3 ms·

>Couldn’t it be pathogens that are kept in check by inflammation, which then also cause cancer to develop? In reference to this question. These conditions with

>Couldn’t it be pathogens that are kept in check by inflammation, which then also cause cancer to develop? In reference to this question. These conditions with prolonged inflammation lead to cancer in the absence of a primary pathogen. >Apparently, sometimes cancer cells contain fungal DNA (not well studied though, could be contaminants as well). In reference to this, if you are referring to the "tumor microbiome" hypothesis, it has been thoroughly debunked. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01607-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01607-23

manmal 1y ago
> in the absence of a primary pathogen And how can absence of a pathogen be determined, in vivo? That sounds a bit overconfident in current tools, no? H. pylori apparently can hide inside Candida cells. Biofilm lets pathogens prosper while hiding them from diagnosis. Who knows what else is going on. I don’t think the microbiome hypothesis can be rejected at this point. Studies were flawed, yes. I personally am not a fan of the status-quo-ism that comments such as yours express. There’s so much that’s not explored here.
- dillydogg 1y ago
  EDIT: Sorry, this came across rude, I feel poorly about the tone. I think I'll leave it up as is for posterity's sake but I agree there is a lot we don't know about these conditions. They have been sequenced pretty thoroughly without identifying an organism. H. pylori and bacteria in biofilms can be detected this way. In the case of asbestos, it seems clear that it is the asbestos particles and not an organism. As for the tumor microbiome hypothesis, I just find it hard to take a study seriously that suggests that human cancers harbor thermophilic bacteria found in deep sea vents. I try to support my views by the data we have available, and I think these are currently the most well supported models.

manmal 1y ago

> in the absence of a primary pathogen And how can absence of a pathogen be determined, in vivo? That sounds a bit overconfident in current tools, no? H. pylori apparently can hide inside Candida cells. Biofilm lets pathogens prosper while hiding them from diagnosis. Who knows what else is going on. I don’t think the microbiome hypothesis can be rejected at this point. Studies were flawed, yes. I personally am not a fan of the status-quo-ism that comments such as yours express. There’s so much that’s not explored here.

dillydogg 1y ago
EDIT: Sorry, this came across rude, I feel poorly about the tone. I think I'll leave it up as is for posterity's sake but I agree there is a lot we don't know about these conditions. They have been sequenced pretty thoroughly without identifying an organism. H. pylori and bacteria in biofilms can be detected this way. In the case of asbestos, it seems clear that it is the asbestos particles and not an organism. As for the tumor microbiome hypothesis, I just find it hard to take a study seriously that suggests that human cancers harbor thermophilic bacteria found in deep sea vents. I try to support my views by the data we have available, and I think these are currently the most well supported models.