Yep. The food, soil, and water systems are now and probably forever more riddled with plastics, heavy metals, and industrial agro chemicals. Plastic pollution (being a massive diversity of different petrochemicals) are probably the largest growing issue that would explain the US increase.
However, there is one more culprit that is have recently been getting educated on. Blue light pollution.
I’ve been learning how the more we disrupt our circadian rhythm with screens and artificial light, especially at night, we massively disrupt our natural hormone cycles (master hormone leptin for example). This makes it impossible for adults past a certain age to lose any weight (regardless of diet and exercise), exacerbating the already growing obesity problem.
The article mentions microplastics as a potential cause that's being looked into, and that seems pretty reasonable, but are there any other suspicious potential causes?
Brainstorm: Artificial sugars, chemicals in so many products from Amazon, hormones in meat, vegan substitutes, new preservatives, new herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
Empirical observation: the two young people I know who had cancer (one died, other survived) frequented marijuana and had high levels of radon detected in their homes. But that doesn't necessarily support younger cancer trends.
The name is new but "ultra processed" - which is to say processed - has been with us for 50 years nowadays. Deleterious effects are known: obesity, diabetes and, yes, uptake in cancers.
Still, an unlikely candidate for a recent uptake in cancers amongst the young at least as a general category and not aiming at a specific new class of additives.
Its hard to make assumptions like this though. There is always the possibility that prolonged exposure to processed foods impacts reproduction over time. We could be seeing a delayed spike now because parents were exposed to the food for a decade or two before they had children.
This is all hypothetical, I'm not claiming this is the case. Its just worth considering delayed responses that require a generation or two before the symptoms are easy to spot.
Why artificial sugars, which have been extensively studied as a food, when there are so many pollutants that are actual poison that we ingest every day? This meme never dies, just like the one about MSG
One angle I read elsewhere is that a variety of 'forever chemicals' have been accumulating for some decades now and we may have reached a saturation level where it's noticeably impacting people born into this environment. But it's difficult to sift through, since the effects may not be any one chemical, but a combination of factors or even some kind of interaction when these things are jostling around together inside a growing human.
Note that there's 3 categories in the data there, occupational exposure, exposed communities and then the US general population. There's large declines in all 3 groups.
Ceramic, it is as close as you can get to non stick without forever chemicals. I cook every day and that is the best I've found. Anything else requires more maintenance and cleaning. Cast iron has been a disappointment and I have made an honest effort with it multiple times.
I switched to stainless steel, maybe issues with chromium and nickel though. It's also not non-stick, but if you add oil to a dry pan after it's already heated it up, it will form a sort of non-stick surface. (Scratches in the pan surface will impede this effect)
We're changing so many things at the same time, it could be anything from alcohol sugars used as low-calorie sweeteners, to zoonotic diseases introduced to new areas by globalisation and climate change.
Or worse (because it's harder to find) combinations where any one by itself is fine.
Not GP, but smart phones and social media lead to people having less real-world contact, fewer deep connections to others, less sex, ... which then leads to depression, anxiety, and "metaphysical despair"
In fact they would all reduce the incidence of cancer, because cancer rates can only rise if detection does. In the US healthcare system, this is even more unlikely if one is withdrawn from society - you can have cancer a long time before you'll think something is "wrong".
Why are you so confident that depression and anxiety don't cause cancer? Even if they didnt cause it directly, there is a whole raft of associated drugs that could absolutely cause cancer. It's not like this is a thing a trial would always catch (for exactly the reason you point out).
No, let me apologize for my glib comment. To be clear— I don’t blame cancer victims. I just had a friend die who was about the most pure of heart and connected individual I know.
What I’m pointing to, this metaphysical despair (as root cause), is the creation of an increasingly cancerous society.
Breastfeeding is also a possible cause, although I think there's evidence that's pointing in both directions.
"They found those who were breastfed as infants had a 23 percent greater risk of developing colorectal cancer as adults. Even more troubling, a younger group within that cohort exhibited about 40 percent increased risk of developing high-risk colorectal cancer before they turned 55."
