Alzheimer’s is reversible.
Per the study posted yesterday which i do not have handy but some enterprising soul may care to search for.
X to doubt.
You can find single studies claiming all kinds of crazy things. It keeps the popsci sites in business and apparently looks good to whoever is employing the yahoo researchers in question.
If there’s a credible medical breakthrough you’ll know because all kinds of scientists won’t shut up about it. After CRISPR was discovered back in 2016, it was absolutely everywhere for months.
It seems that many people suffering from Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia experience occasional short episodes of lucidity (especially when nearing death).
This suggests that memories, personality, and reasoning ability might not be (entirely?) destroyed, but simply inaccessible or unable to work properly, and that if the root cause for this malfunction could be treated a partial or even total recovery might be indeed possible…
It was from Case Western, fwiw, not livescience or fortean times. But yeah, it sounds so astounding i also have doubts. And yet. What a breakthrough.
First Leukemia patient got healed
Party pooper: Consuming alcohol significantly increases your chance of getting cancer. To the point that it compares with asbestos, radiation and tobacco.
https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/topics/alcohol-policies/background-statistics/
https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/alcohol-use-cancer-risk
A recent study counters that info a little bit (says there isn’t a link for some cancers) but it’s important to note that the study is still disputed. Also, cancer is on top of liver and heart disease, dementia and many other things that alcohol is known to directly increase.
You should do your best to reduce your alcohol consumption or cut it out completely - if you care about your health.
TBF ingesting anything that’s not what the orifice in question is intended for might be harmless, but probably isn’t. Don’t breath smoke, don’t drink a concentrated light organic compound.
The WHO did a meta analysis, which is how they came to their conclusion.
The title “No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health” is slightly misleading though, since they focused on typical alcoholic beverages. There is no statement about alcohol in fruits.
Bottom line:
Drinking even a little bit of <alcoholic beverage> safe? Likely no.
Eating <fruit that contain low amounts of alcohol>: unknownIs binging on fruits a thing humans do?
And why would it be any different from binging on a variety of other substances containing the same ingredient in common?
Habit? Tradition? There are establishments in town that sell beer, wine, whiskey, or cidre. It’s a thing, people do.
I clicked one of the links, and read the study.
450ml of liquor per week isn’t light to moderate by most definitions? If you don’t drink 2 nights a week that’s 5 medically significant binges per week, every week. One “drink” in this context is 1oz (~29ml). Most of the doctors I’ve been to, when asking how much you drink, will even ask of you have 15 drinks per week. They cut that off at 7+.
While a lot of us don’t know the link to cancer, I’d imagine most of us know there’s something there.
I’m fine with doing alcohol like we did cigarettes, I was just kinda shocked that they called “5 medically significant binges per week” light to moderate drinking??? Even when I was drinking an amount that people were talking about doing an intervention for, it was less than half of that (1oz (29.5ml) per day)
450ml of liquor per week isn’t light to moderate by most definitions?
If you read the one published by the WHO, It says “light” to “moderate” is less than 450ml, presumably meaning 450ml and over is considered “heavy” (which more or less lines up with 2 drinks a day.)
Generally, light is considered to be 1 drink a day, moderate is 1.5 and heavy is 2. So 1 drink a day is the cause of half of all alcohol-attributable cancers (according to the WHO).
People wanted to intervene because you were drinking one short shot per day?
Yep. Admittedly they didn’t know how much I was drinking, just how often, compared to the fact that I only drink a couple times a month most of the time.
To the point that it compares with asbestos, radiation and tobacco.
This is kind of ambiguous; it’s in the IARC group 1, which indeed includes asbestos and radiation. It also includes a lot of other things, like therapeutical hormones, many viruses and bacteria, being a firefighter, leather dust, being a painter, processed meat, wood dust, plutonium, vinyl chloride and outdoor air pollution.
How does it compare to CT scans? Asking for a friend.
Is that really a recent discovery, i got taught that in school
Yes, recently (the past couple of years) the connection between small amounts of alcohol and increased cancer risk has been more thoroughly documented. Check the link from the WHO.
I have done published computer science research and am therefore a scientist.
I recently discovered that to keep potted basil plants from the grocery store alive longer, I must water them correctly: Every day you must fully soak under room temperature water, then hold over sink until it stops dripping.
Idk about where you are, but basil plants sold in grocery stores by me are always way way too densely planted. They throw like 25 seeds in one small pot, which puts out a lot of foliage to look good for a very short window. If you harvest basil like you are “supposed to”, any regrowth becomes basically impossible, and the plants die. The better way is to just cut off whole stems until there’s only one or two. Or, if you want to keep a basil plant, just buy one from a gardening store, not a grocery store.
True and true. Though my usecase is just to keep it alive for a week or two. I can’t maintain it long term.
