Slashdot Mirror
Gut Microbes Combine To Cause Colon Cancer, Study Suggests (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): Two types of bacteria commonly found in the gut work together to fuel the growth of colon tumors, researchers reported on Thursday. Their study, published in the journal Science, describes what may be a hidden cause of colon cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States. The research also adds to growing evidence that gut bacteria modify the body's immune system in unexpected and sometimes deadly ways. The findings suggest that certain preventive strategies may be effective in the future, like looking for the bacteria in the colons of people getting colonoscopies. If the microbes are present, the patients might warrant more frequent screening; eventually people at high risk for colon cancer may be vaccinated against at least one of the bacterial strains.
Two types of bacteria, Bacteroides fragilis and a strain of E. coli, can pierce a mucus shield that lines the colon and normally blocks invaders from entering, the researchers found. Once past the protective layer, the bacteria grow into a long, thin film, covering the intestinal lining with colonies of the microbes. E. coli then releases a toxin that damages DNA of colon cells, while B. fragilis produces another poison that both damages DNA and inflames the cells. Together they enhance the growth of tumors. Not everyone carries the two types of bacteria in their colon. Those who do seem to pick up microbes in childhood, where they simply become part of the diverse mass of bacteria in the intestinal tract -- the so-called microbiome.
Two types of bacteria, Bacteroides fragilis and a strain of E. coli, can pierce a mucus shield that lines the colon and normally blocks invaders from entering, the researchers found. Once past the protective layer, the bacteria grow into a long, thin film, covering the intestinal lining with colonies of the microbes. E. coli then releases a toxin that damages DNA of colon cells, while B. fragilis produces another poison that both damages DNA and inflames the cells. Together they enhance the growth of tumors. Not everyone carries the two types of bacteria in their colon. Those who do seem to pick up microbes in childhood, where they simply become part of the diverse mass of bacteria in the intestinal tract -- the so-called microbiome.
Seriously, it seems like everything we see and do, eat and drink or come into contact is both linked to causing and preventing cancer. Heck, every other week they say that any amount of red wine causes cancer, then the following week, "a glass a day keeps the cancer away". It is likely they have no fucking idea what causes or prevents cancer.
On a side note... those gut critters are super important. Many years ago during my military service, I had gotten a pretty strong bug while in the middle east. To remedy this, the military doc gave me very powerful antibiotics. It did kill the bug, but it also destroyed my digestive system. Also these years later there are many foods, including all dairy products which I am no longer able to eat.
Military docs are the best!
You are describing a social system that is "amazing". Science gives you the tools, if you hand those tools to profit-driven psychopaths, that's not the tool's fault.
Pretty much this. Most of our advancements in medicine are screwed up by for-profit insurance companies. We all have to appear to be perfect in every way these days even when that perfection is an absolute lie. You can't outright lie to an insurance company, but what you can do is not get tested for things that you know are going to be risks. That way there's no record of it. I'm trying to figure out how this strategy, while rational from a market perspective, actually helps anybody. It's time we figure out that the motivations of a capitalist market are incompatible with the motivations of people seeking to be healthy and doctors seeking to keep them that way.
No, this isn't a socialist post: it's simply a recognition, foreign to way too many, that health care does not obey the fundamental tenets of a free market--the very first of which is that nobody is compelled to buy or sell. There are certain health conditions you damned well are compelled to buy services and products to deal with. Nobody who says they want to fix the system ever seems to want to deal with that. Socialists don't know how to control costs, and capitalists don't want to control costs. Meanwhile, people suffer either way.
Hey guys, if you don't get enough fiber, your microbes can turn on you:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
And if you eat the typical American diet, you ain't getting much fiber. Also, for you paleo eaters, actual paleolithic eaters got a pile of fiber every day.
Recommended reading for your microbes eating you: Undoctored, by Dr. William Davis.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
When reading this article please keep in mind that the study applies to persons with a particular genetic disease called Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (or FAP, huhuhu). Applicability to the general population is uncertain, though the biological mechanism is fascinating.
Insurance companies in the US now can't refuse to issue or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. As well, they must, in general, pay out 80% of the premiums they collect in claims and, if they pay out less than 80%, must rebate the difference to their policy holders. This leaves up to 20% of premiums for administrative costs (claims processing and validation, customer service, statements, payment processing, leases, utilities, facilities), marketing (including negotiating with providers) and sales, and profit.
It's pretty hard to blame insurance companies for much since the imposition of the PPACA and, at most, you can only blame them for LESS than 20% of the cost. Remember that Medicare and Medicaid which have virtually no marketing costs and no profit motive and have the power of government to coerce private providers to accept their terms unilaterally still have administrative costs. Although proponents of Medicare sometimes assert that its overhead is only 2% vs. private insurers 15-20%, that analysis has some serious flaws.
Also, many (perhaps most -- although the more sophisticated providers have learned how to game the Medicare system to maximize payments -- sometimes with ridiculously inefficient tricks) medical providers can't survive on Medicare, let alone Medicaid, payments alone which is why many practices limit in some way the number of such patients they accept. What this means is that some percentage of private insurance money is subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid.
For example, there is one procedure that most healthy people will have once a year that my provider bills $150 for, my insurance knocks it down to a negotiated rate of $79 and Medicare either pays nothing for (claiming it is bundled with other related services) or about $15 (if it truly is provided in an "unbundled" situation). The actual cost to the provider is almost certainly well below the $79 and above the $15 price points.
Another example is that experienced by someone I know who transitioned to Medicare from employer insurance. On employer insurance, they went in for some routine office visits for a particular (non life threatening and more just annoying) medical condition and saw the doctor, they talked, the doctor did an exam and the visit was over and the provider got something like $150 or so negotiated rate from the insurer. Immediately upon transitioning to Medicare, the entire experience changed -- the doctor still saw the patient but for a bit less time, but then a lower skilled person (I don't think they were even a PA) spent much longer with the patient. The doctor only collected about $30 for the visit, but the whole package ended up through some clever billing, ended up costing Medicare about $150 still but was much less efficient for all involved.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading