Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer

(The Real Agenda) Cancer is not a disease and it is not a series of diseases, either. Contrary to what most people think, cancer is nothing else than the body’s expression of massive toxicity. This is why chemotherapy and radiation are not effective tools to treat or cure cancer. Neither chemotherapy nor radiation end toxicity. In fact, they increase it.

The origin of body toxicity usually stems from the liver’s incapacity to get rid of substances that enter the human body. Preventing cancer can be as easy as cleansing your body, more specifically, cleansing your liver.

When people do not carry out frequent cleansings of the liver as well as other organs and, in addition, consume food products that are loaded with chemicals, GMOs, estrogen mimickers, pesticides and herbicides, among others, that the body cannot excrete, these chemicals bioaccumulate to a point where they cause a chain reaction of cellular over multiplication and overgrowth. The result is the apparition of bulks of tissue that are better known as tumors.

Many of the ingredients that may cause cancer are found in processed foods and red meat. Red meat, although for a different reason, also promotes body toxicity which may or may not develop into disease such as cancer, but that may also manifest as fatigue, flu-like symptoms, stomach pain or cramps, and a host of other warnings.

So-called genetic predisposition, a supposed conditioned understood by many as a death sentence, may or may not be a trigger to develop cancer during a person’s lifetime. Just because relatives have suffered from cancer does not mean a person is destined to have the same outcome. As of today, genetic testing to detect alleged predisposition to cancer or other diseases is non-conclusive at best.

What has been scientifically proven up until today is that the ingredients contained in processed meats and frequent consumption of red meat do serve as preconditions to develop diseases such as cancer.

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, thorough review of scientific literature does show enough proof that red meat is a probable trigger of colorectal cancer in humans.

In addition to colorectal cancer, literature also shows associations between consumption of red meat and pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

“The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%,” says the press release published by the WHO.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed. In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance,” explained Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.

Meanwhile, says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, ”these findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.” He emphasized that the results of the latest review of literature are important because they enable people to conduct risk assessments, which in turn may result in a clear path towards balancing the risks and benefits of eating red meat.

The most recent evaluation from the WHO also makes a clear distinction about what is considered red meat, so that people have a clear understanding about which meats they should avoid. “Red meat refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.”

An important differentiation was also made about processed meats, which the report identifies as that which has been “transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.”

According to the WHO, over 8 million people die every year from cancer. Cancer deaths account for about 13% of all deaths worldwide. IARC expects that cancer rates increase by 70% in the next 2 decades.

The post Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Janet Yellen Is About To Hate Bacon

For 99.9999% (our estimate) of Americans, there is great news on the way - retail bacon prices are about to plummet. However, with food accounting for 14% of CPI, we suspect the pork-price-pounding is about to become Janet Yellen"s new "transitory" problem.

In the first half of the year, the best performing commodity in the tradable universe was the USDA Boxed Pork Belly Cut 200lb, which had risen 87% year-to-date, with the media reassuring that the demand was not just seasonal.

For months, many market participants talked of a new paradigm for US pork prices, suggesting that in the future, (like avocado toast) bacon would be added to everything and the public"s appetite for it was insatiable (which makes perfect sense).

However, in the last few weeks, the bacon price has plunged 30%...

Which implies the price of a "rasher" at your local convenience store is about to tumble!!

And as the bacon price collapses, food in general is way down. The CRB FOOD index (US spot foodstuffs) has collapsed (dropping for 8 straight weeks)

(The index consists of: butter, cocoa, corn, hogs, lard, soybean oil, steers, sugar and Minny and KC wheat.)

More good news for Americans with stagnant wages!!

But, given that Janet Yellen and her merry band of piss-poor-prognisticators are desperate for transitory lowflation to pick up (remember they blamed the current downturn on unlimited phone plans), she may have a problem. With food accounting for 14% of the US CPI basket, it is not completely devastating, but does not help Yellen"s cause.

Real Fake News: Science Used As Propaganda

Authored by Joe Jarvis via The Daily Bell,

Did you know that doctors and scientists can be corrupt or simply wrong?

