According to a new(old) study, squeezing breasts can prevent cancer. Yes, really. More specifically, the, ahem, fresh research from UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that mechanical force can stop the rapid growth of cancer cells as well as guide them back to a normal, healthy growth pattern. The findings were presented Monday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco. In the studies, researchers grew malignant breast epithelial cells in a flexible silicone chamber. http://www.businessinsider.com/squeezing-changes-breast-cancer-cells-2012-12
Or You could follow the links to the source(s) Here are their headlines: To revert breast cancer cells, give them the squeeze Uc Berkeley news http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/12/17/malignant-breast-cells-grow-normally-when-compressed/ or: Squeezing Malignant Breast Cancer Cells Could Help Them Return To Normal, Study Says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/squeezing-breast-cancer-cells-compression_n_2323376.html Actually, I had thought that I had toned down their headlines> ,,,eye of the beholder? (sigh)
Ex, grant that a headline alone cannot explain the nuances of a scientific study. It's not supposed to. So Sculptor gave it a headline, and provided, in the body, the information necessary to glean the details . SciFo doesn't exactly have a rulebook about how a post must be written - as long as it's not actually false. Not sure why you're taking umbrage with this.
I don't care what the linguistic argument is, I like it, I will continue practicing on my wife so she stay healthy.
I dislike false claims, that's all. Since the referenced articles specifically contradict the title of the thread, it seems to me the thread title is making a false claim. It's not a huge deal, certainly, but this is just one little example of the way that nonsense gets spread around the internet, when casual readers take in the headline but don't (as we often don't) read the links. Fake news and all that.
Seems obvious . Can't see why anyone would disagree. I certainly clicked on the thread to see if it was true (if I hadn't I would have been left with the impression that it was ). Is that the definition of clickbait? I also note that the OP did not indicate that the quote from the link was in fact a quote and so I assumed it was his own opinion with a link to support it.
from the source: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Shown are fluorescence images of uncompressed (left) and compressed (right) colonies of malignant breast epithelial cells. Compressed colonies are smaller and more organized. (Images courtesy of Fletcher Lab) "Here we show that physical force can play a role in the growth — and reversion — of cancer cells.” Venugopalan and collaborators grew malignant breast epithelial cells in a gelatin-like substance that had been injected into flexible silicone chambers. The flexible chambers allowed the researchers to apply a compressive force in the first stages of cell development. Over time, the compressed malignant cells grew into more organized, healthy-looking acini that resembled normal structures, compared with malignant cells that were not compressed. The researchers used time-lapse microscopy over several days to show that early compression also induced coherent rotation in the malignant cells, a characteristic feature of normal development. Notably, those cells stopped growing once the breast tissue structure was formed, even though the compressive force had been removed. “Malignant cells have not completely forgotten how to be healthy; they just need the right cues to guide them back into a healthy growth pattern,” said Venugopalan." http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/12/17/malignant-breast-cells-grow-normally-when-compressed/ ......................... I had posted in hopes of then witnessing some intelligent conversation about the substance of the experiment. ............................... also see: https://www.ted.com/talks/mina_bissell_experiments_that_point_to_a_new_understanding_of_cancer
Was thinking that bone cancer offered conflict - but then recalled that most bone cancers metastasized from elsewhere.
Ah. I see now. In post 5, Sculptor posted a bunch of headlines from other sources, spreading the same sensationalist idea. I read too quickly, and thought that those titles were actually part of the original article referenced in post 1, implying that Sculptor was simply faithfully repeating parts of the article. Mea culpa.
in the link at the bottom of #13: She is talking about controlling the extracellular matrix (ECM) for controlling cancer see also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24074795 http://jcb.rupress.org/content/196/4/395.figures-only http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.15252/embr.201439246/pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19355975 OK It seems that applying squeezing pressure and having a healthy "normal" ecm have roughly the same results. Now the question. Does that seem a reasonable logical leap?
Does that applies if there is a tumor in the face or any soft tissue , a massage can be applied that will reduce the growth in that particular area , but will spread to some larger area ?
