© unknownWhile nutrition-loaded animal fats have been deemed carcinogenic by the nutritional science mafia, soup complete with MSG, gluten, oxidized cholesterol, rancid vegetable oils and synthetic vitamins is "fighting for the cure".
When a society is so steeped in corruption, so in-over-its-head in lies that serve only to fatten the pockets of the elite while the masses suffer, rather than representing an honest search for objective truth, 'science' becomes yet another tool for inflicting the dominant ideology on the ignorant plebes. The real problem, however, is that more often than not, the plebes believe it.
A new 'study' coming from the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program at Michigan State University, published in the current online issue of Breast Cancer Research is a case in point. As Science Daily reports:
"New findings show that eating a high-fat diet beginning at puberty speeds up the development of breast cancer and may actually increase the risk of cancer similar to a type often found in younger adult women. "We're only at the first paragraph and already we're seeing red flags. Let it be known right now that a "high fat diet" in a clinical study is almost never a true high fat diet. In fact, the exception is so rare that it's barely worth using the qualifier "almost". The current study is no exception. The diet was comprised of corn oil, lard, dextrin, sucrose, casein, and a bunch of minerals and synthetic vitamins.
In other words, what they're testing here is a processed diet - not a high fat diet, not a low fat diet, not a high protein diet, not a Mediterranean diet, and not any other diet-of-the-week. A processed foods diet is its own beast. Always. You cannot make any kind of generalization about macronutrient composition (fats:carbs:proteins) when you're dealing in processed foods. It's a diet doomed to failure no matter what your ratios. You're only shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic (or the Olympic, more likely) - the ship is sinking before it even leaves the port.
The Science Daily article goes on:
Utilizing a preclinical model, the findings indicate that before any tumors appear, there are changes in the breast that include increased cell growth and alterations in immune cells. These changes persist into adulthood and can lead to the rapid development of precancerous lesions and ultimately breast cancer.Yep, a diet filled with processed garbage will do that.
In addition to the accelerated breast cancer development, this type of diet produces a distinct gene signature in the tumors consistent with a subset of breast cancers known as basal-like that can carry a worse prognosis.And what exactly is the significance of Professor Sandra Haslam's "work toward efforts against the disease"? Her statements are vague and unclear regarding "this type of diet" and how it can cause cancer that is "aggressive in nature". It's a shame: if we could assume she was talking about a processed foods diet, which is what was actually being studied, there would be no argument here.
"This is very significant because even though the cancers arise from random mutations, the gene signature indicating a basal-like breast cancer shows the overarching and potent influence this type of diet has in the breast," said Sandra Haslam, physiology professor in MSU's College of Human Medicine and one of the lead investigators of the project. "Cancers of this type are more aggressive in nature and typically occur in younger women. This highlights the significance of our work toward efforts against the disease."
Now we get to the interesting part:
Richard Schwartz, microbiology professor and associate dean in the College of Natural Science, has co-led research efforts with Haslam since 2010. The research is funded by a five-year, $2.3 million federal grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute.What a give-away. Let's face it, research does not receive grant money from the federal government without some serious strings attached. One of the tentacles of federal government, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is a bought-and-paid-for institution that never had any business telling people how they should eat since it is in their best interest to sell corn, wheat, soy, promote genetic modification and pump out diseased animals not worthy of human consumption. Nonetheless, the USDA has been dictating what constitutes a healthy diet for the last 60 years. They've made plain the government-corporate agenda and the lengths they'll go to keep a stranglehold on the public discourse on nutrition. They're apparently also not above getting their buddies in on the action, stopping at nothing to preserve their own existence, including funding studies whose outcomes will serve to cement their positions as the arbiters of "health". The Science Daily article illustrates the Corruption of Science in America rather than offering any insight into a healthy diet.
The following article about cancer research is illustrative of the problem.
From Cancer Research of 10 Years Useless: Fraudulent Studies, Says Mayo Clinic:
Signifying the Inherent Corruption in Conventional MedicineEverything said above about cancer research could equally be said about nutritional research. It is a black hole of disease and death, trading in human suffering for obscene profits.
Yes, this is the system of evidence that conventional medicine claims justifies its existence. Instead, it demonstrates that conventional medicine is anything but evidence-based. There is no sound basis for most of modern medicine's treatments, as should certainly be obvious with the constantly increasing rate of chronic disease.
Take a look at the advent of drug resistant diseases, which are growing rampant and often far more virulent. Or look at the false claims of disease eradication through vaccines, when any rational look at the evidence shows that it's not modern medicine we need to thank, but adequate food, good water, and good sanitation systems. Consider the advent of a new kind of whooping cough, 10 times more virulent than the old version and caused by the vaccine itself, while being blamed on the unvaccinated!
Even when there has been apparent success, we often find that it's short-lived and has presented us with worse problems than the ones apparently resolved.
