Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (82178)	2/17/2002 12:00:44 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116796

Scientists are fatheads often. They only propose theories to have other scientists disprove them as they always do. What these guys are missing is all this predisposition horseshit is just that. It only works if the predisposed is exposed to the carcinogen. Not exposed, the predisposed gene is dormant. Strange how that happens. then the gene becomes a predisposition to flatulence and red hair, the other part of the correlation they missed. You not that the do not say HOW the gene makes cancer just that their numbers are undeniable. I think the gene that makes one a women, causes breast cancer 100% of the time. Never mind a mere 58%. I vote for the 100% gene. Female = breast cancer, Never fails. Doctors prescribe estrogen,an excess of which is definitely a carcinogen to reduce PSA, thereby causing cancer while promising to reduce it. The modern day bleeders, killing the patient while pretending a cure. Save me from their therapy. I will walk to my death absent quackery, knowing at least I cannot blame doctors for it. When has smoked smokes 600,000 cigarettes one's genetic predisposition for lung cancer kicks in like a goddamn mule. Predisposition needs a little help. We just have to give it a chance. EC<:-}