[HN Gopher] Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?
___________________________________________________________________
Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?
Author : v4dok
Score : 212 points
Date : 2022-09-09 09:45 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| NhanH wrote:
| I can't find a source with the full paper at all. And I'm
| guessing that's why there is no comment here.
| posterboy wrote:
| This is the source, the full article costs only $99 on a
| journal subscrption, all expenses paid by a university near you
| in case you have access
| wongarsu wrote:
| If it isn't on sci-hub, does it even exist? (/s)
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| If we're going to throw out random theories for the cause like
| diet and pollution, what about all the volatile chemicals off-
| gassing from freshly manufactured goods?
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| Or long-term side-effects of medication, food-trends, or lack
| of exercise?
| nativespecies wrote:
| My pet theory is plastics/microplastics. We're seeing now just
| how prevalent they are (and how inside of us they are, too).
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| To be fair, I don't think those are random theories. There's
| plenty of research on the ill effects of (bad) diet, pollution,
| etc.
|
| But yeah, volatile chemicals are a form of hyper-local
| pollution. Perhaps less proof ATM, but close enough to regular
| (?) pollution to want to avoid it. Err to the side of caution,
| not to the side of cancer.
| Jill_the_Pill wrote:
| I also wonder about exposure in youth to nuclear weapons
| testing fallout. That might show an identifiable spatial or
| temporal pattern, maybe falling off in more recent years and
| clustered among downwinders worldwide.
| kaba0 wrote:
| I don't know, radiation is very easy to measure, has a very
| well-understood effect (the previous century was pretty much
| about getting to learn _every_ interaction of radiation and
| the human body), and I don't think that those fallouts even
| measurably increase radiation level compared to the usual
| background one.
|
| In short, radiation either has an immediate, very apparent
| and deadly effect, or a simple stochastic one that basically
| linearly increases with radiation exposure.
| ectopod wrote:
| It's not the environmental radiation that's the problem,
| it's ingested isotopes. See e.g. strontium and leukaemia.
| Fezzik wrote:
| This is known issue, at least of late. There was a recent
| article posted here (can't find it right now on mobile) about
| how that New Car Smell is caused, to some degree, by known
| carcinogens.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Well, what isn't a carcinogen? That word gets thrown around
| way too much -- most food items we regularly eat contains
| several carcinogens, but besides increasing the statistical
| chance of cancer they are not imminently dangerous without
| further clarification on the metric of the effect.
| poxrud wrote:
| Yep, I recently found out that drinking very hot tea or
| coffee can be carcinogenic. This is the only way that I
| like to drink these beverages.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Due to the containers
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| And due to the heat
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| Sad, that smell is amazing
| rlt wrote:
| Getting an air quality monitor was enlightening and terrifying.
| My child's room (which unfortunately doesn't have great
| ventilation) would sometimes hit 4000 ppb VOCs, which I tracked
| down to some of her stuffed animals...
| NullPrefix wrote:
| You could try running a cycle in the dryer with those stuffed
| animals. Maybe the dryer filter would pick up something.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Ventilation got worse in the 70s as there was a big push to
| eliminate leaks in houses to improve HVAC efficiency.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Still not sure how post-Covid, we haven't concluded that
| improving indoor ventilation should be a massive public
| health priority.
| dan_quixote wrote:
| Because it's difficult. How do you solve for this problem
| in a house without internal ducting in temperature extremes
| throughout the year?
| rendang wrote:
| I'm curious, how long has ventilation ducting been part
| of housing codes, in other words how old are houses that
| have that problem?
| parkingrift wrote:
| Many (most?) houses in the north/north-east do not have
| ducts. It's very rare for me personally to come across
| central air in the NY area.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Seems like there'd be a lot of tension between that goal,
| and reducing energy use.
| meatmanek wrote:
| It's not 100% solvable, but it's possible to recover a
| lot of the thermal energy of the air you exhaust and put
| back into the air you're intaking:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Can you recommend a product?
| rlt wrote:
| I have an older generation Awair. It's a little expensive
| but I like it.
|
| I also have a couple different Austin Air purifier models.
| Also expensive but seems to work well.
| colordrops wrote:
| Which monitor do you use?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I actually wonder if viral epidemics are to blame? Increased
| air travel means rare viruses can become widespread.
| swayvil wrote:
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| Impossible. It is safe and effective.
| coding123 wrote:
| It is telling that people are unwilling to even talk about
| that. Telling that people fall off science for their
| political ideologies.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| It's telling that people can't help but bring up some
| very-recent thing they're upset about for dubious
| reasons, when commenting on an article discussing a trend
| going back _decades_. People are "unwilling", in this
| thread, because it's _irrelevant_.
|
| Unless we're going for "all vaccines cause cancer", but
| from the context ("that vaccine", "It is safe and
| effective.") it seems we're talking about the Covid-19
| vaccines. So, irrelevant. Whether they do or don't
| increase cancer risk (or even if they _decrease_ it,
| which is also possible) has no bearing on the topic at
| hand.
| swayvil wrote:
| This vaccine is special, as we all know.
|
| And it's a possible cause that I offered. The parent was
| proposing a list. I added to it.
|
| And now I have been censored. Insane.
| thombat wrote:
| The article being discussed starts with these words "Over
| the past several decades", and you suggest as a cause a
| vaccine that the general public wasn't exposed to just
| two years ago. You're not being censored, you're
| receiving feedback that you did a dumb.
| oxff wrote:
| U relax the Malthusian selection, u get side effects, simple as.
| honkler wrote:
| this. It's because of mutational load of not letting darwin do
| its thing
| irrational wrote:
| I feel like there has been a great increase in mental health
| issues: anxiety, depression, etc., especially among youth. I
| don't recall these being major issues from when I was a youth in
| the late 80s and early 90s. I'm told that I'm wrong and people
| just didn't talk about it so I wasn't aware of it. But even
| amongst close family members and friends it wasn't a thing. Now,
| I've seen some claim it is the post 9/11 world or social media,
| but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed to
| more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to early
| onset cancers.
| some_random wrote:
| We know for a fact that social media causes these issues,
| thanks to the leaking of internal Facebook documents to the
| WSJ[1]. Whether or not it's the only source of the rise of
| mental illness isn't clear, but it's a huge factor for sure.
|
| [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039
| soundnote wrote:
| Yeah, especially young people do have it bad. One interesting
| thing is that as society becomes more and more feminist, it's
| the young women who fare the worst, and especially the
| demographics most likely to be intersectional activists.
|
| Maybe not all ideologies are good for us? At a quick glance, a
| lot of the intersectional feminist/activist modes of thought
| seem to be the polar opposites of what eg. cognitive behavioral
| therapy and the stoicism it's inspired by advocate (eg. others
| are responsible for your emotional reactions/state, so to
| control your mood you have to control others vs. you are
| responsible for and in control of your own emotional reactions
| and mental state and you can improve your mood by honing
| yourself).
|
| We know CBT is effective for getting rid of dysfunctional
| thought patterns and lessening mental health symptoms. In that
| light, these numbers seem unfortunate but entirely predictable.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/uRX0A9u.png
| galdosdi wrote:
| > At a quick glance, a lot of the intersectional
| feminist/activist modes of thought seem to be the polar
| opposites of what eg. cognitive behavioral therapy
|
| What a non sequitur. Why would feminism and stoicism have any
| incompatibilities?
| soundnote wrote:
| I literally gave one example in the post you quoted. The
| intersectional types are vehemently against owning your
| emotional responses in the way stoicism advocates, and
| instead actively encourage finding more and more ever more
| minute things that might be rationalized to be a slight
| against themselves. On a deeper level, stoicism
| acknowledges and is built on the idea that not everything
| in the world is changeable, while the intersectional mode
| of thought is exactly the opposite.
| MandieD wrote:
| For me, they're absolutely complementary. If I'm the only
| thing I can really control, how can I do so without the
| right to make my own decisions beyond whether or not to
| accept a marriage proposal? Before feminism, married women
| were legally children, at least in the parts of the world
| I've lived in (US and Germany). In the state I live in,
| Bavaria, my husband could have prevented me from getting a
| driver's license or working up until about 1970.
|
| A woman fighting against feminism is a woman fighting
| against responsibility for herself.
| depr wrote:
| CBT is not effective for lessening mental health symptoms.
| See e.g. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.187773
|
| >the difference between CBT and pill placebo was a
| standardised mean difference of -0.22
|
| The effect measured in this meta-analysis is a less than two
| point drop on a 52 point scale (Hamilton Rating Scale for
| Depression). That is not clinically significant.
| soundnote wrote:
| Interesting. Will take a look, thanks.
| johnfernow wrote:
| From the study you linked:
|
| > Our study has limitations. First, detection of an
| interaction effect requires a large sample size. The
| present findings require replication with a larger sample
| of trials designed to test the interaction. The trials from
| which the data were extracted were not designed to test
| this hypothesis, but do provide a 'first look' into this
| question using all available data. Given the wide
| confidence interval around zero for the interaction
| coefficient in the present study, it is possible that our
| finding represents a type II error. Although none of the
| sensitivity analyses were suggestive of possible
| interaction effects, future studies may nonetheless still
| reveal an interaction that we failed to detect in the data
| available to us...
|
| [?]
|
| I'd be very cautious about saying "CBT is not effective for
| lessening mental health symptoms" due to a single study.
| From the American Psychological Association [1]:
|
| > Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of
| psychological treatment that has been demonstrated to be
| effective for a range of problems including depression,
| anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug use problems, marital
| problems, eating disorders, and severe mental illness.
| Numerous research studies suggest that CBT leads to
| significant improvement in functioning and quality of life.
| In many studies, CBT has been demonstrated to be as
| effective as, or more effective than, other forms of
| psychological therapy or psychiatric medications.
|
| [?]
|
| From the NHS [2]:
|
| > Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be as effective
| as medicine in treating some mental health problems, but it
| may not be successful or suitable for everyone.
|
| [?]
