thats brilliant. I am glad there are still some around. I am in Mid Wales, and there isnt that sort of service where I am.
its interesting that we need haem iron. Its essential for us. So perhaps the interaction is the issue. Either way, I will continue to eat sliced processed ham and/or bacon a couple of times a week. Its better for me than some alternative which cause my blood sugars levels to rise. Life is all about compromise isnt it.
Our domestic water supply is chock full of nitrites and nitriles, the very chemical compounds being added to bacon, so stopping eating bacon will not protect you.
However, people didnt tend to live long enough for the affects to show. We cant conclude that the cancers would not have happened if life expectancy had been longer for much of the population. Even taking child mortality out of the equation, in my lifetime I can remember a time when living to 70 was once seen as very old
Read it thoroughly, nothing new or improved stats from the IARC nonsense, from a paper that gets paid by anti-meat. People are rejecting fake versions, leading to a push to force legislative changes. An extract from their article:
Yes, it's also very loaded to present it as 'a far more universal habit than smoking'. You could equally say it's a far more universal habit than drinking coffee, but that wouldn't set up the bias and intent to scare and draw false comparisons. When material is presented in such an emotive and 'cherry picked' fashion, you can largely discount any form of objectivity or honesty. Some of it may be true- it's definitely an interesting article. But points such as the above aren't really being presented in good faith.
That's the clever thing. If you get gifted eloquent writers and half truth a scenario, you can be almost right. E.g. probably the most popular breakfast sausage roll, by a well known establishment has only 20% pork - that should not even be allowed under some sort of consumer misinformation right; and of course the health status of this would be terrible. This would be a perfect of example where the fillers are the danger (and in my view the outer coating), but meat would be blamed.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/public...4LoApBqUBxYkyBC8-7lproOEG-kYF5rhoCqqAQAvD_BwE
That is the current average figure. I am talking about someone living beyond 70 was the exception, particularly among the working class.
The article you cite says:-
The association between N-nitrosin compounds as a carcinogen is weak and based on animal studies only. In their quest to prove this they injected animals with large doses of these compounds and then waited for tumours to grow. This is not surprising. Then they linked this to research into what chemicals in tobacco produced the same reactions, and found nitrosamines again. Then they looked at food sources to see where these compounds occurred. They found them in onions first, then coffee beans, then many other foods. Since it is common to occur naturally in the water this is not entirely surprising. But why stop at onions> They extrapolated their research into humans, but injecting humans with suspect compounds is not ethical, so they theorised that there is read across, and hence the panic about cancer-causing pathways. Not proven in vivo.
Agree. the King Fund graph tops out at 75.8 in 2020. That is the ONS graph, The Kings fund Fig 2 does show a peak at 79.8 but this is not the official tally.
