Slashdot Mirror

Vaping doesn't cause popcorn lung. Good to pay attention to what you are putting in your lungs, but it's better than, you know, tar.

Except after smoking obesity is the second largest cause of cancer in the UK at least.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.o...

For an intro into the science as to why

https://www.cancerresearchuk.o...

The basics are that there is no such thing as being fat and healthy.

Except after smoking obesity is the second largest cause of cancer in the UK at least.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.o...

For an intro into the science as to why

https://www.cancerresearchuk.o...

The basics are that there is no such thing as being fat and healthy.

More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

You also have to understand how they count survival. If you live for 5 years, then is is counted as survival. If you just created a test that detected cancer earlier than 5 years before death, it would have a 100% survival rate. That makes all the numbers they throw out meaningless. The same number of people are dying at the same time as before, but because you told them they were going to die, that makes them from the dead camp to the survival camp. this and this

and as such I'd like them to do their job.

I can think of no better way than by monitoring what adults are willfully inhaling and reporting the results. They (or maybe the FTC?) should absolutely come down hard on anyone making a health or other claim not backed up by rigorous study. But, Jesus, this is a vice and adults don't need a babysitter. If research comes in showing it to be a public health threat, then let's talk - but we don't need to ban things proactively, without any science at all.

when that's clearly not the case,

I don't think this is clear at all. It's still under study. It's not "healthy" in any event. Also not sure how liquid, batteries, chargers, the actual douche flute itself, are "easier" than setting fire to a pre-rolled cigarette. I'm sure there are people getting newly-addicted to nicotine, but it seems like most people vaping nicotine are already addicted to cigarettes. Others don't bother with the nicotine.

It is noteworthy that it appears the exposure here was 5 minutes. This wouldn't exactly mimic the effects of tar residue or polonium sitting around on your lung cells for years, building up damage. Note that I have not actually read the article, just skimmed the abstract, I'm at work ATM. I have no idea if these sensors would be able to accurately test that.

Solar energy spills cause CANCER and even third degree burns.

Natural gas just safely floats away into the atmosphere and is biologically disposed of by Nature.

Save the natural gas for the President Elect, Trump. He is going to make America great by bringing back coal. And of course, he is going to tax the low low cost electricity you get from your solar panel. Trump is going to claim that the sunshine belongs to him, and if you want any, you have to pay Trump or the Koch brothers.

Solar energy spills cause CANCER and even third degree burns.
Natural gas just safely floats away into the atmosphere and is biologically disposed of by Nature.

Except cancer is coming at earlier and earlier ages. What you eat impacts your body's ability to care of itself. Cancer is natural. Everyone likely has cancer at all points during their life. Cancer is simply some cells growing too much. However your body can handle that, except when it's overwhelmed or doesn't have the resources to deal with it. So yes, what you eat and do can directly impact your natural ability to keep cancer under control. Look at the cancer rate studies on nurses. Simply working the night shift instead of the day shift massively increases their chances of getting cancer. Society is getting sicker and sicker.

No it isn't, http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...

http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...

No need, my numbers are accurate, so long as most of the cleaners weren't retired, called up for a cleaning.

For thousands or millions of years humans have spent their lives outside farming, hunting, gathering, etc. and haven't had as much cancer as we have in todays society. Now its coming out that the roundup sprayed onto all of our food likely causes cancer. I wonder if the chemicals in sunscreen might also have a link.

For thousands or millions of years humans have lived shorter. Cancer incidence increases with age (source), therefore, the reason why there was less cancer incidence in the past is because most people died of other causes before cancer could get them. I'm not arguing that some chemicals sprayed on crops may not induce, or, at least, increase the odds of, cancer, but just comparing the data from the past to the present data is not sound proof.
By the way, there is a chemical implied in the higher incidence of cancer nowadays; that is CFC, which made the ozone layer thinner.

Gerry Potter's research led to what he calls "pro-drug paradigm" that is it's not a drug, it's turned into a drug by something, then becomes active.

I met one of this guys friends in Starbucks once and we became good friends and he explained a bunch of this stuff to me. Here's the short version:

The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2][3]. When certain phytoallexins such as resveratrol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoalexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into piceatannol [4], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [5][6].

