Cause Cancer ?!?!
But Make Sure It
Isn’t Very Hot
June 16th, 2016
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
Some like it HOT.
But a new report from the World Health Organization [ WHO ] suggests that when it comes to beverages such as COFFEE, LIKING IT TOO HOT MAY INCREASE THE RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER.
The warning, issued on June 15th, 2016, follows an exhaustive review of studies on COFFEE, TEA and CANCER by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ].
A working group of 23 scientists declared that drinking beverages HOTTER THAN 149 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT [ 65 DEGREES CELSIUS ] is Group 2A – Probably Carcinogenic To Humans ― a category that also includes red meat and the Human Papilloma Virus [ HPV ].
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ― Human Papilloma Virus [ HPV ] is the most common sexually transmitted infection with most sexually active men and women being exposed to the virus at some point during their life-time.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ― IARC DOES NOT EVALUATE ACTUAL HUMAN RISKS, and merely looks at what is called HAZARD. The IARC study of HAZARD will not indicate the RISK of getting cancer. National regulatory agencies, like EPA and Health Canada, evaluate RISKS. IARC merely looks at what is called HAZARD, and NOT RISK. It DOES NOT take into consideration how much of or how commonly a RISK it poses in the real world. IARC often fails to provide any new research concerning the chemical agents and activities that it evaluates. Why do science-based national regulatory agencies around the world conclude that many chemical agents are scientifically safe while only IARC arbitrarily claims that they « probably » cause cancer ?!?! IARC is NOT a government regulatory agency. It has NO regulatory authority whatsoever. IARC most certainly is NOT a science, NOT a research, and NOT a health organization. IARC is a mere subsidiary of the World Health Organization ( WHO ).
However, the report makes clear that it is TEMPERATURE THAT MAKES COFFEE RISKY [ HAZARDOUS ?!?! ] ― NOT THE COFFEE ITSELF.
The panel DOWNGRADED COFFEE from its former status as Group 2B – Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans to a category of items whose CANCER HAZARD is Group 3 – NOT Classifiable As To Carcinogenicity.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ― IARC GROUPS OF CHEMICAL AGENTS WITH ALLEGED CARCINOGENIC HAZARD ( AND NOT RISK )
IARC reviews all available scientific evidence [ ?!?! ] on a particular chemical, biological, or physical agent, and classifies potential carcinogenic hazards according to the following scheme ―
IARC Group 1 Carcinogenic To Humans
IARC Group 2A Probably Carcinogenic To Humans
IARC Group 2B Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans
IARC Group 3 NOT Classifiable As To Carcinogenicity
IARC Group 4 Probably NOT Carcinogenic
Of the nearly 1,000 substances IARC has assessed over the years, ONLY ONE has been placed in Group 4 – Probably NOT Carcinogenic.
Thus, it appears that, in practice, IARC’s scheme disposes against declaring that an agent is unlikely to be a carcinogenic hazard.
Chemical Agent & Activities ― Classification ― Year Classified
• Alcoholic beverages ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Aloe vera ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Art glass ― Group 2A ― 1993
• Athlete’s foot treatment ― Group 2B ― 2001
• Baby oil ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Bacon, sausages, burgers, & vegetables ― Group 2A ― 2010
• Bracken fern ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Carpentry & joinery ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Cereal fungus toxin ― Group 2B ― 2002
• Chinese salted fish ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Coconut oil ― Group 2B ― 2013
• COFFEE ― Group 2B ( 1991 ) ― Group 3 ( 2016 ) NOT Classifiable
• Cooked meat & fish ― Group 2A ― 1993
• Crop fungus ― Group 2B ― 1993
• Dry cleaning liquid, & paint remover ― Group 2A ― 2014
• Emissions from frying food ― Group 2A ― 2010
• Firefighter ― Group 2B ― 2010
• Food preservative ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Food thickener for salad dressings, alcohol, ice cream, etc … ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Fried, roasted, & baked food ― Group 2A ― 1994
• Fruits, vegetables, & perfumes ― Group 2B ― 1999