Breastfeeding rates have increased from ~30% to ~70% between 1970 and 2010.
It seems highly dubious to me that breast feeding alone would have anything to do with it. The idea that mammals evolved in such a way that women breast feed their babies only to get colorectal cancer specifically because they breast fed seems very evolutionarily confusing.
Maybe there is something else going on where environmental conditions or toxins combined with breast feeding somehow cause and issue, but I can't imagine its just due to breast feeding.
I'm surprised no one here has mentioned artificially created fats/oils
Canola oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower seed oil etc
They are in everything
but if we think about what rancid fats are, they are "fats and oils that have undergone a process of oxidation, or degradation, that causes them to develop off-flavours, odours, tastes, and textures" (Exposure to air, light, and heat)
When you look into how these oils are manufactured these oils are not particularly stable to begin with, and then they're exposed to processes like:
- Mechanical pressing
- Solvent extraction
- Degumming
- Neutralization
- Bleaching
- Deodorization
To get to that clear oil that you see in the shops, this is all before some places deep fry their oils to cook, if an oil has a rancid taste, that is one of the main ways you would tell that it is not good for you, but if something has been deodorised I'm not sure you would be able to say that the oil is rancid
I'd much prefer to stick to fats/oils that existed before the 1900s, you can tell many people are storing fats that have not reacted well within their body
The modern food oil industry is such a confusion one in my opinion.
For example, canola oil is actually just rapeseed oil. They had to cultivate breeds of brasiccas that were low enough in erucic acid for human consumption. Then they realized that selling rapeseed oil may not be a great brand and they named it Canola, Canadian oil low acid.
Also pretty much anything you would think of as a vegetable oil isn't actually a vegetable oil, its a seed oil.
These are millions of people who are at elevated risk of soft tissue cancer because drug companies decided it'd be better to give contaminated medicines known to cause cancer later to developing countries populations. It's only one source but I recently became aware of this paper and it's a bit revolting.
It might look like so at first glance but if you read the paper you will see the reason it was known that the US was exporting carcinogenic medicines is that before they knew, they were using it on americans. Millions of americans received the same medicines, then when they found out they were carcinogenic, instead of destroying those medicines the US gave them to developing countries to not let the stock go to waste.
Interesting, yeah I missed that connection when skimming the paper. In this context its still important that the meds were given to Americans rather than developing countries, but that may be splitting hairs.
Interestingly, this is exactly what Bayer pharmaceutical did with hemophilia medication during the AIDS crisis. They figured out their drug was contaminated with HIV so they stopped selling it to Americans. Instead, they sold it to developing countries.
unhealthy stress & subsequent lack of recovery due to continued screen exposure & fractal horseshit content while drinking these bum-piss energy drinks & sweets. and yeah, sure, "plastics". but its mostly the horseshit content & lack of something to "balance it off".
it's just how the brain works & how it uses the body to signal that your lifestyle & environment are fucked up, with exceptions extending the rule, of course.
the range of signals is broad and cancer is just one of the extremes, with the rest being written off as xyz, psychosomatic, the kid needs to go outside more, etc
I have to wonder what the inactivity is doing to people, I know people who literally do next to nothing, going to the gym for 20 minutes a day is something, but it's nothing if you just go sit on the couch for the other 16 waking hours of the day.
> Bafflingly, many of the new clinic’s young patients are in good shape, exercise regularly and eat healthily. That is prompting a hunt for environmental carcinogens capable of affecting entire generations
yes, my bad for not reading the article properly ... classic case of wannabe-indie-thinker-judging-decades-long-training-based-on-universe-consciousness (i'm kidding but it's warranted, slightly exaggerated self-criticism)
Were you unable to access the text of the article because of some paywall or barrier? Or are you reacting to the title alone?
The authors state very clearly that many of the victims lead a healthy life with enough movement and good food.
