Since you were a cancer researcher in a previous life, may I ask you a question I thought of commenting on another's comment? If cancer cells have high metabolic requirements, couldn't you attack them by: 1. lowering the caloric intake of the patient 2. Making the glucose the patient intakes mildly radioactive, say with a beta or an alpha emitter [1]. As the patient is strictly kept on a low caloric diet, the radioac…
[1] Say replacing the hydrogens in glucose with tritium That's part of the problem. Think you can come up with a synthesis of glucose that replaces the nonlabile hydrogens with tritium, is doable on the days scale, repurifiable for human consumption and mass producable on-site at a hospital? For reference ($900/20Ci): https://www.perkinelmer.com/product/glucose-d-3-3h-hplc-puri...
What about an enzymatic synthesis? Or even partial biosynthesis.
I've been thinking and came to the conclusion that cancer might be a way of the body to get rid of excess sugar and maybe other toxins. Many cancers seem to respond well when ppl go keto for example
Seems a bit extreme don't you think ? Getting rid of the sugar by getting rid of the host, sounds like those AI fatalistic movies where curing misery involves killing all humans.
I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.
Valter Longo’s lab at USC has done extensive research on this, and developed a fasting mimicking diet that can be used in conjunction with cancer treatments. They found that it increases resiliency from chemotherapy in healthy cells and makes cancer cells more vulnerable.
This interview with Rhonda Patrick is a good introduction to his research, but it’s quite extensive and the papers are worth checking out if you’re interested in this topic.
Such treatments attempt to concentrate the radiation and poison where the cancer is, however.
That is not entirely true... The prevalent chemotherapy is detrimental to cells all over the body and it has no way of distinguishing cancel cells vs non-cancer cells. Targeted therapies are different and are becoming more widely used but are still small in percentage of patients compared to "classic" chemotherapy.
"the prevalent chemotherapy is detrimental to cells all over the body" I'm not a doctor, but isn't the case that the prevalent chemotherapy is detrimental to new/growing cells all over the body, which is a way of distinguishing cancer cells (and a few types of tissue e.g. hair) vs most types of non-cancer cells?
> There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots It's not close to even 'relatively' being new. I was giving cancer talks that made mention of it back when I worked in cancer bio, just about 16 years ago now. I didn't come up with it, and it wasn't new then. I used it in tal…
Since you were a cancer researcher in a previous life, may I ask you a question I thought of commenting on another's comment? If cancer cells have high metabolic requirements, couldn't you attack them by: 1. lowering the caloric intake of the patient 2. Making the glucose the patient intakes mildly radioactive, say with a beta or an alpha emitter [1]. As the patient is strictly kept on a low caloric diet, the radioac…
The high metabolic rate is used. Some forms of chemotherapy kill cells that replicate quickly. That's why hair falls out and patients puke - the gut lining replicates quickly.
At least that's my understanding. I'm not in the field.
I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.
Would the supposed benefits of fasting happen right away, or only after your fat reserves start to deplete?
Since you were a cancer researcher in a previous life, may I ask you a question I thought of commenting on another's comment? If cancer cells have high metabolic requirements, couldn't you attack them by: 1. lowering the caloric intake of the patient 2. Making the glucose the patient intakes mildly radioactive, say with a beta or an alpha emitter [1]. As the patient is strictly kept on a low caloric diet, the radioac…
[1] Say replacing the hydrogens in glucose with tritium That's part of the problem. Think you can come up with a synthesis of glucose that replaces the nonlabile hydrogens with tritium, is doable on the days scale, repurifiable for human consumption and mass producable on-site at a hospital? For reference ($900/20Ci): https://www.perkinelmer.com/product/glucose-d-3-3h-hplc-puri...
I'd be willing to have a crack at this if I thought it could help (my background is in nuclear methods for materials characterisation). But I've a feeling that the difference in uptake between cancerous and normal tissue might not be large enough to make this especially useful. Fluorine-18 labelled glucose is used in PET imaging, but not for treatment as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, if a compound can be found that is more selective for the cancer in question, making it radioactive may offer a further improvement.
> There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots It's not close to even 'relatively' being new. I was giving cancer talks that made mention of it back when I worked in cancer bio, just about 16 years ago now. I didn't come up with it, and it wasn't new then. I used it in tal…
Since you were a cancer researcher in a previous life, may I ask you a question I thought of commenting on another's comment? If cancer cells have high metabolic requirements, couldn't you attack them by: 1. lowering the caloric intake of the patient 2. Making the glucose the patient intakes mildly radioactive, say with a beta or an alpha emitter [1]. As the patient is strictly kept on a low caloric diet, the radioac…
There is a very interesting book around the metabolic route for treating cancer. It's called "Starving cancer" by Jane McLelland. It talks about using over the counter drugs and supplements that have been studied for their metabolic blocking properties for cancer, as well as changing the diet to reduce as much as possible the nutrients that cancer craves the most according to their metabolic phenotype. Most of the times it's glucose or glutamine, but the trick is to block as many metabolic pathways using the drugs so that mutation is prevented. Most of these drugs have their patents expired and are quite cheap. The author had a very aggressive form of cancer with less than 5% statistic survival rate and were able to survive and go back to NED (no evidence of disease). It's not exactly a substitute for standard therapy such as chemo, but there's many people who also went to NED just with her protocol.
I tried this back when I had cancer, and even though my survival rate was very high just on standard care, my tumor markers went way down almost to normal on the first cycle combined with Jane's protocol.
Unfortunately, the cancer industry and pharmaceutical industry won't really invest much money on clinical trials for expired patent, or even existing drugs in their portfolio. There are a couple of independent clinical trials going on, so far, with good results AFAIC.
Another very controversial, but interesting treatment for cancer that will probably never see the light is Chlorine Dioxide. And don't you dare write that on Facebook or YouTube because it'll be outright banned or deleted for "spreading misinformation". I have friends and persons I know that went to NED just on chlorine dioxide and diet. Having used it myself for many months with no negative effects, and, after chemo, I can't help but cringe every time someone tells me that it's "very toxic". Oh lord, you should have seen what chemo was like. Now, that was toxic.
No medical experience, other than as a patient... however I read the body can live up to two months without food (but with adequate water). If you managed to survive longer than the cancer cells, wouldn't they just come back after defeat? Doesn't this stem from DNA?
Dumb question: why two months? Doesn't it depend on your fat reserves? If you are 350 pounds, can't you just not eat until you are 150 and be fine? (I am not suggesting that this is true or that anyone should try it; I don't know and I am asking the question.)
In 2017, Berridge and Neuzil reported that stromal cells can donate healthy mitochondria to respiration-deficient tumor cells, restoring normal respiration as well as their ability to form tumors in mice.