The China Study

[Guest guest]

Recently, I heard the first author of "The China Study : The Most ComprehensiveStudy of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet,Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" by T. Colin and M. II talking about the book on a WOSU radio programhttp://128.146.154.10/autoasx.asp?event=andrle & date=20050331 & part=1%20this will play the segment -and chased the book down. The results of their work generally show that animal products in the diet increase the risks of heart disease and cancer.

Some additional information is available at

http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html

and in the links at the bottom of that page.

The first author holds an endowed chair in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell. He became involved in this after cancer incidence mapping by the Chinese showed up to a ten-fold excess incidence in certain cancers in different parts of China - in the US we get excited over a doubling of incidence. The follow up study involved literally sampling what people ate for three days at a time, not relying on their own reporting. The results were truly startling.

They had already seen that increased protein in lab rats gave the same results, but didn't make the connection that the protein used to raise the amount of protein in the diet was casein - milk protein.

I haven't seen this particular study discussed here.

Iris

[Guest guest]

A hearty " Welcome back " to Iris who recently contacted me off list after a

hiatus from the group.

Iris is a chemist by profession, has been an invaluable past contributor and

a former moderator. I can't praise her past contributions and help in

running the group highly enough, and I was thrilled to hear from her.

on 4/11/2005 11:27 PM, Iris B. Ailin-Pyzik at crsg@... wrote:

> Recently, I heard the first author of " The China Study : The Most

> Comprehensive

> Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet,

> Weight Loss and Long-Term Health " by T. Colin and M.

> II talking about the book on a WOSU radio program

> http://128.146.154.10/autoasx.asp?event=andrle & date=20050331 & part=1%20

> this will play the segment -

> and chased the book down. The results of their work generally show that

> animal products in the diet increase the risks of heart disease and cancer.

>

> Some additional information is available at

> http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html

> and in the links at the bottom of that page.

>

>

> The first author holds an endowed chair in nutritional biochemistry at

> Cornell. He became involved in this after cancer incidence mapping by the

> Chinese showed up to a ten-fold excess incidence in certain cancers in

> different parts of China - in the US we get excited over a doubling of

> incidence. The follow up study involved literally sampling what people ate

> for three days at a time, not relying on their own reporting. The results

> were truly startling.

>

> They had already seen that increased protein in lab rats gave the same

> results, but didn't make the connection that the protein used to raise the

> amount of protein in the diet was casein - milk protein.

>

> I haven't seen this particular study discussed here.

>

> Iris

>

[Guest guest]

Iris: I read the second link below . Dr is a vegan . He doesn't

mention the benefits of including fish in the diet . Haven't had a chance

to read the other links to see if fish is included in their idea of a

healthy diet.

on 4/11/2005 11:27 PM, Iris B. Ailin-Pyzik at crsg@... wrote:

> Recently, I heard the first author of " The China Study : The Most

> Comprehensive

> Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet,

> Weight Loss and Long-Term Health " by T. Colin and M.

> II talking about the book on a WOSU radio program

> http://128.146.154.10/autoasx.asp?event=andrle & date=20050331 & part=1%20

> this will play the segment -

> and chased the book down. The results of their work generally show that

> animal products in the diet increase the risks of heart disease and cancer.

>

> Some additional information is available at

> http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html

> and in the links at the bottom of that page.

>

>

> The first author holds an endowed chair in nutritional biochemistry at

> Cornell. He became involved in this after cancer incidence mapping by the

> Chinese showed up to a ten-fold excess incidence in certain cancers in

> different parts of China - in the US we get excited over a doubling of

> incidence. The follow up study involved literally sampling what people ate

> for three days at a time, not relying on their own reporting. The results

> were truly startling.

>

> They had already seen that increased protein in lab rats gave the same

> results, but didn't make the connection that the protein used to raise the

> amount of protein in the diet was casein - milk protein.

>

> I haven't seen this particular study discussed here.

>

> Iris

>

[Guest guest]

In spite of Colin 's impressive credentials, I find statements

such as the following particularly biased: " Meat offers us nothing as

far as the central nutrients are concerned that we can't get from

plant material. "

I am particularly skeptical whenever someone lambasts something that

has been consumed as food by humans for millions of years. And I am

doubly skeptical when the source is not a refereed technical article,

but rather an organization (www.mcspotlight.org) that promotes

vaganism, which by the way, seems to have the same tone and agenda as

the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

(http://www.pcrm.org/). I would not be surprised if the same people

are behind it.

