Smoking and lung cancer is not a good comparison because it’s an incredibly rare outlier
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Lun cancer-smoking connection came from observational evidence backed by mechanistic studies that formed the consensus. Animal protein is in the same boat.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kevinnbass @dailyzad and
You say it's impossible to establish effect with observational studies with animal protein, and consistency would demand you do the same with smoking and lung cancer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kevinnbass @whsource and
Kevin, the lung cancer-smoking example is never used as an example to promote the prowess of epidemiological data. Its an outlier where the increased risk was nearly 20x
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dailyzad @kevinnbass and
Now that I don't agree with. There are quite a few examples aside from smoking with similar - although not quite as high - risks. Mesothelioma/asbestos and hepatocellular carcinoma/HBV spring to mind
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Actually, from memory the initial risks identified for meso/asbestos were even higher than lung cancer because it's otherwise so rare. I think some of the initial studies found RRs of 30+
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @kevinnbass and
Wasn't that also because of the additive effects of smoking? https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201302-0257OC …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Seems so from this cohort "The joint effect of smoking and asbestos alone was additive (rate ratio = 14.4 [95% CI, 10.7–19.4]) and with asbestosis, supra-additive (rate ratio = 36.8 [95% CI, 30.1–45.0])."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dailyzad @kevinnbass and
But that's looking at asbestos' impact on lung cancer. I think the impact of smoking on mesothelioma is also not inconsiderable, but this paper gives you an idea of the early work and how massive the risk ratios arehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(19801001)46:7%3C1650::AID-CNCR2820460726%3E3.0.CO;2-Y …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Part of that's because mesothelioma is incredibly rare without asbestos exposure. I think there's a theory that silicates are basically the only way to develop the disease, and that all cases without exposure are actually exposed we just don't know how
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.