I've read the article you linked. It doesn't even dispute that cancer is not a genetic disease. It just states that - among the myriad genetic mutations that happen in cancer cells - the ones that always happen include mutations that lead to crazily increased cell metabolism.
I mean -- yes? Of course? The crazily-increased-metabolism angl…
I've read the article you linked. It doesn't even dispute that cancer is not a genetic disease. It just states that - among the myriad genetic mutations that happen in cancer cells - the ones that always happen include mutations that lead to crazily increased cell metabolism.
I mean -- yes? Of course? The crazily-increased-metabolism angle had been known since 1927, way before the DNA double helix model was confirmed by W&C. Any "cancer" cell whose mutations do not ALSO increase the metabolism, is unlikely to kill you before your 120th birthday. (and the article claims no different)
The article is rather about shifting the focus of cancer detection, on "traces" that prove some crazy metabolism increases have been going on...
I've read the article you linked. It doesn't even dispute that cancer is not a genetic disease. It just states that - among the myriad genetic mutations that happen in cancer cells - the ones that always happen include mutations that lead to crazily increased cell metabolism.
I mean -- yes? Of course? The crazily-increased-metabolism angle had been known since 1927, way before the DNA double helix model was confirmed by W&C. Any "cancer" cell whose mutations do not ALSO increase the metabolism, is unlikely to kill you before your 120th birthday. (and the article claims no different)
The article is rather about shifting the focus of cancer detection, on "traces" that prove some crazy metabolism increases have been going on...