A
Anonymous
Guest
Q007 said:So many many views and medical claims about Cancers. I saw something on the news last year that researchers in Scandinavia had found that grilling foods changed its DNA and that they had statistically proven that people who had developed cancers had populated a survey document with a "yes" to them grilling most of their foods. They went on to say that grilled bacon spiked when researched in terms grilling vs cancers. Grilling is the same as BBQ isn't it? Anyone told the Aussies about this? If we listened to all the medical researchers we'd starve. I've never eaten much fruit, one time I told the GP I had a bad taste in my mouth, he said my tongue was coated and to eat pineapple as there were enzymes in it that would clear it up. Week after I go to the dentist and told him what GP had said, he threw his arms up in the air and said NO! the sugar in pineapple turns to acid. My head spins... Q out..
Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Sorry if I am teaching a grandmother to suck eggs ...
It's important for scientists to publish something from time to time in order to further their career, and, I suppose, to justify their existence. What's more important is that the original experimentation using the same methods, materials, assumptions, conditions etc. achieves the same results when conducted by others, the more the better. Any theory only lasts until it is disproved. A long list of references in scientific papers is not to be confused with proof of a theory. It is simply scientific 'etiquette ' to acknowledge sources of information, give credit when due and to demonstrate that the publisher has done their homework into the subject . It has nothing to do with proving or supporting the conclusions from an experiment. Personally, I look for evidence that a theory continues to hold through repeat experimentation.