• Glyphosate ― See statement bow
• Grapefruit juice ― Group 2A ― 1987
• Grilled food ― Group 2B ― 1987
• Hairdresser & barber ― Group 2A ― 2010
• Hangovers, COFFEE, bread, & fruit ― Group 2B ― 1999
• Hormone replacement therapy ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Nail varnish & wart-verruca treatment ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Night shifts ― Group 2A ― 2010
• Oral contraceptives ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Outdoor air pollution ― Group 1 ― in prep
• Painter ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Pickled vegetables ― Group 2B ― 1993
• Plutonium ― Group 1 ― 2012
• Soap, shampoo, & cosmetics ― Group 2B ― 2013
• Sunlight ― Group 1 ― 2012
• TEA bag manufacturing ― Group 2A ― 1999
• Thyme, spearmint, sage, cinnamon, star anise, & sunflower seeds ― Group 2B ― 1993
THE EFFECT OF GLYPHOSATE ON HEALTH IS A MYTH ! ― On May 16th, 2016, the United Nations announced its assessment that GLYPHOSATE IS UNLIKELY TO CAUSE CANCER IN PEOPLE and that GLYPHOSATE IS UNLIKELY TO POSE A CARCINOGENIC RISK TO HUMANS EXPOSED TO IT THROUGH FOOD ! The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) and World Health Organization ( WHO ) have looked at ALL pertinent published and unpublished studies to assess the HEALTH RISK to consumers from dietary exposure to glyphosate residues in food. The trends AGAINST pesticide bans and restrictions are relentless and unceasing. NO ONE WANTS THIS #@!!% BAN NONSENSE !
The whole truth about GLYPHOSATE can be explored through the following links …
America’s 130 million daily COFFEE drinkers are likely to feel vindicated by the report.
WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] said that COFFEE may actually REDUCE THE RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] OF LIVER AND ENDOMETRIAL CANCERS.
WHO’s IARC also CLEARED IT of any role in causing CANCERS OF THE BREAST, UTERUS AND PROSTATE.
But some COFFEE lovers may want to change the way they drink the beverage.
Until last week, the National Coffee Association recommended that HOT COFFEE be served between 180 and 185 degrees Fahrenheit [ between 82 and 85 degrees Celsius ].
Now it advises people to allow the beverage to reach « a comfortable temperature before enjoying ».
WHO’s IARC traced its concern to « Limited Evidence » from animal studies that drinking beverages at temperatures above 149 degrees Fahrenheit, or 65 degrees Celsius, MAY PROMOTE THE GROWTH OF TUMORS.
In addition, WHO’s IARC noted that the EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE connecting the beverage temperature and ESOPHAGEAL CANCER RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] showing that the HOTTER the beverage consumed, the greater the incidence of ESOPHAGEAL CANCER « has strengthened over time ».
In 1991, WHO’s IARC initially declared that consumption of COFFEE and yerba mate ― a highly caffeinated TEA widely drunk in South America ― MIGHT CAUSE CANCER.
25 years later, after sorting through more than 1,000 well-conducted studies, however, COFFEE and yerba mate got a VIRTUAL ALL-CLEAR.
WHO’s IARC suggested that their predecessors might have missed a key signal ― that heavy smoking and alcohol use often are more common among people who consume lots of COFFEE and yerba mate.
In 1991, researchers DID NOT adjust their findings to take this into account.
Smoking and heavy drinking are known to be key factors in ESOPHAGEAL CANCER RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ].
But heat, too, may have been an unseen factor, the working group suggested.
In drafting its warning on the consumption of HOT BEVERAGES, the expert panel cited a 2000 analysis of ESOPHAGEAL CANCER and HOT-BEVERAGE consumption in South America that showed « significantly INCREASED relative risks » for drinking VERY HOT TEA and other beverages.
They also cited the findings of a 2009 study that tracked a large population of tea-drinking Iranians that showed INCREASED ESOPHAGEAL CANCER RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] among those who drank their TEA HOT OR VERY HOT.
In laboratory experiments, drinking plain water heated to about 150 degrees Fahrenheit INCREASED the incidence of ESOPHAGEAL CANCERS in mice and rats.
By contrast, cold mate had the opposite effect, REDUCING the incidence of ESOPHAGEAL AND LIVER TUMORS.
The IARC report was published in the journal Lancet Oncology.
