8 thoughts on “Microsoft’s Cancer Cure”

  1. This would all be nice if genetics were a factor in cancer. However, I no longer believe that is the case. If our nutritional paradigm is wrong, I ‘m sure our cancer paradigm is wrong.

    Dr. Seyfried has ample evidence to show cancer is a metabolic disease, which has been a competing theory for quite some time. If so, we are spending billions on the wrong cure–but that doesn’t surprise me anymore.

    1. There are some genetics involved, but that doesn’t mean all cancer is related to genetics. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet

      People used to think cancer was a modern affliction but then evidence popped up that cancer existed in ancient Egypt and now we know cancer predates modern humans, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/oldest-human-cancer-disease-origins-tumor-fossil-science/

      The op-ed make a good point about how cancer is a very individual thing. Treatment is different depending on the person and the same is probably true for why they have cancer.

      1. I am certainly not an expert and am just parroting Dr Seyfried:

        If metabolism is the key, then all cancers are the same. Dr Seyfried states that the mitochondria, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with energy and this causes the cell to revert to a time before oxygen was used as a source. It uses fermentation as fuel. It then behaves as a cell did 3.5 billion years ago.

        What I find interesting is that they took a damaged cell nucleus and put it in a healthy cytoplasm. The nucleus reverted to a healthy stage. They also put a healthy nucleus in a damaged cytoplasm and the nucleus became cancerous.

        1. Hmm, that is interesting.

          Dietary changes are often suggested as a way to help fight off cancer, especially avoiding sugar which causes tumors to grow faster.

  2. Well this is Microsoft we are talking about. The kings of vaporware. Also I don’t know who they claim is working on this. But if it’s Microsoft Research expect with 99% certainty for it never to get anywhere. MR is where researchers go to die. It’s like a collection of failed has greats.

  3. Those surface pros look cool but the way the company operates has been a major turn off. Too many horror stories, some first hand, about their malwaresqu installation practices.

    This article makes me wonder how Microsoft plans to make money off this and screw people over.

Comments are closed.