Oh please! Increased skirt size:increased chance or breast cancer

https://fullfact.org/health/does-increasing-skirt-size-increase-breast-cancer-risk/

I will say it again: it was not taken from the Cancer Research Website.

Ok found it - it is indeed the same one that elegran identified.
I'm mystified though as to why hollydaze thought we needed to be protected from Cancer Research UK's website.

Could you provide a link to the relevant page please Anya? You didn't blue your second post.

Should have added her quote is to be found on this page.

I googled HD's statement and this report was first on the list

Hollydaze
In your post, you put
'In Britain, childhood cancer incidence rates have increased by over 40% since the late 1960s.'
That is not a comment, it is a quoted statement.
You then proceeded to put your own interpretation on it.

'I would imagine it unlikely that children having an unhealthy lifestyle would be affected quickly enough to develop cancer so, something else is coming into play with a 40% increase - that is worrying.'

I did google your statement, and couldn't find on the Cancer Research Website anything which corroborated your statement or your interpretation.

That's why I would like to know your source.

If you don't provide sources, the temptation is for posters to suspect that you just make stuff up to suit your arguments.

If you make pseudo-scientific assertions in this way, unsupported by evidence, you shouldn't be surprised if some of us don't like it.

While links to back up statements are useful, in this day and age because it is so very simple to google any fact for ourselves I don't see it as a problem. In fact when googling for information it is useful to be presented with various sites offering statistical information so we can get a variety of facts and information - even if some of it is contradictory.

Firslty, janeainsworth, I have not asked anybody, least of all you, to blindly accept anything - most comments on this forum are not backed up by links so I'm not sure why you are singling out the one and only time I haven't backed up statistical information. Maybe the fact that I do not tend to state facts unless that is what they truly are (as per my posting history) has slipped past you.

Secondly, I will only act with what my conscience is comfortable with whether you, or anyone else, approves or not. I am perfectly at liberty, as is everyone else, to comment and it is your choice whether or not to accept that comment.

I agree durhamjen, doctors do hold back a lot of information (so much for informed choices eh). If I was asked privately if I knew anything about x, y or z then I would answer that question. I would not put many things on a public forum - not knowing the people who are reading, to put information that could be distressing or sway their choices when I'm not in possession of full facts and know very little about the person involved would be, imo, reckless.

So, I will politely ask both of you not to tell me what to do - I am also grown-up enough to make my own decisions.

I agree, Jane. We're all grown up enough on here to decide for ourselves whether we want to read a link or not.
If I had not read some pretty awful stuff last year when I came out of hspital and had not had the help from people on a forum, I would probably not be alive now. The information I was given on that site was not given to me by any doctor involved in my care. It still isn't.

It would be a courtesy to other posters to allow them to judge these statements for themselves, Hollydaze, rather than expecting them to blindly accept everything you quote.

janeainsworth - on that particular subject then, I shall remain quiet.

Elegran - your link is not the site I used, the sentence following the facts/figures I gave reads: childhood cancers are lower in the British Isles than anywhere else in Europe. Much more positive than ifs, buts, maybes or, as in this case, 'likelys'.

Grannytwice I agree, I too dislike the way that increased knowledge of risk factors is used not to help people to be healthy, but to blame them for being ill.
One problem is that many people lack the financial means as well as time or motivation to reduce their risk factors.

I have Googled the reference, as it is more worrying to have an bald statement than to have one in context.

The next sentence after the one that Hollydaze quotes is "The reasons for this are poorly understood, though improvements in diagnosis and registration are likely to have played a part." (My blackened text)

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/keyfacts/Childhoodcancers/uk-childhood-cancer-statistics

Fair comment Jane and Flick. You just touched a nerve - the problem so often these days is that people sometimes seem to be looking to blame the person with the illness as the default position. I know the statistics are correct but I think on a forum there is the personal to consider as well. In the past I have jumped in hard when people made sweeping generalisations about diabetes without saying which type they are talking about. I think you could have said things in a slightly softer way though Flick

Hollydaze Please don't post stuff containing statements like 'In Britain, childhood cancer incidence rates have increased by over 40% since the late 1960s.' if you're not prepared to back them up with your sources.

My email is factually accurate. I write as someone who has a cousin who three weeks ago collapsed a died from a major stroke. She was in her mid 50s, slim and healthy. Had she been overweight, a heavy smoker, heavy drinker and inactive the probability of her having the stroke she had when she had it would have been far higher.

I am talking statistics not personal experience. Tragically, Durhamjen cases like your husbands - or my cousins - will occur but it does not invalidate the statistics.

Yes, it can but it is much less likely to if you have a healthy lifestyle

'In Britain, childhood cancer incidence rates have increased by over 40% since the late 1960s.'

I would imagine it unlikely that children having an unhealthy lifestyle would be affected quickly enough to develop cancer so, something else is coming into play with a 40% increase - that is worrying.

(I have opted not to put the link as I don't want to be responsible for causing worry about any of the details on the links.)

Grannytwice I think all that FlicketyB was saying is that it is possible to manage (reduce) one's risk of developing some, by no means all, cancers by adopting certain lifestyles or making changes.
There's plenty of evidence for that - I don't thing it's smug or unfeeling to say so.
it's also accepted that cancer is many different diseases, not one, and some are developmental in origin and unaffected by lifestyle or environmental factors.

It really doesn't help Flick to make comments like you did - it can sound a bit smug and unfeeling - of course there are links in some cases between some cancers and life styles but not all cancers. My husband survived but had a very rare cancer that none knows of any cause for it - absolutely no link with a healthy life style of otherwise

Flickety, we ate organic vegetarian food for years, did not smoke, did not drink much.Our diet consisted of mainly fruit and veg. My husband died of brain cancer when he was 65. So it is not true to say it is much less likely to if you have a healthy lifestyle.

About 15% of people who get lung cancer are non- smokers.

So I do not understand how America can say they cannot patent the gene, but Australia says they can, with the same information.
I agree with America; they should not be able to patent anything natural.
Where to next, if this is allowed?

The above is the background and rulings. Makes heavy reading though.

Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad