General Sickness

Actually, I presented my example to show the paradox. Case in point, how can science then say definitively that "X" does not cause cancer? They can't. Or, at the very least, they shouldn't.
By using statistics and data. Does everyone who smokes cigarettes get cancer? No, but you're at a much higher risk to get cancer of you smoke. If the data does not support something causing cancer, there's a good chance whatever it is, isn't causing cancer.
 
Breastfeeding. Yeah no one tells you how hard it is but the world does shame you if you don’t.

Worst of all worlds with oldest, I gave him my breast milk from a bottle. He had low glucose when born and they gave him formula from a tube in his nose. He would never latch on after that. All the lactation experts come in and grab your boob to show you what to do and baby is still all like, why should I work that hard? I am gonna get food the easy way. He was in NICU and was like a baby giant in there at 7 lb., 6 oz. I spent 8 months pumping my milk and giving it to him in a bottle. So always pumping, always messing with bottles. They warned us repeatedly of an association between low glucose and developmental disabilities.:rolleyes: Yeah I need that guilt and depression postpartum. He got a 36 on the ACT.

Other four all took to it easily but was still working with the next two and back then, where I worked, that was very far from easy. More like stressful. I think our highest maternal death rate in the developed world statistic includes through 42 days postpartum. The stress of breastfeeding depressed me. It’s not all sunshine and cuddles, it’s work.
 
Talk about random sickness. I've been in the hospital since Sat morning. Dr's are deciding in the AM if I have a real partial blockage in the small intestine as the CT shows or if the cause of my extreme abdominal pain is the early signs of appendicitis. Fun!
Well, heading home today. Partial small intestine blockage and an infection. Was tough watching the game and not yelling a few times last night!
 
Breastfeeding. Yeah no one tells you how hard it is but the world does shame you if you don’t.

Worst of all worlds with oldest, I gave him my breast milk from a bottle. He had low glucose when born and they gave him formula from a tube in his nose. He would never latch on after that. All the lactation experts come in and grab your boob to show you what to do and baby is still all like, why should I work that hard? I am gonna get food the easy way. He was in NICU and was like a baby giant in there at 7 lb., 6 oz. I spent 8 months pumping my milk and giving it to him in a bottle. So always pumping, always messing with bottles. They warned us repeatedly of an association between low glucose and developmental disabilities.:rolleyes: Yeah I need that guilt and depression postpartum. He got a 36 on the ACT.

Other four all took to it easily but was still working with the next two and back then, where I worked, that was very far from easy. More like stressful. I think our highest maternal death rate in the developed world statistic includes through 42 days postpartum. The stress of breastfeeding depressed me. It’s not all sunshine and cuddles, it’s work.

Women should never feel shame if the child is being fed. Breast or bottle if the child is getting fed then it's a win.

Having kids opened up an entirely new world of shame and judgement culture. Absolutely nuts.
 
Last edited:
I’ve wondered about this myself. I don’t know if it’s just being a parents and suddenly having kids that go to school super frequently but I feel like there’s been an unusually frequent number of stomach bugs flowing through this house. My other hypothesis was water quality, but I have no way of proving this out.
The Canadian wildfires weren’t real positive for environmental quality. When there is a continual haze for a long time you know you are sucking in those carcinogenic fumes.
 
To your last question - yes, that is an accurate way to state it.

We say something ‘causes’ cancer if it statistically increases the frequency of cancer cases in a large population. Edited to add: if some factor has been studied in a large population, and found to have no statistical impact on cancer risk within that population, we would say (with the caveat: ‘to the best of our current knowledge’), that factor doesn’t cause cancer (within a population). That doesn’t rule out that that factor may have caused some individual’s cancer case.

That does not mean we can state conclusively that an individual who had that cancer-causing factor and had that cancer actually had that factor ‘cause’ the cancer.

Regarding your frustration with your medical team - once you have a cancer diagnosis their job is to figure out the best treatment plan going forward. You may have felt they brushed off your questions about what ‘caused’ the cancer - sorry if it felt that way.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. However on one point, just to be clear, I was not frustrated with my medical team as I totally understood why they wouldn't/couldn't commit to a cause. I was merely using that as the premise of the paradox.

That aside, your explanation corroborated the paradox I am referring to. One (the initial science saying something can not cause cancer) is a probability factor while the other ( the impact on the general population impact) is a causal factor. Basically, the first draws assumptions from a sample set, while the other is more accurate due to the actual repercussions.

