81–90 of 107 posts
Hypothesis: it's socially more acceptable for men to not care for their body as much as women do, eat worse, drink more soda and beer, etc. leading overall to more sugar(y) foods and more inflammation?
So is the second X chromosome in women supposed to be an exact copy of the first or do they differ? That's fascinating to me all by itself, and more so that some genes in the dupe can reinforce the first even though the rest of the chromosome is suppressed. EDIT: Ah, wikipedia explains that the two X chromosomes in a standard-issue woman come from the mother and paternal grandmother, and then ... "Early in embryonic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a conservative strategy -change from one generation to another will likely be moderated/averaged by the influence of the second X chromosome for female offspring. Alternatively, single copy governed traits (as in males) mean greater ability to adapt (at a higher mortality rate) and those successful remaining males can propagate their single X chromosome (new and improved, thank you) to their daughters. It's a co…
Hmm. Are you saying that men's imputing of adaptations to their one X chromosome is somehow more concentrated/effectual than the adaptations a woman imputes to her 2 X chromosomes? What is the mechanism and how did you draw that conclusion? Because she only passes one along? It seems to me that chiefly the non-suppressed X chromosome in females would see action by its workings and thus accumulate adaptations.
This scheme can lessen certain X-linked genetic disorders in women since not all cells will be affected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The implication is womens' immune system is more trigger happy, which would make cancer in women less common.
My first thought was that the opposite was true. The immune system attacks healthy cells, increasing inflammation, thus stress. Thereby lowering the normal immune system and allowing cancer cells to flourish. Unless you're talking about all-encompassing diseases (I can't think of any off the top of my head). Otherwise, I don't think Celiac/MS/Diabetes is fighting any cancers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Breast cancer was not an order of magnitude more common than prostate cancer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#c...
Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In (3), are you describing what I've sometimes heard called tetrachromat? Is that now confidently considered extant? Last I'd heard, it was an exciting, but only slightly substantiated, theory, but I'd love to see more about it!
Yes, I think you are right. I thought I remember it being heterochromat, but looking online all references seem to be to tetrachromat. In terms of evidence, I think prevalence is there, but there were some papers where they actually tested color perception differences (at least from wikipedia).
More money is spent on preventing cancer in women in treatment, research, and preventive medicine. Google the history of the brca gene, research and tests around it. Its quite amazing.I hope all cancer research gets the pipeline it got.
If this is talking about a prostate vs breath cancer dichotomy. The reason is prostate cancer kills much older men than breast cancer kills women. Women in their 40s routinely die of breast cancer but that's pretty rare for a man in his 40s to die of prostate cancer. So saving a man's live fron prostate cancer means he dies at 75 instead of 70 and but saving a women's from breast cancer means she dies at 65 instead o…
Most doctors don't even recommend breast screening for the under 50. That's not young!
See Figure 1 here to confirm that.
https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/...
Compare this with prostate cancer. Note, the rates at 50 look much lower than breast cancer, but that's only because the increase in later years is MUCH higher than breast cancer,
https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics
While I can't put a finger on it, I've been advised that breast cancer funding is 6x higher than any other cancer funding. That's unjustifiable, but you won't see the MSM comment on that!
Breast cancer is the 4th biggest killer, yet, it gets the lions share of publicity and funding. Age has nothing to do with it. Check the top 3 and you will see they don't only affect old people.
If it counts for anything, my boss is a health practitioner. She has often ridiculed prostate cancer patients as whiners (but so do many news outlets).
You are not alone in your incorrect beliefs toward prostate cancer. It comes from a barrage of false news in the MSM. That shouldn't be a shock to anybody.
They have more iron in their bodies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.
Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Are you sure? It looks like they're both about 21 deaths per 100,000 people: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
Try
https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics
And
https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/...
Similar figures in the UK too. The MSM have pushed breast cancer heavily for as long as I can remember.
Despite male homelessness being around 80%, the MSM downplays this too, in the same way male cancer is heavily downplayed by MSM. That's been the case for at least 30 years (source: ABS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems to me that it can only accumulate errors and mutations. Except some of those mutations can be useful – some deadly, but some could be selected for as one's environment/niche shifts. That's evolution and selection in a nutshell. Not all mutations are bad and not all bad mutations are always bad.
Yes, truly over the long haul, the fittest survive - helpful mutations account for all survival thus far. I just envy what I interpret as an intragenerational bolstering of genetic traits that females have, assuming the EXITS thing is truly what's going on. They don't have to wait a generation to perhaps select out the bad, they get to do it on the fly.