# data[].attributes.headline
Post #6 Red Flag: Suppression by authorities (article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #6 Red Flag: Suppression by authorities (article)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: This is a way some people have for defending their ideas by saying the reason it has not been publicly recognized or accepted is because authorities (meaning the government, pharmaceutical companies, and others) are hiding this information for their own benefit, or to deliberately cause harm to the population.

Connection: In this article, there is information on cancer theories that have been debunked, and on Myth #7 there is a short video about the idea that there are many cures for cancer, but pharmaceutical companies don’t want them to be known because, according to those who support this idea, they make profit from keeping people sick. So it says first of all, any cure for cancer would be very profitable, so why hide it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Google ' cancer ' and you'll be faced with millions of web pages. And the number of YouTube videos you find if you look up 'cancer cure' is similarly vast.

The problem is that much of the information out there is at best inaccurate, or at worst dangerously misleading. There are plenty of evidence-based, easy to understand pages about cancer, but there are just as many, if not more, pages spreading myths.

And it can be hard to distinguish fact from fiction, as much of the inaccurate information looks and sounds perfectly plausible. But if you scratch the surface and look at the evidence, many continually perpetuated 'truths' become unstuck.

In this post, we want to set the record straight on 10 cancer myths we regularly encounter. Driven by the evidence, not by rhetoric or anecdote, we describe what the reality of research actually shows to be true.

Myth 1: Cancer is a man-made, modern disease

It might be more prominent in the public consciousness now than in times gone by, but cancer isn't just a 'modern', man-made disease of Western society. Cancer has existed as long as humans have. It was described thousands of years ago by Egyptian and Greek physicians, and researchers have discovered tell-tale signs of cancer in a 3,000-year-old skeleton. It's even been discovered in dinosaur bones.

While it's certainly true that global lifestyle-related diseases like cancer are on the rise, the biggest risk factor for cancer is age.

The simple fact is that more people are living long enough to develop cancer because of our success in tackling infectious diseases and other historical causes of death such as malnutrition. It's perfectly normal for DNA damage in our cells to build up as we age, and such damage can lead to cancer developing.

We're also now able to diagnose cancers more accurately, thanks to advances in screening, imaging and pathology.

Yes, lifestyle, diet and other things like air pollution collectively have a huge impact on our risk of cancer - smoking for instance is behind a quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK - but that's not the same as saying it's entirely a modern, man-made disease. There are plenty of natural causes of cancer - for example, one in six worldwide cancers is caused by viruses and bacteria.

Myth 2: Superfoods prevent cancer

Blueberries, beetroot, broccoli, garlic, green tea... the list goes on. Despite thousands of websites claiming otherwise, there's no such thing as a 'superfood'. It's a marketing term used to sell products and has no scientific basis.

That's not to say you shouldn't think about what you eat. Some foods are clearly healthier than others. The odd blueberry or mug of green tea certainly could be part of a healthy, balanced diet. Stocking up on fruits and veg is a great idea, and eating a range of different veg is helpful too, but the specific vegetables you choose doesn't really matter.

Our bodies are complex and cancer is too, so it's gross oversimplification to say that any one food, on its own, could have a major influence over your chance of developing cancer.

We've also written extensively on the scientific evidence about anti-oxidants and cancer in these posts - part one, part two and part three. [Added 28/03/14 KA]

The steady accumulation of evidence over several decades points to a simple, but not very newsworthy fact that the best way to reduce your risk of cancer is by a series of long-term healthy behaviours such as not smoking, keeping active, keeping a healthy body weight and cutting back on alcohol.

Myth 3: 'Acidic' diets cause cancer

Some myths about cancer are surprisingly persistent, despite flying in the face of basic biology. One such idea is that overly 'acidic' diets cause your blood to become 'too acidic', which can increase your risk of cancer. Their proposed answer: increase your intake of healthier 'alkaline' foods like green vegetables and fruits (including, paradoxically, lemons).