|
| From the Cleveland Clinic [3]:
|
| > Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a structured, goal-
| oriented type of psychotherapy (talk therapy). Mental
| health professionals, including psychologists, therapists
| and counselors, use it to treat or manage mental health
| conditions and emotional concerns. It's one of the most
| common and best-studied forms of psychotherapy.
|
| [?]
|
| I'm not at all suggesting that we blindly trust those
| organizations, rather just cautioning saying it is no more
| effective than a pill placebo due to one study.
|
| [?]
|
| A different study that reviewed meta-analyses came to quite
| a different conclusion [4]:
|
| > In our review of meta-analyses, CBT tailored to children
| showed robust support for treating internalizing disorders,
| with benefits outweighing pharmacological approaches in
| mood and anxiety symptoms. The evidence was more mixed for
| externalizing disorders, chronic pain, or problems
| following abuse. Moreover, there remains a need for a
| greater number of high-quality trials in demographically
| diverse samples. Similarly, CBT was moderately efficacious
| for the treatment of emotional symptoms in the elderly, but
| no conclusions about long-term outcomes of CBT or
| combination therapies consisting of CBT, and medication
| could be made.
|
| >
|
| > Finally, our review identified 11 studies that compared
| response rates between CBT and other treatments or control
| conditions. In 7 of these reviews, CBT showed higher
| response rates than the comparison conditions, and in only
| one review (Leichsenring & Leibig, 2003), which was
| conducted by authors with a psychodynamic orientation,
| reported that CBT had lower response rates than comparison
| treatments.
|
| >
|
| > In sum, our review of meta-analytic studies examining the
| efficacy of CBT demonstrated that this treatment has been
| used for a wide range of psychological problems. In
| general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong, and
| especially for treating anxiety disorders. However, despite
| the enormous literature base, there is still a clear need
| for high-quality studies examining the efficacy of CBT.
| Furthermore, the efficacy of CBT is questionable for some
| problems, which suggests that further improvements in CBT
| strategies are still needed. In addition, many of the meta-
| analytic studies included studies with small sample sizes
| or inadequate control groups. Moreover, except for children
| and elderly populations, no meta-analytic studies of CBT
| have been reported on particular subgroups, such as ethnic
| minorities and low income samples.
|
| >
|
| > Despite these weaknesses in some areas, it is clear that
| the evidence-base of CBT is enormous. Given the high cost-
| effectiveness of the intervention, it is surprising that
| many countries, including many developed nations, have not
| yet adopted CBT as the first-line intervention for mental
| disorders. A notable exception is the Improving Access to
| Psychological Therapies initiative by the National Health
| Commissioning in the United Kingdom (Rachman & Wilson,
| 2008). We believe that it is time that others follow suit.
|
| 1. https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-
| families/cog...
|
| 2. https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/talking-therapies-
| medicine-...
|
| 3. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21208-c
| ogni...
|
| 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/
|
| edit: formatting
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I don't remember hearing much about anxiety or depression, but
| do remember hearing about things like alcoholism, domestic
| violence, and 'laziness.' I'm pretty sure these are largely the
| same psychological issues- it's just people used to hide it,
| and deny it even to themselves- so you would only see the
| resulting dysfunction. Nowadays people are getting a diagnosis
| and treatment rather than just silently suffering and hiding
| it.
| alexalx666 wrote:
| There seems to be an empty space that people rush to fill with
| a newest iPhone and installing FB and Instagram instantly, I
| guess in 90s you would use McDonalds for that
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Perhaps knowing that we aren't going to do anything significant
| about the climate crisis, and thus devastate our environment
| and the carrying capacity of the planet, might be what's making
| them a bit touchy.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| But I also think "back in the days" life was more fixed.
| Probably getting a full time job as employee, starting a
| family, getting a house was not really optional. Now there are
| much more choices. Add to that all the hyper-connectivity. I
| don't really think people were better off but were just forced
| to handle everything more calmly. Growing up in the 90s, what
| I've found is that things changed a lot when people were
| starting their jobs.
| coenhyde wrote:
| Not to mention living in America is like playing life on hard
| mode; at least relative to other OECD countries. There's a
| lot more things you have to take care of / think about in
| America. There's a level of mental overhead that does not
| exist in other developed countries that many Americans do not
| realize are optional. eg health insurance, education,
| unemployment safety net, or even little things like way too
| many coverage options when buying car insurance.
|
| When you do not have to worry about your health or physical
| safety if you lose your job, you can chill out a little bit.
| You don't need to bend over backwards for your job, it is
| easier to enforce boundaries. This dynamic puts adult
| Americans under a lot of stress, and it manifests in many
| ways. And it propagates to the children too, through lack of
| attention or stressful home.
| opportune wrote:
| It's hard mode if you're poor and easy mode if you're rich.
| For the top 1-2 deciles I think most of these things are
| much better in the US than other countries. I'm a long time
| proponent of universal healthcare, but I've heard terrible
| experiences in Canada and the UK in getting relatively
| basic treatment in a timely manner.
|
| I think a lot of HN doesn't understand that all the shitty
| things about the US that people from other countries love
| to rag on basically don't apply to many people in the US.
| If you have a job that is in demand you will not need to
| worry any more about these things than if you live in
| another developed country. Especially in American corporate
| culture, sure people are worried about their mortgage and
| some do live paycheck to paycheck, but the culture of
| excessive work in places like tech or finance is not
| generally about getting thrown out to the streets with
| cancer.
| coenhyde wrote:
| You're right and wrong. You are right that it is hard if
| you are poor and easy if you are rich. But you are wrong
| that HN or people outside of the US do not understand
| that it is only hard for poor people. It's just that
| external to the US, people care about the welfare of poor
| people more. The fact that you felt it necessary to state
| that caveat illustrates how systemic problems which
| victimize poor people can be excused and remain unchanged
| in the US.
|
| For context I've lived for decades in both Australia and
| the US. Pros and cons in both cultures, and I love both.
| opportune wrote:
| I brought it up more to illustrate that the work culture
| of the US is not just a result of precarious financial
| situations due to lack of a safety net.
| coenhyde wrote:
| I would agree that it's not entirely the result of
| precarious financial situations. But even in tech and
| other high paying sectors, I would argue it still plays a
| factor, even if it is unconscious. Golden handcuffs are
| in part evident of this. Everyone in America wants to
| make enough money they can retire comfortably. Which is
| an entirely rational thing to want to do. But other
| countries do have higher paying pensions, so the fear of
| retiring destitute is less.
|
| Also keep in mind employer expectations are a market just
| like any other. You as an employee compete against others
| willing to go lower. If you have a portion of the
| population in precarious financial situations, that will
| still impact you somewhat as they compete for jobs
| indirectly with you.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| _There 's a level of mental overhead that does not exist in
| other developed countries that many Americans do not
| realize are optional. eg health insurance, education,
| unemployment safety net, or even little things like way too
| many coverage options when buying car insurance._
|
| I occasionally try to stress how these things seriously
| improve living standards. Just health insurance itself does
| a great deal to eliminate stress. I can go and get a weird
| mole checked out. I can get an MRI when I've been having
| headaches to make sure it isn't cancer. I can get the spot
| on my pancreas scanned every 6-12 months to make sure it
| doesn't do weird stuff. All for less out of pocket than
| $300 per year and my taxes are less than state + federal +
| premiums.
| dan_quixote wrote:
| What about constant stimuli fighting for our attention by
| exploiting our lizard-brain emotions every waking hour?
| drstrous wrote:
| rtev wrote:
| The smartphone era directly seems to coincide with elevated
| mental health problems.
|
| I think porn and social media are responsible. Those two
| things, heavily changing neurotransmitter and hormone patterns,
| are significantly amplified when everyone has a smartphone.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| I think video games, TV, rock'n'roll music and the bicycle
| are responsible.
| irrational wrote:
| I think bicycles are only responsible for the drop in
| birthdate. All that rattling around is damaging women's
| reproductive facilities!
| gnrlst wrote:
| > but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed
| to more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to
| early onset cancers.
|
| It's always easy to point the finger at a single cause, but the
| reality is that it's a series of factors that together act like
| a sophisticated, compound "attack" to the psyche:
|
| - Social media weakens your self-confidence and makes you feel
| in a constant state of inferiority, i.e. your present self.
|
| - The "post 9/11 world" you mention, is simply a result of a
| general worsening of Western political relations over time,
| which are becoming especially evident recently. That state of
| turmoil weakens your sense of stability and security, making
| the future look bleak - i.e. your future self.
|
| - Further blows for the knockout: climate change, pollution /
| micro-plastics / rising costs of living, etc.
|
| I'm actually surprised depression, anxiety and other mental
| disorders aren't more common...but perhaps they will be.
| soundnote wrote:
| > - The "post 9/11 world" you mention, is simply a result of
| a general worsening of Western political relations over time,
| which are becoming especially evident recently. That state of
| turmoil weakens your sense of stability and security, making
| the future look bleak - i.e. your future self.
|
| The relations have not simply become worse, they have been
| very deliberately driven to be worse:
|
| https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-
| great...
|
| Just look at these hockey sticks. People talk about divisive
| rhetoric, but hot damn.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Excluding the microplastics thing, I think that your two
| latter points are actually both derived from the social media
| changes.
|
| Life today for almost everyone in the West is better than
| ever before, but people are exposed to a lot of thought on
| social media that 1. life is worse now, 2. in your lifetime
| there will be terrible destruction happening, which
| contributes to a sense of fatalism and doom.
|
| It is super appealing to the human psyche to think things are
| worse in [current-time period] than in the past. This is why
| there is an intuitive appeal to things like "Make America
| Great Again." Social media only amplifies this effect because
| people are exposed to things that are maximally appealing to
| their psyche.
| brankoB wrote:
| Life today is better if you're already established, i.e.
| have a well paying job, own a home, etc.
