As a person who studied cancer, I am probably not this article's audience.
That said, I feel the need to point out that chronic inflammation has long been known to be one of the roots of cancer. Chronic inflammation can be caused by a few things but common among them is the immune system.
The framing of the article, in my quick skim, felt like it was insinuating that researchers believed that cancer arises from mutations alone, and that everyone assumed carcinogens were all mutagens.
I haven't read the paper this article is describing. It seems very interesting. But the headline and the article makes it seem like some major turning point or ground shift which IMHO it is not.
And are we sure inflammation is the root cause and not just a bystander? Couldn’t it be pathogens that are kept in check by inflammation, which then also cause cancer to develop? HPV and papillomas, and H. pylori and stomach cancer have been such findings. Apparently, sometimes cancer cells contain fungal DNA (not well studied though, could be contaminants as well).
Probably not, given the multiple conditions that are "sterile" inflammation that lead to neoplasms. Consider the example of asbestos; the particles lodge in the lungs which lead to a robust immune response that attempts to clear it, which has a strong association with the development of lung neoplasms. I'm not aware that the link between the inflammation and the development of the neoplasm is well understood. Autoimmune diseases and chronic GERD are other examples.
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.
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.
Part of the reason cancer is such an interesting field of study in my personal opinion is:
(1) You get a lot of these chicken-or-egg situations where the answer is more like "chicken-AND-egg".
(2) Cancer is almost always the result of a million things going wrong at once... it's a slow unravelling of the bonkers number of safe-guards our cells have to keep them healthy and normal.
Inflammation is a normal part of a healthy, functioning body. It can be caused by anything from scraping your knee to getting a cold. It's useful, and as your comment says, it is an important part to fighting off infections which themselves in rare cases cause cancer. It also plays a pathological role in some diseased like auto-immune disorders, IBS, meningitis, etc...
Inflammation, both the healthy and pathological sort, can help set the stage for tumour to form by contributing to the formation of what's known as a "tumour microenvironment" [0]. Chronic inflammation, often caused by disease, is more likely to keep up this permissive environment than one-off cases, and therefore more likely to result in a tumour
By the way, we understand DNA mutation/damage to work similarly. It happens all the time naturally, and sometimes mutations are fortuitous, but mostly they are ironed out by the cells machinery. Increasing the rate of mutation can overwhelm that machinery and cause tumours to snowball.
So, that's how inflammation can contribute to the initialization of tumours or at least environments that are more permissive of tumours. Tumours, however, also might cause inflammatory response to promote cancer progression through hijacking cell signalling, promoting epithelial-mesenchymal transitions, etc... [1].
We've known inflammation has been linked to cancer since at least 1863 [2], so this is pretty well-trodden territory. The immune system and inflammation is extremely complicated (or at least, I always found it to be), so I'm also not surprised that there are a lot of mysteries lurking.
Finally, to answer your question: I'm sure in some cases inflammation is just bystander. My understanding is that inflammation is not the primary mechanism by which HPV causes cancer, so it is very easy to believe it to be a bystander in that case. H. pylori is a good example of chronic GI inflammation that raises your risk of cancer by way of inflammation. I'm not familiar with the fungal DNA research, so can't comment.
Also disclaimer: It's been a while since I've studied cancer directly, I'm more of a computational biologist these days. Sorry if I made an error here.
As a software engineer, I'm constantly exposed to system complexity. My experience is that even systems which seem relatively simple from the outside can be extremely complex. Beyond a certain level of complexity, it becomes very difficult to change something without breaking something else. You need to be aware of dependencies when making changes. It appears that the human body is a much more complex system than any software system, with much more complex interdependencies... Given this, it's not surprising at all that it's so difficult to develop solutions to problems like cancer. The whac-a-mole effect must be massive. Seems like every change has countless unintended side effects.
A portion of the complexity comes from fixing bugs not at its root-cause. Once you have accumulated many such proximate fixes it becomes quite expensive to fix the bug at the root-cause level. The resident root-cause bug continues to create new problems downstream.
I don’t want to defend how they report. But for someone who hasn’t been involved in the field, something that’s widely accepted and well-known for a long time can seem “very new” to them.
What is the "80% cause" of chronic inflammation most people should be aware of, so that people may be able to make lifestyle changes to reduce it? What blood tests can I have ordered to measure it?
Just eat a varied diet, low in ultra processed foods (preferrably none). Limit refined carbs/sugars, excercise regularly, spend time in nature, and don't live in built-up areas with lots of polution. Avoid fragrances, PFAS/PFOA, pftalates and the like.
I don't know about main suspect, but autoimmune disease has been known for a long time to increase your risk of cancer. I have Celiac disease, so an increased risk of stomache, intestinal and bowel cancer.
Honestly, this article is kind of worrying for me, personally. I have many symptoms after two years of treatment with diet alone. Further evidence may eventually show treatment with antibiotics or steroids for people like me may lower more risks then it raises.
Cancer has many different, simultaneous causes. That's why when people say "x causes cancer" what they mean is x (whatever it is) raises your odds of getting cancer by a measurable degree.
I will again mention my favorite cancer champions, the bats.
Bats very rarely get cancer (I tried to find the actual # of verified cases of cancers in bats, but came up short), and they have a lot of anti-cancer adaptations in their genome.
They are also really good at taming inflammation and activity of various viruses. That helps them survive infection with rabies - their systems just don't react as aggresively to the infection as ours (and most mammals') do.
This may help them against cancer as well. Not just p53 et al.
From a fast search in Google, life expectancy in bats is 5-15 years. A long life of 70-80 years gives more time to accumulate mutations and get a cancer.
Also, probably only bats in zoos get a cancer diagnosis. Most ills bats just die in the wild and are eaten by other animals.
Many species of bats live longer than that. Like 40. When compared to other mammals, bats live very long lives relative to their tiny size.
Also, short-lived animals get cancer all of the time. Mice, dogs, cats.
The idea of cancer being caused by passive accumulation of mutations over time looks appealing, but does not seem to correspond to actual frequency of cancer mapped by body size (because more cells = more chances of some cell going haywire), nor to maximum age.
Anti-cancer capabilities of a given organism seem to be more important. There are gene variants that are protective against cancer, and the capability of the immune system to kill suspicious cells matters too. (Note that almost all new efficient oncological treatments in the last decade or so involve the immune system of the patient.)
>Why hasn't evolution turned the dial up another couple of notches?
Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
Or even better phrased, because evolution doesn't care or plan at all, it's a blind mechanism.
If a local minimum is ok, we'll stay there for as long as some environmental or other evolutionary pressure gets to move us further.
Cancer wasn't a big issue for most of our existance as species, especially with lower life expectancies, more active lifestyles, zero obesity, zero pollutants, etc.
