Thursday, April 11, 2019

Nutritional supplements 'don't work' and taking certain ones even increases the risk of dying from cancer, professor warns

They are typically taken by the health conscious with the hope of adding years to life. But a study found taking supplements has little effect and only nutrients found in foods can lower your chances of death.

In fact, some supplements - such as calcium and vitamin D - were actually associated with a higher risk of cancer.

Experts suggest the findings add to growing evidence that supplements cannot be used as ‘insurance’, and that diet and lifestyle are key to health.

The study, which focused on data from more than 27,000 US adults, found certain nutrients in food - but not supplements - were generally linked to a lower risk of both all-cause and cancer death.

Researchers from Tufts University compared the intake of a range of nutrients with rates of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

They showed that adequate consumption of vitamins A and K, as well as magnesium and zinc, reduced the risk of death.

But this finding only applied to nutrients in food, not supplements.

Scientists said people could unwittingly be putting themselves in greater danger by taking calcium supplement doses higher than 1,000 milligrams per day.

This was associated with a 53 per cent greater risk of death from cancer, although the relative risk remained small.

They found no evidence of an association between calcium in food and cancer death.

Lead scientist Dr Fang Fang Zhang, said: ‘It is important to understand the role that the nutrient and its source might play in health outcomes, particularly if the effect might not be beneficial.

‘Our results support the idea that, while supplement use contributes to an increased level of total nutrient intake, there are beneficial associations with nutrients from foods that aren’t seen with supplements.

‘This study also confirms the importance of identifying the nutrient source when evaluating mortality outcomes.’

Sales of supplements have grown by six per cent in five years, with Britons spending an estimated £442million on them in 2018, according to market research group Mintel. Roughly 34 per cent of British people take health supplements daily, while the figure in the US is closer to the 50 per cent mark.

Debate as to their effectiveness has raged for years with many studies showing a supplement does not mirror the effects of when taken naturally.

In this study, participants were asked whether they had used any dietary supplements in the previous 30 days.

Those who reported supplement use were asked the product name, frequency and duration for each nutrient.

Nutrient intake from foods was also assessed using 24-hour diet recalls conducted by trained interviewers.

In addition, the researchers found dietary supplements had no effect on the risk of death in individuals with low nutrient intake.

Unnecessary consumption of vitamin D supplements by individuals who were not deficient in the vitamin might increase the risk of death from any cause, the researchers found.

Professor Judy Buttriss, of the British Nutrition Foundation, said the findings added to a growing body of evidence that micronutrient supplements do not reduce the risk of death.

She said: ‘Research on diet is increasingly looking at the effects on health of dietary patterns, rather than isolated nutrients, and it’s clear that it’s the diet as a whole and not single nutrients in isolation that can have the greatest beneficial impact on health.’

Professor Tom Sanders, of King’s College London, said: ‘People who self-medicate with supplements are often the “worried well” or those who have health problems.

‘Furthermore, there are those who eat poor quality diets but take a supplement as an insurance policy. 'You can’t turn a bad diet into a good diet with handful of pills.’

Professor Hugh Montgomery, of UCL Institute Human Health and Performance, said: ‘The growing message is routine vitamin supplementation offers little if any benefit to health and may cause harm.

‘Meanwhile, it is clear diets high in these components are healthy.

'Supplementing some vitamins and/or minerals can benefit those at risk (e.g. folic acid in pregnancy) or who may benefit for specific medical reasons (such as osteoporosis).

'However, in general terms, those otherwise healthy may do better overall to concentrate on consuming a healthy diet rich in vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grain and fruit than to spend money on supplements.

'The latter are not generally an effective substitute for, or supplement to, the former.’


Vaccines, fevers, and gender dysphoria. What are parents supposed to do?

Three recent stories highlight the way the rights of parents to determine the physical and emotional health and well-being of their children have changed in the 21st century. Looking at all three at once provides an interesting analytical exercise.

