This just made my day. We are on the cusp of serious changes in how cancer is treated and managed. Lots of trials will be coming once funding is made available.
This is about solid tumors, not CLL, but given the threat of secondary cancers (which I admit without torture that they do worry me), I thought others might find it more than relevant to us and our families as well.
Here's the link to the paper that came out last week:
This a push for following a ketogenic diet to fight cancer. See what the Lancet published from David Robert Grimes a scientist that is known for de-bunking medical misinformation.
I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a preferred source for authoritative information on it's own. However, it is a useful tool to get an overview of the subject as well as different bios on many of the people we may look up. I find that searching the article for controversy and criticisms often points me to something conveniently not brought up in a podcast or a "y_____" type social media sharing platform.
Seyfried's claims about the effectiveness of conventional cancer treatments are not supported by scientific evidence, and other medical professionals have said there is insufficient evidence that ketogenic diets are effective treatments for cancer.[6][7][8]
1. "Steven Bartlett sharing harmful health misinformation in Diary of CEO podcast". Retrieved 2024-12-13.
2. ^ Wilson, Clare (2024-12-13). "Four wildest health claims in Steven Bartlett's Diary of a CEO podcast debunked". The i Paper. Retrieved 2024-12-14.
3. ^ Grimes, David Robert; O'Riordan, Elizabeth (November 2023). "Starving cancer and other dangerous dietary misconceptions". The Lancet Oncology. 24 (11): 1177–1178. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00483-7. PMID 37922928. One especially common variant is the ketogenic diet for cancer, pivoting on the assumption that forced physiological ketosis (a normal response to low glucose availability brought on by fasting or low carbohydrate diets) avoids fuelling cancer. This concept has been taken to extremes by some advocates, who assert that ketogenic diets eliminate the need for chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of ketogenic diets in cancer, with only a few, somewhat biased, clinical investigations, with findings that are distinctly at odds with the more sweeping claims made. [Footnotes included, my emphasis]
Is that your takeaway? A push? I guess you didn't pay attention. A ketogenic diet is not sufficient. Your Grimes link is irrelevant. Did you watch the video or read the paper at all?
Glutamine alone is a sufficient fuel source for cancer cells as they can ferment it even without the presence of oxygen. Is there financial motivation in pushing something anybody can do for free you think? I don't think so. Do you question the integrity of Prof. Seyfried or the world class prof from Budapest? Why would they "push" something they can't make money off of? You seem to have a serious bias here.
Having said that, if you have any relevant beef (be specific please) with any of the claims the prof made in the video or in the paper, I'm all ears because I'm on a quest to learn. I'm not interested in defending any of my current beliefs at all cost. I'm always ready to change any of them in the face of strong evidence.
Hmm, The Lancet a widely accepted Medical Journal is irrelevant, while the largest social media platform is associated with clickbait is somehow honorable and has integrity?
I'll choose my information from a little higher up the tree, thank you very much. I'll leave the low hanging fruit for you. 🙉
Look it is rather simple, you offered a link, I opened it and as is my custom I look up the source person connected with it. If they are known for promoting something that professionals have found to be misinformation, I have the right to decide do I want to bother listening to any other information this person may produce.
Because the gentleman is still talking about dietary nutritional intake in the context of cancer, I don't need to wade through it. One doesn't have to step in animal droppings to figure out they should step around them next time.
Why not take advantage of the whole world wide web, come here where you are welcome for the CLL, and go elsewhere for diet and nutrition topics where you will find like minds.
Limitations
One limitation of our study involved the difficulty in determining the fraction of ATP that was synthesized within the mitochondria from OxPhos or mSLP given the metabolic entanglement of these two ATP sources. Consequently, we used a reductionist approach to evaluate ATP content through mSLP by growing tumor cells in the absence of glucose or by treating them with well-known mitochondrial inhibitors. Although the ETC inhibition that we used in our experimental design (6 hours) was longer than the < 2 hours inhibition times used in most other studies, extended ETC inhibition studies would be warranted to better evaluate the consequences of long-term ETC inhibition on tumor cell growth and viability. Finally, we limit our conclusions only to the mouse and human glioma cell lines that we studied.It is not clear if similar results would be obtained using our experimental design for other cancer cell lines. Comparison of nutrient utilization between syngeneic primary cells and cancer cells of similar cell origin may provide insight into exploitable bioenergetic targets of carcinogenesis. [healthunlocked.com/redirect? [url=https%3A%2F%2Ftandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fful...] [My emphasis]
1. The author admits measurement by reductionist approach is tainted in this case because it is not representative of how the measurement would vary in the macro setting. A little more defined here about reduction in methodology. "There are numerous examples of in vitro experimental observations made with isolated components of cells that are not directly applicable to the physiology of whole organisms]. [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articl...]
