Travis Christofferson, Mercola, and reductionism

I have recently discussed a troubling trend among scientists and people who pretend to understand science.

This is the trend to make definitive statements about cancer cure that are based upon reductionism.

Reductionism at its extreme has recently focused on the metabolism of cancer cells as the ONLY defining characteristic of this type of cells.

Travis Christofferson, the author of the book Tripping Over the Truth: The Return of the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Illuminates a New and Hopeful Path to a Cure, emphasized on this metabolic feature during his interview with Dr. Mercola.

If you listen carefully to this interview (or read the transcript, as I did), you will hear the revelation of Mr. Christofferson that he looked at The Cancer Genome Atlas and observed that every cancer patient had different mutations; therefore, mutations were NOT the reason for the abnormal behavior of the cancer cells.

It is unfortunate that such a nonsense can be perceived as a nonsense only if you have a Ph.D.  So, everyone else who reads the book or listens to the interview would be impressed by this "discovery".
 
Dear Mr. Christofferson, fortunately, I have a Ph.D. and I would like to tell you that:

1. Not all mutations contribute to the proliferative potential of cancer cells. Only 3 to 5 mutations usually do so. These mutations are called "driver" mutations; whereas, the ones that do not matter are called "passenger" mutations. Passenger mutations may occur at any gene, but remember - they are irrelevant to the malignant development.

2. If you examine the driver gene mutations within specific categories of cancer, you would notice that the same genes are mutated over and over again in different patients. APC for example, is mutated in almost 80% of all colon cancer patients. Is this a coincidence?

3. The mutation diversity that you "discovered" is somewhat deceptive, since several different gene mutations can contribute to the same outcome in the cells. Usually these are genes the products of which participate in the same signaling pathways. Example: EGFR, the RAF genes, and the RAS genes participate in the same downstream signaling pathway. Therefore, seemingly diverse mutations in fact impact very few signaling pathways in the cancer cells.

4. You claim that some cancers did not have a single mutation. Well, did you examine the epigenetic and expression data for such cancers? Do you know that cancer can arise based upon changes at these additional regulation levels of gene activity?

In summary, please do not reduce the complexity of cancer to its metabolism. Yes, the metabolism of cancer cells is different, and every difference between cancer and normal cells should be exploited in cancer treatment. 

However, reductionism has not brought full victory over any disease in the past. 

I do believe that every patient who has been diagnosed with cancer should immediately switch to ketogenic diet. However, this diet should be combined with other cancer treatments. Ketogenic diet alone would not cure anyone from cancer. 

The same stubborn absurdity and reductionism is exemplified by our mainstream oncologists: they hold on to their old tools of chemo and radiation, and at the same time serve juice, doughnuts and ice cream to the patients (I guess to fortify the cancer cells against the chemo/radiation?!). 

"Divide and conquer" - does it work in cancer care

Fotogeniss -

Philip-ii-of-macedon

"Divide and conquer" may have worked for Philip II of Macedon; however, is it an effective strategy in understanding cancer development and providing cancer care?    

Have you seen the talk by Dr. Gary Fettke, "Nutrition and Cancer - Time to Rethink"? The talk leads to the conclusion that cancer is a disease of our metabolism. The chromosomal changes, including any gene mutations, seem to be bystanders in the unfolding madness of cancer development.

However, recent research indicates that all cancer cell changes (mutations and metabolic changes), the immediate environment of the cancer cells (influenced by external environmental and internal factors), and the metabolism at the organism level are interconnected, and contribute to the neoplastic growth.

It is not any single element, it is rather the congregation of factors that allows for the abnormality of cancer to emerge, persist, and eventually kill.

We should be mindful of the perils of reductionism in science and cancer prevention/treatment, and try to adopt a holistic view on cancer. Here are the precise definitions of the two approaches:

Reductionism,
the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of simpler, more fundamental phenomena...

versus...

Holism,
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole...

For more examples on misleading reductionism see here.



ACTIONABLES:
Yes, we should be aware of not only what we eat but how we eat it.

Yes, we should stop drinking to death, and I am not even referring to drinking alcohol.

Yes, we should learn how to cook for ourselves, since the food industry is force-feeding us with loads of sugar.

Yes, you should educate yourself, and not rely on your doctors and mainstream media to do so.

Yes, all of us should be aware that it is easier to deal with a just-born, immature troublemaker than a fully established, mature enemy; in other words, cancer prevention is more effective than cancer treatment.

Yes, we should try to integrate mainstream and alternative approaches to cancer care.

And yes, for all of you cancer researchers and enthusiasts: analyzing a phenomenon by breaking it down to its elements/building blocks and addressing only a single element is not going to bring a success. Cancer prevention and treatment need to address all aspects of the cancer development.