Cancer

[Lyris_Nymphetamine]

it seems that science is hellbent on proving that everything enjoyable about life causes cancer and that I should be shit scared about it.

First they went after smoking but i didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker,
Then they went after alcohol but I didn't speak up because I was raised Mormon,
Then they came after sex, and still I didn't speak up because I hadn't been laid in a year,
And finally they came after pasta...


I don't know about you but I think it's worth it for that last bowl of linguine.

[Jasper]

That's because when you can scientifically claim that fun itself is dangerous, you can ethically justify all kinds of cool shit on the grounds of any fun at all can kill you, so might as well have as much fun as possible.

ETA:  ITT I just discovered the root of the Joker's "super sanity".

[Cain]

it seems that THE DAILY MAIL is hellbent on proving that everything enjoyable about life causes cancer and that I should be shit scared about it.

First they went after smoking but i didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker,
Then they went after alcohol but I didn't speak up because I was raised Mormon,
Then they came after sex, and still I didn't speak up because I hadn't been laid in a year,
And finally they came after pasta...


I don't know about you but I think it's worth it for that last bowl of linguine.

Fixed.

One of the best days of my life was when I found a copy of the Daily Mail which simultaneously claimed that magarine both caused and lowered the risk of catching cancer, in two seperate articles.

[Freeky]

it seems that THE DAILY MAIL is hellbent on proving that everything enjoyable about life causes cancer and that I should be shit scared about it.

First they went after smoking but i didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker,
Then they went after alcohol but I didn't speak up because I was raised Mormon,
Then they came after sex, and still I didn't speak up because I hadn't been laid in a year,
And finally they came after pasta...


I don't know about you but I think it's worth it for that last bowl of linguine.

Fixed.

One of the best days of my life was when I found a copy of the Daily Mail which simultaneously claimed that magarine both caused and lowered the risk of catching cancer, in two seperate articles.

That's fucking win right there.

[maphdet]

Shit.

Can I copy and paste this, please?


really though, Cancer scares the fuc outta me.
But- I still smoke, eat bacon, fry in oil and butter, have plastic surround me, ah fuk, just livin, right. You Know.

[Kai]

One of the major problems of talking about Cancer is that it is, at heart, a cellular disorder caused by an uncountable multitude of imputs. At it's heart is an inability of a cell to stop dividing due to nucleic acid damage, but the number of ways it can come to that damage is immense. To be honest, we don't understand the epidemiology of most cancers. In all of them, there seems to be some sort of nucleic acid damage that causes uncontrolled and undifferentiated cell division, yes, but the damaged genes and cells in question vary significantly. People lump childhood leukemia with melanoma with breast ductal carcinomas with prostate tumors with non-small-cell lung carcinoma. All of these result from damage, but the cause of damage and the risks via certain imputs are significantly different. Childhood lukemia is usually caused by developmental fusions of cells, while melanoma is most often caused by UV exposure, breast ductal carcinomas by a variety of environmental interactions with a particular gene set, etc.

A person is better off, rather than lumping cancer into one category, assessing risk for each individual cancer type and finding ways to mitigate the possibility of your cells malfunctioning. For example, if you know you are at risk for prostate cancer (by family history, age, etc), you may decrease your risk by increasing your sexual activity, changing your diet, exercising more, and other health related activities.

So, Maphdet, if you are afraid of cancer, I suggest assessing your risks for individual cancers and changing habits accordingly. There's good research out there on how individual substances and habits change risk to specific cancers, and bad research out there that lumps all of these things together.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One of the major problems of talking about Cancer is that it is, at heart, a cellular disorder caused by an uncountable multitude of imputs. At it's heart is an inability of a cell to stop dividing due to nucleic acid damage, but the number of ways it can come to that damage is immense. To be honest, we don't understand the epidemiology of most cancers. In all of them, there seems to be some sort of nucleic acid damage that causes uncontrolled and undifferentiated cell division, yes, but the damaged genes and cells in question vary significantly. People lump childhood leukemia with melanoma with breast ductal carcinomas with prostate tumors with non-small-cell lung carcinoma. All of these result from damage, but the cause of damage and the risks via certain imputs are significantly different. Childhood lukemia is usually caused by developmental fusions of cells, while melanoma is most often caused by UV exposure, breast ductal carcinomas by a variety of environmental interactions with a particular gene set, etc.

