this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
526 points (98.9% liked)
Uplifting News
16222 readers
357 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yet another kills cancer cells. Hey y'all, cancer cells are your own cells, just mutated to grow when they shouldn't. This is not just one type of mutation. There are over 200 that they know of.
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/how-cancer-starts/types-of-cancer
There is no universal identifier for all cancer cells. Therefore there is nothing that naturally kills them all.
The only general cure for cancer is to understand the immune system so well you can fine tune it at your discretion, or create a synthetic immune system to do the same. Everything else is just a one off. Still valuable, but not what articles like to claim.
I imagine this will be similar to chemotherapy.
As in, it technically affects all your cells, it just happens to affect cancer cells a lot more. In this case, because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.
Cancer cells often times lose their ability to perform oxidative phosphorylation. This means they can only rely on glycolysis as a sole source of ATP... This makes them EXCESSIVELY glucose hungry.
It's called the warburg effect. I'd have to read up on it and brush up on biochem, but that's the basic principle.
Essentially, cancer should soak up all the harmful sugar before it hits normal cells. This makes it even safer in theory than traditional chemo like methotrexate and such
Holy shit Thrive is so good, that I've understood most of your terms. Peak game
Another thrive enjoyer in the wild woohoo!
Yeah I've only just discovered it some months ago and it looks really promising, although it may never be finished, but I'm glad something like this exists
As I said in another comment, does that mean they can’t get energy from ketone bodies?
As a chemist that makes me wonder why they dont wrap the platinum in sugar complexes
Edit: Nevermind, they have: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316670861_GLUT1-mediated_selective_tumor_targeting_with_fluorine_containing_platinumII_glycoconjugates
Yup, platinum chemo exists already too.
Still makes one feel really nauseated by the second time
load more comments
(3 replies)
Because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.
I have absolutely no medical knowledge besides a first aid course. Does that mean that, by not eating any sugars, I could starve cancer cells? So like during keto (I did that years ago before the boom) I actually could have starved a lot of cancer cells?
no because your liver makes sugars anyway. however there's a more limited, more targeted way to deplete blood of select aminoacids that some cancers can't make (asparaginase can be used this way)
it's one of these things that sound good and doesn't work. many such cases
Kinda yeah, though it is better suited as part of a combination therapy.
Yes, certain cancer therapy benefits from a zero sugar, low but high quality carb diet. You'll slow the cancer a lot, and can help prevent it from coming back like that. You'll still need something to kill it though, because your body still produces and needs sugars.
And some are unaffected because they're part of something that can already make or requires sugars, like brain or liver cancers.
Fiery?! Go up in flames? REALLY? I understand this is written for non scientists, .but this was written by the marketing department of Michael Bay's production company.
Each time a cancer cel explodes, a tiny Nicholas Cage leaps heroically through the air just ahead of the blast
Oh, but I was hoping for a tiny Tom Cruise on a little motorcycle
Do healthy cells also do this?
Hmmm I've seen this before it only ends 3 ways
Happy ending - we all live cancer free
Status quo - some jerk falsifies data or destroyed source material somehow all in order to prevent us from having nice things and pay more premiums.
Bad end - some sort of pandemic like where we all turn into cats.
“Bad” end?
Being a cat without humans to cater my every need would suck.
Status quo for sure. What diseases has the human race cured in the last 15 years? Too much money involved keeping people sick.
load more comments
(5 replies)
how is the last one a bad ending?
Imagine all the empty bowls
then we assemble hunting parties meow
Now that's sweet
It's too bad that curing patients is not a sustainable business model. Even if this did work we would only ever see it developed if you had to take it twice a month for the rest of your life in order to survive.
Edit: sorry, I just noticed this is in Uplifting News. So, let's be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse and governments will start trying to take care of people.
You're thinking too small. If we cure cancer, everyone can start smoking again. Asbestos is back in business. There are hundreds of industries that would take off immediately. W
The company that would truly suffer is the one that makes those little stickers in California.
Even if so... If this is as effective and safe as it seems then it will get leaked to the public or reversed engineered and then made public. The original paper's abstract says "this active exopolysaccharide is ubiquitous among the genus Spongiibacter" which means it's accessible.
The repression of such a boon could not last long. History has proven the human spirit is nothing if not irrepressible. There are plenty of people capable and motivated enough to run what little information we already have all the way to a consistent home manufacturing solution. Its publication and distribution is another game entirely but I'd bet on the public there as well.
Take a look at the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective for some tangible encouragement. Knowledge is power. Together we can be powerful enough to create what we need to survive. Government buy-in encouraged but optional.
People don't magically stop getting sick just because you can cure them.
Let me explain. Our health care industry is part of our (mostly) global capitalist economy. That means investors demand the maximum profit the industry can produce. Imagine that this industry had the choice of providing an inexpensive one-time cure for cancer, or a long-term expensive treatment. Which option would generate the most profit for the industry? It doesn't matter if there are people in the industry who would like to find a simple inexpensive cure. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders, which really means the largest and most ruthless capital owners. If the CEO or any officers approve research on an inexpensive cure that will threaten the profits of the corporation they will be ousted and replaced with someone who "sees the wisdom of using existing proven treatments". So the built-in conflict of interest of a for-profit medical system means we will always be stuck with a system that extracts as much cash as possible from its patients.
Are there alternatives to this approach? Of course, but they depart from a pure capitalist system, and so, at least in the US, we will never see them as long as we accept our current economic structure.
Two things wrong with this:
- There's more than one pharmaceutical company. Providing a better cure than your competitors allows you to take their customers. Hence increasing your market share and your profit.
- People would be willing to pay more for the one time cure than for the long term therapy. And since the cure is so cheap to make, presumably cheaper than the traditional therapy, the cheap cure can be sold at an even greater profit than the traditional therapy.
You need to remember that the global capitalist economy is not one team.
completely off topic, but you want to know how effective advertising is? every time i read a sciencific article about something exploding in a dramatic way, like this one, my mind goes 🎵 plop plop fizz fizz 🎵. how many years has it been since that damn ad?
view more: next ›