A clue that anything at mcspotlight.org cannot be trusted to be

objective can be found at:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/issues/animals/index.html

" Vegetarians and animal welfare campaigners aren't too keen on

Mc's - for obvious reasons. As the world's largest user of beef

they are responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of

cows per year. In Europe alone they use half a million chickens every

week, all from windowless factory farms. All such animals suffer great

cruelty during their unnatural, painful and short lives, many being

kept inside with no access to fresh air and sunshine, and no freedom

of movement - how can such cruelty be measured?

Is it acceptable for the food industry to exploit animals at all?

Mc's argue that they stick to the letter of the law and if there

are any problems it is a matter for government. They also claim to be

concerned with animal welfare "

I would not consider ANYTHING posted on mcspotlight.org to be

scientifically reliable or worthy of serious consideration.

Tony

====

From: " Iris B. Ailin-Pyzik " <crsg@...>

Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:27 pm

Subject: The China Study

Recently, I heard the first author of " The China Study : The Most

Comprehensive

Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for

Diet,

Weight Loss and Long-Term Health " by T. Colin and M.

II talking about the book on a WOSU radio program

http://128.146.154.10/autoasx.asp?event=andrle & date=20050331 & part=1%20

this will play the segment -

and chased the book down. The results of their work generally show

that animal products in the diet increase the risks of heart disease

and cancer.

Some additional information is available at

http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html

and in the links at the bottom of that page.

The first author holds an endowed chair in nutritional biochemistry at

Cornell. He became involved in this after cancer incidence mapping by

the Chinese showed up to a ten-fold excess incidence in certain

cancers in different parts of China - in the US we get excited over a

doubling of incidence. The follow up study involved literally

sampling what people ate for three days at a time, not relying on

their own reporting. The results were truly startling.

They had already seen that increased protein in lab rats gave the same

results, but didn't make the connection that the protein used to raise

the amount of protein in the diet was casein - milk protein.

I haven't seen this particular study discussed here.

Iris

[Guest guest]

Actually there are some nutrients that are virtually impossible to get

without including some animal products in the diet - such as B12 and iron.

In fact veganism has some risks if the person practicing it is not cogizant

of the nutritional deficits.

My niece was a vegan for many years and always felt tired and washed out.

When she added fish to her diet she started feeling much better. Anecdotal

to be sure but I've heard this from other vegans as well.

on 4/12/2005 10:25 AM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

> In spite of Colin 's impressive credentials, I find statements

> such as the following particularly biased: " Meat offers us nothing as

> far as the central nutrients are concerned that we can't get from

> plant material. "

[Guest guest]

Not arguing veggies versus animal consumption.

When I compare the amino acids in animal products, I don't see a clear difference, as I do when comparing veggies with animal products or other veggies. So I question the criticism of casein. Our system will break down the proteins to amino acids. So is there a relationship of one amino in animal products (perhaps methionine) to risk of heart disease and cancer?

Even Ornish has advocated adding a little fish to his lacto veggie diet.

ly I don't like fish oil (EPA/DHA) capsules. I'm not fond of the "bruising".

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:07 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] The China Study

Iris: I read the second link below . Dr is a vegan . He doesn'tmention the benefits of including fish in the diet . Haven't had a chanceto read the other links to see if fish is included in their idea of ahealthy diet.on 4/11/2005 11:27 PM, Iris B. Ailin-Pyzik at crsg@... wrote:> Recently, I heard the first author of "The China Study : The Most> Comprehensive> Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet,> Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" by T. Colin and M. > II talking about the book on a WOSU radio program> http://128.146.154.10/autoasx.asp?event=andrle & date=20050331 & part=1%20> this will play the segment -> and chased the book down. The results of their work generally show that> animal products in the diet increase the risks of heart disease and cancer.> > Some additional information is available at> http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/campbell.html> and in the links at the bottom of that page.> > > The first author holds an endowed chair in nutritional biochemistry at> Cornell. He became involved in this after cancer incidence mapping by the> Chinese showed up to a ten-fold excess incidence in certain cancers in> different parts of China - in the US we get excited over a doubling of> incidence. The follow up study involved literally sampling what people ate> for three days at a time, not relying on their own reporting. The results> were truly startling.> > They had already seen that increased protein in lab rats gave the same> results, but didn't make the connection that the protein used to raise the> amount of protein in the diet was casein - milk protein.> > I haven't seen this particular study discussed here.> > Iris>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

" bruising " ????

