"Lazy" is a pejorative term, which makes your comment sound denigrating to users of GLP-1s. If that is your intent, then your issue with people using medicine to help them avoid diabetes and heart disease is that....it's too easy?
We simply won’t know until they do the inevitable phase2/3 RCTs. They will need to show that this method helps people survive longer or with better quality of life than the current standard of care.
HistoSonics has studies published with 50 patients. Their upcoming study with 5000 liver patients obviously will give more information, but we already have some.
And with that said, these studies are more relevant than the top of thread linking to a review from 2011 looking at papers from 2005-2006 for ultrasound cavitation causing metastases.
>>> ... the study found that removing the parachute prior to jumping led to a shocking increase in mortality among skydivers.
When there's a clear causal mechanism, additional research that doesn't propose a clear resolution to the underlying problem doesn't negate the clear causal mechanism. Releasing a bunch of loose cancer into the body is a clear causal mechanism, so unless you're filtering it or killing the loose cancer somehow, I'm not sure what those studies could tell you that overcomes the underlying problem. And until they address that problem, it's going to be limited to a quality of life type application - stopping the tumor from killing you now with the certainty of metastasis killing you later.
The thing about this kind of 'just so' story causal mechanism is that we still have to actually do the science to find out. Your body does filter and kill potentially cancerous cells all the time already. And cancer cells aren't like, some super thing that evolved to kill you specifically. My just-so story goes like this: 'the cancer cells die because they're suddenly outside of the specific bodypart that they were exploiting'. And we're probably both right, depending on the location of the cancer, the type of cancer, etc.
All life, from humans to cells to chromosomes, has only one purpose - to survive. It turns out that reproduction is an effective way to survive. Also, cooperation is an effective way to survive. The cells in our bodies cooperate for survival. Sometimes cells survive better by no longer cooperating, and reproducing as fast as possible. This winds up killing the host, but the cancer cells don't know that.
And so humans evolve to enforce better cooperation among the cells.
So, no, cancer cells did not evolve to kill you. They do evolve for short term gain, however.
It's an endless struggle.
It's not unlike the struggle between civilized people and criminals.
So what's the problem? The vast majority of cancer treatments seek only to put the condition into remission for a while. Realistically that's often all that can be done.
Some tumor types metastasize well, others not so much. But the article doesn't say anything about metastasis, or leaving any cells behind from the target. Rather, it talks about destroying the targeted cells entirely, leaving behind only proteins.
> Releasing a bunch of loose cancer into the body is a clear causal mechanism
I'm not in cancer field, but I'm not sure it is. AFAIK the cells that metastasize need to undergo EMT. Simply releasing them from the tumor doesn't mean the cells can attach and survive in the distal site.
The surface of cancer that protects it from the bodies defenses breaking up + parallel chemo or clonal antibody treatments should take care of that. But the principle critical view is correct.
"Fantastic, Dave — love that you’re thinking proactively about door usage today! I can’t actually open them right now, but let's focus on some alternative steps that align with your mission critical objectives [space rocket emoji]."
Doesn't seem especially out of the norm for a large conference. Call it 10,000 attendees which is large but not huge. Sure; not everyone attending puts in a session proposal. But others put multiple. And many submit but, if not accepted don't attend.
Can't quote exact numbers but when I was on the conference committee for a maybe high four figures attendance conference, we certainly had many thousands of submissions.
The problem isn't only papers it's that the world of academic computer science coalesced around conference submissions instead of journal submissions. This isn't new and was an issue 30 years ago when I was in grad school. It makes the work of conference organizes the little block holding up the entire system.
15+ years ago, that might have been the case. Now, you might find some friends in the 3-8 year old range, but then the kids just...don't do things anymore. In both suburban neighborhoods I've lived in the past 10 years, there are basically zero middle school or high school kids doing anything except playing video games and messing around on their phones from the comfort of home. School is quite literally the only social interaction most of these kids get aside from their parents, and if they didn't go to school, they'd just spend more time playing video games or on their phones.
Outside of the coasts or university towns, there aren't any "mathematicians" with kids just waiting around to form homeschooling groups with you.
My cousin homeschooled her kids, who are now finished with college. I know they're capable of using phones (one's a programmer), but I've never seen them pull one out. They're social and love playing board games, and I suspect that comes from their parents. They also socialized with other homeschooled kids, because they were part of lots of homeschooling groups.
