Cancer based on bad luck, research shows.

[dyna mo]

Researchers have found that bad luck plays a major role in determining most types of cancer, rather than genetics or risky lifestyle choices such as smoking.

Most Types of Cancer Just "Bad Luck"

I guess bad luck does exist.

[blackmonsters]

Yeah, and who did the study, Newport-Winston-Salem-Raleigh-Camel-Kool Inc??

[TheSquealer]

Sorry, I'll wait for all the gfy cancer specialists like wehateporn to weigh In before drawing any conclusions

[PR_Glen]

that shouldn't be too much of a surprise to most. There are things we can do to lower our risk for 1/3 of those cancers though that is where taking care of yourself comes into play..

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Sorry, I'll wait for all the gfy cancer specialists like wehateporn to weigh In before drawing any conclusions

ok that was funny.. hehe

[yuu.design]

sounds funny, they did a research about bad luck too?

[2MuchMark]

Hmmm..

Well at least he said this :

... the researchers say lifestyle choices such as avoiding smoking, eating healthily and staying out of the sun will help to prevent certain cancers, just not all of them.

Lots of things cause cancer such as things you ingest, things you breath, etc. Even sunshine and cosmic rays can cause cancer, which are things you can really do nothing at all about. Calling it "luck" bugs me because it seems like lazy writing, or maybe written by someone who is throwing his hands up and giving up. I guess its fairly accurate anyway... Oh well.

Good luck!

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Researchers have found that bad luck plays a major role in determining most types of cancer, rather than genetics or risky lifestyle choices such as smoking.

Most Types of Cancer Just "Bad Luck"

I guess bad luck does exist.

Then I encourage you to smoke 2 cartons a day and wash it down with a 1lb bag of refined sugar.

[MassMarketing]

I've always looked at cancer as a big check list.
Each time you do something bad, its another check, increasing your chance.

[hadden]

smoke herbs

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Then I encourage you to smoke 2 cartons a day and wash it down with a 1lb bag of refined sugar.

that's not a very nice thing to say.

I think this is pretty interesting topic and brought the facts of the research here, so that makes you encourage me to start smoking ciggs and eating sugar.

oh hey, fill me in too, fill us all in, what's the sugar for?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

Hmmm..

Well at least he said this :



Lots of things cause cancer such as things you ingest, things you breath, etc. Even sunshine and cosmic rays can cause cancer, which are things you can really do nothing at all about. Calling it "luck" bugs me because it seems like lazy writing, or maybe written by someone who is throwing his hands up and giving up. I guess its fairly accurate anyway... Oh well.

Good luck!

the researchers refers to it as chance.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by MassMarketing

I've always looked at cancer as a big check list.
Each time you do something bad, its another check, increasing your chance.

The point of the study I believe, was to look at what extent factors such as genetics play a role. Their findings after analyzing X,XXX published studies was that genetics as an identifiable cause (excluding prostate/breast cancer) represented only 30% (i believe) of total cancer cases, as a strong contributing factor/indicator.

The balance was due to chance... meaning diet, lifestyle, exercise, stress, smoking etc etc etc and the extent to which you fuck up and live like an asshole.

Still waiting for wehateporn to confirm these findings.... and explain the obvious ties which connects this study to "big pharma", the Illuminati and John D Rockefeller.

[dyna mo]

they split their findings up thusly:





Finally, the research duo classified the types of cancers they studied into two groups. They statistically calculated which cancer types had an incidence predicted by the number of stem cell divisions and which had higher incidence. They found that 22 cancer types could be largely explained by the “bad luck” factor of random DNA mutations during cell division. The other nine cancer types had incidences higher than predicted by "bad luck" and were presumably due to a combination of bad luck plus environmental or inherited factors.

[dyna mo]

“This study shows that you can add to your risk of getting cancers by smoking or other poor lifestyle factors.
However, many forms of cancer are due largely to the bad luck of acquiring a mutation in a cancer driver gene regardless of lifestyle and heredity factors. The best way to eradicate these cancers will be through early detection, when they are still curable by surgery,” adds Vogelstein.

