‘World Cancer Day 2014’ – The Cancer Pandemic: Forget Sugar! Blame The Smokers!

roll-your-own-cigaretteEarlier today I posted a comment on this BBC article. It was one of those comment boxes where you submit your name, location, ph. number and email address and it gets sent off to the BBC’s department of censorship for rejection.

My comment went something like: “It’s nice to finally see some official recognition that sugar is involved in cancer. Governments should redirect the funds they allocate to anti-smoking campaigns towards a campaign to inform people about the dangers of a high-carb diet and to promote a Paleo diet, as  a way to prevent the spread of cancer”.

The strange thing is, right now there are no comments at all under that article, and there is no longer any option to comment, so I was wondering what actually happens to them and what the point of asking for comments is.

A while ago I found out. A nice program researcher from the BBC called me and referred to my comment and asked me if I would like to take part in a BBC radio show that is to discuss the ‘tidal wave’ of cancer that is bearing down on us all.The researcher asked me what the Paleo diet was and how I found out about it and, after I explained the basics to her, she said would email me back and let me know if they wanted to talk to me. Well, the radio show is airing as I write this, and I haven’t heard back from the nice researcher lady, so I guess they didn’t like what I had to say. So I’ll just say it here.

Today being World Cancer Dayâ„¢ the mainstream media broadsheets of late have been devoting an unusual amount of space to warning the public about the dire threat from cancer. We’re told that fourteen million people a year are diagnosed with cancer and that number is predicted to increase to 24 million by 2035.

Chris Wild, the director of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, told the BBC: “The global cancer burden is increasing and quite markedly, due predominately to the ageing of the populations and population growth. If we look at the cost of treatment of cancers, it is spiralling out of control, even for the high-income countries. Prevention is absolutely critical and it’s been somewhat neglected.”

I’m pretty sure that most people reading this know someone who has died of cancer in the past 10 years. Personally, I know several people who have died of cancer in the past 5 years. One was a member of my extended family, another was a guy I went to school with, and he hadn’t even reached 40 years old. So I have no problem accepting that cancer is a serious problem in our advanced technological society, I do, however, have a beef with the conclusions that scientists reach about the causes of the cancer pandemic that is knocking at humanity’s door.

The problem seems to be that the advancement in technology over the course of the 20th century was not matched by an advancement in human intelligence. Modern science has developed all sorts of high-tech instruments that enable them to explore and understand the human body in minute detail. Very often, these instruments produce data that, in and of itself, strongly suggests that long-held scientific theories and beliefs need to be reassessed, sometimes radically.  But there is one final piece of processing that this information must go through before it can be presented to the public; it must pass through the average modern scientist’s brain, complete with their prejudices, beliefs and perhaps most importantly, the awareness that their future career prospects are greatly influenced by the nature of the research they do and the nature of the conclusions they reach.

Take smoking for example. Despite the fact the decades-long government anti-smoking campaigns have greatly reduced the number of smokers, particularly in Western nations, recent reports state that, not only is cancer on the increase, (with lung cancer the overall second most common after breast cancer but the most common in men) but it is going to increase dramatically, by over 70%, over the next 20 years. On the basis of this data alone, shouldn’t any scientist, or anyone gifted with a scientific mind, at least question the pervasive, propagandistic claim that smoking causes lung cancer? Why, when there is evidence that genetics may play a major role in lung cancer, is smoking still held up as the number one cause? Why, when doctors happily use smokers’ lungs for 50% of lung transplants, and even say that patients that received lungs from smokers had an increased survival rate over those that received lungs from non-smokers, is smoking still held up as the quintessential evil that rots your lungs and gives you cancer?

While still placing smoking at the top of their list of major sources of preventable cancer, the WHO does give a notable mention to another cause of cancer: sugar.

The BBC reports

The globe is facing a “tidal wave” of cancer, and restrictions on alcohol and sugar need to be considered, say World Health Organization scientists.

But then we read:

One of the report’s editors, Dr Bernard Stewart from the University of New South Wales in Australia, said: “In relation to alcohol, for example, we’re all aware of the acute effects, whether it’s car accidents or assaults, but there’s a burden of disease that’s not talked about because it’s simply not recognised, specifically involving cancer. He said there was a similar argument to be had with sugar fuelling obesity, which in turn affected cancer risk.

The WHO appears to have turned the data on the causes of cancer on its head here. It places smoking at the top of the list and sugar way down at the bottom. The WHO (and every mainstream media outlet) appears to be ignoring the fact that sugar may be directly implicated in the growth and metatization of cancer cells.  Note above that the only link made between sugar and cancer is via obesity. All human cells use sugar (glucose) for fuel, so cancer cells in that respect are no different. Ideally however, there would be a way to deprive cancer cells their sugary fuel, while still maintain other normal cells in optimal health. As it turns out, there is a way.

If you deprive the normal cells of your body of glucose, they switch to the alternate fuel, ketone bodies. Cancer cells can only survive on glucose, they cannot use ketone bodies as fuel, and in the absence of glucose, they die. Ketone bodies are three different water-soluble, biochemicals that are produced by the liver from fatty acids. The best source of fatty acids is animal fat. The best way to get animal fat into your diet and deny any potential cancer cells the chance to grow, is to follow the Paleo Diet. (If you need to, you’ll lose weight too!)

But sugar isn’t only implicated in the direct fuelling of cancer cells. There is another pandemic of recent decades that is afflicting millions of people around the world, and especially in the West. Diabetes. The diabetes pandemic is directly linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates and sugar (they’re the same thing from your body’s point of view). The average Western diet today is made up of about 70% carbohydrates (glucose/sugar).

Diabetes is the result of eating a diet high in carbohydrates/sugar. People with diabetes have high levels of insulin circulating in their bloodstream. But people who do not have diabetes also have high levels of insulin circulating in their bodies because insulin is designed to remove excess levels of glucose, or carbs, from the bloodstream. Recent research points to a link between high levels of blood insulin and cancer where insulin may be a causative factor in the generation of cancerous cells.

The bottom line appears to be this:  there is enough evidence out there already to point to the high carb western diet being implicated in cancer of all types, not to mention the pandemic of diabetes, heart disease and a host of other modern illnesses. Therefore, the amount of carbs that people are eating today is seriously bad for their health and there IS an alternative. It’s the diet that human beings ate for 99% of their evolution: animal meat and fat.

It’s long past time that people looked at the data themselves and came to their own conclusions. Alternatively, we can all wait while scientists quibble, debate and bow down to the dictates of big Agri-business and big government, both of which make millions from keeping people addicted to carbs (being riddled with cancer is just ‘collateral damage), and finally announce that, yet again, the smokers are to blame for everything. While you’re waiting, and munching on your 70% carbs, don’t be surprised if you find yourself among those 20% of men and 17% of women who will contract cancer over the next 20 years.

Best of luck.

14 thoughts on “‘World Cancer Day 2014’ – The Cancer Pandemic: Forget Sugar! Blame The Smokers!

  1. Dear Joe,
    I'm glad I quit smoking 40 years ago, never the less, I agree that sugar is the main culprit in supporting cancer growth. It's obvious and supported by the evidence. The book, "Sugar Blues" points out that most American tobacco is sugar cured, i.e. soaked is sugar water for high heat curing (it quickens the process).

    People who smoke naturally cured (no sugar, lower heat) don't suffer from higher rates of cancer. (So it's been reported in Sugar Blues. Then there's 100 plus chemical additives put into tobacco to stabilize the taste and texture, from pack to pack; any of which may be cancer causing.

    Then there's the connection of estrogen hormones injected into growing beef to induce faster weight gain which in turn leads to human weight gain and lower ration between estrogen and testosterone among American males.

    Ah, the benefits obtaining fast food.

    Keep up the good work.

    1. Thanks for the input Gerald, and I agree with you about the problems with manufactured cigarettes vs natural tobacco, and the horrible hormone-laden beef and other meat.

  2. Provactive commentary. I would add that it all begs important additional questions: what kind of sugar? Processed foods/sugars have a lot to answer to. I would also add that there are healthy and very unhealthy animal fats to be carefully distinguished. On smoking, your point is courageous and welcome as far as I'm concerned. Though I would hasten to add that the human body should always be cautious/prudent with inhaled substances, including cigarette smoke, for too many reasons to list here. My assumption is not that you are not already aware of this…just thought it should be added.

      1. I agree, not "dangerous". I would it put it more moderately – "unhealthy". I live in Texas down near the Mexican border where fatty beef consumption is huge and obesity rates are highest in the country, most likely the world. If one listens to their body and pays attention to how they feel on a fatty red meat diet and then switches to a mostly vegetarian diet including fish, I don't think one can doubt one is and feels much healthier. Science is often sketchy and claims far more knowledge than it ever has but it does seem clear that red meats are simply harder on the body and reducing consumption appears to improve kidney function in Type 2 diabetics.

        There is also speculation that from an evolutionary point of view, humans seem to have evolved away from carniverous eating habits. Our teeth don't support it, bacteria in meat is very hard on gums and teeth, and our digestive tract doesn't fair well either on heavy meats.

        1. None of this is true Marc. The people in your area are eating fatty meat, but I seriously doubt that is all they are eating. In fact, I'd say it represents a small percentage of their overall food consumption. In that case, it is not the meat that is causing the obesity. The vast majority of a people in the West are on a Western diet. A Western diet comprises 70% carbs. If there is an obesity epidemic, then it is obviously to the carbs that we should be looking as the cause. There is no disagreement among scientists and doctors that obesity and diabetes are linked to a diet high in glucose (carbs), it is a scientific fact. So I'm not sure why you disputing that, unless it is to simply justify your personal belief.

