>>34689327>>34689340It doesn't equal causation, but you'd be silly to ignore a strong correlation between two variables.
Regardless of whether it's a directly causative relationship, denying that there's some relationship between those two is literally ignoring the evidence.
>>34689330People who are predisposed to cancers have inherent genetic mutations which bring them one step closer to a full-blown cancer than your average shitbag.
That exact same inherent mutation can be replicated by exposure to carcinogens, if you limit your exposure to carcinogens, you limit your risk of developing cancer earlier.
The other problem is that most people at risk for cancers don't know that they're at risk. I had stage 2 cancer at 21 years of age and my entire large intestine was a hive of tumours, but I was entirely asymptomatic; if I hadn't come down with appendicitis I would still be completely unaware that anything was wrong.
>>34688042Absolutely, entirely wrong.
>>34688679Good question, they should give a definition in the actual article if you look it up.
>>34689316Because there's a growing body of evidence for this link, there has been for quite a while. it's not been "the news lately" it's been at least a decade ever since we started noticing this relationship.
>>34689588>>34689617These two people actually have an idea of what they're talking about.
>>34689684>atrocious methodologyThat's a ridiculous statement to make. Methodologies vary between studies depending upon which variables are being measured and which study design you're implementing. Commenting on the
>atrocious methodologyof an entire scientific field is like commenting on the atrocious colour of all cars.
