4 ms·

> But I honestly just don't get the link to ovarian cancer. What does that mean and what does it signify? Do you know enough about cancer, microbiology, the fe

> But I honestly just don't get the link to ovarian cancer. What does that mean and what does it signify? Do you know enough about cancer, microbiology, the female reproductive system, etc. that you would 'get' it and that you trust your intuition? I don't 'get' much of advanced mathematics, but that doesn't at all invalidate it in my mind, or represent evidence to others. Is your post more than, 'I kinda wish I didn't know the facts here' - a human reaction to bad news.

Bjartr 2y ago
I read that more as confusion than dismissal tbh.
legitster 2y ago
Mesothelioma is not a "real" cancer in the traditional sense. Your body has no way to expel fine asbestos fibers, and so they collect in your lungs and shred up the insides. When your body tries to respond by healing, it instead forms growths that constantly re-cut and heal themselves. So it's a type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on malformed DNA. So the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. Asbestos on it's own is completely inert. It's an improbably claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  My old friend with no history of asbestos exposure, a sysadmin no less, died of mesothelioma last year. I only learnt that yesterday. (We grew apart...) I spent an hour reading about that cancer. It seems that mesotheliomas without previous known asbestos exposure do occur.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Maybe he worked with fiberglass? I've heard a lot of things are similar to asbestos, they just need a higher exposure to do the same damage.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to you and therefore is worth exploring. At the same time, unless one is an expert then the fact that they don't understand isn't much evidence that it's untrue. Most people don't understand much about my field of expertise; their lack of knowledge doesn't invalidate most of my field.
  - jb1991 2y ago
    You forget this is HN where the majority think they can offer expert commentary on nearly any topic. It’s the peak of mansplaining.
- riahi 2y ago
  Talc is used medically as a treatment for recurrent pleural effusions. It is introduced into the pleural space and triggers an intensely inflammatory reaction which more or less fuses the pleura together to prevent the accumulation of fluid (pleurodesis). When a patient who has had a pleurodesis gets an FDG PETCT, they will have intense accumulation of radiotracer for years. It is very inflammatory. Even more so than asbestos. I wouldn’t want talc anywhere inside my reproductive tract or anywhere inside my body if I could avoid it. If you buy the chronic inflammation leads to cancer hypothesis, talc leading to cancer is not so far fetched.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > It is very inflammatory. Location matters. The immune system reacts differently to foreign bodies depending on what tissue is in contact with it. Damn near anything you add to the plural space is going to send your immune system into overdrive - the cells that line the plural cavity (mesothelial cells) are programmed to respond a certain way to their environment. Contrast that with the cell that line your respiratory tract. There are cells that produce mucus, cells with cilia that sweep the mucus away from the lungs. They don't respond with a massive inflammatory reaction to foreign substances like the plural space does (at least not in a healthy human - asthma patients are different). Same with the reproductive tract, especially the female one. We can insert IUDs into the uterine cavity without a massive inflammatory response.
    - riahi 2y ago
      The peritoneal cavity and the pleural cavity have very similar linings. Talc introduced into the peritoneum is similarly inflammatory and has been known since at least 1943: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/261043 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26104... Work has been done to demonstrate that talc can migrate from external perineal application into the female reproductive tract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6779257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6779257/
      - refurb 2y ago
- refurb 2y ago
  > So it's a type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on malformed DNA. This is absolutely incorrect. Several genes are commonly mutated in mesothelioma, and may be prognostic factors. These include primarily BAP1, NF2, and TP53;[63] epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and C-Met, receptor tyrosine kinases can also be altered and overexpressed in many mesotheliomas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma#Pathophysiology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma#Pathophysiology
- robbiep 2y ago
  You’ve made a logical error here - you can basically say the same about every cancer. The specific cancers that fit directly into the category you are carving out for mesothelioma are squamous and adénocarcinomas of the oesophagus, gastric mucosa and large bowel; lung cancers and other cancers of the epithelium. The basic pathological process underlying cancer is cell dysplasia (usually caused by irritation/prolonged inflammation) which leads to metaplasia. Whether this is driven by a de novo mutation in that cell or from an external source is totally irrelevant and mesothelioma is certainly not unique in how it comes to fuck you up

