
* cures (or causes) cancer - acangiano
http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/
======
threedaymonk
I made this - thanks for voting it to the top of HN!

In case anyone's still unclear, it is a tongue-in-cheek dig at the Daily
Mail's reporting of cancer stories. It's most definitely not a medical
resource. I could probably have done the same with almost any newspaper, but
the Daily Mail is uniquely deserving of opprobrium.

You can get the code and a database export on GitHub if you're interested:
<http://github.com/threedaymonk/kill-or-cure>

I wrote the whole thing one Sunday night and tweeted about it at midnight; by
midday the next day, I had successfully crowdsourced the analysis of all the
articles. If I'd known how successful it would be, I'd have written a better,
more detailed crowdsourcing process.

~~~
joe_the_user
I'm truly unamused by your lame thingy.

Sure, you can take a poke at this or that not entirely proven cancer
association. But your "tongue-in-cheek" site definitely facilitates the
devaluing of the many and subtle cancer associations that have been
demonstrated - it is not a constructive contribution to the discussion on this
subject. For example, while the case automobile pollution causing cancer might
not be air, do _you_ have proof that it doesn't cause cancer? Having
"incorrect" as the alternative for each assertion on the Daily Mail is
seriously problematic.

~~~
billswift
Either you believe what you wrote - in which case you're a total idiot - or
your sarcasm is seriously lame; I really can't tell which.

------
tcdent
It's amazing how many food sources listed in their raw form aren't themselves
guilty, but the industrial manufacturing processes and additives used to
enhance them are.

Edit: I can't help myself. Some examples:

Bacon causes cancer: _"High doses of inorganic phosphate salts – which are
used to enhance the texture and flavour of processed meats..."_
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1102368/Additives-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1102368/Additives-
used-bacon-ham-chicken-make-cancers-grow.html#ixzz0t25HbiG7)

Eggs cause cancer: _"The chemicals, residue from drugs given to chickens..."_
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50995/Cancer-
chemica...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50995/Cancer-chemicals-
eggs.html#ixzz0t24TLlCF)

Rice causes cancer: _"Cotton production relied heavily on arsenic pesticides.
It left residues in the soils which are still there and is being picked up by
the rice."_ [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-444222/Rice-
tainte...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-444222/Rice-tainted-
arsenic-raises-risk-cancer.html#ixzz0t26OAqiA)

Spices cause cancer: _"...foreign producers are colouring spices to boost
prices and profits."_
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-347287/Cancer-
chec...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-347287/Cancer-checks-
spices-new-food-dyes-alert.html#ixzz0t26rTZjr)

~~~
Tichy
What really pisses me off in general is adding useless stuff to things that
make said things worse. For example coloring agents in food, but the same goes
for superfluous features in software.

~~~
ShardPhoenix
_"Anthropomorphic paper clip software assistants linked with cancer..."_

~~~
Tichy
They definitely raise stress levels, and raised stress levels are definitely
linked to cancer (I should think).

------
mcantor
Did they add the site's tagline after most of these HN comments were made? It
clearly reads, "Help to make sense of the Daily Mail's ongoing effort to
classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that
prevent it," which makes it pretty obvious that they're poking fun. Everyone
here seems to be reacting as if this site is claiming to be a reputable source
of information about cancer-causing materials.

EDIT: Oops... looks like acangiano beat me to it:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1495362>

We even both used the term "tagline," which is kind of interesting, since it
could just easily have been called a "subtitle" or something.

~~~
tcdent
Sure, The Daily Mail, just like any other mainstream news source creates
sensationalist headlines to shock you into reading. That doesn't make the
studies cited any less accurate. Nor should it prevent us from having an on-
topic conversation about something more in-depth.

~~~
nevinera
>That doesn't make the studies cited any less accurate.

No, but it does make it statistically more likely that they are inaccurate.
It's known as 'study selection bias'.

~~~
joe_the_user
Statistics should only be applied to fairly uniform and understandable
phenomena.

Applying statistical likelihood in this instance is stretching the bounds of
statistics considerably more than The Daily Mail stretched them.

~~~
nevinera
No, applying statistical _methods_ to this instance is unreasonable. Observing
that selection bias skews the probabilities involved is perfectly reasonable,
and indeed almost necessary to rational discussion.

------
pavel_lishin
"We've cured cancer so many times in rodents, if I were a mouse, I'd take up
smoking unfiltered Marlboros while working at a nuclear waste disposal site in
the Ukraine."

JunkDNA, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1020444>

------
jodrellblank
For those of you not familiar with the type of articles printed by the Daily
Mail, here's Dan and Dan's Daily Mail Song:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI>

(Scaremongering cancer headlines near the end here -
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI#t=1m51s> )

------
XFrequentist
Related: The Daily Mail Oncology Ontology Project
<http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/>

~~~
jodrellblank
And a continuation of it here: <http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/>