Why would be a 2x - 3x increase of cancers in young people unbelievable? The baseline was very low, so a two- or three-fold increase still amounts to a relatively small amount of extra cancer cases that you don't have to notice in your personal acquaintance bubble. The vast majority of cancer still happens in the elderly.
No they don’t say that, they are saying lifestyle factors do not account for all of the increase. What proportion of healthy people are getting ill the article isn’t clear if it is 5%, 20% or 50% it just says “many”…
If plane flights started having 2-3x more chance of fatal accidents I’m unconvinced you would be saying this isn’t a very bad situation…
I am not saying that the situation is "not bad". That was not my intent at all.
I am saying that random people might not have noticed the trend among their acquaintance circle, because the commenter before me expressed their disbelief in the whole situation.
i was indeed reacting to the title alone. shouldn't have done that.
your way of questioning my fallacy (jumping to conclusions doesn't really nail it, so i'm gonna go with 'being an idiot' is quite on point) made me smile and is inspiring, thank you.
I'm guessing, since they don't state it clearly, that the combined rate of all cancers is falling, it's only when you look at subsets that it's rising.
Which prompts the idea: "do different cancers compete for shared resources?"
Would a lung cancer use up something that would prevent a different kind of cancer and so once smoking goes out of fashion you get some rebound as other cancers step into the gap left by them?
edit: I looked at the paper and then followed the link to the paper they cite for a general increase in incidence in top cancers combined in Gen X by the time they reach 60.
> Some portion of these increases can be attributed to rising obesity rates19 and increasingly
sedentary lifestyles. 20-23 Another portion might be explained by changes in cancer registry policies
and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision
(World Health Organization) classifications, 24 leading to inclusion of relatively indolent lesions in
more recent periods that might not have been diagnosed as cancer in earlier periods. Furthermore,
radiologic diagnoses have become more common following widespread deployment of sophisticated
medical imaging technologies, 25 especially for thyroid 26,27 and kidney 28,29 cancers. We chose not to
exclude any leading cancer site from our summaries because our granular estimates are freely
available (eFigures 15-17 in Supplement 1).
I wonder if the immune system plays a role. In one environment there is some stressor (e.g. smoking) which raises for example lung cancer risk, but also turns up some built-in anti-cancer systems in the body - the action of which which would prevent cancers in other areas. Compare to a person in a better environment where the immune system isn't as much in "cancer-prevention mode".
If you read the actual study referenced in the article you'll find that 10 of the 17 cancer types which are rising in the young cohorts are obesity-related. Lung cancer is actually down for the younger cohorts.
Another interesting find was a rise in anal cancer and Kaposi's sarcomas which are mostly related to HIV infections.
> I'm guessing, since they don't state it clearly, that the combined rate of all cancers is falling, it's only when you look at subsets that it's rising.
What makes you say that? Wasn't myocarditis mostly a problem for young men for example? Narcolepsy from the H1N1 vaccine was similar, you needed very specific genetics to get it. The body is complex.
They are not assumptions and I'm not here to publish a paper. I'm asking for clarification on a statement. Are you also trying to tell me genetics, lifestyle and basically any difference we humans have can't affect side-effects? What data do you have for that ridiculous claim?
You raise this as if there isn't a plethora of evidence pointing to an increased risk of myocarditis in men under 40 receiving at least one Covid vaccine. There's plant of confusing data out there on both sides of the Covid debate, but this isn't one of them.
"Myocarditis risk significantly higher after COVID-19 infection vs. after a COVID-19 vaccine"
I hope you realize this is the title of the link you posted?
Among nearly 43 million people in England, ages 13 and older, who received at least one dose and up to 3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, fewer than 3,000 people (0.007%) were hospitalized or died with myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, during the study period of December 1, 2020 through December 15, 2021.
So in other words, you're going to get Covid19 anyway, which means you might get myocarditis, yet getting the vaccines means you will get less sick overall, so statistically speaking, the vaccine is the smarter choice.
I can't believe we're still talking about this.
