Apparently I hit a nerve: got the horse laugh from one poster and instruction in logic from another. I’m not suggesting the elimination of cell phones. They are an integral part of everyday life and indisputable evidence that they cause harm wouldn’t cause people to stop using them.
The rise in obesity seems to have some correlation with the rise in cell phone use too. Maybe the brain’s electricity is affected in a way that changes eating habits. That’s not something I can prove either, just another random thought.
Cell phones aren’t going away. Neither are shoes, which in common with cell phones, are in constant contact with the body.
Why would gastrointestinal cancer be most affected then? The 16-year old from China in the first post also had that. I can think of many anecdotes of gastrointestinal cancer, and the statistics also is aligned with this.
Sure. Bad diet may be it. Or plastics, or tensions of modern life, or a toxic stew of all these.
And I’ll happily withdraw my suggestion that cell phone use could cause cancer or any other unpleasantness. But I’m still suspicious of corporate, non-profit or governmental research on the topic.
Here in this forum, there’s a theme of skepticism about research, not dismissal, but skepticism when there may be conflict of interest, when there’s something to gain by the research turning out a certain way. It’s no secret that revolving doors exist among corporations, non-profits and government.
If I felt you needed a lesson in logic, I’d point out that suspicion and dismissal are not the same. But I won’t do that.
How is it logical that the government and companies are working to secretly kill us all? If they have the means to do so, why not do it openly or turn us all into slaves?
So you don’t dismiss research because it’s funded by corporations, government, or non-profits?
I’m also well aware of the difference, that’s why I said if.
My dismissal or acceptance means nothing. I’m an anonymous poster on an internet forum with no expertise in the subject matter and no interest in arguing further. As what I hope is the end of this engagement, I don’t wholly dismiss research because it’s funded by such organizations.
Absolutely - Skepticism is good, cynicism is unhelpful.
But we also have to be careful not to find reasons to discredit every bit of research that does not align with our existing viewpoints (as is the human trend, broadly speaking). No research is perfect. One of the things I like most about this forum is that we get other people, with different viewpoints on the research, bringing up different issues that counters some of my own biases. Its always good to get some other well-reasoned viewpoints on papers and data.
And yes, to @argonaut 's point - the profit motive definitely skews things a lot, in many areas of the medical world. s
I was just listening to a podcast that touches upon the issues around skepticism and questioning, that I think most people here would enjoy:
Just noticing that Marty Makary has been doing the podcast rounds… and discusses the “young people getting cancer” issue, and relates it to the increasing numbers of C-section births (an association):
He mentions his earlier (2019) book in this interview:
A surgeon and professor at Johns Hopkins University, Makary says that hospitals’ predatory financial practices — such as hospitals that sue their patients for unpaid bills or hit patients with surprise bills for tens of thousands of dollars — are a major threat to the doctor-patient relationship.
Makary points to a 2014 poll in which only 23% of Americans surveyed said they had a great deal of confidence in the health care system. The expensive, unpredictable bills, he says, are to blame.
Now that things have calmed down a bit, I can provide some feedback on your questions:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The “CARES” Act is a significant federal legislation bill passed not too long ago.
My limited understanding is that this specific part of his analysis focuses on cost and expenditure analysis. He approaches complex problems from multiple angles, seeking orthogonal convergence.
Quite often, he is invited to give lectures at NASA and various scientific, engineering, and governmental agencies.
It’s Saturday night, so enjoy and best wishes!
In terms of colon cancer, I wonder about the Standard American Diet. It engenders a form of addiction, but is far from healthy in practically every respect. Not arguing with processed meat as a cause, just saying that three courses of highly processed cholestrol and carbohydrate laden food with virtually no fiber is probably not so colon friendly either.
I spoke with my cousin-in-law who is a surgical nurse specializing in gastrointestinal cancer. The incidence among young people is high even here in Hong Kong, where more natural foods are consumed. Although his best guess is that it is the ultra-processed foods causing the increase in colon cancer. This is a global issue.
Test early and test often. I started at 40. As I have said many times, if I didn’t have colonoscopies, I’d have colon cancer (and probably dead by now) due to the pre-cancerous polyps they found and removed each time!
I get one every 3 years due to my history of always having 2-3 precancerous polyps identified and removed during a colonoscopy. If you don’t have precancerous polyps (adenomas), you don’t need to screen as often.
If I left the precancerous polyps alone, based on the number I’ve had (10-15 over the years), I’d most definitely be dealing with colon cancer right now (5-10% chance multiplied by 10-15 chances). I started screening in my mid 30s and have been doing them every 3 years. The Hong Kong doctors always find polyps but charge 5X as much (thank you insurance). The one time I had it done in the US, it was cheap, but the technician didn’t take it seriously as I was “too young” to have polyps and he did a rush job that missed polyps. I had it done again when I returned to Hong Kong, and lo and behold, there were precancerous polyps that had been missed.
Not all colorectal polyps are precancerous, but many have that potential . An estimated 5% to 10% of adenomas may eventually progress to become a cancer. When a person is found to have multiple or large polyps (which are made of larger masses of cells), there is more opportunity for cancer to develop.
