virusrex comments

As the experts say, exercise and maintain a healthy weight is the best and safest approach, as opposed to taking drugs, and around 6-8000 steps are the ideal range.

The same as when you made this claim before you could not find any expert that supports it, since drugs do help people keep the lifestyle changes they were approved to be used by the public, explicitly contradicting what you personally believe. Also, there is no ideal range that applies in general for all people, each person requires a different kind of physical activity (that may not even include walking) to keep healthy.

Compared to the US, it's quite easy to find a permanent (tenured) job as a PhD holder here.

That is not what the Japanese that emigrate to the US to actually make a living from their degrees think, even chiefs of department in laboratories of universities are only on 5 year contracts, associate or assistant professors, postdocs, etc. have a hard time even reaching that level, tenure is a dream beyond a dream for the vast majority.

Stop sharing needles for drugs and use protection for an## sex and AIDs pretty much goes away.

Advice as useful as "stop drinking and smoking and liver/lung cancer pretty much goes away" Very easy to say, not that much to actually implement.

Lack of support for scientific research, low level of Japanese universities compared with those in other countries means people with an interest in science will rarely come from overseas while the nationals will find much better chances outside the country. What is the point of sacrificing nights and weekends if the only positions available are for limited time contracts and funding scarce?

Multibillion in total, but the meds are made by a few large companies

That also applies to supplements, that represent huge amount of profits for a few and a tiny extra for many, once again this is not an argument against drugs but against supplements that can be as dangerous but require less control so they are a much easier way to make money.

The supplement hospitalizations and deaths became major news

So are those with medications, the huge difference is that medications have to at least prove they offer benefits, supplements not, so the risks and problems frequently come without any benefits to offset them. HCQ was for example used without actual justification during the pandemic thanks to baseless recommendations and they produced thousands of extra deaths, this is something well reported.

It's true that the bigger journals are highly cautious anout anything that bucks the trend which is one of the (many) problems with science today.

Bigger journals routinely accept papers that change paradigms, but only when the reports have evidence of enough quantity and quality to tilt the balance, being published in a minor journal can be something that happen because the conclusions are not specially well supported by the evidence (low quality/quantity data), because the discussion do not refutes properly the current understanding or simply because the methods are not appropriate for the study, minor journals are more likely to let this things pass thru pre-publication peer review.

Yes, very true.

Actually you need to normalize many different things, including the "bad" cholesterol.

Naah, if medical organizations ever agreed to such assertions, they would be kissing good-bye to much of their funding. I don't consider them respectable...

Global conspiracies that include every recognized institution of science in the world are not arguments, they are excuses for not having those arguments in the first place.

If the scientific community of the world recognize institutions as respectable then that is enough, if nameless people on the internet do not agree with this perfectly valid argument this have no importance. Is like saying that a flat-earth organization do not recognize the NASA as respectable, that would deny nothing about the institution value.

One difference between supplements and meds is that the makers of the latter have lots of power to maintain silence regarding their side effects.

Both are multibillion industries, the real difference is that medicines have much stronger and strict controls compared with supplements, so companies looking for the easy way out produce exclusively the latest without putting the effort to develop or even guarantee the first.

Since people also trigger the CrowController sound, they also think crows are nearby and become extra careful about putting the garbage more properly and securely under their nets than before.

I would not be surprised this accounts for a very significant part of the benefits obtained.

That’s impressive, but I’m worried it’ll lead to an ecological imbalance.

Then again why to protect a "balance" that depends on the garbage in the first place?

Maybe a dumb question, but someone needs to ask it......at what point does the radiation from an MRI become itself a threat to health?

Fortunately the MRI do not expose the body to ionizing radiation so the potential risks are extremely low

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8891399/

If anything the risks come from the loud noises or its overuse that could lead to false positives and unnecessary treatments.

Slowly, reluctantly but Japan society is finally getting into the 20th century, a decade or so more and it may reach the 21st as well.

Taking into account the much lower standard of testing and safeguards that supplements have compared with medical products the surprising thing is that these kind of problems do not happen more often.

Police quoted Yamamoto as saying “I don't want to talk about it right now.''

Well, at least this is not the tired excuse of "I don't remember", implicitly he is accepting the crime.

I understood what you wrote only because I am very familiar with your writing

Judging from the votes three other people could understand the comment without problem as well, that still means the problem is with the person for which it made no sense, not the writting itself.

The point of course it that the post publication peer review is the minimum a report has to resist in order to be considered valid, when the only source you can bring do not even clear this very low hurdle that means you have no valid reference that can support your claim, meanwhile many examples do for the opposite side.

Cancer is never cured. It is considered in deep remission if no reoccurrence after 5 years.

That is a very antiquated way of thinking, more and more doctors are arguing about the need to recognize that patients are cured, after all there is no other way to describe when someone has the same risk of dying from that specific variety of cancer as someone who never had the diagnosis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31436897/

Recognising a cancer patient as cured represents an opportunity to improve their quality of life.

The entire sentence doesn't make sense pal.

Again, if you have troubles understanding things that is not an argument to say those things don't make sense, another commenter replied to you and understood the comment, that means the problem is on your side.

Hope one day scientists find a cure for cancer.

This is precisely what I mention about people trying to mislead others, many cancers are already being cured daily, so cancer is curable, the same as infection, if your argument is again about one single cure for all the different diseases that are included in the category of cancer that is still a mistaken approach as was demonstrated yesterday.

What?! Instead of providing a peer-reviewed study, you just linked to an article written by a med school's news center promoting two of their studies: one on "lab-grown human endothelial cells" and the other on diabetic mice! Really?