People seem to give doctors and scientists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their findings and opinions on things like global warming, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, chemicals, and how unhealthy certain foods and habits are.

But like any other humans, scientists and doctors are, well, human. They can be misguided, confused, corrupt, and stubbornly opinionated.

According to Natural News, as many as 20,000 doctors once recommended smoking cigarettes to aid digestion.

In 1940’s Camel ran an ad campaign that claimed “More Doctors Smoke Camels.”

They even handed out packs of Camels to doctors at a medical convention and then polled the doctors on their way out the door, asking what their favorite cigarette brand was, or what kind they had in their pocket at that moment.

Unfortunately, money has corrupted industries like big pharma who pay doctors and scientists to take a position and prescribe particular drugs and treatment. Many peer-reviewed studies have predetermined outcomes which basically find the facts to fit their narrative. It is more a marketing ploy to publish in scientific and medical journals than proof of the actual findings.

Sugar was long considered fine to dump down children’s throats because in the 1960’s a handful of scientists were paid off.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.

The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

But even absent actual corruption, basic mistakes are being made in scientific conclusions.

Correlation is not causation. This is a basic foundational tenet of science. Two things may be very strongly correlated, but that does not prove that one causes the other.

According to Reason Magazine:

When it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff of studies that are mediocre or just plain bad, Albert Einstein College of Medicine epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat is a national treasure.

“Most research findings are false or exaggerated, and the more dramatic the result, the less likely it is to be true,” he declares in his excellent new book Getting Risk Right.

Kabat discusses how “the dose makes the poison,” in that saying something doubles your risk of a disease could actually be statistically irrelevant.

For example, you may have heard that eating bacon increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Technically, this is true. If you eat two slices of bacon every day of your life the risk of colorectal cancer increases from 5 to 6 percent. That is not exactly the same risk as smoking cigarettes, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 to 50 times over.

And then, of course, you must consider the editorial bias. You’re Risking Your Life Eating Bacon is more likely to get a click than Everyday Bacon Eating Increases Cancer Risk by 1%.

Kabat suggests that the precautionary principle–“better safe than sorry”–is largely an ideological ploy to alarm the public into supporting advocates’ policy preferences.

He also decries “the simplistic notion that ‘consensus among scientists’ is always correct.” He notes that scientific consensus once held that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress instead of bacteria…

Here’s the thing, I like to be healthy, and I personally often follow the better safe than sorry principle. But it is a huge miscarriage of authority to push this view on others through fear. It is the idea of I know better than these silly peasants that unfortunately seems to permeate the scientific and medical communities.

Are GMOs, pesticides, and chemicals like BPA really as bad as they say? I personally avoid them, but I honestly haven’t done enough of my own research to know for sure.Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy

Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy then unhealthy, then healthy again by experts.

People look to doctors and scientists for guidance and too often are brainwashed with those individuals’ own biases and unsubstantiated opinions.

If an expert cannot or will not answer questions about their work, that is a red flag. When people talk about consensus among experts instead of the actual facts, that is another red flag.

There have been too many times in recent history when the experts, the scientists, and the doctors were willfully or mistakenly wrong.

Sometimes, yes, we must defer to experts, since it is simply impossible to research it all on your own. But that doesn’t mean we should forgo the due diligence in critical thinking that goes along with it.

Fear sells. We are used to it in the media but don’t usually expect it from doctors and scientists. But they are humans too, and just as likely to push their agenda instead of the truth.

Real Fake News: Science Used as Propaganda

Via The Daily Bell

Did you know that doctors and scientists can be corrupt or simply wrong?

People seem to give doctors and scientists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their findings and opinions on things like global warming, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, chemicals, and how unhealthy certain foods and habits are.

But like any other humans, scientists and doctors are, well, human. They can be misguided, confused, corrupt, and stubbornly opinionated.

According to Natural News, as many as 20,000 doctors once recommended smoking cigarettes to aid digestion. In 1940’s Camel ran an ad campaign that claimed “More Doctors Smoke Camels.” They even handed out packs of Camels to doctors at a medical convention and then polled the doctors on their way out the door, asking what their favorite cigarette brand was, or what kind they had in their pocket at that moment.

