717
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
717 points (97.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
1816 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like with what you've stated it is far too early to point to corn itself as the cause. Their are so many things that have grown in usage these past 30 years I'm not sure how they could confidently say it is corn itself doing it.
There's also the fact people have been eating corn as a staple for millennia.
Yes and no. Corn is nothing new but the corn we use is kinda new. It is one of the biggest GMO there is. That's a big part in research right now within those studies. And it's not against GMO per se but the changes corn made. Maybe it's really just sugar and fructose semms to be worse as glucose. So yeah, maybe sugar, but right now it seems to be more.
Like for instance plastics.
Maybe all the shit they spray on the corn to make sure it grows quickly/effectively
I was just thinking about plastics and all of the associated chemicals. And almost everything corn related is packaged in plastic so even if they did link corn, could they really say the plastic does not affect us? Of course not.
Not only could it be almost anything that's increased in our general environment, but better means to identify specific diseases. Diagnostics and knowledge have advanced in the 30 or so years this study apparently covers, and can account for an "increase" in the prevalence of auto-immune diseases.
In theory, there's still some diseases that while well understood, HCPs still take excruciatingly long to diagnose and prefer to explore routes like mental health and exclusionary diagnoses first, which could suggest prevalence is higher still.
Prior to the 1960s, hardly anybody died of cancer.
Because we didn't even know what it was, let alone how to detect it.