If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Big 1059)   Today's "causes cancer" is courtesy of ***shakes magic 8 ball *** Spanking?   (big1059.com) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, psychological schools, corporal punishments, Plymouth University, cancers  
•       •       •

3974 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2012 at 3:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-16 01:02:21 PM  
Damn, my husband gave me some cancer the other night.
 
2012-11-16 01:22:53 PM  
I. Am. Doomed.

/I was a "rambunctious" child
 
2012-11-16 01:41:16 PM  
Christian Grey: Serial Killer.
 
2012-11-16 03:00:46 PM  
Well, sh*t. I'm gonna die young.
 
2012-11-16 03:25:45 PM  
Well, let's remember that Saudi Arabian spanking is probably not exactly the same thing as most American spanking.
 
2012-11-16 03:26:33 PM  
OMFG! Does this include spanking the monkey?!?! I gotta get to work on my will.
 
2012-11-16 03:26:37 PM  
BWAHAHAHA.... I had progressive parents, I'm gonna live forever!
 
2012-11-16 03:27:36 PM  
This is the stupidest article I've read all week. I wish I could determine whether the blame lies with the reporter or with the researchers.
 
2012-11-16 03:28:53 PM  
Jesus, just another reason for parents to let their snowflakes run completely wild with no consequences... Next they'll be telling us stress of any kind causes cancer and we should never yell at our kids.

/parent, my kids are not snowflakes, they're both nearly adults now, both have had a spanking or two, and are well-adjusted and healthy
 
2012-11-16 03:30:08 PM  
JesseL 2012-11-16 03:27:36 PM


This is the stupidest article I've read all week. I wish I could determine whether the blame lies with the reporter or with the researchers




But it's SCIENCE
How can you possibly disagree? Doctors trained in psychology used the scientific method. It's a fact..
 
2012-11-16 03:30:42 PM  
i1136.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-16 03:31:50 PM  
FTA:

"Children physically abused, including spanking".

In other words, if you put kids who have been spanked into a group that includes much more severely abused kids, the group as a whole has much higher risk of a number of health problems than children not in that group.

Next up: People who drink, including both massive alcoholics and people who have 1 drink/year, are at a higher risk of liver disease than non-drinkers. Therefore, having 1 drink a year raises your risk of liver cancer.
 
2012-11-16 03:32:39 PM  
 
2012-11-16 03:32:59 PM  

JesseL: This is the stupidest article I've read all week. I wish I could determine whether the blame lies with the reporter or with the researchers.


It is most assuredly both. The researchers no doubt did not draw the cause/effect conclusions the reporter did. But the researchers were stupid for this study in the first place.
 
2012-11-16 03:33:04 PM  
People with a positive outlook on life are healthier, I could told them that.
 
2012-11-16 03:36:23 PM  

doubled99: JesseL 2012-11-16 03:27:36 PM


This is the stupidest article I've read all week. I wish I could determine whether the blame lies with the reporter or with the researchers



But it's SCIENCE
How can you possibly disagree? Doctors trained in psychology used the scientific method. It's a fact..


www.automopedia.org



Ah here we go. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6639

Yes, and cardiac disease and asthma, too. Or so say Michael Hyland, Ahmed Alkhalaf, and Ben Whalley in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine. The press is already hot on this story.

Here's how this statistical discovery was made. Our trio ventured to Saudi Arabia and gathered 150 patients (half men) suffering from asthma, then the same number of heart disease and cancer patients. Then they found 250 folks (half men) who did not so suffer. These healthy were culled from "nursing and administrative staff departments" at the same hospitals were the sick people were. All were between 40 and 60.

They asked participants "Were you beaten as a child?" (they also looked at insults). Curiously (Table 2), 24 of the 450 sickies (5%) said they were beat "At least once a day." Maybe that's true, but golly that seems high. Anyway, 78% of the asthmatics were beat at least once; 93% of the cancerous were; and 75% of the cardiac patients were. Lo, only 55% of the healthy nurses and administrators were beaten.

Theses numbers were fed into a fancy statistical model and it was decided that lack of spanking makes one healthy; or to put it another way, spanking causes cancer, asthma, and heart disease. Case closed?