We are, indeed, entering a brave new world of conventional medicine. Unfortunately, the ones who need to be brave are the patients, because they're going to need every bit of resource and resilience they can find to avoid being little more than recipients of whatever modern medicine's pseudo-science manages to spew forth.
While Dr. Horton's comment about fraudulent studies being a "scar on the moral body of science" is true, the whole truth is far more disheartening. The entire system of conventional medicine has become a scar on the psyche and soma of humans.
From Richard Schwartz, mentioned above:
"It's important to note that since our experimental model did not involve any weight gain from the high-fat diet, these findings are relevant to a much broader segment of the population than just those who are overweight. This shows the culprit is the fat itself rather than weight gain."Talk about useful idiots! This study shows NOTHING about the fat in the diet causing the issues found, yet he harps on as if this is the final nail in the coffin for dietary fat!
Shame on them for using Big Agra's toxic oils and then blaming its effects on healthy animal fats! This is another case of really bad science. But wait! Both of the study groups were eating corn oil, yet only one of them got the breast cancer. What gives?
Again we come back to the inescapable fact that what is being studied here is not actually a high-fat diet. It's actually a processed, high 'fat' (vegetable oil) and high sugar diet. It basically mimics the Standard American Diet (SAD), complete with additives like blue food dye. So the real results of this study are "Standard American Diet Causes Breast Cancer!". That should also have been the title of the Science Daily article!
The benefits of a high fat diet are completely negated by the inclusion of sugar, or even starch. As blood sugar rises, insulin is released to bring it back down (because high blood sugar is extremely toxic). Insulin signals the body to store fat and stops the production of ketone bodies. Goodbye high-fat benefits, hello pre-diabetes.
More from the duplicitous Science Daily article:
"Early evidence indicates that the fat, which in this case was saturated animal fat, could potentially have permanent effects even if a low-fat diet is introduced later in life. Schwartz cautions, however, that this preliminary finding requires further investigation and doesn't indicate with certainty that humans will be affected in the same way."Ironically, but probably not accidentally, as is often the case in these "studies", there was less saturated fat in the "saturated fat" they were studying than they would have you believe. Lard is composed primarily of monounsaturated fats, mimicking closely the amount found in olive oil, darling of the Mediterranean diet. Yet we don't see them translating their findings onto recommendations to lower olive oil consumption. Funny that...
They're telling us that "saturated fat could potentially have permanent effects later in life", but based on what science exactly? That somewhat elevated saturated fat in a high-sugar processed diet led to more cancer than in a processed diet that was lower in fat? And only in rats, no less? Is this really newsworthy? We guess the lesson here is that if you're going to eat a bunch of processed garbage, including high-sugar, dextrose, corn oil, casein and food colourings, keep your fat consumption low. Thanks for the tip, Corporate Science!
But, as Schwartz cautions, "this is just preliminary findings, in need of further investigation and doesn't indicate with certainty that humans will be affected". It's nice of Schwartz to admit his study essentially tells us nothing; or maybe he was instructed by his Big Agribusiness sponsors to play down the findings because, if anyone actually looks in detail at the study, they will quickly realise, as we have done, that it is the Standard American Diet, full of veggie oils and processed foods - foods that generate massive profits for Big Agribusiness, that causes cancer.
So what exactly are these guys doing with a five-year, $2.3 million grant from the federal government? Publishing 'research' about the link between a high fat diet, puberty and breast cancer development with the sole intent of scaring the public into never ever leaving their over-processed, sugary low-fat diets (which deteriorate their health in myriad ways) for fear that even daring to experiment with a high-fat, low-carb diet will doom them to future breast cancer. "But I was a teenager! I didn't know any better!" - Too bad, says the government, you ate fat, so you got cancer.
"Overall, our current research indicates that avoiding excessive dietary fat of this type may help lower one's risk of breast cancer down the road. And since there isn't any evidence suggesting that avoiding this type of diet is harmful, it just makes sense to do it."Their 'research' does not indicate anything of the kind. The only thing that could have made these so-called 'scientists' produce such an obnoxiously ignorant statement is blind belief in decades of Big Agribusiness propaganda and/or bribery. What their shoddy research does is grab headlines that enforce the lie that eating a completely artificial diet that resembles nothing human beings have ever eaten in the entire history of the race is the only option for avoiding a slow painful death. Avoiding fats is actually the single most harmful thing anyone can do.
It seems that Dr. Schwartz hasn't yet gotten around to researching the current science about the health benefits of a saturated fat diet. Anyone who had done the research, in an unbiased attempt to uncover the truth, would know that there is so much evidence for the harm of a low-fat diet that you would have to be an idiot or willfully ignorant to follow one.
the term "vegetable fat" has always seemed something of a contradiction in terms to me. Go grab your nearest veggie and see if you can entice it, by whatever means, to produce anything resembling fat. Then try the same experiment on a piece of animal meat. See?