PDA

View Full Version : Cancer and animal products



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

eve
Jun 17th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Thank you tails, however, I'm sure we all know of people, often family members, who consumed meat and dairy all their lives, yet lived to a ripe old age. Moreover, we know of people who took great care to eat and exercise properly, yet died early. We really can't rule out our genes.

Nivvie
Jun 17th, 2005, 09:06 AM
I've given up trying to work these things out.
My great aunt seemed to do nothing but smoke and drink tea all day, but lived until 90, but her son died at 34 from his cigarette intake.

I see so many grieiving people looking for answers, and while it's a good idea to live healthily, many of the people I work with either at the hospital or at the mortuary, still smoke and skydive and everything, because they are constantly reminded that although that 'you might get hit by a bus tomorrow' is a lame statement when used as an excuse, it really might happen.

Although, I believe if I die young I don't want it to be my fault, for my husband and child to know I could have prevented leaving them. I need it to be the unquestionable hand of fate that carries me away, not cholesterol intake and tobacco.

adam antichrist
Jun 17th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Yes, very sorry to hear that Eve.

Bowel cancer is the 6th in a series of genetic mutations, caused by oxidants like the free radical O3- (a single oxygen atom with one less electron than usual). However any one of us could have been born with (for example) the fourth stage of mutation already expressed, and not know about it. The fifth mutation results in the formation of polyps, and I had a girlfriend 5 years ago who had had polyps removed in her early twenties.

I am very keen to see the original report, to see if the number of people who developed cancer is statistically significant, in which case the cattle and pork industries are on the verge of lawsuits for endangering human health.

I'd really love it if the study was funded by the beef industry!

eve
Jun 17th, 2005, 04:35 PM
I get polyps removed each year; in fact I just had it done this week, most unpleasant. :(

veganblue
Jun 17th, 2005, 05:02 PM
For the full journal article you can find the pdf here. (http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;97/12/906?ijkey=951ea535d043f31cc366ca80dadef5ce4978546d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Just follow the links in the menu at the right of the screen.

adam antichrist
Jun 17th, 2005, 05:43 PM
Cool, so it's saying that poultry intake had no effect overall on the meateaters where as fish consumption had an inversley proportional effect on the risk of bowel cancer. I wonder if they used vegos in their control group?

It's funny this study came out when it did because for the last couple of weeks I had been trying to find stats on bowel cancer increases over the last 40 years in australia to see if these can be correlated with the increase on factory farmed chooks but if chooks aren't relevant...neither is my idea!
:o

marika5
Jun 28th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Micronutrient deficiences also cause cancer. Ames mentions the bare minimum 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day but 10-55 is probably much more protective:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Mutat Res. 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20.

DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a major cause of cancer.

Ames BN.

University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu

A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example, the percentage of the US population that has a low intake (<50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial


PMID: 11295149 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


2: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;889:87-106.

Micronutrient deficiencies. A major cause of DNA damage.

Ames BN.

University of California, Berkeley 94720-3202, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu

Deficiencies of the vitamins B12, B6, C, E, folate, or niacin, or of iron or zinc mimic radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. The percentage of the population of the United States that has a low intake (< 50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2% to 20+ percent. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks occurred in approximately 10% of the population of the United States, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that vitamin B12 and B6 deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. Eighty percent of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies is likely to lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial


PMID: 10668486 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


3: Toxicol Lett. 1998 Dec 28;102-103:5-18.

Micronutrients prevent cancer and delay aging.

Ames BN.

University of California, Berkeley 94720-3202, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu

Approximately 40 micronutrients are required in the human diet. Deficiency of vitamins B12, folic acid, B6, niacin, C, or E, or iron, or zinc, appears to mimic radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. The percentage of the US population that has a low intake (< 50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2% to > or = 20%; half of the population may be deficient in at least one of these micronutrients. Folate deficiency occurs in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased cancer risk, and perhaps the cognitive defects associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that vitamin B12 and B6 deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has approximately double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. Eighty percent of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies is likely to lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost. Aging appears to be due, in good part, to the oxidants produced by mitochondria as by-products of normal metabolism. In old rats mitochondrial membrane potential, cardiolipin levels, respiratory control ratio, and overall cellular O2 consumption are lower than in young rats, and the level of oxidants (per unit O2) is higher. The level of mutagenic aldehydes from lipid peroxidation is also increased. Ambulatory activity declines markedly in old rats. Feeding old rats the normal mitochondrial metabolites acetyl carnitine and lipoic acid for a few weeks, restores mitochondrial function, lowers oxidants to the level of a young rat, and increases ambulatory activity. Thus, these two metabolites can be considered necessary for health in old age and are therefore conditional micronutrients. This restoration suggests a plausible mechanism: with age-increased oxidative damage to proteins and lipid membranes causes a deformation of structure of key enzymes, with a consequent lessening of affinity (Km) for the enzyme substrate; an increased level of the substrate restores the velocity of the reaction, and thus restores function.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial


PMID: 10022226 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

eve
Jun 29th, 2005, 11:05 AM
Do you act on all that information you've copied from Medline? There are many variations on why some people die of cancer, and some don't. Vegans tend to think it's from meat, but the point is that most people eat meat, so naturally when we check out all the people with cancer, they are bound to be mostly meat-eaters. And really, how can anyone eat 10-55 servings of fruit and vegies a day? 10 yes, but 55? :p

Nivvie
Jun 29th, 2005, 02:20 PM
My brother recently told me that talcum powder can cause cancer. Does anyone have any factual evidence that could help back this up?

