The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer
Locked
 
|
http://nautil.us/blog/the-problem-with-the-mutation_centric-view-of-cancer > How should we study the origins of cancer? > > My lab has been researching the origins of cancers for the last 15 to 17 years. We’re trying to understand cancer from an evolutionary viewpoint, understanding how it evolves. A lot of people think about cancer from an evolutionary viewpoint. But what sets us apart is that we’ve really come to understand cancer by the context these cells find themselves in. > > What’s an example of such a context? > > While other people will think about aging as the time for mutations to cause advantageous events [for cancer] in cells, we see aging as a very different process. It’s not about the time you get mutations—you get many mutations when you’re young. It’s the tissue environment for the cells that changes dramatically as we age. Those new tissue environments basically stimulate the evolution. So the evolution isn’t a process that’s limited by the mutation so much as a process that is limited by micro-environment changes. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer
|
Wouldn't chemotherapy also reset the the micro-environments? Has chemotherapy ever been given to animals before they have cancer to see if it has a preventative function? Could one imagine healthy people above a certain age (esp. the Elysium 1%) getting stem cell transplantation every few years coupled to chemotherapy (or drugs that induce apoptosis)?
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 1:40:13 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: [FRIAM] The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer http://nautil.us/blog/the-problem-with-the-mutation_centric-view-of-cancer > How should we study the origins of cancer? > > My lab has been researching the origins of cancers for the last 15 to 17 years. We’re trying to understand cancer from an evolutionary viewpoint, understanding how it evolves. A lot of people think about cancer from an evolutionary viewpoint. But what sets us apart is that we’ve really come to understand cancer by the context these cells find themselves in. > > What’s an example of such a context? > > While other people will think about aging as the time for mutations to cause advantageous events [for cancer] in cells, we see aging as a very different process. It’s not about the time you get mutations—you get many mutations when you’re young. It’s the tissue environment for the cells that changes dramatically as we age. Those new tissue environments basically stimulate the evolution. So the evolution isn’t a process that’s limited by the mutation so much as a process that is limited by micro-environment changes. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yes, absolutely chemotherapy would alter (I don't know about "reset") the micro-environments. I think this is the essence of Longo's fasting argument. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216103923.htm Since chemo is essentially a targeted poison, though, you have to wonder *which* type of poison one would take preventatively? Non-poison therapies like stem cells or antibodies would be doubly uncertain because, at least with any poison, you'll be forcing your body to fight for life and scarce resources (ATP, sugar, ...). Without that fighting for for life/resources, you're really just encouraging growth(s) down whatever pathways present themselves ... probably leading to *more* cancer, not less.
It seems like fasting is the purest way to trick your body into eating/curtailing its most Dionysian or even goal-oriented growth(s). On 09/04/2017 01:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Wouldn't chemotherapy also reset the the micro-environments? Has chemotherapy ever been given to animals before they have cancer to see if it has a preventative function? > > Could one imagine healthy people above a certain age (esp. the Elysium 1%) getting stem cell transplantation every few years coupled to chemotherapy (or drugs that induce apoptosis)? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer
|
|
Glen writes:
"Non-poison therapies like stem cells or antibodies would be doubly uncertain because, at least with any poison, you'll be forcing your body to fight for life and scarce resources (ATP, sugar, ...). "
I mean to balance culling of developed/adapted cells, it would be good to have stored blueprints in a refrigerator somewhere so that the poison doesn't harm them.
"Without that fighting for for life/resources, you're really just encouraging growth(s) down whatever pathways present themselves ... probably leading to *more* cancer, not less."
Could goal-oriented growth displace `bad' growth? I'm thinking of Lance Armstrong's remarkable return to racing, for example. Some massive energy draw that directs resources in a good way.
Why should curtailing better than directing? It seems counter-intuitive that a slow metabolism would be preferable to a fast one, when it comes to fighting disease.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:13:13 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer Yes, absolutely chemotherapy would alter (I don't know about "reset") the micro-environments. I think this is the essence of Longo's fasting argument.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216103923.htm Since chemo is essentially a targeted poison, though, you have to wonder *which* type of poison one would take preventatively?
Non-poison therapies like stem cells or antibodies would be doubly uncertain because, at least with any poison, you'll be forcing your body to fight for life and scarce resources (ATP, sugar, ...). Without that fighting for for life/resources, you're really
just encouraging growth(s) down whatever pathways present themselves ... probably leading to *more* cancer, not less.
