SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Prof. David Ma has discovered that marine-based omega-3s are eight times more effective at inhibiting tumour development and growth.
"This study is the first to compare the cancer-fighting potency of plant- versus marine-derived omega-3s on breast tumour development," said the professor in the Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences. "There is evidence that both omega-3s from plants and marine sources are protective against cancer and we wanted to determine which form is more effective."
[...] Published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, the study involved feeding the different types of omega-3s to mice with a highly aggressive form of human breast cancer called HER-2. HER-2 affects 25per cent of women and has a poor prognosis.
[...] Ma found overall exposure to marine-based omega-3s reduced the size of the tumours by 60 to 70 per cent and the number of tumours by 30 per cent.
However, higher doses of the plant-based fatty acid were required to deliver the same impact as the marine-based omega-3s.
Source: https://news.uoguelph.ca/2018/01/choose-omega-3s-fish-flax-cancer-prevention-study-finds/
Journal Reference: Jiajie Liu, Salma A. Abdelmagid, Christopher J. Pinelli, Jennifer M. Monk, Danyelle M. Liddle, Lyn M. Hillyer, Barbora Hucik, Anjali Silva, Sanjeena Subedi, Geoffrey A. Wood, Lindsay E. Robinson, William J. Muller, David W.L. Ma. Marine fish oil is more potent than plant based n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the prevention of mammary tumours. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.12.011
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:54AM (8 children)
Define "traditional medicine".
Trepanation, heroin to treat children's coughs and colds, lobotomy, phrenology, female hysterical neurosis, seem to have fallen by the wayside, yet they were all considered to be mainstream, medical treatment in the past two hundred years.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:18AM (7 children)
Meh, I pray to the alter of science. That means modern medicine, even though it's not perfect and mistakes will be made at times. At least I know that it's the best that science has to offer _at this time_.
ObXKCD: https://xkcd.com/836/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:25AM (5 children)
i think if we are deifying science, we run the risk of running into ideology. Scientists often fall into the trap of becoming attached to their own ideas, and the anathema of evidence based practice is the apotheosis of science into scientism.
be careful what you worship, and which altar you pray to, even if it has the dressing of science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)
LOL! I always chuckle when people say "Don't trust science", yet are ignorantly blind that science gave them everything to live in this comfortable, wonderful, & easy modern world.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @06:16PM
My first response was to an AC that mentioned their claim that they'll stick with "traditional medicine". my comments were directed to the fictional construct of "traditional medicine".
My second response was directed to the poster that claimed they worship the alter(sic) of science". I pointed out the hazards of worshiping science as an ideology. i expressed no doubt in science; rather reinforcing the second responder's point that science is fallible. feel free to laugh, but it's likely you're caricaturizing my replies rather than wanting to engage with them.
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 01 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)
If scientists fall into the trap of becoming attached to their own ideas, despite strong evidence that points to those ideas being false, then they have, in as far as they do so, stopped doing science and stopped being scientists. Science works by testing theories against evidence, and goes where the evidence leads, and if they aren't doing evidence-based practice then what they are doing is not science, by definition.
This is the true test of a scientist: ask them what it would take to make them change their minds about something. A scientist will be swayed by evidence and arguments from evidence. In contrast, nothing will sway an ideologue.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:20PM
You are being a bit naive. Scientists are people, too, with all the human frailties - ambition, career concern, economic concern, human relations, jealousy, etc.
Bet on science (i.e., empirical verification), not scientists.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:54PM
I agree with this - Scientists must be extremely comfortable when they are wrong, as it should happen continuously and on a daily basis. It's called "research" for a reason. Scientists should always be willing to throw out ideas when the data does not support them. As you point out, nothing sways the ideologue. When the previous poster suggested he "prays" to the "alter of science", i felt we crossed from data analysis and into ideology.
I think, however, the AC's and the posters that are responding in this subthread actually all more-or-less agree, but the semantics of religious ideology seemed a bit over-the-top for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:24PM
People should still wait for clear scientific consensus before reaching a conclusion, however. One or even several studies are not enough.