Live data from Hacker News

Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

nytimes.com

121–130 of 151 posts

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#121
post #114
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have a strong contrarian streak which naturally leads them toward the minority position on many controversial subjects. It's often the exact same people saying that AIDS isn't caused by HIV, that global warming is a fraud, that oil reserves are infinite, that evolution is impossible, etc. etc. I've witnessed this firsthand. I can't explain why they are this way, but it looks like a general attitude of "th…

There are also some paranoid people who use encryption because secret services could be spying on them. We have no idea how aids causes hiv, cannot even predict weather for next week, but we are 110% sure some theories are right. No wonder, it is waste of money to get phd today

In case you wonder why you are being downvoted, it’s because you are, yourself, denying recent (and less recent) news regarding federal monitoring; engaging in HIV/AIDS denialism; reversing HIV and AIDS; conflating weather prediction with scientific understanding; and ending with a non-sequitur.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really going to blow your mind is the statistics on who gets HIV infections in the United States today: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html What an un-PC virus. Doesn't it know we're living in 2013? I'm told reality is supposed to have a liberal bias now.

First, women are just 20% of all AIDS victims. Mind not blown, Mr. Un-PC Dude. Second, that shows a fair degree of missing the point of fiction . Sure, in real life, where everything happens according to cold statistics, promiscuous women will tend to get more AIDS than non-promiscuous women and non-promiscuous heterosexual men. Granted. But this is fiction, a work of art which has an audience and a message , where e…

lolcraft says some of my thoughts better than I could.

It is funny that after my two sentence post I am accused of being PC (whatever that even means these days) and wanting to deny that some risky behavior and drugs could lead to problems and that I think all anti-war people were angels.

In Forest Gump everyone who is anti-Vietnam war is presented as bad and the woman who choose not to stay in her home town and make house and goes to protests get aids. It does seem like a message.

Some pointed out LT Dan does get his legs blown off. True but it is from no fault of his own, its a random event not him being punished. His gets on prostitutes (who of course are shown an horrible people) drinks a ton, but yet in the end, his life turns out good and he marries an Asian women (you know 'cause he was fighting against them, so this some how is fitting). No punishment for his reckless behavior unlike that slut Jenny.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#123
post #121
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also some paranoid people who use encryption because secret services could be spying on them. We have no idea how aids causes hiv, cannot even predict weather for next week, but we are 110% sure some theories are right. No wonder, it is waste of money to get phd today

In case you wonder why you are being downvoted, it’s because you are, yourself, denying recent (and less recent) news regarding federal monitoring; engaging in HIV/AIDS denialism; reversing HIV and AIDS; conflating weather prediction with scientific understanding; and ending with a non-sequitur.

Thus providing a wonderful illustration of my point.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#124
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to remember that AZT (the first effective anti-retroviral treatment for HIV) was invented in the 60s as part of cancer research. It wasn't until the mid-80s that HIV researchers started testing it. In other words, it's not as if the drug was invented in response to the AIDS crisis. Once the NIH/NCI made AIDS research a priority, it was a rather straightforward matter to start testing known anti-retrovi…

Was HIV even identified in the late 1970s and early 80s though? I thought it was identified as a consequence of looking at the causes of the AIDS epidemic.

The virus was discovered in 1983, but knowledge of the "gay cancer" was around in the late 70s. I shouldn't have said "HIV research" there, but rather, "AIDS research". The medical world's interest in AIDS was pretty limited until it started to break out of the marginalized populations of gay men and drug users.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#125
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using word 'denialist' in connection with scientific hypothesis seems somehow wrong.

When the overwhelming body of evidence points to something, denialist seems appropriate. e.g. climate change denialist. There was a reasonable case for HIV is not the cause of AIDS for a while in the 90s, but everything that pointed that way was overturned by further inquiry. I met an HIV causes AIDS denialist once in university, so I did a bunch of research so find out if he was a crackpot or not. Things may have ch…

Describing someone as a "denialist" is a demonization, it is designed to connect the person to absurd Holocaust "deniers".

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#126
post #73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread has descended into self-parody. I encourage you guys to go do something else.

Yeah I didn't want to get into it but sometimes some BS bugs you and its hard not to comment. I try to stick to non political on HN. Kinda rewarding "bad" behavior though right? this is the first time PG has sorta commented on any comment I have made.

