Live data from Hacker News

Why cancer cells waste so much energy

news.mit.edu

151–160 of 199 posts

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with trusting YouTube blindly. I trust my friends and colleagues that have cured their cancer better. Also note that chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypoclorite. It's like comparing salt (which also contains chlorine) with sugar.

A company named Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals created a drug named NP001. NP001, a pH-adjusted IV formulation of purified sodium chlorite, is a novel molecule that regulates inflammation in vitro and in vivo. It was used in a phase II clinical trial for ALS, and a subset of patients did not have any progression during the 6 month trial [0]. Something highly improbable. Unfortunately this was not confirmed in a following…

Very interesting. Thank you.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great questions. 1. We do attempt to attack cancers by reducing their available energy. That's why, at one point, a major field of research in cancer therapeutics was interfering with angiogenesis, because cancers will secrete messengers that help grow them dedicated (if crappy, low-quality) blood vessels. The issue with "starving" them more starkly is that they're very good at getting a share (e.g., forcing the body…

"I hope my answer was actually useful in providing some biological context? " Yes, it was! "These are below detection in any practical clinical way, and we don't want to treat them because they're ridiculously common - your immune system wipes them up. If we tried to detect and treat them all, we'd kill everyone with side effects long before we prevented a fatal cancer." I suppose it would help, if this would be more…

I do wish people were more aware of how common pre-cancer cells are. Generally speaking, there are about eight major functional changes in the cell needed to go from 'cell' to 'cancer cell', and on average, each takes about a decade to occur. When I first learned about this at the age of 20, I already had a bunch of cells that were 2/8 of the way to cancer, essentially. (Not counting mutations I was already born with. Most of us are, which is why cancer is common before age 80.)

It's fair to say that it's a "failure of immunity," though it's a bit more varied than that. You might have started with a failure of the immune system, in the sense that something like autoimmune proliferative syndrome means cells that should be committing suicide aren't, and so eventually you have cancer. More common is a "normal" immune system, and a cancer cell lineage that evolves to be invisible to it.

Either way, it's fair to say that normal cells and cancer cells are divided by the fence of "immunity," and cancer doesn't happen until the cancer cells hop the fence or the fence falls down.

I suspect the fear -> cortisol -> immune suppression -> cancer pathway is probably, quantitatively, pretty small.

Stress does have negative effects on the immune system, in the broad sense, but granularly it gets more complicated. For instance, one of the key cells involved in keeping cancer at bay is the CD8+ cell. While total CD4/CD8 t-cell counts seem to trend down when cortisol trends up, CD8 T-cell counts actually trend up.

We know that Natural Killer T-cell activity drops in response to cortisol, in isolation, but that it has differing effects on NK cells in different organs. In some organs, it had no impact at all, due to shielding by other inflammatory signals.

It's probably true that there are some people who, if they didn't stress out about getting cancer, wouldn't have gotten cancer. I suspect that number is very, very, very low, though, and I'd certainly never tell a patient (or believe about a patient) "if they'd had different thoughts, they wouldn't have cancer."

I can't rule it out as never having happened. It's not physically impossible. But, compared to all of the other things that play a role in cancer development, it's probably not worth mentioning.

(I feel like I should clarify on the first paragraph: in short, every cell is somewhere on the continuum between 'normal cell' and 'cancer cell'. The only difference between the two is time. Like that Palahniuk quote, "On a long enough timeline, everyone you love is dead"? Well, "on a long enough timeline, every cell is a cancer cell.")

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great questions. 1. We do attempt to attack cancers by reducing their available energy. That's why, at one point, a major field of research in cancer therapeutics was interfering with angiogenesis, because cancers will secrete messengers that help grow them dedicated (if crappy, low-quality) blood vessels. The issue with "starving" them more starkly is that they're very good at getting a share (e.g., forcing the body…

I appreciate your comprehensive answer, it's very helpful. Question: > "you'll starve, or poison, the brain long before you manage to starve out a cancer. (Yes, Ketone bodies are a thing, but that happens alongside your body mobilizing everything it can to feed the brain, not instead of.)" Layman here, but my understanding is that depriving the body of the ability to replenish glycogen stores that are normally used f…

A little bit?

You've got it essentially correct, it's just that every metabolic pathway is in a dynamic equilibrium. So let's say you do deprive the body of fresh glucose intake. While liver is turning fat into ketone bodies, and brain and skeletal muscle are digesting those ketone bodies, at the same time that TCA cycle that is now getting fed ketone bodies is going to push back upstream to tilt 'eat sugar' (glycolysis) a little bit more towards 'make sugar' (gluconeogenesis); meanwhile, other ketone bodies (dihydroxyacetone) are going to plug right into the gluconeogenic pathway.

The body will be making glucose where it can, because, if I recall correctly, red blood cells can't make use of ketone bodies, full stop. Some level of production must be maintained.