Your risk of getting sick is far lower than it is driving to the store, why not advocate for banning cars?
My point, though, wasn't comparing risks with and without the vaccine. I user it only as a very recent example of potential vaccine injury being focused in a subset of the population rather than being evenly distributed.
Why do you assume that my simply raising covid or what was found to be a still comparatively small chance of myocarditis as starting some larger debate? I purposely tried to be very targeted both in the stat I reached for and how I raised it to avoid starting some larger, and unnecessary, covid debate.
That isn't necessarily true. Unless there are new data refuting the stuff from a year or two ago, vaccine related myocarditis was higher specifically in men under the age of 40.
Exposing a broad population to an intervention does not mean that everyone will be impacted by side effects similarly.
Beware, the commentator is now going to argue that the covid vaccines were somehow secretly injected before 2020, because, you know, it was part of "The Plan (tm) (patent pending)"
> Beware, the commentator is now going to argue that the covid vaccines were somehow secretly injected before 2020, because, you know, it was part of "The Plan (tm) (patent pending)"
>based on things he/she has not said, trying to make him/her look bad.
They're making themselves look bad, and you're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who holds a belief that has long been established absolutely does not warrant the assumption of good faith.
Don't forget pharmaceuticals. The number of prescription drugs per capita and the number of childhood vaccines have both risen dramatically over the last few decades.
We're speculating either way here, be it food or pharmaceuticals, so I'm not trying to claim that all drugs or vaccines are bad. The correlation is important though and should be on any list of culprits along with microplastics, chemical weapons used as pesticides and herbicides, processed foods, etc.
- It's not just increased screening/detection because mortality went up. This affects half of the 34 types studied. Examples mentioned are pancreatic, liver in women, various gut, colorectal, kidney, gallbladder, testicular, and breast (may have missed some because it's sprinkled throughout)
- "there are likely unidentified risk factors but there are also known [ones], like sedentary behaviour, a change in diet, plus rising rates of obesity and diabetes." "[Many young patients] exercise regularly and eat healthily"; microplastics "fit the timeline [but] needs further investigation"
- Earlier screening is being considered but comes with "expenses, radiation exposure and false positives"
I'd like to think my perception is insightful or at least novel on a variety of topics: exercise, pufas, vitamin A, indicators of health, plants don't want to be eaten, national food systems, rabbit teeth, glasses, and foldy ears.
>I'd like to think my perception is insightful or at least novel on a variety
If you read/listened a lot, ( I'll try and define that more concretely if you wish as to what is a 'lot') almost none of what you mentioned above is novel or insightful to me. It certainly might be novel/insightful to an average person out there, but they really don't care.
p.s 1 - let me look closely at your writing, An insight is something, but a cure is something else altogether. If you dig around my webpages, you might find something that may interest you including a link to pages on health on github.
p.s 2 - quickly skimmed (so do hold not me responsible if I missed something) though the autoimmunity page and saw Vitamin D mentioned. A fellow by name (Prof) Trevor Marshall has a very different take on Vitamin D. Summary: it good for some people in the short run. but nearly always bad for most people in the long run. It certainly is not the simple hyper-vitaminosis theory.
The study seems US based only, I wonder if there's a similar trend in Europe -- that would help identifying if some of the potential environmental factors have been regulated out on the other side of the Atlantic.
It might not be an environmental cause - if people are genetically more susceptible to those cancers when aged between 20s and their 40s then a lot of people in the older age ranges would have already died from them before the year 2000 and so wouldn't be caught in their data.
If they want to confirm it is an increase then they could repeat their analysis on a set of data covering years previous to 2000.
I truly believe that much of the content (can be specified but the list would be long) on the many tubes poses a serious issue, directly and indirectly, and the speed, intervals and the timing at which the tubes are being consumed plays a crucial role.
the article cites the academics and says that there are noteworthy hints at
> generational shifts in cancer risk.
by itself, and even without context, it makes total sense. behaviors and environments change over relatively short time periods; most notably, what people consume:
a) actively, as in food, drinks, and media
b) passively, as in pollutants and toxins,
c) b in a, to a more than just relevant part.
