Yes, that was covered yesterday… Can you throw up the articles that say cancer is luck?
@Fistys anti catholic bias shines through all his posts nowadays. if the cat had kittens he would find a way to blame the catholics.
he is a catholic hating zealot. and a horrible cunt.
1 Like
have you read these articles kev?
one is about a dog i think who can cure cancer and the other is an article written by someone who describes herself on her twitter page as_** a journalist, formerly cool suburban mommy/wife, aspiring novelist & substitute teacher.**_ 
3 Likes
So on one hand its luck, on another its genetics?
Serious nonsense.
Nobody said a dog can cure cancer. They can detect it
2 Likes
And at the end of the year those findings were revised to say that ‘luck’, as you call it, played a much smaller part than they first beleived and reduced it to less than 10℅…the overwhelming evidence, they maintained, points towards your environment as the leading cause of cancer in up to 90℅ of instances.
And we all know your environment can create stress.
I think there is a fundemental misunderstanding of what stress is here with most lads.
1 Like
Yes, on the one hand its bad luck, while on the other hand it can be environmental or genetic. Is the concept that something might have more than one cause beyond your comprehension?
In simple terms, DNA contains the code to build your body cell by cell. Think of it like an instruction set for a lego project. Every cell in your body is continually being replaced, some faster than others (skin cells the fastest, brain cells the slowest). A mutation is an error in the coding sequence, that can be introduced by an external factor like something in the environment (radiation for example can cause massive amount of mutations very quickly), or just happens randomly in the copying process. This error can lead to abnormal cells which them replicate causing a cancerous growth. The copying error can be passed on to you by your parents (genetics) or much more likely just happen to you during your lifespan. The more times the copying sequence happens, the higher the likelihood of an error being introduced, thus the longer you live the higher the chances you will develop a mutation leading to cancer.
If you need anything further I would suggest studying a bit of Biology rather than sprouting Biddy Earley inspired nonsense.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Throw up a link to where the authors said that. What the authors have done is clarify what they meant by the 2/3 number. The paper is highly controversial among medical professionals and understandably so.
Keep in mind that your (and the Cork loon’s) argument is that luck plays no role in cancer, so whether its 67% or 10% equally demolishes your argument.
Life gives you cancer is the answer here lads. Case closed.
if it can be proven that an anecdote kev heard said that stress causes you to get aroused which in turn sometimes causes you to procreate then i will finally accept despite all scientific evidence that stress is the main cause of both life and in turn cancer
1 Like
I know how the cells work.
But stress is something which can adjust cells in many different fashions. When you run you stress your cells. When you lift weights. Neurological stress also has affects on the cells. This can be more like what most people precieve to be “stress” as in being “stressed out”.
However a person canbe quite content but still be stressing themselves, like a builder or farmer for instance. If this type of stress goes hand and hand with say smoking or poor diet or inhalation of shitty fumes they could well be more likely to be open to cancers.
Its multi layered, but luck has very little to do with it.
1 Like
So alot of people think the paper is rubbish?
You really are a fuck wit. A fuck wit who can copy and paste well, but thats about it.
I think we said stress is the BIGGEST cause of cancer. Not the only one, would that be correct?
90% is big enough
1 Like
Nobody think the paper is rubbish, at least within the science community. There is disagreement on how to interpret the data, such disagreement is common in science, a topic you clearly know nothing about.
I was asked by the mouse to post a reference which I did, unlike yourself who never posts any evidence to back up your snake oil claims.
I will take the fuckwit insult as a compliment, as whatever you say on any topic the opposite is likely to be true.
You clearly don’t know how cells work at the molecular level, which is the level of understanding needed to even start commenting on a complex subject like cancer.
Stress in almost all meanings of the word, and in particular the physiological stress you are referring to, has no known link to cancer. If you have found evidence of such a link please post it, otherwise stop sprouting garbage. The only “stress” that can be linked to cancer, and it’s a linguistic stretch of the word stress, is chemical environmental “stress”, inhaling carcinogenic compounds from cigarettes for example. Where is your evidence that physiological stress is carcinogenic? You are simply talking through your hole.
So now you’re admitting luck does have something to do with it…