3 ms·

then why do doctors do cancer screening by age and family history and not lifetyle? hmm. except for smoking, a lot is unkown about who gets cancer.

robobro 4y ago
Read the two lines of the article: > Data show that smoking, drinking alcohol and obesity are the biggest contributors to cancer worldwide. > Nearly 50% of cancer deaths worldwide are caused by preventable risk factors, such as smoking and drinking alcohol, according to the largest study of the link between cancer burden and risk factors Interested to see what your response is to the article once you finish reading it :-)
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Life causes cancer. :) The symptom is cancer, the problem statement is a fix is needed for the human immune system to be more targeted and aggressive in purging cancer from the body, as well as more robust cellular repair mechanisms. The human body can take enormous amounts of environmental abuse, but there’s clearly room for improvement.
  - kingkawn 4y ago
    A more aggressive immune system can cause cancers, such a myeloma or lymphoma. Gotta watch what you wish for
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Improvements should be designed to balance self preservation with self destruction. Immunotherapy, gene therapy, and CRISPR are still in their infancy.
  - fredgrott 4y ago
    ahem metabolism by animals in of itself does not cause cancer. Biology wise cancer is the miss fire of a nature aging process.
  - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
    "Approximately 39.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2015–2017 data)."[1] Many lives will experience cancer, but not the majority. So it seems to be more complex that immune inadequacy (unless 60% of immune systems are working really well, which would be noteworthy). It seems like a reasonable hypothesis that environment is playing a larger role than individual genetic variations. So encouraging people (or even scaring them) to not smoke, not drink, eat better and exercise more seems like a reasonable approach - it won't cure cancer, but it could reduce rates? 1: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics
- hamiltonians 4y ago
  doesnt change my point. docs screen by age, not lifestyle unless u smoke
explaingarlic 4y ago
Are the majority of these risk factors not predictable epigenetically or genetically?
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I read somewhere (I don't remember the source, but it was some medicine journal) that 4% of smokers are genetically more inclined to die from lung cancer; while lung cancer is correlated with the number of cigarettes (intensity and length of time), these people will have lung cancer even with a very low number of cigarettes. I know a few anecdotal cases where entire families of smokers died from lung cancer, while their partners, also smokers, had no problem, but I don't put much weight on that. Also I heard that smoking can cause other cancers like colon cancer in specific genetic conditions, but I don't know more details.
  - explaingarlic 4y ago
    I like to blindly attribute these things to bodily chemistry. Anything you put in your body now will affect everything from now on in your material world :) That approach works for me, anyway.
steve_adams_86 4y ago
There are all kinds of carcinogenic compounds we know are avoidable but people are exposed to nonetheless. The article points out several examples. Some cancers are more likely to occur based on gender and more predictable gene expressions, but these aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be more likely to get cancer without doing anything special while still vulnerable to an increased risk of cancer through exposure to carcinogens (like alcohol, smoke, processed meats, etc).

robobro 4y ago

Read the two lines of the article: > Data show that smoking, drinking alcohol and obesity are the biggest contributors to cancer worldwide. > Nearly 50% of cancer deaths worldwide are caused by preventable risk factors, such as smoking and drinking alcohol, according to the largest study of the link between cancer burden and risk factors Interested to see what your response is to the article once you finish reading it :-)

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Life causes cancer. :) The symptom is cancer, the problem statement is a fix is needed for the human immune system to be more targeted and aggressive in purging cancer from the body, as well as more robust cellular repair mechanisms. The human body can take enormous amounts of environmental abuse, but there’s clearly room for improvement.
- kingkawn 4y ago
  A more aggressive immune system can cause cancers, such a myeloma or lymphoma. Gotta watch what you wish for
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Improvements should be designed to balance self preservation with self destruction. Immunotherapy, gene therapy, and CRISPR are still in their infancy.
- fredgrott 4y ago
  ahem metabolism by animals in of itself does not cause cancer. Biology wise cancer is the miss fire of a nature aging process.
- blacksmith_tb 4y ago
  "Approximately 39.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2015–2017 data)."[1] Many lives will experience cancer, but not the majority. So it seems to be more complex that immune inadequacy (unless 60% of immune systems are working really well, which would be noteworthy). It seems like a reasonable hypothesis that environment is playing a larger role than individual genetic variations. So encouraging people (or even scaring them) to not smoke, not drink, eat better and exercise more seems like a reasonable approach - it won't cure cancer, but it could reduce rates? 1: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics
hamiltonians 4y ago
doesnt change my point. docs screen by age, not lifestyle unless u smoke

explaingarlic 4y ago

Are the majority of these risk factors not predictable epigenetically or genetically?

AdrianB1 4y ago
I read somewhere (I don't remember the source, but it was some medicine journal) that 4% of smokers are genetically more inclined to die from lung cancer; while lung cancer is correlated with the number of cigarettes (intensity and length of time), these people will have lung cancer even with a very low number of cigarettes. I know a few anecdotal cases where entire families of smokers died from lung cancer, while their partners, also smokers, had no problem, but I don't put much weight on that. Also I heard that smoking can cause other cancers like colon cancer in specific genetic conditions, but I don't know more details.
- explaingarlic 4y ago
  I like to blindly attribute these things to bodily chemistry. Anything you put in your body now will affect everything from now on in your material world :) That approach works for me, anyway.

steve_adams_86 4y ago

There are all kinds of carcinogenic compounds we know are avoidable but people are exposed to nonetheless. The article points out several examples. Some cancers are more likely to occur based on gender and more predictable gene expressions, but these aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be more likely to get cancer without doing anything special while still vulnerable to an increased risk of cancer through exposure to carcinogens (like alcohol, smoke, processed meats, etc).