chemotherapy found to SPREAD cancer thoughout the body warns scientists

Yes, that's true, but while clever people like you and me can see why there would be no profit from selling an effective cure for cancer, perhaps you could explain it for the thicker forumites who might read this fred.

Most cancer Patients will be Tracked for 10 years ,yearly Check up the last 5 years .

nice fred for delusional conspiritards

I think if it happened to me - first thing to do is cut out sugar and carbs.

Why not cut back on them now if you think it works and prevent it happening at all?

your anti-pork stance worries me, Zorro. I've been eating quite a lot more pork in the last few years. And I don't mean sausages - I know processed meat is really bad for you.

Minced pork mostly, with some pork loins, pork belly as well. I'd say I eat it a couple of days per week.
I've more or less swapped beef for pork. Still eat beef but much less than before (I still enjoy the odd lasagne) and I avoid other read meats (steak etc)

There's so much inconsistency in health advice, nutritionists can't seem to agree on anything.

But I look at East Asia and he Far East - they eat a lot of pork - and their cancer rates are nowhere near as bad as ours in the West. Prob due to many other factors, but still.

role - see above.

Platini - You need a proper butcher - I too am a firm pork fan and I understand your concern about processed meat, but to discount sausages and embrace minced pork is pretty silly really. Keep eating the pork!!! - a recommendation... ask your butcher for a spare rib joint - it is basically boned and rolled shoulder so can be cut to almost whatever size you want. Best bit on a pig imo and brilliant crackling.  Oink Oink

Blackbarn is right, a good butcher, straight from the pig. I used to see them delivering the whole pigs to the butcher.
When you buy sealed packs that have been processed you are entering the twilight zone of meat. NITRATES are the enemy, not pork.
They are injecting hams with nitrates, they say it's to reduce the chance of Botulism.
But there is little real evidence for that. Other manufacturers can do it without NITRATES.
It's now ingrained in our minds that pork should be pink?
nitrates affect our guts. not pork.

get nitrate free meat.

Even if the gov are aware that nitrates/bacon are potentially dangerous they could not say so. There is a huge industry at steak, remember Eggwina? My guess is that they are giving them time to replace nitrates with something safer.

We've been warned about the dangers of eating cured meat many times.

''The World Health Organisation (WHO) will publish a report on Monday on the dangers of eating processed meats.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/11951047/Experts-attack-claims-that-bacon-is-as-big-a-cancer-threat-as-smoking.html

I've been aware of the dangers for years from reports on the radio.

I don't microwave bacon either Dr C.
That's a good article you have posted. The danger is overstated when compared to the risk of smoking and some of the scientist quoted in it seem to redress the balance.

When I used the word "reduced" on the previous post, I meant it in the sense of the chemical process, reduction being the opposite of oxidation.

Sounds ominous

Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

Like I said earlier, they can't even cure heartburn.

If we suffer from common ailments like headaches, indigestion, arthritis, and countless others. It's heavy odds on that we'll take our illness to the grave.

That's how poor GP medicine is.

Like I read somewhere ''it's God who heals, but it's doctors get paid for it.''

Not much they can do about the body falling apart naturally.
Vaccination, antibiotics and some poisons will prevent or destroy attacks from many micro-organisms and parasites and surgery can patch up untimely injuries and a range of malfunctions.
Some drugs address imbalances in the body and other drugs just make you feel better.

People don't read labels, Zorro, other than the banner marketing aids written in bold.
We have two jars of marmalade in the kitchen, one eaten by my wife, the other by me.
Hers is called "Old Time Irish" (Sounds alright) ingredients, sugar, oranges, gelling agent, citric acid, acidity regulator(sodium citrate), ammonia, caramel and orange oil. Made with 20grams of oranges per 100grams.
Mine is "Tawny orange" ingredients, sugar, Seville oranges. Made with 47 grams of fruit per 100grams.
Despite all the additive aimed at making a passable product from a minimum of fruit, her marmalade isn't bad but multiply that with all the other additives in processed food and it looks like the general public are being duped. You can get proper stuff if you take the trouble to look for it.

This is the key sentence from that article about processed meat:

Studies have also found that people who eat a lot of red meat tend to eat fewer plant-based foods that protect against cancer.

The small increase in bowel cancer deaths was found not among people eating processed meat and plenty of fruit and veg, but among people who eat processed meat and little fruit and veg.

But if you're being employed and paid to investigate the meat aspect alone, then you're naturally going to highlight the statistics in a way which appears to confirm that there's a danger worth investigating, or you'll be out of a job

As stated at the beginning of the article:

Dr Ian Johnson, Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Food Research, said: “Although there is epidemiological evidence for a statistically significant association between processed meat consumption and bowel cancer, it is important to emphasise that the size of the effect is relatively small, and the mechanism is poorly defined."

I hate studies which start and end with "epidemiological evidence" (i.e. statistics). If you offer up a conclusion on that basis alone, then all you're doing is choosing the statistical interpretation which suits your agenda. But going one step further, and defining a "mechanism" for how you arrived at your conclusion is difficult, which is why they don't do it. It requires a knowledge of chemistry for a start, and too few people in the field of disease study appear to have that knowledge (if they did, they wouldn't have ended up where they are).

less veg? the pesticides on those?
the bees are dying because they use neonicotinoids.

The neonicotinoid family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world. Compared to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides, neonicotinoids cause less toxicity in birds and mammals than insects. Oi Vey....

where was roundup (monsanto)?