11–20 of 233 posts
Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol. I can readily think of other possible reasons for a correlation.
Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol. I can readily think of other possible reasons for a correlation.
Let's also smoke, then.
Makes sense. I once read if humans were biologically immortal, everyone would basically get cancer if they lived to be 2,000 years old. It's just inevitable. Hopefully it comes later in life, rather than sooner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's also smoke, then.
Only if you are self-treating depression. Though these days there are drugs for depression that can dramatically increase the odds you will quit smoking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you are self-treating depression. Though these days there are drugs for depression that can dramatically increase the odds you will quit smoking.
This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same level of evidence that we have for alcohol, which is observational studies. That knee jerk reaction that observational studies can't give us a relatively high level of confidence is why I mentioned the case of tobacco: if you really believe that, you should al…
I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change their practices.
I really believe that after listening to the tales of a relative be patient zero in a cancer study.
And on and on.
Cancer runs rampant in my family. I've had multiple relatives who have had it, some multiple times.
Your opinions about my opinions not withstanding, I will continue to believe what makes sense to me.
> Our study highlights the contribution of even relatively low levels of alcohol to the risk of new cancer cases, "relatively" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I'm always amazed when filling out health surveys where it considers one alcoholic drink every single day a "low level".
I don't recall if this was precovid or postcovid, but there was a 60 minutes where they were talking about the impact that understanding the genome has had on health research, but specifically curing some cancers and longevity. They had a harvard prof on there that firmly believed that within 7 years that we'll be seeing real advances (that the public will have access to) on that.
7 years is nothing. You know it's not going to take 7 years, it's going to take 25, but stop pickling yourselves so you can make it that far. I have 45 year old friends that act like they are going to die tomorrow.
edit:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-geneticist-george-churc...
This is the 60 minutes in question. Keep in mind academic timelines. It's longer than seven years, money quote, among other interesting stuff:
> Scott Pelley: What's the time horizon on age reversal in humans?
George Church: That's in clinical trials right now in dogs. And so, that veterinary product might be a couple years away and then that takes another ten years to get through the human clinical trials.
Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol. I can readily think of other possible reasons for a correlation.
But they don't mention any other adjustments (age, other dietary factors, BMI...).
Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol. I can readily think of other possible reasons for a correlation.
They looked at correlations for "cancer sites with sufficient evidence of a causal link according to the most recent IARC monograph.". But they don't mention any other adjustments (age, other dietary factors, BMI...).
Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe people drink because they caught a virus that causes cancer, either to self medicate or because the virus makes them crave alcohol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same level of evidence that we have for alcohol, which is observational studies. That knee jerk reaction that observational studies can't give us a relatively high level of confidence is why I mentioned the case of tobacco: if you really believe that, you should al…
I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change t…
And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.