by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.



"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?

Cancer Is Increasing
Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.

The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed
"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."

A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)

Most Cancer IS Preventable
According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)

Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry
According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the 'market' showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)

Desired: A State of No Cure?
 In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were 'blacklisted' by the major cancer organisations.

Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin explains ". . . let's face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t's obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel's medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn't mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey, don't research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9) This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it." (10)

Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)

In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)

Imagine What Could Be Achieved
The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won't donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.

Two Facts: 1. It's impossible not to get enough protein - unless you eat too many refined foods. 2. It's impossible to eat a "high protein" diet (more than 20% of your calories) - unleses you eat too many refined foods!   Isn't this a lovely paradox of complimentary facts?   Why is this? EVERY WHOLE FOOD contains protein. If you eat whole foods, you will have plenty of protein, and an abundance of amino acids (which is what we really need anyway).  But no WHOLE FOOD contains excessive protein, with the exception of some fish, I believe.   What "high protein" foods can you think of? Look at the nutrition facts. Chances are they are probably high FAT Foods, with around 15-20% protein per calorie. (Keep in mind, fats are 9 calories per gram whereas protein and carbs are only 4)  Other animal foods, like egg yolk or chicken breast or lean dairy products are NOT WHOLE FOODS. And it is unnatural to eat only part of an animal or animal product. NO NATURAL CARNIVORE will only eat the breast of a chicken - or only the muscles of a cow. Hence, they are refined foods.   Hence, eat natural, whole foods, and you won't have to count your calories or nutrients. Your weight will be fine, and you'll get all your nutrients.

Aspartame, more commonly known as NutraSweet or Equal, is one of the most toxic substances being consumed today. The artificial sweetener, currently used in over 4,000 products worldwide, entertains a sordid past and has been one of the most tested and debated food additives in the history of the FDA. While the manufacturer maintains that aspartame is not a danger to your health, the scientific studies don't necessarily agree. The FDA has approved the product for mass consumption, in spite of overwhelming evidence that aspartame can have neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic and carcinogenic effects. When you question how such a substance has not been banned, one simply needs to look at the billions of dollars generated by the sale of aspartame each year. In light of the staggering number of dollar signs involved, it's easy to see that the artificial sweetener industry has reached Big Tobacco status. With so much money at stake, the truth suffers almost as much as the health of the consumers, while the shareholders' wealth continues to grow exponentially.

The Ingredients

In 1965, James Schlatter, a chemist for G.D. Searle, was developing an anti-ulcer drug when he accidentally stumbled upon aspartame. Made up of aspartic acid (40%), phenylalanine (50%) and methanol (10%), aspartame is 200 times sweeter than natural sugar.

Aspartic Acid

Aspartate is a neurotransmitter in the brain, facilitating information from one neuron to another. Too much aspartate allows an influx of calcium into the brain cells, triggering an excessive amount of free radicals which kill the cells. Aspartate is referred to as an "excitotoxin" because of the nerve cell damage that it causes. Many chronic illnesses have been attributed to long term excitotoxin exposure, including multiple sclerosis, ALS, memory loss, hormonal problems, hearing loss, epilepsy, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, hypoglycemia, dementia, brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders.

In 1971, Dr. John Olney, neuroscientist and one of the world's foremost experts on excitotoxins, informed G.D. Searle that his research had revealed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice. Searle did not inform the FDA of these findings until after aspartame's approval in 1981. This would prove to be one event in a startling pattern of lies and deception.

Phenylalanine

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Human testing has shown phenylalanine levels in the blood are increased significantly in those who chronically use aspartame. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of serotonin to decrease, which can lead to depression, schizophrenia and make one more susceptible to seizures.

Studies conducted on rats by G.D. Searle found phenylalanine to be safe for humans. However, Louis J. Elsas, II, M.D., Director of Medical Genetics and Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine told the U.S. Senate in 1987 that, "Normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine as efficiently as do lower species such as rodents and thus most of the previous studies on aspartame effects on rodents are irrelevant." Unfortunately, this fell on deaf ears and failed to garner additional testing.

Methanol

By far, the most controversial ingredient in aspartame is methanol (aka wood alcohol). An EPA assessment of methanol states that it is "considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidated to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." This oxidation occurs when methanol reaches 86 degrees F (30 degrees C).

Formaldehyde

A product broken down from aspartate is a known carcinogen and causes retinal damage, birth defects and interferes with DNA replications. The EPA recommends a consumption limit of 7.8 mg/day. A 1 Liter aspartame sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol, seven times the EPA limit. The most common maladies related to methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage and blindness.

