Breaking Science News

BREAKING SCIENCE NEWS!

The Professor keeps up with all of the latest findings in health science. Here you can get the very latest info and The Professor's thoughts and advice so you will know what to believe and what to discard as opinion. Brian has always been ahead of his time. That's why when he "leads the pack," few understand him and it can take decades to make the truth mainstream. This recently occurred with the experiments conclusively showing fish oil's worthlessness in preventing cancer and heart disease (see below).

Professor Peskin's discoveries have received more physician accolades than any health researcher revealing a new groundbreaking discovery! And amazingly, after over a decade of dietary discoveries and advice, The Professor had never had to reverse any of his nutritional recommendations! This is incredible, especially when compared to the constant reversals we always read and hear about in the popular press!

Newsflash 2007: Studies Dispel Myth of Cancer-causing Red Meat

Medical News Today reported on June 5, 2007 that “red” meat does NOT promote cancer:(1)

“Recent studies published in the journal Cancer Science have disproved the myth that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer.

“Researchers have run a large case-controlled study in Japan, examining associations of meat, fish and fat intake with risk of colorectal cancer…

“…[F]ound that intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA [parent omega-6] showed no clear association with the overall or subsite specific risk of colorectal cancer.
“Our findings DO NOT SUPPORT the hypothesis [guess] that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer risk…” (Emphasis added.)

Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary: I have reported for over 10 years that the science is very clear that “red” meat could not be cancer-causing. Furthermore, I have been advocating meat as a 1st class protein source. “Red” meat’s natural saturated fat is burned for energy and its EFAs are used in numerous biochemical reactions. Meat’s protein is required to maximize hemoglobin’s oxygen binding. Without exception “red” meat and its associated saturated fat content are not cancer-causing _ the OPPOSITE of what most physicians and nutritionists have lead us to believe for decades. Their misinformation is based on opinion _ not science.

Japan would naturally have a bias for fish since it is less expensive and more plentiful than red meat. Additionally, the study showed that fish and fish product consumption was not statistically significant in decreasing cancer. You already discovered from me why fish consumption can’t prevent cancer. Eat all the steak you want (I recommend “natural” or “organic” with no hormones or steroids used) without guilt, knowing you are eating what your body needs to remain healthy.

1. Ref.: Kimura, Yasumi, et al., “Meat, fish and fat intake in relation to subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer: The Kukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study, Cancer Sci. 2007 Apr ;98 (4):590-7.

................