This is biological nonsense. True, cancer cells can't live in an overly alkaline environment, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.

Blood is usually slightly alkaline. This is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can't be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat, and any extra acid or alkali is simply peed out in urine.

To maintain the correct balance within the body, your urine can and does change pH, depending on what you've eaten ( explained in detail in this post). This can be seen by testing urine pH (acidity) after eating different foods and is the basis of the mistaken belief that diet can "make the body alkaline". But that's all you're changing, and anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand how the body works. [Edited for clarity and extra links, KA 08/08/14]
While eating lots of green veg is certainly healthy, that's not because of any effect on how acid or alkaline your body is.
There is something called acidosis. This is a physiological condition that happens when your kidneys and lungs can't keep your body's pH (a measure of acidity) in balance. It is often the result of serious illness or poisoning. It can be life-threatening and needs urgent medical attention, but it's not down to overly acidic diets.

We know that the immediate environment around cancer cells (the microenvironment) can become acidic. This is due to differences in the way that tumours create energy and use oxygen compared with healthy tissue. Researchers are working hard to understand how this happens, in order to develop more effective cancer treatments.

But there's no good evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer.

Myth 4: Cancer has a sweet tooth

Another idea we see a lot is that sugar apparently 'feeds cancer cells', suggesting that it should be completely banished from a patient's diet.

This is an unhelpful oversimplification of a highly complex area that we're only just starting to understand.

'Sugar' is a catch-all term. It refers to a range of molecules including simple sugars found in plants, glucose and fructose. The white stuff in the bowl on your table is called sucrose and is made from glucose and fructose stuck together. All sugars are carbohydrates, commonly known as carbs - molecules made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

Carbs - whether from cake or a carrot - get broken down in our digestive system to release glucose and fructose. These get absorbed into the bloodstream to provide energy for us to live.

All our cells, cancerous or not, use glucose for energy. Because cancer cells are usually growing very fast compared with healthy cells, they have a particularly high demand for this fuel. There's also evidence that they use glucose and produce energy in a different way from healthy cells.

Researchers are working to understand the differences in energy usage in cancers compared with healthy cells, and trying to exploit them to develop better treatments (including the interesting but far from proven drug DCA).

But all this doesn't mean that sugar from cakes, sweets and other sugary foods specifically feeds cancer cells, as opposed to any other type of carbohydrate. Our body doesn't pick and choose which cells get what fuel. It converts pretty much all the carbs we eat to glucose, fructose and other simple sugars, and they get taken up by tissues when they need energy.

While it's very sensible to limit sugary foods as part of an overall healthy diet and to avoid putting on weight, that's a far cry from saying that sugary foods specifically feed cancer cells.

Both the 'acidic diet' and 'sugar feeds cancer' myths distort sensible dietary advice - of course, nobody is saying that eating a healthy diet doesn't matter when it comes to cancer. You can read about the scientific evidence on diet and cancer on our website.

But dietary advice must be based on nutritional and scientific fact. When it comes to offering diet tips to reduce cancer risk, research shows that the same boring healthy eating advice still holds true. Fruit, vegetables, fibre, white meat and fish are good. Too much fat, salt, sugar, red or processed meat and alcohol are less so.

Also, this post, "What should you eat while you're being treated for cancer", is packed with links to evidence-based advice from our CancerHelp UK website. And this post, from the Junkfood Science blog, explores the science behind sugar and cancer in more detail.
[Edited to add more information and links KA 28/03/14]
Myth 5: Cancer is a fungus - and sodium bicarbonate is the cure

This 'theory' comes from the not-very-observant observation that "cancer is always white".

One obvious problem with this idea - apart from the fact that cancer cells are clearly not fungal in origin - is that cancer isn't always white. Some tumours are. But some aren't. Ask any pathologist or cancer surgeon, or have a look on Google Image search (but maybe not after lunch...).

