Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

“Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.”

 

140304125639-large

That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette. In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet — a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.

“There’s a misconception that because we all eat, understanding nutrition is simple. But the question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well for three days, but can it help you survive to be 100?” said corresponding author Valter Longo, the Edna M. Jones Professor of Biogerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

Not only is excessive protein consumption linked to a dramatic rise in cancer mortality, but middle-aged people who eat lots of proteins from animal sources — including meat, milk and cheese — are also more susceptible to early death in general, reveals the study to be published March 4 in Cell Metabolism. Protein-lovers were 74 percent more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their more low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of DIABETES.

But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic — muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy DIETS such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.

Rather than look at adulthood as one monolithic phase of life, as other researchers have done, the latest study considers how biology changes as we age, and how decisions in middle life may play out across the human lifespan.

In other words, what’s good for you at one age may be damaging at another. Protein controls the growth hormone IGF-I, which helps our bodies grow but has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Levels of IGF-I drop off dramatically after age 65, leading to potential frailty and muscle loss. The study shows that while high protein intake during middle age is very harmful, it is protective for older adults: those over 65 who ate a moderate- or HIGH-PROTEIN diet were less susceptible to disease.

The latest paper draws from Longo’s past research on IGF-I, including on an Ecuadorian cohort that seemed to have little cancer or DIABETES susceptibility because of a genetic mutation that lowered levels of IGF-I; the members of the cohort were all less than five-feet tall.

“The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality, through a process that involves regulating IGF-I and possibly insulin levels,” said co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at USC. “However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty.”

Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.

“The majority of Americans are eating about twice as much proteins as they should, and it seems that the best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins but especially animal-derived proteins,” Longo said. “But don’t get extreme in cutting out protein; you can go from protected to malnourished very quickly.”

Longo’s findings support recommendations from several leading health agencies to consume about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45-50 grams of protein a day, with preference for those derived from plants such as legumes, Longo explains.

The researchers define a “HIGH-PROTEIN” diet as deriving at least 20 percent of CALORIES from protein, including both plant-based and animal-based protein. A “moderate” protein diet includes 10-19 percent of calories from protein, and a “low-protein” diet includes less than 10 percent protein.

Even moderate amounts of protein had detrimental effects during middle age, the researchers found. Across all 6,318 adults over the age of 50 in the study, average protein intake was about 16 percent of total daily calories with about two-thirds from animal protein — corresponding to data about national protein consumption. The study sample was representative across ethnicity, education and health background.

People who ate a moderate amount of protein were still three times more likely to die of cancer than those who ate a low-protein DIET in middle age, the study shows. Overall, even the small change of decreasing protein intake from moderate levels to low levels reduced likelihood of early death by 21 percent.

For a randomly selected smaller portion of the sample – 2,253 people – levels of the growth hormone IGF-I were recorded directly. The results show that for every 10 ng/ml increase in IGF-I, those on a HIGH-PROTEIN diet were 9 percent more likely to die from cancer than those on a low-protein diet, in line with past research associating IGF-I levels to cancer risk.

The researchers also extended their findings about HIGH-PROTEIN diets and mortality risk, looking at causality in mice and cellular models. In a study of tumor rates and progression among mice, the researchers show lower cancer incidence and 45 percent smaller average tumor size among mice on a low-protein diet than those on a high-protein diet by the end of the two-month experiment.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancer cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” Longo said. “Turns out one of the major factors in determining if it does is is protein intake.”

 

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304125639.htm

Animal Testing

Biomedical Research

Animals are used to understand basic biology, as “models” for studying human biology and disease, and as test subjects for the development and testing of drugs, vaccines, and other biologicals (i.e. antibodies, hormones, ingredients in vaccines, etc.) to improve and advance human health. As models, scientists aim to produce artificially, a condition in an animal in a laboratory that may resemble the human equivalent of a medical disease or injury. Animals are used in all capacities of research: for example, a rabbit’s sensory system may be studied in basic research; she may be used as a model for eye and skin disorders, or used in eye and skin irritancy tests for environmental toxicity testing.