  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  [2] http://cancerres.aacrjournals....
  [3] http://secure.salvestrol.ca/se...
  [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
  [5] http://www.nature.com/bjc/jour...
  [6] http://www.orthomolecular.org/...

Here's some articles and stuff:
http://www.thisisleicestershir...

"Prostate cancer drug so effective trial stopped"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...

Pat ettenttion to the colors on this map: http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...

If you poke around you can find cliical repoets online. All people seem to get better and this stuff has been around since 2007.

So, I think they're on to something here... and it may be a a way to Patent Potter's second discovery (based on CYP1B1) which is not patentable. His first discovery based on CYP17 was patentable and sold for two billion untested.

They're awfully skint on the biochemical explanation.

Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.

Your best shot is a general disbelief of anything coming from a government agency? Get real. Look at any epidemiology report from anywhere on earth and you will fine no increase in brain cancers. If you don't believe that one then try this one as it is non-governmental.

If dog poo is present and no one got sick then dog poo is safe. If you do the same test on millions of people in ever increasing numbers over 15 years and there is no upward trend in illness then dog poo is safe. If dog poo was unsafe there should be at least a few people who got sick. There are two parts to a study; correlation and causation. Correlation asks the question is there a similar trend in two factors. For example, the increased presence of dog poo and the increased incidence of illness. The second step is to prove if that correlation might be caused by a third factor. Possibly the presence of dog urine also increases with the presence of dog poo and it is the urine that is causing the issue and not the poo. If the correlation step fails there is no possible causation. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of cell phones used yet no increase in the rate of brain cancers. There is no correlation therefore no possible causation.

Or in fact, not necessarily a cure.

In medicine, innovative things happen all the time. When *you* go to the doctor, you get the same ol' thing that has been done since 1952.

That is just wrong. If you look at breast cancer 10-year survival rates (Figure 3.4): http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/breast/survival/

They have come up from 41% in 1970 to 77% in 2007. While cancer is not cured, survival rates are a lot better.

When talking to the doctor three years ago, when my girlfriend had a breast-cancer operation, they had the latest studies and decided for a treatment based on them. The doctor only worked 4 days a week and took 1 day "off" to keep up with current research.

The chemicals used for chemo-therapie are updated all the time and also genetical fingerprinting of the tumor cells is used to decide which treatment makes sense. So there are lots of differences even compared to the treatment 10 years ago.

I had my annual physical with my family doctor yesterday. He told me that he no longer does, nor does he recommend, prostate cancer screening based on recent studies. Most of the prostate cancers detected are not the ones that will kill you, but it's not possible to test for that without an invasive biopsy that is very uncomfortable. If you jump right into treating the cancer, that is also very uncomfortable and potentially debilitating.

Yeah. You know what is more debilitating? Having a chance to cure your cancer but sticking with "oh well, I'm old and I will live another 5 or 10 years with it before it will kill me so not going to get it cured." Then 7 years pass and you die of curable disease.

1. your doctor is an idiot
2. the "finger test" works
3. biopsy uncomfortable? How about every day of the last 3 or 5 years of your life as you can't piss or walk properly?
4. for PSA test to have any meaning, you need a baseline for results in years prior to middle age (or at least to old age) - then and only then can it show any results. Even if you opt out of this one because it is not conclusive, the "finger test" *is* physical exam of the prostate!

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/prostate/mortality/uk-prostate-cancer-mortality-statistics

Prostate cancer is 2nd most common cause of cancer deaths, and thus most common cause of cancer deaths in male non-smokers. I guess no treatment warranted??

PS. The only time I would opt-out of treatment of prostate cancer is if I had other terminal diseases that would kill be sooner *and/or* I would not be capable of making my own decisions anymore. That's it.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/

Prostate cancer is very common among older men, but it's more often an annoyance than a killer, since people usually die of other causes before the cancer can kill them.

To quote the doctor treating one of my relatives, it's a cancer you die with, not of.

The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%. The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 93%.