A person is better off, rather than lumping cancer into one category, assessing risk for each individual cancer type and finding ways to mitigate the possibility of your cells malfunctioning. For example, if you know you are at risk for prostate cancer (by family history, age, etc), you may decrease your risk by increasing your sexual activity, changing your diet, exercising more, and other health related activities.

So, Maphdet, if you are afraid of cancer, I suggest assessing your risks for individual cancers and changing habits accordingly. There's good research out there on how individual substances and habits change risk to specific cancers, and bad research out there that lumps all of these things together.

That's exactly what I did. I started smoking, thereby increasing the chance of me dying from lung cancer to about 80%, thus reducing the chance of dying from any other kind of cancer to virtually 0. Statistically I think this means I might live forever 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

it seems that science sensationalism is hellbent on proving that everything enjoyable about life causes cancer and that I should be shit scared about it.

Fixed that shit for you.

[Kai]

One of the major problems of talking about Cancer is that it is, at heart, a cellular disorder caused by an uncountable multitude of imputs. At it's heart is an inability of a cell to stop dividing due to nucleic acid damage, but the number of ways it can come to that damage is immense. To be honest, we don't understand the epidemiology of most cancers. In all of them, there seems to be some sort of nucleic acid damage that causes uncontrolled and undifferentiated cell division, yes, but the damaged genes and cells in question vary significantly. People lump childhood leukemia with melanoma with breast ductal carcinomas with prostate tumors with non-small-cell lung carcinoma. All of these result from damage, but the cause of damage and the risks via certain imputs are significantly different. Childhood lukemia is usually caused by developmental fusions of cells, while melanoma is most often caused by UV exposure, breast ductal carcinomas by a variety of environmental interactions with a particular gene set, etc.

A person is better off, rather than lumping cancer into one category, assessing risk for each individual cancer type and finding ways to mitigate the possibility of your cells malfunctioning. For example, if you know you are at risk for prostate cancer (by family history, age, etc), you may decrease your risk by increasing your sexual activity, changing your diet, exercising more, and other health related activities.

So, Maphdet, if you are afraid of cancer, I suggest assessing your risks for individual cancers and changing habits accordingly. There's good research out there on how individual substances and habits change risk to specific cancers, and bad research out there that lumps all of these things together.

That's exactly what I did. I started smoking, thereby increasing the chance of me dying from lung cancer to about 80%, thus reducing the chance of dying from any other kind of cancer to virtually 0. Statistically I think this means I might live forever 

I think you need to check your math.

[Lyris_Nymphetamine]

If you look at the correlation between cancer and air, it is pretty obvious that the number one cause of all cancers is in fact the oxygen that you breathe.

100% of all people who died of cancer have at one point in their life, breathed.
Not convinced yet?

100% of all people who held their breath and subsequently died of asphyxiation have not died of cancer.

Pretty damning evidence if you ask me.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

it seems that THE DAILY MAIL is hellbent on proving that everything enjoyable about life causes cancer and that I should be shit scared about it.

First they went after smoking but i didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker,
Then they went after alcohol but I didn't speak up because I was raised Mormon,
Then they came after sex, and still I didn't speak up because I hadn't been laid in a year,
And finally they came after pasta...


I don't know about you but I think it's worth it for that last bowl of linguine.

Fixed.

One of the best days of my life was when I found a copy of the Daily Mail which simultaneously claimed that magarine both caused and lowered the risk of catching cancer, in two seperate articles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Skip to about 1:50

[AFK]

If you look at the correlation between cancer and air, it is pretty obvious that the number one cause of all cancers is in fact the oxygen that you breathe.

100% of all people who died of cancer have at one point in their life, breathed.
Not convinced yet?

100% of all people who held their breath and subsequently died of asphyxiation have not died of cancer.

Pretty damning evidence if you ask me.

Did you get that evidence from Robert Smith, PhD? 

[Jasper]

If you look at the correlation between cancer and air, it is pretty obvious that the number one cause of all cancers is in fact the oxygen that you breathe.

100% of all people who died of cancer have at one point in their life, breathed.
Not convinced yet?

100% of all people who held their breath and subsequently died of asphyxiation have not died of cancer.

Pretty damning evidence if you ask me.

lol regression analysis