Sir Anthony Hopkins has played some legendary roles, but the most important may be as a champion for cancer prevention. When he received the inaugural Legend award at Spike TV’s “2008 SCREAM” awards he made sure his appearance benefited the nonprofit organization.

At Sir Anthony’s request, the producers of the event made a donation of $25,000 in honor of the actor and his work to fight cancer. The donation will help fund The Cancer Project’s cancer-prevention nutrition classes in cities across the United States.

Sir Anthony has a history of supporting The Cancer Project’s efforts to educate the public about the benefits of a healthy diet for cancer prevention and survival, efforts. In 2004, he narrated a hugely successful television public service announcement that highlighted the link between diet and cancer. The lifesaving message has reached hundreds of thousands of people.

“Sir Anthony’s generous support of The Cancer Project will help educate thousands of people about the important role of diet in preventing cancer,” says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of The Cancer Project. “Many Americans do not realize that healthy eating habits can help prevent cancer, so our nutrition classes teach the importance of avoiding high-fat meat products and consuming more fruits, vegetables, and other vegetarian foods.”

Sir Anthony is a distinguished actor who may be best known for his role in “The Silence of the Lambs,” for which he won the Oscar for Best Actor. The third annual televised “SCREAM” Awards Show aired Tuesday, October 21, on Spike TV.

This is a must see movie for everyone who eats!

There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat.  This well-researched documentary by Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of the legendary Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia, takes an in-depth look at the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decades.
This film examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge, multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food systems but also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, offering solutions like organic and sustainable agriculture as alternative food sources.

here is an excerpt from an article in the Orlando Sentinel July 13 2003:



 Of all the potentially addicting foods, cheese may be the most complex. In research studies using vegan and vegetarian diets to control cholesterol or reduce body weight, most participants soon forget the lure of ice cream, sour cream, and even burgers and chicken. But for many people, the taste for cheese lingers on and on. Yes, 70 percent of its calories may come from waist-augmenting fat, and, ounce for ounce, it may harbor more cholesterol than a steak. But that cheese habit is tough to break. Why is cheese so addicting? Certainly not because of its aroma, which is perilously close to old socks. The first hint of a biochemical explanation came in 1981, when scientists at Wellcome Research Laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C., found a substance in dairy products that looked remarkably like morphine. After a complex series of tests, they determined that, surprisingly enough, it actually was morphine. By a fluke of nature, the enzymes that produce opiates are not confined to poppies -- they also hide inside cows' livers. So traces of morphine can pass into the animal's bloodstream and end up in milk and milk products. The amounts are far too small to explain cheese's appeal. But nonetheless, the discovery led scientists on their search for opiate compounds in dairy products.

And they found them. Opiates hide inside casein, the main dairy protein. As casein molecules are digested, they break apart to release tiny opiate molecules, called casomorphins. One of these compounds has about one-tenth the opiate strength of morphine. The especially addicting power of cheese may be due to the fact that the process of cheese-making removes water,lactose and whey proteins so that casein is concentrated. Scientists are now trying to tease out whether these opiate molecules work strictly within the digestive tract or whether they pass into the bloodstream and reach the brain directly.

(some paragraphs about chocolate addiction snipped)

The cheese industry is miles ahead of them, having gone to great lengths to identify people who are most vulnerable to addiction. It dubs them "cheese cravers," and tracks their age, educational level and other demographics so as to target them with marketing strategies that are tough to ignore. With a $200 million annual research and marketing budget, the dairy industry is not content to have you just sprinkling a little mozzarella on your salad. It is looking for those Americans who will eat it straight out of the package, whatever the cost to their waistlines or cholesterol levels.

At a "Cheese Forum" held Dec. 5, 2000, Dick Cooper, the vice president of Cheese Marketing for Dairy Management Inc., laid out the industry's scheme for identifying potential addicts and keeping them hooked. In his slide presentation, which was released to our organization under the Freedom of Information Act, he asked the question, "What do we want our marketing program to do?" and then gave the answer: "Trigger the cheese craving." He described how, in a partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the dairy industry launched Wendy's Cheddar Lover's Bacon Cheeseburger, which single-handedly pushed 2.25 million pounds of cheese during the promotion period. That works out to 380 tons of fat and 1.2 tons of pure cholesterol in the cheese alone. A similar promotion with Pizza Hut launched the "Ultimate Cheese Pizza," which added an entire pound of cheese to a single pizza and sold five million pounds of it during a six-week promotion in 2000. The presentation concluded with a cartoon of a playground slide with a large spider web woven to trap children as they reached the bottom. The caption had one spider saying to another, "If we pull this off, we'll eat like kings."

Tyson Foods recalls 51,000 pounds of chicken
The Associated Press Published: August 7, 2008
SPRINGDALE, Ark.: Tyson Foods Inc. is recalling more than 51,000 pounds of frozen raw chicken breast tenderloin over concerns it may contain soy.