In evolutionary terms, modern lifestyles are not even a blip, especially post-industrial ones which don't even register.
That's a very late specimen, and in fact one which "led scientists to speculate that he was involved in copper smelting", hardly typical of revolutionary timescales.
In evolutionary timescales, agriculture and permanent houses are a dot in the timeline, there were no longhouse dwellers for 95% of homo sapiens' history, and none at all for hominids before homo sapiens. They were nomadic foragers.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
This is the lie that needs. to die. Elder people were very important in even the most primitive societies. "lifespan" was low in pre-history, not because no one lived long lives, it was because infant mortality was very high.
Lie implies conscious distortion of the truth, the word you were looking for is "falsehood".
Second, even if "elder people were very important in even the most primitive societies", their role is much much important from evolutionary perspective than the pressures based on reproduction. Which is why most close primates get by with zero roles for post-reproduction grandparents.
Also elder people being "very important in even the most primitive societies" is a cultural and recent in evolutionary timescale phenomenon, first and only secondarily an evolutionary one.
> "lifespan" was low in pre-history, not because no one lived long lives, it was because infant mortality was very high.
They also lived shorter lives to begin with. Even in later historical times (say a couple of millenia or so), people's life expectancy at 15 (meaning, with infant mortality excluded) was much shorter than today.
Nobody said that "no one lived long lives" however. Some did. It's an aggregate limitation, not an absolute one.
Not disagreeing at all that elders are and have been important, but if it’s a benefit after reproductive age where does the selection come in?
I’m open to ideas. The only one I’ve been able to come up with is more second-order: the genetic benefit could come from having your children also pass on your genes, if there was a higher probability of them doing that with their parent alive past reproductive age.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age
I wonder if that's true. There's bound to be some benefits or drawbacks to aggregate fitness when people age. Sure, the contribution is very indirect and so it'll happen yet slower. But imagine if people lived until they were 300 years old. Depending on how frail they are, that could be a drag on reproduction and resources.
>The benefits and drawbacks that appear after reproduction age can’t be passed on.
If we consider grandparents, they could.
E.g. more fit/older grandparents -> more help and experience sharing for raising the kids given to the parents, more infants survive. This would chose for lineages where grantparents are helpful && live more.
What I meant though is that the main evolutionary pressure of us in in reproduction. Sure some past-reproduction-age traits play a role, but hardly as big.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
True. If we can find a drug or gene therapy that extends the reproductive age of humans, evolution will take care of all diseases in a few million years, give or take.
Could be a cliff fitness function. Heard about this relativ typ schizophrenia here on HN a while back. The idea is that some phenotypes promote survival of the species overall, but due to random mutations are sometimes detrimental to individual members of that species
It could also be indirectly linked to other benefits. Humans have lost the CMAH gene, making us able to run long distances and hunt down large prey animals. But because of this we can no longer process specific sugars that you will still find in mammalian meat. That causes inflammation and arteriosclerosis. But those things only kill you after many decades, so there seems to have been a net positive effect on evolution.
This idea can generally work, but one should be careful of 'just-so' stories in evolutionary biology.
It appears this deletion happens in other animals and may be attributable to pathogen pressure. It's arisen multiple times, which makes it hard to claim that it has a specific role in primates (beyond its presumed antimicrobial benefit, which any animal should enjoy).
Evading pathogen pressure is just another benefit behind the scenes. The point is that I would be careful to attribute any of these things to such weird mechanisms when there are so many much more realistic explanations that we just haven't fully uncovered yet.
> Evading pathogen pressure is just another benefit behind the scenes.
I'm imagining that this relates to a specific pathogen that may no longer exist (like the presumed mechanism of the most common cystic fibrosis mutations and cholera).
I'm not sure how this would relate to humans running, however.
Perhaps, but AFAIK similar things show up in other metabolically "different" animals - sharks, naked mole rats - whereas rodents adapted to a "run hot and fast" kind of a lifeplan seem to be especially prone.
We know that the body has cancer suppressor mechanisms, because when they fail (due to HIV or genetic mutations) people suffer higher rates of the disease. So it's reasonable to guess that evolution has chosen not to dial them up further.
It feels like the immune/inflammatory system is something we understand about as well as the brain, which is to say pretty good at a gross anatomical level, and also at the fine molecular level, but with a heck of a lot of complex system dynamics in between remaining to be mapped out.
It's a common misconception that bats eat mosquitoes.
It comes from a study where bats were trapped in a chamber filled with mosquitoes to see how many they could eat.
A comparable experiment would be putting a human in a cage filled with bread crumbs to see how many the human eats.
In our natural habitat, we eat slices of bread and other food. We don't waste the time and energy of consuming bread crumbs unless given no alternative.
Yes, bats can eat mosquitoes, but why bother when there are much larger, nutritious insects to catch with the same effort?
This is also why bats are viral reservoirs and likely sources for mammalian pandemics - their immune system simply doesn't clear infections.
My understanding is it's because they're constantly damaging their own dna from high operating temps (flying mammals). So the immune system must tolerate foreign looking dna at all times, constantly repairing cell damage instead of aggressively attacking foreigners.
Bats (extra copies of the p53 gene, immune system, survival adaptations to atmospheric radiation exposure, high telomerase activity), Elephants (extra copies of p53), Mole rats (High molecular mass hyaluronan (HMM-HA) regulating sugar, contact inhibition), Blind mole rats (HMM-HA, protein that causes (apoptotic?) cell death)), Horses, Cows (BLV resistance, general resistance), Bowhead whales (prevention by DNA repair, CIRBP and RPA2, live to 200), Squirrels (hypersensitive cell monitoring, high telomerase activity,), and Tasmanian devils (DFTD resistance adaptation) are all cancer resistant?
If there are natural food sources that treat or inhibit cancer, and humans unwittingly were eating such foods until modern times, could it be that humans have prevented adaptation by supplementation (a support that has collapsed as modern diets have changed)?
> [... list of anti-inflammatory diet foods]
How exposed to CPMV Cowpea Mosaic Virus are humans dietarily in modern and in ancient times? CPMV causes a IFN response?
(CPMV is highly prevalent in cowpeas and black-eyed peas (which are "good luck"))
> Antibody evidence: Studies have tested patient sera for antibodies against CPMV and found that over 50% of tested samples were positive, indicating past exposure. [...] The consistent, low-level dietary exposure to CPMV over human history, and its ability to trigger an IFN response without causing infection, could have provided a form of regular, passive immune stimulation. [...]
> Despite being a plant virus, CPMV is recognized by the mammalian immune system as a "danger signal." This recognition happens through special receptors on immune cells called Toll-like receptors (TLRs), specifically TLR2, TLR4, and TLR7.