Bjartr 2y ago

I read that more as confusion than dismissal tbh.

legitster 2y ago

Mesothelioma is not a "real" cancer in the traditional sense. Your body has no way to expel fine asbestos fibers, and so they collect in your lungs and shred up the insides. When your body tries to respond by healing, it instead forms growths that constantly re-cut and heal themselves. So it's a type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on malformed DNA. So the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. Asbestos on it's own is completely inert. It's an improbably claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

inglor_cz 2y ago
My old friend with no history of asbestos exposure, a sysadmin no less, died of mesothelioma last year. I only learnt that yesterday. (We grew apart...) I spent an hour reading about that cancer. It seems that mesotheliomas without previous known asbestos exposure do occur.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Maybe he worked with fiberglass? I've heard a lot of things are similar to asbestos, they just need a higher exposure to do the same damage.
wolverine876 2y ago
> the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to you and therefore is worth exploring. At the same time, unless one is an expert then the fact that they don't understand isn't much evidence that it's untrue. Most people don't understand much about my field of expertise; their lack of knowledge doesn't invalidate most of my field.
- jb1991 2y ago
  You forget this is HN where the majority think they can offer expert commentary on nearly any topic. It’s the peak of mansplaining.
riahi 2y ago
Talc is used medically as a treatment for recurrent pleural effusions. It is introduced into the pleural space and triggers an intensely inflammatory reaction which more or less fuses the pleura together to prevent the accumulation of fluid (pleurodesis). When a patient who has had a pleurodesis gets an FDG PETCT, they will have intense accumulation of radiotracer for years. It is very inflammatory. Even more so than asbestos. I wouldn’t want talc anywhere inside my reproductive tract or anywhere inside my body if I could avoid it. If you buy the chronic inflammation leads to cancer hypothesis, talc leading to cancer is not so far fetched.
- refurb 2y ago
  > It is very inflammatory. Location matters. The immune system reacts differently to foreign bodies depending on what tissue is in contact with it. Damn near anything you add to the plural space is going to send your immune system into overdrive - the cells that line the plural cavity (mesothelial cells) are programmed to respond a certain way to their environment. Contrast that with the cell that line your respiratory tract. There are cells that produce mucus, cells with cilia that sweep the mucus away from the lungs. They don't respond with a massive inflammatory reaction to foreign substances like the plural space does (at least not in a healthy human - asthma patients are different). Same with the reproductive tract, especially the female one. We can insert IUDs into the uterine cavity without a massive inflammatory response.
  - riahi 2y ago
    The peritoneal cavity and the pleural cavity have very similar linings. Talc introduced into the peritoneum is similarly inflammatory and has been known since at least 1943: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/261043 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26104... Work has been done to demonstrate that talc can migrate from external perineal application into the female reproductive tract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6779257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6779257/
    - refurb 2y ago
refurb 2y ago
> So it's a type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on malformed DNA. This is absolutely incorrect. Several genes are commonly mutated in mesothelioma, and may be prognostic factors. These include primarily BAP1, NF2, and TP53;[63] epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and C-Met, receptor tyrosine kinases can also be altered and overexpressed in many mesotheliomas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma#Pathophysiology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma#Pathophysiology
robbiep 2y ago
You’ve made a logical error here - you can basically say the same about every cancer. The specific cancers that fit directly into the category you are carving out for mesothelioma are squamous and adénocarcinomas of the oesophagus, gastric mucosa and large bowel; lung cancers and other cancers of the epithelium. The basic pathological process underlying cancer is cell dysplasia (usually caused by irritation/prolonged inflammation) which leads to metaplasia. Whether this is driven by a de novo mutation in that cell or from an external source is totally irrelevant and mesothelioma is certainly not unique in how it comes to fuck you up