Red meat and dairy cause cancer growth?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
cancer can be initiated by a lot of things, like a virus or exposure to a carcinogen. but whether it grows or not may be another matter.

dr colin campbell has written a book called 'the china study' where he shows with experiments on rats how the protein casein (found in milk/dairy) causes the cancer cells in rats to grow. When he removed casein from their diet, their tumours shrank to nothing. he photographed the dramatic results under the microscope which is interesting to see.

on another note: it has been reported in the mainstream media recently that cancer recurrence is due to widespread inflammation in the body. doctors are suggesting that anti-inflammatory drugs would be a good idea to address the inflammation (which is causing the cancer regrowth). but this is a bit of a band aid solution, isnt it? (and probly wont work as a result). why not address the actual CAUSE of the inflammation and remove that, if possible?

do scientists know what causes inflammation in the human body? Yes. several studies have shown that red meat and dairy cause an inflammation reaction in the human body. You can verify this by going online and searching for these studies - i might post a link later. Salmon - being a pink colour- also causes a reasonably high inflammatory response, but other white fish meats and poultry do not. (However chicken is filled with so many growth hormones nowadays that its not really safe to eat and will probably add to your problems if you have cancer).
Vegetables dont cause this high degree of inflammation in the human body and are much safer to eat. (as well as nuts/seeds/grains etc/fruit/beans etc). If you do go on a vegetarian diet however, ensure you get enough protein every day by eating beans/corn/lentils/chickpeas etc instead of meat and maybe eating eggs as well - i suggest the non-caged/barn raised variety as being much healthier - healthy chicken - healthy eggs, it stands to reason.

this link might be the reason for the correlations noticed by dr campbell in his book - where he observed that asian and african countries that ate very little meat and dairy, had extremely low rates of cancer. Countries like the netherlands, france and sweden, which eat the most dairy products, had the highest rates of cancer.

In china, breast cancer is known as 'rich woman's disease' because only richer women, who can afford to switch to a western diet and lifestyle, get the disease. i suggest these women are probably eating more dairy and meat in their diet than their poorer countrywomen.

since globalisation has come to india and other asian countries - together with the western diet and lifestyle, cancer and heart disease rates have soared. what a fantastic new growth industry for the drug companies.

professor jane plant CBE, recounts in her book 'your life in your hands' (all books shud be available from amazon) how she cured herself of final stage cancer by realizing that asians dont eat much dairy and also dont have much cancer; and stopping dairy herself (independently she reached this conclusion - she didnt know about the china study). she says her tumour - which had previously recurred about 5? times i think, just shrank to nothing; even tho doctors had given her only months to live.

another mainstream scientist sarcastically criticised correlation studies linking things to the cancer growth. he remarked that the best predictor of cancer rates was in fact education - thinking that this made no sense at all. in fact, it makes a lot of sense. in all countries (even poorer countries that dont eat a western diet), the most educated people have the most cancer. the most educated in any country are likely to be the richest people and are likely to eat a western diet including meat and dairy (as well as alcohol, which mainstrean studies have shown contributes to cancer growth) - while their poorer countrymen and women may not eat meat and dairy in their diet - e.g. china/india ... ). so this correlation actually supports dr campbell's findings.

in summary: if you want to change your diet in the hopes of beating cancer, it might be a good idea to go off red meat, dairy, alcohol and sugar. (and also steer clear of hormone filled chickens).




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
hmm "The Golden Rule"- Everything Within Moderation". Too much of anything is a hazard.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
best food to live:

fish, rice, bananas, coconuts, veggies

problem solved




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I went and read the study, hoping to dispute it. Couldn't. Only thing I could possibly find was that he didn't use (as a control) a protein with a similar tertiary structure as a control.
I'm still of the school of thought though that years from now they are going to find out that tofu is a 'silent killer'.

Good post.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


I would just steer clear of any fish caught near the Giant pacific Trash ball, which interestingly enough is bigger than the continental united states.