(US numbers)

That's why prostate cancer has low priority, compared to e.g. breast cancer, which has a relative 1-year survival rate of 96%, and 85% for 5 years (UK numbers).

It could put you at a higher risk of developing liver cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/alcohol/howdoesalcoholcausecancer/how-does-alcohol-cause-cancer

If they continued to drink and get sick and drink some more, it sounds like that would be the case. Some people may very well do just that. I'm guessing most people would stop after getting sick a few (or more) times. I guess it would come down to whether the patient thought that risk was worth the reward or not.

It could put you at a higher risk of developing liver cancer.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/alcohol/howdoesalcoholcausecancer/how-does-alcohol-cause-cancer

I'm sorry to hear about your dad, but please don't put uninformed stuff like this out there. Cancer isn't one disease, it's many. And some do have high survival rates. The others we are working on.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

Wait, what? No scientific studies link tobacco consumption with cancer? What delusional rock do you live under? This article alone lists almost a hundred studies showing links.

Yeah yeah okay guys... I don't post enough on /. to remember to account for the site's high levels of pedantry. I'm making a casual comment on a news site here, not writing an article for Wikipedia, but here we go:

The general understanding by the non-pedantic is that when someone is said to be "dying" it means they have a terminal illness such as cancer* (the risk of which is greatly increased around 60/65 - source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/age/). To call age-related illness "dying" is exaggerating I guess, but only slightly as it's around the same age and the same sort of illness that I have in mind.

If you look at it technically (and quite pessimistically) then yes, we are dying from the moment we are born but very few people use the term in that manner.

Now, it's quite possible that the age of dramatically increased cancer risk (and similar) would increase along with our lifespan, but my comment was in context with the summary's comment of "That assumes that the life extension is all 'good years', and not a prolonged period of dementia and physical decline."

{*} In before "not all cancer is terminal": I mean cases where it has been diagnosed as terminal, and also cancer is just an example but a very common problem.

Most of us here in UK and across western europe are uncut. We don't have anywhere near the illness figures you're quoting (sources please?).

Uncircumcised men have 1½ â" 2 times the risk of prostate cancer, which affects 1 in 6.

I assume that mess means 1.5 to 2 times the risk
"No modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer has been identified and therefore, at present, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a prevention strategy. The established risk factors are age, family history and ethnicity." - Cancer Research UK (a reputable scientific research funding registered charity)

Over 20-fold decrease in risk of invasive penile cancer, which has a high fatality rate. One in 600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often requires penile amputation.

"Penile cancer is a rare cancer in Western countries. Fewer than 500 men are diagnosed each year in the UK." - again from Cancer Research UK. While they acknowledge that circumcision lowers the rate slightly, it's such a tiny risk it's negligible. Bear in mind that's 500 cases a year, in a country of about 35 million men.

And finally the NHS viewpoint. Bear in mind that as a government funded medical provider, they have a vested interest in stopping men coming down with expensive illnesses. Circumcision is so cheap that they'd recommend it if it stopped 1 illness in every 100,000 men. "Routine circumcision may offer a number of potential benefits, such as reducing the risk of some types of infections. However, the majority of healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, far outweigh any potential benefits."

Whereas risk of this is only 1 in 500 for a circumcised boy, 1 in 50 uncircumcised male infants will get a urinary tract infection. This very painful condition is particularly dangerous in infancy, and in 40% of cases can lead to kidney inflammation and disease; blood poisoning and meningitis can also result.

"UTIs are a common infection in young boys. About 4% of boys have at least one UTI before they are 16.
Research has found that circumcised boys are 10-14 times less likely to catch a UTI than uncircumcised boys. This is because many UTIs are thought to be caused by bacteria that gather inside the foreskin before spreading to the urinary system.
However, most UTIs are mild and do not cause serious damage, so circumcision is usually only recommended when there is a pre-existing risk factor that increases the likelihood of the boy having repeated UTIs. Repeated UTIs can cause kidney damage.
An example of a pre-existing risk factor is a birth defect that causes urine to leak back up into the kidney. This carries the risk of bacteria spreading from the foreskin, through the urine, and infecting the kidney. In such circumstances, circumcision may be recommended." NHS again
I quote the whole paragraph here so as no to be accused of selective quoting. Yes, circumcision reduces the chance of getting a urinary tract infection, in the same way that locking a kid in an airtight room stops them catching a cold. It's a ridiculous overreaction unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I have to say, I trust the opinion of a cancer research agency and the NHS more than I trust an individual US doctor, whose practise stands to gain money for doing the operation.