Contact The Professor	BREAKING SCIENCE NEWS! The Professor keeps up with all of the latest findings in health science. Here you can get the very latest info and The Professor's thoughts and advice so you will know what to believe and what to discard as opinion. Brian has always been ahead of his time. That's why when he "leads the pack," few understand him and it can take decades to make the truth mainstream. This recently occurred with the experiments conclusively showing fish oil's worthlessness in preventing cancer and heart disease (see below). *Professor Peskin's discoveries have received more physician accolades than any health researcher revealing a new groundbreaking discovery!* And amazingly, after over a decade of dietary discoveries and advice, The Professor had never had to reverse any of his nutritional recommendations! This is incredible, especially when compared to the constant reversals we always read and hear about in the popular press! Newsflash 2007: Studies Dispel Myth of Cancer-causing Red Meat Medical News Today reported on June 5, 2007 that “red” meat does NOT promote cancer:(1) “Recent studies published in the journal Cancer Science have disproved the myth that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer. “Researchers have run a large case-controlled study in Japan, examining associations of meat, fish and fat intake with risk of colorectal cancer… “…[F]ound that intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA [parent omega-6] showed no clear association with the overall or subsite specific risk of colorectal cancer. “Our findings DO NOT SUPPORT the hypothesis [guess] that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer risk…” (Emphasis added.) Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary: I have reported for over 10 years that the science is very clear that “red” meat could not be cancer-causing. Furthermore, I have been advocating meat as a 1st class protein source. “Red” meat’s natural saturated fat is burned for energy and its EFAs are used in numerous biochemical reactions. Meat’s protein is required to maximize hemoglobin’s oxygen binding. Without exception “red” meat and its associated saturated fat content are not cancer-causing _ the OPPOSITE of what most physicians and nutritionists have lead us to believe for decades. Their misinformation is based on opinion _ not science. Japan would naturally have a bias for fish since it is less expensive and more plentiful than red meat. Additionally, the study showed that fish and fish product consumption was not statistically significant in decreasing cancer. You already discovered from me why fish consumption can’t prevent cancer. Eat all the steak you want (I recommend “natural” or “organic” with no hormones or steroids used) without guilt, knowing you are eating what your body needs to remain healthy. 1. Ref.: Kimura, Yasumi, et al., “Meat, fish and fat intake in relation to subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer: The Kukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study, Cancer Sci. 2007 Apr ;98 (4):590-7. ................ Newsflash: JAMA 2006 ADMITS: Omega-3 is NOT a Cancer Preventive Omega-3 fatty acids have been claimed to lower the risk of contracting cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 295, No. 4, January 25, 2006) reports what we have been saying for years: “A large body of literature spanning numerous cohorts from many countries and with different demographic characteristics does not provide evidence to suggest a significant association between omega-3 fatty acids and cancer incidence. Dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids are unlikely to prevent cancer.” (emphasis added) Life-Systems Engineering Science Analysis: For years we have been misled about the supposed anticancer effects of omega-fatty acids; in particular, fish oil and flax oil. This reports explained the significant dangers of overdosing on them. To reach the truth, all anyone had to do was to review the 38 medical journal articles from 1966 to 2005 like this study’s authors did; then discount the majority of the studies because they were statistically incorrect or improperly done. It is tragic that America and the rest of the world follows recommendations based on the results of improperly performed studies. Medical journals don’t independently verify them. Don’t expect the popular press to report the truth anytime soon. ................
	Newsflash: British Medical Journal 2006 ADMITS Omega-3 is NOT a Cancer or Heart-Disease Preventive In the most comprehensive review to date, published in British Medical Journal (Hooper, Lee, et al., “Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review,” prepublication reference: BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38755.366331.2F (published 24 March 2006)), 96 trials, including 44 trials with supplements and 5 trials consisting of mainly ALA (parent omega-3) from plants with the remainder being fish oil, confirms what we have been saying for years: • “Neither RCT's [randomized clinical trials] nor cohort studies [estimated omega-3 consumption and related clinical outcomes] suggested increased risk of cancer with higher intake of omega 3, but clinically important harm could not be excluded." • "We found no evidence that omega 3 fats had an effect on the incidence of cancer and there was no inconsistency." • "This systematic review assessed the health effects of using omega 3 fats (together or separately) on total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, and strokes in a wide variety of participants and found no evidence of a clear benefit of omega 3 fats on health." (emphasis added) Life-Systems Engineering Science Analysis: this was an exceptionally outstanding analysis of existing studies. The authors state omega-3s worthless alone in preventing cancer and heart disease in spite of the popular recommendations. Furthermore, the authors warn us of the potential danger of overdosing on omega-3 in the doses being recommended! This news gives you the reason for these studies' failures; the potential problems with fish oil supplementation and consumption is much more complex than the issue of carcinogenic content of the fish, i.e., mercury toxicity, alone. Current recommendations do not take into account human physiology and biochemistry. ................
	Newsflash: AHA revises statement on soy protein Benefits "minimal at best" Jan 20, 2006 Shelley Wood Dallas, TX - Five years after it released a scientific advisory recommending the inclusion of soy-protein foods in a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, the American Heart Association has issued a revised statement, going back on its earlier advice. "The direct cardiovascular health benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best," the new advisory states. "[U]se of isoflavone supplements in food or pills is not recommended." The new statement was published January 17, 2006 this week as a rapid access paper in Circulation online [1]. For their analysis, the writing committee, led by Dr Frank M Sacks (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA), examined 22 randomized trials comparing the effects of isolated soy protein with isoflavones with milk or other proteins. They report that while soy products seemed to reduce LDL cholesterol, the effect was trivial (around 3%) and only in people who ate a lot of soy protein—roughly half their daily protein intake. No effects of soy protein were seen on HDL, triglycerides, lipoprotein (a), or blood pressure. In 19 of 22 studies, the effect on all lipid parameters was nil. The recommendation for physicians, Sacks told heartwire, is to tell their patients "not to use isoflavone supplements, since they are ineffective. Soy protein is not much better than other proteins for cardiovascular health. A large amount lowers LDL a little bit and does not affect the other CV lipids and other risk factors." Soy effects for other diseases: Mixed or nil The statement authors also point out that studies examining soy's effects on postmenopausal bone loss have been mixed and have failed to show a clear benefit of soy for vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes) or prevention of breast, endometrium, and prostate cancer. People should look at the nutrient content of anything they buy. Of note, the statement distinguishes between isoflavone supplements and soy-based foods, since foods that are high in soy may have some cardiovascular benefits. Unlike animal-based proteins, soy-based foods such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, and some soy burgers typically contain polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, but low amounts of saturated fat, the authors note. In some settings, they say, replacing proteins high in saturated fats with soy-based protein might translate into cardiovascular benefits. (Professor's Note: Saturated fat is NOT dangerous or in any way unhealthy because there is no saturated fat in arterial clogs and this was analyzed and published in Lancet back in 1994! Read my landmark book The Hidden Story of Cancer for the full story of LDL Cholesterol! ALL Natural fats, whether they be cheese, cream, butter or the fat on meat, are healthy and needed for good health. The dangerous fats are transfats and artificial fats.) But as with other fad foods of the past decade, it's important to read the labels, Sacks points out. "People should look at the nutrient content of anything they buy. Some of the soy products are quite good but others may not be. . . . If the soy protein is in a product that has low salt, no trans fat, and low saturated fat and has other healthy ingredients like polyunsaturated fats and fiber that are in soybeans, then the food would be good for CV health," he said. (Professor's Note: My more than decade long studies in health and science has shown, and proven that eating lots of vegetables and fiber are NOT healthy and don't provide nutrition or any benefit to protect you from disease. On the contrary, too much fiber can actually lead to the development of colon cancer! Read my landmark book The Hidden Story of Cancer for the full story!) [emphases added] Source: Sacks FM, Lichtenstein A, Van Horn L, et al. Soy protein, isoflavones, and cardiovascular health. A statement for professionals from the American Heart Association nutrition committee. Circulation 2006; DOI: 10.1161/. Available at: http://www.circulationaha.org.
	DISCLAIMER: These views represent the PERSONAL OPINION of Brian Peskin based on his years of research, and some conclusions may be CONTRARY to popular opinion.