The goal of the working group was only to assess whether HOT BEVERAGES were associated with CANCER RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ], NOT to determine the magnitude of the risk.
As such, the report offers NO guidance on how many HOT DRINKS it would take to significantly increase one’s likelihood of developing cancer.
Other experts cited a 2015 analysis published in the journal BMC Cancer that concluded that men who drank VERY HOT BEVERAGES had an AVERAGE ESOPHAGEAL CANCER RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] 2.36 TIMES AS HIGH AS THOSE WHO DID NOT.
Women who drank VERY HOT DRINKS were 2.45 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP ESOPHAGEAL CANCER, the study found.
« Fortunately, this is 2.40 times a very small number, » said Dr Thomas G Sherman of Georgetown University Medical Center.
The WHO’s experts DID NOT recommend a SPECIFIC TEMPERATURE that MADE COFFEE SAFE TO DRINK.
Luckily, a pair of researchers from the University of Texas in Tyler have analyzed this very question.
Using mathematical models, they weighed the sensory benefits of drinking HOT COFFEE against the danger posed by scalding, according to their report in the journal Burns.
In the end, they determined that the « Optimal Drinking Temperature » was approximately 136 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.
Hot Water Causes Cancer ?!?!
Don’t Believe It
The World Health Organization Cancer Research
Agency Is Abusing Its Reputation By Promoting Hype
August 10th, 2016
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
If nanny state critics want a fine example of REGULATION GONE WILD, they should look to the World Health Organization.
The group’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] has given us a reason to fire up our espresso machines by declaring that COFFEE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
But don’t celebrate too hard.
The IARC also says that ANY VERY HOT DRINK PROBABLY CAUSES CANCER, including HOT WATER.
You’re definitely NOT alone if that doesn’t make a lot of sense to you.
The agency’s own evaluation, published in The Lancet Oncology, even admitted that there was « limited evidence » for this conclusion.
So why make it ?!?!
Unfortunately, IARC’s actions have long appeared to be influenced by factors other than sound science.
For example, even though both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [ US EPA ] and the United Nations [ UN ] have declared that GLYPHOSATE ( an herbicide commonly used with genetically modified crops ) is UNLIKELY TO POSE A HEALTH RISK, IARC still considers it to be Group 2A – Probably Carcinogenic To Humans.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ― THE EFFECT OF GLYPHOSATE ON HEALTH IS A MYTH ! ― On May 16th, 2016, the United Nations announced its assessment that GLYPHOSATE IS UNLIKELY TO CAUSE CANCER IN PEOPLE and that GLYPHOSATE IS UNLIKELY TO POSE A CARCINOGENIC RISK TO HUMANS EXPOSED TO IT THROUGH FOOD ! The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) and World Health Organization ( WHO ) have looked at ALL pertinent published and unpublished studies to assess the health RISK to consumers from dietary exposure to glyphosate residues in food. The trends AGAINST pesticide bans and restrictions are relentless and unceasing. NO ONE WANTS THIS #@!!% BAN NONSENSE !
The whole truth about GLYPHOSATE can be explored through the following links …
Do you like processed meat and alcohol ?!?!
Indeed, consuming too much is linked to bowel cancer or liver cancer, respectively, but IARC goes several steps further and lists both as Group 1 – Carcinogenic To Humans, alongside tobacco, asbestos, and plutonium.
Putting bacon and beer in the same RISK CATEGORY [ HAZARD ?!?! ] as a radioactive metal demonstrates a LACK OF COMMON SENSE and a STRIKING INABILITY TO HANDLE SCIENTIFIC NUANCE.
And despite the fact that it is NOT physically possible for cell phone radiation to cause cancer ( because the microwave photons associated with it do NOT carry enough energy to break chemical bonds ), IARC believes that radio-frequency electro-magnetic radiation is Group 2B – Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans.
If you look hard enough, you will find that PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING on Earth has been linked to cancer by some research group.
Apparently, that is sufficient to make IARC’s naughty list.
Part of the problem is IARC’s methodology.
Their study was focused on South America and based on case studies that show an INCREASED RISK [ HAZARD ?!?! ] OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER if people consumed VERY HOT DRINKS.
