Likewise for ulcerative colitis, an increase in risk of colon cancer after you’ve had it for 10 years or more.

Having said that, a certain percentage of people with ulcerative colitis will have their colon removed, which drops their colon cancer risk to zero. I’m unsure if this has been factored in to the risk calculations…

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It depends on the autoimmune and it, and or how it is being treated. There is a terrible lot to do for it genetics also. It has often been said that one auto immune can open th door to another. All auto immunes are not treated the same. I have more than one...I always say I did not choose my parents well. They Are not necessarily all heredity...I just say that because it's funny to see my Mom get worked up blaming my paternal side because nothing could come from her side (paternal side all gone at this point). And she does not even think at that moment that there she sits with more than one herself. Seriously however,nif you are on immune suppressants you are more prone to viruses. There are many schools of though on cancer origins, the genetic researchers are making huge strides right now In identifying DNA mutations some are familiar some actually are more spontaneous and they don't know if those that mutate more spontaneously come from environmental stress and physical stress or trauma or some other reason but they're saying that it's not all familial. I've also read a ton of articles not recently but it's an articles through time that even tried to link cancer some people saying that it had a viral attribute. I have been doing a lot of research on genetics recently. They have even come up with ways to greatly improve any symptoms, hopefully prevent further damage by, and sometimes repair mutated genes.

True. If symptoms can be treated to the point of remission w/o immunosuppressive therapy, you won't need it.

[removed]

People with autoimmune diseases are generally more susceptible to viral infections, due to their weakened immune system. However, they are not necessarily more likely to get cancer, as this is usually not caused by viruses.

Guess it depends on the autoimmune disease. I have hashimoto's, all I need to take is a hormone replacement tablet in the morning (no immunosuppressants)

There are six known types of hepatitis viruses: Hepatitis A, B, C, D, E, and G. Hepatitis A and E are primarily spread through contaminated food and water, while hepatitis B, C, and D are mainly spread through contact with infected body fluids.

Even worse, some autoimmune diseases might even increase your chances of getting cancer. An example is Crohn's, which, if it affects your colon, can put you at a higher risk for colon cancer.

I can't find the study because new research into Long Covid is burying it in search results, and it's not an auotimmune disease (though it is sometimes called a "neuroimmune" disorder), but, I read a study showing that blood from patients with ME/CFS is less susceptible to flu transmission between cells in the sample than healthy control blood. This supports an old theory that ME/CFS is caused by a change in how the immune system operates that makes it more protective, at the cost of many debilitating side effects.

Just the thought of trying to get a chimp to sit still for a syringe when it could suddenly grab it from your hands, bite you, break the syringe, escape and climb away from your reach, or make use of an unpleasant projectile, makes working with pigs and rats seem a lot more appealing.

[removed]

I know it’s a bit later after this was answered but does the sunset to darkness time change over the course of the year? If it doesn’t then the ordinance using your math would correspond to not too long after darkness they would be required to have a light. Which would make sense.

[removed]

[removed]

>I did not read the person's comment as needing detailed links and explanations on Scientific Method 101

Youre missing the point. Bringing up "scientific method 101" is a step backwards, as this person's actual request was to see the scientific method in action, not to have the concept of it described to them.

>just to repeat all the searching and link-sourcing dozens to hundreds of other commenters have already been doing across the replies to both that person and OP.

No one has replied with a link / reference to this person yet, as of an hour ago.

>Since you are concerned they didn't get answers out of the many other comments doing exactly that, you can provide the answers you feel they still need.

I don't have the expertise to do that. Is that supposed to be a gotcha? If anything you're slightly gotcha-ing yourself by saying it would take you a long time to find appropriate sources, and exposing your own overconfidence. Not every scientific misprediction gets analyzed scientifically, so without already being familiar with the appropriate sources, you can't know whether there are appropriate sources.

You'd think that on r/askscience, people would accept the idea of answering questions with actual scientific data, or an explanation that the data doesn't exist, and would understand the non-triviality of providing the correct answer.

>In fact, a few people replying to the same initial comment as me are also talking about the scientific method and public reactions

Virologists are rare on the internet. Clueless know-it-alls are common. An abundance of replies from the common type of person doesn't indicate that such replies were particularly warranted, compared to the uncommon type. People act within their capabilities. Sometimes that drowns out other people, to ill effect.

>I am potentially coming across here as angry or passive-aggressive

I am just explaining how your comment was indirectly harmful. Save your back-to-basics warning for suspicious questions about science, not all questions about science.

"Why does science say X" is a normal question. "Why did science say X, but now says Y" is also a normal question.

"Why did science say <thing it obviously didn't>, but now says Y" is a suspicious question. "Why did science say <thing that is obviously compatible with Y>, but now says Y" is a suspicious question.

Like, post this all day on questions about mask or vaccine efficacy, where trolls try to pretend masks were supposed to 100% prevent transmission, or vaccines were supposed to prevent all sickness for everyone. But this guy, he's just asking about mutation research, not saying anything about that research being untrustworthy or tainted.

[removed]

Please note that hepatitis is a disease of the liver and not a family of viruses. The different hepatitis viruses are not related to each other in general, the only thing they have in common is that they all infect the liver.

[removed]

It would be more like, “I’ve always wondered what human faces taste like and now I’m gonna find out.”

[removed]

Excellent insight! Thank you for pointing these out :)

>You don't have to give conspiracy theorists ammo by responding with a non-answer like that.

Well, I literally said: "One mark of good, real science at work is when a prediction, based on evidence, is shown to be incorrect and scientists update the predictions with the new data."

Please specify where and how exactly I "give conspiracy theorists ammo by responding with a non-answer like that" then. I did not read the person's comment as needing detailed links and explanations on Scientific Method 101, but you are welcome to provide those if you feel the person needs the basics.

>Just say which early studies indicated low mutability, and which later studies or observations indicated high mutability.

You are welcome to do so, because I personally didn't and don't have the time to go hunting for those specifics just to repeat all the searching and link-sourcing dozens to hundreds of other commenters have already been doing across the replies to both that person and OP. Since you are concerned they didn't get answers out of the many other comments doing exactly that, you can provide the answers you feel they still need.

Because I was solely focusing on and responding with some reassurance that changing statements and predictions with new evidence are part of how the Scientific Method works.

In fact, a few people replying to the same initial comment as me are also talking about the scientific method and public reactions, so I think several of us found it relevant for a few people to discuss and reassure about that since sources and info on the COVID-related questions are already in so many other comments.

I've had a really hard day at work so I am potentially coming across here as angry or passive-aggressive, this is the best I can do to explain right now.