The exact number of animals used in biomedical research is unknown, particularly since government statistics do not include mice, rats, birds, and fish; some estimates place the total number of these species in research to be in the tens to hundreds of millions. The use of genetic engineering—manipulation of an animal’s DNA or genes—is prevalent throughout many fields of research, particularly biomedical. “…[T]he mouse has become the flagship of animal testing, especially useful with genetic modifications, gene knockouts [genes are removed], and knockins [genes are added]. In 2003, NIH [National Institutes of Health] launched the Knockout Mouse Project and has awarded more than $50 million with the goal of creating a library of mouse embryonic stem cells lines, each with a gene knocked out.”1

While most animals are purposely bred for research, others, like cats and dogs, may be acquired through different sources, such as auctions, advertisements, or from pounds and shelters (known as “pound seizure”). Of the many species used in biomedical research, specific animals are preferred in certain areas. Dogs, typically young purpose-bred beagles, are commonly used in cardiovascular studies, heart and lung research, genetic studies, age-related research, pulmonary studies, cancer research, and orthopedics, such as the development of prosthetic devices for hip and knee replacements, vertebral fusion models, cervical disc degeneration, etc. Cats “have long been a mainstay of NIH-funded studies of neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases, and the IMMUNE SYSTEM.”2Researchers also use cats in cancer research, genetic disorders, and eye, ear, and infectious disease research. Nonhuman primates are used in research on vaccines, infectious, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases, aging, reproductive biology, gene therapy, drug addiction, xenotransplantation (cross-species transplants), and vaccine and toxicity testing. The two most common primate species used by far are Rhesus and Cynomolgus macaques—also known as crab-eating macaques. Of the nonhuman great apes, chimpanzees are currently the only species used in biomedical research.

Researchers frequently use rabbits in toxicity and safety testing of medical devices, vaccines, and drugs. In 2009, over 222,000 rabbits were used in research, more than any other species covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), followed next by guinea pigs and hamsters, who are both used a great deal in toxicity testing and as models for infectious, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases, and drug abuse research. Both mice and rats are heavily used in vaccine and drug research and testing, and birds are used in research on organ development and deformity, visual impairment, muscular dystrophy, and nutrition, among other things.

Basic research

Basic research is exploratory research, an open-ended search for more information for knowledge’s sake. “Basic biological research has traditionally studied life at the most basic level; what the cell is, what it is made of…what everything is built of and so forth.”[3] A wide variety of animals are used in basic research, with mice being the most common. Rats, birds, amphibians, and fish are also used, and invertebrates such as fruit flies and worms are heavily used in genetic research. “Historically, animal use in research was synonymous with basic research. It was easy to dissect or vivisect animals without any particular end in mind.”[4] In many ways, this is still true today. Stated in a 2010 review on the use of animals in basic research, “According to figures from the NIH, basic biomedical research receives more FUNDING than all other forms of research, [and] uses animals more often than not…”[5]

While basic research does not set out to find cures for human diseases, “much current [basic] research [is] being done under the guise of applied research because it increases the likelihood that the project will be FUNDED by a granting institution.”6 In a 2009 review of animal models in research, the authors list several NIH-funded research grants that are basic research, but described under the pretense of applied research by claiming clinical relevance for humans.7 By claiming potential clinical applications, a slippery slope is created that allows any and all animal research to be justified in spite of contrary evidence to its applications for humans. As stated in a 2011 science news article, “With an annual budget for NIH of more than $30 billion, the problem is not the amount invested in MEDICAL RESEARCH, but how it is used. Right now we’re operating under the assumption that somehow there’s a yet-to-be-discovered silver bullet, and that if we just spend more money on fundamental science, researchers will discover that silver bullet and all will be well. It’s not going to work that way.”8

Animal models

For practically every known human disease, researchers attempt to induce similar aspects of the disease in animals to create an animal “model” of that disease. Supposedly predictive, animals “are used with the aim of discovering and quantifying the impact of a treatment, whether this is to cure a disease or to assess the toxicity of a chemical compound.” This is how animals are “used in the context of DRUG TESTING and studying human disease.”9Areas of disease research involving animals include neurological, infectious, digestive, genetic, connective tissue, and chronic diseases. In these areas, animals are used as models of traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, congenital blindness, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, DIABETES, cancer, obesity, and so on.

In order to create these models, animals are subjected to invasive procedures, which can include surgeries, traumatic injuries, burns, force-feeding, blood draws, biopsies, food, water, and social deprivation, dart gun sedation, prolonged restraint, behavioral and environmental manipulations, viral and bacterial infections, and exposure to toxic drugs and chemicals. Examples include, “creating heart attacks, heart failure, abnormal heart rhythms, strokes, and other cardiovascular traumas in monkeys, dogs, pigs, and other animals; inducing symptoms of MIGRAINES in cats and primates through brain stimulation and manipulation with chemicals; implanting electrodes into the intestines of dogs to induce motion sickness and vomiting; implanting electrodes into the brains and eyes of monkeys and cats to conduct neurological and vision experiments; and dropping weights onto rodents to produce spinal cord injuries and paralysis.”10

