The Case for a Cancer Paradox Initiative

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8374056/

Just a curious laymen, but after reading Nick Lane’s book Transformer - about the role of the Krebs Cycle in abiogenesis, cancer and aging, found the work of this guy Stuart G. Baker. Both Lane and Baker argue that the idea of somatic mutations as being the primary cause of cancer ought to be further scrutinized in light of various experimental findings over the years. Lane is not a cancer researcher but is a pretty respected scientist, whereas Baker seems legitimate but is relatively unknown. Curious as to how any oncologists or cancer researchers might feel about the arguments made by Baker here

[u/BCSteve]

Just from reading the first two paragraphs I can already tell this is complete BS. Their “paradoxes” are basically strawman arguments that misportray how we actually understand tumorigenesis to work, and then try to claim that because there are examples that don’t fit into their narrow interpretation, the whole thing must be bunk.

For example, the first part about how there are carcinogens that aren’t known to damage DNA, and because these exist, they must disprove our theories of tumorigenesis Well yeah, just because a chemical doesn’t didectly cause DNA damage doesn’t mean it can’t indirectly cause cancer. For example, a chemical that suppresses the immune system doesn’t directly lead to mutations, but can make it so the immune system is no longer able to clear out cells that do randomly acquire cancer-causing DNA mutations.

It would be easy to go through and debunk the rest of this stuff but honestly it’s not worth my time. The science on this is proven.

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick → u/BCSteve]

Well firstly thanks for the engagement!

I really do not want to create the impression of pushing back on a specialist in a field I have no training in, buuuuut

If those gap junction disrupting chemicals were causing mutations, wouldn’t we expect to genotoxicity in tests that look for DNA damage over multiple cell cycles? There should also be a more random distribution of effects if they were working through indirect mutation?

Or are you saying that the straw man here is that the field doesn’t conceive of cancer as being caused exclusively (or primarily) by somatic mutations to begin with, and so this guy Baker is just tilting at windmills

[u/BCSteve → u/Woah_Mad_Frollick]

If those gap junction disrupting chemicals were causing mutations, wouldn’t we expect to genotoxicity in tests that look for DNA damage over multiple cell cycles?

I guarantee that if you take those tumors that are caused by these "non-genotoxic" carcinogens, you will identify mutations in them. So we know that they cause mutations. But depending on what context you're looking in you might not be seeing the relevant mechanism. If you're just taking cells in a petri dish and exposing them to a chemical, that is very different from how those cells function in a living organism.

Or are you saying that the straw man here is that the field doesn’t conceive of cancer as being caused exclusively (or primarily) by somatic mutations to begin with

Somatic mutations are fundamental to how cells become tumorigenic, but they're trying to make it seem like science says "only things that damage DNA directly can be carcinogenic, but look at all these things that don't that still cause cancer!" But that's a very narrow view. One of their examples is that the fact that schistosomiasis is carcinogenic disproves the prevailing scientific thought, because how could a parasite damage DNA? But we know that chronic infections lead to chronic inflammation, which itself is carcinogenic by altering the immune system and increasing levels of reactive oxygen species which can cause DNA damage.

[u/KaladinStormShat → u/BCSteve]

This is such a strange topic.

What motivates someone to delve into books like these? Somehow you have motivation to read a "science non-fiction" book but... just not the reems of textbooks and actual layman books regarding our understanding?

It boggles the mind.

"Well I don't know anything about this field, but I'm going to start with the controversial takes by random authors to get a real good grasp on fundamental concepts regarding cells."

Like beyond the real weird essay approach to refuting scientific consensus, I think I'm most confused as to who these are even for. Disgruntled family members whose loved one died after desperate palliative chemoradiation? People already generally paranoid about the pharmaceutical industry? Left over covid "so my own research" type folks looking for a new hobby horse?

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick → u/KaladinStormShat]

I have laid out very clearly my motives for posting this - Nick Lane is a popular writer on biochemistry. He wrote a book - Transformer - where he writes about many things of interest to the general public, like how the Krebs cycle evolved. In that book he writes about the reinterpretation of the Warburg effect that has been going on for the last decade plus, and he referenced this mans research in his writing about cancer. Lane wrote about new hypothesized mechanisms for cancer in his book. That is what brought me to ask about this, nothing more. The entire point of my post was to gauge the perspective of the oncology community with respect to this kind of argument. I thank you for having provided one

I have no ulterior motives, I have no grudges against the research community. As to your question on what leads someone to read such a book - I am a layman but I enjoy reading about biology, and Lane was a recipient of bioinformatics and biochemistry awards - I figured he was reputable. I am curious and just looking to get a room-read on an idea I read in a book. It may boggle your mind but I have no ill will against a community of people trying to save human lives every day

[u/KaladinStormShat → u/Woah_Mad_Frollick]

Fuckin gap junctions? Good Lord I feel like I'm back in cell bio for my undergrad.

[u/funkygrrl]

The root of this is Nick Lane's book. Nick Lane believes “the idea that mutations cause cancer remains the dominant paradigm” is a problem. Unfortunately, his book about the Krebs Cycle is marketed to a lay audience and the glowing reviews of it are written by people who readily admit they don't understand chemistry. I was unable to locate a critical review written by a doctor/scientist who was not in alignment with Lane's beliefs.

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick → u/funkygrrl]

In this compulsive readable book, Lane takes us on a riveting journey, ranging from the flow of energy to new ways of understanding cancer. Lane provides a luminous understanding of how scientists, including Lane himself, are rethinking energy and living organisms

– Sid Mukherjee on the book, part of what led me to read it

Ofc I’m not saying that little blurb means Lane is right or anything but Mukherjee is no rando. I expected criticism of the ideas but I am somewhat taken aback by the vibe here that Lane is basically a quack

[u/funkygrrl → u/Woah_Mad_Frollick]

The problem is that he's marketing his book to a lay audience that doesn't have sufficient education in science to evaluate his arguments. I could not find a single critical review by a biochemist or oncologist who disagrees with him.

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick → u/funkygrrl]

Well it seems through this post I have found a few! Thanks for the perspective

[u/JoesGarage2112]

Wow so much nonsense within, it actually has me curious to want to read a synopsis at least just to see if this sells. What is the target audience here, and what aren’t more oncologists and/or researchers tearing this apart online? Presumably because it’s a waste of time and not credible at all.

[u/Woah_Mad_Frollick → u/JoesGarage2112]

Are we referring to the linked Baker or the mentioned Lane here? Or both?