6 ms·

I hate to say this (& will be downvoted), but our obsession with reductionist thinking blinds us to the actual causes of cancer. Just like unit tests blind the

I hate to say this (& will be downvoted), but our obsession with reductionist thinking blinds us to the actual causes of cancer. Just like unit tests blind the programmer from how the system works. From a holistic perspective, cancer is caused by an acidic, low oxygen environment or "stagnant energy". Emotional well being, energy work, & massage therapy has also been anecdotally reported by practitioners to cause cancer to remiss. Now before you criticize me for "lack of studies", please understand that studies do a poor job in complex environments. Just like it's been elusive to study programmer effectiveness due to high variability of conditions, the human body living in a specific environment, with specific habits is highly complex & variable. It's foolish to assume that we can account for all of the variables when we don't know what we are missing. About the bias, I can only say that these are anecdotal accounts. Some things seem to make sense, such as a health in environment, emotions, diet, physical body, spirituality, etc. would contribute to the body acting in healthier ways. A purely reductionist philosophy will not accept such factors unless these attributes can be isolated. However, how can such a complex system with unknown unknowns be tested? --- Edit: I know, I committed blasphemy by criticizing a purely reductionist technique. Go ahead and downvote me due to your religious (or financially sponsored) conviction ;-) I'm happy to debate as well... --- Edit2: Given I'm already at -4, I doubt anybody will be willing to answer such a basic question. Oh well, lol. I'm disappointed...

