Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 280 posts

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#211

Post by scythe »

haldujai wrote: post #148
photochemsyn wrote: post #49

> "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 (atrazin…

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…

>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).

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#212

Post by Melatonic »

Test0129 wrote: post #46
lambdaba wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

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…

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.

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#213

Post by irrational »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #208
rtev wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think video games, TV, rock’n’roll music and the bicycle are responsible.

I think bicycles are only responsible for the drop in birthdate. All that rattling around is damaging women’s reproductive facilities!

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#214

Post by alexalx666 »

irrational wrote: post #97

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 worl…

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

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#215

Post by copperx »

Gatsky wrote: post #162
phkahler wrote: post #3

>> 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…

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.

Colon cancer guidelines have changed screenings to 45.

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#216

Post by vehementi »

haldujai wrote: post #148
photochemsyn wrote: post #49

> "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 (atrazin…

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…

> Young (How does letting people have undiagnosed cancer in their 30s and 40s fit in with this?

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#217

Post by saiya-jin »

WFHRenaissance wrote: post #156
haldujai wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Young ( Tell this to my mom.

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.

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#218

Post by Gatsky »

krisoft wrote: post #195
Gatsky wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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 absolu…

In fact, all these things have socioeconomic determinants.

Air pollution has a relatively small effect compared to the others.

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#219

Post by saiya-jin »

krisoft wrote: post #195
Gatsky wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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 absolu…

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

Re: Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

#220

Post by soundnote »

galdosdi wrote: post #196
soundnote wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 behavio…

> 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?

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.
Post reply on HN