3 ms·

“ The Pentagon took pains to point out that the new study “does not imply that military service in air crew or ground crew occupations causes cancer, because th

“ The Pentagon took pains to point out that the new study “does not imply that military service in air crew or ground crew occupations causes cancer, because there are multiple potential confounding factors that could not be controlled for in this analysis,” such as family histories of cancer, smoking behavior or alcohol use.” so they didn’t control for the three biggest contributors to cancer risk - how is this useful? It’s like finding that strippers have higher risk of cancer than “the general population”, and implying that taking your clothes off is a risk factor for cancer… Doing this kind of meaningless study doesn’t help anyone, including the service members and their families - if, for example, the major risk comes from higher rates of smoking among the military, then let’s focus on reducing that risk factor: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8489722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8489722/

dogma1138 4y ago
Even if they didn’t or couldn’t control for certain factors it doesn’t mean that the study is useless. Familial history is likely not a good excuse since there would be a very broad population even in a single branch. Behavioral factors are still very much relevant because you can use it for a public health policy, if smoking and drinking is worse in the military than in the general population then it’s something that you can definitely try to address. Another factor that can play here is that servicemen have probably better healthcare than the average population especially when it comes to preventative healthcare and checkups. So whilst this study isn’t enough to identify causation it’s enough for correlation which is quite often as important when it comes to public health policies.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  And, in any case, publishing an interesting but incomplete finding gives others the chance to pick up where this leaves off. >Another factor that can play here is that servicemen have probably better healthcare than the average population especially when it comes to preventative healthcare and checkups. Assuming that it is somewhat similar to the navy, the catastrophic and chronic stuff is very well covered (and no cost), but general screenings and physicals are no-value-add with a significant component of psychological harm.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  it’s funny you use the word “excuse” rather than “reason” or “cause” - it’s almost like you’ve already drawn a conclusion in the absence of any actual data… The point is there is no excuse NOT to consider those important factors - they are part of every annual physical and certainly part of the extensive screening done during enlistment. So you’d only ignore them if you’re trying to create a particular narrative, IMO

dogma1138 4y ago

Even if they didn’t or couldn’t control for certain factors it doesn’t mean that the study is useless. Familial history is likely not a good excuse since there would be a very broad population even in a single branch. Behavioral factors are still very much relevant because you can use it for a public health policy, if smoking and drinking is worse in the military than in the general population then it’s something that you can definitely try to address. Another factor that can play here is that servicemen have probably better healthcare than the average population especially when it comes to preventative healthcare and checkups. So whilst this study isn’t enough to identify causation it’s enough for correlation which is quite often as important when it comes to public health policies.

QuarterReptile 4y ago
And, in any case, publishing an interesting but incomplete finding gives others the chance to pick up where this leaves off. >Another factor that can play here is that servicemen have probably better healthcare than the average population especially when it comes to preventative healthcare and checkups. Assuming that it is somewhat similar to the navy, the catastrophic and chronic stuff is very well covered (and no cost), but general screenings and physicals are no-value-add with a significant component of psychological harm.
ghufran_syed 4y ago
it’s funny you use the word “excuse” rather than “reason” or “cause” - it’s almost like you’ve already drawn a conclusion in the absence of any actual data… The point is there is no excuse NOT to consider those important factors - they are part of every annual physical and certainly part of the extensive screening done during enlistment. So you’d only ignore them if you’re trying to create a particular narrative, IMO