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. devin · 1790699914 · focus · HN ↗
    I hear you, but I also think it is this kind of attitude that leads a lot of otherwise intelligent people to not even try. I've talked to people who listened to the Maintenance Phase episode on the complexities of calories in/calories out take the information as an excuse for not even attempting to try to improve their weight problem.
    mapontosevenths · 1790710668 · focus · HN ↗
    > Couldn't your odds of developing a cancer be sloped to effectively zero if the odds are such that you are very likely to die of something else?
    Are you sure that people should try? Will they live longer, or happier lives if they do?
    From 1900 to 1950 the average US life expectancy went from about 47 to roughly 68. Penicillin and sanitation did most of that.
    From 1950 through present day we added another 10 years. What most folks don't realize is that:
    - 70% of those gains, or 7 out of the 10 extra years, came from cardiovascular health. Mostly because we got better at surviving heart attacks, and people smoked less.
    - 19% came from infant mortaility gains (2 of the remaining 3 years of gain).
    - 11% came from EVERYTHING ELSE that people did to become "healthier." So 1 year.
    The US spends $5.3 trillion per year on healthcare, give or take. That's about $15.5k per capita every year. It's roughly 20% of the total GDP of the United States. That's 2 out of every 10 productive dollars going towards healthcare.
    In exchange for 20% of every hour you work for your entire adult life you get 1 extra year at the end of your life.
    In exchange for constantly worrying, exercising, staying up to date, eating right, etc you buy yourself one year more of life, and it's not even going to be a GOOD year. It's going to be one more year of being 80+ years old with everything hurting and constant medical needs.
    Is it really worth 20% of the money you make every year for you entire life to live one extra, shitty, year?
    I just don't think people have done the math on this one.
    skrtskrt · 1790711407 · focus · HN ↗
    Not only is this utilitarian nonsense, the "math" here is full logical nonsense.
    It shocks me how anyone could string this pile words together and think they sound like anything at all.
    > "2 out of every 10 productive dollars"
    As if those dollars have anything to do with the time people work, or that they would get those dollars and time back by not caring about health.
    As if the tiny portion of those dollars that actually gets spent on patient healthcare isn't dominated by end of life care.
    The US healthcare system spend is so far divorced from whatever idea of "productive dollars" anyone has when it's 60-80% admin cost. The US should not even be mentioned in any conversation about the ROI of health spend.
    mapontosevenths · 1790713376 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US should not even be mentioned in any conversation about the ROI of health spend.
    I would agree with at least this part, if I didn't live here. I'm reminded of the MRI post from a few days back. I think the stat was that Boston had more MRI's than all of Canada combined.
    How much healthier are people the United States than Canada - for all that extra spend? I'm fairly certain the number is negative.
    EDIT - I googled it. The Canadian life span is four years higher than the average American and they're healthier than the average American when they get there. So, yes, the number is negative.
    willhslade · 1790765085 · focus · HN ↗
    Massachusets has more MRIs than Canada.
    mapontosevenths · 1790798844 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank you.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.