Talk:Warburg hypothesis

Confirmation and causation

The claim that this hypothesis has been confirmed by a recent study is not entirely supported by the referenced source. First, it's unclear that the study shows that the metabolic change is the cause of cancer, but it does seem to show that treating the metabolic change can slow growth. Second, the study itself is not an adequate source to determine that the study has been accepted by a scientific consensus; additional sources are necessary to confirm that.

I think it's also a bit confusing to say that this metabolic change is the "primary cause" of cancer. There seems to be ample scientific evidence that inherited genetic traits, acquired mutations, exposure to certain environmental toxins, exposure to certain types of radiation, and exposure to certain viruses, can all cause different types of cancer. See e.g. carcinogen. The question a reader might have, is whether the discovery of carcinogens contradicts Warburg's hypothesis, or if they are simply interpreted as the cause of the metabolic change. -- Beland 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Formulation of the hypothesis

I think the article got it wrong, the original hypothesis does nowhere claim that anaerobia is the cause of cancer, anaerobia is merely an observed fact. From the German article, "Eine Störung der Funktion der Mitochondrien in Krebszellen sei der Hauptgrund für das Auftreten von Krebs" - "a defect in mitochondrial function is the main cause of the occurrence of cancer". Presumably a modern summary of the hypothesis would be that a mitochondrial defect in oxidative breakdown of pyruvate causes evolutionary advantage/pressure for cells with anaerobic metabolism which happens to facilitate tumorigenesis. However I do not have the original article handy to definitely confirm that. Also "mitochondrial defect" can mean any number of things in this context - mitochondria plays a key role in apoptosis as well. Richiez (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richiez "article got it wrong, the original hypothesis does nowhere claim that anaerobia is the cause of cancer". I would prefer "anaerobia is an observed mechanism" rather than "observed fact".

Where I disgee is the emphasis on "anaerobia". Although that all his initial publication showed, he (alteast later) made a clear distinction between simple anaerobia and fermentation (which is anerobic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.229.54 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Searched a bit on medline and to cite on of the articles "there is considerable confusion about what the Warburg hypothesis actually says". So maybe there are 2 or 3 of them.. it would be good if someone with the original paper could transcribe itRichiez (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Page layout

Page needs more formatting, sections, and what not, and the intro should made shorter and a summary. It could also use a formatted section on confirmations and debunkings of the hypothesis and other peer review data2601:600:9100:7FE9:29A2:3F6:D9DF:58E0 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)