"Cancer isn’t one disease, it’s a catch-all term for a bunch of vaguely related ones"

Also that's a pretty common misconception, cancer is pretty well defined, abnormal cell growth. I agree that there will be no single cure, but it's like a viral infection, or a system intrusion. There may be many causes and cures will be different, but there's no disagreement over what is an isn't a cancer or a viral infection.

I don't think cancer biologists would subscribe to this simple definition (and it's not hard to find cases of 'abnormal cell growth' that do not ultimately constitute cancer). There have been, and continue to be, publications that pose the question of what it means for a patient to have cancer (cf https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00127-9 )

Cancers quite clearly cause different diseases - it's even the case that cancerous cells can yield distinct clinical presentations simply based on whether they are primarily found in the blood or in solid organs.

I don't think anyone would disagree that 'viral infection' is also an unhelpful description. Viruses may transiently infect host cells and die out (the common cold, for example) or permanently become part of the host genome (consider the various herpesviridae).

Even easier to make it preventable like diabetes but main stream doctor have to go through regulatory bodies.

Funny reminds me working at large companies who explicitly don’t hire doctors anymore because of the associated regulations that come with them.

Indeed, but humanity has managed to reduce "accidental deaths" as a whole by honing in on individual accident categories before - say, alcohol influence, combating that one by a multitude of means reduced car crashes, workplace injuries and domestic accidents.

Something similar might be possible for cancer as well. I think the solution already exists in nature, hidden within large animals, we "only" need to find out how precisely a 200 metric ton whale or a 10 ton elephant manages to beat statistic odds.

(Additionally, ever since COVID shone a spotlight on it, there is more and more evidence that lots of cancers are caused by viruses, most prominently herpes / genital cancer)

This metabolic theory challenges the traditional somatic mutation theory, which views cancer as a result of DNA mutations accumulating in cells. Seyfried proposes that targeting the metabolism of cancer cells—primarily through dietary interventions like ketogenic diets or therapies that restrict glucose—could effectively "starve" cancer cells while leaving healthy cells less affected. His approach implies that a general strategy for treating cancer could involve targeting this metabolic vulnerability shared across many cancer types. Furthermore, this theory suggests that combination approaches targeting both glucose and glutamine metabolism might be particularly effective, as they would address both major fuel sources that cancer cells rely on. This could include strategies such as ketogenic diets (to restrict glucose), glutamine inhibitors, and other metabolic therapies that work together to compromise cancer cell energy production while preserving normal cell function.

0: https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...

> Seyfried, in my readings, appears all too often to speak of “cancer” as if it were a monolithic single disease. As I’ve pointed out many times before, it’s not. Indeed, only approximately 60-90% of cancers demonstrate the Warburg effect.

> Dr. Seyfried presents mouse studies that are interesting and suggestive that there might be something to this whole ketogenic diet thing, at least in brain tumors, such as this one. However, this is what we in the oncology biz would call pretty preliminary data, worthy of further investigation but not supporting the grandiose claims that Dr. Seyfried makes.

> Irritatingly, during the same talk, Dr. Seyfried refers to having done a “biopsy” on the GBM when the case report clearly says that the patient underwent a partial excision of the temporal pole with incomplete debulking of the tumor, which is a different thing. > ... > He also heaps scorn on the hospital for insisting that the patient undergo standard of care therapy, clearly demonstrating that he has no understanding of clinical trial ethics.

> This brings me back to the question of whether cancer is a metabolic disease or a genetic disease, the answer to which I promised early on. The likely answer? It’s both! Indeed, a “chicken or the egg” argument continues about whether it is the metabolic abnormalities that cause the mutations observed in cancer cells or whether it is the mutations that produce the metabolic abnormalities. Most likely, it’s a little of both, the exact proportion of which depending upon the tumor cell, that combine in an unholy synergistic circle to drive cancer cells to be more and more abnormal and aggressive. Moreover, cancer is about far more than just the genomics or the metabolism of cancer cells. It’s also the immune system and the tumor microenvironment (the cells and connective tissue in which tumors arise and grow). As I’ve said time and time and time again, cancer is complicated, real complicated. The relative contributions of genetic mutations, metabolic derangements, immune cell dysfunction, and influences of the microenvironment are likely to vary depending upon the type of tumor and, as a consequence, require different treatments. In the end, as with many hyped cancer cures, the ketogenic diet might be helpful for some tumors and almost certainly won’t be helpful for others. Dr. Seyfried might be on to something, but he’s gone a bit off the deep end in apparently thinking that he’s found out something about cancer that no one else takes seriously—or has even thought of before.

There is a lot chew on in that comment and that article beyond "a bit of a quack"

Edit: so you commited a faux meta fallacy

> but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data

The problem is Seyfried doesn't have data. His science is bad and extrapolating from marginal results. Some parts of these ideas might pan out, but all I've seen indicates he's made this his hobby horse is riding it.

That's not to say all (or even many) cranks are secretly geniuses. But they're able to explore parts of the search space that the establishment can't for all sorts of reasons.

In other words, your establishment has all the resources and can incrementally make its way to local maxima better than any crank could. But any members that start making bold claims that might threaten that establishment will be punished, out of a simple survival instinct.

