Scott Alexander examines conflicting narratives about cancer treatment progress, analyzing data to show that while some improvements are due to social factors, there's evidence of genuine advancements in cancer treatment and outcomes. Longer summary

This post examines the progress made in the 'War on Cancer' by analyzing cancer incidence rates, mortality rates, and five-year survival rates. Scott Alexander explores two competing narratives: one suggesting significant progress and another claiming limited success. He delves into the data, considering factors like age adjustment, smoking trends, and early detection biases. The analysis reveals that while some improvements are due to social factors like reduced smoking, there's evidence of genuine progress in cancer treatment. Stage-specific survival rates have improved, and studies adjusting for various confounders still show advancements. The post concludes that while progress may not meet the grand expectations set in the past, there has been a gradual but real improvement in cancer treatment and outcomes. Shorter summary

A mythological tale contrasts the Goddess of Cancer's primal drives with the Goddess of Everything Else's push for cooperation and progress, showing how the latter gradually wins over creation. Longer summary

This post presents a mythological narrative of two opposing forces: the Goddess of Cancer, representing primal drives for survival and reproduction, and the Goddess of Everything Else, embodying cooperation, beauty, and progress. The story unfolds in stages, showing how the Goddess of Everything Else subtly guides evolution and civilization, always finding ways to align her goals with the Goddess of Cancer's imperative to 'KILL CONSUME MULTIPLY CONQUER'. Through each stage - from single-celled organisms to complex civilizations and beyond - the Goddess of Everything Else gradually wins over creation, ultimately freeing humanity from the bonds of their original nature to pursue greater things across the stars. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines two cases of online mob justice in feminist circles to argue that movements abandoning civility ultimately self-destruct. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses two incidents of online mob justice in the feminist community. The first involves Charles Clymer, a feminist activist who was attacked on social media for perceived misogyny and insensitivity. The second is 'Jacobinghazi', a controversy involving the leftist magazine Jacobin. Scott uses these examples to argue that movements which abandon principles of charity and civility ultimately harm themselves, comparing them to cancers that grow too large and destructive. He concludes that communities which tolerate jerks within their ranks will eventually be torn apart by those same jerks. Shorter summary

Scott provides answers to a dermatology quiz, discussing skin cancer risks, a quiz correction, and the surprising effectiveness of Botox in treating depression. Longer summary

This post provides answers to a dermatology quiz from the previous day. It covers three main points: 1) The increased risk of left-sided skin cancer for American drivers due to UV exposure, 2) A correction to a false statement in the quiz, and 3) The effectiveness of Botox in treating depression. The author then speculates on the implications of using Botox as a happiness-boosting intervention, comparing it to other utilitarian approaches like poverty relief and malaria nets. Shorter summary

A short story about a genie granting a wish for the cure to cancer, with a twist highlighting the practical challenges of drug development and approval. Longer summary

This post is a short fictional story about a genie and a wish. The narrator frees a genie from a lamp and is granted one question. They ask for the cure for cancer, and the genie provides a specific answer: a compound called oxymercuriphine from the venom of the two-toed toad of Toronto. The twist comes when the genie, while technically fulfilling the wish, points out the practical difficulties of bringing such a cure to market due to the expensive and time-consuming FDA approval process. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a paper claiming superior Victorian health, finding issues with its key arguments while agreeing on some points about diet-linked disease increases. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a paper claiming mid-Victorian Britain had superior health and longevity compared to today. He fact-checks key claims, finding issues with the paper's arguments about height decreases and life expectancy. While agreeing that Victorians likely had less cancer and heart disease, Scott disagrees with attributing this solely to nutrition, suggesting modern diets may have too much of harmful foods rather than lacking nutrients. He's skeptical of the authors' promotion of supplements, noting lack of evidence for their efficacy. Scott does praise the paper for highlighting the need to better understand why whole foods are beneficial. Overall, he finds the paper's main claims unsupported but agrees there has been a gradual rise in some diseases linked to modern diets. Shorter summary