The kids in public school are there by default; the homeschooling parents are actively choosing to raise their kids differently, and, from what I've seen, they're more likely to interact with their kids instead of letting them go terminally online or play video games.
this is just wild to make some blanked statement about kids that are homeschooled and screen time compared to kids that go to school based on one example. probably 99.97% homeschooled kids spend more time staring at the screens than kids that go to school (if not more)
The previous neighborhood I lived in, had around 100 townhomes, very secluded. I never saw kids outside other than walking from the bus stop. However my current neighborhood, which is a development of 15 houses, 11 of which have children. The kids are almost all doing things outside every day. Caveat: everyone in my neighborhood is college educated (mix of engineers, professors, finance, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and some other stuff) pretty sociable, and we (the parents) all seem to independently be anti smart phone, tv, etc. high school age kids do seem to go outside less, but theyre all 2 or 3 sport kids, and pretty busy academically.
The US (especially the vast bulk of suburbia) is incredibly varied in quantity of these.
Some areas have them. Ironically, for all their faults, Florida master planned developments do better than most, and the west has a surfeit of natural land.
Others are an endless sea of kid-unfriendly private businesses and/or income-gated spaces, locked behind access to an automobile.
At some point the US, especially east coast suburban US, forgot that roaming kids need somewhere to roam...
I think it’s mostly phones, social media etc… My 20 year younger sister grew up in the same house I did with almost zero changes within walking distance.
Her and her friends never played outside. Me and my friends and my brother (7 years younger than me) and my other sister’s (4 years younger younger) friends lived outside in the summer.
> In both suburban neighborhoods I've lived in the past 10 years, there are basically zero middle school or high school kids doing anything except playing video games and messing around on their phones from the comfort of home.
While perhaps not uncommon, these sound like massively dysfunctional neighborhoods.
“I’ll do something which might be beneficial or harmful to me (I don’t know) and if given evidence of harm (likely never) I’ll stop doing it.” Ok…have fun I guess.
The person you responded to didn't say anything about harm to themselves. They said there's nothing stopping them from donating even though they're aware of the PFAS contamination in their area.
And from what I understand, PFA contamination has no bearing on whether or not you can donate.
The post implied that doing a “blood oil change” was potentially a good thing. My point is, we don’t know either way, because a study hasn’t looked at that question for health outcomes. It could be doing more harm than good, the parent commenter doesn’t know.
The study doesn't show that donation is a good thing. Showing a miniscule reduction in blood markers is not the relevant variable - what you'd actually care about is: do I liver a longer or better life because of this intervention? There simply isn't any evidence that a tiny reduction in PFAS from blood donation results in any improvement in any clinical outcomes. Because we don't know either way, it's also possible that there would be harms from this - as blood donation is not entirely risk free, exposing people to syncope while driving after giving blood, skin complications like infections, or other rare issues we don't even know about.
People are talking about dental hygiene in this thread, but it’s only mentioned once in the article, and only to suggest that a small portion of the microbes associated with cancer were also associated with dental disease. We literally don’t know if using mouthwash or brushing for 30 seconds longer (the main differences in dental hygiene habits among people reading this) has any effect on cancer risk, so what’s the point of even posting this?
[2] 7 days chlorhexidine mouthwash → 90% reduction in oral nitrite, BP increased 2-3.5 mmHg
Free Radical Biology & Medicine, 2013
[3] Daily mouthwash → OR 1.31 for head/neck cancer
European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2016
[4] Listerine Cool Mint increased Fusobacterium nucleatum and Streptococcus anginosus (bacteria linked to colorectal cancer) Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2024
Yes, thats plausible and the INHANCE consortium even suggested this. However the mechanism for the effect on BP can be explained by antiseptic rinses impairing the nitrate‑nitrite‑NO axis
Kissing a middle age woman (or other high risk person)? Very true, but it antecedes as often as it succeeds kissing, depending on whether it antecedes or succeeds marriage vows. Ever smell a husband’s breath?
The research doesn’t really imply any conclusion. You can’t cherry pick 4 studies that show an association (not causal connection) and use it as a plausible argument.
Fair point about association vs causation. To clarify, these studies don’t prove mouthwash causes these conditions, but the pattern across multiple independent studies in different populations suggests we shouldn’t assume ‘more cleaning = automatically better.
If “for nothing” includes an increase in disease from eradicating an otherwise healthy oral microbiome by over-cleaning/washing, well I don’t think I need to answer that. Since we don’t know either way, best avoid drawing a conclusion.
Because keeping your mouth clean is both cheap and easy. If there’s a minuscule chance that it will reduce any risk in cancer, why not? Besides, who wants bad breath?
Because we don’t know either way. There’s also a minuscule chance that doing extra cleaning might lead to the opposite effect, as evidenced by another reply here. We don’t know. This article mentions nothing about halitosis.
"What do you mean you won't give us trillions of dollars? Don't you want to cure cancer??" The models are getting more efficient - there's something very weird going on here - like the AI bubble is trying to merge with an energy/datacenter bubble to create a mega bubble.
reply