A good heuristic could be "seems like a solid scientist in general, but this niche where he was a top level researcher led him to a split with the main stream" vs "consistently takes anti-mainstream views and has no contributions within the paradigm "

Here are five of the best historical examples of individuals who were considered cranks or fringe by their peers but ultimately brought about a paradigm shift in their respective fields. Each faced intense skepticism and mockery, yet their ideas transformed our understanding of the world:

### 1. *Ignaz Semmelweis (Medicine)* - *Contribution*: In the 1840s, Semmelweis discovered that hand-washing drastically reduced maternal deaths in maternity wards. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: His idea that "invisible particles" (what we now know as germs) could cause infection was ridiculed. At the time, the concept of doctors themselves transmitting disease was unthinkable, and many in the medical community were deeply offended. - *Impact*: Although he was dismissed and ultimately died in an asylum, his insights laid the groundwork for antiseptic practices. Today, Semmelweis is honored as a pioneer of infection control, and hand-washing is a cornerstone of medical hygiene.

### 2. *Alfred Wegener (Geology)* - *Contribution*: In 1912, Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift, suggesting that continents moved across the Earth’s surface. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: Geologists at the time thought his theory was absurd because Wegener couldn't explain how continents could move. He faced widespread ridicule, with critics dismissing his ideas as pseudoscientific. - *Impact*: Decades later, with the discovery of plate tectonics, his theory became foundational to modern geology. Wegener is now recognized as a visionary, and his ideas radically changed our understanding of Earth's structure and history.

### 3. *Louis Pasteur (Microbiology)* - *Contribution*: Pasteur’s germ theory of disease in the 1860s revolutionized medicine, suggesting that microorganisms were responsible for causing many diseases. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: The prevailing "miasma" theory held that diseases were caused by "bad air," not germs. Many in the scientific and medical communities mocked Pasteur’s ideas, calling them "preposterous" and even "dangerous." - *Impact*: Pasteur’s work ultimately led to sterilization techniques, vaccines, and pasteurization, transforming medicine and public health. Germ theory is now a foundational concept in microbiology, and Pasteur is one of the most celebrated figures in medical history.

### 4. *Nikola Tesla (Electrical Engineering and Physics)* - *Contribution*: Tesla developed and promoted the use of alternating current (AC) electricity, which ultimately became the standard for power transmission worldwide. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: Tesla’s ideas about AC were met with hostility from proponents of direct current (DC), most notably Thomas Edison. Tesla’s later ideas, including wireless energy transmission, were seen as wildly impractical and even "insane" by many of his contemporaries. - *Impact*: Despite the ridicule, Tesla’s AC power systems are now the global standard, and his ideas on wireless communication foreshadowed modern radio and telecommunications. Today, he’s recognized as a visionary inventor who changed the course of technology.

### 5. *Barbara McClintock (Genetics)* - *Contribution*: In the 1940s, McClintock discovered "jumping genes" (transposons), showing that genes could move within and between chromosomes. - *Why She Was Considered a Crank*: Her findings were so radical that her peers couldn’t accept them, with many scientists dismissing her ideas as highly unlikely or even bizarre. - *Impact*: Her work was eventually recognized as groundbreaking, earning her a Nobel Prize in 1983. McClintock’s discovery of transposable elements opened new avenues in genetics, shaping our understanding of genetic variation and evolution.

---

These five individuals were openly mocked, ignored, or dismissed by the scientific communities of their time. However, they each persevered and eventually brought about paradigm shifts that redefined their fields. Their stories highlight the importance of challenging conventional wisdom and illustrate how transformative ideas often come from those who are willing to go against the mainstream.

I think what your initial comment was missing is it implied just being a quack was somehow a path to new ideas.

What his is missing, in the context of Seyfreid, is that what Seyfreid is promoting:

1. Has been studied quite extensively. 2. The results of said studies do not match his claims. 3. He can't even get the details right on the data he's trying to present.

The examples you gave are different in that while the action was not understood, they explained existing data.

In particular, I think the challenge with your initial comment is that spouting bullshit is an entirely free enterprise. Testing bullshit is an expensive enterprise. So your system provides no meaningful actionable way to get to a new, coherent, understanding of the world.

And, let's be honest, Tesla is a mixed bag. He was a total crank in a lot of ways. But also a genius in other ways. Linus Pauling is similar. Complete crank around vitamin C.

For example, maybe cancer does have a single unifying cause that can be fixed very easily. But the millions of hours put into studying it suggests otherwise.

This seems to be generally true about most things. Only very rarely do we get something super simple like goiter being caused by the lack of iodine, or stomach ulcers being caused by H. pylori.

The other discoveries predate a lot of advanced medical technology, though. They were the low-hanging fruit in that sense. The only semi-recent discovery I can think of is that the Epstein-Barr virus causes cancer, though that does not necessarily qualify as "simple". EBV is also implicated in MS. EBV could ultimately be one of those "unifiers" that could explain multiple diseases.

It's one disease -- just a very complex one.

It's actually not,

here are the names of cancers that start with P

Paraganglioma Pineal astrocytoma Pineocytoma Pineoblastoma Pituitary adenoma Pilocytic astrocytoma Primary central nervous system lymphoma Primitive neuroectodermal tumor

You see? Your point is unremarkable in the face of all diseases.

The handwavey reddit tier explanation you're shooting for is that cancer is genetically unique in each person. Which really is a gross oversimplification, there are non-unique genetic components of that are common themes across many cancers- TP53, PIK3CA, BRCA, KRAS, MSH, etc etc.

So such an explanation is lame because if there's all these common genes than it seems curable - which it would be if that were the long and short of it. Reason it's hard to cure is half those genes I name jack up replication machinery so it makes errors all the time. So now our cancer is not a genetically unique cancer, it's billions of genetically unique cells in one body, always mutating. Now it's not drug developer versus cancer, it's drug developer vs Charles Darwin, evolution. And of course there is a solution for that. Immunotherapy, or as the link shows, immunostimulation. Because the immune system also uses evolution / artificial selection!