Red meat and dairy cause cancer growth?

Originally posted by UFOTECH
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]

I don't think that is entirely accurate. A friend of mine works at a natural gas plant. He carries around an H2S detector and a Geiger counter for pockets of radon i guess.

Anyway he was showing me how it worked and such. There is basically no ambient radiation outdoors (within safe levels, the sun obviously bathes the earth in radiation every day). He freaked me out when he put the Geiger counter next to a cell phone or computer monitor tho. You would be surprised.

reply to post by Rawhemp


It is no joke my friend. Cancer is a major money spinner for the 'sickness industry'! How many years and billions of dollars reasearch must be consumed to still find definitive answers?
I agree that there may be factors within diet to aid in it cure: for example B17. Its funny how there is little acceptence of this treatment though, through-out the medical fraternity- probably because it doesn't give them the financial spoils of Chemotherapy.
Back in 1974, when Chemo was newly introduced to the public; the only alternative treatment that was used proir and mainstream was AZT.
Yes, AZT was then bought back into the limelight, used upon HIV suffers.
Why did they switch from AZT to Chemo?
AZT was killing too many people......go figure!

reply to post by KRISKALI777



Yes it is a joke, the cure is a strict raw food diet. Its been proven over and over, they keep it hidden from the masses so they can keep pumping money into there pockets while they kill everyone.

reply to post by Rawhemp


I wouldn't begin to suggest what the cure is for cancer, it makes me wonder though when they plan to find the cause.
I think its a little too generalized to say that milk or meat products cause thos across the board.
Many people can easily tolerate certain substances in their diet, when others develope allergies and even anaphylaxis.

Originally posted by Rawhemp

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

yeah yeah... i know you dont need meat to get enough protein - look at all the vegetarians in india who have been living without meat and are perfectly fine; altho they do eat a lot of lentils and chickpeas. all i said was you might need an egg or two, or corn, beans, lentils or chickpeas. they are a good vegetable source of protein; beans and corn are vegetables. so i think are lentils and chickpeas aren't they? sure there's protein in nuts and seeds too and they're good for you too. possibly u can get enough without eating eggs either but i am not 100% sure of this myself so im just erring on the side of caution from my point of view - when giving out advice to people...

but sure; i agree - you dont need to eat meat to get enough protein. in fact even if you do eat meat like fish or something; its probably a good thing to have no meat several times a week, to be healthier.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
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.

milk does cause an inflammatory reaction in the body. this is mainstream. you can check out hte studies for yourself if you care to. milk and red meat both do. it is some sort of a molecule in them.. i cant help the truth. and inflammation has recently been linked to cancer recurrence. just passing it on.

re: milk being drunk by ancient/indigenous cultures etc; sure; but how many carcinogens were they exposed to on a daily basis. it takes a carcinogen or virus to INITIATE cancer. whether it then GROWS or not can apparantly be controlled by diet according to studies above. if its never INITIATED by anything, then you can eat what you like, cuz u dont have cancer so it wont grow, i presume, is my understanding at the moment. also a lot of these cultures are otherwise very healthy and active and living in purer environments than us. and perhaps, like in the case of the hunza who do drink milk, they also eat apricot seeds which are said to be a very strong anti cancer food. also it depends how long people live too. in some cultures, people may not live long enough to develop cancer, perhaps, or may die of other causes first. hunter gatherers tho, usually, in ancient times, before animal domestication, obviously didnt drink milk.

i am sure raw milk is better than pasteurized. i am also pretty convinced that no milk is better than raw milk. it even makes sense intuitively, after all, what other animal species continues to drink milk after its childhood has passed? and the milk of another animal at that? im sure its got to be messing with our hormones - probably particularly in the case of breast cancer. and thats just intuitive, without all the studies that back it up.

you sound very sure of yourself about the healthy diet stuff. and maybe you will be lucky and be okay. but a friend of mine is much like you in her beliefs. she is a nutritionist. she believes healthy food is okay; and eats red meat and some, but not much dairy. she eats a lot of vegetables and walks for an hour each day; and lives in a relatively healthy environment; and has not much stress. she has just been diagnosed with cancer. needless to say she wont try to the diet thing as she doesnt believe in it, altho she has read the china study.