> CPMV and IFN-gamma: Studies have shown that exposing human immune cells (peripheral blood mononuclear cells or PBMCs) to CPMV induces the secretion of IFN-gamma, a potent anti-tumor cytokine.
> Encapsulated RNA: The CPMV virus nanoparticle contains encapsulated RNA, which is one of the triggers for the immune response. The RNA activates TLR7/8, which leads to the production of Type I interferons (IFN-α and IFN-β), further boosting the immune system's anti-cancer response.
There are (differently encapsulated) RNA cancer vaccines in development.
CPMV is basically already a general purpose bioengineering platform with significant review IIUC?
How dietarily exposed to EPS3.9 polysaccharide are humans and cancer-resistant animals? Is there a one-two CPMV + EPS3.9 cancer treatment opportunity?
> Spongiibacter nanhainus CSC3.9 is a novel deep-sea bacterium isolated from a [deep ocean] cold seep [with blue light] that produces both a volatile organic compound (VOC) called VOC-3.9 with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and a sugar-based compound, exopolysaccharide (EPS3.9), which targets cancer cells by inducing programmed cell death
Could CRISPR or similar produce an alternate bacterium that's easier to brew which also produces EPS3.9 without the cold temperature and high pressure? Are there potentially other natural sources of EPS3.9 besides CSC3.9?
Endocannabinoids and the ECS Endocannabinoid System modulate and regulate immune and inflammatory responses (in non- and pre- insect invertebrates and in all vertebrates). Omega PUFAs are endocannabinoid precursors. There are also (fat-soluble) Omega polyunsaturated fatty acids in algae and in fish.
I’ve been reading a lot lately about the negative effects of inflammation. Recently, I came across an article arguing that it’s inflammation in the blood vessels (not cholesterol itself) that causes cardiovascular problems.
Now this article blaming inflammation for cancer.
But isn’t inflammation also a useful and necessary process in the body? If it’s so harmful, should we all be taking anti-inflammatory drugs? Of course, those have their own downsides too (my doctor mentioned that ibuprofen can even affect hearing).
Inflammation is a blunt instrument. It's one of the body's tools to contain and attack a pathogen. Without it, many bacteria and other irritants would wreak havoc on the body.
As allergies and (to an extent) COVID have shown, inflammation can also be dangerous. Too much acute inflammation can cause essential body functions to shut down or function incorrectly.
Point being that inflammation is "good" when the alternative is an infection running rampant in your body. But it's "worse" for your body than the baseline, so chronic inflammation is bad for you (and seems to increase cancer risk).
Anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen are good for knocking down inflammation, but they have a suite of side effects unrelated to this function that make them terrible for prolonged use. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that these side effects are way worse than the benefits of reduced chronic inflammation.
More generally, reducing inflammation across the board leaves you open to infection. It's why we don't prescribe steroids long-term in most patients: the downside of reduced immune response vastly outweighs the benefit for generally healthy patients. It's only considered if the condition (like your body attacking an organ transplant) is more dangerous than the reduced immune response.
As far as I understand exercise and working out also causes inflammation in order to repair and/or build your muscle. So taking ibuprofen might hurt your ability to recover etc.
Immune system and inflammation is clearly very important process for humans for many things even beyond illnesses.
Like inflammation is body's way to repair and adapt to the environment.
Would it be accurate to say enteric coated baby aspirin reduces risk of stroke due to its blood thinning properties, but since it is anti-inflammatory, also reduces risk of atherosclerosis and now cancer?
That's very cool... but it is for a different reason ("Aspirin disrupts the platelets and removes their influence over the T-cells so they can hunt out the cancer.") I am curious whether aspirin also helps in another way: by reducing inflammation.
Probably a "the dose makes the poison" kind of thing? Constant inflammation and exposure to inflammatory agents could eventually raise the likelihood of cell damage in affected tissues, no?
The immune system is highly highly complicated and directed by huge networks of genes and molecules all up- and downregulating each other depending on internal and external factors. If things go "off balance" in this system the consequences could be dire.
You dont want firefighters hosing down your house from the inside when there is no fire anymore either.
Ever since I had covid 5 years ago, my body has been stuck under a constant firehouse shower. High heart rate, shortness of breath, and a constant pressure in my upper chest.
I know it's immune related, because when I am coming down with a cold the symptoms all vanish. Like the firehose has an actual fire to fight.
Which is in itself odd, as there's no obvious mechanism (at least in a developed nation inhabitant who typically have considerable fat reserves and ready availability of food) for the immune system to need resources which would be otherwise used by the muscles.
Like we can all feel the lack of "energy", but that energy isn't the same thing as actual calories, glycogen, blood O2 and so on. Presumably a lot of CFS conditions are relating to that biological switch - "you're ill, rest up!" - getting stuck in the "on" position, but AFAIK nobody has definitively found it despite a whole lot of looking.
Our inflammation responses evolved in part to help us fight off pathogens, but people in modern society are exposed to far, far fewer pathogens than even our immediate ancestors were as recently as 70 years ago when diseases like polio and mumps were still common. As a result many people have an overactive inflammation response relative to the pathogen load to which they are regularly exposed.
In extreme cases, that can manifest as autoimmune disease, when overly strong inflammation or other immune responses end up attacking not just foreign pathogens but the person's body itself. As another poster said, inflammation is a blunt instrument. It's a knob that can only be turned up or down, across the entire body. If you turn it down too far, you risk infectious illness. And if you turn it up too far, you risk damage to your organs.
Interestingly, there was a substantial increase in the incidence of autoimmune diseases in Europe in the generations following the Black Death, probably because people with excessively strong immune responses were more likely to survive exposure to plague bacteria. Celiacs or MS will kill someone much, much more slowly than bubonic plague will, so a disproportionate number of people with those or similar autoimmune disorders were able to survive to pass on their genes.
I think some inflammation is natural and a response to infection, but when your entire diet and lifestyle lead to daily inflammation, I'm guessing it's really bad.
I remember reading this article on why muslim countries had low rate of cancers. Apparently it was the yearly month-long fast + all the spices that people ate daily (anti inflammatory)
They don't, as a rule, drink alcohol, which helps quite a bit for GI, breast and liver cancers.
Wear modest clothing, cover themselves up from the sun. Although that can lead to Vit D deficiency when they move to high latitude countries.
And they don't eat bacon, sausages, salami or other salt-cured pork products which are thought to promote some GI cancers due to the curing process forming nitrosamines.
Also doesn't working out cause inflammation and when you take ibuprofen you hurt your ability to build/repair muscle and recover because of reduced inflammation?
Cancer is a hard problem. It has deeper interconnected mechanisms long before any inflammation or observable change. Cancer is caused due to slow incremental addition of DNA mutations that lead to cell division control failure. This first step is intractable to reverse. All the next stages just lead to early or late diagnosis.