Unfortunately, money has corrupted industries like big pharma who pay doctors and scientists to take a position and prescribe particular drugs and treatment. Many peer-reviewed studies have predetermined outcomes which basically find the facts to fit their narrative. It is more a marketing ploy to publish in scientific and medical journals than proof of the actual findings.

Sugar was long considered fine to dump down children’s throats because in the 1960’s a handful of scientists were paid off.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

But even absent actual corruption, basic mistakes are being made in scientific conclusions.

Correlation is not causation. This is a basic foundational tenet of science. Two things may be very strongly correlated, but that does not prove that one causes the other.

According to Reason Magazine:

When it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff of studies that are mediocre or just plain bad, Albert Einstein College of Medicine epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat is a national treasure. “Most research findings are false or exaggerated, and the more dramatic the result, the less likely it is to be true,” he declares in his excellent new book Getting Risk Right.

Kabat discusses how “the dose makes the poison,” in that saying something doubles your risk of a disease could actually be statistically irrelevant.

For example, you may have heard that eating bacon increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Technically, this is true. If you eat two slices of bacon every day of your life the risk of colorectal cancer increases from 5 to 6 percent. That is not exactly the same risk as smoking cigarettes, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 to 50 times over.

And then, of course, you must consider the editorial bias. You’re Risking Your Life Eating Bacon is more likely to get a click than Everyday Bacon Eating Increases Cancer Risk by 1%.

Kabat suggests that the precautionary principle–“better safe than sorry”–is largely an ideological ploy to alarm the public into supporting advocates’ policy preferences. He also decries “the simplistic notion that ‘consensus among scientists’ is always correct.” He notes that scientific consensus once held that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress instead of bacteria…

Available on Amazon.

Here’s the thing, I like to be healthy, and I personally often follow the better safe than sorry principle. But it is a huge miscarriage of authority to push this view on others through fear. It is the idea of I know better than these silly peasants that unfortunately seems to permeate the scientific and medical communities.

Are GMOs, pesticides, and chemicals like BPA really as bad as they say? I personally avoid them, but I honestly haven’t done enough of my own research to know for sure.Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy

Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy then unhealthy, then healthy again by experts.

People look to doctors and scientists for guidance and too often are brainwashed with those individuals’ own biases and unsubstantiated opinions.

If an expert cannot or will not answer questions about their work, that is a red flag. When people talk about consensus among experts instead of the actual facts, that is another red flag.

There have been too many times in recent history when the experts, the scientists, and the doctors were willfully or mistakenly wrong.

Sometimes, yes, we must defer to experts, since it is simply impossible to research it all on your own. But that doesn’t mean we should forgo the due diligence in critical thinking that goes along with it.

Fear sells. We are used to it in the media but don’t usually expect it from doctors and scientists. But they are humans too, and just as likely to push their agenda instead of the truth.

Bacon Boom Busts

Great news America - After soaring to the highest price in three years, wholesale prices for pork bellies, the cut used for making bacon, are heading for a 25% loss over two weeks.

As Bloomberg notes, increased demand had more than doubled prices since August, but now bellies are so expensive that the high costs are stemming demand, according to David Kruse, president of Commstock Investments Inc.

And while the average joe may see his so-called pocketbook better off as pork prices plunge (or will obviously purchase more bacon), the above-average-joes (who drive their Beamers and Benz"s) are facing an ever increasing cost for their luxury lifestyles...

The premium gasoline that fuels luxury cars made by Mercedes-Benz to Audi has always been more expensive than regular, but the difference keeps getting bigger.

As Bloomberg points out, premium costs almost 50 cents a gallon extra, nearly doubling in the past four years. And don’t expect the trend to change -- environmental rules limiting sulfur that kicked in this year could make the higher-octane fuel scarcer and even more costly in the future.

So, it seems very clear that consumer confidence is soaring because bacon prices are plunging, not Trumptopian hope...

Never mind the collapse in real wages.