Ive always heard a Glass of milk with a burger helps arrest some of the fat that would otherwise be absorbed into your body



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
If you do go on a vegetarian diet however, ensure you get enough protein every day by eating beans/corn/lentils/chickpeas etc instead of meat and maybe eating eggs as well


I agree with most things in the article except for this, you can get more then enough protein from just fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. I really wish people would stop spreading bull# like this, do gorillas need beans/lentils/chickpeas/meat/eggs etc? where the f*ck do they get all there protein? Greens! Anyways god article! I think meat and dairy along with cooked food(most food becomes carcinogenic when cooked) is why everyone seems to be dieing of cancer now a days



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

I'm still of the school of thought though that years from now they are going to find out that tofu is a 'silent killer'.

Good post.


They already have proven that tofu can cause cancer and messes with male estrogen, soybeans are pretty much inedible in there raw state this must tell u smthing, no? Not only that but most soybeans are gmo nowadays



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
A very good thread that made me think twice when i went food shopping today...

No more red meat for me.

More fish, more veg, more fruit etc.

Thankyou



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
A very good thread that made me think twice when i went food shopping today...

No more red meat for me.

More fish, more veg, more fruit etc.

Thankyou


This is pretty pathetic. You are actually going to stop eating red meat and/or dairy just because of this post?



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Pathetic eh?

Not really, i have health problems and it's something i've been pondering this for a while. It's taken me a while to adjust my diet and this thread was a kind of confirmation for me to make another step towards bettering myself.

Maybe you're pathetic for judging me porky....

Kind regards, Mr lizard



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It helps to cook foods at lower temperatures, like around 250 degrees,

not in microwaves, hot ovens, or broilers. lower tempts also help people

with diabetes. lets face it not much we eat is good for us!!! TPTB have

seen to that!!! so many diseases, so many perscriptions, so many tests

its all about the money!!! think about it!!!! don't take any vaccines

that may be the LAST thing you do!! TPTB want depopulation, what

better way??



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
First off that study used pasteurized milk. Some of you have no clue about nutrition, the food, or human body nor do you know anything about the various indigenous cultures that have lived for hundreds and thousands of years prior to the western diet loaded with sugar and processed food. Raw milk reacts very differently in the body. People who drink pasteurized milk have allergies and lactose intolerance. If milk is so bad and causes such a negative inflammatory response in the body why is it that MOST people who can't tolerate pasteurized milk do fine with raw milk i.e. no lactose intolerance, no allergies. Kids who switch from pasteurized milk to raw milk see sometimes see their asthma and allergy problems completely disappear.

Many indigenous cultures around the world have relied on dairy and animal products for their health and vitality. I.e. the Masai in Africa were some of the healthiest people in the world. The Polynesians, the Swiss in the L. Valley, the Eskimo etc. The key is to eat food the way nature intended whether it's vegetables, dairy products, or meat. Red meat has many benefits. It's very high in B vitamins, iron, minerals, and if eaten raw loaded with enzymes. Raw milk is very high in glutathione a very powerful antioxidant. Many of these ancient cultures were also very active. Activity and eating whole foods is the key to health.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
All humans are not created equal! (Nor are all mammals created equal for that matter!)

For some blood types (like A, B, and AB), it is true that red meat and dairy products are difficult to digest and would leave large amounts of toxins in the body that could potentially foster growth of cancer cells.

For other blood types (mainly O), red meat and dairy products are not only more easily digested, but downright necessary for bodily function! (The scariest thing in the world is a Blood Type 0 Negative who hasn't had their daily/weekly dose of Taurine in several weeks!)

Basically, what have your ancestors been eating for the past million years? Were you descended from members of Agrarian based cultures, or where you descended from Hunter based cultures? Whatever your ancestors ate, you should probably be eating for optimal function, and whatever they didn't eat you should probably be avoiding for optimal function. You don't need to know your genealogy to know which category you fall into...you just need to know your blood-type.

This is a simple concept that the Ancients have understood since at least the time of Pythagoras in the West, and the time of the Vedas in the East. The Hindi Ayurvedic Medicine categorizes all food as Pitta, Vata, or Kapa (Metabolism/Moderate, Catabolism, and Anabolism respectively). If you are Vata or Kapa, then eating a diet based for the opposite end of the spectrum can lead to all kinds of health risks as your body simply isn't capable of digesting and metabolizing that kind of diet.

That isn't to say that there are not health risks even to Blood Type Os (or Kapa Body Types) in eating Red Meat and Dairy. However, these risks are primarily due to the additives that the US Food Industry likes to add to them (like large amounts of hormones in Beef, and the hormone rBGH in Dairy products). Organic Beef & Dairy doesn't have these same problems (or these same products that come from countries where these additives are banned, such as Brazil or the EU).