Because of the interplay between dozens of unknown regulating genes that effect in an obscure way the final decision to trigger the cell mitosis (division). Even if we ever uncover the whole cascade mechanism, how can we stop this monstrous process in everyone of the billion cells that are able to divide? We still have no idea of any drug, viral vector or DNA fragment that can intervene tissue wide.
"powerful new way" and "Around the 1920s, Otto Heinrich Warburg and his group concluded...", are you sure they're talking about that? Doesn't seem very new.
See lambdabas comment right below this. This fella that I linked was the OG on this. Consider this further reading and potentially insightful in parallel to this article.
Interesting article challenging today's popular understanding of cancer genesis and development, and outlining the increasing understanding of the role inflammation plays in stimulating the growth of cancer cell populations.
Ask a dairy farmer. Inflammation-mediated carcinogenesis is certainly a thing for some specific types. How much it's true across the board is speculative, but a lot of inflammation-related conditions also have association with higher cancer risk for the given body part.
> The discovery that chronic inflammation can provide the impetus for cancers to develop is forcing clinicians to rethink their approach to the disease’s prevention.
Alternative health has been saying this for decades. Ketogenic diets + medicinal plants/mushrooms can do a lot, even after the fact.
There's an awful lot of stuff that works, that nobody has run a large enough controlled study to prove it works. The organizations which fund medical research have specific priorities that exclude an awful lot. And a lot of things are just inherently difficult to objectively measure or control. There's no blood test for chronic muscle tension, for example.
So unfortunately, by restricting yourself to things that have been proven to work, you are possibly eliminating a lot of things that work.
But of course, trying to figure out, on your own, which stuff actually does work despite not being proven, is a long hard frustrating slog that tends to involve a lot of personal trial and error. Exactly what GP said:
> The difficult part is figuring out what's true and what's quackery.
Alternative medicine is simply any therapy that is not included in the established currently-accepted set of treatment options.
This varies by culture, time, and sometimes by individual.
Most alternatives are not better than the currently-known best. This is true today, we think, but it is definitely not true historically. (So how special is our current era?)
But when the currently-known best doesn't work well for everyone, or has deleterious side effects, any continued research will include alternatives.
I understand the fatigue embedded in your quote. It's a reasonable stance for those of us with ordinary concerns and who are far downstream from the research (including and especially retail practitioners).
But it is too broadly dismissive for real scientists and people who maintain a curiosity about the world.
It's not hard to say all kinds things if you don't do it with scientific rigor. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to know which of the things are true.
Inflammation is typically an immune response. Chronic inflammation is a standard flag that is measured a used by doctors in diagnoses for many years, and by oncologists in particular when treating cancer.
There’s a lot of work right now into immunology and cancer, and they are discovering specific correlations as that progresses. This has nothing to do with mushroom tea, although that probably helps with acute inflammatory issues.
As far as I understand, Keto helps manage the symptoms of diabetes, but will not prevent it, and (without a source on hand), might actually increase your chances of developing it relative to a healthy diet that includes (mostly unrefined) carbs.
https://archive.is/2025.09.11-083906/https://www.economist.c...
https://archive.md/vOR6x
As a person who studied cancer, I am probably not this article's audience.
That said, I feel the need to point out that chronic inflammation has long been known to be one of the roots of cancer. Chronic inflammation can be caused by a few things but common among them is the immune system.
The framing of the article, in my quick skim, felt like it was insinuating that researchers believed that cancer arises from mutations alone, and that everyone assumed carcinogens were all mutagens.
I haven't read the paper this article is describing. It seems very interesting. But the headline and the article makes it seem like some major turning point or ground shift which IMHO it is not.
And are we sure inflammation is the root cause and not just a bystander? Couldn’t it be pathogens that are kept in check by inflammation, which then also cause cancer to develop? HPV and papillomas, and H. pylori and stomach cancer have been such findings. Apparently, sometimes cancer cells contain fungal DNA (not well studied though, could be contaminants as well).
Edited the last sentence.
Probably not, given the multiple conditions that are "sterile" inflammation that lead to neoplasms. Consider the example of asbestos; the particles lodge in the lungs which lead to a robust immune response that attempts to clear it, which has a strong association with the development of lung neoplasms. I'm not aware that the link between the inflammation and the development of the neoplasm is well understood. Autoimmune diseases and chronic GERD are other examples.
Can you provide more context on what question you were addressing? I‘m not sure what point you are making here.
>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
> 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.
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.
Part of the reason cancer is such an interesting field of study in my personal opinion is:
(1) You get a lot of these chicken-or-egg situations where the answer is more like "chicken-AND-egg".
(2) Cancer is almost always the result of a million things going wrong at once... it's a slow unravelling of the bonkers number of safe-guards our cells have to keep them healthy and normal.
Inflammation is a normal part of a healthy, functioning body. It can be caused by anything from scraping your knee to getting a cold. It's useful, and as your comment says, it is an important part to fighting off infections which themselves in rare cases cause cancer. It also plays a pathological role in some diseased like auto-immune disorders, IBS, meningitis, etc...
Inflammation, both the healthy and pathological sort, can help set the stage for tumour to form by contributing to the formation of what's known as a "tumour microenvironment" [0]. Chronic inflammation, often caused by disease, is more likely to keep up this permissive environment than one-off cases, and therefore more likely to result in a tumour
By the way, we understand DNA mutation/damage to work similarly. It happens all the time naturally, and sometimes mutations are fortuitous, but mostly they are ironed out by the cells machinery. Increasing the rate of mutation can overwhelm that machinery and cause tumours to snowball.
So, that's how inflammation can contribute to the initialization of tumours or at least environments that are more permissive of tumours. Tumours, however, also might cause inflammatory response to promote cancer progression through hijacking cell signalling, promoting epithelial-mesenchymal transitions, etc... [1].
We've known inflammation has been linked to cancer since at least 1863 [2], so this is pretty well-trodden territory. The immune system and inflammation is extremely complicated (or at least, I always found it to be), so I'm also not surprised that there are a lot of mysteries lurking.
Finally, to answer your question: I'm sure in some cases inflammation is just bystander. My understanding is that inflammation is not the primary mechanism by which HPV causes cancer, so it is very easy to believe it to be a bystander in that case. H. pylori is a good example of chronic GI inflammation that raises your risk of cancer by way of inflammation. I'm not familiar with the fungal DNA research, so can't comment.
Also disclaimer: It's been a while since I've studied cancer directly, I'm more of a computational biologist these days. Sorry if I made an error here.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6831096/
[1] https://blog.cellsignal.com/hallmarks-of-cancer-tumor-promot...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
As a software engineer, I'm constantly exposed to system complexity. My experience is that even systems which seem relatively simple from the outside can be extremely complex. Beyond a certain level of complexity, it becomes very difficult to change something without breaking something else. You need to be aware of dependencies when making changes. It appears that the human body is a much more complex system than any software system, with much more complex interdependencies... Given this, it's not surprising at all that it's so difficult to develop solutions to problems like cancer. The whac-a-mole effect must be massive. Seems like every change has countless unintended side effects.
