The Silence Doctors Are Keeping About Millennial Deaths(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Silence Doctors Are Keeping About Millennial Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/07/millennials-cancer-death/678896/
22 comments
I've wondered if the rise in friends and colleagues with sudden late stage cancers has just been a fluke of my circle or a symptom of a wider problem of an unknown cause.
My father died of esophageal cancer not long ago - as a man in his early 60s he followed a path similar to the first patient in the article. Two friends are currently battling similar cancers and headed down the path of more and more agressive or experimental treatment. A large part of that choice seems intrinsic. When my dad was told he was stage 4, he smiled and reflected on the life he had lived - at peace with his mortality. When my close friend was told the same, he was distraught that he'd never had the opportunity for children. I understand how those unstated biases about a life well lived enter the medical field - an important reminder that a life is not simply measured in years.
My father died of esophageal cancer not long ago - as a man in his early 60s he followed a path similar to the first patient in the article. Two friends are currently battling similar cancers and headed down the path of more and more agressive or experimental treatment. A large part of that choice seems intrinsic. When my dad was told he was stage 4, he smiled and reflected on the life he had lived - at peace with his mortality. When my close friend was told the same, he was distraught that he'd never had the opportunity for children. I understand how those unstated biases about a life well lived enter the medical field - an important reminder that a life is not simply measured in years.
Artificial colors are known carcinogenic (lake 6, 40, etc) and absolutely unnecessary. Why don’t we start there. I recently stopped eating them and had to cut out a huge portion of convenience foods and candies simply because they are loaded with known-carcinogenic artificial coloring. It’s sad that children are the ones most targeted and most parents don’t seem to care.
Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago? I can't imagine childhood food is causing cancer decades later? Don't our cells mostly turn over constantly?
Doesn't lung cancer risk basically drop off after quitting smoking? I thought skin cancer could be caused by just one burn?
Doesn't lung cancer risk basically drop off after quitting smoking? I thought skin cancer could be caused by just one burn?
>Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago?
Oftentimes, yes. Quitting smoking reduces your risk of cancer but it is still higher than if you never smoked. Cancer is when a cell/cells mutate in specific ways that cause out of control growth, prevent the cells from self-destructing, prevent DNA repair inside the cells, etc. It is like playing a slot machine where all 4 reels have to come up “cancer mutation” for it to actually become a cancerous cell, otherwise the body processes fix or destroy the cell.
For the sake of argument, lets say each reel starts with 1,000 options and only 1 “cancer mutation”. Your inherited genetics could add a “cancer mutation”, solar radiation from a bad sunburn could add 3 “cancer mutation”, smoking could add 10, etc. It doesn’t mean that the next cell generation will have all 4 reels come up cancer, in fact it is incredibly unlikely. But as those mutations and damage build up, and as your cells divide and divide and divide over the years, it becomes more likely.
That change over time of your statistical likelihood is exactly why cancer almost never happens at the same time is the exposure (carcinogens, smoking, radiation) except in rare cases (rapidly dividing skin cells after massive solar radiation damage, extreme nuclear radiation exposure, etc.).
Oftentimes, yes. Quitting smoking reduces your risk of cancer but it is still higher than if you never smoked. Cancer is when a cell/cells mutate in specific ways that cause out of control growth, prevent the cells from self-destructing, prevent DNA repair inside the cells, etc. It is like playing a slot machine where all 4 reels have to come up “cancer mutation” for it to actually become a cancerous cell, otherwise the body processes fix or destroy the cell.
For the sake of argument, lets say each reel starts with 1,000 options and only 1 “cancer mutation”. Your inherited genetics could add a “cancer mutation”, solar radiation from a bad sunburn could add 3 “cancer mutation”, smoking could add 10, etc. It doesn’t mean that the next cell generation will have all 4 reels come up cancer, in fact it is incredibly unlikely. But as those mutations and damage build up, and as your cells divide and divide and divide over the years, it becomes more likely.
That change over time of your statistical likelihood is exactly why cancer almost never happens at the same time is the exposure (carcinogens, smoking, radiation) except in rare cases (rapidly dividing skin cells after massive solar radiation damage, extreme nuclear radiation exposure, etc.).
Such an absolute tragedy. I hope modern medicine can make large advancements, but I am not holding my breath for any miracles in my lifetime.
Still, I couldn't help but be reminded of the final installment of a blog from a woman in a similar situation a few years back:
Van Life (Cancer Edition) Finale
https://imgur.com/gallery/van-life-cancer-edition-finale-prU...
I honestly have read the finale once or twice a year since it was posted in order to try and sort of reground/reassess my life's direction.
After reading about the woman in the article or the woman in the blog I posted, I can't help but get this feeling. A feeling of struggle. Struggling to rationalize the life that I have been conditioned to believe that I am "supposed" to live. After all, that very well could be me one day.
It further spurs this almost sick to my stomach feeling that if I were in either one of these women's shoes, then I would probably have quite a few regrets about how I chose to live my life so far into my early 30s. All the countless hours of hard work, all the frugality, all the stress, the lack of taking risks, etc.. What has it all truly been worth? The stability and security has brought sustainability and placation but the contentment such a life has bred is equally ensnaring. I can't shake the feeling that there is more to life, but alas, what is it then?
