3 ms·
That still doesn't inform us in any way that directly relates to the study. In the big picture of cancer research, there are countless caveats and idiosycracie
by swatcoder 2y ago
That still doesn't inform us in any way that directly relates to the study.
In the big picture of cancer research, there are countless caveats and idiosycracies because most cancers are more different from each other than they are similar. This is only amplified when you're trying to make inferences about dietary consumption, where interactions between coincident foodstuffs have large chaotic effects and species (and individuals) often have different digestive behavior on the way from dietary food to some intracellular interaction.
Ignoring all that inherent, acknowledged, complexity so that one might harp on some dead punching bag whose story is only known through the lens of commercial media is about as anti-scientific as you could be.
- fsckboy 2y agonobody here was drawing vast conclusions from Steve Jobs eating fruit; there is nothing for you to deflate Just as celebrities with diseases can draw attention to that disease, for the good with regard to other sufferers, a study about fructose and cancer can draw attention to "Steve Jobs diet was fructose". Attention drawn. There's nothing you can do about it. And you are not debunking anything because nobody asserted anything except a single fact; you're just shouting in a mirror about how clever you are.