The article does reference primary sources, and it is in no way the only that supports the scientific consensus, there is no importance about who writes a scientific dissemination article as long as it represents without problem the original sources, that excuse is something people try to use when they have zero arguments against those original sources when they prove the opposite of what they want to believe.

Translation please

What is the well known term you have difficulty understanding?

Basically, any study that goes against the pharma narrative is automatically hit by a wave of attacks from pharma-backed ankle biters

If that were the case you could easily defend those articles, in reality this is a natural and desirable response against low quality studies that get destroyed when people with knowledge about the topic ennumerate the reasons why the conclusions are not sustained by the methods. This is easy to see the moment you are completely unable to refute even one of the reasons give for the criticism and instead use as an excuse an impossible to believe conspiracy theory involving every recognized institution of science of the world.

This is a remnant of the time where cancer meant getting a death sentence, so people would not want to burden their family with such terrible news. Fortunately the situation is changing and not only more famous people are being open about their diagnosis they are also frequently becoming examples of people that defeat the disease and go back to a healthy and productive life. This is slowly but progressively changing how the disease is perceived and now doctors are making a point about clearly telling their patients they have been cured to reinforce this new reality.

But as always there will always be people that will try to spoil this progress and mislead others telling them they have no cure and should be contempt to dying from the disease, for this kind of people the experts saying that we have to dispel the fear is unacceptable.

 I don’t understand why japan needs strange laws.

This comes on the wheels of the "family registry" system. When it is absolutely necessary for every new born to be included in one (by default their Father's) then the law have to contort so this right/obligation is fulfilled.

Oh, they might be effective at reducing LDL, but not at improving health outcome.

Which recognized institutions of science in any country of the world support this claim you are making? obviously you can't expect people to believe everybody in the field is wrong without presenting actual evidence to demonstrate that extraordinary claim.

I'm sure any moment now someone will provide proof of a causal link between LDL and heart attacks/strokes or that statins improve health outcomes

There have been many studies proving this, for example.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2023/05/statins-cardiovascular-vessels.html

And specially they are studies that have been able to to resist post publication peer review, which is something above the ones that supposedly support the opposite conclusion.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/cholesterol-and-statins

Looking for a cure.

Plain and simple.

Not "a single cure for all cancers" that is the part that apparently escapes you.

As my source says, Finding a cure for cancer 

Your own source mentions several cures, from checkpoint inhibitors to vaccines. That means that the misinterpretation of everything being cured by a single treatment is still only yours, not from the experts in the source. For example they clearly mention the HPV vaccine, which prevents one single form of cancer, there is no way to misinterpret this as if this vaccine was intended to prevent other very different types of cancer.

At least you agree there is no cure for cancer. Good you finally got it.

There are already many cures for many cancers, pretending there should be a single cure for all is what makes no sense.

They need more regulation for certain, not all, supplements.

Contamination is something that could happen to all kinds of supplements, more regulation to make this less likely would be desirable.

perhaps a new home will be found in Tokyo somewhere more convenient. It will be a huge loss for the area and tourism.

Some people online were talking about including it on the Osaka Expo next year after a couple of upgrades, but it may not be cost effective (specially with the lack of popularity of the event until now).

Prime example of AI replacing humans.

Humand that do not “provide any form of medical care, medical opinion, diagnosis or treatment.” only, which means not an actual professional of the health care industry. the AI in the example could only replace a person whose only function would be to chat with patients for a few minutes, but not the one that actually diagnose and treat them, something completely different from your first claim.

In France, AI can even prevent injuries to those in the medical field.

That is not exactly something new, helmets, safety gloves or plasticware (instead of glass) can also prevent injuries to those in the medical field and have done so for a very long time already.

And I have faith that even though there is no cure for cancer, the medical community will get to that goal sooner than later.

As likely as finding one single cure for other whole categories of disease, like one cure for all infections, or one cure for all genetic defects, meaning not likely at all. There is no benefit on pretending every disease of a whole category should be treated with the same treatment when it is simply much more effective, efficient and safer to have a different cure for each.

More people are harmed by medications that do something, than by supplements.

How many more? and specially how would this be relevant against the criticism of supplements that have risks without any benefit to outweight those risks?

If a drug saves a thousand lives while causing 5 deaths, while a supplement saves nothing and causes one death that would still make the drug justified and the supplement unnecessary.

Bowing would be the minimum show of repentance, so even if honest it would still be completely unacceptable for serious offenses if it is not followed by concrete and effective actions to solve the problem caused.

Higher LDL-Cholesterol is Associated with Greater Longevity

When the reported methodology do not include a way to control for survivor bias (nor immortal time bias for untreated control groups) the association can't be so simply assumed to be causal, it is more likely that the relationship can be explained simply because people at advanced age are more likely to have cholesterol problems the longer they live, with those that have more serious risk because of lack of control have been already selected against simply because they died before they could be included for comparison.

though doctors are reluctant to use "cure" as they can't be completely certain the cancer won't come back

Fortunately this is changing and doctors are now more and more confident in declaring a patient cured from a cancer when the risk to his health is at least as low as in the general population. From the point of view of the patients mental health this is a very good step that reflects the advances in treatment against the different diseases in this category.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31436897/

Very interesting research that help understanding more clearly how zoonosis and reverse zoonosis can affect the spreading of diseases, from the medical point of view it is obvious that much more attention is given to the process in which animal pathogens are transmitted to humans, but to have a proper understanding of the risks it is also necessary to see how the opposite happens.

And as the title infers, and as the medical community knows, there is no cure for cancer

The title make no such inference, and the article clearly demonstrate this claim you make to be mistaken, cancer patients are cured every day, more every year since medical science has been able to find cures for many types of cancer that previously were a death sentence.