The cancer arm of the World Health Organization has some serious concerns about some of Americans’ favorite foods. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it classifies red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer.

Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it. Processes include salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking. Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb, and goat.

Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

Overall, the lifetime risk of someone developing colon cancer is 5%. To put the numbers into perspective, the increased risk from eating the amount of processed meat in the study would raise average lifetime risk to almost 6%.

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

Read the study. The average raises almost 1 percent. This was copied straight from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html.

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Health insurance is priced to be profitable taking into account the group that is being covered.

For example:

If an individual (group of 1) woman gets coverage, birth control costs will be in her monthly payment.
She however won't have high risk of prostate cancer factoring into her payment.

If an individual (group of 1) man gets insurance coverage, he won't have birth control costs in his monthly payment.
He will however have the higher risk of prostate cancer factoring into his payment.

If an employer gets coverage, the payments will be the average cost of each individual (aside from a 'group discount')
If there is 1 woman and 1 man, they are splitting the cost of 1x birth control and 1x higher risk of prostate cancer.


This is why businesses like to hire young employees, and don't like to hire older employees.
Younger employees keep the monthly insurance payments lower, older employees make monthly insurance payments higher.
That way a bunch of kids get to subsidize the old farts running the place.

Anyways, point being...

Women getting birth control coverage will NOT mean that an individual man with his own plan will have to pay anything for birth control.

It does mean that if birth control coverage is required, then groups containing women will be required to pay for birth control for the women in that group.

In a group, women already subsidize men's prostate cancer, and men already subsidize women's breast cancer, etc.
Birth control would just be another of many items that are mostly male/female specific that people already pay for when in a group.

It's worth keeping in mind that plans commonly offer 'blue pill' coverage for men, so it's not like women are getting ahead in the sexy-time costs.

-scheherazade

Not to mention prostate cancer...

>> ^Skeeve:

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.
The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.

People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:
@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS



I have no idea dude, whether it's the same here or not. Your post is very interesting. All I do know is my dad had prostate cancer after being checked and they caught it early enough for him to get away with a few weeks of radiation therapy, so maybe I'm biased

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.

The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.



People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:

@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS

A great article in Scientific American makes a pretty good case that you should avoid prostate exams in almost all cases. Ricky is both mean and dangerous to be associated with.

Most of the article is about the PSA blood test, but it provides some amazing general statistics: "to save one life from prostate cancer, about 1,400 men would have to be screened, leading 48 men to undergo treatment. So 47 men would be treated unnecessarily - many of whom would suffer fairly serious side effects - so that one man's death from prostate cancer could be prevented."

>> ^smooman:

one step closer to a police state?
shut
the
fuck
up
spend some time in china, laos, iran, or (to a lesser extent) russia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to italy or germany leading up to wwii or communist russia. compare them with us and tell me how close we are to a police state stupid fuck

Your lung cancer is bad?


shut

the

fuck

up

Spend some time with testicular cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer, renal cancer, or (to a lesser extent) Leukemia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to the 1340s for some Black Death or the 1980s for AIDS. Compare them with your lung cancer and tell me how bad you have it, stupid fuck.

See how dumb that sounds?

Thanks for the story! When/if it gets to be my time I hope they have little nanobots to do it (maybe not that probable) or that my crying and begging will somehow move the doctor enough to sedate me for the procedure ahahahaha. I seriously don't know if I could take the pain and discomfort.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Also, deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

For those who don't know, Dennis is sick and broke and might not recover from prostate cancer (because, apparently, even being a great actor doesn't preclude the fact that HMOs have made it illegal to cure cancer in the U.S.A.).

That was excellent!

I'd like to dedicate this post to my extreme luck at having miraculously been able to survive to my current age without ever falling victim to:

AIDs, nuclear war, terrorism, salmonella, rabies, penis removal by a jealous lover, carpal tunnel syndrome, H1N1, hostage crisis, arson, skin cancer from global warming / ozone layer depletion, nanotechnology attack, killer bee stings, school gun violence, erectile dysfunction, guerrilla insurgents, sex-crazed porn addict serial killers, wrath of God / Muhammed / Shiva / Buddha / Flying Spaghetti Monster, testicular cancer, flesh eating bacteria, sticky pedals or exploding gas tanks in my car, stingrays piercing my heart, earthquakes / tsunamis / hurricanes / tornadoes, cellphone brain tumors, prostate cancer, anal probes (except to prevent prostate cancer), fundamental loss of reality due to playing video games, spontaneous human combustion,
...
..
.