Slashdot Mirror
Aspirin Helps Prevent Cancer, New Studies Show
kkleiner writes "For years, research has shown that aspirin is beneficial in preventing heart attacks. Now new studies support its ability to prevent cancer as well. The studies, involving tens of thousands of participants over many decades, show reductions of cancer incidence (both short- and long-term) and mortality rate as well as a decrease in metastatic cancer. It still is not known exactly how aspirin and cancer are connected, but those between the ages of 45-50 will now likely consider taking low-dose aspirin daily for the remainder of their lives."
100-Year Old Wonder Drug Now Shown To Prevent Cancer and Heart Attacks
Hmmm, that's odd, this "news" story reads like one of those ads trying to sell me something. Is this ancient Chinese secret or midwest housewife research?
For all the money spent on studies of aspirin, perhaps all the evidence anyone needs of its health benefits is the life of Walter Breuning, who lived to be 114 years old and aspirin was the only medication he ever took.
Oh, you just need a sample size of one? No need for that expensive tens of thousands double blind study, huh? And all he ever took was aspirin? We should refuse vaccines? And what the hell do you mean by "for all that money spent"? I find it odd that all three of the abstracts linked to in the article end with:
Funding
None.
Wait a second ... *checks URL*
singularityhub.com
Oh son of a bitch, it's more misinformation and half truths from Ray Kurzweil's disciples. Now I have to guess which is which.
My work here is dung.
It's also a good contraceptive, according to Rush Limbaugh.
Proverbs 21:19
I'd rather avoid aspirin and other NSAIDs (like tylenol/acetaminophen).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(12)70112-2/fulltext http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60209-8/fulltext http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61720-0/fulltext Well the real question is the reputation of the articles above, because that's what he cited.
Mark Anthony Collins
it's actual, real life, scientific research - published in a well read and respected peer reviewed medical journal. But if it's just the messenger that has you all wee weed up, try PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june12/aspirin_03-21.html
46 & 2
Observational studies are almost always behind these news reports. Please ignore them. They don't prove causation. Here's some detailed analysis from the latest "red meat causes x" articles to get an idea why they're so unreliable:
http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you
http://waroninsulin.com/nutrition/is-red-meat-killing-us
Did the study explain why daily low dose aspirin is far more expensive than a full dose? The homeopathic preparation must cost a fortune.
I think the idea is that if you have aspirin in your system during the attack, then you have better odds. If you take it every day, then you have a chance of having aspirin in you system at the time of the heart attack.
That's why they say to take low doses. I recently had a TIA and the doctor told me I should take a dose of baby aspirin daily (81mg). 81mg isn't enough to cause GI bleeding.
Read the article. They have a very plausible reason why aspirin could help with various forms of cancer.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I was thinking of quitting smoking. Now I'll just take an aspirin with every cig. Problem solved!
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
it's actual, real life, scientific research - published in a well read and respected peer reviewed medical journal.
I've got no problem with the original research being legit. I have a problem with the original research showing that for this historical data it statistically linked aspirin to reducing the risk of cancer. It didn't show that these people who took aspirin were also more likely to take supplemental vitamins nor did it attempt to show exactly how the aspirin worked its "miracle." Was there a control group? You have to understand that the reason I'm "wee weeing" (whatever the hell that means) singularity hub is that they took totally legit level headed scientific research and they jumped all the way up to this:
100-Year Old Wonder Drug Now Shown To Prevent Cancer and Heart Attacks
Now let me ask you, where in the research did it "show" in anyway how this prevents cancer? And the article itself was only worse. It's a statistical study on historical data and from your PBS link, they did it right:
How Aspirin May Help Prevent Certain Kinds of Cancer
Do you see the difference here? These singularists or futurists or whatever the hell you want to call them take this, which is like 50% and bump it all the way up to 100% and make it a universal truth. Then they extoll this about how they're living until the end of time and people get caught up in this. It's ridiculous and, yes, I'm going to call this out when I see it. I do call that half-truths and I do call that misinformation. We can be more clear about this and the people PBS interview are.
That part about the 114 year old man? That wasn't misinformation? The lead in that that was all you need? I was out of line to get annoyed by that?
My work here is dung.
The mechanism, at least for colon cancer is known. Aspirin is COX 2 inhibitor. Colon and other cancers have COX 2 receptors on their cell walls. See details at: http://modernrecovery.com/news/7-latest/11-aspirin-reduces-colon-cancer.html
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
There are doctors that are going as far as to state that most ailments (heart disease, cancer, arthritis, etc) are cause to some degree by chronic inflammation:
GIFY
https://encrypted.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=inflammation+and+disease&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Aspirin reduces inflammation and so helps in all things inflammation related.