Proponents of this theory say that cancer is caused by infection by the fungus candida, and that tumours are actually the body's attempt at protecting itself from this infection.

But there's no evidence to show that this is true (and plenty of evidence - going back at least as far as 1902 - that it starts from faults our own cells).

Furthermore, plenty of perfectly healthy people can be infected with candida - it's part of the very normal array of microbes that live in (and on) all of us. Usually our immune system keeps candida in check, but infections can get more serious in people with compromised immune systems, such as those who are HIV-positive.

The 'simple solution' is apparently to inject tumours with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). This isn't even the treatment used to treat proven fungal infections, let alone cancer. On the contrary, there's good evidence that high doses of sodium bicarbonate can lead to serious - even fatal - consequences.

Some studies suggest that sodium bicarbonate can affect cancers transplanted into mice or cells grown in the lab, by neutralising the acidity in the microenvironment immediately around a tumour. And researchers in the US are running a small clinical trial investigating whether sodium bicarbonate capsules can help to reduce cancer pain and to find the maximum dose that can be tolerated, rather than testing whether it has any effect on tumours.

As far as we are aware, there have been no published clinical trials of sodium bicarbonate as a treatment for cancer.

It's also worth pointing out that it's not clear whether it's possible to give doses of sodium bicarbonate that can achieve any kind of meaningful effect on cancer in humans, although it's something that researchers are investigating.

Because the body strongly resists attempts to change its pH, usually by getting rid of bicarbonate through the kidneys, there's a risk that doses large enough to significantly affect the pH around a tumour might cause a serious condition known as alkalosis.

One estimate suggests that a dose of around 12 grams of baking soda per day (based on a 65 kg adult) would only be able to counteract the acid produced by a tumour roughly one cubic millimetre in size. But doses of more than about 30 grams per day are likely to cause severe health problems - you do the maths.

Myth 6: There's a miracle cancer cure...

From cannabis to coffee enemas, the internet is awash with videos and personal anecdotes about 'natural' 'miracle' cures for cancer.

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - YouTube videos and Facebook posts are emphatically not scientific evidence and aren't the same as good-quality, peer-reviewed evidence.

In many cases it's impossible to tell whether patients featured in such anecdotal sources have been 'cured' by any particular alternative treatment or not. We know nothing about their medical diagnosis, stage of disease or outlook, or even if they actually had cancer in the first place. For instance, we don't know what other cancer treatments they had.

And we only hear about the success stories - what about the people who have tried it and have not survived? The dead can't speak, and often people who make bold claims for 'miracle' cures only pick their best cases, without presenting the full picture.

This highlights the importance of publishing data from peer-reviewed, scientifically rigorous lab research and clinical trials. Firstly, because conducting proper clinical studies enables researchers to prove that a prospective cancer treatment is safe and effective. And secondly, because publishing these data allows doctors around the world to judge for themselves and use it for the benefit of their patients.

This is the standard to which all cancer treatments should be held.

That's not to say the natural world isn't a source of potential treatments, from aspirin (willow bark) to penicillin (mould). For example, the cancer drug taxol was first extracted from the bark and needles of the Pacific Yew tree.

But that's a far cry from saying you should chew bark to combat a tumour. It's an effective treatment because the active ingredient has been purified and tested in clinical trials. So we know that it's safe and effective, and what dose to prescribe.

Of course people with cancer want to beat their disease by any means possible. And it's completely understandable to be searching high and low for potential cures. But our advice is to be wary of anything labelled a 'miracle cure', especially if people are trying to sell it to you.

Wikipedia has this excellent list of ineffective cancer treatments that are often touted as miracle cures, which is worth a browse.

If you want to know about the scientific evidence about cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer - a topic we're often asked about - please take a look at our extensive blog post on the subject, including information about the clinical trials we're helping to fund.

