Chemicals as carcinogens are widely believed to be the main cause of human cancer. However, when directly compared, nutrient imbalances are far, far more substantial in their effect than chemicals.
The breast cancer/dietary fat relationship, once a key point in getting American women to switch their eating habits, has now been seriously challenged. A prominent Harvard study of nearly 90,000 American nurses,
How do we know that the results from the China Project apply to people in the West. Aren’t the Chinese much more physically active than Americans? Could this influence disease outcomes?
(In response to a reader’s question concerning Dr. Mercola’s views on The China Study)
While all cancer rates are generally very low in China, stomach cancer leaps out as a glaring exception.
Most of us have heard a great deal about the link between high cholesterol and heart disease. But how many have heard that high blood cholesterol levels are also associated with cancer?
To achieve clarity on the issue of tobacco, we must always remember to look into the nature of relationships-whether it is between competing presidential agendas, between competing causes of the same disease, between competing funding agencies, or whatever.
I would like to turn your attention toward a nagging question about foods, namely carcinogens in foods. We hear so much about them but what, really, are they? Mainly we’ve heard that carcinogens cause cancer and anticarcinogens prevent cancer.
How often these days do you read that genes cause cancer? Probably nothing in biomedical science deserves more attention. In my view, it even needs attention in nutrition newsletters.