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> ly I don't like fish oil (EPA/DHA) capsules. I'm not fond of

the " bruising " .

>

> Regards.

[Guest guest]

I thought I posted a link about the book when it came out and have mentioned his work here.

My criticism of his work is not his work, but the way it is (mis) used and (mis) interpreted by some.

His conclusion, and the conclusion of others, is that his study in China (6500 people over 10 years) showed that the less animal products in the diet, the healthier people were, with no lower limit. As Tony mentioned, vegan and vegetarian groups have used these "conclusions" to no end to promote their agendas and often not accurately. However, the problem is that there was no "vegan" or "vegetarian" groups in the study. None of the populations or rural communities followed a 100% vegan (or vegetarian) diet. So, how can you come to a conclusion supporting an outcome that wasnt in the study?

If lower BMI is healthier (within reason) than is no BMI the healthiest?

RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

I only posted the mcspotlight link to provide some info for list

readers without their having to go find the book. Others are

http://free.freespeech.org/nhn/china.html

http://www.asia-inc.com/March05/asiareading_mar.htm

http://www.human.cornell.edu/faculty/facultybio.cfm?netid=tcc1 & facs=1

http://www.mediterrasian.com/scientific_research.htm (scroll down).

To get the whole story, you really need to look at the book - I got it

on interlibrary loan via the public library.

was not a vegan, nor even a vegetarian, before his work on

this study. He made these changes based on the data he observed.

Relying on any group with their own obvious agenda (vegans,

vegetarians) is risky. Kind of like letting a presidential candidate

(of any party) tell you what the other guy really stands for, as though

you are too dumb to figure it out.

In the book, addresses the B12 issue, recommending supplements

in some cases, although he doesn't generally like them. He also raises

the issue (which we here probably are aware of) that the 'food

pyramids' put out by the USDA are invariably affected by lobbyists. It

was amusing just yesterday to hear a piece on MSNBC about the latest

efforts in that direction. The almond lobbyists want almonds

specifically included in the next pyramid. The oil producers want

their products to be in the large pyramid base section.

's work has been published over the years in mainstream

journals, and while he certainly has an interest in making money from

the book, I don't believe he has a hidden agenda.

As those of us here probably know, whatever our own take on the type of

diet one should follow, no one wants to be told that it is largely

their own actions (diet or exercise or lack thereof) that are

responsible for their health problems. I'd love to see the government

take a proactive role aimed at decreasing the costs of medicare and

medicaid by truly advocating better diet and exercise habits. Think of

the consequent cost savings in heart disease, diabetes and cancer. It

would take at least a generation to see real results, but the

government is fussing about social security and medicare costs in that

time frame, so why not? Isn't this the kind of thing that an

organization of that size should be concerned with? It'll never

happen - too many lobbyists.

What? Reduce 'freedom of expression'? (Kind of like expecting them to

reduce the influence of the oil producing countries by really reducing

our reliance on oil - don't go there either.) I'm not holding my

breath - can you picture the Texas cattle ranchers if anyone suggested

that reducing animal protein consumption would be a good idea? Oops,

that kind of thing has been tried before....

Iris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...>

< >

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:07 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] The China Study

>

> Iris: I read the second link below . Dr is a vegan . He

> doesn't

> mention the benefits of including fish in the diet . Haven't had a chance

> to read the other links to see if fish is included in their idea of a

> healthy diet.

>

>

I've been following T. Colin since this " New Century Nutrition "

days, some years ago. He was once a biochemist bent on growing lots of

beef and producing lots of milk for America. He changed to Vegan very

gradually.

The only thing different in The China Study from some years ago is his

comment saying that it's possible that very small amounts of fish may not

be harmful, or, better, not harmful enough to make any difference.