|
| Being young in todays world is exponentially harder than it
| was, say, 40 years ago. Many young people have given up on
| the idea of home ownership. I'm 26 and I've had friends
| laugh in my face when I suggested owning instead of
| renting. It's simply unattainable unless you're in a
| lucrative field. I'm in Canada for reference (our home
| price to income ratio is one of the worst in the world).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think you are just falling to this same nostalgia bias.
|
| In terms of the material abundance that one experiences
| today, it is just on a different level from 40 years ago.
|
| Housing ownership is also not the be all end all. And
| while the prices are higher, the rates are lower so that
| you will not be paying a greater proportion of your
| income on housing.
|
| Compare to 40 years ago:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MDSP
|
| To look at housing and say that the high price of homes
| negates all quality of life improvements in the last 40
| years seems wrong to me.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > Life today for almost everyone in the West is better than
| ever before,
|
| I'm 60. You've just got to be joking.
|
| When minimum wage was $3.30, a one-bedroom apartment cost
| $285. Now the same apartment is well over $2000.
|
| My university tuition averaged about $1200 a year - that
| was about 10 35-hour weeks at minimum wage. But I got small
| scholarships that paid for it. My girlfriend worked in a
| sub shop two nights a week and had a summer job. No one
| went into debt.
|
| One working parent could support a stay-at-home parent and
| pay off a mortgage.
|
| Or you could work part-time and have a modest life and
| pursue your dream.
|
| People just walked into career jobs right out of
| university.
|
| Listening to young people today, unless they're in one of a
| small number of very much in demand fields, the idea of
| stability, steady advancement, or buying a home seem
| impossible.
| m_fayer wrote:
| Puberty coming on ever earlier is my pet theory for what's
| causing this.
|
| It might come in a way that's uneven. An adult set of sexual
| characteristics and drives without the corresponding
| development in executive function must be difficult.
|
| Add to that the sudden arrival of sexual characteristics and
| attention at an age where our culture has no scripts and
| rituals with which to handle them. Kids must feel like adrift
| aliens, within the world and within their own bodies.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| More likely it's the endocrine disruptor chemicals in the
| environment that are causing earlier puberty AND increased
| cancer rates.
| wikitopian wrote:
| mikedelago wrote:
| Is there a source on this? My understanding is that current
| trends were lower now than what they were in the past as far as
| promiscuity goes
| rendang wrote:
| Which ones aside from HPV?
| samuelizdat wrote:
| I think a young Harvard math professor wrote about this in the
| 90's.
| jker wrote:
| Berkeley, not Harvard. He was a Harvard graduate, but taught at
| Berkeley, and in fact was the youngest math professor in Cal
| history.
| dr_hooo wrote:
| Sorry, but are we supposed to get this reference, or start
| Googling for math professor cancer?
| [deleted]
| vermilingua wrote:
| Ted Kaczynski
| thebigspacefuck wrote:
| That's what I thought originally but he wasn't ever
| professor at Harvard and he was in his 50s in the 90s so it
| must be someone else.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Doctor Ted Kaczynski
| [deleted]
| lebuffon wrote:
| I say this as often as I can. We have a vaccine that prevents
| cervical cancer with ~83% efficacy. Following the "bread-crumbs"
| seems like a good strategy to me.
|
| We have this little beasty in wild. Human T-lymphotropic virus
| type 1, but no vaccine. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
| sheets/detail/human-t-lym...
|
| We have correlation with cancer with other viruses. Hep C for
| example.
|
| How many more clues do we need to expand research in this
| direction?
|
| Could the implications for the existing cancer "industry"
| preclude finding prophylactic methods? Asking for a friend.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| People will never accept this theory because it means having
| more sex is giving us more cancer. Instead they'll say our diet
| is worse (it isn't) and that we're exposed to worse chemicals
| (we're not) than 70 years ago. We're definitely having more sex
| but that's not allowed to be a theory. It's like theorizing
| that cars are killing flying bug populations-- it's just a non-
| starter. Come up with something else.
| everdrive wrote:
| Does the vaccine help you if you already have the virus?
| myroon5 wrote:
| Not even limited to cancer:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32423720
| Test0129 wrote:
| I used to think this and I don't think so anymore. Consider a
| company who develops the de-facto cure for a cancer. Let's say
| a course of normal treatment to remission cost $200,000.
|
| There's no reason this company wouldn't release the cure. They
| would simple charge <COST_OF_NORMAL_TREATMENT> * <MARGIN> +
| <OPPORTUNITY_COST> for the drug. People would pay almost any
| amount for such a cure. The company would have no problem
| padding it's bottom line sufficiently.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Free radicals in the water table. Pollution in general. Plastic
| in the rainwater. Doesn't just affect nature. Backs up up the
| water table, from ocean to river from the slums to the hills.
|
| Good that we're doing it less and less, in some respects.
| Pollution is poison.
|
| Although there is always some. Even very primitive societies eg
| in the Amazon Basin pollute a bit and after like ten years they
| move to a new place, and the go in circles in the long run,
| sustainable.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| We can scale it to planets. We pollute this planet and then
| move to another, then another. Come back to Earth in 10 million
| years.
|
| The only small problem with that is that we are not that
| advanced to do it.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| That's funny because Elon Musk in his capacity as a vehicle
| entrepreneur has not only advanced the expansion to Mars, by
| leaps and bounds, hey if before we could get a million people
| there now we can get 100 million, or if we could get 100
| million now we can get everybody out. Leaps and bounds. Costs
| the same as a college degree to get a rocket into orbit, in
| fuel terms. Yeah like $200000, well that's only if you get a
| scholarship and the price of fuel doesn't skyrocket, but
| similar. Similar.
|
| So what's contradictory is he also yes made good advances
| with batteries for cars (fixed everything honestly) but
| really got every other carmaker feeling real threatened right
| in the business model. A sensitive delicate place, you
| understand. He got everybody else putting eg 20 billion like
| Ford into researching electric cars, and partering up,
| making...making their thing, good cars too, but I would buy
| no other than a Tesla for a simple reason. Accidents. Fewer
| accidents is less pollution, yes Tesla allegedly pushes it as
| self-driving and sometimes it is (Elon gets lied to I saw it
| once), but really the really cool thing is an incredibly bad
| driver like me can drive a car while doing his best to pay
| attention _together with_ the car 's safety system. Not
| instead of. In tandem. Then you don't get all those cadavers
| filling up the graveyard which takes up land, no joke very
| expensive South SF...yes the human tragedy yes. But the media
| overlooks it like nothing so for purely the sake of argument
| I can focus on the pollution. Well maybe not, pollutes those
| people with something toxic, there's a debate in medicine eg
| punches are toxic, blunt force trauma is toxic. Think about
| that. Well then they're in the hospital for weeks, then the
| doctors pollute them perhaps [1]. Then, pollution, in the
| junkyard. Then, you need another car, pollution in the mines
| to purify the metal...lithium in Chile. So what's the
| ecological alternative?
|
| Basically horses, the original self-driving car, and very
| ecological.
|
| Ford said if he asked people they'd say they wanted faster
| horses, that is what Tesla makes.
|
| .
|
| [1] Change of subject: they did this to me twice, to figure
| out how to do poison you with no excuses, no loopholes, no
| fucking consent. Shut you up before you open your mouth.
| _Wait wasn 't it going to be just two vaccines and that'd be
| it?_ Shut up. _Can I assay this vaccine?_ Shut up. _Can I
| object on religious grounds?_ Ten years ago yes. Shut the
| fuck up. Like turns out I haven 't met a single Covid death,
| not personally obviously, you neither, through an
| acquaintance only one, and he died because he went to a
| hospital, caught Covid in a hospital with an existing
| condition.
|
| Yes I do know how to bitch down to social expectations under
| the threat of being labeled as a stereotype, or like I used
| to, sorry, I knew too much it was lobotomized.
|
| Dude no excuses nothing don't take no for an answer
| (violers's slogan), oh there was an exception but you didn't
| qualify, learn to poison people on the schizos first, then
| the rest. Nazi playbook, literally. First they came for me
| man, they're coming for you now. Well didn't poison me twice,
| hundreds of times meaning two different pills, but second
| time, mostly dodged it. They provided no benefit and had
| serious side effects, second one required signatures for
| consent that were extorted out of 100% of the patients
| (Clozapine at Clinica Rayencura, full court press, tiered
| rewards in the Caribbean 10% you get a plane ticket 20% you
| get a hotel room 30% you get a boat ride to the secret
| island, shooting for that 100% consent, they got caught in
| fact biggest suit of its kind, not big enough did it again),
| doctors say first do no harm. No benefit just harm, poison.
|
| Dude just read the consent form (consent is code for rape),
| then recognized the name, said Oh that Abbott wants me to
| take this pill? Fuck that. So second time around I was wise
| and dodged, only guy in the rehab to dodge obesity and immune
| compromise, it gives you AIDS ["Te da SIDA" -- Juan Luis
| Lorca Tobar, like July 2018], Abbott--which I'm dying to take
| to court. Dying to take that Abbott to court. This close to
| giving me AIDS? What an Abbott. But due to torture that is
| their fault in part as well, I by design can't properly
| communicate with any lawyer within the hour I get for free,
| who'll take the case and ride to victory fucking them in the
| Federal Circuit...dude my dream. Someday I will get my day in
| court, evidently not within 13 years, maybe not even 20
| years, someday. Dude combination of the 6th and 13th
| amendment. I can justify with exact mathematics the shrink
| industry is treating me like a slave. And you know my code
| compiles.
|
| Let that be known. That Abbott owes me money.
|
| Hey, Abbott, abbot, cleric right there in the name. Like
| there's no hot guys studying sixty years to get their degree
| as a cleric. They get work, or, in the club, get worked,
| women jumping them nonstop, me too but I think my libido is
| very damaged again lobotomy. Cleric is a pervy career path
| basically, come on no partying til 35 and then crazy?
|
| Women don't like doctors anymore, just like...eeegh. Yeah
| money yeah, literally blood money. And even then always beta.
| Alpha on the secret island? Yeah. Gray's Anatomy, yeah.
