Like most newspapers we use third party content, with permission. In addition, we pay for syndicated content (mostly health and science, as it is beyond our scope of ability) from AFP. We also have syndication agreements with other partners.

While we do appreciate your comments (assuming they are accurate), we do not rewrite syndicated content. We do, however, remove a syndicated article if it is proven to be erroneous.

The university Nomura works for publishes their research online (implying they have an awful lot of money as even partial open access is very expensive but, anyway..). The paper in question is available in .pdf form from the following website (currently the second down in 2013, by Benjamin et al.); I suggest changing your link as the one you give is protected by a firewall:

http://nature.berkeley.edu/~dnomura/page.php?src=publications

Or here is a ‘layman’s version’ résumé by the university:

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/08/26/ether-lipid-enzyme-aggressive-cancer/

I suggest you do not follow the link to a highly dubious ‘Voice of America’ article that also sells the lipids being proteins thing (saying that, it is clear that your article is a cut and paste job from it).

The academic world takes a dim view on plagarising other people’s work without acknowledging them. Personally, I just take a dim view on people who blindly copy things they clearly do not understand as, far worse than making them cheats, it makes them very stupid. Ignoring my first post further corroborates that idea..

The compounds referred to as ‘ether lipids’ are not proteins. The paper discusses an enzyme involved in their biosynthesis – that is the protein in question.

To claim that they are upregulated in ALL aggressive cancers is a massive over-generalization with no evidence to support it.

Your comment about there being more cell membranes in tumours is one of the most bizarre pieces of fallacious nonsense that I have ever encountered – what are you comparing it to? If I take 10 plates of non-transformed primary cell lines and one of a standard cancer cell line, I will have about 10 times more cell membranes in the non-transformed cells. The issue is with disregulated cell signalling within given cells, not the number of cells per se. As for compounds like cholesterol being ‘nourishing’ – I suggest discussing this with your doctor before you give yourself a heart attack.

Look up SCID mice – they were pretty much bred to develop tumours – that is why they are used as a model. That ‘the rodents quickly developed tumors’ is hardly unexpected.

I could write more but I don’t want to get into the science too much as it is obvious that this was not written by a scientist. I suggest re-writing the article or removing it from a site

As for the paper itself, it is interesting enough although its findings are hardly surprising [i.e. that certain cancers would upregulate a given pathway that increases cellular proliferation and that inhibiting the pathway may reduce tumour size], not immediately clinically relevant [uses cultured cells, immunocompromised mice, etc.]. I struggle to see why a site like this would publish a (badly written) report on it.