OSA and Cancer Link

Pneumophile wrote:DreamStalker,
Please explain to us in some detail your understanding of the concepts "oncogene" and "tumor suppressor gene". The same goes for the concepts "germline mutation" and "somatic mutation" in the context of cancer.
Thanks in advance, Pneumo.
p.s. metabolic alterations are certainly important in cancer but your post is arrant nonsense, oncologically speaking. Or utter balderdash, if you prefer.

Well you can believe the utter balderdash that OSA causes cancer if you prefer or the arrant nonsense that correlation is the same as causation, but it doesn't make it so.

For your explanatory request, whip your little eukaryotic flagellate self to this link or this one (if you're research oriented). Ask your own advisor for any additional help if you need, I'm a bit busy for your unimportant and senseless comment(s).

Eddie Fasolino wrote:

Pneumophile wrote:your post is arrant nonsense, oncologically speaking. Or utter balderdash, if you prefer.

All of his posts follow that pattern. I suspect pretty severe mental illness.

Maybe he went too many years before seeking CPAP treatment?

You're absolutely correct! Give yourself a big pat on your head.

Eddie Fasolino wrote: This tells you something else:

DreamStalker wrote:
I've spent the last several years downloading as much health, farming, and self-sufficent information as I can find and storing it on my own database.

He has met the apocalypse, and it is he.

And you've met your pale-ass-rider sidekick, and you two make a great pair.

DreamStalker,
Have you actually READ my posts in this thread on the research claiming a link between OSA and cancer? Go read them and then let's talk. Until then I won't waste my time further. I've been in the field of cancer research for > 20 years. How about you?

If you had read my posts you would know that I do not believe that 'balderdash'. I don't believe yours either. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
~ C

Pneumophile wrote:DreamStalker,
Have you actually READ my posts in this thread on the research claiming a link between OSA and cancer? Go read them and then let's talk. Until then I won't waste my time further. I've been in the field of cancer research for > 20 years. How about you?

If you had read my posts you would know that I do not believe that 'balderdash'. I don't believe yours either. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
~ C

Actually, I did not read any of your posts in this thread because I was only responding to your comment as addressed to me. However, I just now glanced through them if that makes you happy. So basically I have clearly made the same conclusion on the link between OSA and cancer as you have in your own previous posts and yet you called my conclusion balderdash.

But the fact remains that I really don't care to talk to you so it is not I that wastes your time but rather you who wastes mine. I made my point that statistical correlation does not equate to diagnostic causation and thus OSA does not cause cancer. I also suggested that cancer researchers (like you I suppose) have been following the wrong myopic path of genetic mutation as the primary cause of cancer when clearly mitochondrial energy dysregulation (as hypothesized by Otto Warburg over 85 years ago and more recently Thomas Seyfried) appears to be a more direct path to understanding cancer cause and its therapeutic approaches.

Oh .... and I've been in the field of cancer research for almost ZERO years and yet obviously, you've had 20+ years to figure it out, and have clearly failed since cancer rates continue to rise and spread geographically right along with all other metabolic diseases caused by glucotoxicity. The genetic approach only indicates that every organism on this planet has the the oncogene and thus each and every one of us has the potential for developing cancer .... duhhh! Ever heard of the evolution of life on planet Earth? The issue is what triggers rogue cell division and how do you mitigate it ... look at the mitochondrial energy dysregulation that prevents the organism from mitigating the rouge cell division.

DreamStalker,
I called your reflections on the causes of cancer in that particular post 'balderdash', not your views on a possible relationship between OSA and cancer. Please try to differentiate.

Well at least now you've read my posts on the subject. Pity you didn't do that earlier but never mind. We agree on something at least.

You can call my scientific remarks balderdash if you wish - trust me I won't mind in the least.

Found this interesting link titled "Is Cancer a Metabolic Disease"

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002- ... 6/abstract

49er

Pneumophile wrote:DreamStalker,
I called your reflections on the causes of cancer in that particular post 'balderdash', not your views on a possible relationship between OSA and cancer. Please try to differentiate.

Well at least now you've read my posts on the subject. Pity you didn't do that earlier but never mind. We agree on something at least.

You can call my scientific remarks balderdash if you wish - trust me I won't mind in the least.

Nor I .... as I don't have 20+ failed research years invested in my cancer view(s).

Don't get me wrong DS, I agree with you that metabolic aberrations are an important aspect of cancer development and probably metastasis as well (but I haven't kept up with the literature lately and claim no real expertise in that growing field). Metabolic targets are being actively researched by pharma big and small you'll be pleased to hear. I'm a biochemist by training who was lectured to by Hans Krebs as an undergraduate back in the day; his thick German accent was well worth penetrating. I even did experiments with a Warbug Manometer in my doctoral research at one point. What fun they were! Warburg was a genius and no mistake.

DreamStalker wrote:

Pneumophile wrote:DreamStalker,
I called your reflections on the causes of cancer in that particular post 'balderdash', not your views on a possible relationship between OSA and cancer. Please try to differentiate.

Well at least now you've read my posts on the subject. Pity you didn't do that earlier but never mind. We agree on something at least.

You can call my scientific remarks balderdash if you wish - trust me I won't mind in the least.

Nor I .... as I don't have 20+ failed research years invested in my cancer view(s).

Now you are being droll DS.

DreamStalker wrote:cancer rates continue to rise

Actually, age-adjusted cancer rates are declining.

Eddie Fasolino wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:cancer rates continue to rise

Actually, age-adjusted cancer rates are declining.

Well for goodness sake don't tell me about it, tell these poor folks so they can get their story to line up with yours ....

49er wrote:Found this interesting link titled "Is Cancer a Metabolic Disease"

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002- ... 6/abstract

49er

Here is your corrected link - http://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002- ... 6/abstract

Eddie Fasolino wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:cancer rates continue to rise

Actually, age-adjusted cancer rates are declining.

That may be but of course smoking has been steadily declining and this has had a major effect on the overall rate. But if you have a diagnosis of renal cell cancer or lung cancer (NSCLC, positive for certain activating mitations) or melanoma (certain mutations) or multiple myeloma for example your life expectancy is quite a bit better than it was. Just look at the data for crizotinib for example - those response rates are magnifcent but you have to be in the 5% of NSCLC patients with the fusion gene.

Pneumophile wrote:

Eddie Fasolino wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:cancer rates continue to rise

Actually, age-adjusted cancer rates are declining.

That may be but of course smoking has been steadily declining and this has had a major effect on the overall rate. But if you have a diagnosis of renal cell cancer or lung cancer (NSCLC, positive for certain activating mitations) or melanoma (certain mitations) or multiple myeloma for example your life expectancy is quite a bit better than it was. Just look at the data for crizotinib for example - those response rates are magnifcent but you have to be in the 5% of NSCLC patients with the fusion gene.

Seriously Pneumo ... Eddie is worried about the end of times, not the fusion gene.

Of course you were right about correlations vs causes but it can be the very devil to tweeze out the latter from the former. Hell,that's what Discussion sections are there for - you get to speculate ad nauseam ....until some weasel of a reviewer or editor suggests that the word count is too high.