First, we have the ongoing measles outbreaks around the country in areas with a higher number of so-called “anti-vaxxers” — people who reject vaccines of various diseases for their children. Without rehashing the debate here, those who oppose vaccinations, or even merely advocate the freedom of parents to choose, are encountering vigorous challenges from others who believe vaccines are a responsibility of being a good citizen — never mind those (sometimes in authority) who argue that vaccines should be mandatory. Parents are faced with a choice, and sometimes it’s a costly one.

Second, in Chandler, Arizona, a mom took her feverish two-year-old son to an alternative medical practice. The doctor noted that the boy was unvaccinated and recommended the mother take him to the hospital. She said she would, but as he improved that day, she decided against it. The doctor followed up, and she gave the same promise, but again, ultimately declined to take her son to the hospital. Eventually, the cops showed up, burst through the door, arrested the father, and sent the couple’s three children to foster care with their grandparents. Both parents were charged with one count of child abuse. The case is ongoing, but it hinges on whether the mother had the right to do what she deemed best for her child, or whether the doctor had the right to alert the cops to “a possibly life-threatening situation.”

And third is the heart-wrenching story of a mother who was rendered powerless to prevent doctors from shepherding her daughter through a sex “transition.” Here’s how she explained the process: “If you take your child to a clinic to seek help, affirmative care means the therapist must follow the child’s lead. The professionals must accept a child’s professed gender identity. In fact, this is the law in many states. Under ‘conversion therapy’ bans, questioning a child’s professed gender identity is now illegal. So, if a little boy is 5 years old and believes he is the opposite sex, affirmative care means going along with his beliefs.”

She and her daughter found themselves in that situation, and now doctors and authorities are preventing the mother from doing anything to stop what we believe is child abuse. Similar stories have played out in other parts of the U.S. and Canada.

There are indeed parental choices that are patently wrong and do harm to children. But the same is true for certain institutional and medical decisions. And parents have little reason to trust those authorities in the face of so much demonstrably false information and coercive force. Thus, legitimate scientific advancement is sometimes rejected because there is no trust basis. Meanwhile, authorities and medical experts no longer trust parents to see through all the harmful misinformation out there. It’s a vicious cycle.

Often lost in this destructive debate is what’s actually best for kids. Parents are supposed to be the best determiners of that, and they should endeavor to make informed decisions that protect their kids from harm. This includes taking action again preventable communicable diseases and refusing to contribute to a vulnerable child’s gender dysphoria. Yet advocating smart decisions is a far cry from allowing the state to impose its will on parents and their children.


Hip-Hop: The Cancer of American Culture

It's reached a level of moral rot that Americans have not seen in any subculture or genre of music.

Let me be clear: I am in no way diminishing cancer and the effect it has on American families. I simply want to draw attention to the similarities of how cancer cells destroy their host and how hip-hop culture is destroying America. Since its inception, America has been the birthplace of many subcultures, industries, and genres of music. Americans have always believed in freedom of expression and free markets, so long as it is not antithetical to American values.

Hip-hop culture and its music has reached a level of moral rot that Americans have not seen in any subculture or genre of music in a long time. Some may claim that it’s just art no different than a painting. I would argue that even art begins with drawing a line. Those lines represents boundaries. When we examine hip-hop today, we can observe that it has no boundaries or lines of morality. Hip-hop culture and music over the years has become more aggressively violent, misogynistic toward women, and now anti-American. Hip-hop artists like KRS-ONE, who is considered a religious teacher and author of The Gospel of HipHop, declares, “Hip-Hop culture is a rebellious response to white American capitalism.” Africa Bambaataa, the godfather of hip-hop, teaches that the black man is “God” and the white man is “the devil." How are these statements art?

In America, we measure the benefit of subcultures by how they add value to the dominant American culture. Hip-hop at every turn attempts to diminish American culture with the promotion of rebellion, rants against police, racist overtones, and radical religious ideology. This type of behavior and rhetoric by hip-hop artists is why I consider hip-hop to be a cancer to America.

