Let’s see if all those ‘believe the science’ activists keep that refrain going when that same ‘science’ comes along and rains on their parade.
If you want a scientific study to have some credibility, it’s always best to work from a significant sample size. When you’re working from a sample size of 300,000 people, that base is covered.
You would prefer it was conducted by someone who is generally viewed as trustworthy and impartial. The National Cancer Institute checks that box.
You also want to screen for any factors that would muddy the findings of your study. In this case, a cancer study screened out lifestyle factors like smoking and drinking that could complicate any direct comparison between two populations.
The article, Sex disparities in the incidence of 21 cancer types: Quantification of the contribution of risk factors, published in the journal Cancer, (See: American Cancer Society Journals) has concluded that cancer affects men and women differently. From their summary page (skipping over the technical jargon):
There were 26,693 incident cancers (17,951 in men and 8742 in women). Incidence was significantly lower in men than in women only for thyroid and gallbladder cancers. At most other anatomic sites, the risks were higher in men than in women … with the strongest increases for bladder cancer … gastric cardia cancer … larynx cancer … and esophageal adenocarcinoma …. Risk factors explained a statistically significant (nonzero) proportion of the observed male excess for esophageal adenocarcinoma and cancers of liver, other biliary tract, bladder, skin, colon, rectum, and lung. However, only a modest proportion of the male excess was explained by risk factors (ranging from 50% for lung cancer to 11% for esophageal adenocarcinoma).
Men have a higher risk of cancer than women at most shared anatomic sites. Such male predominance is largely unexplained by risk factors, underscoring a role for sex-related biologic factors.
This study contradicts previous scientific understandings that differences in male lifestyle choices could account for why men had generally higher rates of cancer than women.
Authors of the study had recommendations that could, in their view ‘mitigate and ultimately erdicate sex disparities in cancer’.
But the results suggest that biological differences between the sexes — such as in physiology, immune system and genes — play a ‘major role’ in cancer susceptibility.
The team suggested that sex hormone testosterone may increase the likelihood of skin, prostate and liver cancer among men by promoting cell growth.
Meanwhile, women mount a stronger immune response against oncogenic infections — those which can cause cancer, such as hepatitis and HPV — which could lower their risk of some cancers in comparison to men.
And women have an extra copy of genes that protect against cancer compared to men, which could offer them further protection.
Study leader Dr Sarah Jackson, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, said: ‘Our results show that there are differences in cancer incidence that are not explained by environmental exposures alone.’
In an editorial accompanying the study, researchers at Washington University called for sex to be taken into account by medics when determining someone’s risk of cancer, screening and treatment. — DailyMail
But before such plans to ‘eradicate gender disparity in cancer’ could ever be achieved, we’ll have to wrestle with the gender abolitionists over whether there actually IS something we can define as male or female, and answer that question Matt Walsh has so famously provoked the left with — what is a woman?
Check out ClashRadio for more wit and wisdom from ClashDaily’s Big Dawg. While you’re at it, here’s his latest book:
Much of the Left loathes masculinity and they love to paint Jesus as a non-offensive bearded woman who endorses their agenda. This book blows that nonsense all to hell. From the stonking laptop of bestselling author, Doug Giles, comes a new book that focuses on Jesus’ overt masculine traits like no other books have heretofore. It’s informative, bold, hilarious, and scary. Giles has concluded, after many years of scouring the scripture that, If Masculinity Is ‘Toxic’, Call Jesus Radioactive.