Still, I couldn't help but be reminded of the final installment of a blog from a woman in a similar situation a few years back:
Van Life (Cancer Edition) Finale
https://imgur.com/gallery/van-life-cancer-edition-finale-prU...
I honestly have read the finale once or twice a year since it was posted in order to try and sort of reground/reassess my life's direction.
After reading about the woman in the article or the woman in the blog I posted, I can't help but get this feeling. A feeling of struggle. Struggling to rationalize the life that I have been conditioned to believe that I am "supposed" to live. After all, that very well could be me one day.
It further spurs this almost sick to my stomach feeling that if I were in either one of these women's shoes, then I would probably have quite a few regrets about how I chose to live my life so far into my early 30s. All the countless hours of hard work, all the frugality, all the stress, the lack of taking risks, etc.. What has it all truly been worth? The stability and security has brought sustainability and placation but the contentment such a life has bred is equally ensnaring. I can't shake the feeling that there is more to life, but alas, what is it then?
>What has it all truly been worth? The stability and security has brought sustainability and placation but the contentment such a life has bred is equally ensnaring. I can't shake the feeling that there is more to life, but alas, what is it then?
The key is realizing that this feeling never goes away. It's just part of being a human, whether you are a billionaire or a begger. The only truth I've ever found to anything is that the point is to be a good person and enhance the lives of those around you, and maybe try to leave the world a better more beautiful place than you found it. Nothing else really matters at all.
The key is realizing that this feeling never goes away. It's just part of being a human, whether you are a billionaire or a begger. The only truth I've ever found to anything is that the point is to be a good person and enhance the lives of those around you, and maybe try to leave the world a better more beautiful place than you found it. Nothing else really matters at all.
Thank you for sharing that.
There has been many miracles in your lifetime already.
Stop putting corn syrup everywhere. Also, sliced bread it's just yeast with tons of sugar.
Eat whole fruits, not just the juice in a glass, which in the end it's sugar, too.
Also, Americans need to build cities around sidewalks and not cars.
Eat whole fruits, not just the juice in a glass, which in the end it's sugar, too.
Also, Americans need to build cities around sidewalks and not cars.
A loaf a bread is about 2 tablespoons of sugar, which is needed to feed the yeast.
Two tablespoons of sugar is an insane amount. Having baked bread myself I can confidently tell you you don't need to add any sugar to the dough for it to rise. You need a pinch of salt to stop it tasting weird though.
sliced bread aka american bread different from "rustic" bread or the typical european one
> Millennials born in 1990—at the peak of the generation—are twice as likely to develop colon cancer as Baby Boomers born in 1950.
I understand this is not necessarily the point of the article, but how is this not considered a massive crisis? I have heard this stat mentioned before but never with much urgency or impetus to determine the cause of what appears to be a massive health crisis introduced in fairly young generation.
Is it our diet? It's hard to imagine that millennial diets are that much different than what was/is eaten by older generations. Certainly older generations also had their own major carcinogenic lifestyle factors to contend with in terms of smoking and chemical exposure.
I understand this is not necessarily the point of the article, but how is this not considered a massive crisis? I have heard this stat mentioned before but never with much urgency or impetus to determine the cause of what appears to be a massive health crisis introduced in fairly young generation.
Is it our diet? It's hard to imagine that millennial diets are that much different than what was/is eaten by older generations. Certainly older generations also had their own major carcinogenic lifestyle factors to contend with in terms of smoking and chemical exposure.
Isn't a lot of it HPV? Should be interesting to see the trend with HPV vaccines becoming widespread.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i...
but how is this not considered a massive crisis
Base rate up but total numbers still low. Google says 150k people/year (of all ages) get colorectal cancer, out of 333.3 million people.
Base rate up but total numbers still low. Google says 150k people/year (of all ages) get colorectal cancer, out of 333.3 million people.
It can be a crisis but there's no clear cause and thus, no clear action.
The large amount of possible causes is leading many people to jump onto any possible theory - from processed foods, air quality, plastic containers, vague notions of "toxins", vaccines, etc. And this leads to companies taking advantage by implying their competitor's products are bad (eg: Goop) but with little scientific backing. So it's getting hard to know the difference between scientific evidence and advertising.
California has a law on the books passed all the way in 1986 (Prop 65) which requires labeling of any toxic substance that can cause cancer or birth defects. It seems like everything has a Prop 65 warning on it, it's not quite possible to avoid it.
The large amount of possible causes is leading many people to jump onto any possible theory - from processed foods, air quality, plastic containers, vague notions of "toxins", vaccines, etc. And this leads to companies taking advantage by implying their competitor's products are bad (eg: Goop) but with little scientific backing. So it's getting hard to know the difference between scientific evidence and advertising.
California has a law on the books passed all the way in 1986 (Prop 65) which requires labeling of any toxic substance that can cause cancer or birth defects. It seems like everything has a Prop 65 warning on it, it's not quite possible to avoid it.
I can't say I'm not surprised that there's zero speculation about the massive rollout of mRNA jabs that were pressured on otherwise healthy people to take... I think it's really the elephant in the room.
Eat your damn fiber.
“Shit the cancer out, idiots”
- A software dev
- A software dev
something something prevention cure