Here we go again. If someone searches for a good example of journalist reporting scientific results in a very wrong why, here it is.<p>Not understanding difference between in vivo and in vitro study, not understanding that there are multiple and easy ways to kill cancer like hammer, fire, road roller, etc.<p>Sad to see another click-bait article since people get convinced that doctors and scientists are promising cure for cancer but are not able to deliver anything, big pharma secretly tries to stop progress and so on.
I wondered if beekeepers are less likely to get cancer and I found this study:
<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/</a><p>> Carcinogenic effects of bee venom were evaluated in a mortality study of 580 occupationally exposed beekeepers. The subjects were identified through obituary notices published between 1949 and 1978 in three journals of the U.S. beekeeping industry. Death certificates of beekeepers were examined for causes of mortality, and proportionate mortality ratios were compared with those for the general U.S. population. Beekeepers had a slightly lower than expected fraction of deaths from cancer. The deficit of lung cancers in male beekeepers was significant (p less than 0.05) and may indicate that fewer beekeepers were cigarette smokers. The frequencies of other cancers did not differ significantly from expectation. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma developed in four persons, and was expected in two. Mortality from diseases other than cancer showed no unusual patterns. At least two persons died from accidents directly related to the care of beehives. Analysis of a subgroup of 377 males with major roles in the beekeeping industry showed no substantial differences in distribution of causes of death. This study of beekeepers reveals neither adverse nor beneficial effects of intense exposure to bee stings.<p>Beekeeping suggests living in the countryside and that correlates with better air quality so lower lung cancer rates aren't that surprising.
I feel a lot of negativity on the comments. Of course these types of news need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I doesn't take the merit of the research away. Also, it clearly states that it's in a lab environment and with mice.<p>These types of news help inspire people to join research/academy and it's the type of things that is always welcome. These findings were probably published somewhere in the academia, but general population doesn't see it.<p>When you say that dynamite also kills cancer cells, I doubt you're ever going to choose dynamite as a cancer treatment in place of other treatments that obviously underwent the same lengthy process of scientific research as this study is beginning it's journey.<p>We need to keep being realistic, as we might never discover a silver bullet for cancer, but it doesn't take any merit away from this research.
Growing up my dad kept about 15 hives. A few farms over there was this old guy from Ukraine who was an amazing bee keeper (had about 50 hives of his own). One day while extracting honey, I watched him pick up a bee and force it to sting him by his thumb (wrist area) and asked why, he told me it was like medicine for arthritis. Perhaps he was onto something?
Netflix has a documentary series called Unwell which dissects these modern "health therapies". They have an episode on Bee Sting therapy, which the documentary does a pretty good job of explaining fairly. I recommend this if you're curious about the state of this practice.<p>Bee venom is a mixture of more than 40 different compounds and its mixture varies a lot from bee to bee. Whatever effect you can get from these compounds would be better served by studying the compounds rather than nature's uncontrolled homogenisation of them.
Context:<p>"Bee venom in cancer therapy" (2011 )<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3" rel="nofollow">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3</a>
The paper [1] <i>Honeybee venom and melittin suppress growth factor receptor activation in HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer</i>:<p>> Here, we demonstrate that honeybee venom and its major component melittin potently induce cell death, particularly in the aggressive triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer subtypes.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0</a>
Bees are very smart their evolution must have been magnificent. I use bees' propolis[1] to treat acne and it works great. Propolis has anti-inflammatory properties.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis</a><p>I'm looking forward to learn more about honey bee venom ability to kill breast cancer cells.
> Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done.<p>Whenever I see this standard disclaimer I replace it with:<p>"Don't stop the gravy train yet!"
Randall Monroe has already covered this:<p><a href="https://xkcd.com/1217/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1217/</a><p>I hope this research leads somewhere but I doubt it will
Garlic found to kill breast cancer cells in vitro.[1]<p>Still looking for analogous headlines with "crucifixes" and "holy water."<p>[1] <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/</a>