I bought the book and read it carefully. I admire his work. I shifted

toward low fat Vegan again, and promptly (about 2 weeks) grew weak and very

lazy again. Some years ago, I e-mailed Dr. re my loss of energy,

and he was kind enough to reply saying, in effect, that it takes some

people a long time to become adjusted to a vegan diet even up to a couple of

years. He told me to hang in there. I went back to Ornish with a little

extra skim milk products and egg white products and felt ok again in a few

weeks. A little later the Omega 3 diet came out and I corresponded a little

with Jo (the co-author) about that, added some Omega 3 to my diet

and began to feel pretty good. Unfortunately, my brain understands no ok

and yes ok, but this " well, maybe, " on fish and so forth is too ambivalent

for me somehow began to include other, richer foods, and after a while I

weighed more, and then I lost some of it...and the net result is I'm still

40 pounds less that I started and I still can gain weight with extrardinary

ease. My fingernails and toenails grew soft on the vegan diet. They are

fine finger and toe toppers, now.

I haven't found any convincing evidence of extremely long lived vegans.

Fish eaters who are too poverty stricken to eat very much fish or anything

else except grain, fruits, and veggies seem to do best. So, I have returned

to calorie control and a lower animal protein (only fish, egg whites)

Okinawan diet with some yogurt (oops! That'll surprise some Okinawans) and

lots of legumes, green leafies, and you know all that stuff anyway. I have

grown a little older, age 73, since last I posted. Feel ok most of the

time. Rarely ill with colds and so forth. This program works so long as

calories are low and nutrition is high.

Ed S

[Guest guest]

The bruising I mentioned before, like that produced by a blood thinner.

I lean against a wall and it bruises under the skin. Takes afew days to clear up after I drop the EPA.

regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:25 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: The China Study

Hi JW:"bruising" ????Rodney.> ly I don't like fish oil (EPA/DHA) capsules. I'm not fond of the "bruising".> > Regards.

[Guest guest]

I just realized those links in what I quoted are no longer viable. Here's a

link for Amazon.com reviews on The China Study. Just reading the reviews is

quite interesting. I definitely want to get the book!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932100385/104-0968715-3578348?v=glance & n=28315\

5 & s=books & v=glance

...· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´ Michele

" See beyond phenomena and difficult questions will dissolve into love

within love. " - Rumi

[Guest guest]

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 6:55 pm, Michele Deradune wrote:

> I just realized those links in what I quoted are no longer viable. Here's a

> link for Amazon.com reviews on The China Study. Just reading the reviews is

> quite interesting. I definitely want to get the book!

>

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932100385/104-0968715-3578348?v=glance & n=

>283155 & s=books & v=glance

Interesting. I went over most of the reviews of the book and decided against

buying it. My gut check is that in the Chinese most likely don't eat 140 lbs

of sugar a year per person (compaired to the USA) or gallons of partially

hydrogenated oils and grains that have most of their nutrition removed as

well is a plethora of additives contained in processed foods. Pick a diet,

any diet, that excludes in general those items and you will get improvements

in disease occurances and outcomes. A vegan diet or a strick Adkins diet

without the above negative items will produce a significant improvement in

health, even without taking into account the use or non-use of organic

farming and free range meat production that would also produce health

improvements.

--

Steve - dudescholar1@...

" Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original

dimensions. "

--Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Guest guest]

China Study Shows Need for Eating Plant-Based Diet

By Lang

[Cornell Chronicle (12/01/94)]

Americans will not reduce their rate of cancers, cardiovascular disease and

other chronic, degenerative diseases until they shift their diets away from

animal-based foods to plant-based foods, according to research findings

emerging from the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever done.

Findings from the study suggest that even eating just small amounts of

animal-based foods is linked to significantly higher rates of cancers and

cardiovascular diseases typically found in the United States, said Cornell

nutritional biochemist T. Colin , director of the

Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health and Environment.

Further, he added, merely eating some low-fat foods or complying with

current U.S. dietary recommendations is unlikely to prevent much disease.

The dietary recommendations, said, do not go far enough in

reducing the total fat content of the diet, or, more to the point, in

advocating the exchange of foods of animal origin for foods of plant origin.

" To get really significant changes in disease rates, it will be necessary

to shift the American diet from its heavy reliance on animal-based foods to

one that relies far more on plant-based foods, " said , who along

with his colleagues has been analyzing the data from the the China project,

a collaborative effort of Cornell, the Chinese Academy of Preventive

Medicine and University of Oxford.