But most of that is obvious and there's plenty of discussion about it and the article clearly states that cancer happens in people who seem to be living a healthy lifestyle, except that, what we currently consider to be a healthy lifestyle, might be a pack of wolfs in sheep's clothing:
I) supps, energy drinks that are labelled healthy, vapes, common party drugs laced with nonsense, etc., and theoretically healthy foods that are becoming more and more neutral, which kind of means that people are actually eating lesser amounts of healthy food, and even if the threshold is not reached, given how fucked up water, air (and soil) are, as well as temperatures, and unhealthy stress exposure, the bigger picture becomes critical and worthy of attention, especially if you include
II) media consumption: the amount of lies on the news is brutal, the amount of perversion of truth and ignorance of fact just as bad and then there are false temporary partisanship, praising and celebrating death and weapon and ammo sales and all the hate and polarization that goes hand in hand with all this shit, and I really don't want to get into the brutal amount of celebrity bullshit, music videos, song lyrics and so on that give the back of your brain more than enough reason to work on fucking time and space travel and certainly, without anyone noticing, create plenty of psychopath-serial-killer-brain cells.
All this stress builds up and it has nothing to do with weak men coming out of weak times. It's been only 10 - 20 years in the different "categories" I mentioned.
But then there's another topic: the patterns, methods, and characteristics of how consumption occurs.
- supps and shakes, but let's ignore those for now, because I want to bring attention to
- perfectly healthy people consuming shit on the tubes and via ads everywhere, in intervals and timings that our brains actually need to wind down, to not see or hear anything, to, if necessary, have the energy to tune out the other senses: in transit, breaks, on the fucking toilet, for fucks sake, in waiting lines and rooms and those 35 seconds in front of the micro wave and so on - i'm certain y'all have more and better examples.
Sure, a certain cognitive level, aka intelligence & devotion, protect via attention, mindfulness, healthy obsession and so on, but even that kind of humans, feels the stress build up, which is why they spend money and thought on proper recovery. But not everyone has and does that.
an anecdote: parents growing up in the soviet union on their own farms: perfectly healthy food, unhealthy drink, no media, die late, relatively rarely of cancer but theres plenty of wear & tear and an increasing rate of freaking Alzheimer's. They move abroad and wonder why children get pimples and zits and allergies. Children stop drinking cheap milk and eating cheap cheese and processed sweets and pimples and zits go away and even the acne and allergies get much better. father stops watching news and the family lives in peace, no unhealthy stress whatsoever, work is a place to make money and compete athletically (if you are the type). but then younger kids get smartphones, consume media all the time, in classically peaceful moments and or moments like i mentioned before: seconds and minutes in th...
104 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] thread- plastics / microplastics
- processed food / ultra processed food
- processing / conserving chemicals
- pesticides
- GMOs
- And last, but certainly not least, a combination of all the above, at concentrations well below any "proven" toxicity level
However, there is one more culprit that is have recently been getting educated on. Blue light pollution.
I’ve been learning how the more we disrupt our circadian rhythm with screens and artificial light, especially at night, we massively disrupt our natural hormone cycles (master hormone leptin for example). This makes it impossible for adults past a certain age to lose any weight (regardless of diet and exercise), exacerbating the already growing obesity problem.
Empirical observation: the two young people I know who had cancer (one died, other survived) frequented marijuana and had high levels of radon detected in their homes. But that doesn't necessarily support younger cancer trends.
Still, an unlikely candidate for a recent uptake in cancers amongst the young at least as a general category and not aiming at a specific new class of additives.
This is all hypothetical, I'm not claiming this is the case. Its just worth considering delayed responses that require a generation or two before the symptoms are easy to spot.
I think we reached a point where we shouldn't even call them "food", but "edible industrial products".
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population....
