Anyone see this documentary on cancer?

On that subject; book recommendation: http://plus.maths.org/content/tiger-isnt

 

yeah, i totally hear that. reading science is very difficult. i struggle with it a lot. i try to read up on things that interest me, but it's a huge challenge. but at least if it's out there and not behind a wall, i hope that quacks like on the op are not given the oxygen to allow their woo to propagate.

i'm skimming this thing and i see that he recommends not eating gmo's and that will help cancer. like really? i just want to go all-caps on the dude. ok i'm going all caps...

EVERYTHING WE EAT IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED

oof. i feel better.

 

i don't know whether to laugh or cry at the truthiness of that one.

 

1. Give the general public an understanding of methodology, stats and evaluation of general academia from a young age instead of calculus (I think learning language literature is important from a social development point but i dont see a foundational point of calculus)
2. Release all publications after a year and encourage more open publication journals
3. When people are interested or passionate about something they will read the details through MOOCs and open literature as they are now more well equipped to understand this and if they are against the general consensus, at least they are equipped to counter points with a decent rationale rather than "RAWR ME VEEEEEGAN! MEAT BAD! PHARMA BAD! VACCINES BAD!"
4. Profit from a more well equipped society thats actually understand that most vaccines are good

An example of this "equippedness" - people from most science backgrounds are able to understand, evaluate and be critical of academic literature from almost any field (sociology, biology, physics etc) with a little reading into the concepts and subject matter.

 

I guess my thinking is that it's less that scientific literature is complex, and more that it's simply another way of writing, another form of language. Whereas kids are exposed to literate writing at a very, very young age, they are exposed to scientific writing only very late in the game. If it needed to start on popular texts, well, so be it. Assign junior high schoolers scientific american articles in a prescribed and constructed way, such that experimental design and hypothesis testing are discussed. But in my thinking, the earlier they are exposed to scientific literature, the earlier they are able to read the texts that inform us as to how we know what we know. Something needs to change. We need more scientists.

Edit: Here are some great things that, more than anything else I learned in junior high school, contributed to my career specifically in molecular biology (field biology had more to do with jurassic park :] ):

http://www.amazon.com/Zoombinis-Logical-Journey-PC-Mac/dp/B00005LBVU

http://www.amazon.com/Sim-Life-Gene...e=UTF8&qid=1414182903&sr=1-1&keywords=simlife

They are both still incredible and should be given to every single kid.

 

No, the methodology is the hardest part to understand. Results are easy. Identifying biases, assumptions and shortcuts is really really difficult if you're not an expert - and those are the things that actually matter.

 

It is if you've never been taught these matters properly. Otherwise, people in their first year of university do it without much trouble - and most importantly, they know how to seek further information on these matters should they need to. Plus the methodologies are the same in most fields so specific knowledge isn't required.

 

Ok, we're definitely not talking about the same thing here.

 

Seems like it.

 

back on the point of the eye teeth (you all like that pun?) I used to work at a high end restaurant we served salmon wontons which of course has raw salmon, steak can also be eaten very rare almost raw. not all meats have germs throughout them steak mostly has them on the outside and when slightly cooked on a grill griddle or oven the germs are killed.thus that does not prove we are not carnivore.

I admit a cancer treatments seemlike they would be further along then they are. All medical things are a business. Do all of them have people's best interests at heart? Not imo no.

If you want to argue that eating a raw vegan diet is better there is research that says that it is hard for the body to digest many raw vegetables and that you do not get all of nutrients out of the food that is slightly steamed. most of the meat today has issues because of growth hormone added. It's a fact that GH causes cancer cell growth, so that argument is one I would accept as a reason not to eat it. We also eat sushi and some still eat raw eggs...the lIke hood of getting salmonella isn't as high as some think. We can make a case for many things that are carcinogenic, but not all of them are a definite cause of cancer. Other things such as genetics come into play as well.

 

have we really gone 7 pages without (unless someone ninja'd me) this being posted?

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/one-map-sums-damage-caused-anti-vaccination-movement

Heres a map showing all the deaths caused by preventable diseases, it also incluees attacks on healthcare workers.

 

And linked on that page is the Lancet summary of the Wakefield MMR scandal:

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

It's amazing how he and his ilk are seen as selfess crusaders, doing battle with greedy corporations, when actually they are ambulance-chasing scum who are literally killing people to make a fast buck in the courts, or with sham treatments, or propoganda books, or supplements and T-Shirts, or whatever other nonsense...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ve-been-engineered-by-scientists-9817801.html

New cancer treatments discovered - I guess big pharma and the lizard queen arnt all powerfull after all.

 

I think there is a fine balance of enough and to much of something. Would it be better to eat homegrown veggies, eggs, chicken, etc.? Yeah I think so...at least you know that its not hormone injected or any other additives, to totally cut out meat for me is something I just don't think I would do. I could limit my red meat intake, and up salmon and that would be ok for me.

 

I take issue with the idea that cancer treatment is somehow slow and obviously being held back. Cancer research is moving at an absolutely blistering pace! compare current cancer treatment to fifty years ago. Back then, the word cancer essentially meant death. now, so many cancers are treatable, and in many cases, fairly easy to get rid of!

 

And other cancers are a death sentence. Just because some cancers have been easier to treat doesn't mean that it's moving at a blistering pace. Pancreatic cancer (which killed my uncle and grandfather) has about a 16% survival rate and that's when it's caught in its earliest stagehttp://m.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/overviewguide/pancreatic-cancer-overview-survival-rates

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...urvival/pancreatic-cancer-survival-statistics


One-year relative survival rates have been used as an indicator of early diagnosis, since death before one year may be due to the disease being diagnosed at a late stage. In men, one-year relative survival rates for pancreatic cancer increased from 6% in England and Wales during 1971-1975 to 17.4% in England during 2005-2009 (Figure 3.2).1,8-10*In women, one-year relative survival rates increased from 7% to 19.8% during the same time periods, respectively.

 

That's a plus, still not what I would call "a blistering pace" however