Search This Blog

Friday, 27 January 2017

Burnt Toast and Medical Science. Why is it so laughable?

Sometimes medical science comes up with an idea, a link between what we do and an illness, that is so completely laughable that everyone raises their eyebrows in amazement. This happened on 24th January 2017 when it was announced over-cooked starchy food, like burnt toast and roast potatoes, might cause cancer. It seems to have been covered by every media organisation around the world! So it was considered important enough to hit the headlines. But generally it was treated with a level of scepticism and amusement. This is how the Mail Online treated the news.

Your essential Good Health SURVIVAL GUIDE: Can roast potatoes and burnt toast really give you cancer? Experts reveal over-cooked starchy foods is worse for you than you think

The Mail Online article suggested that millions would be 'choking on their breakfasts', stated that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had advised people to avoid most crispy food, that acrylamide, a toxic chemical created in the cooking process was the worry, but asked how damaging it really was, and what could do to avoid it? This was fairly typical of the coverage.

So why does medical science come up with such information. Why is it felt necessary to engage in extremely expensive research into such things?

Conventional medicine has no explanation for the cause of cancer
Despite cancer now running at record levels, despite cancer being the most feared of all diseases, despite the money medical science has spent on looking for the cause, despite many millions of people walking, running, swimming and doing other things to raise money for cancer research, the conventional medical establishment still does not know the cause of cancer.

Have a look at the NHS Choices website if you question this. Go to this page. Then click on the various different types of cancer and look at the causes given. They are as follows:

And that is the story with most of the other cancers. Conventional medicine does not know the cause. So perhaps they are still searching for a cause. Is that the explanation? Perhaps burnt toast is responsible for the epidemic levels of cancer. Perhaps cancer patients have been gorging themselves on enormous amounts of burnt roast potatoes.

Does conventional medicine really want to know what causes cancer?
There is one major cause of cancer, in all its many forms, that is well known. Even conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical companies, know about it. 

  • psychiatric drugs, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, amphetamines and stimulants, and anticonvulsant drugs, cause cancer.
  • HRT (hormone therapy), and the contraceptive pill, cause cancer.
  • Statin drugs are known to cause cancer.
  • Tamoxifen, used to treat breast cancer, is known to cause cervical cancer, and a more virulent form of breast cancer.
  • Heartburn and reflux drugs, like Omeprazole (Prilosec), are known to cause 'abnormal cell growth'.
And there are many, many more pharmaceutical drugs, and vaccines too, that are known to cause cancer. So why do our doctors continue to tell us that the cause of cancer is unknown? Or why do they omit to tell us about the voluminous evidence that pharmaceutical drugs is one known cause?

Well, really this is the point. They don't admit the link between cancer and pharmaceutical drugs because they don't want us to know about the link. It is not part of the drug industry's commercial plan. It would harm profits! We might think twice before we took them! We might look for a safer, more effective medical therapy.

Yet, something is causing the cancer epidemic. And pharmaceutical companies cannot just pocket the money millions of people are raising for cancer research every day without coming up with something. So they come up with nonsense research. It might be caused by burnt toast. No loss of profit there. Research funds can be spent on that. The drug companies will fund that.

But they certainly don't want to spend cancer research funds on discovering the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been taken, for other less serious conditions, by people who contract cancer. Such research may suggest that we should not be taking psychiatric drugs, or Statin drugs, or HRT. And that would be an enormous own goal.

The same can be said of many other diseases. Indeed, sometimes the situation is far worse. Take  autism, for example, where there is not just a refusal to investigate the links with childhood vaccines, there is outright and total denial of any such link. I know it exists! You know it exists! Doctors know it exists! And the pharmaceutical industry knows it exists! But most people don't. So they accept their doctors advice, and get vaccinated.

So how many young people who have not been vaccinated develop autism. In the Amish community there is no autism. So surely this is good reason for medical science to investigate the link. It could be easily done.

But it isn't done. Vaccines are too important. They are the source of most pharmaceutical profit, now that most of their drugs have either failed completely, been withdrawn or banned, or no longer work without serious side effects. So vaccines have become sacrosanct, untouchable.

So, we are left with burnt toast, and many other more laughable causes of cancer, and other diseases. These scientific studies are not so much about medical research, they more about deflecting attention away from one if the major causes.