Note that there's 3 categories in the data there, occupational exposure, exposed communities and then the US general population. There's large declines in all 3 groups.
Though it's a reasonable guess that it's a whole bunch of factors that have changed, including lifestyle factors.
So what safer kind of pan should we use?
Or worse (because it's harder to find) combinations where any one by itself is fine.
(I can't read TFA, paywall).
That's the joke, yeah
I suppose that's what GP meant.
In fact they would all reduce the incidence of cancer, because cancer rates can only rise if detection does. In the US healthcare system, this is even more unlikely if one is withdrawn from society - you can have cancer a long time before you'll think something is "wrong".
[1] https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20230811/analysis-depressi...
Let's not introduce unfalsifiable hypotheses into the ring, at least not at HN. There's plenty of them already on Facebook and X.
What I’m pointing to, this metaphysical despair (as root cause), is the creation of an increasingly cancerous society.
I suspect it might end up being an all or the above kind of situation, perhaps mixed in with transgenerational effects from atmospheric atomic tests and so forth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY, https://web.archive.org/web/20200507112343/https://www.cdc.g..., & https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nucle...)
"They found those who were breastfed as infants had a 23 percent greater risk of developing colorectal cancer as adults. Even more troubling, a younger group within that cohort exhibited about 40 percent increased risk of developing high-risk colorectal cancer before they turned 55."
Breastfeeding rates have increased from ~30% to ~70% between 1970 and 2010.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/study-finds-l...
Maybe there is something else going on where environmental conditions or toxins combined with breast feeding somehow cause and issue, but I can't imagine its just due to breast feeding.
Canola oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower seed oil etc
They are in everything
but if we think about what rancid fats are, they are "fats and oils that have undergone a process of oxidation, or degradation, that causes them to develop off-flavours, odours, tastes, and textures" (Exposure to air, light, and heat)
When you look into how these oils are manufactured these oils are not particularly stable to begin with, and then they're exposed to processes like:
- Mechanical pressing
- Solvent extraction
- Degumming
- Neutralization
- Bleaching
- Deodorization
To get to that clear oil that you see in the shops, this is all before some places deep fry their oils to cook, if an oil has a rancid taste, that is one of the main ways you would tell that it is not good for you, but if something has been deodorised I'm not sure you would be able to say that the oil is rancid
I'd much prefer to stick to fats/oils that existed before the 1900s, you can tell many people are storing fats that have not reacted well within their body
For example, canola oil is actually just rapeseed oil. They had to cultivate breeds of brasiccas that were low enough in erucic acid for human consumption. Then they realized that selling rapeseed oil may not be a great brand and they named it Canola, Canadian oil low acid.
Also pretty much anything you would think of as a vegetable oil isn't actually a vegetable oil, its a seed oil.
These are millions of people who are at elevated risk of soft tissue cancer because drug companies decided it'd be better to give contaminated medicines known to cause cancer later to developing countries populations. It's only one source but I recently became aware of this paper and it's a bit revolting.
it's just how the brain works & how it uses the body to signal that your lifestyle & environment are fucked up, with exceptions extending the rule, of course.
the range of signals is broad and cancer is just one of the extremes, with the rest being written off as xyz, psychosomatic, the kid needs to go outside more, etc
The authors state very clearly that many of the victims lead a healthy life with enough movement and good food.
Why would be a 2x - 3x increase of cancers in young people unbelievable? The baseline was very low, so a two- or three-fold increase still amounts to a relatively small amount of extra cancer cases that you don't have to notice in your personal acquaintance bubble. The vast majority of cancer still happens in the elderly.
If plane flights started having 2-3x more chance of fatal accidents I’m unconvinced you would be saying this isn’t a very bad situation…
I am saying that random people might not have noticed the trend among their acquaintance circle, because the commenter before me expressed their disbelief in the whole situation.
your way of questioning my fallacy (jumping to conclusions doesn't really nail it, so i'm gonna go with 'being an idiot' is quite on point) made me smile and is inspiring, thank you.
