Rare childhood cancer proves what?

This Australian News breathless announcement is a joke.

Well it’s cherry picking, and they still don’t have a plausible cancer mechanism, and the selection of this rare childhood cancer makes no sense.
The author claims a skyrocketing rate of lung cancer–I’m waiting for the reports, which the enviro fanatics would have been trumpeting if they existed.
This piece is utter nonsense, and Milloy is still waiting for the small particulate death cases.
As a physician for 40 years I am waiting for my first small particle death. Asthma is an allergic disease, so don’t get confused.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-11-06/chinese-childs-lung-cancer-linked-by-doctors-to-air-pollution/1215320

11 thoughts on “Rare childhood cancer proves what?”

  1. If everyone stopped and said “and what exactly did you prove” we’d have a lot fewer stupid science stories. I’ve found over the years that the most derisive method of stating the conclusion is often the most accurate.
    There’s only so bad a way to say “he redefined gravity to explain the way things worked and time is apparently not constant”. However, when the study boils down to “dogs left in overheated crates die” or “rats fed their body weight in saccharin daily get fat” it’s pretty easy to see it for the nonsense it is.

  2. thanks marque2, and how could i improve on your comment about ratus ratus or ratus norvegicus.
    I would just say crossing assumptions on carcinogensis is an exercise in juuuuunk science, since science is about events in circumstances that are considered controlled or at lease understood.

  3. Just a note on rats. In the wild (I believe ratus ratus, but probably rattus norvegicus as well) will live about two years, if it is not eaten, by a cat or bird. When they die, a natural death, 95% are shown to have died of cancer.
    Even the wild rats are prone to get cancer, and they weren’t breed to be extra sensitive.

  4. Carcinogens–how do we decide what are carcinogens???? Damn rat and mouse research with LD50 level exposures, then autopsies of the meeses to count tumors that they are bred to have anyway?
    OK, i will try this again. Even though it maybe worthwhile to argue the junk and stupidity of building wind farms and even though the carcinogen list includes the stuff they use to make turbines–PPPPPPUUULLLLEEEEZ i ask that we not do the lefty panic chemophobia schtick.
    So what, the alternative people make big ugly things and someday they might be buried or burned–toxicology in this crazy environmental nut case world is no place for us to start when we criticize the problem of turbines.
    Let’s just say stupid, inefficient, economic burden, tax and mandates tricks, causes electricity prices to go up and requires terribly expensive transmission lines, ugly, tears up the view, and kills birds and bats.
    Don’t sound like the chemophobes cause we ain’t chemophobes, we believer in classic and traditonal toxicology. It is unseemly to stretch for an argument that is really in their bag of tricks.
    We have no reliable evidence that turbines are a toxic danger–and i hate for us to sound like those idiots when battling something we don’t like–i have, by God, had enough of chemophobes.

  5. There is a wonderful exegesis on cancer research and what a joke it is by Tom Bethell.
    No, genetic mutation is not the cause of cancer.
    The only consistent genetic aberration is multiploidy, which is not a mutation problem its a replication problem.
    And don’t assume we know what causes cancer–we know some theories, and we also know that it is a disease, in general, of the elderly, so the theory is repeated whatever increases cancer metamorphosis but also that a lesser immune response allows cell lines that are malignant to survive what would be a killer reaction.
    So I sound like I know something–well i read and i don’t assume taht the media know or even can repeat anything, besides they are talking to American Cancer Society who are just trying to keep the results and grants coming
    Is it cynical to think cancer researchers after billions of research dollars go down the drain, might be covering for their insoluble problem problem?

  6. One of the features of cancer which has made it so difficult to find any ‘cures’ is that when DNA gets damaged (the only factor so far common to all known cancers), the responsible agent leaves no direct evidence of its presence.
    The carcinogenic agent may be a small molecule, a cosmic ray, or even a radioactive carbon-14 atom, but by the time its work is done, it is gone.

  9. Um, if air pollution caused this girl’s cancer, why aren’t they talking about childhood lung cancer in Beijing or Harbin, where the air pollution is much worse than Jiangsu?

  10. What type of lung cancer? My youngest daughter is a lung cancer survivor (diagnosed Jan 4, 2008) with a rare cancer called Pleuro pulminary blastoma (PPB), which is a “childs” lung cancer. She was at the upper end of the diagnosis window (almost seven), but was definitive PPB. Rare as rare can be. Luckily, chemo regimen was effective, surgery was perfect, and didn’t need radiation. Cancer “free” now. Hate these PR announcements.

  11. The idiot politicians are concerned about the levels of CO2, (supposedly), so they are building wind turbines, and solar panels, which are full of toxins, and carcinogens, are not recyclable, and when they are produced, spew particulate matter, and toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. More proof that this is a huge, money-grabbing, SCAM. The useless things have done nothing to decrease CO2 levels anyway….even more proof. It is so easy to see the truth, with just a little but of research. NEVER take the word of the people making money from this scam. The government, or the windweasels.

Comments are closed.