Roxy.


Sorry to hark this back, but I recently cut open out an ovarian tumour (at work, no, I'm not a psycho) and it turned out to have a talc substance in the middle.

Regarding how many people have cancerous tissue, it is more common than thought, but the 1 in 3 deaths is still accurate, as cancer works in tandem with your age. The younger you are, the effective your cells, the better the blood supply to the cancer, the faster it spreads. It goes through kids like wildfire, but this is where the stress element comes into play. Kids cope well, they don't have the fears we do and often just get on with getting better, instead of fretting their immune system away.

Many old people have cancer, but it's so slow, it doesn't kill them. Old ladies everywhere have suspicous moles, and I once in my previous job as a nurse dealt with an old man who had a tumour on his face. It was due to be removed, but before it could, he had a fall and took it clean off on the back step of his house. He was fine after that, it hadn't spead at all, and required no further treatment. A young, healthy person would have had far more of a battle.


Cancer in general to me is nature's way of saying our modern life is rubbish. There are contaminents and carcinogens everywhere, then we drink milk and make these over-producing reactionary cells accelerate.

Nomadic deer herders in Siberia don't get ill, let alone cancer.
The list of natural peoples who evade cancer is huge.

Mija
Jun 29th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Sometimes I think there's no relation between cancer and food one eats... It's such a complicated disease that it's hard to know the reasons... There are people who have VERY unhealthy lifestyles, and still they don't become ill. I tend to think it depends on a person and on the amount of radiation s/he gets... So scary, these days it seems that cancer is everywhere :(

Cryospark
Jun 30th, 2005, 05:08 AM
Cancer is related to everything a person does, people you see living very unhealthy lifestyles will develop it, it takes time to take hold. The thing is some things that seem unhealthy actually do have benefits and counteract each other and so on. Cancer occurs in the body simply because the body has made it possible for the cancer to sustain itself and prosper, my view is every disease is the same in origin. Everyone is susceptable to cancer you may have heard somewhere that everyone has cancer but it is inactive, this is correct in a way. It is a very complicated process, I'll try to make it simple.

Our diets and lifestyles are very much to blame low nutritious foods and protein chelate the bodies nutrients. The nutrients are needed to counteract the acid build up in the body from digesting protein and carbs acidic foods. Calcium, chromium and other nutrients we need for healthy cells are used to dispose of acids that we cannot break down protein digestion creates Strong acids which will not break down from the bile our liver creates, bile of the healthy liver will however regualate weak acids, citric acid carbonic hydrochloric and so on neutralising them.

But if we have no nutrents to extract the strong acids with, we extract the nutrients from things the body is using them for like extract calcium from the bones this will cause other diseases like osteo disorders and such (as you can see everything is linked) but then as soon as the source our body has is depleted, by now we have some disease through the deficiency. The acid will start to build up and build up because it can't possibly be excreted in it's entirety every time. The environment cancer is found in is the most acidic part of the body the diseased areas in the body that are the weakest will mutate become malignant as to try and survive their environment, this now is cancer. Radiation therapy kills you aswell as the cancer it only helps if the cancer is not strong enough to survive the radiation, luckily for cancer, it requires not much help to grow unlike a healthy cell which requires so many things malignant cells require energy only they have their acids to get the rest they need they need no oxygen like the rest of our cells, an un oxygenated area of the body is very prone to cancer.

What cancer seems to be to me is our bodies ability to adapt working against us, these cells are superior to our own in survival which is what makes cancer hard to rid. This is why it will always be best to catch early. Every disease can be cured they all have the same causes, problem is westernised medicine doesnt treat the cause.


Best way to avoid cancer is to excercise and eat nutritional food, excercise helps to excrete acids, you guys I'm sure have tasted your sweat its acidic, acid helps your skin function also topically this is why sweat is good for your skin, why people use sauna's. Anyone with a disease or deficiency these are the warning signs and people should take note. It's sad that western medicine is so fearful of alternative medicine, they really should be though, they have no answers themself and it's becoming very apparent. Alternative medicine is the only way currently to cure degenerative diseases, coupled with a massive change in diet and lifestyle.

rujoon
Aug 12th, 2005, 12:09 PM
New meta-analysis supports milk’s role in ovarian cancer

A new meta-analysis investigated the association between milk consumption
and risk of ovarian cancer. Conducted by researchers at Sweden’s Karolinska
Institute, the new study found that the strongest evidence of the
milk-cancer association came from 3 prospective studies. Every 13 grams of
lactose (the amount in one glass of milk) ingested on a daily basis
increased ovarian cancer risk by 13 percent. Case-control studies are a
weaker line of evidence and produced conflicting results. Prior
investigators have suggested that lactose, the dairy sugar, may have a toxic
effect on ovarian tissues in women who are unable to rapidly metabolize it.

Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Milk, milk products, and lactose intake and
ovarian cancer risk: A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Int J
Cancer; Published online August 5, 2005. Available via Wiley InterScience at
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/ijc. (http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/ijc.)
For information about nutrition and health, please visit www.pcrm.org.

Breaking Medical News is a service of the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, 5100 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400, Washington, DC
20016.

adam antichrist
Aug 12th, 2005, 04:24 PM
That link is broken rujoon

try this (http://www.pcrm.org/cgi-bin/lists/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20050809104935&list=news)