Anyone heard this on the news?

[Mackay]

Well, your answer is much more complex than just saying "CARBS CAUSES CANCER"

You have multiple diet infractions listed and I do certainly agree that these can be contributing factors but I do not think that it is the only cause of cancer. There are many causes of cancer.

others to look at are:
radiation ( including and especially mammography, weapons of mass distruction and depleted uranium bunker busters that we spewed all over Iraq)
iodine deficiency
virus
benzine, dioxin and a multitude of other chemical toxins
over use of antibiotics and steroids

 

[Wifezilla]

Carbs are the PRIME cause. The mechanism involved with a tumor's use of glucose, insulin and insulin growth factors is well documented. Someone won a nobel prize in the 30's for figuring out that cancer thrives on glucose.

The other stuff makes it worse, but a diet high in carbs in the prime culprit AND the easiest to address. Start with that and you have much less to deal with.


Henny, olive oil is fine

 

[Mackay]

Someone won a noble prize in the 30's for figuring out that oxygen depletion caused cancer.. his name was Warburg
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/03/otto_warburg_cancer_and_oxygen.htm

and it relates to deficient cellular respiration causing a fermentative process, of course which sugar is involved in and this page tells of what you are likely talking about.
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/sugar.htm

but it is still more complex than this because people who do not eat too many bad carbs still get cancer.

 

[Wifezilla]

Yes, I was referring to Otto Warburg...

"In contrast to healthy cells, which generate energy by the oxidative breakdown of a simple acid within the mitochondria, tumors and cancer cells generate energy through the non-oxidative breakdown of glucose, a process called glycolysis. Indeed, glycolysis is the biochemical hallmark of most, if not all, types of cancers. Because of this difference between healthy cells and cancer cells, Warburg argued, cancer should be interpreted as a type of mitochondrial disease.

In the years that followed, Warburg's theory inspired controversy and debate as researchers instead found that genetic mutations within cells caused malignant transformation and uncontrolled cell growth. Many researchers argued Warburg's findings really identified the effects, and not the causes, of cancer since no mitochondrial defects could be found that were consistently associated with malignant transformation in cancers.

Boston College biologists and colleagues at Washington University School of Medicine found new evidence to support Warburg's theory by examining mitochondrial lipids in a diverse group of mouse brain tumors, specifically a complex lipid known as cardiolipin (CL). They reported their findings in the December edition of the Journal of Lipid Research.

Abnormalities in cardiolipin can impair mitochondrial function and energy production. Boston College doctoral student Michael Kiebish and Professors Thomas N. Seyfried and Jeffrey Chuang compared the cardiolipin content in normal mouse brain mitochondria with CL content in several types of brain tumors taken from mice. Bioinformatic models were used to compare the lipid characteristics of the normal and the tumor mitochondria samples. Major abnormalities in cardiolipin content or composition were present in all types of tumors and closely associated with significant reductions in energy-generating activities.

The findings were consistent with the pivotal role of cardiolipin in maintaining the structural integrity of a cell's inner mitochondrial membrane, responsible for energy production. The results suggest that cardiolipin abnormalities "can underlie the irreversible respiratory injury in tumors and link mitochondrial lipid defects to the Warburg theory of cancer," according to the co-authors."

people who do not eat too many bad carbs still get cancer.

A carb is a carb. If your blood sugar is elevated because of whole grain wheat or a twinkie, it really is not that much of a difference. High blood glucose drives insulin and insulin growth factor secretion. If you have cancer, the tumor can use these as fuel. If you are eating a low fat, low protein diet, the alternative fuel source to feed the body and not the cancer (fat) is missing and you are not getting what your body needs to repair itself. Plant protein is a poor substitute for animal protein in the human body.

"Vegetarianism and cancer

An analytical study into the relationship between current diet and breast cancer risk was published in 1994. When breast cancer rates and meat and fruit intakes were compared, both were similar in the under-fifties. However, in women over fifty, eating more meat reduced the incidence of breast cancer by 30%, whilst eating more fruit increased breast cancer incidence by 70%. (42)

This may have been because a conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatty acid known to be a powerful anti-cancer agent, is found only in the fat of ruminant animals. (43) (44)

A case control study of over 5000 Italian women was conducted between 1991 and 1994 to assess the influence of high intakes of fat and other macronutrients on breast cancer risk. Dr Franceschi's team found that "The risk of breast cancer decreased with increasing total fat intake . . . whereas the risk increased with increasing intake of available carbohydrates." (45) Foods of vegetable origin tend to have high levels of carbohydrates. That this should be so finds support from Professor Wolfgang Lutz he showed that epidemiological studies failed to support the current belief that fat intake was at the root of coronary disease and cancer and did his own explorations of epidemiological data. His findings show a clear, inverse relationship between diseases of civilisation and the length of time the people of a given region of Europe have had to adapt to the high carbohydrate diet associated with the cultivation of cereal grains that was begun in the Near East, and spread very slowly through Europe. (46)

This is turn confirmed the work of the eminent explorer and anthropologist, Vilhjalmur Stefansson. (47) In it Stefansson points out that Stanislaw Tanchou "....gave the first formula for predicting cancer risk. It was based on grain consumption and was found to accurately calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain consumed, the greater the rate of cancer". Tanchou's paper, delivered to the Paris Medical Society in 1843, postulated that cancer would likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and explorers, a search which continued until WWII when the last wild humans in the Arctic and Australia were 'civilized'. No cases of cancer were ever found within these populations although after they adopted the diet of civilization, it became common. "

I provided links to the breast cancer study, the prostate study, the brain cancer study, the esophageal cancer study, given the sources for the carbohydrate theory and diseases of civilization and gave lots of supporting documentation. People will have to make up their own minds.

 

[Mackay]

There are other opinions.
Dr Simoncini states that most cancer is caused by a fungus.
Fungus is caused by overuse of antibiotics and of course fungus thrives on sugar. but the cause is not the sugar, it is the antibiotics and the resultant fungus. Sugar promotes and aggravates.
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/
http://www.cancerisafungus.com/
http://www.know-the-cause.com/

and of course there is Rife and his treatment of cancer microbes with the rife machine, which was a big part of my cancer treatment and cure.