Fat causes cancer shocker

(David Cooke) #16

Words contained in your last posts: crap. Piss. Good start .

(Jane) #17

Truly shocking inflammatory words that are rarely used on this site!!!

snort

(Running from stupidity) #18

Good start for what, mate? Seriously, you need a hobby or something if wandering around looking for words like “piss” and “crap” to be all offended about is where you’re currently at.

Also, don’t bother sending me another abusive DM this time entitled “Piss OFF?” just because you can’t read words in context, OK? The hypocrisy might explode you, or something.

#19

What a crappy piece of misleading journalism.
Articles/titles like that really piss me off.

The link between obesity and increased risk of cancer has been touted for decades, hasn’t it? I remember scaremongering news items about it on the TV back in the 80s and 90s.

It hasn’t stopped people getting fatter, or getting cancer.

Because it has never addressed the root cause. Which is neither dietary fat, or subcutaneous fat cells.

Until that idea sinks into whichever research group is trying to drum up funding for their next slam dunk income generating research idea, then no one is going to get very far…

Maybe we should shut them in a room with Ivor Cummins’ You Tube videos about hyperinsulinaemia, and wait for the penny to drop.

(David Cooke) #20

Bully. I was a construction foreman for 15 years and had my own firm in Landscaping for 35 more. I never found it necessary to ust words like you do. “You’re looking for an excuse to eat crap” - that was a good one.

#21

You’ve confused @juice with someone else.

(Daisy) #22

Bluntness can often be received that way, even if it’s not meant to be. I think @juice is just a very blunt, no nonsense Aussie.
I’m on this forum every day and he’s been on it for longer than I have. It gets hard to always sugar coat the same replies that are needed to answer the same questions over and over, every day. I’m the type of person that usually just won’t respond in those instances because I don’t want to come across rude when I’m annoyed at a post. He just says it like it is. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, per se, but I would agree that people who aren’t familiar with him could sometimes take it the wrong way. Just take the responses that you are helpful to you and don’t worry about the others :smile:

(Doug) #23

Good comments! :high_brightness:

(Running from stupidity) #24

I may well have said that to Heather. Twenty or thirty times :slight_smile:

But yeah, you can see how I could be confused with others pretty easily, I agree.

(Vladaar Malane) #25

I agree @juice can be that be that way.

My advice for @cooked and others who take offense in future is try not to take things personally.

I am one who checks out occasionally Natural News, but I believe all news has a slant to it, so I don’t believe any one site.

I check out cnn, foxnews, brietbart, zerohedge, local news, daily caller, drudge, aand others and try to form a educated opinion from all. But I’m a news junkie, I know many folks that just get their news from facebook and others who don’t want news at all because it’s boring or depressing. To each their own.

(Daisy) #26

Lol and then there’s me. If I don’t read it here or my coworkers don’t tell me about something, I have no idea. The government was shut down for days before I knew about it lol

(Jane) #27

Same here!

(Jane) #28

From the article:

Another reason is people who have excess weight are more prone to chronic, low-level inflammation that also increases the risk of cancer.

Here is the clue that carbs are the root cause. Cut the carbs and lose weight, lower inflammation and cure diabetes.

(Scott) #29

This is where I recommend a fantastic book called “Tripping Over The Truth”. It goes into great detail on how cancer research spent years looking at cancer as genetic disease when it is now thought of as a metabolic disease. It follows one patient in particular that was terminal and the combination of strict ketogenic diet, hypobaric chamber and a new cancer drug eliminated the disease. This book drove me much deeper into keto WOE. Cancer thrives on sugar but cannot live on ketones. It also made me think of someone I knew that in the last months of her life could not get enough sugar. She developed an insane craving for anything sweet. Anyway I see a possible connection between insulin resistance and cancer.

(Jane) #30

This is so sad. Almost like the cancer had taken over and ramped up her cravings to feed itself. :slightly_frowning_face:

(Bob M) #31

The original study seems to be retracted:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(17)30366-2/fulltext

#32

Trying to get an educated opinion from Fox News or Brietbart is just counterintuitive. I get enough gas lighting every day from “President” Oompa Loompa without willfully subjecting myself to his pals as well, under the disguise of being “fair to both sides.” Reading and listening to lies does not tend to make one more educated, it tends toward the opposite.

(Brian) #33

I actually didn’t have much of an issue with the actual article. Seems to be saying that obesity and diabetes, along with the problems that come with them (inflammation, etc), are things pointing towards higher risks of cancer.

The title doesn’t reflect what the article says at all. Very poor choice of words there.

BUT… lots of people will never read the article, only the title, and believe something the article never says, referring to that title as “scientific evidence” of (dietary) fat causing cancer.

(sigh)…

(Running from stupidity) #34

Yup. “Balanced” isn’t the same as “everything is worth looking at.”

(Diana ) #35

The Natural News article said that women who are obese around the middle have a 50% chance of getting lung, liver and other associated cancers. My eyes bugged out of my head when I read that! I tried to look up the incidence rate of …say…lung cancer, for instance, and got bogged down in words. But, really, a 50% chance of getting lung cancer if I have a spare tire?
I’m glad to see the whole article has been retracted, but that information won’t reach as many pseudo researchers as the original article did. Grrr!