Most of us here in UK and across western europe are uncut. We don't have anywhere near the illness figures you're quoting (sources please?).

Uncircumcised men have 1½ â" 2 times the risk of prostate cancer, which affects 1 in 6.

I assume that mess means 1.5 to 2 times the risk
"No modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer has been identified and therefore, at present, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a prevention strategy. The established risk factors are age, family history and ethnicity." - Cancer Research UK (a reputable scientific research funding registered charity)

Over 20-fold decrease in risk of invasive penile cancer, which has a high fatality rate. One in 600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often requires penile amputation.

"Penile cancer is a rare cancer in Western countries. Fewer than 500 men are diagnosed each year in the UK." - again from Cancer Research UK. While they acknowledge that circumcision lowers the rate slightly, it's such a tiny risk it's negligible. Bear in mind that's 500 cases a year, in a country of about 35 million men.

And finally the NHS viewpoint. Bear in mind that as a government funded medical provider, they have a vested interest in stopping men coming down with expensive illnesses. Circumcision is so cheap that they'd recommend it if it stopped 1 illness in every 100,000 men. "Routine circumcision may offer a number of potential benefits, such as reducing the risk of some types of infections. However, the majority of healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, far outweigh any potential benefits."

Whereas risk of this is only 1 in 500 for a circumcised boy, 1 in 50 uncircumcised male infants will get a urinary tract infection. This very painful condition is particularly dangerous in infancy, and in 40% of cases can lead to kidney inflammation and disease; blood poisoning and meningitis can also result.

"UTIs are a common infection in young boys. About 4% of boys have at least one UTI before they are 16.
Research has found that circumcised boys are 10-14 times less likely to catch a UTI than uncircumcised boys. This is because many UTIs are thought to be caused by bacteria that gather inside the foreskin before spreading to the urinary system.
However, most UTIs are mild and do not cause serious damage, so circumcision is usually only recommended when there is a pre-existing risk factor that increases the likelihood of the boy having repeated UTIs. Repeated UTIs can cause kidney damage.
An example of a pre-existing risk factor is a birth defect that causes urine to leak back up into the kidney. This carries the risk of bacteria spreading from the foreskin, through the urine, and infecting the kidney. In such circumstances, circumcision may be recommended." NHS again
I quote the whole paragraph here so as no to be accused of selective quoting. Yes, circumcision reduces the chance of getting a urinary tract infection, in the same way that locking a kid in an airtight room stops them catching a cold. It's a ridiculous overreaction unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I have to say, I trust the opinion of a cancer research agency and the NHS more than I trust an individual US doctor, whose practise stands to gain money for doing the operation.

I agree two wrongs don't make a right and it's certainly a principal I try to live by.

However in the case of Wikileaks, I think they are taking right actions, that unfortunately can also enable others to do wrong.

I can think of many examples in our lives where our well intended actions can result in harm to others.

I know that driving my car, I might get into an accident and kill people, but I still do it. I know I'm contributing to global warming and am emitting gases that damage our health.

People didn't know that certain refrigerants depleted the ozone, so because I live in NZ I'm over 200% more likely of getting skin cancer than any other place in the world.

By asking one girl out, I might disappoint another girl.

My point is that our actions always have known and unknown impact on others, sometimes tiny, sometimes huge. And the impact is typically significant when the actions are on the international stage. Hopefully Wikileaks will consider the community's response to their latest major leak, but I think what they're doing is far too important for them to become paralysed from the fear of risking lives (due to other's actions I'll add) when so many lives are at stake. Certainly they're willing to accept their own lives are at stake.