Perhaps there were other factors at play? Turns out (Table 1) that the healthy folks were on average younger than the sickies: 47 versus 50 (cancer), 53 (heart), and 50 (asthmatics). And then the healthy nurses and administrators had more eduction on average, too: 4.5 (higher is more) versus 3.4 (cancer), 2.6 (heart), and 3.4 (asthmatics).

Same thing turned out to be true for the education of the participants' mothers: healthy people had more educated moms. And then the same thing turned out true yet again for the education of the participants' fathers, etc. Any other differences? We do learn that healthy people are nurses and administrators. We never learn what the sick people do.

The authors at least recognized the discrepancy in measured variables and used the controversial technique of "propensity analysis" to "adjust" the samples between the healthy and sickies, so that age and education would be "balanced" between the groups. This balancing still gave the same results: spanking causes cancer, etc.

The difficulty with propensity analysis is that it can only "balance" that which it sees. Here it only takes notice of age and education. Not job, and not other sociodemographic characteristics, and not other circumstances that would lead to differences in health between nurses and administrators and hospital patients.

There is some question of measurement error: these are all self reports and there is some likelihood interviewees were telling interviewers what they wanted to hear, which might account for the high rate of people who claimed to have been beaten every day. Perhaps less educated people would over-estimate the number of beatings compared to more educated people?

Or maybe the number of beatings are accurate, but that nurses are just people who suffer fewer beatings. Isn't that more likely than spanking causing some mechanism to at once cause more cancer, and then, via a different pathway, more asthma, and then by a third pathway, also cause more heart disease?

And then there are some strange results. People who claimed to have been beaten at least once a day their whole childhood long actually had a lower risk of cancer than those not beaten. Beating protects against cancer? Or, do much for a coherent dose-response effect.

Good news is that the authors claim, "Although our research was carried out in Saudi Arabia, it will almost certainly generalise to other cultures." Why? Answer: why not?

The best news is that "further research is needed" especially with regards to "reversability." Perhaps two hugs for every one swat? Three "atta boys" for every "you brat!"?



My question is answered. The researchers are stupid (or perhaps pushing an agenda that overrules their scruples).
 
jvl
2012-11-16 03:36:48 PM  
Association and Causation are practically similar!
 
2012-11-16 03:37:35 PM  
A 250 person study of abused Saudi people? Perhaps the petroleum pollution in the area would be a better indicator...just sayin'. Wonder if the study was done on their women...if anything would cause stress-induced cancer it would be their treatment of women.
 
2012-11-16 03:40:59 PM  
HA! I was spanked for acting up and I didn't end up with canc...Oh, I do have cancer. Nevermind.
 
2012-11-16 03:41:40 PM  
www.intriguing.com

And here in Castle Anthrax, we have but one punishment for setting alight the grail-shaped beacon... cancer. 

I think I must have cast off about as million knuckle orphans pretending I was Galahad being offered all those spankings.
 
2012-11-16 03:44:45 PM  

JesseL: My question is answered. The researchers are stupid (or perhaps pushing an agenda that overrules their scruples).


That was a link to another journalist's account. Seems both you, the researchers and the journalists are stupid.

Read the actual PDF. Link
 
2012-11-16 03:47:19 PM  
Correlation does not equal causation..

But, generally, those from the lower socioeconomic classes (rednecks) who would tend to view violence as a solution, and therefore consider corporeal punishment 'normal' and tend to use tobacco in the house more rather than smoke outside, exposing their kids to secondhand smoke ergo cancer for the poor kids.
 
2012-11-16 03:49:44 PM  

JackieRabbit: OMFG! Does this include spanking the monkey?!?! I gotta get to work on my will.


I seriously doubt it. If so, I'd have died in my mid twenties.
 
2012-11-16 03:56:46 PM  
Easy to see how this could be. Low social status is linked to cancer.

Easy to see how the idea could offend some. But that ain't science.
 
2012-11-16 03:58:29 PM  

draypresct: FTA:

"Children physically abused, including spanking".

In other words, if you put kids who have been spanked into a group that includes much more severely abused kids, the group as a whole has much higher risk of a number of health problems than children not in that group.

Next up: People who drink, including both massive alcoholics and people who have 1 drink/year, are at a higher risk of liver disease than non-drinkers. Therefore, having 1 drink a year raises your risk of liver cancer.


So much truth to this.