The project, which just received $200,000 from the American Institute for

Cancer Research to continue analyzing data, is a massive survey designed to

study diet, lifestyle and disease across the far reaches of China; it

includes almost 7,000 Chinese families. By investigating simultaneously

more diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other study to

date, the project has generated the most comprehensive database in the

world on the multiple causes of disease.

The diets of rural China are mostly plant based and are, therefore, much

lower in fat and animal protein and much higher in fiber than American

diets. Chinese diets also go beyond the dietary recommendations now being

promoted for long-term health in the United States and other Western

countries. As a result, researchers not only could investigate the

relationship of diet with disease, but also the worthiness of American

dietary recommendations.

They have found, for example, that although chronic degenerative diseases

are much more common in the United States than in China, the rates for

these diseases are significantly higher in those areas of China where the

intake of animal-based foods is higher.

" Whereas current dietary guidelines recommend that no more than 30 percent

of calories (from the present 35 to 38 percent) come from fat, data from

the China study suggest that reducing fat to about 15 percent of total

calories would prevent 80 to 90 percent of chronic degenerative diseases

such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes before about age 65, "

said , also an author of the original 1982 dietary recommendations

on cancer prevention by the National Academy of Sciences.

" One of the most significant problems with the American diet is the

excessive intake of animal-based foods and the inadequate intake of

plant-based foods, " said Banoo Parpia, a senior research associate on the

project. She said that study after study shows that a diet rich in a

variety of high-quality fresh plant-based foods with a minimum of

animal-based foods is optimal for long-term health.

Such a diet not only would lower the risk of these Western diseases, but

also would save an estimated $120 billion per year in health care costs

while reducing the use of the Earth's resources needed for livestock,

pointed out.

In the past two years, and his colleagues have published more than

three dozen studies on their findings, which are partially summarized in

two chapters wrote for the recently published book, Western

Diseases: Their Dietary Prevention and Reversibility edited by N. Temple

and D. Burkkitt, (Totowa, N. J.: Humana Press, 1994).

Among the new insights and relationships emerging from the Chinese data:

* Breast cancer: Women who eat diets rich in animal foods reach

menarche earlier, thereby producing more estrogen over their lifetimes and

developing breast cancer at a significantly higher rate. In other words,

" low-fat, high-fiber diets are linked with lower levels of female hormones

and a lower risk for breast cancer, " Parpia said.

* Osteoporosis: Women who eat diets rich in animal foods excrete more

calcium in their urine, providing a negative calcium balance -- a high risk

factor for osteoporosis.

* Liver Cancer: A primary cause of this cancer is chronic infection

with hepatitis B virus, but the mortality rate for this disease is

significantly correlated with plasma cholesterol which is correlated, in

turn, with the consumption of animal-based foods.

* Esophageal cancer: Chinese who eat little fruit have a five to nine

times greater risk of developing this cancer than those who eat more fruit

(the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile).

* Other cancers: As the consumption of animal-based foods increases and

levels of cholesterol in the blood increase accordingly, the risks for

eight different cancers go up as well, including colon cancer. Vitamin C

emerged as one of the most important factors for a wide range of cancers.

" In the final analysis, we have strong evidence from this and other studies

that nutrition becomes the controlling factor in the development of chronic

degenerative diseases, " concludes.

" Even small intakes of animal foods, which simultaneously alter the intake

of countless nutrients and other constituents, is capable of significantly

elevating plasma cholesterol and similar biomarkers, and thereby elevate

the risk of degenerative diseases.

" Mere tinkering with our diets by consumption of a few low-fat foods or

special nutrient supplements, although possibly useful under some

circumstances, will likely only have minimally useful effects and almost

certainly will not be a panacea for disease prevention. " Rather, he

stresses, Americans need to shift to a more plant-based diet.

The typical American diet contains 10 times more animal protein (as percent

of calories) than does the typical Chinese diet. The average dietary fat

intake in China is 15 percent of calories compared with 38 to 40 percent in

the United States. The average consumption of dietary fiber is 33 grams a

day in China compared with 10 to 12 grams in the United States

...· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´ Michele

" Why of course people don't want war....But, after all, it is the leaders

of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to

drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist

dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no

voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That

is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and

denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to

danger. It works the same in any country. " Hermann Goering

[Guest guest]

Michele Deradune wrote:

>

> China Study Shows Need for Eating Plant-Based Diet

I do not see that.

