Effectiveness of current treatments: Many existing cancer treatments that do not specifically target fungal infections have shown efficacy in treating various types of cancer, which may contradict the theory that fungi are the primary cause [1].
That stands out as strange. The “effectiveness” of current cancer treatments is what led me to search for what is wrong with cancer research.
But don’t we have a bunch of cancer subtypes where we have had drastic treatment improvements in recent years?
Those improvements seem to be arguments against “single cause” approaches (although a particular “single cause” could still dominate a good chunk of the cancer types and could be an important factor almost everywhere).
Why on Earth are you downvoted? Some new norm rule about neural network compilers that people blindly follow?
As a molecular and cellular biologist trained in cancer studies, of the original arguments listed by AI against the theory, no. 6,7,8,11,12 all depend on directly contradicting the theories, not allowing a combination of them, and are thus weak counter points. But all other points discredits the theory on its own merits.
Thanks for the book review!
But don’t we have a bunch of cancer subtypes where we have had drastic treatment improvements in recent years?
Those improvements seem to be arguments against “single cause” approaches (although a particular “single cause” could still dominate a good chunk of the cancer types and could be an important factor almost everywhere).
Why on Earth are you downvoted? Some new norm rule about neural network compilers that people blindly follow?
As a molecular and cellular biologist trained in cancer studies, of the original arguments listed by AI against the theory, no. 6,7,8,11,12 all depend on directly contradicting the theories, not allowing a combination of them, and are thus weak counter points. But all other points discredits the theory on its own merits.