Drug and vaccine development

Millions of animals and taxpayer DOLLARS are used in the production and testing of biologicals, such as vaccines and antibodies. For example, a complete batch test for a therapeutic protein can involve 12,000 mice and cost $2.4 million; 2007 estimates for the cost of drug development and to bring it to market range from $800 million to $1.7 billion. Potential drugs are often required to be tested in at least two animal species in preclinical trials before moving on to human CLINICAL TRIALS.11 Yet “only around 5% of drugs that show potential in animal studies ever get licensed for human use.”12 Potency tests of such products as vaccines are still based routinely on the principle of protection, i.e., survival or death after exposure, which was first introduced in the 1890s. Many of these tests are exceptionally cruel, involving high levels of pain and distress for a range of species from rodents to nonhuman primates (including chimpanzees). According to 1998 USDA statistics, more than 60 percent of the animals reported to experience unrelieved pain were used for vaccine testing.

Conclusion

Animals have proven to be poor models for human disease research. Because they are genetically different from humans, studying diseases in animals can give us inadequate or erroneous information. “The difficulties associated with using animal models for human disease result from the metabolic, anatomic, and cellular differences between humans and other creatures…”13  According to Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”14 Even with genetic engineering, animals are still proving to be poor models for humans. For example, despite the $50 million awarded by NIH for the Knockout Mouse Project, the genetically manipulated mice have their problems; for instance, “The current knockout mouse model for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may be completely wrong…”15

While the U.S. spends more money on animal research and health care than any other nation, we “… [fall] to the back of the pack when it comes to health indicators such as life expectancy…”16

 

[1] Gawrylewski, A. (2007, July 1). The Trouble with Animal Models. The Scientist, 21(7), 44.

[2] National Research Council. (2009). Scientific and Humane Issues in the use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

[3] Greek, R., & Shanks, S. (2009). Animal Models in Light of Evolution. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press.

[4] Greek, R., & Shanks, N. (2009). FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Greek, R., & Shanks, S. (2009). Animal Models in Light of Evolution. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press.

[8] Waters, H. (2011, March 30). Q&A: From the lab to the clinicThe Scientist.

[9] Greek, R., & Shanks, S. (2009). Animal Models in Light of Evolution. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press.

[10] Pippin, J. (2009). Humane Seal Fact Sheet on Animal Experimentation. PCRM.

[11] Brewer, T. (2007, September/October). Trials and Errors: DRUG TESTING raises ethical – and efficacy – issues. Best Friends Magazine.

[12] Waters, H. (2011, March 8). Q&A: Improving preclinical trialsThe Scientist.

[13] Gawrylewski, A. (2007, July 1). The Trouble with Animal Models. The Scientist, 21(7), 44.

[14] Cimons, M., Getlin, J., & Maugh, T., II. (1998, May 6). Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to MenLos Angeles Times, A1. 

[15] Gawrylewski, A. (2007, July 1). The Trouble with Animal Models. The Scientist, 21(7), 44.

[16] Begley, S. (2011). The Best Medicine. Scientific American, 305, 50-55.

 

Source: http://www.neavs.org/research/biomedical

Animal Products Are Never “HUMANE”

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.34.39 PMScreen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.35.42 PMScreen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.36.48 PMScreen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.36.26 PM Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.37.18 PM Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.37.49 PM  Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.38.38 PM  Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.38.26 PM Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 12.38.14 PM

Do you think meat is “HUMANE”?

Let’s look at the definition of “HUMANE” “COMPASSION” “KILLING” and “ANIMAL CRUELTY”

HUMANE
(h)yo͞oˈmān/
adjective
  1. having or showing compassion or benevolence.
    “regulations ensuring the humane treatment of animals”
COMPASSION
kəmˈpaSHən/
noun
  1. sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
    “the victims should be treated with compassion”
KILLING
ˈkiliNG/
noun
  1. an act of causing death, especially deliberately.
ANIMAL CRUELTY
  1. Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals, for purposes other than self-defense or survival.

 

The connection we have to make is beyond the marketing brainwashing, no matter how “happy” the animal was before being killed, it never lived out it’s natural life….

– Male baby cows being taken away from their mother at 1 day old…..

– Female cows artificially inseminated just to keep their milk production going….

– Male baby chicks thrown into a grinder alive….

– Free range chickens, organic feed… where they debeak the hens, put them in crowded places where they pick at each other….

I could go on and on….

ANIMAL TRANSPORTATION! anybody who wants to know and see the truth can, there is enough information online, documentaries, books, pictures, undercover footage…

WE NEED TO CHANGE!

 

Check out this website: http://www.humanemyth.org

Foie Gras

Foie Gras – How Much Cruelty Can You Swallow?

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 10.43.06 AM

 

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 10.43.13 AM

 

Source: http://liberationbc.org/sites/default/files/foie_gras_leaflet2.pdf

More Info on this group here: http://www.liberationbc.org