Yolked Up wrote:
Show this to your meat eating friend:
And your creatine eating friends:
Yous see? These scientists have pretty much correlated everything with cancer. That’s why I never take these studies at face value. Besides, they are only correlations anyway. It’s impossible to control all variables in these studies so cause and effect can never truly be established.
That’s why they always use words like ‘may’ or ‘reduce risk’ because they can never be certain themselves. No one knows for sure what triggers cancer, if anyone is predisposed to develop such a condition there currently isn’t much they can do to prevent it. So just live life the way you want to.
We scientists know an awful lot about what triggers cancer! Some cancers are not connected with given causes, but so many (so many many many) carcinogens have been recognized. Such a douche thing to say! I mean, technically speaking we haven’t actually proven smoking causes cancer, it’s just correlated.
By the way, correlated means there’s a proven connection. If you take two hundred guys and get half of them to smoke a pack a day for twenty years which group is going to have a higher incidence of lung and mouth cancers!
YOU ARE SUCH A DOUCHE! You’re saying we don’t know how to prevent cancer or what causes it! There is a genetic element and molecular element that basically acts like luck, but WE DO WAYS to prevent/reduce risk, and we know many causes, we know how cancer is caused on the level of molecules!
I’d say stick a rod of uranium down your pants and see if you get testicular cancer, but you’d need nads for that to happen!
I fully appreciate your aggressive stance towards yolked: hes a tool.
But it is true that many conclusions can be drawn from many subpar studies. That is not to say that scientists do not understand what causes cancer at the molecular level. It is just to say that someone could draw that “chocolate is healthy for you” simply from a study that suggests that it has a lot of antioxidants that would reduce the chance of cancer (and ignore the fact that the sugar content could give you diabetes).
Also, I take issue with your statement that “correlation means that there is a proven connection.” Correlation actually means that two numbers covary very well (they increase at the same rates and decrease at the same rate). It does not mean causation.
For example: Imagine that a study states that there is a correlation between playing soccer and skin cancer. Does playing soccer CAUSE skin cancer? I think not. The true CAUSATION would be molecular damage due to exposure to UV rays. [/quote]
Hey man- the agression might be overstated as it’s directed towards Yolked!
I’ll concede slightly to what you’ve said - I like your example about the soccer and skin cancer. I don’t make reference to poorly conducted studies with poor or limited controls and parameters, and especially those that have been wildly extrapolated. When I say that correlation is basically a proven connection I mean that in a well conducted, properly controlled study, with reasonable extrapolation of data.
For example:In releation to you skin cancer/soccer experiment. Any scientist worth the air he breeds inserts proper controls. In this study we would have a group of people playing soccer and a group under the exact same conditions not playing soccer (so they’re outside, exposed to UV and all other factors). Under these conditions we compare both groups and voila, there is no difference (maybe the soccer players even have a reduced skin cancer incidence, but that’s just speculation).
I will concede on the point that there are poorly conducted studies and experiments (studies that survey people who are overweight and show that they are more likely to suffer from certain cancers when there are no controls to indicate whether or not it is being overweight that causes these cancers or if it is, for example, a dietary factor that most fat people have in common). But there are still many, many studies - good pieces of work - that show correlations that can then be taken as proven connections.
I have to say, regardless of anything else, we agree on one point!
Yolked up = tool