2 ms·

Thanks. So you think that apart from very special cases like asbestos, any chemical cause would cause other cancers as well, and there is no reasonable chance

by nkurz 8y ago

Thanks. So you think that apart from very special cases like asbestos, any chemical cause would cause other cancers as well, and there is no reasonable chance that a particular chemical could cause only rhabdomyosarcoma. I'll defer to your expertise here. I was partly confused by one of the links from the article[1], which says "These cancers are derived from similar cellular lineage; therefore, these sarcomas are closely related in cellular composition. It is biologically plausible that a common exposure exists." Is there a way in which this might make sense? Are they suggesting that it might be biologically contagious rather than chemically induced? And the second question? When you conclude that the prevalence of this particular must be a statistical artifact rather than a reproducible effect, do you have reason to believe that there are not elevated levels of other cancers in the area? Or is this not actually necessary to show? [1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/jason-c-spencer/response-to-waycross-journal-herald-opinion-piece-tv-news-report-wrong/10153989158988685/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/jason-c-spencer/response-to-w...

danieltillett 8y ago
I don't think it is biologically plausible at all that a common chemical exposure exists. It is possible, just unlikely. It also doesn't match up with what we know about pollutant chemicals being a wide range of compounds, nor the broad range of cancers seen with other known pollutant chemicals. I would be far more likely to believe that a large number of unrelated cancers in an area were caused by pollutant carcinogens, than a small number of rare cancers. I don't know if there is an elevated rate of cancer in this area, but I assume not since it would be the first thing that anyone looking at this rare cancer cluster would look for.

by nkurz 8y ago

danieltillett 8y ago

I don't think it is biologically plausible at all that a common chemical exposure exists. It is possible, just unlikely. It also doesn't match up with what we know about pollutant chemicals being a wide range of compounds, nor the broad range of cancers seen with other known pollutant chemicals. I would be far more likely to believe that a large number of unrelated cancers in an area were caused by pollutant carcinogens, than a small number of rare cancers. I don't know if there is an elevated rate of cancer in this area, but I assume not since it would be the first thing that anyone looking at this rare cancer cluster would look for.