Which brings me full circle. Just as science can assume (and publicize accordingly) based on sampling that something can't cause cancer. They can not with certainty say it can not cause cancer (or illness) in 'everyone'. Do you agree?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: nrg4isu
By using statistics and data. Does everyone who smokes cigarettes get cancer? No, but you're at a much higher risk to get cancer of you smoke. If the data does not support something causing cancer, there's a good chance whatever it is, isn't causing cancer.
I completely agree. But, those positions are established long after consequences of profitability. They're 'causal' statistics. But, we still can't disregard that the initial 'publicized' position was that they were not harmful. In fact, they were marketed as 'beneficial' to your health initially. Question for you: do you think the tobacco industry knew of the statistical harmful consequences?
 
By using statistics and data. Does everyone who smokes cigarettes get cancer? No, but you're at a much higher risk to get cancer of you smoke. If the data does not support something causing cancer, there's a good chance whatever it is, isn't causing cancer.

Cancer is at its core a malfunction that cause run-away growth. Nothing and everything causes cancer. It's way more complex than most people are willing to try to understand. It's also not one disease but a collection of them.

Sure you can do statistical analysis to gauge risk factors, but statistics cannot pinpoint cause for an individual. The truth is everything is a risk factor. Granite counter tops? risk factor. Drink hot liquids? risk factor. @Cloneon has this one correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloneon
It’s a slightly different age in both testing and communication now than it was then. We knew smoking caused cancer way back in the 40’s but alot of people just didn’t care plus there was the tobacco lobby. Not discounting your point, we are always making advancements in understanding and somethings you simply need enough time to pass to determine long term effects. There is also the point that a great deal of things have carcinogenic properties but people consume them regularly, just look at grilled food or BBQ.

That’s why it’s so difficult to give an answer on what caused a particular cancer, we live in a world with so many known carcinogens that it could be any number of things or just good old fashioned genetic lottery.

I’m not going to get into wireless radiation with you because I know from your earlier posts it’s a very personally sensitive subject.
Some medical providers just have a routine that they prescribe to everyone. A local NP will put every woman over 60 on 2-3 calcium pills a day. She also has been sending a lot of them to specialists to see why their calcium counts are high. Guess what the specialist tells the patients, maybe cut back on the calcium pills. My MIL was in the hospital for a week for extremely high calcium toxicity, took until the last doctor 2/3rds of the way through to stop the calcium supplements and she started to improve dramatically. The local NP left the calcium pills on her list when she went back to the care center. My wife had to call the last hospital doctor and have him override the NP.

Seems like some are looking for the obscure solution versus the logical one.
 
I also think hydration is huge. With all the sodas, energy drinks and other things; people seem to drink less water than before. I saw with my mom what I see with a lot of elderly patients that they have issues with staying hydrated. If they are taking several scripts, they can start to get elevated levels due to not getting enough fluid to have the kidneys flush them out. And nowadays it seems the person not on meds is less common than those who are.
 
Cancer is at its core a malfunction that cause run-away growth. Nothing and everything causes cancer. It's way more complex than most people are willing to try to understand. It's also not one disease but a collection of them.

Sure you can do statistical analysis to gauge risk factors, but statistics cannot pinpoint cause for an individual. The truth is everything is a risk factor. Granite counter tops? risk factor. Drink hot liquids? risk factor. @Cloneon has this one correct.
There isn’t a single thing wrong with this statement but part of the reason we don’t talk about stuff like that is that the average American really struggles to make these kind of distinctions and you get into territory that “if everything can cause cancer” then it excuses extremely risky behavior.

I actually had someone around a year ago who was adamant that their breathing issue was due to granite countertops they had recently gotten installed due to seeing an article online.

A little knowledge is very dangerous for some
 
Thank you for the detailed explanation. However on one point, just to be clear, I was not frustrated with my medical team as I totally understood why they wouldn't/couldn't commit to a cause. I was merely using that as the premise of the paradox.

That aside, your explanation corroborated the paradox I am referring to. One (the initial science saying something can not cause cancer) is a probability factor while the other ( the impact on the general population impact) is a causal factor. Basically, the first draws assumptions from a sample set, while the other is more accurate due to the actual repercussions.