Which prompts the idea: "do different cancers compete for shared resources?"
Would a lung cancer use up something that would prevent a different kind of cancer and so once smoking goes out of fashion you get some rebound as other cancers step into the gap left by them?
edit: I looked at the paper and then followed the link to the paper they cite for a general increase in incidence in top cancers combined in Gen X by the time they reach 60.
> Some portion of these increases can be attributed to rising obesity rates19 and increasingly sedentary lifestyles. 20-23 Another portion might be explained by changes in cancer registry policies and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (World Health Organization) classifications, 24 leading to inclusion of relatively indolent lesions in more recent periods that might not have been diagnosed as cancer in earlier periods. Furthermore, radiologic diagnoses have become more common following widespread deployment of sophisticated medical imaging technologies, 25 especially for thyroid 26,27 and kidney 28,29 cancers. We chose not to exclude any leading cancer site from our summaries because our granular estimates are freely available (eFigures 15-17 in Supplement 1).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=51200100901400413...
It's well established the immune system plays a role in cancer.
Another interesting find was a rise in anal cancer and Kaposi's sarcomas which are mostly related to HIV infections.
This would mean that 40% is non-obesity related which seems...kinda high?
The article has this line:
>Bafflingly, many of the new clinic’s young patients are in good shape, exercise regularly and eat healthily.
Is this supported by the study, or a journalistic observation?
People who aren't dying of lung cancer and are now alive to die from other cancers.
Sound's like Simpson's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Yet here you are on hacker news pretending that you understand it without giving any evidence to backup your assumptions.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...
I hope you realize this is the title of the link you posted?
Among nearly 43 million people in England, ages 13 and older, who received at least one dose and up to 3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, fewer than 3,000 people (0.007%) were hospitalized or died with myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, during the study period of December 1, 2020 through December 15, 2021.
So in other words, you're going to get Covid19 anyway, which means you might get myocarditis, yet getting the vaccines means you will get less sick overall, so statistically speaking, the vaccine is the smarter choice.
I can't believe we're still talking about this.
Your risk of getting sick is far lower than it is driving to the store, why not advocate for banning cars?
Why do you assume that my simply raising covid or what was found to be a still comparatively small chance of myocarditis as starting some larger debate? I purposely tried to be very targeted both in the stat I reached for and how I raised it to avoid starting some larger, and unnecessary, covid debate.
Exposing a broad population to an intervention does not mean that everyone will be impacted by side effects similarly.
Did you read the HN guidelines?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think you comment is simply trying to discredit the "commentator" based on things he/she has not said, trying to make him/her look bad.
They're making themselves look bad, and you're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who holds a belief that has long been established absolutely does not warrant the assumption of good faith.
We're speculating either way here, be it food or pharmaceuticals, so I'm not trying to claim that all drugs or vaccines are bad. The correlation is important though and should be on any list of culprits along with microplastics, chemical weapons used as pesticides and herbicides, processed foods, etc.
- It's not just increased screening/detection because mortality went up. This affects half of the 34 types studied. Examples mentioned are pancreatic, liver in women, various gut, colorectal, kidney, gallbladder, testicular, and breast (may have missed some because it's sprinkled throughout)
- "there are likely unidentified risk factors but there are also known [ones], like sedentary behaviour, a change in diet, plus rising rates of obesity and diabetes." "[Many young patients] exercise regularly and eat healthily"; microplastics "fit the timeline [but] needs further investigation"
- Earlier screening is being considered but comes with "expenses, radiation exposure and false positives"
I frequently run into young people with thin hair, girls with endometriosis, and a bunch of stuff people should not be having at this age.
https://kaiwenwang.com/writing/category/health
I'd like to think my perception is insightful or at least novel on a variety of topics: exercise, pufas, vitamin A, indicators of health, plants don't want to be eaten, national food systems, rabbit teeth, glasses, and foldy ears.