my opinion is; if there is the slightest tiny chance that this stuff is right; why wouldnt you give it a try? whats there to lose? so you dont eat meat or dairy for a while. is that going to kill you? isnt it worth the chance that it might work? sometimes i dont understand people.

and now i will totally ruin any good impression i may have made by talking about karma.

sorry, but it appears to me that if we don't NEED to eat a lot of animals to stay healthy and alive; but we just eat them cuz we LIKE THE TASTE of meat; that karma will come and get us. no wonder we will get sick. if we were carnivorous and couldnt survive without meat; then presumably there'd be no bad karma in eating a lot of it. but we dont need it. thats a fact. indians have been vegetarians for centuries; and they survive and are healthy. something to ponder maybe? my sister is an animal lover, but also she loves to eat meat - particularly pork spare ribs, im afraid. but recently i think even she is changing her mind. shes starting to eat vegetarian a few times a week; and shes starting to see the logic in not needing to eat so much meat means we dont need to kill so many animals.

follow through; and it means there is more land for agriculture; to feed more people; as cattle etc take up a lot of space; and also put out quite a bit of methane apparantly.

incidentally the ancient greeks - plato or hippocrates or someone, i forget - said that a society that eats meat will need a lot of doctors and lawyers.. strange but interesting observation i thought. and they seemed to take this knowledge for granted.

you may now feel free to attack me for being anti meat eating, as usually occurs at this point. *bow*

(i still cant believe myself sometimes. i used to love kfc and maccas. i am living proof people will change if they think its worth their while, healthwise. but i did have to get very sick first, i must admit... but then; i wasnt aware of all this information while i was...seemingly...healthy).

..

[edit on 9-7-2009 by rapunzel222]

Originally posted by fraterormus
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.

you say for o type blood milk is NECESSARY? perhaps if you consider this statement you will see that it doesnt make sense from a biological point of view. nature created humans to drink breast milk as babies and be weaned. humans were not created with a need to continue to drink milk after they were weaned. just as no other animals species is created with such a need. therefore milk CANNOT be (and indeed, is not) NECESSARY for human health or survival once we reach adulthood. As for ancient hunter gatherers, i think you are getting confused with ancient farmers who first domesticated animals - which is where the whole drinking milk thing started. hunter gatherers hunt and gather food. you dont see them running down a herd of buffalo so they can catch the female cows and milk them i dont think.

im afraid i couldnt see how your comments about china/india upper class and not drinking milk/eating meat for thousands of years went against my argument. now that they've started to eat this food, they've started to get heart disease and cancer. rates are going through the roof. coincidence? i dont think so.

yes. people always say studies in rats arent conclusive when they dont like the argument. but if its a new drug, straightaway you hear on the radio 'studies in rats have shown...' like its okay - and everyone rushes to buy the drug pronto. but with diet, no; we must be distrustful of the rat studies.

as i said in another post i think, the 'ancients' who you were referring to; for example, ancient greeks, thought the vegetarian diet was most healthy and a society that ate meat would need a lot of doctors. they also put their olympic athletes on a vegetarian diet before competing as they believed it was healthier. just a little factoid for you.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


be wary, a lot of these professionals and scientists that you seem to hold in high esteem are known to have rigged a study or three to get the results they were hoping for... and keep happy the companies that foot their bills and their research. i know a person in charge of research at a university who has admitted that they have considered faking their results to get the ones they were after; as it is just 'easier' that way; and they have pretty much implied that they wouldnt rule out doing it in the future; and also that they think many others are also doing it, in order to get ahead.

i recently read an article about a chief doctor at a hospital in the us i think who admitted to faking the results of side effects studies on vioxx, a drug which later caused many deaths.

my sister was a guinea pig for a flu vaccine and when she came down wiht flu like serious side effects, they refused to include them in the study or say that the vaccine did it. and tried to kick her out of the study and not pay her.

i would be careful which studies you believe if i was you.

