Air pollution cancer breakthrough will rewrite the rules

"Researchers say they have cracked how air pollution leads to cancer, in a discovery that completely transforms our understanding of how tumours arise.

The team at the Francis Crick Institute in London showed that rather than causing damage, air pollution was waking up old damaged cells.

One of the world’s leading experts, Prof Charles Swanton, said the breakthrough marked a “new era”.

And it may now be possible to develop drugs that stop cancers forming."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-62797777

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/20…-cancer-study/

Follow up work from Prof Swanton. :clap:

Follow up on the work Hippocrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory

I'll consider using miasma as metaphor for ionizing radiation.

I know for a fact miasma is a reason I stay away from polluted air .

7 years prior equates to follow up?

The truth is that the concept of triggers being switched on in cancer is not a novel one but the genomic project has helped identify targets for future therapies, the interleukin-1β finding referenced in the article is very interesting for example yet years later there is no unanimity on inhibitors for this pro-inflammatory cytokine being an effective target in any cancer. Not the breakthrough claimed yet

Of course, it also is considered in COVID treatment now too which suggests this remains an approach to target reduced inflammation rather than a medical breakthrough for any particular indication

The link on how a great number of patients who have never smoked yet are susceptible to lung cancer based on PM triggers will be difficult to confirm yet it will likely guide another pathway to drug development for cancer preventative therapies

This. Look how long it's taking for scientists to find targets for the 'amyloid beta/tau protein tangles' concepts in AD. It's been 40 years an we're still not there, despite the fanfare (and spectacular crash) of several companies. Cortex Pharmaceuticals, anyone?

Follow up as in the ongoing study (currently 7 years)

The quoted 'follow-up' article is time stamped 7 years earlier than the initial referenced 'breakthrough'

If you had a follow up medical appointment, could it be 7 years earlier than that appointment you are following up? Do you own a Delorean by any chance?

Pretty sure the timeline is obvious....

If I also wanted to be a pedant, I could point out the time stamp of the initial referenced ‘breakthrough’ article...

“Cancer rules rewritten by air-pollution discovery

Published

10 September” , is not valid..

“Do I own a Delorean?” ..I don’t know.. I may do , but in the future.. and if so, I’ll be sure to follow up .. pop back in time ( using correct timestamp) .. and let you know.

Lets move on shall we 👍👍