sk5t 12y ago
Most likely you are getting downvoted for casting about a line of unscientific quackery. General hacker objections to this have _nothing_ to do with "religious (or financially sponsored)" bias, nor groupthink, unless you consider the scientific method groupthink.
- briantakita 12y ago
  Are you talking about the scientific method or the marketing of the institution of corporate Science, which increasingly looks like a religion? As far as "quackery", that sounds analogous to "blasphemy". Some techniques work & some don't. Some techniques are not in the financial interests of mainstream industries to be studied. Another issue is, who can afford to create a "valid" peer-reviewed article? It seems like you need a lot of money to do so now days. Who has the money? --- Edit: But again, such concerns are not critically thought about due to groupthink (i.e. a reductionist, evidence-driven philosophy). It's like manipulation & gamesmanship of the market is inconceivable...How naive.
  - sk5t 12y ago
    Scientific method = develop a testable hypothesis, design an experimental protocol, crunch the numbers, repeat, repeat, repeat, document it, work with peers to replicate the experiment if the results look useful. Quackery = employ contextually meaningless words like "low-oxygen" or "energy work," profess there is an effective plan of treatment that vested interests would like to hush up. Guess what, people dying of cancer will try almost anything to get better. If massage or interpretive dance worked better than chemo, it wouldn't remain a secret.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      > Scientific method = develop a testable hypothesis, design an experimental protocol, crunch the numbers, repeat, repeat, repeat, document it, work with peers to replicate the experiment if the results look useful. We are in agreement about the scientific method. The thing is institution of Science is an organizing body that publishes research. Most of the scientists are paid by corporate interests. As with Tobacco scientists in the 1950s, there have been some shady practices with the FDA & related corporate scientists. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... > Quackery = employ contextually meaningless words like "low-oxygen" or "energy work," profess there is an effective plan of treatment that vested interests would like to hush up. It's more like hand-waving on my part. I'm pointing out that there are other theories out there that have not been fully explored. > Guess what, people dying of cancer will try almost anything to get better. If massage or interpretive dance worked better than chemo, it wouldn't remain a secret. Part of the problem is it's difficult to have a controlled experiment with all of these alternative medicine techniques, due to variability of practices. Also, less established practices do not have the capital & institutional mindshare to facilitate proper scientific studies. Another possibility is cancer is a complex phenomena that does not have simple causes.
      - sk5t 12y ago
        Cost of testing should work to the benefit of alternative approaches, shouldn't it? It's not very expensive to give a massage or lead meditation. The problem is, whether due to variability of practices or some other factors, in the best case, practitioners cannot reliably say if their treatment offers any benefit. Without statistics there is simply no way to identify a useful treatment; people are horrible at correctly identifying correlations on their own when the data are in any way nuanced. So, it seems morally and intellectually hazardous to suggest alternative medicine when there is no credible way to show that helps anyone other than the purveyors of crystals, water-molecule-aligning bottles, wellness seminars, etc. But ah, we do know that placebos have some benefit. So have a placebo instead!
brador 12y ago
By what process does acid/low oxygen cause cancer in your theory? By what sequence of events? Talk me through it. Aside, the proposed 'cure' of anecdotal relaxing and energy therapies is heavily affected by survivor bias. And without consistent repeatability is unusable in a professional medical environment.
- briantakita2 12y ago
  Unknowns. Its not my theory either. Think of this like a craftsman. Just like programmers don't use the scientific method to adopt & evolve practices. It's a cultural phenomena that utilizes anecdotal accounts to advance the practice. Advantages & Disadvantages. It seems more useful in environments with many variables, like life.
  - brador 12y ago
    Without a process you're using correlation implies causation. Which can lead to a lot of wrong turns. Especially when that correlation is based on anecdotal non repeatable massively multi variate data like you said. Could be true, could be a dead end, don't put as much weight as you did on it.
    - briantakita2 12y ago
      Evolution uses a similar process. Life seems to successfully evolve.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    Did you seriously create a second account on HN so you could keep posting this nonsense without having your primary account take the brunt of the downvotes?
throwaway344 12y ago
I hate to feed the troll but... What the hell are acidic or low oxygen environments, and "stagnant energy"? Do you think that the environment is getting less oxygenated, or more acidic? Is our world getting more stagnant? I got that you ignore clinical trials for some reason, but outside of that, can you test for these so-called other factors of cancer? What do they look like? From an epidemiological point of view, can you prevent them?
- briantakita 12y ago
  > What the hell are acidic or low oxygen environments, and "stagnant energy". Organisms with Aerobic (high oxygen) vs organisms with anaerobic (low oxygen) metabolic processes within the human body. Stagnant Energy is a holistic term to mean stuff that doesn't flow. Think of a knot in your back as "stagnant energy". In a healthy back, the muscles would distribute evenly. > I got that you ignore clinical trials for some reason, but outside of that, can you test for these so-called other factors of cancer? What do they look like? From an epidemiological point of view, can you prevent them? I don't know if you can even isolate causes with precision. I also question the utility of isolating causes. If you can live a healthy lifestyle, with low stress, a natural diet, low pollution, then I would intuitively think that you will have less disease. The problem is in the western world, intuition is demonized due to our cultural bias.
  - robbiep 12y ago
    > Organisms with Aerobic (high oxygen) vs organisms with anaerobic (low oxygen) metabolic processes within the human body. That line just has no meaning when applied to physiology. The partial pressure of O2 at the level of the cell is between 3-5mmHg O2. This changes barely at all whether the body is hyper oxygenated (ie hooked up to high flow O2 in a hospital) or in the middle of a marathon. The idea that there are 'low oxygen' centres in our tissues is rediculous pseudoscience. Ie, terms that are sprouted with no meaning. And what do you mean by organisms? How basic is your understanding of human biology? Do you mean cells? It still has no meaning! >I would intuitively think Well that's the problem. Life doesn't work by intuition no matter how lovely it may feel to be living with the holistic anti science mindset. Facts are facts and the facts are a 'holistic/naturalistic' lifestyle, whatever that may mean these days, is not going to prevent or cure cancer any more Than the 'normal' methods of stopping smoking, exercising and remaining in a reasonable weight range
raldi 12y ago
> I hate to say this (& will be downvoted) I stopped reading at that point and downvoted you.
- briantakita2 12y ago
  Thank you for the info. I'll stop doing that.
  - raldi 12y ago
    It's a pretty transparent attempt at reverse psychology, and a form of vote-begging. Intstead try, "I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but..."
    - briantakita2 12y ago
      I can see how it's perceived that way. Fwiw, that was my frustration of down votes for unpopular, well meaning, statements. Thank you for the communication & attitude tip. I'll adopt it.
      - yetanother123 12y ago
        Except - your statements might be well meaning, but they are a) inflammatory b) poorly formulated and c) not backed by any kind of evidence. You keep referring to programming, but the equivalent of your argument is "oh well, Big data will win because my cousin frank used a spreadsheet to make a million bucks"
        briantakita 12y ago
        a: It's only inflammatory because there's a strong bias b: It's only "poorly formulated" because the prevailing opinion isn't critical of western medicine c: Discussions of conjecture are allowed. At this point, the causes cancer is conjecture, as the isolated causes have been elusive despite the billions poured into research
ChrisClark 12y ago
Whatever you do, please don't spread your ideas to anyone else. We're already dealing with the baby-killing anti-vaccination movement. We don't need more deaths. Want an answer to your question? "How can such a complex system with unknown unknowns be tested?" Slowly, and a little bit at a time until we have a better understanding. Better to build upon past successes than to throw it all out and start over with your complete misunderstanding of biology. I realize I may be responding to a troll, but there really are people out there who think like this and are in danger of causing innocent deaths with their 'opinions'.
yetanother123 12y ago
From a holistic perspective, you are an ill informed peddler of bullcrap. Now before you criticize me for "lack of studies" to back up my claim, please understand that you are making a fool of yourself.
- briantakita 12y ago
  What am I peddling? I have nothing to sell you except my programming services. I don't care if I'm "wrong" because this is a topic of exploration. People have to be willing to be "wrong" to challenge conventional wisdom leading to new understanding.