2. The paper states it used an unconventional time span for that type of study to better see a reaction; if that reaction cannot take place as to cause an effect in the host it becomes invalid.
3. The paper confesses, that the cells used (mouse and glioma) may have reacted but it says it doesn't mean it will on other cells would perhaps show the same outcome.
Is that enough for you to see that another person may not be inclined to thrill at the information?
"Feel free to comment below", Perhaps you shouldn't invite comments if you're going to take exception to them.
Agree, it's your right to form an opinion on any author and to skip a paper of theirs if you are so inclined. But in that case why assume the author of the post is pushing anything on anyone before you even read/watch it?
If you watched the vid, you know this is a first step on a long road and other cancers will be tested later. Prof. admitted as much. So we'll see where this all leads to.
I don't know why you think processes related to growth of malignant glioma cells would automatically be applicable to CLL. For one thing, most cancers use *glucose* as their main energy substrate, and CLL prefers lipids. Malignant glioma cells aren't the same as chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells.
Regarding this paper, researchers are learning the metabolic pathways used for the disease state, and looking for how the cancerous pathway DIFFERS from normal metabolism. Seeking targets in this manner for drug therapy, is now a main driving force for drug design. Look at CLL; BCL2 is found in cells besides CLL ones, but since CLL ones overexpress BCL2, we can inhibit this site without unduly affecting other cells in most people. Just like we use BTK inhibitors; patients whose CLL over express BTK without becoming resistant, have successful treatment. If side effects are not excessive. They aren't routinely recommending stopping any nutrients that other cells also use. The idea behind identifying a major metabolic pathway, is that they can now zoom in to see exactly what enzymes are involved, if any of these can be inhibited, or if something that's usually found is now blocked. Just stopping the substrate isn't often feasible, with how many different types of cells use the same nutritional building blocks.
We can't deprive ourselves of things normal cells need, that's counterproductive. CLL cells need oxygen too, but we don't deprive ourselves of oxygen in an effort to kill CLL. So if glutamine, which is used for rapidly growing cells in the GI tract as well as elsewhere, helps you, don't stop.
This paper on a different cancer, may not be applicable to CLL.
I’m not even worried about the CLL. Rather any potential secondaries. I am aware CLL operates differently. It’s uncomfortable to think Im providing excess food, in a sense, for something that could develop.
I’m taking 1000-2000mg daily in addition to a typical diet.
Glutamine is the most abundant amino acid in the body, used by a variety of processes. It's thought a "relative" if not actual lack of glutamine contributes to disease process in certain people. Hospital patients in the ICU have lowered levels of glutamine. Studies involving glutamine have mixed results, so there's no "universal" as to whether everyone will benefit. It's like a number of other nutritional guidelines. If you feel/function better with a modicum of extra water, protein, veggies, nuts, whatever...if it's a "real food" component that doesn't cause toxicity (like sugar, rapeseed, blowfish, other non toxic plants or animals/parts) and it helps, it helps. So if you & I find we feel better/have better gut function with a small amount of glutamine, while others don't, so what. We're all different, needing different amounts of building blocks throughout various stages of life and whatever stressors/disease affect us throughout our life,
And if disease in one area is causing a relative nutrient deficiency in another, one generally doesn't decrease the nutrient, one gives extra. If we are emotionally stressed out because we have CLL, our brain may preferentially suck up what glutamine we ingest, leaving our GI system deficient. Emotion stress alone, from the CLL diagnosis, is IMO a reason to consider trying a small amount of glutamine if we also have GI problems. Drugs can affect our gut too; I was one of the unfortunate folk who could not tolerate ibrutinib. My gut didn't normalize after stopping the med, until I added glutamine and a few other "gut friendly" foods. Of course what works for you & I won't likely work for everyone, but if it works for us, why stop? Especially since glutamine is involved in proper CNS function. I could deal with some muscle issues from a relative lack of glutamine, I hate the CNS effects I've gotten since this diagnosis. So I personally am going to continue a modicum of glutamine, since it helps my stomach problems while I am also trying to gain emotional stability.