Which, in the body's parlance, is 'starvation'. If red blood cells are going hungry, from the body's perspective, there's a serious problem. But that's part of the difference between true ketosis and a ketogenic diet - the latter continues glucose intake, with a preference towards stimulating ketogenesis. The former is "oh fuck where's the glucose why can't I use the glucose aaaaaah!"

I gotta go refresh this now - you're painfully reminding me of how long it's been since I reviewed biochem.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypoclorite I wasn't sure what to make of what you said until you dropped this common fallacy used by MMS cultists. All forms of oxidising bleach (chlorine gas, hypochlorite solution, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, etc) take effect by taking electrons from other matter. These reactions are able to "bleach" because pigments are often complex organic molecules whi…

> [...] which has no medical basis whatsoever. I'm not a doctor, but there seems to be some medical basis in some pathologies. If you are a doctor or scientist perhaps your input would be greatly appreciated in the following papers: In vivo evaluation of the antiviral effect of ClO2 in chicken embryos inoculated with avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.13.336768v1 S…

The chicken embryo study is interesting but chlorine dioxide is already known to be less toxic to birds. And your other sources clearly state that chlorine dioxide and chlorites suppress thyrioid function and haematopoesis in primates and humans. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

>Also, CDS is not MMS.

Out of curiosity, do you acidify the ClO2 solution before quaffing it? It's a ritual very well associated with MMS proponents but probably does more harm than good if the goal is to deliver chlorine to the body.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#155
I posted this in a few cancer threads with good response: the seminal work on cancer is actually a really quite approachable and short free paper - “Hallmarks of Cancer” by Hanahan and Weinberg.

For anyone wishing to understand the fundamental features and survivorship bias that all cancer cells go through I highly recommend it.

I think this is an updated version: https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00127-9

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] which has no medical basis whatsoever. I'm not a doctor, but there seems to be some medical basis in some pathologies. If you are a doctor or scientist perhaps your input would be greatly appreciated in the following papers: In vivo evaluation of the antiviral effect of ClO2 in chicken embryos inoculated with avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.13.336768v1 S…

The chicken embryo study is interesting but chlorine dioxide is already known to be less toxic to birds. And your other sources clearly state that chlorine dioxide and chlorites suppress thyrioid function and haematopoesis in primates and humans. Is that supposed to be a good thing? >Also, CDS is not MMS. Out of curiosity, do you acidify the ClO2 solution before quaffing it? It's a ritual very well associated with MM…

The results in monkeys seem to suppress thyroid function, but:

> No evidence of thyroid effects were detected in the serum of human volunteers who ingested approximately 1 mg/l. of ClO2 in drinking water as a result of routine use in the community water treatment process.

I don't acidify the ClO2 solution.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#157
post #25
post #22

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

That’s.... backwards. Excess sugars and toxins promote environments that are favorable for cancer promotion (eg by weakening immune system by down regulating certain cells within the tumor microenvironment or activating metabolic pathways that should be inhibited and so on).

Yep. The guys who did that China Study were feeding aflotoxins (difficult to detect mold toxins) to rats and then fed them milk casin to trigger cancer. Then they would stop feeding them the casin to turn off the cancer.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cancer forms all the time - body should handle it when functioning correctly (via immune system). Is this why some people think fasting can help? It gives the body a chance to clean up cancer cells, since you have more time in a catabolic state?

Don't know what anybody thinks, but there are multiple reasons, some of which are: - No sugar input => low insulin (insulin promotes cancer) - No nutrition for cancer cells => no folate etc. - Metabolic slowdown due to starvation => means everything works slower including cancer - Promotion of autophagy which consumes damaged organelles. This one is dubious as cancer cells can do autophagy themselves to stay alive, b…

So if you're fasting you should probably still supplement with the necessary vitamins etc.?

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; multicellular organisms used to be single cell organisms a billion years ago and the original genes might carry on within our DNA until today. But they should be switched off. Once they are switched on, the cells will stop coop…

> 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…

Couldn't agree more. I actually wrote a reply along these lines then decided I should get some work done and dropped it.

>"Cannot help but switch to previous single-celled metabolism"

This line itself should immediately give anyone with a molecular bio line a pause. Molecules, cells and other small chemical phenomena are not humans. They do not act with intent.

Personifying these machines and systems may be helpful to make a system relatable, but it is a toy model, not an explanatory one.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Not so radioactive that the person is harmed but radioactive enough to pack an extra punch to the metabolically starved, and therefore stressed, cancer cells (who are drawing more of the glucose to themselves).

Tritium will be transferred to proteins and retained in the body. A low-calorie diet won't help: when the glucose enters the citric acid cycle, the 3H will end up everywhere. 18FDG, used for PET, is also concentrated in the kidneys and bladder, ruling it out for therapy. If it were that easy to find something uptaken only by tumors, we'd be using it.

In brachytherapy, we do something like this, except we put a solid radiation source inside the tumor. Nonetheless, the treatment has serious side effects.

Post reply on HN