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

Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#341

Post by QuercusMax »

uzj100 wrote: post #335
QuercusMax wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does designing cars for women mean we need to turn them into main battle tanks? That's a false dichotomy. Women in cars are just as vulnerable as men in cars, just as female pedestrians are just as vulnerable as male pedestrians.

For a while, women in cars were more vulnerable than men in cars, in part because crash test dummies were sized to typical male proportions, and cars are built to pass crash tests rather than be as safe as possible for all occupants while still passing crash tests. This sometimes led to things like airbags being placed in locations that worked great for average height men but not as well for average height women. I d…

It seems like you're using "women" as a proxy for "smaller people". Children and small-statured men are just vulnerable as women in crashes. Regardless, we now do crash tests with a variety of body types.

A 5-foot man is just as vulnerable when being hit by a car as a 5-foot woman, and obviously children are much more vulnerable than grown women when being hit by giant vehicles.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#342

Post by kensai »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #290
kensai wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypothesized therapies, especially if conventional therapies don't work for them or they get many adverse effects from them.

If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it. Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced' .

Don't be silly by making the conversation ad absurdum. What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :)

There's a big difference here between you, acting like a clown, and the scientists or clinicians of yesteryear that formulated the hormesis hypothesis.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#343

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #295
kensai wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prove where is the flaw first. A small or old study is not necessarily flawed. The burden of proving they are flawed falls on you. And no, I care less that they have not been replicated because the community lacks interest. Nobody said the effect is miraculous or similar, to compete with modern medical applications, but certainly they are cheap methods that complement with other general wellness effects of spas.

The burden of proof is on the person making claims that goes against the various world organizations that claim otherwise. I agree the current models that deal with exposure are probably not accurate but again nobody has proven the beneficial claims you have stated. I tend to believe in the markets being efficient in the long run, if these spas were beneficial surely someone would have captured the data after multipl…

What are the various world organisations you are talking about? Because the German ones (among others) certainly have not found it harmful and have not banned it.

I told you many times, unfortunately, no one will do studies on these things anymore because there is no money it and it cannot be patented. That spas generally are beneficial, though, for general wellbeing and especially if combined with known thermal stimuli (such as sauna) is well known and there are several Finnish studies to prove it.

Last but not least, I have come across to many Americans who are generally doutbful of the medical indication of spas because there is little to no tradition overseas.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#344

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #296
kensai wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you have proven my point. There is no strong evidence and IT WILL NEVER BE cause it's like trying to make a new study for a drug that has its patent expired. Are you willing to sponsor studies with your own money? Cause nobody else will. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the little evidence there is from the last century when it was the heyday of balneological applications. However, these little studies we have, e…

And yet it’s still all an unproven hypothesis. Glad you believe in it, placebos can be strong.

If a placebo or nocebo is cheaper than a costly medical intervention, then it's good as that if not better. The problem is: you name it placebo although patients (for example with rheumatological diseases) have really responded to it, sometimes equally good to medications. And rheuma diseases are real debilitating diseases, a placebo would no work so easily. The mechanisms of action of radon baths are potentially many, and many have been already described: 1. Hormetic Effect (Low-Dose Radiation), 2. Anti-Inflammatory Effects, 3. Immune Modulation, 4. Analgesic Effects (Pain Relief), 5. Neuroendocrine Regulation.

Again: unfortunately there will never be studies with thousands of patients to prove this or disprove this, because there is no money to be made. So we stay with the little proof have 20th century studies in Europe with the limited patients evaluated.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#345

Post by londons_explore »

Waterluvian wrote: post #86
irrational wrote: post #80

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone should do a radon test. I scoffed, but humored her by getting a kit from Home Depot and sending it away to a lab. The results came back very high. So I purchased an electronic radon monitor and it showed almost the exact same results. Well, crap. I installed a radon mitigation system and now the num…

The difficult thing for me is that while I believe radon can cause lung cancer, I think products are often sold based on fear. “Second leading cause” doesn’t really mean anything in isolation, does it? What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often?…

> What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often?

I wish more people thought like this. Every time I go to the GP I want to get a printout of my mortality pie based on everything they know about me.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#346

Post by dinfinity »

blueflow wrote: post #340
dinfinity wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be a liar or willfully ignorant to say that after the entirety of 2019-2021 happened. The efficacy of vaccines in general and specifically of the various Covid-19 vaccines have been talked about ad nauseam . No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective. It's so weird how people will close their eyes for basic science to…

> No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective. I can't argue that. I think its a "true scotsman" situation. If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough. Take note that they say "Immunity" instead of "Efficacy", that is because it was the knowledge in 2020. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/ques…

> If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough.

