4 ms·

I’ve been exposing myself to similar, vaccine induced T cell production to fight cancer, research recently due to a family member recently going through it with

I’ve been exposing myself to similar, vaccine induced T cell production to fight cancer, research recently due to a family member recently going through it with pancreatic cancer. https://www.mskcc.org/news/can-mrna-vaccines-fight-pancreatic-cancer-msk-clinical-researchers-are-trying-find-out https://www.mskcc.org/news/can-mrna-vaccines-fight-pancreati... My family member was ineligible for the trial due to requiring chemo before surgery due to ca19-9 markers being above the limit for surgery eligibility. Here are some of my observations as someone forced to the outside: I read the 2017 and phase i papers. They are both very mathy and talk more about the life spans of their induced T cells than their patients. Looks like phase i was 19 patients (16 given the vaccine), 2 recurred, one died, they seem to want to blame the patients’ immune system. The study is: surgery, vaccine, then 12 cycles of chemo regiment, then vaccine booster. I was frustrated to see a lack of any search results for “diet”, “nutrition”, “sugar”, “glutamine”, in either paper. I think the mathy science is cool, and a necessary component, but focusing on pharmaceutical solutions and calculating their efficacy based on if their intended biological reaction occurred, seemingly oblivious of, or defiantly ignoring, lifestyle change appears misguided. Diet and exercise is insufficient on its own, but due to the vast differences in individual diets, studies like these should include lifestyle requirements as a control. Especially if they are going to point at a patients immune system. Diet effects on both immune system function and specifically targeting cancers is uncontroversial and scientifically supported. Why are these two research efforts so siloed from each other?!

goda90 2y ago
I think some people try to distance themselves from the diet and exercise parts because of how easy it is to sell quackery in that area. "Take this supplement to cure cancer", "Read my book about the exact diet to cure your cancer!", etc. We'll probably start seeing more and more mixing of traditional or cutting edge treatments like chemo, radiation, and immunotherapy with having the right lifestyle choices to have a stronger immune system. There is research being done, even if limited. Another interesting thing I'd like to see more research done on is metabolic therapy. Not just having a diet to boost the immune system, but targeting the metabolism of cancer cells. The Warburg effect[0] means a lot of cancer depends on glucose and glutamine for energy. Some researchers have tried using a ketogenic diet to reduce glucose, since normal cells can survive without it, plus using drugs to temporarily drop glutamine levels with the hope that the cancer cells starve first. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)
- lancercane 2y ago
  I appreciate your reply, but I think calling diet and exercise “traditional” and saying the research is “limited” plays into the downvoters’ prejudice. I see this sort of sentiment a lot on this forum: it’s only “science” if it’s pharmaceutical, (see: any thread about semaglutides) when in reality cancer response to diet research is well trodden, and I would argue the better science. Better science because it has stronger controls on variables. When you read about diet research the patients are all given the same pharmaceutical regiment and the variable is the diet, whereas on the flip side the diets of the patients are completely ignored. That’s bad science. It may be great research, but it’s still bad science. It’d be like the diet researchers allowing the patients to choose their own doses for the pharmaceutical side of their treatment, which would be an absurd confounding variable. Cancer cell metabolism is thoroughly researched. The leading cause of death is heart disease, and the leading cause of heart disease is build up of fatty deposits, ie diet. I’m unsure why people act surprised that the same factors play into the body’s ability to respond to cancer. Read a study on chemo from the 90s and tell me what’s more “quackery”: the pharmaceuticals they tried back then that now would result in a malpractice suit if given to a patient today, or the diet guidelines that have remained consistent over the same time period? I made it clear in my op that both are necessary, I just want the pharmaceutical side to acknowledge that reality too.

goda90 2y ago

I think some people try to distance themselves from the diet and exercise parts because of how easy it is to sell quackery in that area. "Take this supplement to cure cancer", "Read my book about the exact diet to cure your cancer!", etc. We'll probably start seeing more and more mixing of traditional or cutting edge treatments like chemo, radiation, and immunotherapy with having the right lifestyle choices to have a stronger immune system. There is research being done, even if limited. Another interesting thing I'd like to see more research done on is metabolic therapy. Not just having a diet to boost the immune system, but targeting the metabolism of cancer cells. The Warburg effect[0] means a lot of cancer depends on glucose and glutamine for energy. Some researchers have tried using a ketogenic diet to reduce glucose, since normal cells can survive without it, plus using drugs to temporarily drop glutamine levels with the hope that the cancer cells starve first. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)

lancercane 2y ago
I appreciate your reply, but I think calling diet and exercise “traditional” and saying the research is “limited” plays into the downvoters’ prejudice. I see this sort of sentiment a lot on this forum: it’s only “science” if it’s pharmaceutical, (see: any thread about semaglutides) when in reality cancer response to diet research is well trodden, and I would argue the better science. Better science because it has stronger controls on variables. When you read about diet research the patients are all given the same pharmaceutical regiment and the variable is the diet, whereas on the flip side the diets of the patients are completely ignored. That’s bad science. It may be great research, but it’s still bad science. It’d be like the diet researchers allowing the patients to choose their own doses for the pharmaceutical side of their treatment, which would be an absurd confounding variable. Cancer cell metabolism is thoroughly researched. The leading cause of death is heart disease, and the leading cause of heart disease is build up of fatty deposits, ie diet. I’m unsure why people act surprised that the same factors play into the body’s ability to respond to cancer. Read a study on chemo from the 90s and tell me what’s more “quackery”: the pharmaceuticals they tried back then that now would result in a malpractice suit if given to a patient today, or the diet guidelines that have remained consistent over the same time period? I made it clear in my op that both are necessary, I just want the pharmaceutical side to acknowledge that reality too.