Hacker News Reader

Comment by shadykiller | Hacker News Reader

Good to see the rates dropping but it is disappointing to see that alternative treatment paradigms, like diet and fasting aren't given a serious look.

Relevant article: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/05/46828554...

View on HN

You know what they call alternative treatments that work? Treatments.

Alternative medicine, the alternative to medicine.

Because this is pseudo-science that has been studied _many_ times and proven not to improve cancer survival rates? The relatively few preliminary small study that showed some trivial effect have failed to reproduce in larger or more comprehensive studies.

Some people claim alternative "medicine" (aka magic) is harmless but it isn't. The harm comes from people avoiding or delaying real treatment. Prominent HIV-deniers have died from AIDS because they refused to take the anti-viral medication. Countless people have died from treatable cancers because they went to chiropractors or "traditional healers" instead of actual doctors.

It is entirely possible that Steve Jobs would still be alive if he hadn't refused treatment for 9 months.

That article seems to indicate they're been given serious looks, and that even their proponents object to the idea of diet/exercise as an alternative:

> Even Seyfried acknowledges, despite his zeal for treating cancer by tinkering with calories, that in all likelihood diet and nutrient-based cancer treatments will serve as adjuncts to existing therapies.

AKA "our unsupported fringe theory can't actually survive direct study, but if we can linger in the noise of actual effective treatments then there are more suckers to be bilked"

Because a good diet and fasting do not kill tumors.

Trust me, if you stick to it, fasting will kill a tumor. No tumor can survive the death of the host.

Agree that ketogenic diet is definitely worth a look.

The science behind that is that cancer calls can live on glucose only, while all other cells in the body are able to use ketones as fuel. Starving out cancer cells is definitely a good start.

Is that actually true? Why would cancer cells suddenly lose an ability that all the other cells have? Especially since cancer is not just one single disease, but a set of symptoms displayed by lots of different mutations.

Quick search showed https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...

Without agreeing with the GP about diet and cancer, the rationale for diet-based approaches is the observation that most cancer cells shift energy production to glycolysis. This is known as the Warburg Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect). Several theories have been put forward to explain this effect, I favor the mitochondria/apoptosis link.

Yes, I found some of that later after a bit of Googling (eg in the article I linked).

Seems like the Warburg effect is obviously real, but far from universal in cancers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com