[TheSquealer]

Dyna_mo, let's just wait for wehateporn

[Mr Pheer]

Sorry about your bad luck.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Sorry about your bad luck.

exactly man.


this study would explain why THE cure for cancer has been so elusive.

but I agree, squealie, I can call you squealie right? let's all see how whp sorts it out for us.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

: let's all see how whp sorts it out for us.

Always ask "to whose benefit?"

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Always ask "to whose benefit?"

The research was funded by the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, and the National Institutes of Health?s National Cancer Institute

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The research was funded by the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, and the National Institutes of Health?s National Cancer Institute

And there we have the problem

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

And there we have the problem

you mean and there YOU have the problem.

[seeandsee]

i guess all counts

[ManPuppy]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, and who did the study, Newport-Winston-Salem-Raleigh-Camel-Kool Inc??

No, it was commissioned by Pfizer, on the eve of introducing Chancium, their new good luck pill.

[American Psycho]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's not a very nice thing to say.

I think this is pretty interesting topic and brought the facts of the research here, so that makes you encourage me to start smoking ciggs and eating sugar.

oh hey, fill me in too, fill us all in, what's the sugar for?

Wal-Mart syndrome aka diabetes

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by American Psycho

Wal-Mart syndrome aka diabetes

I have diabetes, it has nothing to do with walmart.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I have diabetes, it has nothing to do with walmart.

Is that vaccine diabetes or fat bloke diabetes?

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Still waiting for wehateporn to confirm these findings.... and explain the obvious ties which connects this study to "big pharma", the Illuminati and John D Rockefeller.

You're not far wrong though...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Is that vaccine diabetes or fat bloke diabetes?

Lolol. Well played. Neither. Still lolz.

[420]

In china we have been eating tiger penis for good luck since beginning of time. That's why Chinese are immune to cancer.

[marcop]

The Guardian newspaper posted an article that takes issue how the study has been reported: Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates | @BobOHara @GrrlScientist | Science | The Guardian

From the article: "The big science/health news story this week is about cancer rates, with news outlets splashing headlines like ?Two-thirds of adult cancers largely ?down to bad luck? rather than genes? (for example, here) or ?Most cancer types ?just bad luck?? (here)... ...But these headlines, and the stories, are just bollocks. The work, which is very interesting, showed no such thing."

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

bad luck, i can't fuck her.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The best way to eradicate these cancers will be through early detection, when they are still curable by surgery,? adds Vogelstein.

Yeah, as long as the cancer cells don't metastasize during the surgery.

The wife of a good friend of mine was in hospital for a biopsy - accidentally slipped and fell in the hospital room and broke her hip. Doctors got her in for surgery the next day, opened her up...and the cancer metastasized.

Two weeks later she was gone.

[fappingJack]

i guess if your genes are bad enough that really is a bad luck :p

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by marcop

The Guardian newspaper posted an article that takes issue how the study has been reported: Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates | @BobOHara @GrrlScientist | Science | The Guardian

From the article: "The big science/health news story this week is about cancer rates, with news outlets splashing headlines like ?Two-thirds of adult cancers largely ?down to bad luck? rather than genes? (for example, here) or ?Most cancer types ?just bad luck?? (here)... ...But these headlines, and the stories, are just bollocks. The work, which is very interesting, showed no such thing."

the best part of that article is how wrong it is. The author takes issue with other journalists' reporting incorrectly but the simple fact is the scientist (vogelstein) who conducted the study is in fact on record stating 2/3rds of cancer cases are based on chance. It's in the original paper. I've posted several of his quotes in this thread already.


The author even questions what bad luck is in this yet the study goes into depth on what that is here.

[Barry-xlovecam]

We make our own luck usually in life ...

My favorite uncle died of pancreatic cancer -- he had medication controlled diabetes 2. My maternal grandmother died of throat cancer and never smoked any tobacco. If you shave a lab rat's hairs and rub his skin with salt the lab rat has a very high chance of developing skin cancer -- does that mean a damn thing?

We all are going to die eventually -- why rush things?

[Bryan G]

Every person that i have known who has died from cancer has a relative (mother, father etc) that also passed away due to the disease. I could be wrong but i think genetics plays a big part. Just like in my family my grandfather and all my uncles have died from heart diease. So that is something i keep an eye on.