They certainly need to do their best to mitigate the damage they do (just as they certainly mitigate the risk to themselves), and perhaps they can do better at that, but it is imperative they keep leaking this information. At least for me it is. I don't need to know nuclear launch codes, I don't need to know who's sleeping with whom. But I do need to know how the world's wealth and power is distributed and used. Mine is not a society where governments and organisations can use their power over others without the knowledge and consent of the people.

Sorry for the rant, but I figure this has been off the front page for a day or so now, so hopefully it won't cost me much karma.

Bewarre dodgy comparisons: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/

Cancer survival rates in the UK are shocking.

This article says that the the UK rsurvival rates are the worst in Europe. Here's the money quote: "Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists"

You may also want to check this graph for prostate cancer

I personally know of one person who died at age 50 because their cancer was misdignosed - all that extra screening in the US may be expensive but it saves lives.

And just to keep on topic, the iPad rocks!

Well, according to some of the best doctors in the U.S., prostate cancer is easily detectable at early onset and existing techniques prolong life closer to ten years.

This sounds like yet another modern-age snake-oil campaign. i.e. murder for profit by big pharma. It's just gonna get worse now that Obama has FORCED us to support them.

While prostate cancer may be easily detectable, this is not so for every prostate cancer case. Provenge is used for patients where the nice "live 10 years longer" treatments don't work, for some reason, and it's more like a few months until you're dead. But please, feel free to refuse the treatment and help with the budget.

And mind that it is only in recent years that life expectancy has gone to 10 years for 60% of patients. That means for about 40% they don't make it to the deadline, even with modern treatments.

Here's a link: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/

'But as far as I know, theres nothing stopping you from putting it up on your web site as well or submitting it in publication in other journals.'

Nature has exclusive publication rights for the first 6 months, after which you're free to submit the paper to a public repository or put it up on your own site:

http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html

This is rather more enlightened than some other major journals, which still require a copyright transfer to the publisher, but obviously falls short of full open access from day 1. But I think most people who get a paper in Nature will happily accept this compromise! (at least for now).

Incidentally, some form of open access is pretty much being forced on traditional publishers by major funding bodies, which now commonly require that most or all funded publications are submitted to journals that provide this (time delays are generally allowed), e.g.:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/terms/openaccess_ukpmc/

So things are at least moving in the right direction.

My error.

More people die from CANCER every year.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/mortality/index.htm

And we don't have 9/11's every year.

I checked my deo, but no aluminum so I googled around and apparently it's an ingredient in antiperspirant which is in some deodorants (mine's the plain kind). Interestingly this turned up some debate on the safety of aluminum use :

"A small study in 17 women with breast cancer was quite widely reported in the news in 2007. It found higher levels of aluminium in the part of the breast nearest the skin, and the authors speculated that aluminium in deodorants might cause breast cancer. But the design of this study was not strong enough to draw that conclusion." From cancerresearchuk

And from wikipedia : "Aluminium, present most often in antiperspirants, but not usually present in non-antiperspirant deodorants, has been established as a neurotoxin in very high doses."

From what I can tell smearing it on your skin is probably OK and ingesting it in more than trace amounts should probably be discouraged :-) Thanks for the tip.

Cancer has been with us throughout recorded history. Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Chinese doctors described and drew tumours growing on their patients covering a span of about 2000-4000 years ago. There's also archeological evidence of cancers much older than that, e.g. in Bronze age fossils.

Cancer has become more common over the last hundred years or so. A huge part of that is simply the fact that we're living much longer, meaning that the odds of a given person developing cancer are much higher.

Of course you're right that environmental factors are important. Smoking and increased alcohol consumption are probably the biggest contributors, probably followed by poorly tested or controlled industrial synthetics like Asbestos. I've no idea what makes you think that no-one is researching this stuff. It's not exactly hard to find: cancer.org and cancerresearch.org.uk are great places to start reading about the known risk factors in modern life. Or, you know, there's google.

Probably the best source about risk factors is this huge meta-analysis of cancer papers. A science journalist's summary: In addition to the cancer risk associated with excess body fat, the WCRF-AICR study offered 10 lifestyle recommendations to help ward off cancer, including limiting red meat consumption and excessive drinking, exercising daily, avoiding processed meats such as bacon and ham, and eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains. The research synthesizes many individual reports that have found similar lifestyle-cancer connections for specific cancers.