Yah that's exactly it. The field of Systems Biology frames things very much in this way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#
A portion of the complexity comes from fixing bugs not at its root-cause. Once you have accumulated many such proximate fixes it becomes quite expensive to fix the bug at the root-cause level. The resident root-cause bug continues to create new problems downstream.
Not much different from biological evolution.
It has built-in error correction but sometimes there are more bits flipped than the correction codes can correct.
> are we sure inflammation is the root cause and not just a bystander?
The GP stated that it was *a* cause, not *the* cause
True. The question still stands.
I don’t want to defend how they report. But for someone who hasn’t been involved in the field, something that’s widely accepted and well-known for a long time can seem “very new” to them.
What is the "80% cause" of chronic inflammation most people should be aware of, so that people may be able to make lifestyle changes to reduce it? What blood tests can I have ordered to measure it?
You don't really need blood tests.
Just eat a varied diet, low in ultra processed foods (preferrably none). Limit refined carbs/sugars, excercise regularly, spend time in nature, and don't live in built-up areas with lots of polution. Avoid fragrances, PFAS/PFOA, pftalates and the like.
Excess adipose tissue is a major source of chronic inflammation.
Chronic stress is a major one.
that sentence starts “in the popular imagination”
So auto-immune diseases ( like arthritis and allergied) and chronic untreated diseases like lyme are the main suspects now?
I don't know about main suspect, but autoimmune disease has been known for a long time to increase your risk of cancer. I have Celiac disease, so an increased risk of stomache, intestinal and bowel cancer.
Honestly, this article is kind of worrying for me, personally. I have many symptoms after two years of treatment with diet alone. Further evidence may eventually show treatment with antibiotics or steroids for people like me may lower more risks then it raises.
Cancer has many different, simultaneous causes. That's why when people say "x causes cancer" what they mean is x (whatever it is) raises your odds of getting cancer by a measurable degree.
As someone with both that sucks
I will again mention my favorite cancer champions, the bats.
Bats very rarely get cancer (I tried to find the actual # of verified cases of cancers in bats, but came up short), and they have a lot of anti-cancer adaptations in their genome.
They are also really good at taming inflammation and activity of various viruses. That helps them survive infection with rabies - their systems just don't react as aggresively to the infection as ours (and most mammals') do.
This may help them against cancer as well. Not just p53 et al.
From a fast search in Google, life expectancy in bats is 5-15 years. A long life of 70-80 years gives more time to accumulate mutations and get a cancer.
Also, probably only bats in zoos get a cancer diagnosis. Most ills bats just die in the wild and are eaten by other animals.
Many species of bats live longer than that. Like 40. When compared to other mammals, bats live very long lives relative to their tiny size.
Also, short-lived animals get cancer all of the time. Mice, dogs, cats.
The idea of cancer being caused by passive accumulation of mutations over time looks appealing, but does not seem to correspond to actual frequency of cancer mapped by body size (because more cells = more chances of some cell going haywire), nor to maximum age.
Anti-cancer capabilities of a given organism seem to be more important. There are gene variants that are protective against cancer, and the capability of the immune system to kill suspicious cells matters too. (Note that almost all new efficient oncological treatments in the last decade or so involve the immune system of the patient.)
Speaking of size vs cancer elephants rarely get cancer too!
On a related note, for those interested, a quick about Peto’s Paradox was quite fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto's_paradox
There's a great Kurz gesagt video about it. Whales get the least cancer!
https://youtu.be/1AElONvi9WQ?si=rhZjgpkORBTC0D8r
I wonder what the evolutionary engineering trade-off is there.
Put it another way, it seems our systems are balanced to regulate cancer during our youth and reproductive years to a low but non-zero level.
Why hasn't evolution turned the dial up another couple of notches? Could be simple metabolic cost, or could be something else.
>Why hasn't evolution turned the dial up another couple of notches?
Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
Or even better phrased, because evolution doesn't care or plan at all, it's a blind mechanism.
If a local minimum is ok, we'll stay there for as long as some environmental or other evolutionary pressure gets to move us further.
Cancer wasn't a big issue for most of our existance as species, especially with lower life expectancies, more active lifestyles, zero obesity, zero pollutants, etc.
In evolutionary terms, modern lifestyles are not even a blip, especially post-industrial ones which don't even register.
> zero pollutants
In some cases it was pretty extreme by modern standards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi
Living in a longhouse full of smoke and no chimney might not be the healthiest thing.
That's a very late specimen, and in fact one which "led scientists to speculate that he was involved in copper smelting", hardly typical of revolutionary timescales.
In evolutionary timescales, agriculture and permanent houses are a dot in the timeline, there were no longhouse dwellers for 95% of homo sapiens' history, and none at all for hominids before homo sapiens. They were nomadic foragers.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
This is the lie that needs. to die. Elder people were very important in even the most primitive societies. "lifespan" was low in pre-history, not because no one lived long lives, it was because infant mortality was very high.
https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n...
Lie implies conscious distortion of the truth, the word you were looking for is "falsehood".
Second, even if "elder people were very important in even the most primitive societies", their role is much much important from evolutionary perspective than the pressures based on reproduction. Which is why most close primates get by with zero roles for post-reproduction grandparents.
Also elder people being "very important in even the most primitive societies" is a cultural and recent in evolutionary timescale phenomenon, first and only secondarily an evolutionary one.
> "lifespan" was low in pre-history, not because no one lived long lives, it was because infant mortality was very high.
They also lived shorter lives to begin with. Even in later historical times (say a couple of millenia or so), people's life expectancy at 15 (meaning, with infant mortality excluded) was much shorter than today.
Nobody said that "no one lived long lives" however. Some did. It's an aggregate limitation, not an absolute one.
Not disagreeing at all that elders are and have been important, but if it’s a benefit after reproductive age where does the selection come in?
I’m open to ideas. The only one I’ve been able to come up with is more second-order: the genetic benefit could come from having your children also pass on your genes, if there was a higher probability of them doing that with their parent alive past reproductive age.
Attempted an answer for this above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45481345
> evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age
This isn’t totally true, group/kin selection are important.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age
I wonder if that's true. There's bound to be some benefits or drawbacks to aggregate fitness when people age. Sure, the contribution is very indirect and so it'll happen yet slower. But imagine if people lived until they were 300 years old. Depending on how frail they are, that could be a drag on reproduction and resources.
My first take was, what’s the feedback mechanism? The benefits and drawbacks that appear after reproduction age can’t be passed on.
But perhaps there’s social factor, like a better ability to protect offspring would pass traits down after DNA transfer.
>The benefits and drawbacks that appear after reproduction age can’t be passed on.
If we consider grandparents, they could.
E.g. more fit/older grandparents -> more help and experience sharing for raising the kids given to the parents, more infants survive. This would chose for lineages where grantparents are helpful && live more.
What I meant though is that the main evolutionary pressure of us in in reproduction. Sure some past-reproduction-age traits play a role, but hardly as big.
> Because evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age (after which is when most cancers occur, especially considering that historically that age was between say 16 and 35).
True. If we can find a drug or gene therapy that extends the reproductive age of humans, evolution will take care of all diseases in a few million years, give or take.
> it seems our systems are balanced to regulate cancer during our youth and reproductive years
Yes, the most important question, and an easy answer if you know where to look. What is it that we lose when we age?
Mineral and vitamin deficiencies can accelerate the mitochondrial decay of aging
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16102804/
Age-associated B vitamin deficiency as a determinant of chronic diseases
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-r...
Emerging Roles of Vitamin B12 in Aging and Inflammation
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/9/5044
There is more if you want to look. Lots more.
Could be a cliff fitness function. Heard about this relativ typ schizophrenia here on HN a while back. The idea is that some phenotypes promote survival of the species overall, but due to random mutations are sometimes detrimental to individual members of that species
It could also be indirectly linked to other benefits. Humans have lost the CMAH gene, making us able to run long distances and hunt down large prey animals. But because of this we can no longer process specific sugars that you will still find in mammalian meat. That causes inflammation and arteriosclerosis. But those things only kill you after many decades, so there seems to have been a net positive effect on evolution.
This idea can generally work, but one should be careful of 'just-so' stories in evolutionary biology.
It appears this deletion happens in other animals and may be attributable to pathogen pressure. It's arisen multiple times, which makes it hard to claim that it has a specific role in primates (beyond its presumed antimicrobial benefit, which any animal should enjoy).
https://inflammregen.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s412...
Evading pathogen pressure is just another benefit behind the scenes. The point is that I would be careful to attribute any of these things to such weird mechanisms when there are so many much more realistic explanations that we just haven't fully uncovered yet.
> Evading pathogen pressure is just another benefit behind the scenes.
I'm imagining that this relates to a specific pathogen that may no longer exist (like the presumed mechanism of the most common cystic fibrosis mutations and cholera).
I'm not sure how this would relate to humans running, however.
Not everything is necessarily a trade-off. Perhaps the bats just randomly hit a sweet spot that most of other species missed.
As you say, things that happen later in the organism's life usually don't result in strong evolutionary effects.
Perhaps, but AFAIK similar things show up in other metabolically "different" animals - sharks, naked mole rats - whereas rodents adapted to a "run hot and fast" kind of a lifeplan seem to be especially prone.
We know that the body has cancer suppressor mechanisms, because when they fail (due to HIV or genetic mutations) people suffer higher rates of the disease. So it's reasonable to guess that evolution has chosen not to dial them up further.
It feels like the immune/inflammatory system is something we understand about as well as the brain, which is to say pretty good at a gross anatomical level, and also at the fine molecular level, but with a heck of a lot of complex system dynamics in between remaining to be mapped out.
So you’re saying if we just switch our diet to mosquitos we’ll all be fine?
It's a common misconception that bats eat mosquitoes.
It comes from a study where bats were trapped in a chamber filled with mosquitoes to see how many they could eat.
A comparable experiment would be putting a human in a cage filled with bread crumbs to see how many the human eats.
In our natural habitat, we eat slices of bread and other food. We don't waste the time and energy of consuming bread crumbs unless given no alternative.
Yes, bats can eat mosquitoes, but why bother when there are much larger, nutritious insects to catch with the same effort?
No, but in 100-300 generations your descendants will be.
Why would that be the case? Plenty of people have kids before getting cancer. How is it going to go away when it isn’t preventing reproduction?
If a person’s family has a history of cancer, do not reproduce with that person. Similarly, if your family has history of cancer, do not reproduce.
That’s never going to happen at a population level, short of government backed eugenics.
This is also why bats are viral reservoirs and likely sources for mammalian pandemics - their immune system simply doesn't clear infections.
My understanding is it's because they're constantly damaging their own dna from high operating temps (flying mammals). So the immune system must tolerate foreign looking dna at all times, constantly repairing cell damage instead of aggressively attacking foreigners.
Perhaps RFK and Mr. Oz will be telling us all to sleep hanging upside down by next year.
[dead]
Though eating them will not solve cancer,
And, I've been chatting with 2.5pro about this, so:
/? which animals don't get cancer? https://www.google.com/search?q=Bats%2C+mole+rats%2C+horses%...
Bats (extra copies of the p53 gene, immune system, survival adaptations to atmospheric radiation exposure, high telomerase activity), Elephants (extra copies of p53), Mole rats (High molecular mass hyaluronan (HMM-HA) regulating sugar, contact inhibition), Blind mole rats (HMM-HA, protein that causes (apoptotic?) cell death)), Horses, Cows (BLV resistance, general resistance), Bowhead whales (prevention by DNA repair, CIRBP and RPA2, live to 200), Squirrels (hypersensitive cell monitoring, high telomerase activity,), and Tasmanian devils (DFTD resistance adaptation) are all cancer resistant?
If there are natural food sources that treat or inhibit cancer, and humans unwittingly were eating such foods until modern times, could it be that humans have prevented adaptation by supplementation (a support that has collapsed as modern diets have changed)?
> [... list of anti-inflammatory diet foods]
How exposed to CPMV Cowpea Mosaic Virus are humans dietarily in modern and in ancient times? CPMV causes a IFN response?
(CPMV is highly prevalent in cowpeas and black-eyed peas (which are "good luck"))
> Antibody evidence: Studies have tested patient sera for antibodies against CPMV and found that over 50% of tested samples were positive, indicating past exposure. [...] The consistent, low-level dietary exposure to CPMV over human history, and its ability to trigger an IFN response without causing infection, could have provided a form of regular, passive immune stimulation. [...]
> Despite being a plant virus, CPMV is recognized by the mammalian immune system as a "danger signal." This recognition happens through special receptors on immune cells called Toll-like receptors (TLRs), specifically TLR2, TLR4, and TLR7.
> CPMV and IFN-gamma: Studies have shown that exposing human immune cells (peripheral blood mononuclear cells or PBMCs) to CPMV induces the secretion of IFN-gamma, a potent anti-tumor cytokine.
> Encapsulated RNA: The CPMV virus nanoparticle contains encapsulated RNA, which is one of the triggers for the immune response. The RNA activates TLR7/8, which leads to the production of Type I interferons (IFN-α and IFN-β), further boosting the immune system's anti-cancer response.