sk5t 12y ago

Most likely you are getting downvoted for casting about a line of unscientific quackery. General hacker objections to this have _nothing_ to do with "religious (or financially sponsored)" bias, nor groupthink, unless you consider the scientific method groupthink.

briantakita 12y ago
Are you talking about the scientific method or the marketing of the institution of corporate Science, which increasingly looks like a religion? As far as "quackery", that sounds analogous to "blasphemy". Some techniques work & some don't. Some techniques are not in the financial interests of mainstream industries to be studied. Another issue is, who can afford to create a "valid" peer-reviewed article? It seems like you need a lot of money to do so now days. Who has the money? --- Edit: But again, such concerns are not critically thought about due to groupthink (i.e. a reductionist, evidence-driven philosophy). It's like manipulation & gamesmanship of the market is inconceivable...How naive.
- sk5t 12y ago
  Scientific method = develop a testable hypothesis, design an experimental protocol, crunch the numbers, repeat, repeat, repeat, document it, work with peers to replicate the experiment if the results look useful. Quackery = employ contextually meaningless words like "low-oxygen" or "energy work," profess there is an effective plan of treatment that vested interests would like to hush up. Guess what, people dying of cancer will try almost anything to get better. If massage or interpretive dance worked better than chemo, it wouldn't remain a secret.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > Scientific method = develop a testable hypothesis, design an experimental protocol, crunch the numbers, repeat, repeat, repeat, document it, work with peers to replicate the experiment if the results look useful. We are in agreement about the scientific method. The thing is institution of Science is an organizing body that publishes research. Most of the scientists are paid by corporate interests. As with Tobacco scientists in the 1950s, there have been some shady practices with the FDA & related corporate scientists. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... > Quackery = employ contextually meaningless words like "low-oxygen" or "energy work," profess there is an effective plan of treatment that vested interests would like to hush up. It's more like hand-waving on my part. I'm pointing out that there are other theories out there that have not been fully explored. > Guess what, people dying of cancer will try almost anything to get better. If massage or interpretive dance worked better than chemo, it wouldn't remain a secret. Part of the problem is it's difficult to have a controlled experiment with all of these alternative medicine techniques, due to variability of practices. Also, less established practices do not have the capital & institutional mindshare to facilitate proper scientific studies. Another possibility is cancer is a complex phenomena that does not have simple causes.
    - sk5t 12y ago
      Cost of testing should work to the benefit of alternative approaches, shouldn't it? It's not very expensive to give a massage or lead meditation. The problem is, whether due to variability of practices or some other factors, in the best case, practitioners cannot reliably say if their treatment offers any benefit. Without statistics there is simply no way to identify a useful treatment; people are horrible at correctly identifying correlations on their own when the data are in any way nuanced. So, it seems morally and intellectually hazardous to suggest alternative medicine when there is no credible way to show that helps anyone other than the purveyors of crystals, water-molecule-aligning bottles, wellness seminars, etc. But ah, we do know that placebos have some benefit. So have a placebo instead!

brador 12y ago

By what process does acid/low oxygen cause cancer in your theory? By what sequence of events? Talk me through it. Aside, the proposed 'cure' of anecdotal relaxing and energy therapies is heavily affected by survivor bias. And without consistent repeatability is unusable in a professional medical environment.

briantakita2 12y ago
Unknowns. Its not my theory either. Think of this like a craftsman. Just like programmers don't use the scientific method to adopt & evolve practices. It's a cultural phenomena that utilizes anecdotal accounts to advance the practice. Advantages & Disadvantages. It seems more useful in environments with many variables, like life.
- brador 12y ago
  Without a process you're using correlation implies causation. Which can lead to a lot of wrong turns. Especially when that correlation is based on anecdotal non repeatable massively multi variate data like you said. Could be true, could be a dead end, don't put as much weight as you did on it.
  - briantakita2 12y ago
    Evolution uses a similar process. Life seems to successfully evolve.
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  Did you seriously create a second account on HN so you could keep posting this nonsense without having your primary account take the brunt of the downvotes?