It seems like fasting is the purest way to trick your body into eating/curtailing its most Dionysian or even goal-oriented growth(s). On 09/04/2017 01:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Wouldn't chemotherapy also reset the the micro-environments? Has chemotherapy ever been given to animals before they have cancer to see if it has a preventative function? > > Could one imagine healthy people above a certain age (esp. the Elysium 1%) getting stem cell transplantation every few years coupled to chemotherapy (or drugs that induce apoptosis)? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 09/04/2017 01:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I mean to balance culling of developed/adapted cells, it would be good to have stored blueprints in a refrigerator somewhere so that the poison doesn't harm them. I don't understand what you're saying, really. If we refine chemo so that it becomes as specific as antibodies, then I'd say it's not a "poison" anymore. But I'm always guilty of using language badly. So, who knows? > Could goal-oriented growth displace `bad' growth? I'm thinking of Lance Armstrong's remarkable return to racing, for example. Some massive energy draw that directs resources in a good way. > > Why should curtailing better than directing? It seems counter-intuitive that a slow metabolism would be preferable to a fast one, when it comes to fighting disease. I don't think it is necessarily better. But we have to admit our ignorance. By *promoting* some growth (in false distinction from curtailing all growth), you have to have control of the system. And there are way too many variables for us to control. My guess is, at this stage in our understanding of how biology works, unbalanced promotion will find persnickety edge cases that produce disease. But the Lance Armstrong argument is NOT a promotion argument. In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice. So the argument I (or Longo) might make is not that a slow metabolism MUST be preferable, just that for most people, especially e.g. 70-year olds with fresh diagnoses of cancer, fasting is likely to be easier than launching a bicycle racing career. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer
|
|
Glen writes:
"In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice."
Right, all that is not permitted is forbidden. I suppose if it must be very extreme (to work -- if it would), then there is a real risk of injury or overuse that come sooner or later and then the
trouble-making diversification of the microenvironments would start again.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:39:20 PM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer On 09/04/2017 01:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I mean to balance culling of developed/adapted cells, it would be good to have stored blueprints in a refrigerator somewhere so that the poison doesn't harm them. I don't understand what you're saying, really. If we refine chemo so that it becomes as specific as antibodies, then I'd say it's not a "poison" anymore. But I'm always guilty of using language badly. So, who knows? > Could goal-oriented growth displace `bad' growth? I'm thinking of Lance Armstrong's remarkable return to racing, for example. Some massive energy draw that directs resources in a good way. > > Why should curtailing better than directing? It seems counter-intuitive that a slow metabolism would be preferable to a fast one, when it comes to fighting disease. I don't think it is necessarily better. But we have to admit our ignorance. By *promoting* some growth (in false distinction from curtailing all growth), you have to have control of the system. And there are way too many variables for us to control. My guess is, at this stage in our understanding of how biology works, unbalanced promotion will find persnickety edge cases that produce disease. But the Lance Armstrong argument is NOT a promotion argument. In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice. So the argument I (or Longo) might make is not that a slow metabolism MUST be preferable, just that for most people, especially e.g. 70-year olds with fresh diagnoses of cancer, fasting is likely to be easier than launching a bicycle racing career. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Exactly. And I think it also applies solely within fasting. Contrast these Silicon Valley guru types who are fasting mostly for the nootropic effects versus, say, someone fasting to lower their insulin resistance are likely to engage in different behaviors during their fasting. Which repertoire you engage in will constrain your body's allocation of resources in (perhaps very subtly) different ways. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw different overall health outcomes if they were 2 arms of a clinical trial. I remember, during my chemo, other patients at the clinic talking about how they were too exhausted to work. I'm lucky in that my job is programming, which can be exhausting, but in a different way than, say, bartending or managing a team of people. Many of my fellow clinic goers complained of "chemo brain", a kind of fog that got in the way of thought. I suffered it a bit, but I don't think as much as they did. Perhaps it was my ability to continue using my brain without needing to engage my body in any strenuous way, that prevented me from suffering as much "chemo brain"? Of course the code I worked on during that time probably sucks .... but probably not much more than how sucky my normal code is. But this is also where the chemo-fasting analogy breaks down. May of the "keto" people argue that the body has a natural alternative to energizing tissues of the body and fasting engages those pathways. Chemo may not (or may be less efficient at) trigger(ing) those pathways. If that's true, then perhaps fasting either 1) isn't as good as chemo against various types of cancer or 2) is way safer than chemo against side-effects of the treatment ... or perhaps both. On 09/04/2017 02:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice." > > > Right, all that is not permitted is forbidden. I suppose if it must be very extreme (to work -- if it would), then there is a real risk of injury or overuse that come sooner or later and then the trouble-making diversification of the microenvironments would start again. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus and Glen, As it happens, I am finishing the last chapter of THE EMPEROR OF MALADIES as we speak. I was (am) overwhelmed by it. About half way through, I thought, I will never go near another doctor again. By the next to the last chapter, I was back to thinking of medicine as, at least, plausible. Six weeks post bypass. I still don’t have angina. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Glen writes: "In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice." Right, all that is not permitted is forbidden. I suppose if it must be very extreme (to work -- if it would), then there is a real risk of injury or overuse that come sooner or later and then the trouble-making diversification of the microenvironments would start again. Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |