[HN Gopher] Scientists are discovering a powerful new way to pre...
___________________________________________________________________
Scientists are discovering a powerful new way to prevent cancer
Author : Earw0rm
Score : 133 points
Date : 2025-10-04 11:44 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| 3abiton wrote:
| From my understanding it's still highly speculative though.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| baxtr wrote:
| I'm curious to know how dairy farmers are qualified to
| comment on cancer?
| scrollop wrote:
| 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
| jama211 wrote:
| I'd rather ask the cancer research scientists.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| https://archive.is/2025.09.11-083906/https://www.economist.c...
| adaptbrian wrote:
| Warburg effect (oncology) -
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| "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.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why are you posting that? When it has zero connection to the
| article and you're giving zero explanation?
| adaptbrian wrote:
| 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.
| lambdaba wrote:
| > 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.
| lomase wrote:
| Scientific health has also been saying it for decades.
| danielbln wrote:
| Alternative health says a lot of things, many things
| unsubstantiated. The difficult part is figuring out what's true
| and what's quackery.
| dsr_ wrote:
| [flagged]
| quesera wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| >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".
| Earw0rm wrote:
| With the usual caveats about patents, incentives and
| monetisation. But yes, broadly this is accurate.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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._
| dapperdrake wrote:
| Correlation is symmetric (by "accident") while cause and affect
| are asymmetric on purpose.
| morsch wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| That's exactly what influencers on TikTok also tell me. These
| kinds of statement really need proof, otherwise they say very
| little.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Intermittent fasting and keto are not alternative health. The
| science for both of these is excellent especially for reducing
| diabetes.
| themk wrote:
| 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| So you're saying if we just switch our diet to mosquitos we'll
| all be fine?
| dsr_ wrote:
| No, but in 100-300 generations your descendants will be.
| al_borland wrote:
| 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?
| deadbabe wrote:
| 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.
| al_borland wrote:
| That's never going to happen at a population level, short
| of government backed eugenics.
| midnitewarrior wrote:
| 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?
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _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.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| > 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.
| selcuka wrote:
| > 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.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > 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.
| james_marks wrote:
| 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.
| bglazer wrote:
| > evolution doesn't care about us beyond reproduction age
|
| This isn't totally true, group/kin selection are important.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| > 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...
| laszlojamf wrote:
| 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
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| 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.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| 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/s
| 412...
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| 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.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| > 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.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| > 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.
| gus_massa wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.)
| tarun_anand wrote:
| Speaking of size vs cancer elephants rarely get cancer too!
| sedgjh23 wrote:
| On a related note, for those interested, a quick about
| Peto's Paradox was quite fun.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto's_paradox
| luckydata wrote:
| There's a great Kurz gesagt video about it. Whales get
| the least cancer!
|
| https://youtu.be/1AElONvi9WQ?si=rhZjgpkORBTC0D8r
| tdeck wrote:
| Perhaps RFK and Mr. Oz will be telling us all to sleep hanging
| upside down by next year.
| westurner wrote:
| 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-a and IFN-b), 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
| siva7 wrote:
| > 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
| azan_ wrote:
| All are dangerous, not all through mutagenesis though.
| jnord wrote:
| https://archive.md/vOR6x
| submeta wrote:
| 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).
| 7thaccount wrote:
| 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.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| If inflammation weren't a trade-off, we'd have perpetual
| inflammation. That kind of thing is rapidly tweaked by
| evolution.
| baby wrote:
| 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)
| breppp wrote:
| My guess is underdeveloped health systems means less
| diagnosis
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Smoking seems common though.
| neuronic wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| baby wrote:
| 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
| Earw0rm wrote:
| 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.
| throwingrocks wrote:
| The article touches on this by framing chronic inflammation
| (e.g. exposure to air pollution over years) as the problem.
| antasvara wrote:
| 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.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| 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.
| breadwinner wrote:
| 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?
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| 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?
| derektank wrote:
| Exercising also results in the body producing more anti-
| inflammatory myokines
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| 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.
| stult wrote:
| 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.
| jszymborski wrote:
| 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.
| mielioort wrote:
| So auto-immune diseases ( like arthritis and allergied) and
| chronic untreated diseases like lyme are the main suspects now?
| luciferin wrote:
| 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.
| baby wrote:
| As someone with both that sucks
| laughing_man wrote:
| 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.
| baxtr wrote:
| 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.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| that sentence starts "in the popular imagination"
| manmal wrote:
| 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.
| dillydogg wrote:
| 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.
| manmal wrote:
| Can you provide more context on what question you were
| addressing? I'm not sure what point you are making here.
| dillydogg wrote:
| >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
| manmal wrote:
| > 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.
| jghn wrote:
| > are we sure inflammation is the root cause and not just a
| bystander?
|
| The GP stated that it was *a* cause, not *the* cause
| manmal wrote:
| True. The question still stands.
| jszymborski wrote:
| 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/PIIS014
| 0-6...
| Tycho wrote:
| Don't think I've seen "discovering", the present participle of
| the verb, used in a headline like this before.
| harvey9 wrote:
| I would like to live in a world where "Breaking News!" came
| from science labs instead of red carpets though.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| 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.
| blondie9x wrote:
| 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.
| jghn wrote:
| ML has been applied in cancer research for longer than ML has
| been in vogue
| dredmorbius wrote:
| 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.)
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Report it
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-04 23:01 UTC)