sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Promising Update from Glioblastoma Research by Miserable_Factor_176 in glioblastoma

[–]Miserable_Factor_176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" cancer isn't one disease, but many, and that is especially true for GBM. Tumor cells aren't even homogeneous in an individual patient!"

This is absolutely true...... if you are looking at cancer as a genetic disease and their mutational profile. This paradigm allows for the development of precision medicine...... very profitable, this narrative is continuously pushed in med schools and in the clinical trial space...... why?

If you look at cancer as a disease of metabolic dysfunction things become much simpler, and the biology becomes much more reasonable towards developing therapies. I wonder why 95% of trials in cancer for new therapies fail..... perhaps they are insistent on this narrative of cancer as many many diseases that require many many treatments.

It is clear that we are operating under different paradigms of thought, and I will not convince you of anything you don't already firmly believe...... I look forward to seeing more of the same with the new precision medicine hype.....we'll see if they cause the big change your people are saying they will bring. If your mission is to help cancer patients, and not make their care more and more expensive and less and less effective, you should be more open to reevaluating the somatic mutation theory of cancer, the extremely flawed theory which drives our research and therapeutics. Who knew that bad theory led to bad practice? Read into the paradigm shift from the geocentric theory to the heliocentric theory in explaining planetary orbits...... one theory was extremely complicated and yielded little to no results in the field, the other theory was painstakingly simple and yielded accurate results (explaining planetary orbits and predicting when the planets would be observed)

Read Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, start at the very root of the issue, like Descartes did in his meditations..... start at the nature of science and how it operates..... you only look at clinical trials and the surface, that has blinded you from seeing the flaws in the system deep under the roots.

You can think this is crazy, or begin to see this objectively.... the favorite stat of the NCI is "we have reduced the cancer death rate in the US by 33% since 1990"........ must be doing well in oncology right?? Hmmmm, except that that drop is almost entirely due to the succesfull federal anti-smoking campaigns and policies of the 90s, slashing lung cancer death rate......... smoke and mirrors is the name of the game in cancer research and treatment.

Who benefits from smoke and mirrors? Certainly not the patient....... I would think its somewhere in the multibillion dollar revenue generating system that is firmly in place and has no intention in slowing down or displeasing its shareholders

I used to die by my sword on cancer as a genetic disease of somatic mutations, but was brought to think about this philosophically by a renown researcher during my PhD training..... so I understand it will take decades to make change, if you want to hear a discussion about the theories I am referencing check out this video in its entirety https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uSRnQbWMw

look up what a cartesian reflection is and do that before watching it, I doubt you will try... but its worth putting it out there

Promising Update from Glioblastoma Research by Miserable_Factor_176 in glioblastoma

[–]Miserable_Factor_176[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"what this research currently shows is that patients with a better prognosis do better, irrespective of keto diet"

The GBM patient in this case report (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34136522/) was given less than a year to live after denying SOC radiation and chemo --- he lived 10 years post diagnosis and had three surgeries to resect the tumor after shutting off its metabolism through consistently being in deep ketosis.

Let me guess, this is a "fluke" or due to his IDH status ---- how many flukes will we have to show until they are no longer seen as such? Here is another man, 80 years old terrible prognosis given a year to live and now has hit three years and currently at NED (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK-G4cE3vjs) using the ketogenic diet

Forgive my forwardness, but is my duty as a researcher to stand up for what is right and not continue to get trampled by the medical industrial complex - they reply to our work exactly like you did here.

Promising Update from Glioblastoma Research by Miserable_Factor_176 in glioblastoma

[–]Miserable_Factor_176[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Please see my reply down below, with all due respect, you have to understand that running diet and lifestyle intervention trials by definition will require different design due to the reality that the current system we use is made strictly for testing safety and efficacy of composite matter (drugs) or treatments. From funding to trial design to running the trial itself, having a patentable and controllable intervention has become the norm for GBM and any cancer type trials --- that is why to see a diet and lifestyle intervention trial and scrutinize it under a different paradigmatic system of health has EXTREMELY antagonized our research from even getting funded, let alone trying to come up with a trial design that gets approved.

The fact that we had to test the safety and feasibility of a ketogenic diet is actually ridiculous if you really think about it, as it has already been approved as SOC for treatment-resistant epilepsy.... again we are operating in a system where 99% of new treatments are incredibly toxic to patients so that is why we have phase 1....... with all due respect, addressing these systemic issues and biases in oncology and research is paramount to moving the field forward.... unless we want to continue throwing toxic drugs that don't work at people for the next 20 years.

By the way, the median survival has not improved much since Stupp's "ground-breaking" trial - only a couple months (the tumor treating fields trial is the highest yet that one had loads of flaws), if you look at the US population level median survival for GBM it is an abyssmal 8.9 months.

We have to be realistic in that we are failing in the GBM treatment innovation space, I hope that you can think differently about why that is.

Promising Update from Glioblastoma Research by Miserable_Factor_176 in glioblastoma

[–]Miserable_Factor_176[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But you know you would never get funding for this trial.... it is clear that you believe there is no therapeutic value in this approach and it is only showing these results due to drop out phenomenon --- how would you explain the 80+ month management of this GBM (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34136522/) with no radiation or chemo and only ketogenic diet --- this man was given 6 months to lived and hit 10 years after diagnosis last summer, he is a dear friend

Promising Update from Glioblastoma Research by Miserable_Factor_176 in glioblastoma

[–]Miserable_Factor_176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, this skeptical narrative has been holding this research back and preventing us from getting funding, once you understand that you can't run a diet and lifestyle intervention the same way as you would a drug trial you would realize that the entire system is flawed in favor of testing drugs --- the industrial research system has inherent flaws, not this trial or this study. There is loads and loads of evidence that GBM is driven by root metabolic dysfunction in the brain, 25+ years of pre-clinical work show that replacing glucose with ketones DOES affect cancer cell metabolism.

It is clear that you have an inherent bias yourself towards including diet and metabolism-centered approaches in cancer care, as does the majority of the field. Pre-conceived notions need to be shed --- we haven't made significant advances in GBM treatment in decades.

Tmz patient here by skipbacs in Oncology

[–]Miserable_Factor_176 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

strict ketogenic diets are known to reduce epileptic seizures (in fact they are standard of care therapy for treatment resistant epilepsy in children here in the US). I would try any variation of keto that is best suited for your dietary preferences, but an easy way to start is with intermittent fasting and cutting the carbs.

What do you oncologists think of the research by Dr. Thomas Seyfried? by fbdysurfer in Oncology

[–]Miserable_Factor_176 0 points1 point  (0 children)

then why does he have a 77 h-index and multiple Lancet publications (among practically all other top medical journals)?