Which brings me full circle. Just as science can assume (and publicize accordingly) based on sampling that something can't cause cancer. They can not with certainty say it can not cause cancer (or illness) in 'everyone'. Do you agree?
Of course I agree on your last statement. But I don’t understand your overall point, and I don’t think that the truth of your statement means we should change anything about how we currently operate as a society.

‘Real science’ would never say something ‘can not cause cancer’, the way you stated it above. ‘Real science’ would use whatever population-based data is available to make a model of statistical risk, and would give you a statistical likelihood that something can cause cancer. Then, there are some statistical cutoffs that are sometimes used to justify saying something would not have caused your cancer. If you’re annoyed that a doctor told you something couldn’t have possibly caused your cancer, I don’t know what else to tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan
Some medical providers just have a routine that they prescribe to everyone. A local NP will put every woman over 60 on 2-3 calcium pills a day. She also has been sending a lot of them to specialists to see why their calcium counts are high. Guess what the specialist tells the patients, maybe cut back on the calcium pills. My MIL was in the hospital for a week for extremely high calcium toxicity, took until the last doctor 2/3rds of the way through to stop the calcium supplements and she started to improve dramatically. The local NP left the calcium pills on her list when she went back to the care center. My wife had to call the last hospital doctor and have him override the NP.

Seems like some are looking for the obscure solution versus the logical one.
So here’s the thing with stories like this. Unless the NP was telling you with 100% sincerity that she puts every woman over 60 on calcium you have no way of knowing. If that is actually true that individual shouldn’t be practicing medicine and you shouldnt be going to them.

I also really struggle with these posts because something is very clearly missing. If calcium toxicity is identified the very first order is to stop supplements. That’s like baby resident level decision making in a hospital. Something got missed or something in the H&P wasn’t informed, or were missing something important in this story.
 
There isn’t a single thing wrong with this statement but part of the reason we don’t talk about stuff like that is that the average American really struggles to make these kind of distinctions and you get into territory that “if everything can cause cancer” then it excuses extremely risky behavior.

I actually had someone around a year ago who was adamant that their breathing issue was due to granite countertops they had recently gotten installed due to seeing an article online.

A little knowledge is very dangerous for some
You mean listening to dolphin sex doesn’t magically make your ruptured Achilles heal faster?:eek:
 
I also think hydration is huge. With all the sodas, energy drinks and other things; people seem to drink less water than before. I saw with my mom what I see with a lot of elderly patients that they have issues with staying hydrated. If they are taking several scripts, they can start to get elevated levels due to not getting enough fluid to have the kidneys flush them out. And nowadays it seems the person not on meds is less common than those who are.
Throw everything out the door when dealing with the elderly, they are an entirely different population set that you can’t base any actual medical trends on except for that specific age group.

To make the point we are actually seeing the opposite issue with the insane popularity of water bottles where people are overhydrating in some cases. Also studies have shown that you still get hydration from soda, it’s not at the same quality of water but more then meets people’s needs. That’s not giving soda a green light by any means (please stop drinking it) but from a purely hydration point it’s not a major issue
 
So here’s the thing with stories like this. Unless the NP was telling you with 100% sincerity that she puts every woman over 60 on calcium you have no way of knowing. If that is actually true that individual shouldn’t be practicing medicine and you shouldnt be going to them.

I also really struggle with these posts because something is very clearly missing. If calcium toxicity is identified the very first order is to stop supplements. That’s like baby resident level decision making in a hospital. Something got missed or something in the H&P wasn’t informed, or were missing something important in this story.
Mercy hospital had the reports and the script never changed for the MIL until the last doctor came in and the family asked why she was still on calcium supplements. Doctor looked and ordered them to be removed.

I ask every elderly lady who goes to this NP (many attend my church) when they mention doctor appointments (common line of discussion with the elderly) if they are on calcium supplements, never had one say no and several have been referred to specialists about high calcium tests.

Problem is, this is a small rural hospital that turns NP and doctors, guess which one never leaves, the “local” one. So for consistency the elderly all end up with her. My mom had her because of this. She saw a valve/heart specialist at Mayo. This NP would routinely try to change her meds and I required her to contact the specialist before any changes. About 1/4 were approved by him. Many times the specialist would ask me why they were recommending a change and I couldn’t come up with anything.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

Help Support Us

Become a patron