| Patrick Dempsey is handsome and an actor, as counterfactual
| as it gets, exact opposite career path, bleached his hair to
| look gray in fact. American Medicine subsidizes those shows
| for you to trust them.
|
| There's good doctors too, that's why they call them good
| doctors, like dumb blondes, why not just say doctors, why not
| just say blondes? I was blond, still considered blond in the
| modeling industry I would say dirty blond. But when I was
| small? Blond. Smart as fuck. [And in general blondes are only
| dumb insofar as jealousy first, secondly loss of innocence ie
| sex diminishes their fairness depending on whom it's with
| chimeric DNA goes everywhere, yellow felt-tip pen. Finally
| it's a trait indicating youth, apart from that I] Proved it
| hardcore, under a psychiatric handicap, beat the secretly
| nationally-ranked shrink at chess. They _had_ to let me out
| at that point, but it was a bullshit thing it was an illusion
| to torture their patients, all I have to do is win this game
| (which is impossible) and I 'm free. Even if you win they
| won't let you out any sooner. Not a good doctor, not a dumb
| blond. You can see the before and after on http://fgemm.com,
| my whole history before during and after the torture ward,
| which had HN access isn't that a nice perk? Another patient
| who was a lifer said, "cuatro estrellas.". Four star hotel.
| Lindsay Lohan that's five stars, Hollywood rehab, there's one
| in Chile nobody said a word about, a rumor among my favorite
| people. Great food for one, not niggardly with the calories,
| number one, you'd think if they pretended to understand
| milligrams they would need to understand calories, nope.
| Should lose their degrees just for that. Cept for the
| anorexics.
|
| .
|
| This where it gets interesting.
|
| .
|
| So one killer strategy--you really want the shrinktalk I got
| for you? First off you will remain inside until either your
| sponsor runs out of money or you stop insisting you're sane.
| Dude you want to get out (not always better on the outside
| though), dude shut the fuck up if you want to get released.
| Just shut the fuck up. Stop saying you're not insane, never
| accuse more than one person, play dumb because they won't
| stop til you are dumb. Amnestic drug lobotomy.
|
| .
|
| I read advice on reddit, _Epic Shrinktalk_ , dude said _1)
| take shit and 2) ask if you 're making progress._ Dude
| playbook for May 12, 2012, right there! That was literally
| it! I owe him royalties...let me pay them by divulging the
| following. I took some shit (better than taking on a whole
| gang) and I asked if I was making progress. And I had signed
| in myself, that's when they roll out the red carpet if it's
| legit. Now I know if you're eg a psychiatrist considering
| treating me reading this you'll be like...the fuck? But bear
| in mind, lobotomized into divulging compulsively, lost my
| shit after the final third time of abduction, and second,
| come on doc you watched _One Flew Over the Cuckoo 's Nest_.
| You're a doctor, or a good doctor? White horses are not
| horses, as the Ancient Chinese, School of Names, said.
| Genius.
|
| I've had much more than my share of good doctors, I'm a
| lifer. I didn't look under a rock, I did a rock census. I
| know there's 950-998 psychs in Chile. I know what they can do
| and what they can't. I know the system. I bought the Law Book
| and read as far as I could, well like any book if there's
| five words you don't understand on the first page it's beyond
| your level. Fifteen laws broken in my gainst. OK, so here is
| something I did understand:
|
| If you like the medication (depends on the medication,
| Risperidone you don't have to) but if it's controlled pretend
| you hate it. Opioid? Say you're constipated. Oh stimulants
| uh, can I get something for my stomach ache with that? Do I
| have to take this pill every day, I'm getting sick in my
| throat...How do I swallow that down, like what yoghurt to mix
| it with? Research and complain about the side effects...dude
| literally swapping pills in the rehab, one man's trash is
| another man's treasure--outside the rehab, because inside
| there's no private property. Inside? One man's poison is
| another man's cure. We hated our shit. We were both flushing
| it. We wanted the other guy's. So trade. But like better than
| a trade, absolute gift in both directions. No yuck from
| saliva dude fuck it, did not care. This is coercion, this is
| Hell, get fat if you're uninformed because you didn't read
| this post. Dude your gut wis sticking out like a horse.
|
| And this is the right forum to talk about this.
|
| Look it all up, it's on http://fgemm.com
| jodrellblank wrote:
| The problem is that there aren't any other planets. Venus is
| an inferno, Mars may as well be made of asbestos dust with a
| side of radiation and drought, those are the most hospitable
| ones in this solar system and we're not getting anywhere
| further anytime soon[1]. And the amount of rockets and
| environmental damage to launch billions of people and enough
| spaceships for billions of people is ... a lot.
|
| [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
| static/2007/06/the_high...
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Doesn't just affect nature
|
| Well it does, we're not outside of nature
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| notamy wrote:
| The most disturbing part, to me, is this:
|
| > The early-onset cancer epidemic might be one manifestation of
| increasing trends in the development of many chronic diseases in
| young and future generations.
|
| Why are chronic diseases trending upwards? Is it the obvious
| things (pollution, microplastics, obesity, massive drain on
| mental health from the modern lifestyle, etc.), or is there
| something else going on?
| lambdaba wrote:
| The result of misguidance from health professionals, big food &
| big pharma marketing.
|
| Not acknowledging that health is largely a result of lifestyle
| choices, and that pharmaceuticals are mostly ineffective and
| often harmful.
|
| And now for the specifics:
|
| - lies/bad science about meat (particularly red meat) being
| unhealthy
|
| - lies/bad science about cholesterol & saturated fat being
| unhealthy
|
| - not attacking sugar and processed foods at the highest level;
| should be treated like smoking if not even more harshly
|
| I say this for experience, until I fell ill I had no idea about
| either of those things. Like many of my peers, grew up with
| tons of sugar, and many misconceptions about what is healthy
| (although thankfully to a lesser extent than what's common
| nowadays)
|
| I'd also add that these things compound over the generations.
| We are more sensitive than our parents. It checks out for me,
| every generation has worsening autoimmune symptoms.
| p886 wrote:
| plus: high-PUFA oils (seed / vegetable oils) being labelled
| as "heart-healthy"
| [deleted]
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| This thread makes me wonder how many HNers base their
| nutrition off a quack like Paul Saladino.
|
| A rebuttal to the seed oil sophistry that seems to have
| managed to permeate every diet camp: https://www.the-
| nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
|
| Everyone is so desperate to have a counternarrative take on
| nutrition that they'll believe whatever fad that passes
| through the internet.
|
| The same goes with saturated fat = healthy broscience and
| the dismissal of the lipid hypothesis.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Protip: if you're ever looking for some downvotes when
| bringing up the dangers of PUFAs, recommend that people
| read the book Deep Nutrition.
|
| There seems to be an animalistic hatred toward a book that
| really sheds the light on why eating industrial waste is
| not the healthiest thing in the world.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| If people get angry and upset at a topic, I find it
| usually requires to be brought into the limelight.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Indeed.
| dominotw wrote:
| I think there is no way to directly link 'lifestyle choices'
| and chronic diseases. All we have is intuition like yours.
| There is always going to be aggressive push-back from people
| who will get you on lack of data linking those two.
|
| I agree about 'big pharma marketing.' part spreading
| misinformation that all these can be 'treated' with drugs
| that even educated fall for
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32744412
| sweetheart wrote:
| > bad science...
|
| > I say this for experience...
|
| > It checks out for me...
|
| Glad you've managed to avoid the pesky allure of bad science
| with your anecdotal approach!
| dominotw wrote:
| If a doctor says to you ' you have hypertension because
| you've been eating pizza for dinner last 5 years' .
|
| Do you ask them to provide you with proof directly linking
| your pizza eating to hypertension? Would you just ignore
| their advice for lack of proof?
|
| No one will be able to provide you direct link between
| 'lifestyle choices' and chronic disease at an individual
| level.
| sweetheart wrote:
| > No one will be able to provide you direct link between
| 'lifestyle choices' and chronic disease at an individual
| level.
|
| I wasn't implying I require that for anything. I was just
| pointing out that someone made broad, speculative claims
| about the general medical consensus of things like read
| meat and sugar, and then used an anecdote to support
| their own claims about those things. Take from that what
| you will! I just find it funny and worth mentioning.
| tsol wrote:
| Those statements of his were both at the end, when he gives
| his opinion on the general situation. That doesn't mean the
| main bullet points aren't supported by science
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| Are you trying to make the counter point that sugar and
| highly processed foods are healthy?
|
| There's lots of good science and history (! I guess that's
| just a bunch of anecdotes though) which demonstrates their
| ill effects.
|
| Sometimes, a fact has been asserted widely enough that we
| stop requiring sources, even at HN
| [deleted]
| altruios wrote:
| More that he's critical of the thought process you've
| applied. You're conclusions are correct, so no one should
| be critical of that :)
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| Wasn't me, but sure
| sweetheart wrote:
| > Are you trying to make the counter point that sugar and
| highly processed foods are healthy?
|
| Nope, I said absolutely nothing to that effect.
| vibrio wrote:
| I agree sugar is bad, cancer reseracher Lew Cantley has
| written very clearly scientifically about how High-fructose
| corn syrup is very bad supported with a lot of mechanistic
| data.
|
| I also agree health is largely a result of lifestyle choices
| for most-- it is what we can control.
|
| I can't even begin to contemplating support of many of your
| other statements. i wish you health and peace of mind.
| lambdaba wrote:
| There might be some unique harms from HFCS but I doubt
| they're anything but minor over harm from all fructose in
| refined form (so incl. and perhaps especially fruit juices
| and other junk often fed to children).
|
| Re: the cholesterol, check out my other comment.
|
| Thank you, wishing you the same.
| andrepd wrote:
| > lies/bad science about cholesterol & saturated fat being
| unhealthy
|
| Are you saying cholesterol and saturated fats aren't
| unhealthy? I'm confused.
