31–40 of 73 posts
Most 'types' of cancer are unequivocally about bad luck; nearly any cell line in your body can develop overproliferative mutations. There are hundreds of 'types' of cancer.
'Cases' and deaths from cancer are, globally and in the US, more environmentally influenced, because of the huge impact of smoking on lung and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in particular.
This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics. The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract -- the abstract is enough to deduce the conclusion) is a simple statistical analysis of mutation probability in certain cell types. It's basically saying that many cancers are not necessarily influenced by external factors and can be predicted by nothing more than the number of cell div…
> That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result There are plenty of problems with the original paper see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not as simple as that. Most "indecisiveness" that appears to come from science is from different studies being taken out of context, or poor media reporting. Most wild claims you see aren't from the researchers themselves. See Steven Novella's recent blog post on this subject. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scott-adams-on-...
I'm not sure that matters. It's ok to eat cholesterol now, right? All these "mistakes" give science a black eye. We've already got a Climate Change trustworthyness problem and for some reason people don't trust vaccines, mostly educated people. As a nation, we refused to fund both the Hubble and the Supercollider, which would have been bigger than CERN. It's probably time that we stopped making excuses and think of a…
You're confusing central planning and science. Governmental politics and advisory is a form of central planning, and in that realm mistakes are shunned upon.
Science is a protocol that, if duly practiced, will evolve our understanding towards the truth. But the path is not straight. And science does not give any way for determining whether we have found the truth at the present moment.
That's why in proper science everything is in constant flux. For some people that's terrifying, so they prefer central planning and static advisory from above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result There are plenty of problems with the original paper see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf
Did you know that your last link is the original link for this thread?
This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics. The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract -- the abstract is enough to deduce the conclusion) is a simple statistical analysis of mutation probability in certain cell types. It's basically saying that many cancers are not necessarily influenced by external factors and can be predicted by nothing more than the number of cell div…
The author makes a few references to the idea of "scientific consensus", which I find curious. It's a phrase that I tend to cast aside as politically motivated. Politicians in the climate change debate like to point to "scientific consensus" as a way of saying, "look, all these intelligent people whose work we personally don't understand agree, so they must be correct." But one tenant of scientific thought is that tr…
No thanks.
One of the worst aspects of modern day science right now is that the media et al seems to think it is okay to allow anyone to present counter arguments regardless of their scientific background. This causes problems for the laymen who has no ability to even comprehend let alone compare results from different individuals. And it is laymen who ultimately determines what science gets funded and what happens to the results of the science e.g. political action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that matters. It's ok to eat cholesterol now, right? All these "mistakes" give science a black eye. We've already got a Climate Change trustworthyness problem and for some reason people don't trust vaccines, mostly educated people. As a nation, we refused to fund both the Hubble and the Supercollider, which would have been bigger than CERN. It's probably time that we stopped making excuses and think of a…
> It's ok to eat cholesterol now, right? All these "mistakes" give science a black eye. You're confusing central planning and science. Governmental politics and advisory is a form of central planning, and in that realm mistakes are shunned upon. Science is a protocol that, if duly practiced, will evolve our understanding towards the truth. But the path is not straight. And science does not give any way for determinin…
"Proper science" is practically practiced by no scientist outside of Math and possibly Physics and Chemistry. Biology, medicine and nutrition, for example, are not "proper sciences".
E.g. the lipid hypothesis (cholesterol causes heart problems) does not, and never had, scientific support (In the "proper science" sense), and did have data against it for about 30 years, but it's very hard to find any scientist who would admit it. Similarly, the hypothesis that cholesterol intake makes a significant difference to serum levels was never proved, essentially disproved many times - and yet, it is taken as an axiom but most "scientists".
So, the fact that some "proper scientific practice" would have shown differently is of no practical consequence.
This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics. The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract -- the abstract is enough to deduce the conclusion) is a simple statistical analysis of mutation probability in certain cell types. It's basically saying that many cancers are not necessarily influenced by external factors and can be predicted by nothing more than the number of cell div…
"emphasis on very rare cancers (e.g. osteosarcoma, medulloblastoma) that together make only a small contribution to the total cancer burden."
and that it
"excludes [...] common cancers for which incidence differs substantially between populations and over time."
So it sounds like the generalization hinted at in the abstract shows a bigger misunderstanding of statistics than any in the press release. Would be nice if the paper was not paywalled, so we could actually read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a myth that prostate cancer is something you die with, rather than die of?
There is a great difference between the incidence of prostate cancer and the death rate from it. Prostate cancer is currently diagnosed in 15 to 20% of men during their lifetime, but the lifetime risk of death from prostate cancer is only 3%. Source: European prostate cancer guideline (page 45): http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09%20Prostate%20Cancer_LRLV2.p...
http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09%20Prostate%20Cancer_LRLV2.p...
> Tumour grade is clearly significant, with very low survival rates for grade 3 tumours. Although the 10-year cancer-specific rate is equally good (87%) for grade 1 and 2 tumours, the latter have a significantly higher progression rate, with 42% of patients with these tumours developing metastases (Table 8.4). Patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 tumours had 10-year cancer-specific survival rates of 91%, 90% and 74%, respectively, correlating with data from the pooled analysis (49) (LE: 3).
Wherever one dies 'with it' or 'because of it', this cancer might progress into metastases, and it brings higher mortality rate.