71–80 of 280 posts
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
plus: high-PUFA oils (seed / vegetable oils) being labelled as "heart-healthy"
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.
Quoted post unavailable.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pro…
> 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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lies/bad science about cholesterol & saturated fat being unhealthy Are you saying cholesterol and saturated fats aren't unhealthy? I'm confused.
It turned out eating high cholesterol foods didn’t lead to high cholesterol after all.
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?
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.
In short, radiation either has an immediate, very apparent and deadly effect, or a simple stochastic one that basically linearly increases with radiation exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If people get angry and upset at a topic, I find it usually requires to be brought into the limelight.
>> 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…
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.