
Honey bee venom found to kill breast cancer cells - L_226
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-01/new-aus-research-finds-honey-bee-venom-kills-breast-cancer-cells/12618064
======
piokoch
Here we go again. If someone searches for a good example of journalist
reporting scientific results in a very wrong why, here it is.

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.

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.

~~~
mikece
I wish I could up-vote this 1000x. Scientific literacy is beyond lacking these
days, and the number of people who even know what "in vitro" or "in vivo"
actually means is even more staggering. My favorite are the people/groups who
tout the toxicity of products like Roundup to skin tissue in an in vitro
experiment, completely overlooking the fact that the surfactant used in
Roundup to make glyphosate stick to a plant so it can be absorbed causes
chemical burns to the skin if you pour it on and leave it on... which, in
vitro, kills skin tissue. All of which says nothing of the toxic effects to
human stomach enzymes of plants which have absobed glyphosate. But hey, it's a
headline on which people will click...

Perhaps even more staggering is the illiteracy of people regarding the field
of statistics. I have read that epidemiologists are constantly having to
explain the statistics of their findings to MDs who know medicine but not
statistics. If medical doctors are stumped by the language and rules of
statistics I don't expect news editors or presenters to do any better with it.

~~~
ddek
On ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’. Maybe we’d have more success communicating this
difference if we didn’t expect the layperson to know jargon? Yes, it’s two
words, but they’re pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.

~~~
kryogen1c
I dont know why youre getting downvoted, the latin-rich terminology in
medicine is pompous and unnecessary. if you want to learn anything about your
own body, you better have a dictionary.

decompress a tension pneumothorax to prevent obstructive shock? depends on
which site is cirucumstantially advantageous (midclavicular or midaxiallary),
but generally involves palpating to locate the correct intercostal region.
need a catheter of sufficient french.

or

if someone's chest is filling with air and crushing their organs, you have to
find the correct space between ribs by touch. use a big needle. if the front
of their chest is blocked, you can go in under the armpit.

give me break.

~~~
fungos
> I dont know why youre getting downvoted, the latin-rich terminology in
> medicine is pompous and unnecessary.

C'mon! This may seems true for english speakers and non-romance languages. But
I as a non-english native speaker, can say exactly the same about CS
terminology! It is just too pompous and unnecessary, as it will in almost any
other non-germanic/anglic language.

------
ajuc
I wondered if beekeepers are less likely to get cancer and I found this study:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/)

> 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.

Beekeeping suggests living in the countryside and that correlates with better
air quality so lower lung cancer rates aren't that surprising.

------
luizfzs
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.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
klyrs
It's sad to see the lack of intellectual curiosity throughout the comments
here. Some folks are bashing their strawman interpretations of the headline,
others are complaining about scientists using precise language, while others
frame scientists as money-grubbing. I guess this is what programmers do to
make themselves feel better.

I've lost 6 family members to cancer, and have two cancer survivors in my
family. The survivors are still around because they were young when they got
sick, and because there were many possible treatments. Hopefully, this will
end up in the arsenal of potential treatments to fight cancer.

------
hourislate
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?

~~~
comedowntous
One of the episodes of the Netflix documentary series "Unwell" gives a very
interesting overview of bee sting therapy. One doctor talks about its
effectiveness against arthritis, because the body releases cortisol and
analgesics in response to the bee venom, which explains why people with
arthritis feel better.

However, the next point made is that a more straightforward way to achieve a
similar result would of course be to inject the cortisol directly, instead of
provoking this response by the body by injecting toxins first.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Yup, at its charitable best, it's chewing on willow bark instead of taking an
aspirin.

------
jbob2000
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.

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.

~~~
Valgrim
It seems that's exactly what the researcher has done:

"She said a component of the venom called melittin is what had the killing
effect.

The researchers reproduced the melittin synthetically and found it mirrored
the majority of the anti-cancer effects of the honeybee venom."

"It effectively shut down the signalling pathways for the reproduction of
triple-negative and HER2 cancer cells."

------
pella
Context:

"Bee venom in cancer therapy" (2011 )

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3)

------
sradman
The paper [1] _Honeybee venom and melittin suppress growth factor receptor
activation in HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer_ :

> 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.

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0)

------
mrkramer
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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis)

I'm looking forward to learn more about honey bee venom ability to kill breast
cancer cells.

~~~
muzika
Propolis ethanol tincture is great for all sorts of wounds, cuts, and
especially burns. Amazing stuff. Nothing works better to get burns to heal
faster.

~~~
mindfulhack
Yes, many chemically simple or highly unprocessed substances from nature which
are able to be harvested or produced by people who are not corrupt billion
dollar chemical companies work. It's great. It's also usually better for the
environment.

One I often use is colloidal silver. Basic but powerful antibacterial. Helps
skin cuts heal faster simply due to killing bacteria on the surface which
undermine the skin's natural wound healing process. It's not magic, it's just
basic science.

------
838hhh
> 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.

Whenever I see this standard disclaimer I replace it with:

"Don't stop the gravy train yet!"

------
0xdada
... in mice

~~~
mikece
Mice are used for medical testing of drugs all the time. A friend of mind who
is both an MD and a PhD toxicologist tried to explain to me once why mice are
ideal for testing drugs that could be used some day in humans but I sorta
zoned out after five minutes (it was a social setting and I might have been
drinking something if memory serves). When a study can be replicated and show
statistically significant results then the study is moved to more "human like"
subjects but when it comes to the way cancers and tumors work it's apparently
99.999% the same in mice as in humans.

------
hvs
Obligatory XKCD 1217: [https://xkcd.com/1217/](https://xkcd.com/1217/)

~~~
Sandman
Also, obligatory SMBC: [https://www.smbc-
comics.com/comic/2009-08-30](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30)

------
valuearb
Honey bee venom kills cells.

------
rgmmm
Sunlight kills cancer too when you focus it through a magnifying glass onto
cells in a petri dish.

~~~
grugagag
It kills other healthy cells as well. If you work hard enough it kills
everything

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm sure you'd find that it's much the same with Honey bee venom.

~~~
grugagag
I don’t know about bee venom but concentrating light rays aka burning does the
job pretty well

------
viggity
so does dynamite.

~~~
Valgrim
It seems that the compound target specifically cancer cells:

"The research showed a specific concentration of the venom killed 100 per cent
of triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells within
60 minutes, while having minimal effects on normal cells."

~~~
imtringued
Is there a physical difference between normal and cancer cells? Are cancer
cells bigger than normal cells and therefore more susceptible to venom?

------
mrosett
Randall Monroe has already covered this:

[https://xkcd.com/1217/](https://xkcd.com/1217/)

I hope this research leads somewhere but I doubt it will

------
legerdemain
Garlic found to kill breast cancer cells in vitro.[1]

Still looking for analogous headlines with "crucifixes" and "holy water."

[1]
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/)

