this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
521 points (98.7% liked)

Uplifting News

16194 readers
577 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Yet another kills cancer cells. Hey y'all, cancer cells are your own cells, just mutated to grow when they shouldn't. This is not just one type of mutation. There are over 200 that they know of.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/how-cancer-starts/types-of-cancer

There is no universal identifier for all cancer cells. Therefore there is nothing that naturally kills them all.

The only general cure for cancer is to understand the immune system so well you can fine tune it at your discretion, or create a synthetic immune system to do the same. Everything else is just a one off. Still valuable, but not what articles like to claim.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fiery?! Go up in flames? REALLY? I understand this is written for non scientists, .but this was written by the marketing department of Michael Bay's production company.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Each time a cancer cel explodes, a tiny Nicholas Cage leaps heroically through the air just ahead of the blast

[–] __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

Oh, but I was hoping for a tiny Tom Cruise on a little motorcycle

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 89 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

What I want to know is why this compound acts this way on tumor cells and not healthy body cells. Im sure there is an explanation for that given the researchers are publishing its effectiveness, but I wish the article specified.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 77 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You’re assuming that the scientists have figured out why this happens, rather than just that it happens.

There’s plenty of science out there which consists of “oh, hey, look what I just noticed!“ And is just a lot of watching something happen without any explanation for it. That’s why scientists will continue to study this phenomenon until they figure it out. Probably so the company that is sponsoring them can profit from it in some way.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Basically all of astronomy, we have no "why" for any of it.

"Ah, we've deduced that about 27% of the universe is made of.... Dark matter. Don't ask. But more importantly...68% is made of dark energy. Also do not ask."

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 30 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Also, gravity. It's very well understood. Mass exerts gravitational force. Like other things, it moves at the speed of light, and works in waves.

But why does mass exert gravity? NO FUCKING CLUE. Other forces work though electrical charge. But even antimatter exerts positive gravity.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 47 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Pyroptosis is a fiery form of programmed cell death that helps the body fight infections and disease. Unlike regular cell death (apoptosis), pyroptosis is dramatic and explosive—cells swell, burst open, and release inflammatory signals that alert the immune system.

Originally discovered as a defense against bacteria and viruses, pyroptosis has recently become a hot topic in cancer research. That’s because triggering pyroptosis in tumor cells can not only destroy them directly but also rally the immune system to join the attack, essentially turning the tumor into a signal flare for immune response.

Maybe it’s something to do with this.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I think the commenter was wanting to know why the tumor/cancer cells go through pyroptosis in the first place, and not the healthy cells.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MunkyNutts@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago (2 children)

From the research paper (behind the paywall) it appears they only tested cancer cells, shown below, and on mouse models. It's been awhile since I've studied this, so I don't know if the proteins involved are specific to cancer cells or not. If not I'd assume it would kill all cells. With the mouse models I assume they injected directly into the tumor for targeted treatment, but I didn't dive into it that deep.

Paper link: https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1096/fj.202500412R?saml_referrer

2.2 Cell Culture

Human monocyte-like THP-1 leukemia cells (THP-1, THP-1Asc-KO, THP-1Gsdmd-KO, THP-1-Null, THP-1-defCasp1, and THP-1-defNLRP3) [4, 21] were provided by Professor Li Sun's lab (Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao, China), and human liver cancer Huh7.5 cells were maintained in our lab. THP-1 cells and Huh7.5 cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 medium with 10% FBS, 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 μg/mL streptomycin at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator. All experiments were carried out with the same batch of cell lines between passages 2 and 8.

2.15 Xenograft Tumor Mouse Model

BALB/C nu-nu male mice, 4 weeks old, were obtained from Beijing Vital River Laboratory Animal Technology Co. Ltd. (Beijing, China). A total of 3 × 106 Huh7.5 cells were subcutaneously injected into the right fore flank of each nude mouse. The daily drug treatment began when the tumor size reached ~100 mm3 and continued for a further 2 weeks as follows: EPS3.9 (30 and 60 mg kg−1 d−1, intraperitoneal injection) dissolved in assisted solvent (PBS); Control groups were given the same volume of PBS. Body weight and tumor volumes were measured every day with a balance or with a vernier caliper. The tumor volume was calculated with the formula: 1/2 × [length × (width)2]. After treatment for 2 weeks, mice were sacrificed by decapitation and tumor tissues were collected for further analysis.

[–] arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's both amusing and a little disturbing that the term for killing the mice is "sacrifice." I'm now imagining a bunch of researchers dancing around the mice while ritually decapitating them.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not my thought, but coming from my wife:
Maybe because tumor cells use up more energy and with that the sugar?

Edit: just saw that it's already mentioned by another commenter

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

I imagine a lot of what we know now was learned after we realized the benefits of things. I’d give it a few years/decades for researchers to spend time to analyze the data and figure it out.

In the meantime, fuck cancer and hell yes to this deep sea sugar stuff!

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 days ago

The article didn't specify that it doesn't. It also doesn't say if it had to be injected right into the cancer or if there was another means of using it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 3 days ago

Do healthy cells also do this?