| lambdaba wrote:
| Yes, check out this report from Credit Suisse that sums up
| the state of the art research on the topic:
| https://research-doc.credit-
| suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&...
|
| Bottom line is saturated fat is not implicated whatsoever
| in any negative health outcomes.
| tsol wrote:
| Just as an aside: This document is interesting. Not
| saying it isn't valid but I'm just wondering why a bank
| produced this. It's not just an economic forecast of the
| health foods market. It's an entire breakdown of the
| nutrition. Who is the target audience? It looks like the
| work of some consultants possibly
| another2another wrote:
| From the article: "A proper review of the so called "fat
| paradoxes" (France, Israel and Japan) suggests that
| saturated fats are actually healthy and omega-6 fats, at
| current levels of consumption in the developed world, are
| not necessarily so"
|
| That probably means a whole ton of marketing material
| touting Omega oils has to be thrown away.
| mnd999 wrote:
| It turned out eating high cholesterol foods didn't lead to
| high cholesterol after all.
| another2another wrote:
| yojo wrote:
| _> I 'd also add that these things compound over the
| generations. We are more sensitive than our parents. It
| checks out for me, every generation has worsening autoimmune
| symptoms._
|
| This may just be a function of increasing pollen
| overstimulating the immune system. In the last 30 years
| pollen counts have gone up 20+%[1]. Turns out trees like
| carbon and warmer air.
|
| Anecdotally both of my kids have seasonal allergies, neither
| me nor my wife did when we were kids.
|
| https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/pollen-
| se...
| kaba0 wrote:
| Big Sugar is mostly an American problem due to the industry's
| lobbying. If people are not exposed to that level of
| sweetness they seriously can't even eat your bread. Also, why
| allow that level of drug marketing everywhere? That's also
| not a thing in other developed countries. So I really don't
| think it is fair to call out scientists when these two
| industries have your politicians in their hands.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _pharmaceuticals are mostly ineffective_
|
| Something tells me you don't understand the vast scale of
| pharmaceuticals, many of which _keep people alive_. Mostly
| "ineffective", come on.
|
| > _I say this for experience, until I fell ill I had no idea
| about either of those things._
|
| Your personal experiences and biology cannot be extrapolated
| onto the world at large.
| jinder wrote:
| My guess: Environmental toxins, antibiotic use and poor diet
| leading to loss of microbiome diversity/dysbiosis and
| consequential disruption to the body's homeostatic processes.
| enviclash wrote:
| How to really take care of the microbiome?
| fredrikholm wrote:
| Diverse diet including as many types of food as possible
| (eg. mushrooms, fermented vegetables, seaweed and other
| 'unusual' foods), aiming for whole foods (eg. raw rice over
| white rice).
|
| Your gut bacteria is an expression of the foods that you
| consume on a daily basis.
| [deleted]
| jinder wrote:
| Try to be born vaginally rather than c-section (might be
| too late for that!), avoid antibiotics unless you
| absolutely need them, polyphenol-rich whole food diet with
| diverse fruits and vegetables, lots of fibre and resistant
| starch and fermented foods. Buy organic if possible.
| citruscomputing wrote:
| Sandor Ellix Katz has some _fantastic_ books about
| fermentation. Really, really suggest checking them out.
|
| One thing that stuck out to me was when he talked about the
| relationship between people and their environment. How
| health is not in a vacuum, but in constant negotiation and
| collaboration with the world around you. He uses this to
| suggest fermenting things yourself, to engage in this
| process with the microbes in your environment. It's easy
| and fun!
|
| Here's a 6 minute video where Katz talks about
| fermentation, and walks you through a basic process, in a
| beautiful and rustic kitchen I still dream about getting to
| cook in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i77hU3zR-fQ
| enviclash wrote:
| One other aspect is also soap. Many people say it damages
| the microbiome in your skin
| tsol wrote:
| Eat lots of prebiotic rich vegetables and fruits. Fiber is
| food for gut bacteria. Also eat plenty of fermented foods.
| These things increase good gut bacteria and decrease the
| bad ones.
|
| Avoid alcohol, sugar, and processed foods. These things
| increase bad gut bacteria and decrease the good ones.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| A lot of these chronic diseases are autoimmune ones.
|
| I now know plenty of young people IBD, MS, Psoriasis, and even
| Rheumatoid Arthritis.
|
| These seem to be caused by less obvious things imo (MS although
| looks linked to epstein-barr), as otherwise general health
| doesn't seem to be poor.
| lambdaba wrote:
| Just adding a bit about the subject at hand: I am convinced the
| cancer epidemic is due to us grossly misusing our biological
| equipment: we are meant to feast & fast, and not have insulin's
| anabolic effects constantly activated. Fasting is crucial for
| "system maintenance", via autophagy (self-eating of damaged
| cells). Average person constantly stimulates insulin with
| following the advice of eating small meals often, without even
| going into the content of those meals.
| doliveira wrote:
| I'm convinced that it's a mistake to be convinced that
| there's one simple single cause for a society-level issue.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Honestly the behavioral lifestyle of modern humans is so far
| off from what we developed that diet is probably a drop in
| the bucket relative to many other factors. Consider how much
| movement a persistent hunter in a tribe still engaging in
| these practices does compared to the modern human, who sits
| for 95% of the day. The elders in these tribes look lean and
| still might engage in hunts. The elders in our tribes
| frequently can hardly walk or access the second floor of
| their house without difficulty. We went from a species that
| has to go out and forage or hunt for resources, into one that
| basically sits in a cave all day and poof there is a couple
| thousand calories in front of them that they didn't have to
| get; no species operates like this. The things that made us
| humans and improved our fitness to allow us to survive and
| colonize the globe, our intelligence and endurance or
| strength, are no longer being selected for in modern life.
|
| Then consider the arbitrary stress that society puts on us.
| How you dress should not matter, what you love, how you work,
| where you work, what you do for fun, etc, but we make people
| hand wring about it all. We have a cruel society in many ways
| that stifles unorthodox thought and behavior that doesn't
| ultimately further someone else's dollar. The daily stress of
| sitting in traffic or waiting for the bus to finally show up
| on a hot day definitely triggers stress responses. How about
| the fact that social media has sapped many peoples attention
| span? The mind is no longer allowed to be bored or to rest or
| dwell inwardly if you are constantly using every available
| second to check a website on your cellphone. You see it in
| kids an adults everywhere: elevator door shuts and out go the
| phones along with any chance of serendipitous organic thought
| that doesn't come from an advertising network.
|
| Experiment with your diet, sure, but don't neglect the other
| ills of modern life if you want to be truly heathy in body
| and mind.
| bwi4 wrote:
| Western lifestyles differ markedly from those of our
| hunter-gatherer ancestors, and these differences in diet
| and activity level are often implicated in the global
| obesity pandemic. However, few physiological data for
| hunter-gatherer populations are available to test these
| models of obesity. In this study, we used the doubly-
| labeled water method to measure total daily energy
| expenditure (kCal/day) in Hadza hunter-gatherers to test
| whether foragers expend more energy each day than their
| Western counterparts. As expected, physical activity level,
| PAL, was greater among Hadza foragers than among
| Westerners. Nonetheless, average daily energy expenditure
| of traditional Hadza foragers was no different than that of
| Westerners after controlling for body size.
|
| https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journa
| l...
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| A 2019 article in Scientific American suggested that the
| Hadza example shows our bodies are adapted to require
| lots of exercise without paying a metabolic cost for it:
|
| > Our bodies are evolved to require daily physical
| activity, and consequently exercise does not make our
| bodies work _more_ so much as it makes them work
| _better_. Research from my lab and others has shown that
| physical activity has little effect on daily energy
| expenditure (Hadza hunter-gatherers burn the same number
| of calories every day as sedentary Westerners), which is
| one reason exercise is a poor tool for weight loss.
| Instead exercise regulates the way the body spends energy
| and coordinates vital tasks.
|
| They compare the human need for exercise to the evolution
| of ram ventilation in sharks. By developing a system
| based on the assumption of constant movement, you become
| a more efficient forager. But if you stop moving, you
| die.
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-
| evolved-to...
| vibrio wrote:
| Interesting, what are your thoughts on the anti-CD47
| investigational therapeutics being tested for cancer
| indications? How do you think that antagonizing CD47 will
| impact this 'system maintenance'. Do you think that
| modulating autophagy is part of the problem of enhanced
| autoimmunity, since its clear that is involved in immune
| surveillance? There is a lot of science out there around this
| area.
| Test0129 wrote:
| I've done fasting for a while. It's not the panacea that it's
| touted as. I was a pretty religious (figuratively) 16 hour
| fast person. I have several years of bloodwork to show
| marginal if any changes to baseline. In some cases, for
| example with blood sugar, there's a small window where
| insulin actually spikes during a fast. I had several unusual
| blood sugar readings if I took them around the 15 hour mark
| along with other numbers that were raised temporarily with no
| other cause.
|
| I've switched over the last 6 months to eating 3 meals and 2
| snacks a day of varying size. I climb often (vigorously, 4
| times a week if not more) and found that fasting was simply
| insufficient to provide the energy I needed. IF caused
| notable performance decreases at the level I work at leading
| to more injuries due to poorer recovery. Changing my diet in
| this way fixed most of it. Of course, I try to eat relatively
| clean (but chips are a weakness). I don't have a 6 pack but I
| am also not overweight and carry enough muscle for my uses.
|
| This isn't to say I am giving a license to eat what you want.
| But _what you do with your fuel_ is probably just as
| important as what that fuel is. The "average person" you
| mention is a couch potato. Of course these people not only
| benefit from IF but literally any change in exercise! IF
| works great for people who are not intensely active. Hence
| why it has become popular in tech. Proper sleep (whatever
| that means to your body) and relatively hard exercise are
| even better predictors of all-cause mortality than any of
| this. To me, after having done it, IF feels mostly like new
| age woo-woo "science" and it dances around people saying it
| flat out cures cancer. In some cases, for example prediabetes
| and chemotherapy, "deloading" the system has evidence of
| being effective. For the rest of us, it's a wash.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Fasting and IF are not always the same thing - personally I
| find a bigger benefit from occasionally totally fasting
| (for longer than one day). If anything it may be the mental
| benefits that it brings with regards to how you view your
| relationship with food and what foods specifically make you
| feel good or bad.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yes. Every time fasting comes up (because it ALWAYS come
| up) there's a ton of claims made but it almost always
| reduces down to the same effects that reducing your
| calories would have. Eat less, eat better, and get active.