And if you've seen links to article about scientists in Canada "curing cancer but nobody notices", these refer to an interesting but currently unproven drug called DCA, which we've also written about before. [Added KA 28/03/14]

Myth 7: ... and Big Pharma are suppressing it

Hand in hand with the idea that there is a cornucopia of 'miracle cures' is the idea that governments, the pharmaceutical industry and even charities are colluding to hide the cure for cancer because they make so much money out of existing treatments.

Whatever the particular 'cure' being touted, the logic is usually the same: it's readily available, cheap and can't be patented, so the medical establishment is suppressing it in order to line its own pockets. But, as we've written before, there's no conspiracy - sometimes it just doesn't work.

There's no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has a number of issues with transparency and clinical trials that it needs to address (the book Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre is a handy primer). We push regulators and pharmaceutical companies hard to make sure that effective drugs are made available at a fair price to the NHS - although it's important to remember that developing and trialling new drugs costs a lot of money, which companies need to recoup.

Problems with conventional medicine don't automatically prove that alternative 'cures' work. To use a metaphor, just because cars sometimes crash doesn't mean that flying carpets are a viable transport option.

It simply doesn't make sense that pharmaceutical companies would want to suppress a potential cure. Finding a highly effective therapy would guarantee huge worldwide sales.

And the argument that treatments can't be patented doesn't hold up. Pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials (a cost that can run into many millions) if the treatment turns out to work.

It's also worth pointing out that charities such as Cancer Research UK and government-funded scientists are free to investigate promising treatments without a profit motive. And it's hard to understand why NHS doctors - who often prescribe generic, off-patent drugs - wouldn't use cheap treatments if they'd been shown to be effective in clinical trials.

For example, we're funding large-scale trials of aspirin - a drug first made in 1897, and now one of the most widely-used off-patent drugs in the world. We're researching whether it can prevent bowel cancer in people at high risk, reduce the side effects of chemotherapy, and even prevent cancer coming back and improve survival.

Finally, it's worth remembering that we are all human - even politicians and Big Pharma executives - and cancer can affect anyone. People in pharmaceutical companies, governments, charities and the wider 'medical establishment' all can and do die of cancer too.

Here at Cancer Research UK we have seen loved ones and colleagues go through cancer. Many of them have survived. Many have not. To suggest that we are - collectively and individually - hiding 'the cure' is not only absurd, it's offensive to the global community of dedicated scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research organisations such as Cancer Research UK and, most importantly, to cancer patients and their families.

Myth 8: Cancer treatment kills more than it cures

Let's be clear, cancer treatment - whether chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery - is no walk in the park. The side effects can be tough. After all, treatments that are designed to kill cancer cells will inevitably affect healthy cells too.

And sometimes, sadly, treatment doesn't work. We know that it's very difficult to treat late-stage cancer that has spread throughout the body, and while treatment can provide relief from symptoms and prolong life, it's not going to be a cure for very advanced cancers.

Surgery is still the most effective treatment we have for cancer, provided it's diagnosed early enough for an operation to be done. And radiotherapy helps cure more people than cancer drugs. Yet chemotherapy and other cancer drugs have a very important part to play in cancer treatment - in some cases helping to cure the disease, and in others helping to prolong survival.

The claims on the internet that chemotherapy is "only 3 per cent effective" are highly misleading and outdated, and are explored in more depth in these two posts from the Science Based Medicine blog.

We also wrote this post in response to concerns that chemotherapy might "encourage cancer".

It important to point out that in an increasing number of cases, the drugs do work. For example, more than 96 per cent of all men are now cured of testicular cancer, compared to fewer than 70 per cent in the 1970s thanks in part to a drug we helped to develop called cisplatin. And three-quarters of children with cancer are now cured, compared with around a quarter in the late 1960s - most of them are alive today directly thanks to chemotherapy.

We know that we still have a long way to go until we have effective, kinder treatments for all types of cancer. And it's important that doctors, patients and their families are realistic and honest about the best options for treatment, especially when cancer is very advanced.