------
alinajaf
Yeah, this is a deliberate stab at the Daily Mail, not an actual sorting of
factual information.

~~~
joe_the_user
Uh ...

In the same way as the Daily Mail, the BS headlines is problematic regardless
of the valid point available when you read the article.

------
simon_
A lot of comments here missing the point... The Daily Mail is a tabloid that
is exploiting people's (evident even here on HN) love of hearing about cancer
cures/causes regardless of evidence.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Looking at one of tcdent's links (bacon!) it seems pretty well balanced and
plainly reported to me:

"However, experts urged caution over using the results of the trials on mice
to predict the effect of phosphates on humans.

Professor Stephen Spiro, of the British Lung Foundation, said: 'The authors
claim that in mice with lung cancer a diet high in phosphates increases lung
cancer growth rates.

'While this may be a relevant observation, it has never been assessed in man.
Further study would be required to ascertain any link in humans.'

Dr Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK added: 'Smoking is by far the main cause of
lung cancer and quitting is the best way to reduce the risk of this disease.'

Read more:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1102368/Additives-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1102368/Additives-
used-bacon-ham-chicken-make-cancers-grow.html#ixzz0t5faaogP) [link added by
copy-paste]"

They stated the limitations of directly applying the result to humans, they
interviewed 2 professionals in the field. Stirling. If you're right this must
be an aberration?!

~~~
bruceboughton
Most Daily Mail readers are incapable of reading past the headline, so
stuffing balance near the end of the article usually elicits the desired
effect.

We have an acronym for this sort of thing: FUD.

------
nkassis
This site is quite hilarious. Now can we get a iPhone app that lets me take a
picture of an object and tell me my probability of getting cancer according to
the daily mail index by using this object?

------
adammichaelc
It would be really cool to have this parsed to determine which data came from
controlled studies and then create something like this with the results:
[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-
supplem...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/)

edit: The above would have to assume the data from the site is reliable, which
we can't assume based on the source being Daily Mail.

~~~
lincolnq
Wow, I love this. Time to look into beta glucans! :)

~~~
adammichaelc
Vitamin D is also really important for immune health. Especially for knowledge
workers, who don't normally get enough sun. Recent studies have found that
Vitamin D actually _activates_ your T-cells, so without adequate levels, your
immune system will act like a depressed dog during a home-invasion and just
lay down.

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/10/vitamin-d-
its-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/10/vitamin-d-its-not-just-
another-vitamin.html)
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-r...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-
reason-vitamin-d-is-importa-2010-03-07)

------
sajithw
Scraping real scientific data from journal articles/headlines published in
PubMed would be a lot more interesting and noteworthy.

Not to mention "causing cancer" is a bit of a misnomer. Cancer typically
arises when genetic mutations cause a cell to exhibit uncontrolled and
sustained division. Our cells experience thousands of mutations a day, most of
which are fixed. Some of these inanimate objects may upon being metabolized or
coming into contact with a cell, cause mutations. With more mutations, you are
at a higher risk for one to go unrepaired and lead to something other than
cell death. Colloquially, I understand we refer to certain things as causing
cancer but I think the idea of grouping everything into discrete boxes isn't
really something worth pursuing in this case.

------
jamesbkel
If you read the about page <http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/about>, you will
see that the source is the Daily Mail and the explanation seems rather tongue-
in-cheek.

------
joshu
This makes me want a version for actual peer-reviewed papers.

------
dandelany
The Daily Mail causes cancer.

~~~
hugh3
If you burn it and inhale the smoke, probably!

------
ig1
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzbxwxWUz0>

------
csmeder
Please note they used _Daily Mail_ as the source. Daily mail is notorious for
made up or inaccurate stories.

~~~
te_platt
I didn't even realize it was an attempt at a serious story. "Age causes
cancer" sounded like a spoof. Not to mention saying alcohol causes AND cures
cancer.

~~~
rortian
Age is a huge factor in cancer. By a certain age, virtually every male has
prostate cancer.

------
Terry_B
I have long wanted to see someone attempt to live their life following every
piece of advice on how to increase your longevity that appears in trashy
current affairs tv shows, bad newspapers etc. Would make a great blog.

~~~
billswift
Only briefly - until their head exploded.

------
electromagnetic
> Reheated spaghetti bolognese 'prevents cancer'

Now I have a legitimate reason for making way too much spaghetti bolognese,
well _beyond_ it being my favorite meal of course.

------
twir
Cigarettes seem to be conspicuously absent from the list.

Then again, I guess the link's been well established already.

~~~
twir
Hmm, on second thought--I didn't realize these were all daily mail links.

------
hakl
I wonder if immigrants cause cancer.

------
denimboy
My bet is that someday we will realize that viri cause cancer.

~~~
cabalamat
People deliberately mis-spelling "viruses" causes high blood pressure, which
causes cancer.

------
coryl
Partially true information can be just as misleading as completely false
information.

For example, I looked up "Cannabis"; only 1 entry saying it causes cancer. But
I know from other articles on other sites that there are properties that fight
cancer. (I don't know if it "prevents" cancer though).

Needs more data?

~~~
kylec
They're only using Daily Mail articles

~~~
coryl
I know

~~~
jodrellblank
Why cite "other studies on other sources" and claim it "needs more data" if
you know the point is present data from one source? Not to present an
objective look at cancer studies, but to present a filtered look at _Daily
Mail articles_ on cancer studies?

~~~
coryl
As an exercise or function in doing something with data, sure, do as you
please.

But if this were to have practical application, and the potential to solve
problems via the crowd, why not improve it and give it better data?

~~~
bmm6o
Your version sounds like a great project! Post a link when it's ready!

