Quote: DaButt @ September 13 2009, 11:39 PM BSTIt's rare that we get to see statements like this from an actual medical professional. And a funny one, to boot. Hats off to Dr. Tim.
Yes, but I believe the General Medical Council took the view that it was not the most appropriate way to have delivered the diagnosis.
My ire is more directed at the Daily Mail's (and to be fair, most other newspapers) attitudes to cancer research stories. Without even using a journalist who understands scientific research or statistics, they splurge great big worrying headlines about every little bit of (often spurious or incomplete) research that possibly makes a link between a food/practice/genetic factor which might increase/decrease your chances of developing a type of cancer.
Other than some definite environmental causes for skin/lung/liver and bowel cancers that have been established over years of research, most cancers are still fairly unpredictable. And when they are it's based on knowledge of human genetics rather than known environmental factors. Yes, 'x' number of foods may have carcinogens which increase the chances of certain types of cancer, but probably there's also 'x' number of foods which protect you from cancer. (Often the same food might contain some chemicals which cause and some chemicals which protect against cancer.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 14 2009, 12:03 AM BST(Often the same food might contain some chemicals which cause and some chemicals which protect against cancer.
Please tell me you aren't talking about beer.
[quote name="Tim Walker" post="496065" date="September 14 2009, 12:03 AM BST Often the same food might contain some chemicals which cause and some chemicals which protect against cancer.[/quote]
Wouldn't it be great if the research centre was based Kansas City?
Quote: Geoff Mutton @ September 14 2009, 12:19 AM BSTWouldn't it be great if the research centre was based Kansas City?
?
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 13 2009, 11:35 PM BSTAgain with the cancer? Everything gives you cancer. The sun gives us cancer, let's ban that! People are now starting to claim that smoking gives you cancer! Cancer, cancer, cancer! Sticking a mobile phone up your arse gives you cancer! Breast-feeding gives you cancer! NOT breast-feeding gives you cancer! Five a day! Six a day! Why not f**king 34 a day?! Fellating an Anglican gives your cancer! Talking to tomato plants gives you cancer! Being born under the star sign cancer doesn't give you cancer!! Looking at Jordan's tits gives you cancer! Enough with the cancer!!
(Nothing personal, Bad dog, just fed-up of hearing about the cancer!
)
I could not have put it better myself. 5 Gold Stars Tim.
Yes, very well stated and sadly very true. 
Even though it hasn't been scientifically proven, I reckon Red Bull gives you stomach cancer (especially if you drink it whilst eating bacon flavoured crisps).
This is part of my 'I Reckon...' series of intelligent assessments. In the next installment, I will tell you which celebrities are paedophiles because 'I reckon they look like kiddy fiddlers'.
Quote: DaButt @ September 14 2009, 12:44 AM BST?
For Kansas read Cancers.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 14 2009, 12:54 AM BSTThis is part of my 'I Reckon...' series of intelligent assessments.
Start an "I Reckon" thread RC.
Quote: Geoff Mutton @ September 14 2009, 1:06 AM BSTFor Kansas read Cancers.
Start an "I Reckon" thread RC.
Good idea Geoff. I will do that literally right now.
Quote: Geoff Mutton @ September 14 2009, 1:06 AM BSTStart an "I Reckon" thread RC.
Libel lawyers will be licking their lips. I reckon.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 14 2009, 1:10 AM BSTLibel lawyers will be licking their lips. I reckon.
You fill us with caution, Tim.
On the subject of reckoning, someone near me started a business called 'Abacus' - "the name you can count on".
He didn't reckon on foreclosure though.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 13 2009, 11:35 PM BSTAgain with the cancer? Everything gives you cancer. The sun gives us cancer, let's ban that! People are now starting to claim that smoking gives you cancer! Cancer, cancer, cancer! Sticking a mobile phone up your arse gives you cancer! Breast-feeding gives you cancer! NOT breast-feeding gives you cancer! Five a day! Six a day! Why not f**king 34 a day?! Fellating an Anglican gives your cancer! Talking to tomato plants gives you cancer! Being born under the star sign cancer doesn't give you cancer!! Looking at Jordan's tits gives you cancer! Enough with the cancer!!
(Nothing personal, Bad dog, just fed-up of hearing about the cancer!
Calm down Tim, getting angry gives you canc...
I mean wrinkles...
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 13 2009, 10:45 PM BSTman has certainly put selective pressures which have led to biologiclally-distinct species.
Selective pressure is not the same as splicing in genes from a completely different organism. To suggest neolithic or medieval farmers were doing that (even accidentally) is not the case. In natural selection the genetic material is always something contained within or derived from the existing pool. When it is introduced by outside agencies, such as viruses, it nearly always ends in disaster.
As to man developing distinct species. Again, AFAIA this isn't true. The idea of 'species' is a manmade concept that the natural world often refuses to accept. Cats and dogs, as Timbo points out can interbreed with wild relatives. Not only that distinct 'species' can interbreed when the opportunity presents - ligers and tigons come to mind. We can't even work out a satisfactory definition of species, let alone know in what way the target organism can interact with the countless other species it encounters in the complex web outside of a laboratory.
As far as I'm aware, millenia of breeding programs have failed to produce anything we could regard as a new organism. We've only managed to refine an animal according to our taste.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 13 2009, 10:45 PM BSTIt's scaremongering to think that what is produced in the lab under controlled conditions is more of a concern than what nature makes.
In the 'lab' and 'controlled conditions' are the keywords here. But these products aren't intended to stay in the labs. what happens outside the lab without controls? Look at all the drugs that seemed safe in the labs and the way they wrecked lives. Those drugs could be recalled. Rogue genes can't.
For scientists to suggest something is safe in the lab, therefore must be safe in the real world, is arrogance and idiocy combined. We're fools in lab coats wearing blinkers and crossing our fingers.
And just because they're tiny pieces of DNA doesn't mean the associated risk is correspondingly tiny either. 
And one of my favourite Joe Jackson songs for Tim. The words are very drole and apt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYIUYzbYeKA
One of my favourite Paul Weller lyrics is from The Jam's 'Saturday's Kids' - "Their Mums and Dads smoke capstan non-filters, Wallpaper lives cause they all die of cancer"...
And in a moment of candour as Mr Cook put it...