This is a page primarily about herd immunity, not about vaccine efficacy. You had to dig to find this (or somebody dug for you).

Having said that, even though they added several sentences on how certain things are unsure or need more research, I will admit that they worded this specific sentence badly: "Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission."

It is clearly overstated and does not match the careful wording later on: "We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time."

> The rest of your post are personal attacks that do not add to your point.

They do, because you clearly have a bone to pick that is preventing you from rationally approaching the matter and discussions in general. Think about what point you're actually trying to make and what that has to do with the base rate fallacy. Really, verbalize it. What is it? Why did you feel the need to inject that into the discussion, even though it doesn't belong here at all?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#347

Post by blueflow »

dinfinity wrote: post #346
blueflow wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective. I can't argue that. I think its a "true scotsman" situation. If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough. Take note that they say "Immunity" instead of "Efficacy", that is because it was the knowledge in 2020. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/ques…

> If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough. This is a page primarily about herd immunity, not about vaccine efficacy. You had to dig to find this (or somebody dug for you). Having said that, even though they added several sentences on how certain things are unsure or need more research, I will admit that they worded this specific sentence badly: "Vaccinated people are protected f…

The WHO did not word it badly, it was the accepted knowledge back then.

You previously accused me of somehow missing the 2019-2021 timeframe, but that the vaccine doesn't really protect you well from infections was not established until autuum 2021. Consequently, as the scientific data to show it was not collected yet. Either you got the year numbers wrong or there is some retcon happening.

> Why did you feel the need to inject that into the discussion, even though it doesn't belong here at all?

Why is that on me? You tried a stab at antivax whackos and it backfired.

> Really, verbalize it.

I got vaccinated with the belief that it would reliably keep me from the hospital. Because it "prevents severe causes of the sickness" (translated from german). We blamed and shunned unvaccinated people because they were an unreasonable burden to the hospitals, and now you casually remark that its the low efficacy of the vaccine, not being unvaxxed, that causes the majority of people who end up hospitalized. For how long has that been?

Maybe we should have worked on a vaccine with better efficacy (hey, let me dream up the impossible, maybe immunity like with the measles vax where 99% ppl actually can't get sick at all) instead of harassing unvaccinated people?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#349

Post by dinfinity »

blueflow wrote: post #347
dinfinity wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough. This is a page primarily about herd immunity, not about vaccine efficacy. You had to dig to find this (or somebody dug for you). Having said that, even though they added several sentences on how certain things are unsure or need more research, I will admit that they worded this specific sentence badly: "Vaccinated people are protected f…

The WHO did not word it badly, it was the accepted knowledge back then. You previously accused me of somehow missing the 2019-2021 timeframe, but that the vaccine doesn't really protect you well from infections was not established until autuum 2021. Consequently, as the scientific data to show it was not collected yet. Either you got the year numbers wrong or there is some retcon happening. > Why did you feel the nee…

> The WHO did not word it badly, it was the accepted knowledge back then.

Bullshit. I already showed how they were careful in the rest of their wording in your own source. 100% efficacy was never 'accepted knowledge'.

> Why is that on me? You tried a stab at antivax whackos and it backfired

Bullshit. The base rate fallacy was and is very present. The misinterpretation I referred to made sense to mention: It is a very commonly known recent and relatable example of the base rate fallacy. You made it a tribalistic ad hominem in your own head.

> you casually remark that its the low efficacy of the vaccine, not being unvaxxed, that causes the majority of people who end up hospitalized.

I did not say this at all and you still do not understand the base rate fallacy. A larger percentage of the unvaccinated people were hospitalized than of the vaccinated. There were just generally way more vaccinated people.

> Maybe we should have worked on a vaccine with better efficacy (hey, let me dream up the impossible, maybe immunity like with the measles vax where 99% ppl actually can't get sick at all) instead of harassing unvaccinated people?

See, now there we go. The mention of the Covid-19 vaccination triggered this frustration and made you decide to inject it where it did not belong and keep your mind closed to the math and science surrounding this. The math does not care about your feelings and is what it is. Accept it.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#350

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kensai wrote: post #342
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it. Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced' .

Don't be silly by making the conversation ad absurdum. What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :) There's a big difference here between you, acting like a clown, and the scientists or clinicians of yesteryear that formulated the hormesis hypothesis.

> What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :)

Thanks for asking! I explained this above: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced". To elaborate:

1. After being pummeled with [hammer|radiation], the body naturally tries to heal. The body is made of cells. Therefore: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated" in both therapies.

2. The number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] during the therapy is N, and after the therapy is "the number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] is reduced" in both therapies.

I think we can agree that both schwanzhammerings and free-radicals are bad, therefore reducing them is good. These two very similar therapies achieve that goal.

Post reply on HN