I think the concerns about "excess food" for secondary cancers relates more to abnormal, excessive inflammatory diets high in sugars/glucose that feed most cancers. Remember, when our bodies are stressed/inflammation exists, we often use up *more* of basic nutrients. We aren't "feeding" disease with solid nutrition. It's the abnormally high ingestion of sugars/chemicals, causing constant inflammation that may pop out as problems in who-knows-what organ system, that concerns me,
Yeah I plan to take it with some caution. Your points I think are valid. There’s actually no study I found that indicated L-Glutamine causes cancer for sure
Are you saying CLL cells use triglycerides as a fuel source preferentially? Is there a source proving that claim without doubt? Most cancer cells use glucose because there is an abundance of it in most cancer patients.
But as the professor says they can survive just as well on glutamine alone.
Anyways I hope that this research will be the foundation of more research in the future that will finally shut the door on the dark ages of chemotherapy treatments.
CLL cells preferentially use lipids instead of glucose per the research covered in this post
healthunlocked.com/cllsuppo... and other references. In contrast, the research you posted about, along with Professor Seyfried's particular cancer interest, is with respect to brain cancer, where brain cells use around 20% of all the glucose our bodies produce for our energy needs.
This was done on glioblastoma cells but the assumption is that other solid tumors are fuelled the same way. That will be tested in trials.
Lipids is a broad term. What lipids fuel CLL cells? Was this proven beyond doubt? I'll have to check where I missed that bit.
For example, taking up cholesterol by CLL cells would be quite understandable. It's a building block and all cancers use it. That's why an early indicator of possible cancer in the body is dropping cholesterol levels for no apparent reason.
Why don't they specify which lipid exactly and how exactly it fuels CLL cells?
Saying it's not sugar therefore it's lipids is not a conclusion we should accept automatically.
Lipids and Their Effects in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
It has been appreciated for many years that lipids have importance in CLL progression and outcomes. Most notably, lipoprotein lipase is a well-known (although not routinely measured clinically) prognostic factor in CLL, with higher levels associated with inferior clinical outcomes.
Metabolism pathways in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articl... (One of the authors is the internationally respected (now retired from M D Anderson, CLL researcher and specialist, Dr Michael Keating, who gave us FCR, the first treatment proven to extend life expectancy with CLL.)
Associations of clinical and circulating metabolic biomarkers with low physical fitness and function in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia
These are all associations. None of them proves that lipids fuel CLL cells. Why? Is it so hard to try to cultivate CLL cells in a dish to find out what exactly fuels them? The way Prof. Seyfried did with glioblastoma cells?
What else applied to the people with high lipoproteins lipase levels who saw poor outcomes? What metabolic shape were they in? Can we assume that insulin resistant obese diabetic sedentary people will see similar outcomes as those who suffer from none of those conditions and are avid sportsmen if the two groups have similar lipoprotein lipase levels? I don't think so. This is like epidemiological studies, which are pretty much useless.
LeoPa, I guess I shouldn't have omitted the reference to the paper behind the first reference I provided. So to correct that, with my emphasis; from the paper Lipid uptake in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
•Low expression of GLUT1 and GLUT3 receptors are observed in CLL.
•Fatty acids are a crucial energy source for CLL cells.
•Delipidation of culture media slowed the proliferation of CLL cell lines.
•Targeting fatty acid utilization in CLL may represent a therapeutic target.
Many cancers rely on glucose as an energy source, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that some cancers use alternate substrates to fuel their proliferation. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is one such cancer. Through the use of flow cytometry and confocal microscopy, low levels of glucose uptake were observed in the OSU-CLL and HG3 CLL cell lines relative to highly glucose-avid Raji cells (Burkitt's lymphoma). Glucose uptake in CLL cells correlated with low expression of the GLUT1 and GLUT3 receptors. In contrast, both CLL cell lines and primary CLL cells, but not healthy B cells, were found to rapidly internalise medium- and long-chain, but not short-chain, fatty acids (FAs).
I hope that is enough of a direct relationship to convince you that Professor Thomas Seyfried's hypothesis about gliomas, particularly glioblastoma (GBM), emphasising a metabolic origin rather than a genetic one, is highly unlikely to be relevant to CLL.