It may be better to opt for treatment aimed at reducing pain and symptoms rather than attempting to cure the disease (palliative care). Balancing quality and quantity of life is always going to be an issue in cancer treatment, and it's one that each patient must decide for themselves.

Myth 9: We've made no progress in fighting cancer

This simply isn't true. Thanks to advances in research, survival from cancer has doubled in the UK over the past 40 years, and death rates have fallen by 10 per cent over the past decade alone. In fact, half of all patients now survive at least ten years.

This article by our chief clinician, Professor Peter Johnson, outlines some of the key facts.

By definition, these figures relate to people treated at least 10 years ago. It's likely that the patients being diagnosed and treated today have an even better chance of survival.

To see how the picture has changed, make yourself a cuppa and settle down to watch this hour-long documentary we helped to make - The Enemy Within: 50 years of fighting cancer. From the early days of chemotherapy in the 50s and 60s to the latest 'smart' drugs and pinpoint-accurate radiotherapy, it highlights how far we've come over the years.

There's still a long way to go. There are some cancers where progress has been much slower - such as lung, brain, pancreatic and oesophageal cancers. And when you lose someone you love to cancer, it can feel as though no progress has been made at all.

That's why we're working so hard to beat cancer sooner, to make sure that nobody loses their life prematurely to the disease.

Myth 10: Sharks don't get cancer

This excellent article goes into why the myth about the cancer-free shark has been so persistent.
Olly and Kat
While you're here, please help us improve the news we provide by filling out this short questionnaire below - it should only take a couple of minutes. Thanks!
Useful links
More on this topic

Comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't believe the hype - 10 persistent cancer myths debunked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google ' cancer ' and you'll be faced with millions of web pages. And the number of YouTube videos you find if you look up 'cancer cure' is similarly vast. The problem is that much of the information out there is at best inaccurate, or at worst dangerously misleading.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 Reasons for Belief: Patternicity (picture)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 Reasons for Belief: Patternicity (picture)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: People often see patterns like faces or images of objects imprinted in mundane elements like windows, a piece of toast, or rocks; this is because our brains are designed to look for patterns, so this leads to identifying things that are simply not there. This is also called pareidolia.

Connection: Here we can see some items that seem to depict faces; this is just our brains’ normal response to try to find patterns in everything.
(taken from http://ananael.blogspot.ca/2017/12/apophenia-pareidolia-and-paranormal.html)

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2: Red Flag: Appeal to authority (article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2: Red Flag: Appeal to authority (article)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: This red flag refers to believing something to be true, because it is supported by a famous personality or a certain character that resembles a scholar. This gives some people the idea that the proposed product must be credible.
Connection: In this case, a famous figure (rapper B.o.B) claims the Earth is flat, despite all evidence of the opposite; this might lead his followers to start questioning the accepted theory, and to be manipulated into believing the Earth is flat, when in fact, this idea comes from a person that has no previous education in the field, or knowledge regarding the subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Spoiler: The Earth is not flat.

But US rapper B.o.B. is crowd-funding the launch of satellites to see if he can get some evidence to the contrary.

The rapper, whose real name is Bobby Ray Simmons Jr, has been a vocal proponent of the Flat Earth theory - the claim the Earth is, in fact, a disc and not spherical.

Some proponents of the Flat Earth theory claim NASA employees guard the edge of the world to prevent people falling off.

Seeking to raise $200,000 (£150,000) on the GoFundMe crowd-funding website, B.o.B refers to himself as "Flat Earth Bob". At the time of writing he had raised a little over $650, but the campaign was trending on the GoFundMe site.

'Show me the curve'

"I'm starting this GoFundMe because I would like to send one, if not multiple satellites, as far into space as I can, or into orbit as I can, to find the curve," he said in a video on the page.

"I'm looking for the curve," he added.

The curve which B.o.B refers to is a recurring theme in Flat Earthers' conspiracy theories. Adherents believe that, were the Earth actually round, then the curvature of the Earth would be more visible to the naked eye.