If you read/listened a lot, ( I'll try and define that more concretely if you wish as to what is a 'lot') almost none of what you mentioned above is novel or insightful to me. It certainly might be novel/insightful to an average person out there, but they really don't care.
p.s 1 - let me look closely at your writing, An insight is something, but a cure is something else altogether. If you dig around my webpages, you might find something that may interest you including a link to pages on health on github.
p.s 2 - quickly skimmed (so do hold not me responsible if I missed something) though the autoimmunity page and saw Vitamin D mentioned. A fellow by name (Prof) Trevor Marshall has a very different take on Vitamin D. Summary: it good for some people in the short run. but nearly always bad for most people in the long run. It certainly is not the simple hyper-vitaminosis theory.
If they want to confirm it is an increase then they could repeat their analysis on a set of data covering years previous to 2000.
I truly believe that much of the content (can be specified but the list would be long) on the many tubes poses a serious issue, directly and indirectly, and the speed, intervals and the timing at which the tubes are being consumed plays a crucial role.
the article cites the academics and says that there are noteworthy hints at
> generational shifts in cancer risk.
by itself, and even without context, it makes total sense. behaviors and environments change over relatively short time periods; most notably, what people consume:
a) actively, as in food, drinks, and media
b) passively, as in pollutants and toxins,
c) b in a, to a more than just relevant part.
But most of that is obvious and there's plenty of discussion about it and the article clearly states that cancer happens in people who seem to be living a healthy lifestyle, except that, what we currently consider to be a healthy lifestyle, might be a pack of wolfs in sheep's clothing:
I) supps, energy drinks that are labelled healthy, vapes, common party drugs laced with nonsense, etc., and theoretically healthy foods that are becoming more and more neutral, which kind of means that people are actually eating lesser amounts of healthy food, and even if the threshold is not reached, given how fucked up water, air (and soil) are, as well as temperatures, and unhealthy stress exposure, the bigger picture becomes critical and worthy of attention, especially if you include
II) media consumption: the amount of lies on the news is brutal, the amount of perversion of truth and ignorance of fact just as bad and then there are false temporary partisanship, praising and celebrating death and weapon and ammo sales and all the hate and polarization that goes hand in hand with all this shit, and I really don't want to get into the brutal amount of celebrity bullshit, music videos, song lyrics and so on that give the back of your brain more than enough reason to work on fucking time and space travel and certainly, without anyone noticing, create plenty of psychopath-serial-killer-brain cells.
All this stress builds up and it has nothing to do with weak men coming out of weak times. It's been only 10 - 20 years in the different "categories" I mentioned.
But then there's another topic: the patterns, methods, and characteristics of how consumption occurs.
- supps and shakes, but let's ignore those for now, because I want to bring attention to
- perfectly healthy people consuming shit on the tubes and via ads everywhere, in intervals and timings that our brains actually need to wind down, to not see or hear anything, to, if necessary, have the energy to tune out the other senses: in transit, breaks, on the fucking toilet, for fucks sake, in waiting lines and rooms and those 35 seconds in front of the micro wave and so on - i'm certain y'all have more and better examples.
Sure, a certain cognitive level, aka intelligence & devotion, protect via attention, mindfulness, healthy obsession and so on, but even that kind of humans, feels the stress build up, which is why they spend money and thought on proper recovery. But not everyone has and does that.
an anecdote: parents growing up in the soviet union on their own farms: perfectly healthy food, unhealthy drink, no media, die late, relatively rarely of cancer but theres plenty of wear & tear and an increasing rate of freaking Alzheimer's. They move abroad and wonder why children get pimples and zits and allergies. Children stop drinking cheap milk and eating cheap cheese and processed sweets and pimples and zits go away and even the acne and allergies get much better. father stops watching news and the family lives in peace, no unhealthy stress whatsoever, work is a place to make money and compete athletically (if you are the type). but then younger kids get smartphones, consume media all the time, in classically peaceful moments and or moments like i mentioned before: seconds and minutes in th...
This sounds fascinating, where can I read more.