Turns out that getting chemo is like sending cancer to a relaxing spa getaway for the weekend, so that it comes back refreshed and ready to kill.

That's disturbing.

What else have we misunderstood?

Biological sex and cancer.

A short thread.

1/7

Almost every type of cancer affects men more than women. And overall, more women survive a cancer diagnosis. Men also develop about 150,000 extra cancers per year in the US, compared to women.

Why is that?

Because biology.

2/7
We used to think that the reason for female cancer 'resistance' was behaviorally based because: women see their doctor more often and drink less alcohol etc.

But that's not the whole story.

3/7
Women have two X chromosomes while men have only one. We used to think that women's 2nd X was 'silenced' and not able to work for them.

But this is also wrong.

And the so called 'silenced' X isn't silent at all. Women actually have the use of both X chromosomes.

4/7
Some of the genes involved in cancer suppression are on the X chromosome. And a 2nd copy of these genes is only available to women because they have two X chromosomes.

When it comes to preventing cancer women have more genetic horsepower in each of their cells.

5/7
The tumor suppressor genes that only women have a copy of are called 'Escape from X-Inactivation Tumor Suppressor', or EXITS for short.

When it comes to fighting cancer, women have EXITS and sadly, men don't.

6/7
Even when both women and men are diagnosed with the same type of cancer, women respond better to treatments.

We've underappreciated the genetic strength of women and their capacity to fight cancer using both of their X chromosomes.

#TheBetterHalf

7/7

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?