Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

As does glucose and L-Glutamine. Cancer cells literally live off of glucose, specific amino acids and fermentable fuels. What is the FDA's stance on banning sugar?

I would prefer we focus on eliminating molecules from the diet that feed cancer cells and damage mitochondria. I believe we should also cycle up/down molecules that trigger an up-regulation of NRF2/AMPK to literally digest the senescent and especially the damaged cells prior to them becoming cancerous. I am not really a fan of NR/NMN anyway. Both are more expensive than NAM and my body already converts NAM to NR/NMN, it's just a lot slower than superloading NMN directly, not to mention NMN alone will only activate the Sirt genes but other nutrients are required for repair. Excess NMN is converted back to NAM for storage and when there is too much we just urinate it out. But I am no biologist and the folks pushing these supplements will not respond to my inquiries.

On a related note take some time to watch a video on Cancer as a metabolic disease. [1] This doctor is not a great speaker but it is the content that matters.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8

That doctor (Seyfried) is not a great doctor either. He is an antiestablishment, contrarian ideologue who omits data and arranges his facts to fit his hypothesis.

Sure, cancer might be a metabolic disease to some varying degree (depending on the cancer), but it is not exclusively metabolic. It is a very complex disease. biased researchers like Seyfried do a disservice by acting as though they have single-handedly solved the problem of cancer mortality (yet curiously are never able to provide conclusive evidence).

I agree he is anti-establishment. I absolutely love that these people exist. They may not always be 100% right, but they are brave enough to risk their career and rock the boat leading to people starting to think critically and potentially leading to new discoveries. Science is not concluded, it is an ever evolving process. If an industry has built a business around established science then it's time for them to go.

I would add that nearly every industry could benefit from fearless people willing to risk their careers to shake things up. On a related note there is a Netflix series called Ancient Apocalypse based on the research of Graham Hancock, another person entirely despised by academics and HN has many academics. As with most Netflix series they drag out each episode to be much longer than required to cover the subject material and it spends 60% of the time just watching him walk against different backgrounds, but the primary subject material is thought provoking.

But that is my own take and my own preference. I can see how it would make industries and investors fearful, as it should.

Thank you for your civil and balanced reply.

I don't mind that contrarians like Seyfried exist and ask questions. They appeal to my contrarian and skeptic nature.

What I have an issue with is a medical doctor/researcher like Seyfried stating that cancer is a solved problem but the medical establishment prefers to keep patients sick in order to sell ineffective/toxic chemotherapy. (Yes, he has said this many times.)

I also erase the credibility of a doctor asked publicly (on Twitter) if his "successful" patients are still in remission, he says "Yes", but then you look them up online to discover they are in fact deceased. (True story.)

Any doctor who acts like this has zero credibility, no business being in the medical profession, and can eat sh*t as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I don't mean to take you to task over this guy's lack of ethics and poor commitment to science. I'd rather not see someone like that boosted -- i.e., someone who appeals to cancer patients preemptively on social media to talk them out of SOC treatment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com