| rngname22 wrote:
| I don't really agree with the parent's assessment that lack
| of fasting-induced autophagy is the reason for the increase
| in cancer, but your anecdote about 16 hour fasts is sorta
| irrelevant.
|
| Autophagy doesn't really kick in until 2-3 days of fasting.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I know it's technically true but it's seemed weird to me
| to lump skipping breakfast in with what I'd consider
| _actual fasting_ , ever since I first encountered people
| using it that way in the context of diet fads.
|
| Someone tells me they're fasting, I don't expect they
| mean 8 non-contiguous waking hours without eating (with
| sleep in the middle). That's, like... pretty close to a
| normal day. It's easy to have 16 hour "fasts" just by
| accident. "I only ate two meals yesterday because I was
| fasting". LOL WUT? Again, I know, technically true, but
| not a _useful_ way to refer to it, IMO.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| There are some military studies that showed autophagy
| didn't kick in until they dropped below 6% body fat. But
| that was with 600kcal and no change in duties. So it's
| not necessarily relevant. I do IF but I'm a couch potato.
| If I really stick to 20hrs, it seems to work very well.
| If I slip to even 19 I have to skip food for a day or
| even two to get back to feeling good (clear head
| functioning gut etc.). I am overweight still, but not
| obese. I lose about 2lbs a week when I stick with it. I
| am nervous about resuming excercise. I hope I can still
| recover well. I just do strength training 3 days a week
| for an hour, or two once I'm back to needing more warmup
| sets.
| lambdaba wrote:
| > I climb often (vigorously, 4 times a week if not more)
|
| You're very active! Even so, I wouldn't think the IF itself
| was the problem, probably you were having trouble eating
| enough for your level of activity with such a regimen.
|
| About bloodwork, I believe you're mistakingly conflating
| insulin and blood sugar. Blood sugar may vary in such a
| way, but it's just a proxy because insulin is so hard to
| measure.
|
| But more to the point, I wasn't referring to intermittent
| fasting solely, I believe even longer fasting periods are
| required. Regardless, even IF is a far cry from what the
| average person does.
|
| I also disagree that fasting is not a panacea. It's a close
| to one as we have. I don't think this is a subject I'm
| likely to convince skeptics in a comment, so I will simply
| say interested people will find reputable resources on the
| subject, including striking anecdotes published by fasting
| clinics (of which, for some reason, Germany has a few that
| publish material on YouTube).
| zeku wrote:
| Are you sure you weren't just under-eating calories when
| you fasted? Just checking.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Autophagy keeps getting brought up with such pseudoscientific
| bullshit explanations that I can't help but see it as snake
| oil. Furthermore, depending on who is describing it, the
| window for autophagy to kick in is anywhere from 8-48+ hours.
| godshatter wrote:
| There is a lot of "bro-science" out there concerning
| autophagy for sure, but it is definitely a thing. Yoshinori
| Ohsumi won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in
| 2016 for "his discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy"
| (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2016/summary/).
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Ohsumi's research into the mechanics of autophagy doesn't
| seem to have much to do with the broscience around
| autophagy.
|
| In other words, the question isn't whether autophagy
| exists. The question is over whether fanatical "one-
| weird-trick" claims about autophagy are true and,
| further, what the impact actually is and compared to
| what.
|
| For example, autophagy is happening all the time, not
| just during during starvation. And it hasn't been
| demonstrated that fasting for 3 days to increase
| autophagy levels has a net benefit versus eating a
| nutrient-rich diet during that timeframe.
|
| Instead we just get vague but lofty claims in forum
| posts.
| lambdaba wrote:
| I don't know what science you need to understand a system
| that is constantly active and is never fully allowed to
| rest will develop dysfunction. Anyway, as the sibling reply
| says, there is plenty of reputable research available to
| satisfy your curiosity if you wish.
| verall wrote:
| This is not necessarily a given, depending on the nature
| of the system, it absolutely requires evidence.
|
| Does my circulatory system need to fully rest so as not
| to develop dysfunction?
| dbsights wrote:
| Explain heartbeats?
| techbio wrote:
| Relatively very frequent rest and activation, I think is
| a charitably agreeable analogy. A heart muscle that never
| released would not be healthy.
| turkeygizzard wrote:
| This is interesting. Does elevated insulin / anabolic rates
| mean there's no breakdown though? At least with muscles, most
| increases in synthesis rates are accompanied by a
| proportional increase in breakdown too.
|
| I don't have papers on hand to cite so take it with a grain
| of salt, but I believe that just eating is enough to increase
| both synthesis and breakdown. I think this is actually
| healthier since you have higher turnover this way
| naillo wrote:
| > following the advice of eating small meals often
|
| This must be an american thing. I've always been told the
| opposite advice all my life. Interesting.
| Test0129 wrote:
| Eating small meals often is a way people control urge and
| hunger. I don't think it's American only. For a LONG time
| bodybuilding touted the 6 meals a day to lose weight
| strategy.
| naillo wrote:
| I get that people do it, it's just that I've never gotten
| the advice _to do it_ (non body building contexts, just
| normal life). To "smaata" in sweden is a widely talked
| about thing to avoid (i.e. adviced against).
| ddorian43 wrote:
| > For a LONG time bodybuilding touted the 6 meals a day
| to lose weight strategy.
|
| Pretty sure it's to gain weight. So you're all day
| eating.
|
| To drop in weight, it's better to eat
| lowcarb,keto,carnivore. Fat/protein is makes you more
| full and eat less.
| lambdaba wrote:
| I just want to add a thought about how human biology evolved:
| australophitecus already was hunting, and subsequent
| evolution selected for the best hunters. Humans became such
| successful hunters that we hunted megafauna to extinction.
| Obviously that environment doesn't exist anymore but
| biologically speaking, we have simply not evolved for
| abundance. On the contrary, we are able to go for very long
| without eating. Even people at their ideal weight have about
| 100k calories stored. That's 30 days of high energetic
| expenditure. Interestingly, anyone who has done a long (3-5+
| days) fast knows one drops in a mental and physical state
| that feels very much tailored to better hunting. Reduced need
| for sleep, antidepressive and procognitive effects, etc.
|
| [edit]: I guess the part about humans evolving with scarcity
| is not entirely accurate, what we can see for sure is there
| is some adaptation to surviving without eating; this is not a
| common trait, other species have much inferior ability to
| store fat.
| dani_german wrote:
| The past 50 years have seen a huge spike in life expectancy
| averages almost everywhere worldwide, so I'm just guessing that
| more people than ever with genetic tendencies to have early
| cancer onset are surviving and passing down those traits. There
| is also more people being screened for cancer than ever before
| so more cases are being detected when 70 years ago they
| would've just died and no one would know why
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| name checks out :)
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Sleep deficient seems to be connected to some cancers.
|
| Daily walking a lot seems to really be a key to longevity. Also
| to be healthy enough that you can ignore the pharmaceutical
| companies extensive and endless product line. Often you're just
| trading one problem for another, or just trading short term risk
| for long term risk or vice versa. And also have the mental
| strength to want to go on living with health problems. If you're
| in Canada and you get to old age, and up in an institution. Be
| prepared to be offered Euthanasia. 3% of Canadian deaths were
| that way last year.
| aaron695 wrote:
| elektor wrote:
| Link to full text paper: https://docdro.id/BLOY55z
| uwagar wrote:
| wonder if its covid vaccine induced especially the platform
| established by mrna based vaccines could be triggering a mass
| replication of haywire cells.
| jjcon wrote:
| Considering the trend started in the 90s and hasn't shown any
| particular jump in the past couple years that isn't supported
| by this research.
| uwagar wrote:
| dont forget excess deaths.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| sangnoir wrote:
| Wouldn't it be awful if unbridled capitalism turns out to be
| mankind's Great Filter?
|
| We'll be licky to become a Type I civilization after poisoning
| ourselves and the environment through exposure to chemicals and
| conditions we do not fully comprehend in return of some
| convenience, cheaper goods and making some a little richer.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Pollution is bad.
|
| Pollution occurs in non-capitalist societies too. It's often
| much worse. Chernobyl-levels of incompetent and indifference
| towards environmental protection.
|
| Non-capitalist societies also do things like concentration
| camps and genocides and world wars and famines which don't seem
| to emerge as frequently in capitalist societies.
|
| Don't blame capitalism.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Assuming everything you claim on the overall superiority of
| capitalism is correct, that doesn't still doesn't make it
| perfect. I am merely pointing out one of the imperfections -
| an unoriginal one at that: _unbridled_ capitalism[1] does not
| correctly factor externalized costs, up to, and including
| mankind 's long-term survival.
|
| 1. The "unbridled" qualification is deliberate, and very
| different from what I'm guessing is your idealized version.
| mlindner wrote:
| Given that there's no accurate global historical measurements of
| cancer, anything of this sort is going to be heavily biased by
| the measurement.
|
| You can only look at this comparative historical thing in certain
| developed countries with long histories of detecting all cancers.
| hammock wrote:
| How much is climate change to blame for this epidemic?
| swader999 wrote:
| Gee wonder what could have caused that.
| plmpsu wrote:
| They're looking at the past several decades...
| mihaic wrote:
| Anecdotally, I've found out in recent year about many women
| having serious thyroid issues. I'm sure more people being open
| about their health increases this, but the sheer frequency seems
| absurd.
