this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
43 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56031 readers
2039 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Hate these studies. They're always just based on correlations, and ignores the elephant in the room: class. How wealthy you are, how wealthy the area you live in, those factors have the highest impact on health outcomes, but the mainstream media (which is owned by the ruling class) will never be honest about that. So they just find correlations that let them blame poor people for having shitty diets.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You hate these studies because they don't specifically endorse your world view?

Most of the time, these studies are looking for the mechanical causes of the problem, not the socio-economic conditions that led to those mechanisms being present. So if smoking or getting fat increases cancer risk, that will be true regardless of what's in your bank account.

Also, these are cancer researchers. Dealing with the structural poverty that leads to the adverse health outcomes is way outside their expertise.

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 3 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

Without doxing myself, I have expertise in this topic. It's not a matter of my world view, it's a matter of science and communication.

It is very unlikely that human adiposity leads to increased cancer risk directly. It is correlational, not causational. Human adiposity itself, isolated from compounding factors, has a complex relationship with health outcomes, and not at all the linear correlation where more fat = more bad that the mainstream likes to pretend.

We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc. This is most likely explanation for the results in this study. But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues and continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 4 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

Does visceral fat not produce inflammatory substances, which might be a cause for some problems - potentially including a higher risk for cancer?
Maybe I've read misleding articles. I hope you have some info about that.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 11 minutes ago

Plus more biomass = more chances of something getting cancer in there somewhere.