Originally posted by Rawhemp

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

Yeah...we may be in the family of great apes but we are not gorillas,different digestive system.As for the raw food diet,nothing but a fad and a fashion.We are omnivores and will eat pretty much anything...hence our digestive systems are not the best at leeching out the nutrients of only one type of foods.Little difference between raw and cooked(decently) nutritional wise,course there are other benefits from eating raw veggies but nothing to do with the nutritional content.And im sure most people incorporate atleast some raw veggies into their diet anyway.

Look like i have to clear up facts so people don't get confused by all the ignorance being throw around. Protein is prevalent in greens and fruits, too say you might need eggs or beans etc. is freaking moronic. Take a look at nutritiondata.com and then come back and tell me i can't eat only greens and fruits for protein, greens have more bio available protein then a cooked piece of meat its a fact! On top of that over eating protein is very bad for your body and you only need about 10% of your diet to consist of calories from protein.

The poster who says were different then gorillas your right, gorillas have a slightly longer digestive tract making it easier for them to digest greens but humans arn't supposed to eat mainly greens like gorillas do. Our natural diet we thrive on is a high carb diet, whats the highest carb product you can eat in nature?????? Sweet fruit!! Now think about it this way, everyone has the instinct to eat sweet stuff. There is not one person in the whole world who doesn't like sweet things, there must be a reason for this? ofcourse there is because we're naturally supposed to be eating sweet fruits all day. When was the last time you looked at a raw piece of meat and thought wow that looks good, i wanna eat that raw. You havn't because raw meat is disgusting, no human is naturally attracted to raw meat.. All you have to do is think about it logically and it becomes clear. The fact that cooked animals fats are one of the most deadly things you can put in your body should be a good indicator

Originally posted by Solomons
As for the raw food diet,nothing but a fad and a fashion.We are omnivores and will eat pretty much anything...Little difference between raw and cooked(decently) nutritional wise

Ok well ill stick to my fad and have perfect health, you can have your health insurance and diseases! Little difference huh? how about zero enzymes? Seems like a big difference to me.. Also the 30% or so nutrient loss that happens when cooking, O you forgot to mention that chemicals change when heated and alot of them turn carcinogenic. Yea little difference.....

Originally posted by Rawhemp
On top of that over eating protein is very bad for your body and you only need about 10% of your diet to consist of calories from protein.

How is posting false information regarded as clearing up facts? Protein is not dangerous to any healthy person. Period. There are no studies that support the claim that protein in high amounts causes any damage to a relatively healthy person.

The poster who says were different then gorillas your right, gorillas have a slightly longer digestive tract making it easier for them to digest greens but humans arn't supposed to eat mainly greens like gorillas do. Our natural diet we thrive on is a high carb diet, whats the highest carb product you can eat in nature?????? Sweet fruit!! Now think about it this way, everyone has the instinct to eat sweet stuff. There is not one person in the whole world who doesn't like sweet things, there must be a reason for this? ofcourse there is because we're naturally supposed to be eating sweet fruits all day. When was the last time you looked at a raw piece of meat and thought wow that looks good, i wanna eat that raw. You havn't because raw meat is disgusting, no human is naturally attracted to raw meat.. All you have to do is think about it logically and it becomes clear. The fact that cooked animals fats are one of the most deadly things you can put in your body should be a good indicator

If we're meant to eat a high carb diet, then why does eating such a diet cause more harm than good, as is supported by most controlled, double blind studies? Maybe we like sweet things because it's such a rarity in the wild. Fruits are not as common as wild game, nuts and seeds and some leefy vegetables.