Speaking as someone who was physically abused as a child, your average spanking has nothing to do with actual child abuse. Every time I overhear someone equating a spanking with child abuse, I immediately start chewing them out, listing a bunch of things that *are* child abuse:
- Getting thrown across the room, because your stepfather tripped over one of your toys
- Having your head smashed into a plaster wall
- Having your butt beat with a belt so hard you start bleeding
- Getting picked up and choked until you passed out, because you talked back to him.
- Having small, sharp, heavy objects (such as jars, dishes, lamps, etc) whipped at you.
- Being forced to watch your drunken stepfather beat your mom to a bloody pulp

And I tell these people flat out, that "If you have never experienced those things, and don't know anyone who has, then you don;'t know Jack Shiat about what abuse is. Now shut the fark up!"
 
2012-11-16 04:14:00 PM  

loveblondieo: Damn, my husband gave me some cancer the other night.


go on.....
 
2012-11-16 04:19:22 PM  
When I think of health and fitness news, I think of big1059.com.
 
2012-11-16 04:19:25 PM  
gave my lass some OTK cancer last night

it was her birthday, after all
 
2012-11-16 04:29:22 PM  
This just in... If you were born, you are going to die. EVERYONE PANIC
 
2012-11-16 04:29:25 PM  
Im living proof this is a lie...
 
2012-11-16 04:38:22 PM  

JesseL: doubled99: JesseL 2012-11-16 03:27:36 PM

Ah here we go. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6639

Yes, and cardiac disease and asthma, too. Or so say Michael Hyland, Ahmed Alkhalaf, and Ben Whalley in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine. The press is already hot on this story.

Here's how this statistical discovery was made. Our trio ventured to Saudi Arabia and gathered 150 patients (half men) suffering from asthma, then the same number of heart disease and cancer patients. Then they found 250 folks (half men) who did not so suffer. These healthy were culled from "nursing and administrative staff departments" at the same hospitals were the sick people were. All were between 40 and 60.

They asked participants "Were you beaten as a child?" (they also looked at insults). Curiously (Table 2), 24 of the 450 sickies (5%) said they were beat "At least once a day." Maybe that's true, but golly that seems high. Anyway, 78% of the asthmatics were beat at least once; 93% of the cancerous were; and 75% of the cardiac patients were. Lo, only 55% of the healthy nurses and administrators were beaten.

Theses numbers were fed into a fancy statistical model and it was decided that lack of spanking makes one healthy; or to put it another way, spanking causes cancer, asthma, and heart disease. Case closed?

Perhaps there were other factors at play? Turns out (Table 1) that the healthy folks were on average younger than the sickies: 47 versus 50 (cancer), 53 (heart), and 50 (asthmatics). And then the healthy nurses and administrators had more eduction on average, too: 4.5 (higher is more) versus 3.4 (cancer), 2.6 (heart), and 3.4 (asthmatics).

Same thing turned out to be true for the education of the participants' mothers: healthy people had more educated moms. And then the same thing turned out true yet again for the education of the participants' fathers, etc. Any other differences? We do learn that healthy people are nurses and administrators. We never learn what the sick people do.

My question is answered. The researchers are stupid (or perhaps pushing an agenda that overrules their scruples)


Came to say something like this, but you one-upped me by getting the original research, nice job (although I don't consider "sickie" to be a bona fide medical/scientififc term!). Poor uneducated people are more likely to be abused and sick. Although poverty can logically lead to a lack of education, abuse leading to cancer does not make sense.

Also I have to agree with

Loreweaver: ...your average spanking has nothing to do with actual child abuse.

I don't personally believe spanking to be particularly good or constructive parenting, but lumping a smack or 2 on the butt in with...well the horrors Loreweaver experienced, is to dilute what child abuse is and why it needs to be stopped. I find it both interesting and twisted that verbal and physical abuse towards adults is a criminal offense, but towards a child it can be considered just be a part of growing up.
 
2012-11-16 04:53:56 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Correlation does not equal causation..

But, generally, those from the lower socioeconomic classes (rednecks) who would tend to view violence as a solution, and therefore consider corporeal punishment 'normal' and tend to use tobacco in the house more rather than smoke outside, exposing their kids to secondhand smoke ergo cancer for the poor kids.


