I personally think the reason EVERYTHING is linked to cancer, as well as the massive surge in cancer since the 1900s, is all due to the modern metabolism (sugar burners) being very different then pre-1900 metabolism (fat burners)
High carbohydrate load, high blood glucose load, high insulin levels
Industrial Oil, systemic body inflammation
Agrochemical contamination of food supply, more systematic inflammation
The problem with these observational studies is they don’t look at the modern metabolic context, so in this context, yes EVERYTHING is associated with cancer - because the studies arn’t looking at the right variables.
This is exactly why hard science doesn’t use association to draw conclusions, epidemiology is hypothesis generating only
If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).
The surge of cancer since the 1900s is also explainable by the surge in our ability to detect cancer and overall understanding of it.
One big reason papers always find these links is just that they are finding correlations, which are always there, even for unrelated things. When you are looking at loads of factors in a observational study you are almost bound to find some accidental correlation. It is very hard to tell if that is just random or if there is a true cause behind it.
Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review
I personally think the reason EVERYTHING is linked to cancer, as well as the massive surge in cancer since the 1900s, is all due to the modern metabolism (sugar burners) being very different then pre-1900 metabolism (fat burners)
The problem with these observational studies is they don’t look at the modern metabolic context, so in this context, yes EVERYTHING is associated with cancer - because the studies arn’t looking at the right variables.
This is exactly why hard science doesn’t use association to draw conclusions, epidemiology is hypothesis generating only
If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).
The surge of cancer since the 1900s is also explainable by the surge in our ability to detect cancer and overall understanding of it.
One big reason papers always find these links is just that they are finding correlations, which are always there, even for unrelated things. When you are looking at loads of factors in a observational study you are almost bound to find some accidental correlation. It is very hard to tell if that is just random or if there is a true cause behind it.
There are all sorts of spurious correlations if you look hard enough.