Fruits arn't as common as nuts and leafs?? Maybe leafs but hardly, before governments/society started developing land fruit trees grew wild everywhere. Have you ever heard of any animal being naturally attracted to somthing because they rarley get it? that just doesn't make sense.

www.medicinenet.com... , too much rpotien not bad?? This seems to state otherwise. Please do post the "double blind study where they proved high carbs are bad". How much you want to bet they based there assumption on cooked carbs like grains and not fruits???? Go study up on what the ideal diet is for an athletic person(which humans naturally are) its high carbs.

reply to post by Rawhemp


An earlier post, from myself, showed an increase in obesity possitively correlated with an increase in vegetable intake. Unfortunately the study is epidemiological, which doesn't prove causality, but it does show how a high carb diet, of any sorts, is not healthy.

You linked an article that was written by a health writer and, possibly, reviewed by a doctor. That tells me nothing. Actually, it tells me that you're relying on a hypothesis that is not backed by data.

Fat is the preferred fuel source by the body. If fat is so bad, especially saturated as is preached, why are carbs converted into tryglycerides and then, if not burned for fuel, stored as saturated fat in fat cells?

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd


Fat is the preferred fuel source by the body. If fat is so bad, especially saturated as is preached, why are carbs converted into tryglycerides and then, if not burned for fuel, stored as saturated fat in fat cells?

-Dev

This statement right here proves you have no idea what your talking about, carbs are our bodys fuel. Fats are stored to be turned into carbs at later times when we don't have access, only reason extra carbs turn into fats is to store for later uses as carbs.

all your study shows is a link between vegetable intake and obesity, which is probally another bull# study conducted by the gov for there own personal gain. Ontop of this vegetables dont = carbs, So again where is the double blind study where they said a natural (fruit) high carb diet is bad??? O wait there is none, get a clue. Why don't you make some more assumptions as to why we crave sweets.... Or maybe more of your nonsense about how fruit trees are so rare lmao



[edit on 9-7-2009 by Rawhemp]

reply to post by Rawhemp


Adhering to hypotheses while faithfully proclaiming them as fact is, as you've demonstrated, alive and well in the Medical forums of ATS. Knowing this, I'm sure my posts will have little effect on your beliefs and persuasion would likely be an uphill battle and will most certainly be rubuttaled with ridicule and personal attacks, but I will try. Not so much for you, but for the readers. Deny Ignorance, right?

Physiology:

- Fat is the preferred fuel source of the body and is utilized by mitochondrial oxidation of fatty acids.
- Excess glucose is stored as saturated fat(palmitic acid) and the process is controlled and regulated by insulin.
- Carbohydrate consumption causes the liver to produce tryglycerides into the blood.
- Protein can be converted to glycogen to be used as fuel. Fat, in general, can't. Exception: Tryglycerides are basically three fatty acids attached to a glycerol molecule. The tryglycerides can be broken down and the glycerol molecules can combine to make glucose, however, in limited amounts.
- Cancer cells use glucose from the blood to fuel it's rapid proliferation. Exessive carbohydrate consumption provides plenty of fuel for cancer cells to flourish
- Excessively consuming carbohydrates increases Glycation and AGE's(Advanced Glycation End-products). Together, these effects contribute to aging and many of the chronic diseases associated with it.

Few questions:

Can you explain to me how a vegetable is not a carbohydrate?

Have you any idea the metabolic effects of insulin?

Depending on geograpical location, fruit can be a rare commodity. If every study that suggests anything to the contrary of your own belief is dismissed by yourself as being "BS for the governent's own personal gain", then I'd rather not waist my time. Besides, I'm sure the termonology used would have you hunting google for definitions for hours on end.

We crave sweets because they are addictive. Plain and simple.

Enjoy,

-Dev

stop trying to sound so smart, its lame.
The simple unarguable fact remains teh same, meat is
MURDER.
its 2009 and its 100% unesesary. admit your just a terrible human being and you hold no regard for life, and move on. its ok, not everyone has teh ability to respect another creatures right to exist.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by STFUPPERCUTTER]

reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER


I'll take that as a compliment. Meat is murder, but carbs are suicide.

"Murdering" animals isn't necessary to eat, however, it is necessary to eat healthily. It's very obvious, when one looks at the data without bias, that our bodies weren't designed to eat a high carbohydrate diet.

-Dev

Your definition of eating healthy involves corpse consumption?
interesting....