squeezing breasts can prevent cancer.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sculptor, Sep 23, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Actually the study specifically states that squeezing breasts is NOT a therapy for cancer.
     
    origin likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    ergo the link
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    But not, apparently, ergo the false claim you chose as the title of the thread.
     
    origin likes this.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    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)
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    You did the opposite, of course.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,277
    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.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    I find that surprising.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,277
    You find it surprising that I'm not sure why he's taking umbrage?
     
  13. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    I don't care what the linguistic argument is, I like it, I will continue practicing on my wife so she stay healthy.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    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.
     
  15. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    591
    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.
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    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
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,464
    Was thinking that bone cancer offered conflict - but then recalled that most bone cancers metastasized from elsewhere.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,277
    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.
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    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?
     
  20. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    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 ?
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,528
    I do not know.
     

Share This Page