RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Dr. Jerry Knox BA, DC" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:26:28 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
<< And finally: Key et al., BMJ 313:775 (1996) found that the breast
 cancer mortality ratio of vegetarians was significantly greater (1.65) than
 that for health-conscious nonvegetarians. >>

again breast cancer and exogenous female hormones are a great risk. Meat
products are commonly high in female hormones, but milk is far higher. As far
as I know milk is usually produced by females among us mammals. So that
vegetarians that consume milk, and most lacto ovo vegetarians consume more
milk, cheeze and milk products than the general population, so that you would
expect and predict  a higher breast cancer rate among lacto ovo vegetarians,
than the average population,  and a lower rate than average among vegans.
This, if you will research the studies should be born out. As in India, a
largely vegetarian, but not vegan, population the cancer rates are not low.

Other variables, since vegans and vegetarians tend to have longer lives in
general that the general population, there is an inverse curve. Cancer is
generally rare before age 40 in all groups. To have a meaningful study, you
would have to specifically separate vegans and lacto ovo vegetarians. Logical
thinking would predict a higher than normal rate of breast cancer for the one
group and a lower one for the other. Other variables that are not considered
are age as I mentioned, A 90 year old that has breast cancer is not nearly as
significant as a 30 year old. Another variable is onset of puberty, normally
about 16 in vegan girls, much younger down to 9 in meat eaters.  Often a
change to being a vegan in adulthood or late life is not preventative to
stopping diseases already in progress. Cancer often takes decades to develope.
While I am certain, and as soon as I get access to my references will make
these available, It may or may not reverse of eliminate  it once it is
started. Unfortunately without these two bits of information, the studies you
mention only tend to prove that milk is  a bad food. They neither prove nor
disprove that a vegan diet is a preventative of cancer. I do know that there
are good scientific studies that do show that vegetarians do have lower rates
of breast, colon, lung and some other cancers.

Before we all jump on this a proof that being vegan works, which I know it
does, with lung cancer if should be noted that not many vegetarians smoke.
Smoking certainly causes more lung cancer and heart disease than any other
cause in society, so that alone may account for our low rate of lung cancer.
Colon cancer is another matter. And as to your primative man studies, the age
factor is great. Eskimos didn't live long. They were in a very harsh
environment that required vigorus good health. Cancer developes post 40 in
civilization. Many of the populations with no cancer did not live long enough
on average to develope the disease. NOw with medical care, heat, and support
Eskimos live much longer than their ancestors, and develope cancer in the same
age groups  as other peoples. I tend to agree with you on their native diet
and lifestyle, of those that did live to above 40, I think the cancer rate
would have been much lower among the eskimos and other groups that did not eat
"white man's" food. I think that is true, but without age comparisons the
studies dont mean much.

This is why I dont like, nor trust study quoting, if you understand the
physiology, anatomy and otherh things that are relevant, such results (which
seem to fly in the face of logic) can be easily delt with by understanding
the flaws in the methods and data. One of these studies which I though was
wonderful, was that you can prove that fire engines cause fires by studying
the incidence of fire engines at the site of fires. There are very few unless
there is a fire, so that fire engines must cause fires, if you study it in an
objective scientific way, without understanding the proccess.

thanks, Liked your input, and when I can I will go through those studies and
find out where the errors are. I feel sure that, noticing the names, that the
vegetarians were Indian, that the inclusion of milk using vegetarians will be
the culprit.

Jerry


ATOM RSS1 RSS2