3 ms·

You are getting aware of it more due to social media.

by sumedh 2y ago

jasonvorhe 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- halfmatthalfcat 2y ago
  Oh brother.
  - blangk 2y ago
    It does seem somewhat relevant
    - halfmatthalfcat 2y ago
      It's a doomer, conspiratorial take without any evidence, especially when it's a vailed insinuation.
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        All evidence starts as anecdotal observation. Even the world’s most groundbreaking papers are, at their root, a collection of anecdotal observations others look into. Secondly, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because there’s no evidence for something being harmful, doesn’t mean there’s any evidence proving the something isn’t harmful. So look, I’m not an antivaxxer, but I say, “prove it.” Instead of saying “there’s no evidence it’s causing cancer,” write papers proving that it can’t be. I have no problem with the burden of proof being on for-profit billion-dollar companies repeatedly convicted of wrongdoing.
        mynameisvlad 2y ago
        You just spent an entire paragraph pointing out a logical fallacy and then immediately follow up by trying to have someone prove a negative? Come on. And the burden of proof generally is on the person making a claim. If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative.
        gjsman-1000 2y ago
        > If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative. This does not make any sense, because the vaccine maker is also making a claim: “This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.” In which case, the burden is on them to prove it, just like any claim from any company about any product. Even more so when they have convictions and a $2.3 billion fine historically for lying. It’s also realistic, I believe, to say that when you are in a rush against competition combined with the world being in a panic, that is a perfect atmosphere for lies and omission.
        mynameisvlad 2y ago
        You can’t prove a negative. It’s impossible to prove that something is 100% safe in all possible cases forever and always and will never cause cancer or interact with another drug or cause some unknown rare side effect. It’s impossible to predict every single interaction and edge case. We all know this, it’s basic logic, so I don’t know why I have to repeat it. Furthermore, their claim is not and has never been “This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.” as an absolute. They explicitly release numbers such as effectiveness, efficacy, etc which show how safe, how effective, etc a drug/vaccine is. Just because you ignore those numbers and choose to believe your own absolute interpretation of what they say doesn’t somehow mean that is what was said.
        2y ago
- faku312 2y ago
  [dead]
shortrounddev2 2y ago
No, there is a rise in colon cancer among people in their 20s and 30s, and scientists are saying it's probably ultra processed foods
- MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
  Overall, the incidence of cancer in the US among people under the age of 50 rose from 95.6 per 100,000 to 103.8 from 2000 to 2021.[ Colon cancer is one of the biggest drivers, but there are also a few others like kidney and thyroid that have seen big increases. Some of this, like thyroid cancer, might just be due to better detection of smaller, less serious cases. Fortunately, there are also some positive trends, like much lower rates of lung cancer (due to less smoking and cleaner air, presumably) and a decline in melanoma (skin) cancer after an increase in the early-to-mid 2000s (related to the rise and fall of tanning salons, I assume). https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/application.html?site=1&data_type=1&graph_type=2&compareBy=age_range&chk_age_range_1=1&chk_age_range_9=9&chk_age_range_141=141&chk_age_range_157=157&rate_type=2&sex=1&race=1&hdn_stage=101&advopt_precision=1&advopt_show_ci=on&hdn_view=0&advopt_show_apc=on&advopt_display=2#resultsRegion0 https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/applicat...

You are getting aware of it more due to social media.

by sumedh 2y ago

You are getting aware of it more due to social media.

jasonvorhe 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
halfmatthalfcat 2y ago
Oh brother.
- blangk 2y ago
  It does seem somewhat relevant
  - halfmatthalfcat 2y ago
    It's a doomer, conspiratorial take without any evidence, especially when it's a vailed insinuation.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      All evidence starts as anecdotal observation. Even the world’s most groundbreaking papers are, at their root, a collection of anecdotal observations others look into. Secondly, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because there’s no evidence for something being harmful, doesn’t mean there’s any evidence proving the something isn’t harmful. So look, I’m not an antivaxxer, but I say, “prove it.” Instead of saying “there’s no evidence it’s causing cancer,” write papers proving that it can’t be. I have no problem with the burden of proof being on for-profit billion-dollar companies repeatedly convicted of wrongdoing.
      - mynameisvlad 2y ago
        You just spent an entire paragraph pointing out a logical fallacy and then immediately follow up by trying to have someone prove a negative? Come on. And the burden of proof generally is on the person making a claim. If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative.
        gjsman-1000 2y ago
        > If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative. This does not make any sense, because the vaccine maker is also making a claim: “This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.” In which case, the burden is on them to prove it, just like any claim from any company about any product. Even more so when they have convictions and a $2.3 billion fine historically for lying. It’s also realistic, I believe, to say that when you are in a rush against competition combined with the world being in a panic, that is a perfect atmosphere for lies and omission.
        mynameisvlad 2y ago
        You can’t prove a negative. It’s impossible to prove that something is 100% safe in all possible cases forever and always and will never cause cancer or interact with another drug or cause some unknown rare side effect. It’s impossible to predict every single interaction and edge case. We all know this, it’s basic logic, so I don’t know why I have to repeat it. Furthermore, their claim is not and has never been “This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.” as an absolute. They explicitly release numbers such as effectiveness, efficacy, etc which show how safe, how effective, etc a drug/vaccine is. Just because you ignore those numbers and choose to believe your own absolute interpretation of what they say doesn’t somehow mean that is what was said.
        2y ago
faku312 2y ago
[dead]

shortrounddev2 2y ago

No, there is a rise in colon cancer among people in their 20s and 30s, and scientists are saying it's probably ultra processed foods

MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
Overall, the incidence of cancer in the US among people under the age of 50 rose from 95.6 per 100,000 to 103.8 from 2000 to 2021.[ Colon cancer is one of the biggest drivers, but there are also a few others like kidney and thyroid that have seen big increases. Some of this, like thyroid cancer, might just be due to better detection of smaller, less serious cases. Fortunately, there are also some positive trends, like much lower rates of lung cancer (due to less smoking and cleaner air, presumably) and a decline in melanoma (skin) cancer after an increase in the early-to-mid 2000s (related to the rise and fall of tanning salons, I assume). https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/application.html?site=1&data_type=1&graph_type=2&compareBy=age_range&chk_age_range_1=1&chk_age_range_9=9&chk_age_range_141=141&chk_age_range_157=157&rate_type=2&sex=1&race=1&hdn_stage=101&advopt_precision=1&advopt_show_ci=on&hdn_view=0&advopt_show_apc=on&advopt_display=2#resultsRegion0 https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/applicat...