          I recently spoke to a proctologist, he'd seen the insides of 10,000 patients colons. A friend was going for a colonoscopy. The doctor told him that, before the procedure, he had to make sure to eat only "low residue" food so that his colon would be as clean as possible for the procedure. We asked him what is the food that leaves the lowest residue in the colon he said "meat", virtually ALL of it is broken down and assimilated with very little waste. Vegetables on the other hand, he said, irritated the colon because the cellulose that makes up most of most vegetables is not digestible by the gut.

  3. Joe, I just read this previous comment. by Gerald..

    "Then there's the connection of estrogen hormones injected into growing beef to induce faster weight gain which in turn leads to human weight gain and lower ration between estrogen and testosterone among American males"

    I concede the American obesity epidemic may have as much to do with unnatural hormone changes than with the animal fat itself….and processed sugar (fructose) is the biggest culprit of all, I have no doubt.

    1. No doubt it does Marc, there are so many problems with what people are being forced to eat these days that it's a complete disaster that is not waiting to happen, it IS happening. And no one in authority gives a shit apparently.

  4. Joe,

    I'd appreciate it if you would remove my last comment. Standing by itself without the previous comment you didn't publish, it doesn't reflect my general feeling that I think most animal fat should be avoided…or to put it another way and to borrow and old saying – sometimes less is more. Otherwise, as Gerald said…keep up the good work! Cheers

  5. Joe, don't publish this one either. I'm generally speaking on your side and it is not my intention to undermine your credibility. If we can come to a little more consensus, I'll write up another comment for you to publish.

    You seem quite sure of yourself even when you are wrong. Notning wrong with that. Not only is everything I said true, but it is uncontroversial. You are apparently unfamiliar with TexMex cuisine which is laden in heavy animal fats (refried beans and other dishes using lard, beef and pork cuts that include large amounts of fat) that doubtless are part of the obesity problem where I am. I didn't say carbs shouldn't be implicated and I'm of course aware that carbs (to be more precise refined sugars) are the main cultprit in diabetes. And I would agree that across the Western world carbs trump animal fats as far as their contribution to obesity. But the uncontroversial part, (it's okay to occasionally be uncontroversial, Joe) a vegetarian diet cleanses the digestive tract including the colon. Minor "irritation" before a particular colon procedure is irrelevant.. That is a unique circumstance. "Irritation" is altogether the wrong word, not withstanding an invasive procedure. The colon is being stimulated to cleanse itself, just as massage or shaving brings blood vessels to the surface of the skin and is healthy for the epidermal layer. The idea that heavy consumption of red meat highly saturated animal fats is desirable is ridiculous based on everything science knows, but more importantly, simply listening to what you're body is telling you. Again, anybody who has compared the way they feel on whole grains, fruits, vegetables, vegetable and fish fats, to the way they feel after the consumption of a side of pig and a miniscule portion of rice will know immediately which diet makes them feel healthier as well as happier. (I will leave aside here the moral component as regards the dignity and suffering of other species and the destruction of our ecosystem for now). The entire process of digesting heavy animal fats is harder on the body and the body's organs, most certainly the kidney, due to the secreted acids required.(Re. cited article). We are also leaving aside the most likely horrible consequences of heavy consumption of heavily processed, chemically treated meats which it seems we agree on.

    That cellulose is not completely digestible is fine and not surprising as there is no food value there, there is also no harm – there is benefit, again, by a cleansing action. The process of breaking animal fats takes a lot more work and A LOT more time, diverting the body away from other activities, like say, exercise which one never feels like doing after eating too much meat. Mostly common sense. You seem to be suggesting I'm not concerned with excess carbs but I didn't say that. There is a big difference between ingesting carbs in whole food forms which promote mental alertness and stamina and the horrible refined carbs we are mass fed. On that I don't disagree with you. What you write is important but make sure you're not wedded to controversy simply for the sake of controversy. Perhaps an email correspondence/debate with you would be constructive. Truthfully, I am often inclined to disagree with you more than occasionally, it apppears lately. That is not to say I tend to disagree with your general points. I'm not inclined to continue an online debate where you get to over look and edit as you see fit.
    p.s I am not a vegetarian, p.s.s. Childhood friend, lived across the street from me, his name was Joey Quinn. You're the first time I've seen that name in some 40 years. What is your direct email address? Or send me a reply to marclevesque1@gmail.com

  6. Provactive commentary. I would add that it all begs important additional questions: what kind of sugar? Processed foods/sugars have a lot to answer to. I would also add that there are healthy and very unhealthy animal fats to be carefully distinguished. On smoking, your point is courageous and welcome as far as I'm concerned. See something similar at ECASSOC.org

  7. Phenomenal data, much obliged to the creator. It is confounded to me now, however in regular, the productivity and importance is irritating. Particularly thanks again and good luck!

Got something to tell me?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.