No mention of Cheetos or Doritos though.
P values don't work at all if there's a lot of people working in a field!
The entry on 'super foods' states:
> "...the term ‘superfood’ is really just a marketing tool, with little scientific basis. It’s certainly true that a healthy, balanced and varied diet can help to reduce the risk of cancer but it is unlikely that any single food will make a major difference on its own."
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
Also worth a read:
Bacon, salami and sausages: how does processed meat cause cancer and how much matters? (April 2019)
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/04/26/bacon-sa...
There is hope though... annecdotal evidence seems to point towards unprocessed food as a good tool to fight cancer. Even better when it's low carb.
http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/ source for the mouse model studies
http://meatheals.com/category/cancer/ anecdotal evidence, you'll prolly find some vegans as well if you go looking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tteYZfMat4 some interesting talk about the efficiency of treatment in some cancers. Might help to make a better informed decision if it ever hits you.
My soul mate exercised, ate well and natural but still got breast cancer. Because it was in her family. Cancer hits so many people that it seems like it's just a natural way of population control to me.
Or perhaps a side effect from being multi-celled creatures in a universe with background radiation.
There's perfectly ample evidence for cosmic rays (ie. high energy radiation from astronomical sources) increasing risk of cancer as does any ionizing radiation. Maybe GP conflated the two?
* allowing naked mole rats & elephants as outliers
Look at any study behind one of these headlines and there will be a raft of confounding factors that were never controlled for. The data is close to meaningless at a certain point.
“Statistically significant results were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be published in the study abstract than in only the full text (P < 0.0001).“
Has pneumonia and 'frailty' as the predominant causes.
:(
The SENS people say, if you live long enough, you will eventually have cancer.
Without living on the edge, you don't get complex, powerful organisms (like mighty trilobites).
Plus, there's no telling how much reprogramming for stronger oxidization-repair mechanisms can provide. Mammalian mitochondria are inferior to bird mitochondria (and birds have them in their blood cells unlike us which may help[1]), allowing birds to live longer even with higher metabolisms than mammals. Evolution hasn't exhausted the possible. There's hope!
Just not for us. :) Which is fine; everything's fine.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Increase_in...
In that way, all metabolic processes will logically lead to cancer (damage to dna). The world is on fire.
(Ctrl+F "cancer" in that thread for amusement)