However, the data is so weak that they include the following ―
Although the mechanistic and other relevant evidence for VERY HOT BEVERAGES is SCANT, biological plausibility exists for an association between VERY HOT BEVERAGES and cell injury and the sequelae that MIGHT LEAD TO CANCER.
In other words, IARC admits there is LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE for their claim that HOT WATER causes cancer, but because it is biologically plausible, they feel justified in alarming the public.
Not only is that SCIENTIFICALLY DUBIOUS as it undermines the rigorous methodology applied by scientists in their pursuit of knowledge, it is SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.
Put another way, just because something is biologically plausible does NOT make it probable.
It is also biologically plausible that if we exercise more, we can all look like Chris Hemsworth and Gigi Hadid.
But it’s certainly NOT probable.
Furthermore, if HOT DRINKS are dangerous, then why should IARC stop there ?!?!
Maybe that chicken soup or burrito that you left in the microwave for too long is slowly killing you.
And don’t even get us started on that PIPING HOT PIZZA.
Undoubtedly, IARC’s stated mission is an admirable one ― Cancer Research For Cancer Prevention.
When it comes to recommendations on what causes cancer, only the best, evidence-based advice should be made available to the public.
But all too often, IARC seems more interested in promoting a particular lifestyle — one that does NOT include GMOs, cell phones or even HOT DRINKS — than it does about promoting sensible health decisions.
That’s a shame because IARC is ABUSING the good name and reputation of the WHO to dabble in hype.
Alex Berezow, senior fellow of biomedical science at the American Council on Science and Health [ ACSH ] and founding editor of RealClearScience, holds a Ph.D. in Microbiology and is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
Julianna LeMieux is Senior Fellow of Molecular Biology at ACSH and holds a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Microbiology.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.
For The Whole Truth About CANCER From An Independent Perspective, Explore The Following Links …
THE MYTH OF CANCER — MYTH-BUSTING ( Web-Page )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY — NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE NOT LIKELY CARCINOGENIC — PANEL — EFSA ( Blog )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — SCIENTISTS FIND NO EVIDENCE GLYPHOSATE ( ROUNDUP ) CAUSES CANCER — DR KEITH R SOLOMON ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) — IARC REPORT — AS SOCIAL MEDIA OUTPACES GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, STUPID PROLIFERATES — ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — GLYPHOSATE ( ROUNDUP ) IS UNLIKELY TO POSE A CARCINOGENIC HAZARD TO HUMANS — THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT CLASSIFICATION WITH REGARD TO ITS CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY ( EFSA ) ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — « BACON » WILL GIVE YOU CANCER — IARC EVALUATES CONSUMPTION OF RED MEAT & PROCESSED MEAT ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — WHY DO REGULATORS CONCLUDE THAT GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE IS SAFE WHILE ONLY IARC CLAIMS IT PROBABLY CAUSES CANCER ?!?! ( Blog )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE LEADING CAUSE OF CANCER — PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND — DR LEONARD RITTER ( Blog )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — LAWN PESTICIDE BAN NEEDED FOR CANCER PREVENTION — DESPERATE AND MISINFORMED NON-EXPERT GIDEON FORMAN — CORN GLUTEN AND VINEGAR — CANCER FREE SOLUTIONS ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — MOTHER GAVE SONS CANCER AND NOT PESTICIDES ( Report & Responses )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — THE PESTICIDE USERS HEALTH STUDY — FROM 1987 TO 2005 — CANCER RATES LOW AMONG PESTICIDE WORKERS — UNITED KINGDOM ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — SCHOOL TEACHERS — LIES TAUGHT TO US IN SCHOOL ( Reports )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — IARC — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — DR GEOFFREY C KABAT ( Reports )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reports )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — 2,4-D NO CANCER RISK — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 1 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — 2,4-D TO DELTAMETHRIN ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 2 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — DIAZINON TO MALATHION ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS — PART 3 OF 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) — MECOPROP TO TRITICONAZOLE ( Report )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — CANCER CLASSIFICATION — CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reference )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — IMPLAUSIBLE CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES — DR VON STACKELBERG STUDY ( Reports )
THE MYTH OF CANCER — PESTICIDES DON’T CAUSE CANCER — DR LEONARD RITTER ( Reports )