Leaderboard

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject. Either you swallow your pride and learn what has already been discovered, or you will plug away in your own imaginary reality that nobody agrees with.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/26/2/384/508233 In vitro mutagenic activity and carcinogenic potential of metronidazole in certain animals raised concerns about its possible carcinogenicity in humans. We studied the late incidence of cancer after metronidazole use among persons enrolled in the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, a health maintenance organization. Randomly selected nonusers were matched on a one-to-one basis for age, gender, and year of enrollment to persons who used metronidazole on an outpatient basis during the period January 1975 to December 1983; 5,222 metronidazole user/nonuser pairs, for whom the median follow-up was 12.6 years, were analyzed. Forty-nine percent, 39.2%, 9.8%, and 2% of users had 1, 2–4, 5–9, and ⩾10 prescriptions or refills of metronidazole filled, respectively. The late (after the first 7 years of follow-up) incidence of cancer was nearly identical among users and nonusers (652 and 662 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.80–1.20). Age-gender stratified analysis did not reveal any association between metronidazole use and cancer. These data support no association between short-term exposure to metronidazole and cancer in humans. Although the results are reassuring, they may not extend to subjects who have used metronidazole for prolonged periods; further epidemiological studies should focus on these individuals.

You’re being absurd

The speed of light is defined, not measured. Consequently there is no logic way it can deviate, because the concept of length is defined via the (local) speed of light in vacuum. Or to rephrase it, how is the (local) speed of light measured in units of the (local) speed of light supposed to deviate? Natural units express that even better by simply using \(c=1\). The value we chose for the speed of light is mostly due to downwards compatibility with older data and measurements, but in principle it can be be set to whatever value. Not exactly. You can measure it to check if you implemented the specification of the SI system correctly but other then that it bears no physical meaning. the definition of the SI meter cancels out all physical aspects of the constant and makes it a pure mathematical convention.

Perhaps once again you’re posting tongue in cheek, but conversion therapy is dangerous and doesn’t work, just to make that clear.

That is the very definition of relative risk. The drug can have an extreme high risk for causing cancer, but as long as the treated condition has an even higher one it might be better to use it. You don't seem to understand why certain ABs are used. They are used based on efficacy, taking the bacterial species in consideration as well as local resistance patterns. Why do you think did I mention clarithromycin. I have posted a few papers already and you are free to read up more on why folks are using certain therapies. It is a bit more difficult and not all act the same way. I would have to read up more to see what is known about mechanics or whether most of the data is outcome based. But what is known about long-term the culprit seems to be (in part) our immune system. Massive disruptions in the intestinal microbiome is associate with inflammation which in turn is linked to cancer-promoting pathways. However, it is not precisely my specialty and I am not familiar with the latest knowledge in that link.

OK, let's look at what you said 3 posts ago. OK, that's not going to refute anything much. That's simply wrong. We pretty much always do- as I said, sunshine, alcohol... I already said essentially the same thing. As long as you know the risk is small, you don't need to quantify it So it's fairly stupid to claim that I don't understand it. Why did you do so? Is it because you are "a person can't keep track of arguments that were already made"? I already did. But you failed to understand it. What do you think they do with the data from the yellow card scheme? Do you think they use it as some sort of lottery? Or, if I make it obvious enough, do you realise that they use it to do analyses of the risks. It's not a meta-analysis. It's better- it's an analysis of the biggest data set available- the whole uk patient cohort. And I had already made the point (see above "Actually putting a number on the first risk- say it's a 0.1234% higher relative risk- does not change clinical practice.") So you were failing to read what I had said. Which makes this really stupid, doesn't it? Do you really not understand that data- including cancer data - is kept under surveillance? Were you not aware of things like this? https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/using-data-nhs-gdpr?gclid=CjwKCAjw_uGmBhBREiwAeOfsd9JFjMNx86yeyws3aIGInpt-FBc5zhgBnR_re34pl9FgvUpo3HG__hoC10gQAvD_BwE So, as I said, if it was a big enough risk to notice, it would have been noticed. On the other hand, you have failed to spot the real point I made here (presumably because you were too busy ranting). My point is that "too small to notice" is the same as "too small to notice". There's one thing which we both agree on- there's a level of risk that's "trivial". Once you know that the risk is less than some cut-off, there's no point putting the resources into measuring it. And we have systems for monitoring drug safety. Either our systems are not good enough to spot a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case there's a problem with our systems which has nothing to do with metronidazole. Or our systems are able to a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case, if the stuff is a problem, then we would spot it. Which of those conditions are you concerned about here?