BBC Bitesize: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

Image Copyright @bobatl @bobatl Report

Image Copyright @bobatl @bobatlReport

It is not the first time that the rapper has voiced his doubts. In 2016 he became embroiled in a Twitter spat with renowned astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

"The cities in the background are approximately 16 miles apart," he said, tweeting a picture of the skyline on the horizon.

"Where is the curve? Please explain this".

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on hand to do just that.

Image Copyright @neiltyson @neiltyson Report

Image Copyright @neiltyson @neiltysonReport

"Earth's curve indeed blocks 150 foot of Manhattan," he wrote. "But most buildings in Midtown are waaay taller than that".

You might also like

Professor praised for bringing his mother to class

Harassed women are Facebook tagging this man for help

How do you pronounce 'meme'?

Some of those who have donated to B.o.B.'s campaign have expressed support for the rapper.

"When/if you do make sure you let me know," one person who donated $20 wrote. "I've been trying to tell folks that there is no curve, therefore the Earth is not a globe".

Others were more sceptical. "Here's $5 to prove yourself wrong," another donor commented.
By UGC and Social News team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rapper raising funds to see if Earth is flat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spoiler: The Earth is not flat. But US rapper B.o.B. is crowd-funding the launch of satellites to see if he can get some evidence to the contrary. The rapper, whose real name is Bobby Ray Simmons Jr, has been a vocal proponent of the Flat Earth theory - the claim the Earth is, in fact, a disc and not spherical.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 Red Flag: Confirmation bias (picture)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 Red Flag: Confirmation bias (picture)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Confirmation bias means believing something to be true or real basing our conclusion solely on positive results or supporting evidence and ignoring evidence that disproves our belief. People basically choose what evidence to pay attention to, and what part of it to ignore.
Connection: Hypochondriacs, or people who feel there is something physically wrong with them all the time, have a way of confirmation bias; this is because they take whatever negative information they read or hear than can be related to a symptom they have (or don’t have) as support for their own diagnosis (which is most likely going to be a diagnosis with a very poor outcome).
https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMy1lODhlMGMwNjA3NGI5MTBk/

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4 Red Flag: Confusing correlation with causation (infographic)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4 Red Flag: Confusing correlation with causation (infographic)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The fact that an event happens simultaneously with another does not necessarily mean one caused the other, or even that they are related in any way, but this is what this red flag refers to: stating something caused something else, without scientific proof to support it.
Connection: Many people nowadays believe that certain vaccines cause autism; this is based on a highly disproved study published many years ago, but it still has followers. In reality, vaccines are usually given to children at ages where autism starts to show symptoms, so, even though both things seem to correlate, autism is definitely not consequence of vaccines.
https://imgur.com/gallery/XOB4imy

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Some products are sold with an advertising of being “all natural”, somehow meaning that this implies it is harmless, or even better than synthetic options, when there are many natural elements that are harmful, or simply not even useful in any way.
Connection: This is an article that gives some examples of natural products that are deadly to human beings (e.g. mercury, botulism), as a way of demonstrating that the label “all natural” doesn’t really mean anything, let alone the product is safe, or a better option just because it is “natural”.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have to laugh anytime I see a product label claiming that something is "all natural," as if everything that is man-made is dangerous and all that is not is perfectly safe. Not that I'm claiming there are no synthetic evils, but there's plenty of deadly natural items out in the world. Let's start with this list:

1 ) Asbestos: A fibrous mineral once used for making fireproof materials. There were reports from as early as the first century A.D. that workers who came in contact with the material developed lung disease, but it wasn't until 1989 that the EPA banned its use. Inhalation of asbestos fibers causes a host of serious diseases, including a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Fear of the substance runs so high that the California State Senate passed a bill earlier this year that would defrock its state rock, serpentine, because it can harbor asbestos.

