I thought maybe I'd share my story which I think illustrates how genetic testing and early detection are making a difference. Last year on a whim I signed up for a "gene health project" that tested for various genetic conditions, something my local medical group was offering for free. I did it mostly because it gave me my ancestry information for free in addition to testing for various conditions. Unfortunately I discovered that I have a genetic mutation that makes me far more likely than the general population to develop certain cancers. Long story short, I did some screenings, and I had already developed colon cancer. I am 39. It was caught early, no sign of spread, and I just had surgery a couple of weeks ago. If I hadn't taken that test, by the time it was discovered based on symptoms, my prognosis would be much worse.
Really enjoyed your overview of the clinical evidence! One thing I would note though (maybe this is my Gell-Mann speaking), the intersection of cancer and aging is a topic that, in my experience discussing it, deserves a little bit more informed dive into the current models of what "cancer" is, and how it interacts with hallmarks of aging.
Aging biologists came up with all sorts of theories recently that purport to explain why there's such a big overlap between "hallmarks of aging" and "anti-cancer defences". The clearest (and crankiest) review on this topic is probably this one, that claims that aging itself arises as a product of tumor suppression.
While I doubt this explanation alone passes as a "grand unified theory of aging", it's somewhat disturbing to consider how many clinical interventions just shift tradeoffs into one direction or the other without addressing the underlying issue of somatic evolution.
I know you guys are big into large cohort human studies and would laugh at biologists like me with our "10 mice is all we could afford, take it or leave it" papers, but the fundamental biology here is counterintuitive enough that I think it deserves to be mentioned on Aging part 2!
I didn't see it in the show notes (but you had plenty so maybe I missed it), but here's the uni presser for the Courtney et al study to which you referred where they compared smoking cessation outcomes for nicotine gum or lozenge to nicotine vaping in those experiencing social disadvantage:
Thanks for this. I was a bit hesitant to listen this time - my sister recently died of early-onset colon cancer. But I thought your discussion was respectful and I enjoyed the banter :) Like Tom mentioned, I’d be really interested to learn more about the link between BMI/lifestyle and this particular cancer for younger people. It most definitely wasn’t lifestyle in my sister’s case, and not genetics either. So I struggle to believe it - but that might be my personal, very biased experience speaking, and not my research training.
I think The Studies Show is a good name!
I thought maybe I'd share my story which I think illustrates how genetic testing and early detection are making a difference. Last year on a whim I signed up for a "gene health project" that tested for various genetic conditions, something my local medical group was offering for free. I did it mostly because it gave me my ancestry information for free in addition to testing for various conditions. Unfortunately I discovered that I have a genetic mutation that makes me far more likely than the general population to develop certain cancers. Long story short, I did some screenings, and I had already developed colon cancer. I am 39. It was caught early, no sign of spread, and I just had surgery a couple of weeks ago. If I hadn't taken that test, by the time it was discovered based on symptoms, my prognosis would be much worse.
War on Poverty was Johnson- pre Nixon.
But i love the name!
Really enjoyed your overview of the clinical evidence! One thing I would note though (maybe this is my Gell-Mann speaking), the intersection of cancer and aging is a topic that, in my experience discussing it, deserves a little bit more informed dive into the current models of what "cancer" is, and how it interacts with hallmarks of aging.
Aging biologists came up with all sorts of theories recently that purport to explain why there's such a big overlap between "hallmarks of aging" and "anti-cancer defences". The clearest (and crankiest) review on this topic is probably this one, that claims that aging itself arises as a product of tumor suppression.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34637937/
While I doubt this explanation alone passes as a "grand unified theory of aging", it's somewhat disturbing to consider how many clinical interventions just shift tradeoffs into one direction or the other without addressing the underlying issue of somatic evolution.
I know you guys are big into large cohort human studies and would laugh at biologists like me with our "10 mice is all we could afford, take it or leave it" papers, but the fundamental biology here is counterintuitive enough that I think it deserves to be mentioned on Aging part 2!
Another great episode, Tom and Stuart! Well done!
I didn't see it in the show notes (but you had plenty so maybe I missed it), but here's the uni presser for the Courtney et al study to which you referred where they compared smoking cessation outcomes for nicotine gum or lozenge to nicotine vaping in those experiencing social disadvantage:
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/07/vaping-quitting-smoking-gum-lozenges?utm_campaign=NSP+News+Digest+-+15+July+2025&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Thanks for this. I was a bit hesitant to listen this time - my sister recently died of early-onset colon cancer. But I thought your discussion was respectful and I enjoyed the banter :) Like Tom mentioned, I’d be really interested to learn more about the link between BMI/lifestyle and this particular cancer for younger people. It most definitely wasn’t lifestyle in my sister’s case, and not genetics either. So I struggle to believe it - but that might be my personal, very biased experience speaking, and not my research training.