Maybe for the type of people in the study, living in the area of the

study, and with the ground nutrient characteristics in the study

And with the activities of the people in the study

And with the genetics of the people in the study

Etc.

You could study my dad's family (average age 105 for the 13 siblings)

and come to a totally different conclusion.

They all farmed and ate beef, cream and dairy in ia (now Zimbabwe)

:-))

That also does not mean everyone should do so :-)

But it works for ME - as a member of that family!

.....Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Agreed,

The Chinese study was probably done with peasant Chinese people, so

there must be some human genetic and environmental differences

(including land minerals) which will skew the results when compared with

western human genetics (assuming non-Asians) and environments. In

addition many people such as our selves are more likely to take

supplements, use high quality, valuable imported food goods (e.g. Olive

oil, cocoa) and potentially have better support infrastructure (e.g.

water quality, sanitation and medicine), so have added resources to

protect ourselves with. As suggested, a less processed diet (preferably

with regular sea food) can avoid many of the perils in the western diet

without the need to avoid meat.

steve wrote:

>On Tuesday 11 October 2005 6:55 pm, Michele Deradune wrote:

>

>

>>I just realized those links in what I quoted are no longer viable. Here's a

>>link for Amazon.com reviews on The China Study. Just reading the reviews is

>>quite interesting. I definitely want to get the book!

>>

>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932100385/104-0968715-3578348?v=glance & n=

>>283155 & s=books & v=glance

>>

>>

>

>Interesting. I went over most of the reviews of the book and decided against

>buying it. My gut check is that in the Chinese most likely don't eat 140 lbs

>of sugar a year per person (compaired to the USA) or gallons of partially

>hydrogenated oils and grains that have most of their nutrition removed as

>well is a plethora of additives contained in processed foods. Pick a diet,

>any diet, that excludes in general those items and you will get improvements

>in disease occurances and outcomes. A vegan diet or a strick Adkins diet

>without the above negative items will produce a significant improvement in

>health, even without taking into account the use or non-use of organic

>farming and free range meat production that would also produce health

>improvements.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Most of the books on 'Health & Healing' touch on causes but mostly deal with

Symptoms.

Symptoms such as constipation, heralded over the years by the writers of these

books as the cause of disease, is nothing more than a symptom of incorrect

living/eating and drinking. There are cemeteries full of people that have died

without ever having been constipated, having diarrhea or a host of other

symptoms and yet killed by degenerative disease.

That being said, those 'symptoms' are real and affect our lives dramatically but

again, are symptoms, not causes, of an improperly functioning body going back to

lifestyle, diet, exposure to toxins to emotions which fall into Lifestyle.

This is why laxatives and pain pills only mask the underlying problem.

If Constipation or Acid Reflux was a cause of disease rather than a symptom, the

allopathic system would be successful. They can 'cure' constipation. They

can 'cure' a headache and they can apparently reduce symptoms of Acid Reflux but

they have done nothing to bring health. I have used the word 'cure' but

obviously what I am saying is that they have masked a symptom.

My brother-in-law was persuaded by his doctor, that because his Blood Pressure

medication kept his readings within the 'normal range, he did not have

Hypertension any longer. I suppose that was true, however, he was dead two

years later supposedly due to Congestive Heart Failure. Obviously the condition

of 'Hypertension', elevated BP, no longer existed. Was he cured?

However, there are few people that do not opt for symptom relief. I do. Do

'symptoms' affect health? Absolutely. Blocked intestines allow more toxins to

be absorbed and severe pain, from any source, is extremely enervating and will

also 'check' elimination of toxins. Acid Reflux is probably an issue involved

with Esophageal Cancer. It is a vicious cycle but again, the underlying

cause is not the visible sign any more than the tumor is the cause of cancer.

In fact the Cancer Industry occasionally admits that it is the rare tumor that

kills. The Symptom business has been sold to us by the Allopathic system and it

is difficult to put aside..........until one thinks it through. We are on an

education course and understanding health and sickness becomes easier as one

studies. It does not, however, make us do what is necessary nor stop others

from forcing more 'causes' (poisons) on us. The last part is something we have

little control over other than to improve our body's defense mechanisms and

hope!

Joe C.