kayumochi
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2015
- Messages
- 376
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Aw so cute. They try so hard. lol
Even one of the early sentences is conveyed in such a way that is misleading.
"Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth."
They haven't clarified anything actually. And they admit it! At the end of the article:
"However, the findings are not sufficient to identify the primary cause of the Warburg effect."
It's more hyperbole at best, to say things like "sugar awakens cancer cells" conveys a misunderstanding as to what cancer is. As if they are these evil groups of cells, lying in wait for the right moment to "wake up and mobilize," it's comical actually. The article basically, in a round about way is trying to give a grain of truth through obfuscation. OK here it is, the Warburg Effect, as if that's news. Lactic acid. OK, there's a good piece of the puzzle. But they chase their tail, they don't address anything. And they want to say (skipping over metabolic derangement, specifically how sugar is handled), that sugar must be the culprit based on effects that start with sugar, and that's just unwise. What's the alternative? Don't have any sugar at all? Very well. Derange the metabolism even further, perpetuate more issues down the road.
They haven't clarified a thing. They in fact missed the entire picture and are simply talking in circles. When you start seeing them addressing the deranged metabolism then
you'll know they are starting to scratch the surface.
Aw so cute. They try so hard. lol
Even one of the early sentences is conveyed in such a way that is misleading.
"Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth."
They haven't clarified anything actually. And they admit it! At the end of the article:
"However, the findings are not sufficient to identify the primary cause of the Warburg effect."
It's more hyperbole at best, to say things like "sugar awakens cancer cells" conveys a misunderstanding as to what cancer is. As if they are these evil groups of cells, lying in wait for the right moment to "wake up and mobilize," it's comical actually. The article basically, in a round about way is trying to give a grain of truth through obfuscation. OK here it is, the Warburg Effect, as if that's news. Lactic acid. OK, there's a good piece of the puzzle. But they chase their tail, they don't address anything. And they want to say (skipping over metabolic derangement, specifically how sugar is handled), that sugar must be the culprit based on effects that start with sugar, and that's just unwise. What's the alternative? Don't have any sugar at all? Very well. Derange the metabolism even further, perpetuate more issues down the road.
They haven't clarified a thing. They in fact missed the entire picture and are simply talking in circles. When you start seeing them addressing the deranged metabolism then
you'll know they are starting to scratch the surface.