Now we are talking, thank you. Long and medium chain fatty acids as a fuel source. As found in triglycerides. Which are an energy source. Unlike lipoproteins. This brings me back to a previous discussion about this topic. Who's better off if they want to slow CLL progression? Someone with high glucose and high triglycerides levels at the same time? Or someone with low glucose and low triglyceride levels at the same time.
No, but they are cointerindicated if you have low platelets, due to the associated increased risk of bleeding, due to their potential impact on clotting effectiveness. For the same reason, anyone taking a BTKi should be cautious about omega oil supplements, because BTKi drugs also affect clotting effectiveness. That's why it's common to have petechiae and other types of bruising while on BTKis, even with what should be an adequate platelet count.
Researchers have known a few years now that free fatty acids are the preferential fuel source. Which is one reason why many CLL patient's lipid parameters change; the disease itself, as it interrupts normal fatty acid metabolism, can cause changes to various factions' levels/ratios.
"Unlike normal B lymphocytes or other leukemia cells, CLL cells, like adipocytes, store lipids and utilize free fatty acids (FFA) to produce chemical energy"
And this is a prime example of how ingesting "the nutrient" is not driving the disease state. If having an abundance of free fatty acids in our blood was "feeding" our CLL, your variant should be raging out of control, right? But it's not. The fact of a nutrient molecule being involved in a disease process, doesn't automatically mean ingesting "more" or "less" of it, will affect outcomes.
Thank you for the links. I learned a lot today thanks to yours and Neil's links and comments. A few observations from the first article:
"recent studies suggested that the glycolytic pathway is operative in CLL cells from most patients and that CLL cells have the capacity to utilize glucose and produce lactate" - this means CLL cells are fermenting glucose and not oxidizing it, right? Else why would lactate be the byproduct, instead of water and CO2.
"These findings indicate that mitochondrial respiration rate is increased in CLL cells and, as a result, the levels of mitochondria-derived ROS are higher in CLL cells than in normal B cells [44–46]. Moreover, when CLL cells are deprived of glucose their mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation is further increased" - CLL cells oxidize fatty acids but can't oxidize glucose? Why so? Isn't that strange?
"LPL has non-catalytic and catalytic functions. It induces cellular uptake of lipoproteins and prompts the hydrolysis of triglycerides into free fatty acids (FFAs)" - Heureka! It's the triglycerides after all 😀.
"In newly diagnosed CLL patients the levels of cholesterol, high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), very low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (VLDL-C) and triglycerides are relatively low [77], likely because of an increased uptake of cholesterol mediated by LPL." - in my case they were as high as ever. And still are. Go figure.
"Metabolomic analysis of CLL cells identified increased levels of FFAs and triglyceride degradation products," - yep, it's definitively the triglycerides. Hurrah!
I think that's enough of a deep dive today before my head explodes, LOL.
This brings me back to a previous discussion about this same topic and the conclusion that I drew from it.
The patient with lower blood glucose and lower triglyceride levels should perhaps be (don't ask me for proof), at a bit of an advantage when it comes to trying to control their CLL proliferation. How much of an advantage exactly and what it means in absolute terms depends a lot from the specific CLL variety. For some, that advantage will be immaterial in the grand scheme of things, for others, depending from their age and CLL variety it can make the difference between ever needing treatment or not.
We can only try to control our own CLL to some extent if we decide to try, not that of someone else. That's the job of hematologists after all and I don't envy them at all.
Thanks for the effort put into your replies. There's nothing like a good discussion with an intelligent person. That goes for @AussieNeil too.
Edit: I forgot to add. So it's not the cholesterol, which travels on the same lipoprotein molecules as the triglycerides do. Neither it is the lipoproteins themselves. Measuring these isn't important. There will always be enough of them in the blood to perform the functions they need to perform in the body. The focus should be on lowering blood glucose and triglyceride levels. Both can be done with drugs. But there is a better way IMO. You already know which one I mean 😉. And I'm not pushing anything on anyone. I'm just thinking aloud and sharing information.
Perhaps it does, I can't speak about L-Glutamine or GI issues, I have no knowledge of them. I'd run it by a GI doctor and see if it is safe in my oncologist's opinion.🙂
He said it was ok but to be a bit cautious. It helps so much I almost don’t care if it is an issue. I’m taking a few others with it. It’s possible it’s the slippery elm or marshmallow root so I may test to see if I can get away with just those two. Amazing near night and day difference though so I’m not very willing to give it up if it’s key to this relief.