I'm sorry; I thought I had made it clear. For any set of experiments, statistical power is finite. I understand that. How did you come to the conclusion that such a test has not been done? You are the one saying we need more testing; You are also the one saying that we don't need to find the problem Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself. As I said, are you offering to pay for it? But. more importantly, what do you think this is? AFAICT you have yet to explain why you think we do not already know that the risk from H pylori is greater than that from the drug. Do you realise that neither estimate of probability needs to be very precise? We know that it is small. (Because, if it was high, it would be noticeable- e.g via the yellow card scheme or through American ambulance chasing lawyers As wiki points out "In 2020, it was the 222nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 2 million prescriptions.".) And that's all we actually ned to know. This is exactly what statistical power has to do with it. We did tests. They were not powerful enough to be sure of the outcome; they never can be. But they were good enough to know that the cure was better than the disease.

I'll take the risk if its H.Pylori. would you rather have a statistical risk of cancer or have a tangible risk of ulcers, and potentially stomach cancer, oesophageal cancer, throat cancer, bad teeth, smelly breath, using antacids by the ton... and generally feeling unwell? This is what weighing up risk vs benefit looks like. The mechanism is there and understood.

No

Jesus Christ, how do you not understand that it's the same thing? If you make a study and compare a group in which H pylori was not eradicated to a group in which it was eradicated with metro you're gonna know the absolute risk lmao. So where is the study that did that? Where is the study that established what % of people who take metro for H pylori end up with cancer vs what % of untreated patients get cancer? And this is all ignoring the fact that METRONIDAZOLE IS NOT THE ONLY ANTIBIOTIC IN THE WORLD. It's not metro or don't treat the infection. You can treat it with different antibiotics. I'm genuinely baffled as to why you're bringing up a single study when I quoted two reviews of the literature. Yes, not every study has found an effect. Many have. You can't arrive at a conclusion based on one study.

1. OMG, my point is that if you know the relative risk you're NECESSARILY gonna know the absolute risk. 2. How many times are you going to repeat this. It's not a difficult concept, I get it. Again I ask you, show me the study which shows cancer risk is higher in untreated H pylori relative to metro treatment. Why did you ignore that question? Again, metro is not the only AB used in H pylori treatment.

You keep ducking. Your claim is the risk of not treating is greater than the risk of treating with metronidazole. Ok, provide a study that proves that. Show me a study that compared an untreated group with a metro-treated group and found less incidence of cancer in the metro treated group. If you don't have that study then you can't make the claim that your whole position is based on. Don't obfuscate and change the subject as you just did. Do you or do you not have such a study?

Seriously guys, is there a single person on this forum who can reason well? This point has been made ad nauseum by Charon alone, let alone all the other people who've brought it up. Like AD NAUSEUM. Yes, it's a cost benefit analysis. To make that cost benefit analysis, we need this: Understand? In other to make the cost benefit analysis you need to know what the cost is and what the benefit is. We know what the benefit is, but we don't know what the cost is. So I've asked Charon for a reference for his claim about the benefit being greater than the cost at least twice on this page alone and notice how he's ducked it both times, because he doesn't have it and he was just making a claim with no evidence for it. (love it when people debate in good faith!) Also, you're reprimanding me for name calling? Who started the uncivli behavior here? Me or the guy who jumps in with snarky comments, never contributes anything to the debate and then behaves immaturely when asked to back his snarky remarks up.

The true speed of Light IS constant. My claim is that Light and Reality are co-dependent concepts. They aren’t separate from each other. Perception of reality itself can only be observed with physical mass/matter and energy. “Nothing” cannot be defined without the physical concepts of mass and energy (Light). Time, space, and gravity is derived from physical reality, without matter and energy, space and time cannot exist as ‘physical (anti-physical?) reality’. Lightspeed is inherently infinite, as it is reality itself. Reality and Light “just happens” or “just exists”. Lightspeed IS constant, and that unchanging speed/velocity or whatever you want to call it, is infinity. That’s what I’m saying. My argumentation is this: gravity is the warping of Reality itself. It “slows down” Light by warping Reality so much Light can be observed “travelling” from far enough distance away (where gravity is weaker relative to where that Light currently is). This is why “time is relative”, because Reality close to a black hole is so distorted and slow that it seems the rest of the Universe ages faster than the gravitational area and event horizon of a black hole. In other words, Light/Reality is not slow, it’s just that space-time (reality) is so distorted by gravity that makes Light appear slow (just under 300,000 m/s).

The speed of Light is infinite. Light is the speed limit of reality itself. The Universe expands at the same speed as light, and the speed of Light varies depending on the gravitational forces affecting it, slowing it down tremendously. The speed of Light around our local gravitational field here on earth, our solar system, galaxy, and all gravitational forces in the Universe, slow down Light here on earth to what we know as that common measurement of 300,000,000km/s. True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible. The one way speed of Light has never actually been measured, it is too fast to. Only when light is reflected/refracted (which in and of itself is an obstruction) can we measure it’s speed. Light speed varies depending on locale in the Universe, and goes exponentially faster infinitely depending on the lack of gravitational forces.

If you're gonna talk shit then you should have the balls to debate and back it up, otherwise stfu punk. EDIT: Yeah, downvote my post, but UNDER NO CONDITIONS engage, pussy 😄 You know it wouldn't go well for you.