I'm afraid that if you think PG will continue to tell you to stop after this time, you are wrong. The next step is probably you being hellbanned by one of the admins, or by software.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#127
post #56
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: if we call t_0 1981, the Kaposi's Sarcoma article, and t_x 1996, the advent of HAART, and consider (t_x - t_0) "the AIDS epidemic" --- ignoring the ongoing epidemics in Sub-Saharan African and India, which are enormous problems but somewhat orthogonal to the problem described by your book --- what comparably lethal disease in human history was more effectively addressed by the medical establishment? How can…

There is a difference between effectively managed by the medical establishment and what Reagan / america did in the 80s. I'm at work and I don't have sources readily available, but my understanding is that many older gay people (those still alive) hate reagan and republicans specifically because they slow rolled the response to hiv. Much of America's response wasn't really pushed until the Clinton administration. So…

"The real Reagan record on AIDS is different. AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 - when the media started blaring headlines - from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. Reagan's secretary of Health and Human Services in 1983, Margaret Heckler, declared AIDS her department's "number one priority." While the House of Representatives was Democrat-dominated throughout the 1980s, which Democrats would quickly explain was the source of that skyrocketing AIDS funding, Reagan clearly signed the spending bills that funded the war on AIDS.

It's also wrong that Reagan didn't utter the word "AIDS" until 1987. Any reporter who bothered to check facts would find that Reagan discussed AIDS funding in a 1985 press conference, just for starters. But let's turn that around on the rest of Washington. Does that mean no reporter asked Reagan about AIDS in the 1984 presidential debates? And that every interview President Reagan granted to a national or local media outlet failed to solicit Reagan's opinions on AIDS until 1985? Using this phony-baloney spin line - that federal policy hinges exclusively on the presidential bully pulpit - is an exercise in liberal hyperbole over hard data."

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/new-myths-reagans-record

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, unfortunately science is rarely PC. Behavior and genetics are by far the strongest determinants of your risk for acquiring HIV. No parade, protest, or law will change that.

Physician here: maybe you could enlighten us all on studies showing "genetics" are "strongest" determinants of "your risk for acquiring HIV." Are you actually trying to advance the theory that the "genetics" of a particular minority group is a "determinant", rather than social class? A lack of socioeconomic resources is linked to the practice of riskier health behaviors, which can lead to the contraction of HIV. Thes…

Actually it's really simple. Risky behavior is called that because it increases the risk of STD transmission. It is also borne out in the statistics that people of certain races are disproptionately affected by HIV.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, they all fit this definition, but the mutation isn't always spontaneous. For example, cervical cancer is often caused by HPV, which is why school-age girls are routinely immunised against it in the UK.

I'd be suprised if any cancers were completely spontaneous rather than us just not knowing what causes them.

Let's break that down a bit:

There are many genetic determinants of whether you will develop a cancer, or a particular type of cancer. People with FAP, or HNPCC, or other proto-oncogene mutations such as BRCA2 will have a very high probability of developing a specific cancer in their lifetime.

But the mutation that leads to cancer is a spontaneous event, that is allowed to occur due to a failure of cellular regulation.

There are many viral causes of cancer, as OP mentions HPV for cervical and penile cancer. Other strains of HPV are linked to SCc (a form of skin cancer) and throat cancer. Hepatitis C will cause liver failure and Hepatocellulr carcinoma in approx 20% of infected patients. Infection with H. Pylori can predispose to gastric carcinoma.

Additionally exposure to various 'environments' can lead to cancer - if you have GORD you can develop Barett's Oesophsgus due to the gastric acid irritating lower oesophageal mucosa, which can predispose to oesophageal cancer. if you are an alcoholic you can develop cirrhosis and later Hepatocellular carcinoma due to prolonged inflammation in the liver. If you are pale skinned and live in a sunny climate you are at higher risk for melanoma and if you eat a poor diet you have an increased risk of colon cancer. Smoking and exposure to smoke can give you lung, oropharynx, stomach and bladder cancer.

As of yet we have no idea what, of any, are associations for many of the Brain, bone or Kidney cancers (excluding some toxins for kidney cancer).

Possibly there is no cause.

But in all of these cases, the mutation still arises 'spontaneously'. That is, we all have a probability of developing a mutation that can cause cancer every time a cell divides in our body. In people with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, who have a mutation of p53, almost everyone will develop cancer by the time they are in their 40s. So we know the rate of gene knockout is quite high over our lives, and if it wasn't for immunosurvielance, we would likely fall prey to cancer much faster than we do anyway..

All having a risk factor or infection does is increase the probability that a cell will 'spontaneously' develop a mutation that will make it cancerous, and having more of these mutated cells arising increases the chance that one will evade immunosurviellance and continue to grow and expand.

Bottom line: as a doctor I see all cancers as spontaneous. You could say that x causes y, and in many cases there is a strong association, but in no case is that association as strong as, say, life leading to death, for which there is a correlation coefficient approaching 1.

Post reply on HN