Why Is Cancer More Common in Men? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#101

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 3:34 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #95

EdSharkey wrote: post #38

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…

Um the X chromosome in a women comes from the mother and the paternal grandmother and grandfather because there is crossover between X and Y chromosomes (albeit very little). There's no need to worry about the Y chromosome disappearing because it's remarkably stable. This makes sense -- males with Y mutations die out and men are extremely good at producing offspring. This only good Y chromosomes are passed on. Nevert…

> Thus, if we saw loss of Y, we would likely see a 50/50 gender split but now based on presence of the SRY gene.

If that were to occur, we'd get into more X-SRY X-SRY situations much more often though, right? Sounds unhealthy, I'd prefer to keep the Y separate and intact for as long as possible. :)

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#102

Post by voidlogic » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

tajen wrote: post #29

voidlogic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because men receive worse medical treatment. What about an alternative... Men are less likely to seek medical treatment?

Are you suggesting men don't seek medical treatment therefore it's their fault for getting sick? Girls often don't want to become programmers, and, as I know it, we don't say "It's their fault". We just raise the issue and everyone is fighting to make them want to become programmers. It's way past time we apply the same reasoning to men's problems as women's problems. Males not seeking medical treatment could be beca…

>Are you suggesting men don't seek medical treatment therefore it's their fault for getting sick?

I made no attribution of fault... simply an alternative primary cause to the person I responded to.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#103

Post by godmodus » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #71

godmodus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Plus innate abity to advance technology. We'll engineer ourselves to survive. Or nuke everything, whichever comes first. Heh. Edit: not to knock off the downvotes, if they're due, they're due. But may I enquire as to why I am being downvoted?

I didn't downvote you because you replied to me, and apparently I can't. In my opinion, you didn't add much to the conversation and then with that last crack you did a snarky mic drop where you totally blew it. I like to ask questions, perhaps with a careful dash of snark if I think I can flash out with some wit, and keep the conversation going. For example, I might reply to you, > Which is why human engage in mate s…

Thanks for the reply!

I didn't mean to sound snarky, it was more of the pessimist in me. But chiefly an optimist. I trust evolution is doing the right thing. But that is indeed a weak argument, seeing as it's not supported by either more philosophy or science.

I do apologise for how it came through, in was on mobile and didn't have time to put in more prose.

I should have brought in more facts into my own argumet to spark a discussion. I'll take the critism to mind and adjust.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#104

Post by echelon » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 3:50 AM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #100

echelon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth pointing out that since Barr body deactivation occurs later in development, some female cells have one of the X chromosomes active, while other cells have the other one active.

So is it wrongheaded to think all women are a bit of a chimera, then? It would seem females would benefit for the most part from this chromosomal arrangement healthwise than males, more diversity.

That term is reserved for organisms comprised of cells that derived from two or more zygotes, but you've definitely got the right line of thinking. Some of the cells of a female will express the genes from one of the X chromosomes, whereas the rest will utilize the other. It certainly can lessen the ill effects of certain X-linked diseases.

Some of the other posters in the thread already mentioned calico cat fur coloration. The underlying mechanism is the textbook example of Barr body inactivation. You should check it out on Wikipedia.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#105

Post by PepeGomez » Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

ChickeNES wrote: post #79

da02 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. However, most of the info. I've read comes from "health journalist" Bill Sardi. Despite the sound ideas, he is still brushed off as a crack-pot. Nevertheless, I'm betting on the "over-mineralization" theory of aging. I doubt it will ever become accepted. People seem to like to think in terms of genetics (because that's what the "experts" talk about most of the time) and "hi-tech" dreams (e.g.nano-bots killin…

Bil Sardi is brushed off as a crackpot because he is a crackpot.

Why? It seems to be the only theory that actually fits the evidence, unlike SENS and similar nonsense.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#106

Post by jakubp » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 1:27 PM UTC

stagbeetle wrote: post #81

jakubp wrote: post #47

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?

Social conditioning and less general sensitivity, more like.

Social conditioning ~= socially more acceptable, would you agree?

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#107

Post by throwaway5752 » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

jankotek wrote: post #50

throwaway5752 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad you didn't read the article! The work the scientists did led to much more interesting breakthroughs that that. I learned several new things (x-inactivation and the "EXITS" exceptions to the phenomenon).

I read the article, it has interesting findings, but it ignores some other issues.

Yeah, but it's also a bit unfair for a recap of all of gender based differences in all-cause cancer epidemiology in an article about a specific breakthrough :)