|
| Whatever industrial chemicals we're ingesting need to be
| drastically controlled, and this poisoning needs to be branded so
| that the general population knows about it. I don't want years of
| my life to be an externality to a slightly cheaper industrial
| process.
| graaben wrote:
| My wife (early 30s) was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer
| and it's been absolutely shocking to hear how many other young
| women just in our social circle have also had it.
| zackmorris wrote:
| Not just women either.
|
| After going through a profound burnout in 2019 which caused me
| to develop chronic digestive issues, I worry that I injured my
| thyroid because I've had chills since even before having COVID.
| The proteins in gluten are similar to ones in the thyroid, so
| when the body becomes sensitized to something like wheat, it
| can also start attacking the thyroid (see autoimmune diseases
| like Hashimoto's). The problem is that flareups can by cyclical
| and not get detected by thyroid tests for years, until the
| damage is permanent.
|
| Also I've been researching how gluten sensitivity can destroy
| the lining of the small intestine in Crohn's disease. That
| damage can cause permanent loss of ability to absorb nutrients.
| It's unclear if the rise of the severe non-Crohn's gluten
| sensitivity we're seeing causes similar but smaller injuries,
| lumped into pseudo-science terms like leaky gut. The western
| high-sugar diet is highly inflammatory, disrupting the
| endocrine system and eventually leading to metabolic syndrome,
| neuropathy, possibly even multiple sclerosis (MS). The
| epidemiological studies aren't there to show that definitively,
| but I feel that's due to factory farm industry/pharmaceutical
| lobby suppression of government funding for those studies.
|
| I believe my issues started due to self-medicating my stress
| and depression with a finger of rye whiskey or cheap beer way
| too many nights of the week, chronic dehydration from working
| out, and not knowing how hard casein protein supplements and
| whole wheat/barley/rye are on the gut. Switching to half a
| glass of red wine with dinner each night, eating rice/corn
| instead of wheat, and avoiding all FODMAPs/milk/tree nuts for a
| year drastically improved my health to the point where I'm back
| at my old strength in the gym and consider my issues to be in
| remission as long as I avoid certain triggers.
|
| Anyway, I wasn't sure where to chime in on this, because the
| corruption of our food supply and rise of severe mental health
| issues are all connected. When I burned out, I lost the ability
| to take care of myself for about 6 months as bills started
| piling up. Burnout from anxiety can be devastating to
| neurodivergent thinkers like me who already struggle with ADHD
| and/or autistic symptoms. I didn't truly begin my healing
| journey until the pandemic. So simple tasks like getting
| insurance, going to the doctor or seeking counseling feel can
| feel insurmountable. I'm still trying to get ahead of the curve
| enough to take more tests and get some definitive answers. But
| I'm grateful beyond words to have gotten this far and be able
| to write this now.
|
| If anyone has experienced anything similar to what I'm saying,
| do you remember what year your symptoms started, or when your
| friends and family started reporting them?
|
| Edit: deleted my rant about globalization's affect on our food
| supply/climate/health.
| walleeee wrote:
| I started having mental health and digestive symptoms similar
| to yours in mid 2020 and have also had tentatively good
| results with a gluten-free and inflammation-minimizing diet.
| I didn't know about the connection between gluten sensitivity
| and thyroid issues, thanks
| tinglymintyfrsh wrote:
| beebmam wrote:
| > Cancer is easily explained from an evolutionary optimization
| perspective
|
| Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown right
| out as unscientific. Cancer is many diseases, many of which are
| profoundly different from the others in both mechanisms of
| action and causes.
|
| I kindly ask that you don't use such confident sounding
| language, either deluding yourself or others into believing
| your statements as true, when much of what you state is an
| untested (and probably unfalsifiable) hypothesis.
| cerol wrote:
| _> Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown
| right out as unscientific._
|
| Thank you.
|
| As someone who's recently lost a loved one to cancer, I've
| lost count of how many times I've wanted to choke people for
| coming out with these "simple cancer theories".
| [deleted]
| photochemsyn wrote:
| > "However, the effects of individual exposures remain largely
| unknown. To study early-life exposures and their implications for
| multiple cancer types will require prospective cohort studies
| with dedicated biobanking and data collection technologies."
|
| What that means is analytical body-burden data collection should
| be a medical norm, for a variety of substances: polychlorinated
| biphenyls, triazine herbicides (atrazine), industrial solvents
| like trichloroethylene, brominated fire retardants,
| nitrosoamines, plastic-sourced phthalates, perchlorates,
| hydrazine, hexavalent chromium and so on.
|
| Collecting such individual data via blood & urine samples
| (possibly fat biopsies & breast milk as well) on a yearly basis
| should really be part of a standard medical checkup procedure.
| That would provide a dataset which could be used to address that
| question.
|
| This is hardly a new proposal, for example see this 2001 PBS
| report, in which journalist Bill Moyers got his body burden test
| results:
|
| https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html
|
| _The results are not unusual. Each of us has some load of
| industrial chemicals stored in or passing through our bodies.
| These chemical residues - termed the "chemical body burden" - can
| be detected in blood, urine and breast milk._
| caeril wrote:
| Don't hold your breath. One example:
|
| Coronary calcium deposit scans are cheap and extremely
| effective at giving a probabilistic window of possible future
| heart attack, but doctors don't order them _prior_ to a CVD
| event, and insurance doesn 't cover them as a pre-CVD elective.
|
| Instead we're told: We have no way of knowing if or when you'll
| experience infarction, it's one of God's Great Mysteries. Just
| don't eat eggs and pray.
|
| You're absolutely right, but the entire medical industry has no
| intention of actually reducing mortality. It's a cash grab from
| top to bottom, and preventative monitoring of the kind you
| suggest already has precedent in coronary calcium scanning.
| It's not going to happen if it reduces the overall predicted
| revenue per patient.
|
| In the same way that a single triple-bypass surgery is far more
| lucrative than a hundred coronary calcium scans, a full course
| of cancer treatment is absurdly more profitable than regular
| tissue carcinogen testing.
| adewinter wrote:
| I would take a citation on literally any single one of your
| statements
| 10u152 wrote:
| If they're cheap and you're concerned couldn't you just get
| one out of pocket ?
| haldujai wrote:
| "Just don't eat eggs and pray."
|
| If you avoid smoking, have a healthy diet, get adequate
| exercise and consequently maintain a healthy weight you'll do
| far more to prognosticate your MI risk than a calcium score.
| haldujai wrote:
| It would be nice to have this information to see if any trends
| are discovered (all of this is theoretical, I question whether
| measuring excreted compounds rather than stores is is relevant
| but that's a separate point) however it is unclear what value
| this information will provide and seems unlikely it will
| generate anything actionable.
|
| With that in mind, it's hard to justify the colossal costs that
| would be involved in administering such a program. Young (< 50)
| healthy adults shouldn't even really be getting annual checkups
| (in my professional opinion and per several guidelines) and
| annual blood work is definitely not indicated.
|
| Annual urinalysis is not indicated as part of the general work
| up for patients of any age, so this would be adding a whole
| extra step in specimen collection and not just adding on a
| test.
|
| Healthcare is generally a zero sum game and if we divert $ and
| lab resources to something like this that means other tests and
| procedures are not being done.
|
| A small prospective study as the authors suggest would be
| interesting, yet still expensive. It's a huge stretch to say
| everyone should be getting this and ignores the harm that this
| would cause.
| idontpost wrote:
| > Young (< 50) healthy adults shouldn't even really be
| getting annual checkups (in my professional opinion and per
| several guidelines) and annual blood work is definitely not
| indicated.
|
| Remind me to never use you as a medical provider.
| haldujai wrote:
| Here are some resources to read.
|
| https://europepmc.org/article/nbk/nbk82767#_vaphysical_s5_
|
| https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/63/11/824.full.pdf
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7191?ijkey=34070a9e7bf
| 5...
| vehementi wrote:
| > Young (< 50) healthy adults shouldn't even really be
| getting annual checkups (in my professional opinion and per
| several guidelines)
|
| How does letting people have undiagnosed cancer in their 30s
| and 40s fit in with this?
| bigfudge wrote:
| The reason is that many medical tests have high false
| positive rates, and the follow procedures have side effects
| (sometimes). When you administer tests and followups at
| population scale for a disease with a low prior probability
| you will do more harm than good, on the average.
| haldujai wrote:
| An annual physical exam isn't really powered to detect
| cancer in the modern world, it's a relic from the past.
|
| If you develop cancer in your 30s (sadly too many people) a
| physical exam or blood test almost certainly wouldn't have
| made the difference.
|
| We have mammograms for breast cancer and women > 40.
| Unfortunately there isn't enough evidence to support a
| screening program for people younger than that where the
| pretest probability for malignancy is so low and there are
| harms associated with tests.
| nightski wrote:
| Hmm, you could use that argument to dissuade all of
| scientific research. Science is zero sum, if we devote
| resources to it then you are taking them from someone else!
|
| But at the end of the day we all know there are significant
| potential benefits to this type of testing. Not only that,
| more demand can increase jobs & labs in the first place.
|
| Just because the system is dysfunctional is not a good
| argument for ceasing progress.
| haldujai wrote:
| Suggesting we perform niche lab examinations annually on
| the entire population is not scientific research, that's
| jumping straight into a screening program.
|
| Such an initiative would require more lab resources than
| currently exists in the US.
|
| I'm questioning whether this is the best use of $100-200
| billion a year. Instead, I suggested a small study
| (appropriately powered) to further investigate.
| scythe wrote:
| >I question whether measuring excreted compounds rather than
| stores is relevant
|
| I would have to figure that chemicals sitting in fat cells
| that rarely divide are probably not causing cancer. Cancer
| occurs mostly in epithelial tissue; in my case, the germ
| cell. Excreted compounds are probably a better measure of
| actual blood levels. I'm not a nephrologist or anything,
| though.
|
| >A small prospective study
|
| will almost certainly find nothing, because the rate of
| early-onset cancer is too low to detect changes in a small
| population. You probably need >100k participants to have a
| good chance of finding anything.
