From the National Institute of Health:

“For almost a century, doctors believed lifestyle factors such as stress and diet caused ulcers. Later, researchers discovered that an imbalance between digestive fluids (hydrochloric acid and pepsin) and the stomach’s ability to defend itself against these powerful substances resulted in ulcers. Today, research shows that most ulcers develop as a result of infection with bacteria called Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). While all three of these factors–lifestyle, acid and pepsin, and H. pylori–play a role in ulcer development, H. pylori is now considered the primary cause.”

I welcome any better sources to refute this claim.

This would be much better than being dependent upon medications, nearly all of which are damaging to the body even when they achieve a short-term and very necessary good.

That was what was so curious about the discovery of H. pylori. The scientists and doctors who agreed with you advocated long-term non-curative treatment with strong antacids for gastric ulcers.
Dr. Barry Marshall simply advocated a short-term antibiotic regimen that was curative.

The “herd” who kept claiming stress was the cause (or that it was a “complex” cause, or whatever) wanted lifetime dependency on possibly harmful drugs.

A lifetime of ineffective treatment versus a couple of weeks of antibiotics that cures the condition. Which one is potentially more harmful, tinabrewer?

Also, it is well known that many ulcers are NOT associated with helicobacter pylori, and further that the vast majority of people who are running around with the bacterium in their systems DO NOT have ulcers, and never develop them.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information. From what I’ve seen, your claim is completely untrue. A John Brown in the microbiology department at the University of Kansas says:

“Approximately 95% of persons with gastric ulcers, and 100% of persons with chronic gastritis have this bacterium within the stomach. The organism has not been found in healthy persons (no stomach ulcers or gastritis).”

Once again, if you have better sources that can refute this, I welcome them.

If you’re saying that from a strictly pedantic point of view that the bacterium doesn’t cause stomach ulcers, then you’re correct.

I could say that the AIDS virus itself never killed anyone, and be just as correct. As you say, it’s necessary but not a sufficient factor.

I could say that gasoline doesn’t burn by itself and be just as correct. As you say, it’s necessary but not a sufficient factor.

Being a layman, it’s easier for me to say “X causes Y” instead of loading down every thought with technically correct but otherwise useless sophistry.

Asimov’s Corollary to Clarke’s Law:
When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.
– Isaac Asimov. F&SF. Feb 1977

Woese has stated several times that life didn’t arise just once but likely arose “millions of times”, diversified and then consolidated to the three realms. According to Woese, the “tree of life” is more like a “bush of life” with at least 2, perhaps 3 main stems.

The Scubaredneck

Not necessarily. It may be a necessary, but not a sufficient factor. I haven’t reviewed this issue to have a medical/scientific opinion on it myself, just wanted to make the logical point.

If the ulcer consistently goes away after an anti-bacterial regimen is followed, doesn’t that mean that the bacterium caused the ulcer?

And from the opposite direction, if long periods of treatment with drugs like Tagamet and Zantac didn’t cure the ulcer, doesn’t that mean that stomach acid is not the cause? Aggravating factor, yes, but cause?

The denialism.com guys misunderstand or misconstrue the argument being made here. The above list of “deniers” is not evidence that there are no deniers that are kooks. Rather, it’s a refutation of the belief or argument that all people labeled as kooks by the majority are actual kooks.

It’s also an appeal to at least listen to the claims of deniers, and to have a little humility when deciding who’s a kook and who isn’t.