Skip to main content

bacteria

A few scientists have long held the belief that human cancers might well be caused by bacteria. Not that many years ago doctors were surprised to learn that peptic ulcers and cancers of the gut might actually be caused by acid-resistant bacteria. Why were they surprised? TB a precursor to lung cancer used to be mainly a disease of non-smokers, the tobacco smoke having antiseptic properties, was thought to inhibit susceptibility to TB. In the 60's doctors became alarmed that, with the immense reduction in TB, lung cancer was on the increase in the smoking population. They jumped to the conclusion that cancer was caused by smoking.
How they must be dismayed by recent studies that show that aspirin, another chemical which has bacteria-resistant properties, has been shown to inhibit human cancers.The evidence is there for all to see, bacteria cause a range of diseases in human-beings which lead to cancers.
An aspirin a day, or 5 Player's Weights? Your choice, but I'm waiting for the ban on using aspirin in public places myself.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I HATE OXFAM

Walking through town today , I have been accosted by several of OXFAM's offensive young CHUGGERS OXFAM: A society formed by left-wing middle-class twats to assuage their feelings of guilt as they swig their Mouton-Cadet

piano miniature no 3

From the Reference Guide to Epidemiology of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the principal reference for instructing US courts in regard to epidemiology. The Manual states: “…epidemiology cannot objectively prove causation; rather, causation is a judgment for epidemiologists and others interpreting the epidemiological data.” [6], and “.. the existence of some [associated] factors does not ensure that a causal relationship exists. Drawing causal inferences after finding an association and considering these factors requires judgment and searching analysis.” [7] and “ [w]hile the drawing of causal inferences is informed by scientific expertise, it is not a determination that is made by using scientific methodology .”. Thus, while epidemiologists insist that their discipline is a science, clearly it is not the solid experimental science that produces reliable causal connections to fuel new scientific discoveries, successful technological advances, and