|
| >it is unclear what value this information will provide
|
| I mean, that's the billion-dollar question, isn't it? Should
| probably try to control for obesity first, it's the most
| obvious candidate (changes since 1990, so not, e.g.,
| smoking), but it certainly wasn't my problem (BMI 21).
| haldujai wrote:
| A billion dollars is not enough for what's being proposed
| here.
| WFHRenaissance wrote:
| > Young (< 50) healthy adults shouldn't even really be
| getting annual checkups (in my professional opinion and per
| several guidelines) and annual blood work is definitely not
| indicated.
|
| Tell this to my mom.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I am sorry for whatever happened/happens to your mom. That
| being said, when looking at cold hard data, this is a valid
| point.
|
| We all have various weird stuff in us, the older the more.
| Cystes, weird bulges, benign cancers that wont kill us for
| 50 years. If you are a male say above 40 or 50, you
| probably have some very early (or not) prostate cancer.
|
| Often you need an invasive procedure to get more info. Even
| then its quite often not 100% clear if surgery is overall
| safer and better than keeping and monitoring.
|
| We like this idea of omnipotent medicine but its a pipe
| dream. Difficult procedures are extremely expensive
| regardless of location (US stands apart as always but still
| a valid point), and even ignoring price there simply isnt
| enough staff/equipment. Covid and often selfish clueless
| people certainly didnt help.
|
| Medicine tries to fix as much as it can, which is mostly
| not enough. The hard part is accepting that when it becomes
| about a close one. There is no easy solution.
|
| Source: wife is an emergency/gp doctor, went through this
| countless times. And much worse, even smart people become
| completely irrational, cruel or selfish very easily in such
| situations.
| mdavidn wrote:
| I interpreted the comment to mean, "my mom always reminds
| me to go get a checkup that I don't need."
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| > Collecting such individual data via blood & urine samples
| (possibly fat biopsies & breast milk as well) on a yearly basis
| should really be part of a standard medical checkup procedure
|
| No so long as sickness is so profitable. The incentives aren't
| there like you would think.
| titzer wrote:
| It's not so much that sickness is profitable as the abject
| laziness and refusal to properly dispose of chemical
| byproducts in industry, as that costs money which hurts the
| bottom line. This is absolutely rampant worldwide and
| governments are corruptly influenced to look the other way to
| more or less degree depending on the country you are in.
| soperj wrote:
| What about in every western country where it isn't
| profitable?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| lostlogin wrote:
| I disagree with the comment you are replying to, but I also
| disagree with yours too.
|
| Healthcare is crazy profitable. Insurance companies,
| healthcare providers, suppliers etc form a decent chunk of
| most western economies, the US of A in particular.
| soperj wrote:
| I'm specifically not talking about the states, and
| talking about countries with public health care.
| ITI03 wrote:
| Contaminated ground water around military bases from the use of
| fire extinguishing foams.
|
| https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-military-pfas-site...
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Even Nature stated microplastics are everywhere, yet we do not
| know what effects it will have.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3
| istinetz wrote:
| What do you mean, "even Nature"? They have no incentive to
| downplay the omnipresence of microplastics
| krab wrote:
| I understand it as "not only alarmist sources but also a
| reputable journal".
| Gatsky wrote:
| Is this even worth doing when people are still smoking,
| drinking alcohol, living in polluted areas and eating red meat?
| These are all known risk factors with large effects on cancer
| risk in younger people.
|
| I think the effort is better spent as follows:
|
| - ban sale of combustible tobacco products
|
| - ban advertising of alcoholic beverages
| krisoft wrote:
| > still smoking, drinking alcohol, living in polluted areas
| and eating red meat
|
| One of these is not like the others. I can decide to not
| smoke, not drink alcohol and not eat red meat. It is a
| personal choice, and my choice doesn't affect the health
| outcomes of those around me. (Mostly. Second hand smoke is a
| thing, but we did a lot society wise to act against that.)
|
| On the other hand living in poluted areas is absolutely an
| economy thing. People don't live in polluted places because
| they love the sweet buzz it gives them. They live there
| because by far and large that is the place they can afford to
| live at. And these areas are not polluted because god made
| them so. They are mostly polluted because industry or
| transportation polluted them.
|
| In other words rich people polluting poor people. (By and
| large.)
|
| I find it very interesting that you choose to ignore the one
| cause people can't do anything on their own, and choose to
| formulate policy proposals against the ones they can.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well people can certainly move to some extent. Nobody with
| functional brain considers metropoles to be healthy place
| to live. People stay there mostly for the money, I know I
| do and I accept the risks (and working on improving the
| situation).
|
| Moving to mountainous/overall remote regions is relatively
| cheap. But people like easy life, close work, shopping,
| services and so on.
|
| World is certainly not as binary as you paint it
| is_true wrote:
| Most people don't even think about the impact where they
| live has in their health
| Gatsky wrote:
| In fact, all these things have socioeconomic determinants.
|
| Air pollution has a relatively small effect compared to the
| others.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| In a practical sense, if you do not track something, you have
| no way of knowing whether it has an impact and whether it
| outweighs currently known carcinogens. And why immediately go
| after something people actually willingly put in their bodies
| as opposed to something that ends up there... somehow?
| pasquinelli wrote:
| has smoking, drinking, and eating red meat gone up in the
| past several decades? because, according to the first
| sentence of the abstract early onset cancers have gone up in
| the past several decades.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| PFOS in the environment has gone up in the past several
| decades.
| andrenotgiant wrote:
| Does Betteredge's law of headlines apply to academic papers?
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Increased use of screening programmes has contributed to this
| phenomenon to a certain extent, although a genuine increase in
| the incidence of early-onset forms of several cancer types also
| seems to have emerged.
|
| How do they separate these two. Early testing is becoming more
| common so you expect to see more cancer simply due to looking for
| it.
|
| Doc: Early screening has increased the 5-year survival rate for
| various cancers.
|
| Patient: Of course it has, but will I live any longer?
| Gatsky wrote:
| The only cancer routinely screened for in people under 50 is
| cervical cancer. Even then, the test detects precancerous
| lesions mainly. As such, ascertainment bias is not a major
| methodological concern.
| copperx wrote:
| Colon cancer guidelines have changed screenings to 45.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| Ok. Overall, though, there aren't a _lot_ of cancer
| screenings otherwise either. You might get a colonoscopy, but
| you probably aren 't checking for bone cancer either.
|
| But you would probably get an MRI of your brain if you were
| having headaches. An ultrasound to check for gallstones, a CT
| scan to see if that's your appendix that is hurting. And we
| are getting way more scans than we used to. A lot of tumors
| are found as a result of modern imaging technology. More are
| found by self-examination: We know to watch moles and to do
| breast or testicular exams at home, for example.
|
| When we find precancerous stuff, we can often keep an eye on
| it and/or do something about it, hopefully before it gets out
| of hand.
| smt88 wrote:
| Lots of cancers are screened in younger people outside of
| routine: melanoma, colon cancer, breast cancer, etc. are all
| things that doctors will test for if a person has certain
| signs (like a suspicious mole or rectal polyps).
| letsgo39 wrote:
| You should be able to see the 'real' increase from death rates,
| assuming the cause of death is correctly identified as cancer
| pre or post mortem.
| SigmundA wrote:
| Cancer death rates are going down [1], which to me means we
| are probably better at treating cancer but also probably
| finding it more often even when not life threatening and
| might have gone on unnoticed in an earlier time.
|
| Also we are getting better at treating other diseases and
| living longer, leading to being more likely to get cancer
| since if you live long enough you will almost certainly get
| some form of it.
|
| 1. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-
| de...
| cerol wrote:
| It's slow progress, but we can dream of a day where getting
| a cancer diagnosis is not a death sentence, but rather
| something like HIV. Not really curable, but with the right
| treatment, you can live a fairly normal life. You die
| _with_ cancer, but not _of_ cancer.
| importantbrian wrote:
| This is the reason most medical studies look at all cause
| mortality. Cause of death reporting is prone to all kinds of
| medical judgement and human error that cause reporting
| specific causes of death to be problematic.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Early-stage cancer survivorship rates are much higher, and
| early detection catches cancers at an earlier stage. Studies
| have been done that show the benefit of early screening,
| separate from the bias.
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| Do those studies account for the (emotional and monetary)
| cost of false positives from those early detection?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I don't think monetary cost was accounted for, and I assume
| by emotional cost you don't mean the hits to someone's
| health due to emotions (which are accounted for). It's
| really hard to get diagnosed with a cancer, but early
| detection is very helpful for improving outcomes.
|
| In the US (in particular), there is a lot more monetary
| cost to someone's late-stage cancer treatment, and then
| eventual death, than there is to early-stage cancer
| treatment, so I would assume that early screening tests are
| monetarily net beneficial based on the reduction in cancer
| deaths.
| illuminerdy wrote:
| jah242 wrote:
| For context, looking at UK data:
|
| 1. Yes incidence of cancer in 25-49 year olds has increased 22%
| from 1993 to 2018 - but that is 22% on a very low number which
| means it is still a very low number. When you account for
| increased screening, greater awareness, and better testing, the
| increase is likely even smaller.
|
| https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
|
| 2. Better treatment (and more effective screening) means
| mortality rates per 100k from all cancers in 25-49 has dropped
| c.40% over the same period (despite higher incidence).
|
| https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
|
| So whilst this is obviously important to study. At least the UK
| data doesn't seem too terrifying but I m no expert.
| bitwize wrote:
| [deleted]
| rajamaka wrote:
| Source very much needed
| [deleted]
| dev_throw wrote:
| My bet is on hormonal changes due to modern living and/or it's
| impact on the gut microbiome. I'm mid thirties with low body fat
| and somewhat athletic and got diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer
| last year with no history in the family. My support groups
| regularly get new people around my age.
|
| It's scary to think that in the next few years these cancers will
| no longer be an old person's illness because chemo is absolutely
| devastating.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-09 23:01 UTC)