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 73 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Sugar cures cancer

That's all I needed to hear! Thanks Science!

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Science also says fake sugar causes cancer, so +2 points for sugar!

[–] VivianRixia@piefed.social 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

To sugar! the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Oh boi, coke just became a health product again. /s

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago

Off to the grocery store!

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Hmmm I've seen this before it only ends 3 ways

Happy ending - we all live cancer free

Status quo - some jerk falsifies data or destroyed source material somehow all in order to prevent us from having nice things and pay more premiums.

Bad end - some sort of pandemic like where we all turn into cats.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Being a cat without humans to cater my every need would suck.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Status quo for sure. What diseases has the human race cured in the last 15 years? Too much money involved keeping people sick.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

how is the last one a bad ending?

[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Imagine all the empty bowls

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

then we assemble hunting parties meow

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I imagine this will be similar to chemotherapy.

As in, it technically affects all your cells, it just happens to affect cancer cells a lot more. In this case, because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.

[–] gndagreborn@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Cancer cells often times lose their ability to perform oxidative phosphorylation. This means they can only rely on glycolysis as a sole source of ATP... This makes them EXCESSIVELY glucose hungry.

It's called the warburg effect. I'd have to read up on it and brush up on biochem, but that's the basic principle.

Essentially, cancer should soak up all the harmful sugar before it hits normal cells. This makes it even safer in theory than traditional chemo like methotrexate and such

[–] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Holy shit Thrive is so good, that I've understood most of your terms. Peak game

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] j5906@feddit.org 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Yup, platinum chemo exists already too.

Still makes one feel really nauseated by the second time

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nikls94@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.

I have absolutely no medical knowledge besides a first aid course. Does that mean that, by not eating any sugars, I could starve cancer cells? So like during keto (I did that years ago before the boom) I actually could have starved a lot of cancer cells?

[–] rain_enjoyer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

no because your liver makes sugars anyway. however there's a more limited, more targeted way to deplete blood of select aminoacids that some cancers can't make (asparaginase can be used this way)

it's one of these things that sound good and doesn't work. many such cases

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 6 points 3 days ago

Kinda yeah, though it is better suited as part of a combination therapy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Yes, certain cancer therapy benefits from a zero sugar, low but high quality carb diet. You'll slow the cancer a lot, and can help prevent it from coming back like that. You'll still need something to kill it though, because your body still produces and needs sugars.

And some are unaffected because they're part of something that can already make or requires sugars, like brain or liver cancers.

[–] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 days ago

Now that's sweet

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I’m always a little skeptical of these claims.

But hey, if we figure out a way to do this in people safely, then cool.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CromulantCrow@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

It's too bad that curing patients is not a sustainable business model. Even if this did work we would only ever see it developed if you had to take it twice a month for the rest of your life in order to survive.

Edit: sorry, I just noticed this is in Uplifting News. So, let's be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse and governments will start trying to take care of people.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're thinking too small. If we cure cancer, everyone can start smoking again. Asbestos is back in business. There are hundreds of industries that would take off immediately. W

The company that would truly suffer is the one that makes those little stickers in California.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] derek@infosec.pub 8 points 3 days ago

Even if so... If this is as effective and safe as it seems then it will get leaked to the public or reversed engineered and then made public. The original paper's abstract says "this active exopolysaccharide is ubiquitous among the genus Spongiibacter" which means it's accessible.

The repression of such a boon could not last long. History has proven the human spirit is nothing if not irrepressible. There are plenty of people capable and motivated enough to run what little information we already have all the way to a consistent home manufacturing solution. Its publication and distribution is another game entirely but I'd bet on the public there as well.

Take a look at the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective for some tangible encouragement. Knowledge is power. Together we can be powerful enough to create what we need to survive. Government buy-in encouraged but optional.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People don't magically stop getting sick just because you can cure them.

[–] CromulantCrow@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let me explain. Our health care industry is part of our (mostly) global capitalist economy. That means investors demand the maximum profit the industry can produce. Imagine that this industry had the choice of providing an inexpensive one-time cure for cancer, or a long-term expensive treatment. Which option would generate the most profit for the industry? It doesn't matter if there are people in the industry who would like to find a simple inexpensive cure. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders, which really means the largest and most ruthless capital owners. If the CEO or any officers approve research on an inexpensive cure that will threaten the profits of the corporation they will be ousted and replaced with someone who "sees the wisdom of using existing proven treatments". So the built-in conflict of interest of a for-profit medical system means we will always be stuck with a system that extracts as much cash as possible from its patients.

Are there alternatives to this approach? Of course, but they depart from a pure capitalist system, and so, at least in the US, we will never see them as long as we accept our current economic structure.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Two things wrong with this:

  1. There's more than one pharmaceutical company. Providing a better cure than your competitors allows you to take their customers. Hence increasing your market share and your profit.
  2. People would be willing to pay more for the one time cure than for the long term therapy. And since the cure is so cheap to make, presumably cheaper than the traditional therapy, the cheap cure can be sold at an even greater profit than the traditional therapy.

You need to remember that the global capitalist economy is not one team.

load more comments
view more: next ›