C Frank Davis explains cancer death

12 Jan

C Frank Davis is a pro-smoking blogger from the UK. I’ve written some entries to this blog about his weird sights and statements he recently has put into his blog. Here’s the next one…

Two days ago well-known musician David Bowie died from cancer being 69 years of age. Bowie had battled liver cancer for 18 months before finally dying from the disease. Up to the year 2004 Bowie has been reported as an extremely heavy smoker. Then he quit because of a nearly fatal heart attack that stroke when he was performing at a festival in Scheeßel, Germany. The facts so far.

Every person with something more in the forehead than a vacuum would see a link of Bowie’s decade-long heavy smoking and the cancer he suffered from. Not so Mr Davis.  Heavy smoker Davis has got another explaination:

Until his brush with death [in 2004], Bowie, a long-time heavy smoker, insisted on a full English fry-up every weekend.

Now his wife of 20 years, Iman, prepares him a fat-free Sunday brunch of egg-white omelette with shiitake mushrooms and steamed asparagus.

And she told followers on Twitter earlier this year that she has replaced his favourite mashed potatoes with healthier — if less appetising — pureed cauliflower with non-fat sour cream.

Now we know what really killed him. Pureed cauliflower with non-fat sour cream. Them and the egg-white omelettes with shiitake mushrooms and steamed asparagus. And giving up smoking:

David Bowie was shocked by the timing of his near-fatal heart attack last year (04) – because he’d given up smoking six months previously.


As I have mentioned before. Mr Davis is strongly advised to see a doctor. He states:

Funny how he had a heart attack 6 months after stopping smoking. And never toured again, while presumably enjoying all the amazing health benefits of stopping smoking.

I’m just a year younger than David Bowie. I’ve never had a heart attack. And I’m still smoking, drinking whisky, and cooking fry-ups. I’ve cooked two in the past couple of weeks. Eggs, bacon, mushrooms, baked beans, and fried bread that’s absorbed all the lard and bacon fat in the pan (makes the pan a lot easier to clean). About the only thing missing was sausages and black pudding.

If I stopped smoking and started eating pureed cauliflower, I reckon I’d be dead within a week.

OK, it’s the usual bullshit from Mr Davis‘ feather. David Bowie was killed by trying to live healthy? Interesting and convincing. And Mr Davis still feels healthy (he surely is NOT) because he smokes, consumes hard drinks and eats more fat then recommended? Also interesting.Lemmie Kilmister comes into my mind who died two weeks ago. Two days after he was diagnosed with heavy cancer from smoking an drinking excessively for decades.

So, it was not smoking that David Bowie’s cancer attributes to? Let’s leave the Davis‘ crap and turn to science. Liver cancer has one main risk factor. You guess what thiscould be? See this page:

Study: Smoking Dramatically Increases Liver Cancer Risk

Article date: November 2, 2011

By Stacy Simon

A new study reinforces the link between liver cancer and the risk factors of smoking, obesity, and heavy drinking.

Researchers from the US and Europe studied 125 liver cancer patients to determine what risk factors were contributing to their disease. They compared them to 229 people without cancer who were matched by age, gender and other factors. The participants were all part of a European study group that was formed so researchers could investigate the role of biological, dietary, lifestyle and environmental factors in the development of cancer and other chronic diseases.

They found that almost half the cases of liver cancer in the study were associated with smoking, 16% were associated with obesity and 10% were associated with heavy alcohol consumption. Almost 21% of cases were associated with hepatitis C and 13% with hepatitis B.


Any questions what killed David Bowie?




3 Kommentare

Verfasst von - 12. Januar 2016 in Cancer, Uncategorized


Schlagwörter: , , , ,

3 Antworten zu “C Frank Davis explains cancer death

  1. Some French Bloke

    12. Januar 2016 at 20:36

    „A new study reinforces the link between liver cancer and the risk factors of smoking, obesity, and heavy drinking.“
    It seems that someone is brazenly downplaying the essential role of hepatitis B and C, and framing the usual suspects, rather than conducting real, honest research.

    „half the cases of liver cancer in the study were associated with smoking… Almost 21% of cases were associated with hepatitis C and 13% with hepatitis B.“
    Anyone who finds this convincing is reading far too much into the notion of „association“, which is a catch-all with very limited scientific value, no potential to establish causation, and in fact opens the door to countless fallacies.
    How long will it take until you ([defaming speech eliminated]) realise that their favourite brand of „science“ is corrupt beyond belief?

    • Peter Rachow

      12. Januar 2016 at 21:19

      Your understanding of the word „association“ does not really matter. But would you please give us some information about your scientific qualification?

  2. Some French Bloke

    13. Januar 2016 at 03:30

    Peter, please use an opportunity to demonstrate the excellence of your scientific mind – and that applies even if your main qualifications are elsewhere – by answering the question I suggested to you in my response to your comment under Frank Davis‘ blogpost of yesterday.
    To come up with a satisfying explanation of why the risk of death from liver cancer in French men has increased 38-fold from 1955 to 2011 (while their cigarette consumption was plummeting by circa 60%), you’ll have to agree on either one or both of the following:
    1) the impact of the B and C hepatitis viruses has been underestimated,
    2) another very important factor, having nothing to do with cigarette smoke, has been overlooked, or not been discovered.

    Your understanding of the word “association” does not really matter

    Well, someone’s understanding of the word has got to matter. What is yours, or what can we surmise is the study’s author’s? The definition of „association“ is critical to epidemiological research: the author of the „study“ you reference simply lets the reader assume that it indicates causation, and that, consequently, there’s no need to take any confounders into account, which nevertheless is what any serious epidemiologist is primarily tasked with. That way, epidemiology becomes even less than a protoscience (understood as „a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science“). And since protoscience can further be „distinguished from pseudoscience by a genuine willingness to be changed through new evidence, as opposed to having theory that can always find a way to rationalize a predetermined belief“ (source: wikipedia), and that „willingness to be changed through new evidence“ being conspicuous by its absence, that leaves us with sheer propaganda.
    Would you call any old dodgy study of the type churned out by the hundreds by corrupt university departments ’science‘, just because some of the crooks peddling it have PhDs? Stanton Glantz’s PhD does NOT detract one iota of responsibility from his unrelenting misuse of biostatistics, ON THE CONTRARY!

    You’re correct though in your assumption that „Big Tobacco“ is utterly corrupt… but you have yet to discover how and why it has become so (clue: not through selling some aromatic plant, which was somehow found to „cause“ a host of diseases some four centuries after it became widespread). Give the matter some thought: this realisation is technically quite feasible, since you don’t have to be a trained economist or a legal expert to know the smell of corruption, especially when it stinks to high heaven.


Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: