WHY YOUR STOMACH HURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16550, 14 May 1914, Page 5

WHY YOUR STOMACH HURTS.

A DOCTOR'S COMMONSENSE , ADVICE. Pain in the stomach, variously called indigestion, uyspopsia, flatulence, heartburn, stomach-ache, etc., is usually attributed to.some unnatural, abnormal or diseased condition of the stomach itself. Nothing, however, could be further from tho truth. Nineteen times out of twenty the stomach is absolutely healthy and normal, the pain and discomfort being entirely due to tho acidity and fermentation of food which irritates and distends the stomach; although if this condition is allowed to run on, in time tho constant irritation of tho acid is likely to eat into tho stomach walls and produce ulcers ■ and sometimes cancer of the stomach. Medicine is useless in such a case. The acid and fermenting food must be removed by a stomach pump or an emetic or you must neutralise the acid and stop the fermentation by taking half-a-teaspoonful of bisurated magnesia in a little water. This latter is by far the simpler and safer method. Bisurated magnesia almost immediately neutralises tho - dangerous acid and by correcting tho food contents enables oven a tired, weak stomach to digest almost any food without any difficulty. Physicians advise that bisurated magnesia should be kept in every home, and a little taken after each meal whenever the slightest tendency to food fermentation is shown. Be sure to obtain bisurated magnesia, as other forms of magnesia are valuablo as tooth and mouth washes, but they do not give satisfactory results in stomach disorders. • <>B2 '

SIR JOSEPH WARD AND INVASION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —"Deva" reminds us of your advice recently not to put too much confidence in tlio statement.') of diplomatists. Did you extend "diplomatist" to include " politician,", your advice would be equally sage. Sir Joseph Ward in his reply to the antimilitarist deputation as reported in your columns, said of the military scheme that " it was intended to deal with a danger which responsible authorities believe threatened New Zealand . . . . Ho could not give away confidences, but he would say that there were possibilities of a raid on New Zealand within the past fifteen years." I'hese were the conditions, he says, that gave birth to the Act of 1909.

As a set-off to that we find the Hon i 7. M. B. Fisher stating at a banquet at Pongaroa on March 22 that "It •,vas now generally admitted that no risis had occurred in 1909" to warrant the extraordinary precautions. "At the time," Mr Fisher goes on, " some mention had been made of a despatch from tho British Government, out a search had disclosed the fact that no such despatches were in existence." In the face of such contradictions we despair of political truth. Thei Defence Act and the Dreadnought were Kith the products of a military scare, ?.s alleged at the time, but now denied iter a search in the pigeon holes. The " authorities" were not the British Government evidently, hut most robably, as has often been contended, lie National Service and Navy Leagues ir ether organisations of "politicians, enerals, manufacturers of armaments and journalists "—the recognised instigators of war scares.—l am, etc., P.Q. (Our correspondent " despairs of political truth" rather too readily. Mr Fisher's statements at banquets can hardly be regarded as reliable contribution, to the current history of the dominion.—Ed. "L.T.")