Medical quackery upsets me very, very much
So I get this email from my sister today (directed at the whole family), and finally just kinda snapped. This is the one who also has refused vaccines for her children due to the stupid vaccine fright garbage, and is a complete biblical literalist to the point where science in general offends her.
This is fascinating and encouraging news! The research I have done on cancer lines up totally with the logic of this treatment.
My first reaction: what "research" have you done, dear sister, considering that you find the scientific method to be so offensive?
I was going to delete it like I delete most of her emails, but just couldn't let it go. I'm sure she'll ignore it, but my other sister is a little bit impressionable, as is my dad when it comes to homeopathy, so I decided to take a bit of my morning and try to do some rumor control. My response was as follows:
This is unfortunately neither something new, nor something that has proven out to be replicated in controlled studies. The concept of cancer cells being primarily glycolytic was originally posited by Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg in 1924. This was, in fact, a huge element in cancer research and the main hypothesis behind the behavior of cancerous tumors until the 1970's and onward. Research since then has repeatedly shown that restrictions on glucose intake do not prevent malignant transformation, nor are such diets a reliable method of halting malignant tumor growth across the board.
In the case of specific cancers where the cancer cells have damaged mitochondria and are highly hypoxic, the inhibition of glycolysis can (and has been shown to) halt the growth of the cancer cells, and sometimes even put the cancer into remission, which is probably what happened in the case of "Dr Hatfield" (he has a doctorate in philosophy; not an MD or DO).
I know I have a disdainful attitude towards medical quackery, but that's because of the many needless deaths and suffering caused by people who claim credentials and then use that (along with anecdotal evidence) to spread misinformation. I sincerely hope that if -- heaven forbid -- any of you get cancer, you seek proper medical care. Obviously following a glucose-limited diet can help (and in one of the controlled studies I've read through in my mere half hour of research, switching to ketone intake barely helped; in either diet, restricted intake overall was the primary influencing agent), but it's not safe to do that without pursuing medical care as well.
Glycolysis inhibition for anticancer treatment:
Cancer metabolism: facts, fantasy, and fiction:
Role of glucose and ketone bodies in the metabolic control of experimental brain cancer:
How do you deal with fighting the (frankly baffling) appeal of medical quackery? If for no other reason than that I am concerned about the potential damage my sister's willful ignorance could do to my niece and nephew?