Cancer changes the way our cells function. Normal cells divide and grow to form new cells. When older cells die, new cells are formed to replace the dying cells. This process enables the body to continue to grow and function in a healthy capacity. Cancer is a breakdown of this orderly process. As cells become abnormal or damaged, instead of dying, they continue to survive. They will divide and continue to grow rapidly and form tumors. Those malignant tumors then aggressively spread into nearby tissues and organs and become invasive. Cancer cells ignore signals to stop dividing and even attempt to change how normal cells function — they convince normal cells to feed them oxygen to grow the tumor.

This is exactly how hip-hop is functioning in American culture. Hip-hop culture has invaded every walk of life posing as a genre of music when it is, at its core, a radical religious subculture that is designed to destroy the host. When we look at hip-hop "cells” that we call artists, they have called for the death of America and its institutions that make us great. In the ‘90s you had gangster rappers like N.W.A. (N*&&@$ With Attitudes) that had songs entitled “F—k the police,” that inspired the L.A. riots. In the 2000s you had rappers like Jay-Z rapping, “Jesus can’t save you. Life begins when the Church ends.”

In 2018, Snoop Dog recently created a video where he depicted President Trump being assassinated and the album cover had the president dead in a morgue with a toe tag labeled “Trump.” In the same year, he released a Christian gospel album. Just this month, rapper Nipsey Hussle, who was featured in a song called “F—k Trump,” was killed violently in LA by an associate gang member of the Rollin 60’s Neighborhood Crips. Nipsey’s influence even reached NBA player Russell Westbrook, who after scoring 20 points, 20 rebounds, and 20 assists against the Los Angeles Lakers, told the interviewer, “This was for Nipsey! 20-20-20 they know what this means!” The player was referring to a shout to the Rollin 60’s Neighborhood Crips gang that Nipsey Hussle was affiliated with. In plain sight, an NBA player was able to use his NBA platform to support gang activity. This proves how the cancer can spread from industry to industry or organ to organ.

The hip-hop cancer has invaded almost every aspect of American culture. It has metastasized in a generation and promotes everything from gang violence and selling drugs to killing police officers and calling for the end of the Christian church. My hope is that Americans will begin to wake up and seek aggressive treatment against this cancerous culture, or better than that, have it removed from their family and life in hopes of saving future American generations.


Australia: Vegan activists who target the homes of farmers could face a year behind bars

Vegan protesters who target farmers’ homes could face a year in jail under new laws proposed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
If re-elected in May, Mr Morrison plans to change the laws to prevent vegan activists from using private information about farmers to harass them.

“They are being targeted in the most mercenary way by an organisation that can only think of itself and not think of the real damage that is being done to the livelihoods of these hardworking Australians,” Mr Morrison told reporters in Launceston on Wednesday.

He promised to introduce laws banning people from inciting criminal activity against farmers, with jail terms up to 12 months.

The Aussie Farms website publishes an interactive map of farms across the country, which the organisation says exposes animal exploitation in a secretive industry.

Vegan protesters on Monday launched a cross-border campaign targeting a busy Melbourne street, plus abattoirs and farms in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. It resulted in scores of arrests, criminal charges and a renewed call for farmers to take action, with the federal government committing to underwrite legal claims.

Privacy laws were changed last Friday to potentially expose Aussie Farms’ website to significant penalties for publishing farmers’ addresses and contact details.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

You may be right about Hip=Hop, but my instinct is that you are taking it far too seriously. Back in the '70's my late Parents got exercised over the "Drug Fueled" lyrics of the rock-and-roll of the day...until I pointed out that in there day songs like 'Cocaine Bill ad Morphine Sue' were popular, not to mention ll the Prohibition era songs about drinking.

I'm not saying that Hip-Hop is harmless, but let's not make it a bigger bugaboo than it needs to be.