Thread

1 in 8 cancer cases worldwide are caused by infections, study finds

296 points · 158 comments · colinprince

toasty228 · 1790687453 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.oatext.com/which-environment-makes-cancer.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.oatext.com/which-environment-makes-cancer.php
Always a good read, most cancers are environmental, and most of these are caused by obesity, bad diet and smoking/drinking, fix these four things in your life and you reduce your chances of getting cancer by 50%+
1. mapontosevenths · 1790691962 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think that anything you said is wrong, but I also think it's important to note that on a long enough timeline your odds of getting cancer are 100% regardless of the way you live.Most people just don't live that long.
  The things you mention here make it happen sooner, but no amount of healthy living lowers your risk to zero and I think that's important to note when you say things like "cancer is caused by".
  Cancer is caused by math. This stuff just steepens the slope.
  1. toasty228 · 1790693309 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also important to note that getting a random cancer at 80+ sucks orders of magnitude less than going out at 45 from colon or throat cancer in every measurable metrics you can come up.
    devmor · 1790694924 · focus · HN ↗
    I would heavily disagree with this - it depends entirely on the cancer you get. If it's something slow growing that would take a decade plus to kill you, sure - just trying to treat it would be worse than letting it ride.
    But my father died of cancer nearing age 80, (most likely mesothelioma, though we didn't do heavy tests as it was discovered late), and it was incredibly painful and miserable for him. He had fast growing tumors in his ribs, forcing bone to spike out and hit his lungs, the tumors that grew in his lungs caused constant pneumonia and kept leaving him unable to get enough oxygen to his brain to communicate for hours at a time.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790698077 · focus · HN ↗
    That sounds far better than dying at 45 unless you have an extraordinarily unpleasant life in the interim
    devmor · 1790699982 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think I want to die in excruciating pain and confusion at any age, personally.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790707468 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course not. But if you are given the choice of it at 45 or 80, which are you taking?
    devmor · 1790707751 · focus · HN ↗
    If I had to die like what I saw, to live to 80? I'd take quickly at 45, I think.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790709838 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    dolebirchwood · 1790711804 · focus · HN ↗
    What an absolutely obnoxious way to respond to someone who was willing to share his experience about a subject as personal and painful as losing his father to cancer.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790779970 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think it's obnoxious at all to point out that forgoing nearly half your lifespan in order to avoid a painful death implies that you don't value your life much
    drfloyd51 · 1790713407 · focus · HN ↗
    Fortunately this is a false choice.
    I think 78 and fine is better than 45 and 80 in pain.
    But in this country we are so adverse to giving someone agency over how their life ends.
    Because it’s not good Business.
    sfn42 · 1790769766 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't understand what you think this conversation is about. It's not "die quick and painless at 45 or excruciatingly painfully at 80" it's just 45 or 80. Nobody said anything about excruciating pain except you.
    Do you think your dad would prefer to die exactly the same way at 45 instead? No? Great, conversation over.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.