4 ms·

Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by a

Correlation =/= Causation Since we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is, it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol. I can readily think of other possible reasons for a correlation.

rafaelero 5y ago
Let's also smoke, then.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Only if you are self-treating depression. Though these days there are drugs for depression that can dramatically increase the odds you will quit smoking.
  - rafaelero 5y ago
    This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same level of evidence that we have for alcohol, which is observational studies. That knee jerk reaction that observational studies can't give us a relatively high level of confidence is why I mentioned the case of tobacco: if you really believe that, you should also disdain the case against smoking.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change their practices. I really believe that after listening to the tales of a relative be patient zero in a cancer study. And on and on. Cancer runs rampant in my family. I've had multiple relatives who have had it, some multiple times. Your opinions about my opinions not withstanding, I will continue to believe what makes sense to me.
      - 14u2c 5y ago
        > I will continue to believe what makes sense to me. And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.
        jodrellblank 5y ago
        Maybe that's sensible, maybe it isn't (how close are 'what an oncologist thinks' and 'what a layperson believes an oncologist thinks'?). Commenting on the internet "I'm more virtuous than you because I dismiss your experience without caring what it is" isn't particularly sensible, it's tribal signalling "I'm in the science tribe not the conspiracy-alternative-health-woo tribe". Isn't it?
      - cush 5y ago
        That's not how science works. We don't fully understand most things, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - billfruit 5y ago
      Empirical evidence may not be there, what about theoretical formulation of the mechanism by which smoking affects the lung? Shouldn't we able to explain it only on the basis of theory?
      - kongolongo 5y ago
        Not really because smoking produces hundreds of not thousands of compounds that make it practically impossible to trace the metabolic path of all of these compounds in the human body from just theory alone
  - egberts1 5y ago
    Yep, Zyban (Wellbutrin-class) has been know to cause permanent hearing loss. No thanks, oh wait: it’s too late for me.
danuker 5y ago
They looked at correlations for "cancer sites with sufficient evidence of a causal link according to the most recent IARC monograph.". But they don't mention any other adjustments (age, other dietary factors, BMI...).
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Yeah, I get that. And I stand by what I said and I don't understand why it's at all controversial. Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe people drink because they caught a virus that causes cancer, either to self medicate or because the virus makes them crave alcohol.
  - danuker 5y ago
    While a randomized controlled trial is the golden standard when it comes to science, ones about cancer can be prohibitively expensive due to the durations involved. Who will accept a researcher-imposed dietary restriction for years? Who will follow it without requiring supervision? These cohort studies are the next best thing. The correlation is with alcohol consumption 10 years earlier, and they looked at the changes in countries' alcohol consumption.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      That's fine. As long as you state clearly it's correlation and not proven causation and we don't know the exact mechanism and yadda. I'm trying to walk away from a completely ridiculous pile on from an excessive number of people here. This is not a productive conversation at all and I have no idea why it went so wildly sideways.
      - kongolongo 5y ago
        Well that's not a very real distinction. No observational study can ever claim to prove causation at most it can provide data that supports causation is highly likely. The conclusion and how it's presented will naturally be in terms of likelihoods of some outcomes based on certain assumptions — which is exactly how this research is presented.
cush 5y ago
Such as...? Also your logic doesn't hold. In cause and effect, you don't need to understand the effect to know the cause.
lm28469 5y ago
> we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is > it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol eh, I think we know quite a lot about cancers and quite a lot about alcohol's effects on the human body. The fact that it is complex doesn't mean that we don't understand it at all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860434/

rafaelero 5y ago

Let's also smoke, then.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Only if you are self-treating depression. Though these days there are drugs for depression that can dramatically increase the odds you will quit smoking.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same level of evidence that we have for alcohol, which is observational studies. That knee jerk reaction that observational studies can't give us a relatively high level of confidence is why I mentioned the case of tobacco: if you really believe that, you should also disdain the case against smoking.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change their practices. I really believe that after listening to the tales of a relative be patient zero in a cancer study. And on and on. Cancer runs rampant in my family. I've had multiple relatives who have had it, some multiple times. Your opinions about my opinions not withstanding, I will continue to believe what makes sense to me.
    - 14u2c 5y ago
      > I will continue to believe what makes sense to me. And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.
      - jodrellblank 5y ago
        Maybe that's sensible, maybe it isn't (how close are 'what an oncologist thinks' and 'what a layperson believes an oncologist thinks'?). Commenting on the internet "I'm more virtuous than you because I dismiss your experience without caring what it is" isn't particularly sensible, it's tribal signalling "I'm in the science tribe not the conspiracy-alternative-health-woo tribe". Isn't it?
    - cush 5y ago
      That's not how science works. We don't fully understand most things, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - billfruit 5y ago
    Empirical evidence may not be there, what about theoretical formulation of the mechanism by which smoking affects the lung? Shouldn't we able to explain it only on the basis of theory?
    - kongolongo 5y ago
      Not really because smoking produces hundreds of not thousands of compounds that make it practically impossible to trace the metabolic path of all of these compounds in the human body from just theory alone
- egberts1 5y ago
  Yep, Zyban (Wellbutrin-class) has been know to cause permanent hearing loss. No thanks, oh wait: it’s too late for me.

danuker 5y ago

They looked at correlations for "cancer sites with sufficient evidence of a causal link according to the most recent IARC monograph.". But they don't mention any other adjustments (age, other dietary factors, BMI...).

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Yeah, I get that. And I stand by what I said and I don't understand why it's at all controversial. Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe people drink because they caught a virus that causes cancer, either to self medicate or because the virus makes them crave alcohol.
- danuker 5y ago
  While a randomized controlled trial is the golden standard when it comes to science, ones about cancer can be prohibitively expensive due to the durations involved. Who will accept a researcher-imposed dietary restriction for years? Who will follow it without requiring supervision? These cohort studies are the next best thing. The correlation is with alcohol consumption 10 years earlier, and they looked at the changes in countries' alcohol consumption.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    That's fine. As long as you state clearly it's correlation and not proven causation and we don't know the exact mechanism and yadda. I'm trying to walk away from a completely ridiculous pile on from an excessive number of people here. This is not a productive conversation at all and I have no idea why it went so wildly sideways.
    - kongolongo 5y ago
      Well that's not a very real distinction. No observational study can ever claim to prove causation at most it can provide data that supports causation is highly likely. The conclusion and how it's presented will naturally be in terms of likelihoods of some outcomes based on certain assumptions — which is exactly how this research is presented.

cush 5y ago

Such as...? Also your logic doesn't hold. In cause and effect, you don't need to understand the effect to know the cause.

lm28469 5y ago

> we mostly don't really understand what cancer actually is > it's a bit of a stretch to break down percent supposedly caused by alcohol eh, I think we know quite a lot about cancers and quite a lot about alcohol's effects on the human body. The fact that it is complex doesn't mean that we don't understand it at all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860434/