throwaway344 12y ago

I hate to feed the troll but... What the hell are acidic or low oxygen environments, and "stagnant energy"? Do you think that the environment is getting less oxygenated, or more acidic? Is our world getting more stagnant? I got that you ignore clinical trials for some reason, but outside of that, can you test for these so-called other factors of cancer? What do they look like? From an epidemiological point of view, can you prevent them?

briantakita 12y ago
> What the hell are acidic or low oxygen environments, and "stagnant energy". Organisms with Aerobic (high oxygen) vs organisms with anaerobic (low oxygen) metabolic processes within the human body. Stagnant Energy is a holistic term to mean stuff that doesn't flow. Think of a knot in your back as "stagnant energy". In a healthy back, the muscles would distribute evenly. > I got that you ignore clinical trials for some reason, but outside of that, can you test for these so-called other factors of cancer? What do they look like? From an epidemiological point of view, can you prevent them? I don't know if you can even isolate causes with precision. I also question the utility of isolating causes. If you can live a healthy lifestyle, with low stress, a natural diet, low pollution, then I would intuitively think that you will have less disease. The problem is in the western world, intuition is demonized due to our cultural bias.
- robbiep 12y ago
  > Organisms with Aerobic (high oxygen) vs organisms with anaerobic (low oxygen) metabolic processes within the human body. That line just has no meaning when applied to physiology. The partial pressure of O2 at the level of the cell is between 3-5mmHg O2. This changes barely at all whether the body is hyper oxygenated (ie hooked up to high flow O2 in a hospital) or in the middle of a marathon. The idea that there are 'low oxygen' centres in our tissues is rediculous pseudoscience. Ie, terms that are sprouted with no meaning. And what do you mean by organisms? How basic is your understanding of human biology? Do you mean cells? It still has no meaning! >I would intuitively think Well that's the problem. Life doesn't work by intuition no matter how lovely it may feel to be living with the holistic anti science mindset. Facts are facts and the facts are a 'holistic/naturalistic' lifestyle, whatever that may mean these days, is not going to prevent or cure cancer any more Than the 'normal' methods of stopping smoking, exercising and remaining in a reasonable weight range

raldi 12y ago

> I hate to say this (& will be downvoted) I stopped reading at that point and downvoted you.

briantakita2 12y ago
Thank you for the info. I'll stop doing that.
- raldi 12y ago
  It's a pretty transparent attempt at reverse psychology, and a form of vote-begging. Intstead try, "I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but..."
  - briantakita2 12y ago
    I can see how it's perceived that way. Fwiw, that was my frustration of down votes for unpopular, well meaning, statements. Thank you for the communication & attitude tip. I'll adopt it.
    - yetanother123 12y ago
      Except - your statements might be well meaning, but they are a) inflammatory b) poorly formulated and c) not backed by any kind of evidence. You keep referring to programming, but the equivalent of your argument is "oh well, Big data will win because my cousin frank used a spreadsheet to make a million bucks"
      - briantakita 12y ago
        a: It's only inflammatory because there's a strong bias b: It's only "poorly formulated" because the prevailing opinion isn't critical of western medicine c: Discussions of conjecture are allowed. At this point, the causes cancer is conjecture, as the isolated causes have been elusive despite the billions poured into research

ChrisClark 12y ago

Whatever you do, please don't spread your ideas to anyone else. We're already dealing with the baby-killing anti-vaccination movement. We don't need more deaths. Want an answer to your question? "How can such a complex system with unknown unknowns be tested?" Slowly, and a little bit at a time until we have a better understanding. Better to build upon past successes than to throw it all out and start over with your complete misunderstanding of biology. I realize I may be responding to a troll, but there really are people out there who think like this and are in danger of causing innocent deaths with their 'opinions'.

yetanother123 12y ago

From a holistic perspective, you are an ill informed peddler of bullcrap. Now before you criticize me for "lack of studies" to back up my claim, please understand that you are making a fool of yourself.

briantakita 12y ago
What am I peddling? I have nothing to sell you except my programming services. I don't care if I'm "wrong" because this is a topic of exploration. People have to be willing to be "wrong" to challenge conventional wisdom leading to new understanding.