pauln99

I think he also said somewhere that people mainly disagree with distorted versions of your ideas...

"This year marks the 50th anniversary of the “War on Cancer” declared by Richard Nixon, a former President of the United States of America. By signing into law the National Cancer Act on December 23, 1971, Nixon hoped this action to be the landmark legislation taken by his administration. Nixon apparently had confidence that cancer would be conquered in 5 years."

You're right, there are a small handful of unusual cancers that we have cures for, and that's great. And some small progress has been made overall. But a lot of money has been spent, and it has been half a century or more, and we don't have much to show for our efforts.

In fairness, I was responding to the first sentence in the quote from the article.

It seems relevant, as a patient to ask, on average, how much longer will I live if I take this drug?

To be clear, those aren't 16 years of accumulating improvements. The median life extension - across all 90-odd drugs - was two months.

I'm sorry, but two months to five months after 50 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. That was hardly the promise of the "war on cancer"!

Maybe I've misunderstood, but for the average person that's even worse news, right?

Two months was from clinical trials where there's no doubt that the "thumb is on the scale" in a host of ways, creating an exaggerated estimate of efficacy that would be realised in the real world.

The reality is closer to no life extension, with the remaining lifespan is spent sicker than you'd have been without the drugs.

“Statistically significant and highly clinically meaningful” perhaps, but not so much that they can say what that actually means.

My understanding is that of all cancer drugs approved by the FDA between 2000-2016 (around 90 drugs), the median life extension was just over 2 months...

For the record, I _do_ think that the whole field of nutrition should be discounted.

In the popular imagination we to tend blame journalism for the "one minute x causes cancer, the next minute x cures cancer" style flip-flopping, and I don't doubt some blame is due. However, the underlying science is hopelessly confounded and generates spurious small effects that are probably artefacts of the data than real effects. If this wasn't the case, how do you explain the constant self-contradiction and almost complete equivocality on every issue on these matters.

What is the causal connection you are talking about? I hope not the saturated fat, clogs the arteries, etc, etc. Everyone believed that 50 years ago, no one will in another 100 years. But persuade me; show me the unequivocal science and I'll change my mind. My understanding is that the efforts to show this effect have not worked.

The premises of your argument, i.e. what your grandparent's did and animals dietary changes, are insufficient to justify your firm conclusion.

> I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat.

Fat is not bad. We decided it was on the flimsiest of evidence and suspect "plausbility" arguments (eating fat makes you fat, obvs) and the subsequent attempts to prove the hypothesis in large scales studies have come up empty-handed.

> And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer.

I significantly doubt that, the evidence, such that it is, is only found in highly confounded epidemiology that does not allow you to make that claim.

> If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Fair enough.

> Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

Google "how long have humans been eating meat". Not saying it's right, but it contradicts your point.

I think Pollen should have said "Eat real food", and stopped there.

Then our appetite will take care of itself, and won't require conscious - and ultimately - futile endeavour.

And eating meat's fine (from a health perspective, if not ethical necessarily). We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.