(no title)
biotechbio | 2 years ago
This was a hypothesis in the field for a number of years, and has been disproven. If you want a good overview of the history of cancer, I recommend “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Siddhartha Mukherjee.
biotechbio | 2 years ago
This was a hypothesis in the field for a number of years, and has been disproven. If you want a good overview of the history of cancer, I recommend “The Emperor of All Maladies” by Siddhartha Mukherjee.
rubicon33|2 years ago
panabee|2 years ago
* not all cancers are caused by viruses.
* only some cancers are caused by viruses.
where we disagree:
* that science has proven the majority of tumors are definitely not caused by viruses.
could you kindly share a few of the studies disproving the majority case? in particular, i'm interested in the sample size and diversity powering these refutations.
to clarify, i'm not saying you're wrong. simply seeking to learn more.
my research has uncovered misleading conclusions based on studies with flawed methodology/logic. for example, this study [0] states, "epstein-barr virus plays no role in the tumorigenesis of small-cell carcinoma of the lung." based on a sample size of 23.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14752524
chrisamiller|2 years ago
Cohort: 2,658 cancers across 38 tumor types Findings: Overall, 23 virus genera were detected across 356 patients with cancer (13%)
You can read all of the details here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076016/
I'm not saying that there aren't other mechanisms (sustained inflammation, etc) that might contribute to the aetiology of some other cancers, even without clear viral integrations, but we can state pretty strongly that many cancers are not directly caused by cancer.
biotechbio|2 years ago
"Searching large pan-cancer genome and whole-transcriptome datasets enabled the identification of a high percentage of virus-associated cases (16%)".
Far from majority.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-019-0558-9
epgui|2 years ago
coldcode|2 years ago