Current Posts – 28 January 2015

 Like the proverbial bus service, there are no really radical theories about cancer for 40 years then two come along at once. Remarkably, despite being the brain children of top scientists in quite different disciplines, they are very similar. Last week’s post was about a biologist who thinks we should pay less attention to cancer genes and more to the local conditions that encourage them. This week a top physicist Paul Davies explains why he thinks the same.

There is a major flaw in our current theory about cancer: This says it’s caused by random genetic changes in a cell that allow it to grow uncontrollably and the only solution is drugs and surgery. This ignores, says a University of California professor, the many ways our bodies can encourage a tumour or block the gene changes driving it. If she’s right a new range of treatment possibilities opens up. Read more…

Have you ever noticed that while trials involving humans frequently show a high fat diet is not harmful, feeding high fat foods to rats and mice usually makes them diabetic and fat? So are high fat diets dangerous or is it that humans are different to rodents? But if it’s due to a species difference, why keep doing the studies and why use this research to advise humans on diet? Shockingly, it is a rigged game.

If you rely on headline news for your latest update on statins and other cholesterol lowering drugs it was good news all the way about the new improved son of statin drugs at the American Heart Association annual conference last month. But if you like your updates unvarnished read Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s telling of the real story behind the hype and the PR. Things nearly went badly wrong for the new arrivals.



Editor: Jerome Burne |

Latest posts by Editorial (see all)

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann