... [1]: https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-cancer https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-...
JPLeRouzic 6y ago
Did you have a look at this article? "Here we show that metabolic alterations that occur with age can produce a systemic environment that favours the progression and aggressiveness of tumours." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2630-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2630-0

saiya-jin 6y ago

Genetic diseases, those caused by random mutations ie due to exposure to various radiation, and probably tons more. Even those eating very healthy do get ie cancer, just less than average.