Brazilian wasp venom kills cancer cells by opening them up

(e) You may not know that ... cancer prevalence depends heavily on vitamin D levels. People living around the equator have a 40-60% lesser chance of getting cancer than people living in the US, Canada or Europe. This is even true for people living in Florida. We don't get enough UV-B from the sun, not like centuries ago when we didn't have to work indoors and didn't use sunscreen. People with dark or darker skin have an even bigger risk.

The risk of getting nonmelanoma skin cancer from UV-B is relatively low, and it's easy to treat. Melanoma skin cancer is dangerous, but not related to sun exposure. Taking vitamin D using pills or getting enough sun exposure (without sunscreen) without getting burnt may be the cheapest and most easy way to reduce cancer risk.

Below some links, these about breast cancer. AFAIK these numbers are similar for other cancers like liver, lung, colon, etc.

http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/vitamin-d-sun-and-canc...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/health/he-explain26

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/p...

Or Google that yourself: https://www.google.com/webhp?q=cancer+rates+equator

If you read the article, it has an answer for (b) that so far works in culture and in human tumors inside animal models; Not quite the real thing, but probably the farthest you can get before human trials, and it is quite far.

With respect to (a) - yes, there are tens or hundreds of fundamentally different cancers. But there's a reason we call them all "cancer" - which is they do have common traits (unchecked growth, glycolisys as the preferred and often singular mode of metabolism - a.k.a the Warburg effect mentioned in the article), so it's not unthinkable that a few bullets could work for significant majority of cancers. It appears that the naked mole rat, a cancer-free rodent[1], has multiple mechanisms against cancer, one of of which is an overcrowding control.

I've read numerous accounts of the usefulness of fasting in fighting cancer (including complete remissions), but no scholarly articles that go far enough. The ignorance about fasting's effects on the human body and how long a relatively person can fast with no irreversible damage (hint: close to 50 days), is quite staggering. The body switches to ketones as an energy source, which the vast majority of cancer cells cannot use. I have found peer reviewed papers showing that fasting makes chemotherapy significantly more effective. It could be your (a) bullet, because it relies on the (b) differentiation.

Wikipedia[0] doesn't list an exact date, but apparently, the Warburg hypothesis dates to around 1920. The Nobel Prize for this discovery was awarded to him in 1931.

I've first read about Warburg and his discovery in 1999, and I asked every MD I met at the time about it - not a single one was aware of it. Somehow, everyone is so specialized today that knowledge that should be common isn't. I assume once a successful therapy based on this effect is developed, though, it will become common knowledge.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat#Resistance_to_c...

"The most promising research..." ...Varies, at the moment it is definitely immune system related, in other words: It is all about how we can reignite the fire of the immune system against the cancer cells which often have immunosuppressive micro-environments (the stop the attacks of the body against the tumor by inactivating immune cells). (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6165/1432.full (2013))

Regarding (d), has fasting/starvation ever been researched as a cure/treatment? I know there was one study about it mitgating the effects of chemotherapy.

Cancer has something to do with nerve cells. Organisms without nerve cells do not have cancer. Another important role is from lymph system.

Cancer may also have to something to do with some mechanisms of asexual reproduction.

wouldnt a cell evolve to find food from other sources?

Was this "WASP venom" typo intentional?

First off, I am sorry for your loss, cannot begin to understand how it must feel. Secondly, that is incredible about the new drug, it is crazy it takes that long to find more possible treatments for such a widespread cause of death.

What are some more effective ways we can give or help that won't be eaten up by overhead of the charities?

I'm very sorry for your loss. I lost my wife a few years back, and read that losing a child is generally harder than losing a spouse. I can't imagine someone having to go through something harder than what I went through. And you lost a sibling earlier too. Although I don't know you, I do sincerely wish you strength, and that things get better for you.

"In the last 20 years only 2 new drugs have been approved till a 3rd this spring."

Wrong.

In the first 7 months of 2015 the FDA approved 6 oncological drugs

In 2014 the FDA approved 10 oncological drugs

In 2013 the FDA approved 12 oncological drugs

https://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-dr...

It is true that only 3 drugs have been approved specifically for neuroblastoma, a rare childhood cancer. This accounts for 6% of childhood cancers.

Misrepresenting facts does nobody any good.

As someone who does not follow the field, I enjoy knowing about new things people are working on, even if they never pan out. It helps expand the horizon of what my mind can conceive as possible.

I feel like I need some arguments and examples pertaining to this specific article to swallow your objection.

We haven't "cured cancer" but the death rates for many varieties are going down. One headline this year was for an immune system therapy against advanced melanoma, which is dramatically lowering death rates in trials; I have a neighbor who's actually getting that therapy.

There's a "Darmok and Jalad" xkcd for this phenomenon. Its #1217.

Maybe we should just shrug and say, "hmf, just another 1217".

We have thousands effective ways to kill cancer cells. Making sure the host survives is the tricky part.

"So is Polybia-MP1 another game changer in the Cancer world?"

No. HN has been suckered yet again by a PR release.

These are similar to and around as reliable as the PR releases that claim to revolutionise the internet, cars, plastics, toothpaste or condoms.

Yep.

"you're looking for science -> disease -> treatment -> oncology, down the corridor"

"No, go to Brazil."

No one wants to lose their job or freedom if something goes wrong when you guinea pig a patient.