There are (differently encapsulated) RNA cancer vaccines in development.
CPMV is basically already a general purpose bioengineering platform with significant review IIUC?
How dietarily exposed to EPS3.9 polysaccharide are humans and cancer-resistant animals? Is there a one-two CPMV + EPS3.9 cancer treatment opportunity?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44988761 :
> Can EPS3.9 cause pyroptosis cause IFN cause epitope spreading for cancer treatment?
/? Spongiibacter nanhainus CSC3.9 : https://www.google.com/search?q=Spongiibacter+nanhainus+CSC3... :
> Spongiibacter nanhainus CSC3.9 is a novel deep-sea bacterium isolated from a [deep ocean] cold seep [with blue light] that produces both a volatile organic compound (VOC) called VOC-3.9 with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and a sugar-based compound, exopolysaccharide (EPS3.9), which targets cancer cells by inducing programmed cell death
Could CRISPR or similar produce an alternate bacterium that's easier to brew which also produces EPS3.9 without the cold temperature and high pressure? Are there potentially other natural sources of EPS3.9 besides CSC3.9?
Endocannabinoids and the ECS Endocannabinoid System modulate and regulate immune and inflammatory responses (in non- and pre- insect invertebrates and in all vertebrates). Omega PUFAs are endocannabinoid precursors. There are also (fat-soluble) Omega polyunsaturated fatty acids in algae and in fish.
A bit of research on cancer again today: https://share.google/aimode/Qpar9RPUNy65IDt8n
Would there be advantages to CPMV + EPS3.9 + CPMVprime + mRNA for cancer therapy? https://g.co/gemini/share/9c6526d1991f
I’ve been reading a lot lately about the negative effects of inflammation. Recently, I came across an article arguing that it’s inflammation in the blood vessels (not cholesterol itself) that causes cardiovascular problems.
Now this article blaming inflammation for cancer.
But isn’t inflammation also a useful and necessary process in the body? If it’s so harmful, should we all be taking anti-inflammatory drugs? Of course, those have their own downsides too (my doctor mentioned that ibuprofen can even affect hearing).
Inflammation is a blunt instrument. It's one of the body's tools to contain and attack a pathogen. Without it, many bacteria and other irritants would wreak havoc on the body.
As allergies and (to an extent) COVID have shown, inflammation can also be dangerous. Too much acute inflammation can cause essential body functions to shut down or function incorrectly.
Point being that inflammation is "good" when the alternative is an infection running rampant in your body. But it's "worse" for your body than the baseline, so chronic inflammation is bad for you (and seems to increase cancer risk).
Anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen are good for knocking down inflammation, but they have a suite of side effects unrelated to this function that make them terrible for prolonged use. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that these side effects are way worse than the benefits of reduced chronic inflammation.
More generally, reducing inflammation across the board leaves you open to infection. It's why we don't prescribe steroids long-term in most patients: the downside of reduced immune response vastly outweighs the benefit for generally healthy patients. It's only considered if the condition (like your body attacking an organ transplant) is more dangerous than the reduced immune response.
As far as I understand exercise and working out also causes inflammation in order to repair and/or build your muscle. So taking ibuprofen might hurt your ability to recover etc.
Immune system and inflammation is clearly very important process for humans for many things even beyond illnesses.
Like inflammation is body's way to repair and adapt to the environment.
Would it be accurate to say enteric coated baby aspirin reduces risk of stroke due to its blood thinning properties, but since it is anti-inflammatory, also reduces risk of atherosclerosis and now cancer?
According to this there is a link between aspirin and successfully fighting cancer: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d4n119xr7o
That's very cool... but it is for a different reason ("Aspirin disrupts the platelets and removes their influence over the T-cells so they can hunt out the cancer.") I am curious whether aspirin also helps in another way: by reducing inflammation.
Probably a "the dose makes the poison" kind of thing? Constant inflammation and exposure to inflammatory agents could eventually raise the likelihood of cell damage in affected tissues, no?
The immune system is highly highly complicated and directed by huge networks of genes and molecules all up- and downregulating each other depending on internal and external factors. If things go "off balance" in this system the consequences could be dire.
You dont want firefighters hosing down your house from the inside when there is no fire anymore either.
Ever since I had covid 5 years ago, my body has been stuck under a constant firehouse shower. High heart rate, shortness of breath, and a constant pressure in my upper chest.
I know it's immune related, because when I am coming down with a cold the symptoms all vanish. Like the firehose has an actual fire to fight.
When you're sick your body releases all sorts of stuff that makes you super relaxed and force you to chill/rest, so might be completely unrelated
Which is in itself odd, as there's no obvious mechanism (at least in a developed nation inhabitant who typically have considerable fat reserves and ready availability of food) for the immune system to need resources which would be otherwise used by the muscles.
Like we can all feel the lack of "energy", but that energy isn't the same thing as actual calories, glycogen, blood O2 and so on. Presumably a lot of CFS conditions are relating to that biological switch - "you're ill, rest up!" - getting stuck in the "on" position, but AFAIK nobody has definitively found it despite a whole lot of looking.
Our inflammation responses evolved in part to help us fight off pathogens, but people in modern society are exposed to far, far fewer pathogens than even our immediate ancestors were as recently as 70 years ago when diseases like polio and mumps were still common. As a result many people have an overactive inflammation response relative to the pathogen load to which they are regularly exposed.
In extreme cases, that can manifest as autoimmune disease, when overly strong inflammation or other immune responses end up attacking not just foreign pathogens but the person's body itself. As another poster said, inflammation is a blunt instrument. It's a knob that can only be turned up or down, across the entire body. If you turn it down too far, you risk infectious illness. And if you turn it up too far, you risk damage to your organs.
Interestingly, there was a substantial increase in the incidence of autoimmune diseases in Europe in the generations following the Black Death, probably because people with excessively strong immune responses were more likely to survive exposure to plague bacteria. Celiacs or MS will kill someone much, much more slowly than bubonic plague will, so a disproportionate number of people with those or similar autoimmune disorders were able to survive to pass on their genes.
I think some inflammation is natural and a response to infection, but when your entire diet and lifestyle lead to daily inflammation, I'm guessing it's really bad.
If inflammation weren't a trade-off, we'd have perpetual inflammation. That kind of thing is rapidly tweaked by evolution.
I remember reading this article on why muslim countries had low rate of cancers. Apparently it was the yearly month-long fast + all the spices that people ate daily (anti inflammatory)
They don't, as a rule, drink alcohol, which helps quite a bit for GI, breast and liver cancers.
Wear modest clothing, cover themselves up from the sun. Although that can lead to Vit D deficiency when they move to high latitude countries.