2 ) Arsenic: Atomic number 33, it sits just below phosphorus on the periodic table. It was once used to treat syphilis and applied topically to whiten skin. Symptoms of arsenic poisoning start with headaches and confusion and progress to vomiting, hair loss and convulsions, resulting in coma and/or death. Sadly, groundwater throughout Bangladesh is contaminated with arsenic, leading to widespread poisoning. It is estimated that up to 20 percent of deaths in the country are the result of drinking arsenic-laced water.

3 ) Snake venom: This modified saliva contains a host of chemicals that act to kill or disable prey. Snake bites kill 20,000 people in developing countries each year. And snakes aren't the only venomous species: there are hosts of insects, fish, reptiles and mammals (even a venomous shrew) that can kill with chemical warfare.

4 ) Botulism: The soil bacterium Clostridium botulinum produces neurotoxins that cause paralysis. Modern science has harnessed that feature to eliminate wrinkles on the faces of an aging population. The disease is relatively rare, but it kills 5 to 10 percent of those who become infected.

5 ) Plants: There are too many deadly plants to name here (if you want a good list, check out the book Wicked Plants). But there are good reasons why you shouldn't go through fields or forests eating anything you find.

6 ) Mercury: The pretty liquid metal fascinated for centuries until the mid-1800s, when it was found to be toxic. Now school principals freak out whenever someone drops a mercury thermometer and pregnant women are advised to limit fish consumption. The element can damage the central nervous and endocrine systems and kidneys and other organs.

7 ) Ionizing Radiation: Types include alpha- and beta-decay, X-rays and gamma rays. These subatomic particles and electromagnetic waves have enough energy to strip atoms of electrons, which causes damage to DNA (at high enough levels, it kills instantly). Natural sources include radon and uranium.

8 ) Cosmic Rays: These high-energy particles come mostly from faraway supernovas. They cause damage to DNA, similar to ionizing radiation, causing cancer, cataracts and other health problems. They're not a problem on Earth, because we have the atmosphere and magnetic field to shield us. But if we want to send anyone to Mars or beyond, we'll have to figure out how to protect them on the long journey.

9 ) Formaldehyde: This chemical-composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen-is formed during the burning of methane. Up to 90 percent of all the formaldehyde on Earth may originate in the atmosphere. It is used in the synthesis of many other chemicals, as a disinfectant and as a preservative. Though it is now known to be a human carcinogen, it is still widely used.

10 ) Anthrax: This illness, caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis, is lethal in most forms to humans, who usually contract it from livestock. This is just one more example of a microbe that can kill-the list is far too long to even attempt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I have to laugh anytime I see a product label claiming that something is "all natural," as if everything that is man-made is dangerous and all that is not is perfectly safe. Not that I'm claiming there are no synthetic evils, but there's plenty of deadly natural items out in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Made by Mariela Fleury, working independently

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 Reasons for Belief: Simplicity (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 Reasons for Belief: Simplicity (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A big reason people have for believing some things, is that the easy, or simple explanation is often better received than a more difficult one. Therefore, people tend to believe the “easy” alternative, rather than more complex ones.

Connection: This video shows an explanation to debunk the thought some people hold nowadays that the Earth is flat, simply because, if they can’t see a curve in the horizon, then this must mean it is flat. It is a short and simple video that explains it’s a matter of magnitude: from our point of view, it is impossible to see a curve. And some other explanations that come with it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Flat earthers believe one of the most curious conspiracy theories on the internet. Here's a look at what they believe and why.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 Reasons for Belief: Perception and Observation (website)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 Reasons for Belief: Perception and Observation (website)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Our senses can sometimes be fooled, and this is the reason why we believe things we didn’t actually see or hear; our senses can be manipulated, or we can be confused when confronted with contradictory evidence or statements. This way, even memories can be changed, and we can believe some things happened in a way they didn’t.

http://brainden.com/optical-illusions.htm

Connection: The simplest way to understand how our brain can be tricked into seeing something that isn’t there are optical illusions. Here is a website with some interesting examples.