The link to the increase of Cancer and Inflammatory Diseases among the Upper Classes of China and India who are eating Meat and Dairy only reinforces the hypothesis stated above. Both of these cultures have 5000 years or more of not eating either Red Meat or Dairy (although in China this is an over generalization as those sharing Mongol heritage do have O Blood Types...the largest percentage outside of Europe).

If the RhD inherited genetic antigen also comes to play into dietary metabolism, this could also be another HUGE variable on why some people can eat something without health risk while others build up toxins from eating the same thing. Hemolytic erythroblastosis fetalis, caused by having had a birth mother with a different blood type, who are RhD+ because of having had antigen-antibody incompatibility with their mother during gestation could cause for an increased susceptibility of Food Allergens and build up of toxins and cancer from incompatible Food Types...whereas those who are RhD- would have the opposite happen, being more resistant to Food Allergens and less likely to build up toxins from the digestion of incompatible Food Types. Considering that the number of RhD+ people is increasing dramatically every year among Westerners, there is ample enough evidence to show that this MAY be interrelated to the increase of Food Allergies and Dietary derived Cancers, but our discovery of RhD is relatively new and needing far more study before this can be either "Ruled-In" or "Ruled-Out".

Just beware of any Medical Study, especially concerning Diet or Pharmacology, that shows conclusive evidence linking the same thing for everyone. There is a reason why for every medication that the West develops there are a significant percentage who have reactions in one form or another, or for whom it simply does not work. Western Medicine still hasn't come to terms that there are far more variables in the human composition between one subject and the next, but would rather declare the human metabolism to be a "universal constant" for simplicity sake when it is clearly not. When you start comparing Oranges with Apples, such as the results in Rats or Monkeys with the potential results in Humans, the number of variables increases many more fold, and the ability to declare constants is simply not possible.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 





causes the cancer cells in rats to grow


Rats are one thing Humans another. Cancer is a lot like swine Flu; talked about much, but less seen.
Cancer has more to do with Genetic disposition than diet.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by rapunzel222
 





causes the cancer cells in rats to grow


Rats are one thing Humans another. Cancer is a lot like swine Flu; talked about much, but less seen.
Cancer has more to do with Genetic disposition than diet.


Is this some kind of joke? Cancer is very rampant today and it has very little to do with genetics, its mainly diet. If u eat 100% raw food its essentially impossible for you to get cancer. I saw a study yesterday, people who drink coffee on a daily basis have a 50/50 chance of getting cancer at some point



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
My question would be what if I want to continue eating red meat? I'm sure as long as I have a balanced diet of fruits and veggies and add red meat to the equation I would have better all around health than someone who mostly ate fast food and such. Just because I have a steak (with piles of green beans and asparagus and some picked beets and mashed potatoes with maybe a peach or strawberries for desert. mmmmm I'm hungry now.) or a cheese burger every now and again that I am going to be unhealthy and get cancer? I'm sorry but that sounds ludicrous to me.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Be careful as not to confuse observational evidence as proving causality. Also be careful as not to submit to the findings of one single study, especially one that is as controversial as the one found in the OP by Campbell.

As I've pointed out in this thread, epidemiological studies are a dime a dozen and prove nothing. Furthermore, the thread also discusses just how two-sided the debate is on whether or not animal fat and protein are harmful.

Honestly, Campbell is a joke. His study has been scrutinized by many in the field and it's quite obvious that, once reviewed by a non bias peer, Campbell's interpretation of the study is objectionable.

In 2006, Campbell engaged in a "protein" debate with Loren Cordain and a quick review of the debate is in need for this thread:


I just read the Cordain/Campbell “Protein Debate. I recommend it for Cordain’s concise writeup on the evolutionary/archaeological evidence in favor of a high-protein diet. Read Campbell’s stuff for a chuckle, and a good illustration of why nutrition science and the accompanying policy is such a screwup. A few highlights:

Cordain’s paper contains no less than 134 references, and his rebuttal to Campbell contains another 30. Campbell, in support of a low protein, low fat, diet provides, uh, let me count, ZERO citations. He manages a few in his rebuttal to Cordain, but a couple of those are to himself, and only one that I saw appeared to be a peer-reviewed article. He makes some fairly bold statements, like “overwhelming findings on the adverse health effects of dietary protein” and “remarkable healing effects now being routinely accomplished by my clinician colleagues”, again with no citations to supporting peer-reviewed literature.