And they don't eat bacon, sausages, salami or other salt-cured pork products which are thought to promote some GI cancers due to the curing process forming nitrosamines.
Smoking seems common though.
My guess is underdeveloped health systems means less diagnosis
There is a big difference between acute inflammation and chronic inflammation.
Infection causes acute inflammation. Air pollution causes chronic inflammation.
Infection can also cause chronic or out of control inflammation which can aslo kill you via a cytokine storm.
Also doesn't working out cause inflammation and when you take ibuprofen you hurt your ability to build/repair muscle and recover because of reduced inflammation?
Exercising also results in the body producing more anti-inflammatory myokines
The article touches on this by framing chronic inflammation (e.g. exposure to air pollution over years) as the problem.
Article appears to be a word:
These non-mutagenic carcinogens instead seem to the body’s immune system.
I suspect "seem to target" or "seem to trigger" was intended.
(The Economist's editing is usually superb, this is a pretty glaring error.)
Corrected in a subsequent A.T. capture, the missing word being "exploit":
<https://archive.is/lY9ee#selection-1419.48-1419.55>
Article appears to be (missing) a word. I see what you did there.
SEO?
Report it
Cancer is a hard problem. It has deeper interconnected mechanisms long before any inflammation or observable change. Cancer is caused due to slow incremental addition of DNA mutations that lead to cell division control failure. This first step is intractable to reverse. All the next stages just lead to early or late diagnosis.
This first step is intractable to reverse
Why?
Because of the interplay between dozens of unknown regulating genes that effect in an obscure way the final decision to trigger the cell mitosis (division). Even if we ever uncover the whole cascade mechanism, how can we stop this monstrous process in everyone of the billion cells that are able to divide? We still have no idea of any drug, viral vector or DNA fragment that can intervene tissue wide.
Don’t think I’ve seen “discovering”, the present participle of the verb, used in a headline like this before.
I would like to live in a world where "Breaking News!" came from science labs instead of red carpets though.
> This, says Dr Balmain, suggests that 80-90% of carcinogens which people are exposed to may not induce mutations.
Tell me the 10% of which are dangerous so that i can avoid them
All are dangerous, not all through mutagenesis though.
[flagged]
This sounds like an application of ML. But we can't call it ML anymore right? Need to call it AI in the media whenever possible.
ML has been applied in cancer research for longer than ML has been in vogue
[flagged]
Cancer is not a singular disease. It's a class of diseases with many different causes.
Discovery? HA! Traditional Chinese Medicine already knew the body cures cancer by boosting the immune system. Did they no how? Who cares?
Harnessing the power of traditional Chinese medicine monomers and compound prescriptions to boost cancer immunotherapy
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10684919/
Antitumor effects of immunity-enhancing traditional Chinese medicine
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31710893/
Edit: Please comment on what is wrong if you will downvote this because I am open to discussion and correction.
Modern society only patents things that were already known and then makes them out of reach for the common man.
Warburg effect (oncology) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)
"powerful new way" and "Around the 1920s, Otto Heinrich Warburg and his group concluded...", are you sure they're talking about that? Doesn't seem very new.
Why are you posting that? When it has zero connection to the article and you're giving zero explanation?
See lambdabas comment right below this. This fella that I linked was the OG on this. Consider this further reading and potentially insightful in parallel to this article.
Interesting article challenging today's popular understanding of cancer genesis and development, and outlining the increasing understanding of the role inflammation plays in stimulating the growth of cancer cell populations.
From my understanding it's still highly speculative though.
Ask a dairy farmer. Inflammation-mediated carcinogenesis is certainly a thing for some specific types. How much it's true across the board is speculative, but a lot of inflammation-related conditions also have association with higher cancer risk for the given body part.
I’d rather ask the cancer research scientists.
I’m curious to know how dairy farmers are qualified to comment on cancer?
I predict that they would say:
"There is no way dairy products can contribute to inflammation, cancer or anything bad for a person. Just ask the Milk Board!"
On the other hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIPksx7XLzk (it's a bit old though)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CRrI5U9HXU
> The discovery that chronic inflammation can provide the impetus for cancers to develop is forcing clinicians to rethink their approach to the disease’s prevention.
Alternative health has been saying this for decades. Ketogenic diets + medicinal plants/mushrooms can do a lot, even after the fact.
Alternative health says a lot of things, many things unsubstantiated. The difficult part is figuring out what's true and what's quackery.
[flagged]
But the key part is:
> Has either not been proved to work
There's an awful lot of stuff that works, that nobody has run a large enough controlled study to prove it works. The organizations which fund medical research have specific priorities that exclude an awful lot. And a lot of things are just inherently difficult to objectively measure or control. There's no blood test for chronic muscle tension, for example.
So unfortunately, by restricting yourself to things that have been proven to work, you are possibly eliminating a lot of things that work.
But of course, trying to figure out, on your own, which stuff actually does work despite not being proven, is a long hard frustrating slog that tends to involve a lot of personal trial and error. Exactly what GP said:
> The difficult part is figuring out what's true and what's quackery.
This is inadequate.
Alternative medicine is simply any therapy that is not included in the established currently-accepted set of treatment options.
This varies by culture, time, and sometimes by individual.
Most alternatives are not better than the currently-known best. This is true today, we think, but it is definitely not true historically. (So how special is our current era?)
But when the currently-known best doesn't work well for everyone, or has deleterious side effects, any continued research will include alternatives.
I understand the fatigue embedded in your quote. It's a reasonable stance for those of us with ordinary concerns and who are far downstream from the research (including and especially retail practitioners).
But it is too broadly dismissive for real scientists and people who maintain a curiosity about the world.
>Most alternatives are not better than the currently-known best.
I think a better way of phrasing this is "Most alternatives are no better than placebo".
With the usual caveats about patents, incentives and monetisation. But yes, broadly this is accurate.
It's not hard to say all kinds things if you don't do it with scientific rigor. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to know which of the things are true.
Inflammation is typically an immune response. Chronic inflammation is a standard flag that is measured a used by doctors in diagnoses for many years, and by oncologists in particular when treating cancer.
There’s a lot of work right now into immunology and cancer, and they are discovering specific correlations as that progresses. This has nothing to do with mushroom tea, although that probably helps with acute inflammatory issues.
Scientific health has also been saying it for decades.
That's exactly what influencers on TikTok also tell me. These kinds of statement really need proof, otherwise they say very little.
Correlation is symmetric (by "accident") while cause and affect are asymmetric on purpose.
Intermittent fasting and keto are not alternative health. The science for both of these is excellent especially for reducing diabetes.
As far as I understand, Keto helps manage the symptoms of diabetes, but will not prevent it, and (without a source on hand), might actually increase your chances of developing it relative to a healthy diet that includes (mostly unrefined) carbs.