• SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Cozy@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Dangy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe all the shit they spray on the corn to make sure it grows quickly/effectively

      • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Lorela@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Prior to the 1960s, hardly anybody died of cancer.

        Because we didn’t even know what it was, let alone how to detect it.