This is evidently another push for following a ketogenic type diet. No evidence for CLL positive impacts. . Not many such positions taken have panned out.
Wrong on all counts. My reply to SparkPlug applies to you too. I bet you never watched the video or read the paper.If you did, you didn't comprehend it.
It's presenting a research result.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm amazed at how quick people are voicing opinions on subject they never cared to study or even read up on.
And if you think you're immune to secondary cancers then good luck to you.
LeoPa, saying "I bet you never read....or if you did, you didn't comprehend it" is indeed rude/snarky. Those sentences served no purpose other than be insulting. We aren't your "buds" in some fraternity house, and sarcasm (if you were aiming for that) isn't really appropriate for a large group of relative strangers. On a written forum, we can only take your words at face value, and "I'm joking/have a dark sense of humor" isn't appropriate here.
You can make your point without being an ass about it, please choose better. If you can't be pleasant, please, at least be neutral.
As you say Leo, this is a research result. Nothing more, nothing less. Is it interesting? Yes. Did I read the article? Yes in part. It’s very heavy duty in parts. Did I listen to the video? Yes.
It generates an interesting hypothesis which no doubt will be scientifically challenged in other quarters especially as it relates to CLL.
This will leave many of our members baffled because your ‘excitement’ hints at some exciting possibility of treatment application to replace conventional CLL treatment. Of course it isn’t and doesn’t at the moment. It’s a research result, nothing more, nothing less.
Make sure you reciprocate on reading compliance and remind yourself of the site posting guidelines which strongly prohibit attempts to veer members away from scientifically validated treatments towards ‘alternative’ therapies.
I’m not closed minded to any theory but a YouTube heading that promises to ‘kill the beast without toxicity’ makes me nervous. I’ll still be taking my Zanubrutinib this afternoon because like most of our members, I’m not sure what I’m expected to do with this alleged ‘revelation’ at this point.
As an aside, your insensitive quip about secondary cancers was offensive. Of course we are all fearful of them. I’ve had one!
"your ‘excitement’ hints at some exciting possibility of treatment application to replace conventional CLL treatment" - you must be joking. I wrote: " This is about solid tumors, not CLL, but given the threat of secondary cancers (which I admit without torture that they do worry me), I thought others might find it more than relevant to us and our families as well."
Am I wrong to assume that I'm talking to grown up people here, with elementary reading comprehension, not 5-year-olds?
"prohibit attempts to veer members away from scientifically validated treatments towards ‘alternative’ therapies." - you are accusing me of something which I did not do and this post did not do or try to do.
If you are as worried about secondary cancers as I am and perhaps more, then you should find this post particularly relevant to you. Because it is about a promising research which in the future will probably put chemotherapy to rest finally. And replace it with less harsh treatments, with cures or at least longer survival rates.
How is it different from any of the posts that focus on research regarding CLL and promising new treatments of CLL in the future?
Leo is it possible for you to respond without personally offensive ‘quips?’. Clearly you intended this for me given the context in which you inserted it.
‘Am I wrong to assume that I'm talking to grown up people here, with elementary reading comprehension, not 5-year-olds?’
You do not have an open licence to be personally offensive regardless of your massive enthusiasm and unwavering beliefs around this whole subject. Any attempt to question or debate or heaven forbid, reject in any way seems to make you verbally lash out and frankly it’s becoming unacceptable.
No Newdawn, you haven't even crossed my mind when I mentioned the secondary cancers.
What did cross my mind is that if and when I need treatment for a possible secondary cancer in the future, then by that time hopefully this research bears fruit and I won't have to undergo chemo but a much less harsh metabolic therapy. We should all hope for that to happen, shouldn't we? See, I'm so self-centered I was thinking about myself. I thought others might be the same way too. Thinking about themselves and their future in the first place.
Show me someone who doesn't get irritated when they are unfairly accused of malicious intent and pushing something when they are only trying to bring attention to new research, which might be relevant to them and others in the group, and I'll show you a saint.
I post a link to research and get attacked for it?
It was your initial wording. I notice you've edited your original post.
Please note, "attacking" would generally be considered an unprovoked/hostile reaction. Your posts often provoke a response in a number of us. Look at your sentence about "am I wrong to assume I am not speaking with adults, but 5 year olds?" Do you fail to see that is rude/hostile/snarky? Insulting? You make a provocative remark/statement, yet are surprised when a response is given?
You've argued logic with me here, several years ago, when you were patently, scientifically, incorrect & making false statements by known scientific agreement, yet refused to accept you were stating falsehoods/making false conclusions. I know I disengaged & ignored you for several months afterwards, it was so upsetting. And I find it difficult to approach your posts with neutrality, after that experience. You've colored my thoughts about your intent, whether that was intended or not. I now tend to think you are more interested in simply provoking a reaction, instead of having a conversation or discussion with opposing viewpoints.
Stop & think of how scientific journals & articles don't start with sensationalistic statements like "Now we know how to kill the beast without toxicity." When you choose to use this type of rhetoric here, people get upset. It's against the guidelines; this isn't Facebook or Reddit where one can post anything they please, in any manner, insulting anyone they want. It's fine to put up articles & videos you think folk might be interested in, but please do so in a factual, unemotional manner. American Society of Hematology articles announcing new breakthroughs don't include statements about how other researchers were stupid to not have considered the authors' theory, or how older research was done by dummies/5 year olds.
Just the facts, ma'am. You can politely say "I disagree" and state valid, medical reasons/links "why" you disagree, instead of choosing to insult others. THIS is the difference. It's not the links/articles per se, it's how you choose to present them/the claims you make about them.
IMO the easiest way to start doing this is to just ask questions when posting this stuff, instead of "making claims". "Hey everyone, I've read this and I think it means X, what do you think?" will likely entice people to read & comment. "Here's a new article about X" without stating your opinion as a medical fact. Please consider it.
Attacking is exactly what happened when I was accused of pushing anything on anyone and of malicious intent with the post, like quipping at anyone trying to offend her (which I'd never do) when I mentioned secondary cancers. How this post could have offended anyone is beyond me.
Isn't it self explanatory that when I write about solid tumor research AND I EVEN SPECIFY IT IN THE POST more people would be the targeted audience than only one person? Aren't we all at risk of developing them? I was sharing information.
"how scientific journals & articles don't start with sensationalistic statements like "Now we know how to kill the beast without toxicity." - that's exactly how they have to start if they want to catch attention and not get lost in the sea of nonsense out there. Strange times we live in. But clickbait titles don't mean the info is not solid, which it is. Look past the title.
Please show me where I insulted anybody. Be specific. The assumption that adults can't comprehend written text and may totally misunderstand it, did not come from me. I was debunking it. Because I was assuming while writing the post that it was not even a possibility.
"You've argued logic with me here, several years ago, when you were patently, scientifically, incorrect & making false statements by known scientific agreement, yet refused to accept you were stating falsehoods/making false conclusions." - no idea what you are referring to. I don't remember any exchange of that kind and certainly not one where I was proven wrong.
"Just the facts, ma'am. You can politely say "I disagree" and state valid, medical reasons/links "why" you disagree, instead of choosing to insult others. THIS is the difference." - totally agree. Now how about everybody sticks to this. People could have said, "Hey, that's interesting and let's hope it will bring better cancer treatments in the future which would benefit everybody, even though it has nothing to do with CLL unfortunately". That would have been a correct answer. I intended to bring some hope to folks and now look at the discussion. Nobody needs to like my stile but I sure stir up emotions.
Who attacked you? I stated the the information was a push for that professor's particular bent. It was not you being rejected, it was that professor.
I understand you express your passions first and then calm down, you do not have to agree with other's reactions, but some of us calmly disagree and give our reasons and then we get passionate if faced with arguing, insulting behavior over our polite refusal. I worked with Eastern Europeans at a multi-national corporation. So, I expect it, I knew you'd boil like a tea kettle but eventually you come around with SofiaDeo and AussieNeil.
Don't ruin it with Newdawn, she told you what offended her - apologize and move on, now we get back to work. 😐🤝🙂
I forgot, Sorry if I took offense where there was none. I thought you meant I was trying to push something. If that something was information then I'm guilty😁. You're right, differences in culture do matter. They can even lead to misunderstanding. What to do about it I don't really know, other than clarifying intentions back and forth like we do now.
You were right! 😀 The comment section is very interesting too. I learned a lot today. It was definitely worth posting this and then discussing it with everyone.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
New Dana Farber Research 
mRNA vaccine research actually began in 1961
Protection of blood cancer patients in the U.K. charity Blood Cancer U.K. also respond 
