It never stops to amaze me that medical researchers make such huge efforts to ignore the obvious, just because their research needs a certain outcome. This time they have found that fats increase the progression of aggressive cancers. This goes against common sense, observation and existing knowledge. But such details usually don’t stop the researchers from publishing wild stories.
“how fats work to regulate cell function but at the same time create proteins that are elevated in more aggressive cancers.” So this would mean that fats are both essential and dangerous. That’s a contradiction, which means the researchers should see a huge red flag. They should stop and wonder where they are going wrong. But the red flag is ignored and that means that the rest of the research is per definition rubbish, no matter how many big words are thrown into it. (Never be impressed by science speak. It’s usually meant to disguise that the scientist has nothing intelligent to say.)
“We have extended the finding to breast cancer, melanoma, kidney cancer and ovarian cancer,” And if you make it general enough and ignore all the things that don’t make sense, then eventually you can come up with something that meets your criteria. “It seems to be a broad range of cancers and possibly all cancers.” Red flag alert! If essential fats have something to do with all cancers, then they cannot possibly be bad. There must be a connection, probably a reverse connection (you know, the chicken-and-egg kind of thing). It’s not so hard to see.
“now trying to identify the specific cancer-associated change or triggers in this network.” There the science speak enters the story. Dr. Hill, stop for a moment and ask yourself why the cancer is spreading. Could it be that the cancer is there for a reason? Could it possibly be that the cancer cells actually have a positive function? From what you say it surely sounds like it.
“Then more specific therapies can be designed to kill cancer without affecting normal cells,” That’s what cancer researchers always come up with. There is just a minor problem: it doesn’t work. Conventional cancer therapies have changed very little the last 40 years. The same toxic drugs are still used, with the same horrible effects and still without any positive outcomes. So why would cancer researchers keep going on the same path, that has shown so many times not to lead to better outcomes for the patients? It’s obvious that their approach simply doesn’t work.
“previous study on prostate cancer revealed a reduction in the cytoskeleton cholesterol membrane link” That all sounds so interesting. But the only thing that counts is whether any new therapy actually saves lives. And the sad truth is that conventional treatments still have a cure rate of very, very close to 0%. Conventional cancer treatments are an abysmal failure, no matter how many billions of dollars are spent for research. That’s not so strange, as the idea of killing cancer with killer weapons is just not a very smart one.
“the research reinforced to cancer patients how vital it was to maintain low cholesterol.” Funny, for I don’t see that at all. I see proof that fat and cholesterol are essential to keep cells healthy, and healthy cells don’t develop cancer. It’s also known that low cholesterol is not healthy and that artificially lowering cholesterol with statin medication causes cancer (reason why those drugs increase the death rate among the users). But obviously dr. Hill doesn’t care about such details. Why would she? If she ignores the real causes of cancer she can stay in her job. Finding the cause and the cure doesn’t benefit her at all. That is the problem with the whole cancer industry. So much money goes around that nobody who works in that industry has any reason to prevent or cure it. If nobody would get cancer anymore researchers like dr. Hill would become unemployed.
The article doesn’t say who funded the research, but my guess is that the pharmaceutical industry is involved. Especially those businesses that make statins, and make truckloads of money with these highly toxic, extremely dangerous pills. They need to keep the number of clients up, or better increase them, as the blockbuster statins are soon losing their patents. It’s funny how research showing the positive effects of drugs often coincides with the time that patents are expiring. That basically reduces the doctor to a drug dealer, at the same level as those who make synthetic street drugs in home labs. The main difference is that this kind of research is published in scientific magazines. Which shows exactly what those magazines are. They are mainly meant to advertise drugs. Just an educated guess: before, after and in between the article in this magazine there are advertisements for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And that’s why it’s called $cience.