"World without cancer" is it all lies?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

dwickford@yahoo.com - 02 Jun 2006 22:55 GMT

I've just seen the "World Without Cancer" presentation from
www.archive.org

http://www.archive.org/details/wwocancer1
http://www.archive.org/details/wwocancer2

and I wondering if any research has been done into the claims that wild
animals in the wild, and certain peoples of the world e.g. Inuit,
Hunza, don't get a lot of cancer. What is the difference?

The claim that it is Laetril or B17 may be an oversimplification, but
the UK government advice is to eat 5 portions of fruit/veg per day,
which they say reduces cancer risk.

Reply to this Message

Jeff - 06 Jun 2006 00:09 GMT

> I've just seen the "World Without Cancer" presentation from
> www.archive.org
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> animals in the wild, and certain peoples of the world e.g. Inuit,
> Hunza, don't get a lot of cancer. What is the difference?

When animals get cancer, they get to become dinner for another animal or
otherwise die.

> The claim that it is Laetril or B17 may be an oversimplification, but
> the UK government advice is to eat 5 portions of fruit/veg per day,
> which they say reduces cancer risk.

B17 is a lie, not an oversimplification.

There are some good reasons why people should eat more vegetables, including
to help reduce heart disease and diabetes. However, 5 a day won't end all
cancer.

Jeff

Reply to this Message