But even with cancers caused by environmental factors, there's still good reason to sequence genomes. Cancer develops as a result of a cell's DNA becoming damaged in ways that constitutively activate its replication programmes and suppress its checkpoint and suicide programmes. So sequencing the genome of cancer cells gives a lot of information about exactly how those cells became cancerous (although we're not sure what we're looking for yet), which in turn suggests ways to treat that specific cancer. Alternatively, sequencing healthy cells from people can give us information about why some populations are at higher risk of developing cancer. For example, carriers of specific forms of the BRCA1, BRCA2 or BRIP1 gene are at higher risk of developing breast cancer than the rest of the population. These discoveries gave us insight into how this cancer develops, which hints at possible treatments. Also, if someone has their genome sequenced and discovers these faulty genes they can take steps to avoid other risk factors (alcohol, etc) to control their risk, and attend more regular screening than the general population.

The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.

I smoke and I've researched this issue into the ground. Its pretty accurate.

Good, then it's going to be easy to provide some data.

There's a reason why the "smoking benefits" timeline doesn't have a reduced cancer risk on it. It takes too long for lungs to clean themselves after you quit.

I basically know nothing about this but a quick internet search turned up this:

Stopping smoking can reduce your risk A large number of studies have shown that stopping smoking can greatly reduce the risk of smoking-related cancers.2 And the earlier you stop, the better. The last results from the Doctorsâ(TM) Study show that stopping smoking at 50 halved the excess risk of cancer overall, while stopping at 30 avoided almost all of it.10 However, itâ(TM)s never too late to quit. One study found that even people who quit in their sixties can experience health benefits and gain valuable years of life.30 The effects of stopping vary depending on the cancer. For example, ten years after stopping, a personâ(TM)s risk of lung cancer falls to about half that of a smoker.31 And the increased oral and laryngeal cancer risks practically disappear within ten years of stopping.2 But the risks of bladder cancer are still higher than normal 20 years after stopping.20 Cutting down the number of cigarettes you smoke slightly reduces your risk of lung cancer,32 but youâ(TM)ll only experience the full health benefits if you stop altogether. One study found that even smokers who halved the number of cigarettes they smoked had similar risks of dying from heart disease and only slightly lower risks of dying from cancer.33

From http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/ You can actually follow some of the links and the abstracts of the cited studies do say that stopping smoking leads to decreased cancer risk down the line (though usually still higher than non-smokers)

They don't publicize this, because of course, people will get the idea that you may as well keep smoking because you are going to get cancer no matter what you do, which is pretty true, but, they overlook the heart attacks, COPds and other bad things that can happen.

Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common cancer in the UK. [...] UV radiation is the major risk factor for skin cancer. The main source of UV is the sun, so people who work outdoors are at greater risk. But UV from sun beds can also increase your risk of skin cancer.

As a biologist I find these comments to all be amusing...for one, the figures being given concerning how many people do/not believe in evolution are a intriguing...where are these coming from? One thing about science these days is that we often teach things we don't believe in and among ourselves we'll admit to it. It's also unwise to say much in disagreement to something held so sacred in the field even if it's challenged or not, and no, there is no mountain for evolution: numbers can be made to say anything, and we do this. On the one hand this is a candid admission, think of yourselves as "initiated" if only on such a small scale that you'll likely never know what exactly I'm talking about. On the other hand, I'd highy suggest that any comments about biology be better informed than the information from crappy textbooks or the literati, ego-driven, self-declared "geniuses" who parade as scientists but are laughable inept to discern between fact and theory...if you really want to get some insight you'll have to study the changing definitions, and you might want to read the candid admissions on the subject: even Lewonski admits not to objectivity, but to biased preference. That is his priority, and I respect his honesty, if rare. I'm won't give credence to either side here, just play advocate for the under-represented voice, but it is a riot to see a lot of nit-wits who find their own genius to be so very appealing when they know only a bit of simple math and how to tell something as silly and simple as a computer to roll-over and do tricks trying to discuss something like biology, which, you ought to know few "biologists" are really not quite qualified to practice since they seem to have little knowledge of genetics, cascades, or the many implications and intricacies: maybe it is tunnel-vision they get on a subject of study so that they do not cross disciplines: we tend to focus on our own interests rather than really getting to know the other fields: but don't dare mock statistics as blind as 600+ to one when most scientists can't say anything...they'd be blacklisted: I know colleagues in dissent of the theory and they are quite respectable, and their counterparts would say the same: unfortunately many scientists would set-out to ruin them, and this happens, but hey, everbody is religious in one way or another: some just have more zeal to spot witches.

