Stomach cancer, unexpected exacerbation.
Fuck cancer.
Fuck cancer.
"According to a survey reported in 2010 by Russia’s Health and Social Development Ministry, 43.9 million adults in Russia are smokers. Among Russians aged 19 to 44 years, 7 in 10 men smoke and 4 in 10 women smoke." [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Russia#Smoking
I'm not in any way against the moderate consumption of alcohol but the russians are in another level, really
Just to be clear: I'm not implying this is the case
Just to be clear: I'm not implying that smoking, drinking, or eating salty food was the cause of his stomach cancer, I'm just generalizing based on stereotypes that I know.
As is (sadly) eating smoked foods.
That doesn't mean it's "equally carcinogenic" as those others...just that our knowledge of its carcinogenic properties are similarly confident. It's definitely a carcinogen.
From the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/dietandphysicalact...):
"Alcohol is a known cause of cancers of the:
Mouth Throat (pharynx) Voice box (larynx) Esophagus Liver Colon and rectum Breast"
Besides, their claim on "There are many ways of reducing heart disease risk, including avoiding smoking, eating a diet low in saturated and trans fats, staying at a healthy weight, staying physically active, and controlling blood pressure and cholesterol." is only partially true and just reflects the current thinking of specialists. The evidence on LDL/HDL levels is not very compelling and there was a post very recently on HN from a surgeon claiming heart disease was rather linked to tissue inflammation than cholesterol.
I believe the "surgeon" you referred to is Dwight Lundell. His claim is just that, a claim. Suffice to note that he has his medical license revoked because of "unprofessional conduct":
http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/lundell/order_2008.pdf
> reflects the current thinking of specialists
That means their recommendation reflects the current medical consensus. Of course American Cancer Society is going to make their recommendations based on current medical consensus instead of some wild claim made by someone who has his medical license revoked. To do anything else would be irresponsible.
You already know that the person who claims an extremely rare event occurred is the person who has to show up with the evidence. Without any evidence, why go around making this sort of inflammatory comment about a very sad event?