>The charity also found that excess weight now caused 6.3% of all cancer cases - up from 5.5% in 2011
>Prof Mel Greaves, a cancer biologist at the Institute of Cancer Research, in London, said the study was an "endorsement" of the idea that many cancers were potentially preventable. But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.
What a rollercoaster.
Wish we could go back to the good old boring objective factual news rather than journalists trying to clickbait or push an agenda.
Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes. As a middle schooler I could intuitively see that overeating sugar would lead to diabetic issues that are just now being "proven" by science.
Is it possible that the UK health system has figured out something that is obvious through their experiences with so many people? If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?
But until there are actual concerted scientific studies, not intimidated by social/political bullying, to consider behavior as a risk factor for disease, what can be done?
We can only rely on common sense, simplistic views, spreadsheets of private data we aren't legally allowed to share, etc... People in health care are stuck between a rock and a hard-place. (scientific studies vs what is obvious in front of them)
I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy” that’s substantially different from “free of disease”. That makes that statement trivially true. That’s part of the reason these experts are so careful in the conclusions they draw.
And smoking doesn’t _cause_ cigarettes, it destroys them ;-)
I think it's a universal absolute that every individual has a healthy and non-healthy state. Regardless of our ability to classify that state accurately with labels or tests.
I know I had stupid transposed bit of wording... har.
Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes
At risk of taking this typo-launched tangent far too seriously, smoking absolutely caused cigarettes, and without retrocausality; cigarettes weren't the first vehicle for smoking, and were developed as a result of the popularity of the practice.
https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...
I don't disagree, but I would emphasize your phrase "cut corners". I think there's an diametrically opposite approach to health between "guessing for a cure" and "guessing for a cause".
People who used leeches to suck their blood out were "guessing it helped", where people who sought out clean air and clean water for say tuberculosis for example, weren't "guessing a cure", they knew clean air and water were good for you, even if it didn't cure the disease, it should at least help.
I think this same logic applies in the issue of obesity/[cancer|any health issue]. Maybe it's not a cure, but it can't hurt until we know more.
Even if it is the case that weight is correlated with cancer, it's not evident that weight causes cancer. The scientist dances around this statement because he can't say it.