"Anonymous Coward"

(P.S. I have to admit that I did not read every post: too many, but man, what I did see seemed so one-sided and self-sure that, well, it was laughable: a big problem in science is the dogmatism and do get twisted...one biologist said he'd prefer to go into an field with more honesty, "the used car business"; anyone inside often knows a lot of these things, and we do use weasel words and such to keep out of trouble, but I've decided to take a stand and keep all options open and let the debate continue: so please, don't let your own brilliance or opinions clog-up your minds so that you get to ridicule people who may well know something that you don't.) ...support cancer research, especially the recent developments concerning dichloroacetate: it's a simple and unpatentable drug which is cheap and has killed many squemous-epithelial cancers (most cancers are derived from epithelium), thoughbe warned, if you've read about it, that it's not completely safe as the news has portrayed, as far as we know, but it's highy interesting. For a quick summation: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindthehea dlines/dca/

For example, in the UK, the leading funder of research into cancer is a charity...

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/

I have an incentive for this research to be performed. Call it enlightened self interest.

* People are dying because of the artificial monopoly created by patents on drugs.

This artificial monopoly was created by a company using non-artificial money to develop these drugs. They are recouping the costs of R&D, which is quite high. The fact that third world countries can't afford the medicine is not their problem. They need to build an infrastructure that can support education of their people that will then lead to their own scientists discovering their own cures. To borrow an oft used phrase here, these governments "need to change their business model."

Except that this standard parrot fashion argument happens not to be true. The overwhelming majority of new drugs are created/invented/discovered by public Universities and other publicly funded institutions, and by charities such as Cancer Research. We don't actually need private sector firms in this marketplace at all, and they add little or no value. Consequently there's no public policy benefit to protecting their 'Intellectual Property'

* IP Litigation is a huge industry.

Since when was this illegal? I'd rather live in a free nation that allows for oppurtunities like this than one which follows the whims of the mob (which in most cases is the vocal minority), picking anc choosing whenm how and to whom laws shoudl or should not apply

There are two points to be made here:

1. IP litigation adds no value. It is purely parasytic on the creative process. No-one except the lawyers benefits from it at all.
2. There is, in my opinion, something of a contradiction in terms about a so-called 'free' society in which the rich corporations buy the laws. In the end it becomes necessary for the private citizen to defy a corrupt state: that is, after all, what the US War of Independence was all about. For US (or UK, for that matter) citizens to talk about living in a 'free' society, now shows a remarkable degree of self-delusion.

Er. That just seems weird to me. What is the point of having money and not spending it? Fine, do the whole "I don't need wordly possessions" schtick if you want, but then why not give your money to charity so it can help people? There's something obscene about the idea of money sitting in a bank, earning the banks money when it could be spent on (say) cancer research and benefit mankind.

This statement is almost always correct but in the last couple of years I've become aware of a counterexample.

I quote from a web page about MEN2:

Studies of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2 syndrome (MEN2)

MEN2 is an uncommon dominantly inherited cancer predisposition syndrome comprising tumours of C-cells of the thyroid, the adrenal medulla, and sometimes the parathyroid. The syndrome is due to activating mutations in the RET gene; inactivating mutations of the same gene are associated with Hirschsprung disease.

Although the gene for MEN2 is dominantly inherited and almost invariably fatal, it continues in the gene pool because some sufferers live long enough to reproduce.

Paul