0/10
 
2012-11-16 04:57:10 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Obligatory


img840.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-16 05:44:33 PM  
www.thehumorsource.com

Cancer ... cancer .... cancer ... cancer .... cancer
 
2012-11-16 05:49:51 PM  
FTA "Study leader Michael Hyland of Plymouth University's School of Psychology"

I stopped reading there. I'm no Tom Cruise on the subject, but the field is still barely one step above phrenology.
 
2012-11-16 06:16:52 PM  
It BS if the 8 Ball said anything other than "It is certain, It is decidedly so, Without a doubt, Yes - definitely, You may rely on it, As I see it yes, Most likely, Outlook good, Yes, Signs point to yes, Reply hazy, try again, Ask again later, Better not tell you now, Cannot predict now, Concentrate and ask again, Don't count on it, My reply is no, My sources say no, Outlook not so good or Very doubtful
 
2012-11-16 06:26:26 PM  

loveblondieo: Damn, my husband gave me some cancer the other night.


Favorited.

I swear, I was spanked a ton as a kid and I turned out fine. I despair for my generation. They don't understand consequences or working for what you have, or the meaning of the word EARN.

And if stress is linked to cancer, we're all doomed anyway.
 
2012-11-16 06:44:55 PM  
And then, the oral sex!
 
2012-11-16 07:12:51 PM  
I can think of a mechanism for this. Chronic inflamation has been causally linked to cancer. If you get spanked every day (or night) your bum may be chronically inflamed, leading to cancer. Cancer of the bum. Bum cancer.

Bad news for the Paintoy lasses, I know :(
 
2012-11-16 07:51:34 PM  
Speaking as a research psychologist, I am actually pleased with this thread (a strange and unsettling experience). Mixed in with the usual crop of nitwits are some posts that actually address real issues such as definitions of terms, measurement, possible confounding variables, cross-cultural applicability, and of course the difference between a journalist's writeup and the actual study. Golf claps all around, people.
 
2012-11-16 08:03:45 PM  

Dahnkster: [www.intriguing.com image 800x441]

And here in Castle Anthrax, we have but one punishment for setting alight the grail-shaped beacon... cancer. 

I think I must have cast off about as million knuckle orphans pretending I was Galahad being offered all those spankings.


Give a whole new meaning to the term "cancer stick," now doesn't it?
 
2012-11-16 08:08:08 PM  
If childhood spankings led to cancer, I would have been dead before I was 8.
 
2012-11-16 09:07:34 PM  

Theonceovertwice: And then, the oral sex!


Well, per'aps you could have cancer a bit longer
 
2012-11-16 09:45:30 PM  
On the buttocks? Oh thank goodness.
 
2012-11-16 09:47:10 PM  
Magic 8-Balls only answer "yes" or "no" questions.

Stop using this in headlines.

Thank you,

A guy who swears by his Magic 8-Ball. It...knows.
 
2012-11-16 10:12:37 PM  

loveblondieo: Damn, my husband gave me some cancer the other night.


So, uhm... if you guys ever need, uh, somebody to, uhmm, run the video camera, well... ... you know - I might could help you out with that. If you, you know, want me to.

/ just sayin'
 
2012-11-17 01:12:45 AM  
You mean hurting someone might cause harm? Shocking. Whether or not it causes cancer, violence towards children should not be acceptable. If anyone here spoke in favor of hitting or smacking their spouse, dog or cat there would be outrage. A child should not be subject to harm that is illegal when perpetrated against any other living creature, simply because it is "traditional." In addition, spanking is demonstrated to be ineffective as a discipline strategy. The fact that many children survive severe abuse is not a justification for minor abuse, both are wrong.
 
2012-11-17 02:15:16 PM  
Metalithic Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-17 01:12:45 AM


You mean hurting someone might cause harm? Shocking. Whether or not it causes cancer, violence towards children should not be acceptable. If anyone here spoke in favor of hitting or smacking their spouse, dog or cat there would be outrage. A child should not be subject to harm that is illegal when perpetrated against any other living creature, simply because it is "traditional." In addition, spanking is demonstrated to be ineffective as a discipline strategy. The fact that many children survive severe abuse is not a justification for minor abuse, both are wrong




What a strange point of view.
Ah well, it takes all kinds...
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report