Study Finds Sugary Drinks Significantly Linked To Cancer

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,091
Reppin
the ether
Most of those studies are either BS, guilty of pulling a Chicken Little or the result of an uninformed journalist who misinterprets what the actual study is saying.

The say stuff like eating XYZ increases your risk of getting ABC-type cancer by 20% when in fact the chance of getting cancer for those who don't eat XYZ is 2%. If you eat an above average amount of XYZ, your cancer risk is now 2.4% (20% increase) instead of 2%. Scientists have a term for this. It's called statistical insignificance.

The largest factor to you getting most forms of cancer are errors in DNA replication. The darker hue below for Environmental are HN (head and neck), E (esophageal) and L (lung) and due to smoking. The M (melanoma) is due to sun overexposure. The U (prostate) needs more data.

The major cause for colorectal cancer, that you described about your friend, is primarily in the Replicative column. Although there's a slight increase on the Environmental side for stomach cancer, North America and Africa (diets that you'd consider extremely rich) have the lowest incidents worldwide.

DNA typos to blame for most cancer mutations
How Much Do You Really Have to Worry About Cancer?
DNA Replication Errors Contribute to Cancer Risk

2c347ab0-f76b-4ed1-bee3-583b661a4957-640cancer1.jpg
All three of your links are for the same 2017 study, a controversial mathematical model that hasn't been replicated. And even that study's author states that 42% of cancers are preventable.

There are several errors in the claims you make and you use several words wrong, but I'll reply in full later when I can copypaste more efficiently.
 
Top