The world's largest meat processor said Thursday that soy, a known allergen, was not declared on the product's label.

Tyson says the meat came from a plant in Vicksburg, Miss., between July 23 and Aug. 1, and was shipped to Tyson food service distributors nationwide.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service says it has received no reports about people being sickened by the chicken.

Are You Chronically Dehydrated? by Phillip Day
Investigative Journalist & Founder of "The Campaign For Truth In Medicine"
As Featured in Food Matters

"Chronic pains of the body which cannot easily be explained as injury or infection, should first and foremost be interpreted as signals of chronic water shortage in the area where the pain is registered. These pain signals should first be considered and excluded as primary indicators for dehydration of the body before any other complicated procedures are forced on the patient." - Dr F Batmanghelidj

The human body is a bio-electrical water machine that requires a quart a day for every 50 lbs of body weight. The blood alone is made up of a large percentage of watery serum. The lymph fluids which transport waste and nutrients, comprising four times the volume of blood in the body, are made from the water we consume. Every cell that makes us who we are literally owes its life to an adequate supply of fresh, clean water. When the body does not receive a constant, reliable supply of water, it has to ration what is available and cut back on certain functions to make the supply go round. Essential systems like the brain are prioritised, others are impaired or cut back until the brain has decided a reliable source of water has been garnered.

Here's the rub. Most citizens have become chronically and dangerously dehydrated (especially the elderly), since we decided water was too bland to drink and ignored it in favour of tea, coffee, beer, wine, addictive sodas, flavoured water and other chemical-laced water alternatives. A disastrous and dangerous move for the body and society's health in general, to be sure, compounded further since most doctors today cannot readily identify the many water-deficient diseases and associated pains. Thus the underlying dehydration process continues to wreak its havoc while the inevitable drugs given will switch off the warning signals (symptoms).

Consider the following conditions:

Heartburn, arthritis, lupus, asthma, 'high cholesterol', high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer formation, hot flushes and menstrual problems, obesity, allergies, bulimia, chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, angina, lower back pain, gout, kidney stones, skin disorders, diabetes, fungal/yeast overgrowths, multiple sclerosis, allergies, migraine headaches, general aches and pains, morning sickness, depression, heavy/burdensome periods, colitis, dyspepsia, peptic ulcers...

Are all of these conditions linked to a chronic state of dehydration?

World-renowned water expert Dr Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, in his latest bestseller, Water and Salt - Your Healers From Within, maintains that the above conditions are the body's many cries for water, complaints dramatically improved with a consistent and long-term intake of the fresh, clean water. Dr Batman's timely work has helped thousands quash long-term health problems effortlessly and inexpensively. He writes:

"The report of my having successfully treated with water more than three thousand people with symptoms and clinical signs of peptic ulcer disease was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology in June 1983. I came away from that experience with the understanding that the people I treated were thirsty, and I uncovered the phenomenon that 'pain' in the body indicates thirst, even though the condition is classified as a disease."

Water is used by the body for digestion, detoxifying cells, watering the lungs, lubricating joints, keeping the body alkalised and a host of cleaning duties. Many warning signals ('symptoms') arise out of the body's inability to neutralise or rid itself of acid, a common enough complaint given the number of antacids sold around the world each day.

'I drink coffee, tea, diet sodas, beer and a host of other liquids. They contain water, don't they?'

This is a common and dangerous misconception. Many of today's designer drinks are diuretic in their effect (water-expelling) because their mostly acidic compositions require the body to give up water and alkalising minerals to eliminate their harmful residues. Diet sodas especially are harmful in that they require large amounts of body-water to neutralise the phosphoric acid component (2.8 pH). Cells that started off healthy and 'plum-like' shrivel to prunes as water, the stuff of life, is progressively denied them. The sick in our hospitals are fed the sodas, tea and coffee they ask for in woeful ignorance of the damage wrought to the micro cell-world within them.

Batmanghelidj's extraordinary work should rightly be considered by a mainstream medical community ever fixated on the drug cure.