You should check out diet related inflammation as some (if not most) of us have poor dietary habits OR eat to much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflammation
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Aspirin is already converted to salicylic acid (I think), so you may be better off (study this) with the natural precursor 'Willow Bark', that way the liver converts the substance to salicylic acid and doesn't take a pounding from aspirin. Don't know if it works (obviously), but if I wanted to take aspirin daily, I'd take it that way instead, since it may be kinder and gentler on your system. You can die from other things besides cancer and heart disease...like a failed liver or thin blood.
Don't use that devil Asprin... Millions of lives have been ruined by junkies trying to "numb themselves out" with that devil Asprin. Dealers have these junkies hooked. Asprin is NOT COOL. Just say NO!
And I already believe in the benefits of taking an aspirin a day right now. To me there's just too much correlative evidence to conclude otherwise.
Seems like a lot of maladies have a root cause of inflammation.
I initially read that as "Aspirin Helps Prevent Career"
and became jittery as I imagined an insidious Apple or Microsoft plot to limit my potential for advancement by foisting their products on us had been uncovered.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I wonder what the results are with subjects whose primary use of aspirin is to treat hangovers?
I mean, not me necessarily... just good to know, y'know?
No, really.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
(*) lethal
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I had a friend who wanted to commit suicide by taking 500 aspirin.
But after the first two he felt better.
Obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/882/
I agree with you on a lot of points, but this study was more than just another correlation study like those that link high levels of vitamin D in subjects to reduced risks in cancer. This was a meta-analysis, which is meant to eliminate some of that bias by taking many studies (51 if I read correctly) and weighing them based on their merits and processes to look for statistical significance. Sure, it's not a perfectly executed double blind, but it's still an important study and the results shouldn't just be thrown out.
The president introduced me to that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTVjab2cHgk
46 & 2
The idea of a daily aspirin regimen is that ASA is a mild anti-coagulant, so you won't have sizable clots forming and finding a section of narrowed/hardened artery to block.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
There was a study just last year that stated the same thing about benadryl (Diphenhydramine), but that study went out on a limb and stated that by reducing the swelling the immune system was able to get into the affected area and remove the cancer. By that theory, anything that reduces swelling should reduce the chance of cancer, so why should asprin be any different?
So much for blood donations.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Thankfully there are no disclosure requirements for medical research, so we don't have to worry about who funded these studies.
There was no significant difference in all cause mortality. So overall, the people who were assigned aspirin are living as long as the people who weren't.
is where you implied the research was suspect because of the funding citation - your suspicion apparently confirmed by the outlet carrying the news. If your beef was really with the reporting on the research, then you would have drawn distinctions between the research and the article. But you didn't. You clearly did have a problem with the original research being legit. Until it was pointed out it was, in fact, legit. Now your problem is just the bad reporting. Fine then.
46 & 2
Aspirin is probably antagonistic of certain bacteria in the gut that produce waste products that promote cancer or it could promote good gut bacteria that eat aspirin and turn it into waste products that are good for you. To demonstrate that aspirin in and of itself in the blood stream is preventative of cancer you would have to do studies where it is administered intravenously.
I can't wait until we can actually decode DNA like a computer program and run simulations. Not just our DNA but the DNA of microbes in the gut. Then we will be able to better able to understand the complex interactions rather than simply doing statistical studies of multiple individuals. Modern medical research is comparable to research in particle physics where they take two thing and smash them together to see what falls out.
Seriously, what the fark is this doing on ./ ?
Even "may help" still suggests a causal link, where none has been demonstrated. Such language can confuse a lot of people and can be avoided but it takes some effort that space-saving and lazy journalists and headline writers may not wish to exert.
See http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/03/please-read-our-primer-on-observational-studies/
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Really? Big Pharma has nothing to gain by promoting aspirin, of all things. If anything they should want to squelch this research since buying aspirin instead of their expensive statins, anti-cancer drugs, chemo drugs, etc. etc. is less $$ for them.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
'It didn't show that these people who took aspirin were also more likely to take supplemental vitamins nor did it attempt to show exactly how the aspirin worked its "miracle."'
Supplemental vitamins don't increase life expectancy
Flag it as such.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Obligatory PhDComics.