Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#91

Post by pygy_ »

numair wrote: post #17

I was recently shocked and practically offended to read guidelines on what to eat while undergoing chemo[1]. It was a high-sugar diet, basically (milkshakes were encouraged !). I couldn't imagine anything worse than shocking your body with radiation, and then providing cancer cells with all the sugar they need for growth. Hopefully the ideas in this article start to affect public health policy and guidelines. 1: http…

Depending on the tumor, feeding it well may increase its sensitivity to chemotherapy.

On the other hand, I've read recently that fasting improved chemo tolerance because it puts healthy cells at rest while the cancerous ones are oblivious to the reduced calories intake... Not sure if it is universal. Such an early study was likely targeted a specific kind of cancer.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#92

Post by tremon »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #52
andreygrehov wrote: post #41

A friend of mine (she is a microbiologist, let's call her Lucy) was diagnosed with Uterine cancer. Oncologist told her they have to remove her womb, otherwise she'll die in a couple weeks. She decided to avoid "traditional treatment". Instead, she shared her issue with various professors from the university she is working at. One of the professors (another friend of mine) advised her to go to the Republic of Peru. He…

Doesn't it strike you as incredibly shady or selfish that these scientists who had their cancer cured haven't bothered to tell the world about it? Or if they're currently researching it to help others not die from cancers that can be easily cured, please point us to their work.

Doesn't it strike you as incredibly shady or selfish that these scientists who had their cancer cured haven't bothered to tell the world about it?

It doesn't, actually. Getting diagnosed with cancer and then surviving it is still a terrible ordeal. Publishing their single story would do nothing to change the course of medical science, but it would open them up to abuse from skeptics all over the world.

I'm sure that even if I survived cancer (through whatever means), I would still not have the courage to allow myself to be flagellated by a horde of entitled zealots.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#93

Post by bottled_poe »

numair wrote: post #17

I was recently shocked and practically offended to read guidelines on what to eat while undergoing chemo[1]. It was a high-sugar diet, basically (milkshakes were encouraged !). I couldn't imagine anything worse than shocking your body with radiation, and then providing cancer cells with all the sugar they need for growth. Hopefully the ideas in this article start to affect public health policy and guidelines. 1: http…

Have you experienced chemotherapy? Are you a doctor? Please lay down your credentials.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#94

Post by Natanael_L »

dualogy wrote: post #71
commandar wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about across different people; I'm talking about different types of cancer. The causes and treatments for lymphatic cancers are different from lung cancers are different from breast cancers are different from prostate cancers are different from brain cancers are different from liver cancers, ad infinitum.

Well there must be some things they all have in common. Anaerobic environment I thought, is that still the case? No transport of oxygen via iron possible, in my layman's memory?

Like saying suffocating in vacuum and suffocating from oxygen substitution in an enclosed space (like by inert gasses) is equal. The causes are different enough that different solutions are necessary.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#95

Post by ryanwaggoner »

reddytowns wrote: post #86
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know whether they're dedicating their lives to winning a Nobel prize and saving billions of lives with this magical cure. If not, why not? They had fatal cancers cured in just a few months with no treatment, and then just went back to work and forgot about it? Also, if the essence is fasting, why did they need to go see a shaman in Peru?

The problem is that medical science today isn't equipped to prove/disprove this kind of medicine. All that would happen if they could convince anyone to even believe the story, which I highly doubt, is one study would be conducted. The scientists would ignore all the diagnosis and individual examination the shaman did, and the study would probably have the participants take a specific amount of a single specific herb…

So the only kind of "science" that could prove this works is to layer on so many confounding effects and other variables that it'd be impossible to tell what, if anything, is happening.

Gee, I wonder why rational people are skeptical of that.

And to answer your question, no, I do not believe that alternative health systems "developed" over thousands of years work. If they work, then they're medicine. We only use the term alternative health to define things that are too magical to have their effects show up when studied using the scientific method. And barring the ability to collect some reliable data on their efficacy, then yes, they're bullshit by default. What other reliable framework for evaluating them could I possibly have?

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#96

Post by ryanwaggoner »

biokoda wrote: post #78
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have their been any decent-sized rigorous human studies on this? I see a few small ones but I may be looking in the wrong place.

Not that I know of unfortunately.

So it's not really fair to say that they've been tested and proven to have significant benefit, is it?

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#97

Post by leonroy »

crikli wrote: post #54
bandushrew wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parents point is valid though. If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer. At the very least, his anecdote is convincing to me that it "starving the cancer" doesn't work with lung cancer. In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvant…

It sure as hell doesn't work with lung cancer. My dad had been sugar free for almost a decade prior to his diagnosis of small cell adenocarcinoma. He lasted almost a year.

Sorry for your loss.

Can you elaborate on whether his diet excluded rice, refined grains and any other sort of simple carbs?

I was rather shocked to see in the documentary 'Fed Up' that all these carb rich foods get broken down to simple sugar molecules pretty darn quick and as far as the body is concerned are identical to sugar.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#98

Post by ryanwaggoner »

tluyben2 wrote: post #82
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My car broke down the other day and I immediately started doing my prayers and sacrifices to the car healing gods. 2 weeks later, my car is running smoothly with no signs of issues! Of course, my mechanic also replaced the engine, but I wouldn't be surprised if my process helped.

That's why 'smart people' advise to do both; try something you believe in (it helps if you believe) but do it next to regular treatments. Replace the engine and pray at the same time. Praying doesn't hurt although it won't help because of the praying (if there would be a god, it is well accepted that he doesn't listen to individual requests; you get your chance in heaven) but because of the faith/believe you have whi…

I don't disagree, but I think other people looking at the situation should be able to distinguish the two.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#99

Post by tluyben2 »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #98
tluyben2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why 'smart people' advise to do both; try something you believe in (it helps if you believe) but do it next to regular treatments. Replace the engine and pray at the same time. Praying doesn't hurt although it won't help because of the praying (if there would be a god, it is well accepted that he doesn't listen to individual requests; you get your chance in heaven) but because of the faith/believe you have whi…

I don't disagree, but I think other people looking at the situation should be able to distinguish the two.

Yes, and it should be told to them correctly. Saw a lot of people die by picking the alternative way only...

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#100

Post by nommm-nommm »

tremon wrote: post #89
sergioisidoro wrote: post #26

I've read in multiple places that biohackers are using Intermittent fasting as a way of preventing cancer. By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h, they expect to starve cancer cells in their very early stages (basically using the underlying principle of the article). I would be extremely interested in seeing a study of the incidence of cancer in people doing Intermittent fasting vs genera…

By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h Uh, any adverse effects if you increase that frequency? Because I reach a fasting period of 12h almost every day...

Most people do I imagine. If you eat dinner at 6pm and breakfast at 8am that is a 14 hour fast.
Post reply on HN