[Michael G.]

When these medical marvel's report on social media/daily news about all the foods
that causes cancer, I would like to know the percentage of the population
actually are effective by these foods, 1%, 6%, 8%?

I read today the list of cancer causing foods and said to my wife,
" Geeeezzz, I might as well be died."
No meat, no beer, no bread.
Give me a break.

[Two Bills]

I have found that eating cancer inducing solid foods interferes with the amount of life enhancing alcohol I can consume.
Alcohol is the wonder drug.
I am not saying alcohol is the complete answer for cancer, but copious quantities definitely reduce any fears of catching it.
As a bonus, all of us drunks and idiots are protected by all the Gods.
Total oblivion is the answer.
Cheers.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

When these medical marvel's report on social media/daily news about all the foods
that causes cancer, I would like to know the percentage of the population
actually are effective by these foods, 1%, 6%, 8%?

I read today the list of cancer causing foods and said to my wife,
" Geeeezzz, I might as well be died."
No meat, no beer, no bread.
Give me a break.

I do not smoke nor drink. I was diagnosed with stage 3 at 35. Two of my friends who were in my wedding died in their fifties. Another friend was diagnosed with C in his forties. I try and understand why, but no one can really offer answers. I do know many of the foods we eat here in the US are banned in Europe. Perhaps to be able to feed the population we need to use fertilizers and pesticides that can cause cancer?

[dtennent]

This is a good question. First take a look at the American Cancer Society page that describes how compounds are tested (or not tested) to determine if they are carcinogenic.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-p...arcinogen.html

Second, realize that the testing is done for a relatively short term with very high doses. This type of testing can skew results at times. However, short of doing lifetime testing on humans, it is the best we can do right now.

Finally, everyone has a different sensitivity to the variety of agents out there. After benzene was determined to be a carcinogen, my father (who had washed his hands in benzene at the end of each workday for 30 years) said "I guess I am not sensitive to benzene." He lived to 93 and died of pneumonia.

Bottom line, if your family history has a lot of cancer, you might want to be careful. Given my family history, I am guessing that I will not die of cancer.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

First of all, medical science isn't math. It's not exact. It's "what is the more accurate data we have, and what is our most accurate interpretation of that data to date, using the most accurate technology we have available?"

Next: we know that many foods can increase your risk of cancer. That doesn't mean it will absolutely give you cancer if you have it. However, if you have been overindulging in something, your likelihood of developing some sort of illness is going to increase.

Third: correlation does not equal causation. That's one of the basic rules of science that all these "medical blogs" and internet "doctors" ignore. Usually on purpose, to scare people into buying their supplements or their book.

From Medical News Today - February, 2023:

Red meat, alcohol, and highly processed foods all have links to an increased risk of cancer. Studies link about 42% of cancer cases and 45% of cancer deaths in the United States to risk factors that people may be able to change, such as overweight and obesity, physical inactivity, and poor diet.

"links to" = correlation. There is no evidence that being overweight/obese, physically inactive, and eating a poor diet "will" cause cancer. Or even "can" cause cancer. There are millions of people who live, and who have died, who have eaten a poor diet, or lived their lives disabled and physically unfit due to sickness/injury/birth defect, and who are or were overweight - who did NOT ever get cancer.

And, conversely, there are lots of people who have or had cancer, who were physically active, not overweight, ate organic foods and either restricted or eliminated red meats.

If you re-read that quote from the article again, insert what they are not saying: that 58% of cancer cases and 55% of cancer deaths were NOT linked to any risk factors that people may be able to change. That means - the majority of cancer cases were NOT linked to being physically inactive, overweight/obese, or poor diet.

[Hardlyworking]

Get off of sugar in all forms. It is white death.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

When these medical marvel's report on social media/daily news about all the foods
that causes cancer, I would like to know the percentage of the population
actually are effective by these foods, 1%, 6%, 8%?

I read today the list of cancer causing foods and said to my wife,
" Geeeezzz, I might as well be died."
No meat, no beer, no bread.
Give me a break.

For every exhausting list of foods that cause cancer there is an extensive list of foods that prevent cancer. You are probably still alive because you have managed to properly consume good foods after eating the bad. (Meant to sound silly. No one knows what causes cancer. If someone did, the world would no longer be suffering from this disease)

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Hardlyworking

Get off of sugar in all forms. It is white death.

Agree, and add white flour to that list.

[MorTech]

Does eating cancer cause cancer?
Just stop eating carbohydrates and plant oils (polyunsaturates) and be happy.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

First of all, medical science isn't math. It's not exact. It's "what is the more accurate data we have, and what is our most accurate interpretation of that data to date, using the most accurate technology we have available?"

Next: we know that many foods can increase your risk of cancer. That doesn't mean it will absolutely give you cancer if you have it. However, if you have been overindulging in something, your likelihood of developing some sort of illness is going to increase.

Third: correlation does not equal causation. That's one of the basic rules of science that all these "medical blogs" and internet "doctors" ignore. Usually on purpose, to scare people into buying their supplements or their book.

From Medical News Today - February, 2023:


"links to" = correlation. There is no evidence that being overweight/obese, physically inactive, and eating a poor diet "will" cause cancer. Or even "can" cause cancer. There are millions of people who live, and who have died, who have eaten a poor diet, or lived their lives disabled and physically unfit due to sickness/injury/birth defect, and who are or were overweight - who did NOT ever get cancer.

And, conversely, there are lots of people who have or had cancer, who were physically active, not overweight, ate organic foods and either restricted or eliminated red meats.

If you re-read that quote from the article again, insert what they are not saying: that 58% of cancer cases and 55% of cancer deaths were NOT linked to any risk factors that people may be able to change. That means - the majority of cancer cases were NOT linked to being physically inactive, overweight/obese, or poor diet.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The Latin term in the medical field is "post hoc ergo propter hoc"---which loosely translates to "after this therefore because of this" it is the sine qua non of faulty cause-effect reason and the battle cry of all that subscribe to it.