Campbell’s stance appears to be largely one of “because I said so”. The first sentence in his rebuttal is “My critique of Professor Loren Cordain’s proposition almost entirely depends on my philosophy of nutrition”; as opposed, say, to evidence gathered via the scientific method? In fact, he goes so far as to argue in favor of what is essentially sloppy research in nutrition science. The point Campbell is trying (badly) to make is that making precise measurements of the components of a complex system may do little to increase your understanding of it’s overall behavior (look no further than cholesterol research for a good example of “missing the forest for the trees”). But the fact that complex systems often exhibit the “gestalt” of emergent behaviors does not mean we throw the scientific method out the window in favor of “holistic” hand-waving and arguing about whose bullsh*t “philosophy” is superior.
Protein Debate

Now that that's cleared up, it's worth noting that throughout the entire 800 page report on the actual China Study, sugar is mentioned almost never. In fact, the researchers didn't even measure sugar consumption because it was statistically insignificant. So, instead of contributing the rural chinese's lack of disease to they're lack of sugar intake, the research conclude that it's their lack of fat and protein consumption. Sounds a little bias to me.

The truth is, the Chinese consumed almost no sugar up until recently, and only now, after the introduction of sugary foods and the prevalence of white rice consumption, are they experiencing the ill effects that we observe in the US today.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Did you hear about the other China Study?

Vegetable-rich food pattern is related to obesity in China

Results:

The prevalence of general obesity (BMI greater than or equal to28 kg m- 2) was 8.0% in men and 12.7% in women, central obesity was 19.5% (greater than or equal to90 cm) and 38.2% (greater than or equal to80 cm), respectively. A four-factor solution explained 28.5% of the total variance in food frequency intake. The vegetable-rich food pattern (whole grains, fruits and vegetables) was positively associated with vegetable oil and energy intake. Prevalence of obesity/central obesity increased across the quartiles of vegetable-rich food pattern. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and four distinct food patterns, the vegetable-rich pattern was independently associated with obesity. Compared with the lowest quartile of vegetable-rich pattern, the highest quartile had higher risk of general obesity (men, prevalence ratio (PR): 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–3.14; women, PR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.45–3.49).


Review: The information that was obtained by this study is great. The interpretation was completely bias and almost ridiculous.

The study, in full, clearly shows that those with an increased consumption of vegetables and fruits were more obese. Although the researchers blamed the increase in obesity on the increase in vegetable fat consumption, it's very clear that there was no difference in the amount of fat that each group consumed.


What do good scientists do when the data doesn't conform to their preconceived notions? They change their thinking to fit the data. What do sorry scientists do? They change the data to fit their thinking.

So, a closer examination of nutritional studies is warranted by a non-bias reviewer in almost every case to determine the legitimacy of the findings. Simple as that.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
My question would be what if I want to continue eating red meat? I'm sure as long as I have a balanced diet of fruits and veggies and add red meat to the equation I would have better all around health than someone who mostly ate fast food and such. Just because I have a steak (with piles of green beans and asparagus and some picked beets and mashed potatoes with maybe a peach or strawberries for desert. mmmmm I'm hungry now.) or a cheese burger every now and again that I am going to be unhealthy and get cancer? I'm sorry but that sounds ludicrous to me.


You probally will get cancer sooner or later if you eat starches and protein together, by far one of the worst combinations for your body.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Meat and dairy are produced by an animal that eats tons of grass in its lifetime. It concentrates the nuclear fallout that is still in our rain from decades of high altitude nuclear testing.

The government will always suppress this information because if they admit it then they will have to assume liability and pay for the world's cancer treatments. The Chinese and the Russians will also have to foot some of the bill as they also have done above ground nuclear testing. This has thrown a lot of radioactive dust into the stratosphere and it takes a long time for it to reach back to the ground in rain.

It gets recycled and blown around and this spreads the nuclei everywhere. Meat and milk concentrate it.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by UFOTECH]



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join