Researchers from the American Institute for Cancer Research have concluded that eating meat can increase the risk of contracting breast cancer – only in Caucasian women. Apparently African-American women are not in the same danger.
Questionnaires taken from 976 African-American women and 873 Caucasian women with breast cancer; and 1,165 African-American women and 865 Caucasian women without breast cancer revealed that eating meat was a common factor in Caucasian women who had breast cancer. The same correlation was not found in African-American women.
In 2006, another similar study was conducted by Harvard Medical School wherein it was surmised that certain types of breast cancer (those initiated by estrogen and progesterone receptor positives) were found in women who ate more red meat – meaning over 11 servings per week. Harvard University researchers stated that the cancers women were most as risk of developing are those linked to estrogen and therefore premenopausal women are at a greater risk.
The cause of cancer and research into the genetic connection to the disease is further confused by bio-tech corporations like Myriad Genetics who refuses to divulge scientific data on cancer research on the basis that it is “commercially sensitive”.
This corporation developed a test that determines “whether women carry potentially lethal mutations of the two genes linked with inherited forms of breast and ovarian cancer. It has a monopoly on the tests in the United States and is about to start more aggressive marketing in Europe.”
By identifying two BRCA genes which compiled a database of mutations, Myriad has since refused to share this data with researchers and make this information available in public databases. This compromises the ability of the scientific community to pinpoint cancer-causing agents.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), diet attributes to 30% of all cancers in developed nations. To combat this problem WHO suggests that meat consumption be curbed. They claim that meat is “devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect.” WHO also claims that consuming cooked meat is “believed to increase cancer risk . . . increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.”
The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (UNFAO) have reported that 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases and CO2 equivalents can be directly contributed to livestock. If we had less animals raised for consumption, we could cull considerable environmental benefits.
A ludicrous attempt to support their claims resulted in the alarmist study that stated dinosaurs emitted so much flatulence that they cause global warming. Equating cows to saurapods, the danger is posed in the 100m tons of methane that is estimated to be produced by livestock.
Another study published by Environmental Research letters claims that there must be drastic changes in food production by 2050 to prevent a global food crisis due to global warming.
The globalist answer to the problem of livestock cultivation is adopting a global vegetarian diet, the world’s water supplies will be saved and the erratic weather evidenced by the man-made climate change myth will simply disappear. Miraculously, third world nations would have the arable land to feed their populations which would increase trade and food surplus.
In April, S. Matthew Laio, bioethics professor at New York University proposed that the masses take a pill that would cause nausea when a person ate meat. This would eventually create a lasting aversion to meat-eating.
Another solution to replacing livestock is the creation of artificial meat. Researchers in the laboratory are creating synthetic (or test tube meat) that may make an appearance on supermarket shelves. By taking cells from a living animal, then “growing” it in a petri-dish the theory is that this concoction of animal tissue can be consumed by humans.
Eco-fascists praise this test tube meat because it will provide for not killing actual animals and supports their contention that livestock is having a devastating impact on the environment. If they can simply grow the meat in a laboratory, there would be less of a carbon footprint.
Gabor Forgacs, tissue engineer at the University of Missouri has been developing organ replacement technology. This breakthrough could be used to engineer test tube meat for human consumption.
Forgacs says the creation of fake meat is an arduous process. “What the final outcome is going to be is difficult to predict. One thought is that it’ll be something like an ingredient to a lot of staples which are based on animal protein — for example we make something which has the consistency of ground meat and that can be used for paté, meatballs. Take the analogy of flour. You don’t eat flour, it’s not very tasty but you eat a zillion products that contain flour and are very yummy. Whether or not this is going to be a major application of our product I don’t know but this is definitely something I envisage it leading to.”
With funding from the USDA (USDA), Forgacs is seeking more investors for his corporation Modern Meadows. Forgacs touts that his fake meat could be sold to people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons. The eco-conscious is a growing and possibly lucrative market. He hopes to tap into the emerging sustainable meat industry.
In April, the US Secretary of Agriculture and head of the USDA, Tom Vilsack, admitted that the agency cannot determine whether or not cloned meat has been sold in the US. In response to their ignorance, the USDA has decided to tell the American public that cloned meat is safe for consumption. Vilsack remarked that cloned meat has no “substantial difference to actual animal meat, and therefore it is safe.
It was Joseph Mengele in the 1940’s that supported the development and use of cloned animal meat for the general public’s consumption. Mengele’s first experiments with meat were removing animal parts and perfected the art of keeping them alive outside the body. This has led to the boom in the bio-genetic industry.
Steve King, US House Representative explains that the Obama administration is transforming America “into a nanny state”. In public schools, there a movement to control the diet of children with an “unprecedented move of adding a maximum calorie intake is a prime example of the perils of liberal ideology. … A ration of only 2 ounces of meat per day is an unfriendly food environment for everyone.”
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN IPCC said in 2007 that human populations globally should reduce their meat consumption by having a meat-free day once per week to reduce greenhouse gases.
By Susanne Posel
Researchers from the American Institute for Cancer Research have concluded that eating meat can increase the risk of contracting breast cancer – only in Caucasian women. Apparently African-American women are not in the same danger…Read Full Article>>>