boyfriday Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Someone elses post in between has obviously been removed I'd prefer to picture Mecky talking to himself-it satisfies my mental image of Norman Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Nope, no posts have been removed from this thread. If they were then I'd be able to see where they were still. :hihi: Poor Mecky, could someone call the men in the white coats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Some of the reasons for the apparent increase in the levels of cancer seen today are: 1) Increased longevity as the likelihood of getting cancer increases with age. 2) Vasty improved screening tests and detection methods. 3) Discovery of different forms of cancer which were previously mis- or undiagnosed. As for the reports in the media of a link between height and cancer, well they are somewhat alarmist to say the least. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/07July/Pages/tall-people-at-slightly-greater-risk-of-cancer.aspx jb I find the publicising of the headline before there's a proper analysis of the outcomes and of the potential causality or implications thereof to be quite irresponsible. It's like when the media ran the story about the combined contraceptive pill being associated with a higher rate of DVTs. They completely failed to include the full findings of the research (including that the DVTs in question were the non-fatal kind and that the calculated risk had risen from 1 per 100,000 to 2 per 100,000, still a minuscule number) and focused entirely on the risks being doubled (which is factually correct, but actually doubled from one tiny risk to another slightly less tiny risk). They also failed to point out that the DVT risk of pregnancy, termination, birth and all associated conditions is a minimum of 100 times the risk of a DVT from being on the contraceptive pill, and that the calculated risk rise was only from a small subset of pills, and as result the unplanned pregnancy rate amongst women who stopped taking their pills suddenly to avoid the DVT risk rose exponentially, as did the DVT rate as a result of that. In this instance there's nothing at all that tall people can do to reduce their risk factors from being tall, so I fail to see what such a kneejerk report of partial research with fuzzy outcomes can actually achieve. As a very tall person who spent 14 years being treated at the Weston Park I am completely aware that some people get cancer, but I don't have much alternative to being tall, do I? Short of having my legs cut off at the knees I'll be tall no matter what I do and I'm not sure that lopping off a foot or two would do anything to reduce my risks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.