This is very basic science but is exactly why I think it should become more common knowledge.
You can make water evaporate with just light, no heat needed.
Huh, neat! I guess in makes sense, light can make all kinds of other chemical things happen.
There have been some recent studies on Dementia/Alzheimer’s that seem quite important for prevention, such as the link with inflammation such as periodontosis and viral infections..
Does the research into that only a handful of companies are the main source of earth’s pollution count?
Or that working less hours makes you more effective?
Recreating scientific studies that have been funded by large corporations is very difficult and disproving or countering any findings are less common because to apply the scientific method properly is beyond skill and know how, it’s down to money.
I’m a researcher myself, so I feel like I can weigh in on the “reproducibility crisis”. There are several facets to it: One is of course money, but that’s not just related to corporately funded research. Good like finding or building an independent lab capable of reproducing the results at CERN. It basically boils down to the fact that some (a lot of) research is insanely expensive to do. This primarily applies to experiments and to some degree to computationally expensive stuff.
Another side is related to interest. Your average researcher is fired up by the thought of being the first person to discover and publish something no one has seen before. It’s just not as fun to reproduce something someone else has already done. Even if you do, you’re likely to try to improve on it somehow, which means the results may change without directly invalidating the old results. It can be hard work to write a good paper, so if you don’t feel your results are novel enough that they’re worth the effort (because they’re basically just equivalent to previously published values) you might not bother to put in the effort to publish them.
Finally, even without direct reproduction of previously published results, science has a way asymptotically approaching some kind of truth. When I develop and publish something, I’m building on dozens of previously published works. If what they did was plain wrong, then my models would also be liable to fail. I’ve had cases where we’ve improved on previously published work, not because we tried to reproduce it, but because we tried to build on their results, and found out that their results didn’t make sense. That kind of thing is fairly common, but not reported as a “reproduction study”.
There’s also review articles that, while they don’t do any reproduction themselves, collect and compare a bunch of comparable work. They usually have some conclusions regarding what results appear trustworthy, and what appear to be erroneous.
I’ve always considered sciences like psychology to be more susceptible to the reproducibility crisis. It seems if someone decides to pursue a career in academia the criteria becomes publishing, and well publish or perish as is goes.
I think some researchers areocing towards things like prerigistering hypothesis and open data+publishing source code for calculations and using that as references in there paper so it can be updated afterwards.
They’re have definitely been a lot of papers where results were later determined to be wrong but is still referenced because well you can’t update a paper from the 1970s.
This is hearsay from friends I’ve never done any serious research or published in journals. As a side note I do enjoy reading taking a scroll through https://retractionwatch.com/
Replicating results is a problem across the board; I’m sure money is a factor but it’s not just the chocolate-sponsored-by-Hershey studies that have replication challenges.
Each CT scan is more harmful than previously understood.
edit: go ahead and downvote
Their new research, based on projections from hospitals in 20 U.S. states, estimates that 103,000 cancer diagnoses, or 5% of all cancers, could result from 93 million scans performed in the U.S. in 2023 alone.
Nationally, the new cancer projections from CT scans put them on par with other well-known, population-wide risk factors for cancers, like alcohol and obesity, an editor’s note accompanying the study points out.
Echoing a statement from the American College of Radiology after the study’s release, she stressed that the study’s projection of cancer diagnoses from CT scans was based on statistical modeling, not actual patient outcomes.
There are no published studies directly linking CT scans to cancer, the statement says. [emphasis mine]
Without hard data to back it up, this study is fairly meaningless.
Time for some pretty easy math; if 93,000,000 scans cause 103,000 cancer diagnoses, what percentage of scans cause cancer?
Its 0.11%. Each scan has a 0.11% chance of causing cancer. Thats slighty more than a 1 in 1000 chance for each scan.
Now, 93000000 and 103000 look like large scary numbers but when you’re comparing populations every number is likely to be large and scary. The absolute magnitude is meaningless; the important information lies in their proportion.
You skipped this part:
Echoing a statement from the American College of Radiology after the study’s release, she stressed that the study’s projection of cancer diagnoses from CT scans was based on statistical modeling, not actual patient outcomes.
There are no published studies directly linking CT scans to cancer, the statement says. “Americans should not forgo necessary, life-saving medical imaging and continue to discuss the benefits and risks of these exams with their healthcare providers,” it continues.
You can tell whatever story you want from statistics, it could be that people that get CT scans have a higher chance of getting a cancer diagnosis because they are getting medical care and others just go undiagnosed.
The point isn’t that CT scans cause cancer, that was always a risk with any ionizing radiation. The point is that radiation exposure from CT scans varies wildly based on the operator and you should do what you can to reduce your exposure, but don’t skip a CT because of a scary headline.
what a dumb comment
