Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you know that risk and probablility only apply to groups, they have no predictive value for any individual.
Well, yeah, that is the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
Sure, cigarettes are bad for you. But if you don't smoke (I don't) the point is moot.
And if you do smoke, the point is not moot. Cigarettes greatly increase the risk of lung cancer, and that would not be true if it were mostly genetically caused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
Exceptions? How about your statement about obesity and cancer? If 92% of cancers don't involve obesity, and given at least a third of the population is obese, then It would be more logical to assume obesity prevents cancer than causes it.
No, your math is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
I won't keep beating this horse, but lifestyle is not abviously a much bigger part than genetics. You can't know or prove this. You can only believe it. It's not a fact it's a theory. It may have some basis in fact in underdeveloped countries or in the past, but today in the US where there's enough food and medical care, it may be totally irrelevant.
It is known and it is proven. The modern lifestyle of no exercise and lots of processed food is a major cause of heart disease. Even mainstream medical doctors are starting to tell their patients to exercise and eat natural food. If it were mainly genetic, then why bother?
Then you know that risk and probablility only apply to groups, they have no predictive value for any individual.
Sure, cigarettes are bad for you. But if you don't smoke (I don't) the point is moot.
Exceptions? How about your statement about obesity and cancer? If 92% of cancers don't involve obesity, and given at least a third of the population is obese, then It would be more logical to assume obesity prevents cancer than causes it.
I won't keep beating this horse, but lifestyle is not abviously a much bigger part than genetics. You can't know or prove this. You can only believe it. It's not a fact it's a theory. It may have some basis in fact in underdeveloped countries or in the past, but today in the US where there's enough food and medical care, it may be totally irrelevant.
Please provide your resources for your claim that cancer is CAUSED by genetics (causation is not indicated just by the fact that "x" relative gets cancer and "y" relative gets cancer - both of those cancers could be caused by environmental/behavioral factors).
"All cancers begin when one or more genes in a cell mutate. A mutation is a change. It creates an abnormal protein. Or it may prevent a protein’s formation."
The number one factor in cancer diagnosis is age. the highest incidence of new cancer diagnosis is in people 65-74. The next highest is in people 55-64. Over 75% of all new cancer cases are diagnosed in people 55 and older.
Here is an interesting research article on aging and cancer.
From what is known, probable causes of cancer are tobacco use, carcinogens including environmental toxins and chemo, UV rays, aging, and heredity. But almost everyone has one or more of these factors, and everyone who lives long enough ages. Close to 40% of the population will contract cancer in their lifetime. To suggest that diet and exercise has any effect is pure speculation. It sounds to me like sour grapes and diet/exercise shaming by people who have nothing better to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
Please provide your resources for your claim that cancer is CAUSED by genetics (causation is not indicated just by the fact that "x" relative gets cancer and "y" relative gets cancer - both of those cancers could be caused by environmental/behavioral factors).
"All cancers begin when one or more genes in a cell mutate. A mutation is a change. It creates an abnormal protein. Or it may prevent a protein’s formation."
The number one factor in cancer diagnosis is age. the highest incidence of new cancer diagnosis is in people 65-74. The next highest is in people 55-64. Over 75% of all new cancer cases are diagnosed in people 55 and older.
Here is an interesting research article on aging and cancer.
From what is known, probable causes of cancer are tobacco use, carcinogens including environmental toxins and chemo, UV rays, aging, and heredity. But almost everyone has one or more of these factors, and everyone who lives long enough ages. Close to 40% of the population will contract cancer in their lifetime. To suggest that diet and exercise has any effect is pure speculation. It sounds to me like sour grapes and diet/exercise shaming by people who have nothing better to do.
Ha ha. Glad you reneged on your "genetics is the cause of disease" argument.
To suggest that diet and exercise has any effect is pure speculation. It sounds to me like sour grapes and diet/exercise shaming by people who have nothing better to do.
It is not even controversial. It is known that a good lifestyle helps prevent cancer, and a bad lifestyle makes cancer more likely.
That is your belief and is the belief of current consensus reality.
I have different beliefs and this is an alternative forum, where I get to express them.
I never tried to stop you from expressing your beliefs. I expressed my belief that your belief is wrong. If you want to convince anyone of your belief, you would need to show some evidence.
It may be an alternative forum, but we don't just dream up our beliefs.
I never tried to stop you from expressing your beliefs. I expressed my belief that your belief is wrong. If you want to convince anyone of your belief, you would need to show some evidence.
It may be an alternative forum, but we don't just dream up our beliefs.
I guess you didn't read the "sticky" for this sub-forum. No evidence is needed and to request it goes against the terms of this forum's rules.
At base of the study of quantum physics is the teaching (based on an experiment) that when the researcher (x) interacts with the subject (y), the subject is changed (z). It is a very simple concept, with huge implications, especially for "objectivist" research (which is materialistic and does not allow for the researcher's influence to influence the subject as even an acknowledgment).
To address you first sentence: I did not accuse you of trying to stop me from expressing my beliefs - I did point out that my belief differs from yours, AND that your opinion is your belief. A lot of people get confused about what they perceive as "facts" and "reality" - and falsely think their beliefs are facts.
Per Abraham Hicks: "Beliefs are just thoughts you keep thinking."
I have attempted to deconstruct my entire life and all of my key beliefs to find the source. Most of the "beliefs" came from the environment (parents, school, church, community).
There is a saying "Don't believe everything you think."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