Below is a summary of body functions and that rely on an adequate intake of water:

Brain function: The brain comprises 2% of the body's total weight, yet receives 15-20% of the blood supply, mostly comprised of water. Dehydration will affect cognitive ability drastically, and, through histamine's action, can create depressive states (many anti-depressant medications are anti-histamines).
Bone function: Bones require plentiful supplies of water. 75% of the weight of the upper body, for instance, is supported by the water core contained within the fifth lumbar disc, the remaining 25% by muscle fibres around the spine.
Nerve function: Microstreams exist along the length of nerves which transport nutrients and conduct energy along microtubules to the synapses to transmit messages. Dehydration disrupts proper nerve function, resulting in the sensation of pain.
Hydrolysis: Water, far from being an inert solvent, is intricately involved in the body's water-dependent chemical reactions. Lack of water means incomplete or faulty metabolic processes, with obvious implications for continued health and well-being. Proteins and enzymes, for instance, do not function as well in acidic solutions of higher viscosity (stickiness) where the body is dehydrated.
Cellular energy: As water is drawn through the cell membrane, its osmotic flow generates a voltage gradient which can be used in the manufacture of ATP and GTP energy. Dehydration will obviously affect the proper functioning of cells and even kill them.
Histamine: This neurotransmitter plays a major role in activating systems which encourage water intake when dehydration is detected. Functions in the body which consume large quantities of water are cut back, namely the bronchial tubes constricted to cut down on water use in the lungs; increased peristalsis in the bowels to wring more water out of faecal material, and so on. Other signs of histamine's activity, namely allergies, asthma, depression and chronic pains, are interpreted by the physician as 'disease' and treated with anti-histamines, pain-killers (analgesics), etc. Thus the signals of thirst are turned off and the dehydration state continues unabated.
Dyspepsia (heartburn/reflux): Over time, this can lead to ulceration and even cancer. Dr Batmanghelidj recommends that these conditions - also gastritis and duodenitis - be treated with water alone as they are one of the body's major thirst signals. Arrested in his native Iran by the Revolutionary Council during the troubles of the late 1970's, Dr B was confined to Evin prison, Tehran, during which time he successfully treated with water alone over three thousand people complaining of dyspeptic pain and associated symptoms.
Digestion: Requires plentiful supplies of water. The stomach relies on mucus lining the walls to shield it from the effects of the stomach's hydrochloric acid. A bicarbonate solution is produced from the cells in the lining which neutralises any acid attempting to break through the mucus. Water is needed to maintain this effective defence system. Too little water, and the mucus barrier is ineffectual, the acid will penetrate and will lead to pain. Ideally, water should be consumed half an hour before a meal, in time to anticipate the production of digestive acid from glands in the stomach wall.
Ulcers: Often located at the valve between the stomach and duodenum. Said to be caused by curved bacteria known as helicobacters. Yet many people have helicobacters in their small intestine, yet not all of them suffer from ulcers. Histamine-producing nerves are located at this site, which monitor the through-put of acidic food chyme from the stomach into the intestine. Histamine has growth-hormone effects on these micro-organisms, resulting in small intestine bacterial overgrowths (SIBOs). Once again, an adequate regime of water intake will allow all the functions relating to digestion to normalise. Prolonged water intake should therefore be considered before more drastic drug treatments are entered into.

Three long-term studies published in Archives of Internal Medicine show how food choices lead to type 2 diabetes. Researchers at Boston University followed 43,960 African American women over 10 years, and found that type 2 diabetes developed more often among those who consumed more sweetened beverages. Researchers at Addenbrook’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, found that higher plasma vitamin C levels and greater consumption of fruits and vegetables were associated with a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes among 21,831 adults followed over 12 years. A third article, from Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, found that among 48,835 Women’s Health Initiative participants, women assigned to a low-fat diet trended toward a reduced disease incidence, which authors attributed to weight loss.

Palmer JR, Boggs DA, Krishnan S, Hu FB, Singer M, Rosenberg L. Sugar-sweetened beverages and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in African American women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1487-1492

Harding AH, Wareham NJ, Bingham SA et al. Plasma vitamin C level, fruit and vegetable consumption, and the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus: the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk Prospective Study. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1493-1499.

Tinker LF, Bonds DE, Margolis KL et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of treated diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1500-1511.

For information about nutrition and health, please visit www.pcrm.org/.

Breaking Medical News is a service of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 5100 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20016.

health [ from Meatout Mondays online Newsletter Meatout.org ]
     Increased levels of vitamin C, as well as daily consumption of fruits and vegetables, has been found to reduce the risk of developing type-2 diabetes. A new study from the University of Cambridge examined the diet of nearly 22,000 men and women for 12 years.    
      Correlating levels of vitamin C and diabetes, the researchers found that study participants with the highest levels had a 62% reduction in their risk of developing type-2 diabetes, compared to participants with the lowest levels. Moreover, men and women with the highest fruit and vegetable intake had a 22% reduction in their risk of developing type-2 diabetes, compared to men and women with the lowest fruit and vegetable intake.
     In the U.S., more than 20 million people (7% of the population) suffer from diabetes. The total costs are thought to be as much as $132 billion, with $92 billion being direct costs from medication, according to 2002 American Diabetes Association figures.

                      To read the full article: click here!