Cancer Causing/Curing Foods

Whats in in the numbers?

CI, the good, bad - does it matter!

Genes and other lifestyle factors are big factors.

Any time someone says "good" or "bad" with regard to health it is important to know how much so.

For example, aspirin reduces heart attacks. Statistically proven at about 0.5% effective - tiny little value that compared to other beneficial things is very insignificant. It helps, but so what?

So, in this mornings study of health - a nearly daily event - While I'd been seeing milk is not good for health it seemed worth it to lookup a few things for myself and not trust the conclusions of other people as much.

The CI for fatty milk is just slightly above 1 on average, so it is just a little bad.

The CI for skim milk is below 1, so it is helpful! This goes against the articles and comments I'd been seeing, so, sorry about that.

Either way, milk has not much effect on cancer. Kind of like aspirin does help your heart but to such a small extent - only 1/2% of people noticed a difference - it really does not matter.

What is significant are fruit juices. Also, not having cabbage versus having cabbage: CI of .06 to 1.01 - that is Very helpful and at least the second study for cabbage with about the same value.

Other results from that study follow in order of best to worst. consumption of:
Best

Fruit juices (OR = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.01-0.56) 1 bladder

Millet and Sorghum - Highest quartile .16 (estimate from graph) 12 esophageal

Cabbage (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.06-1.01) 1 bladder

Fairly high Millet and Sorghum intake .35 (estimate from graph) 12 esophageal

Carrots 5 times/week vs 3 times/month OR = 0.41 (95% CI 0.16-1.01) 4 bladder

Vegetable Fiber (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.72) 8 stomach

Fish More than twice a week (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.39-0.86) 10 rectal

Fruit Fiber (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.38-1.10) 8 stomach

Fish once or twice a week (OR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.94) 10 rectal

Vitamins E, Selenium, Carrotene (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.00) 7 gastric

Meat if no NAT2 gene 0.9; 95% CI 0.5-1.7 2 bladder
Chicken/poultry 0.96 (0.70-1.30) 9 bladder
Low in retinol (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.23) 3 bladder
High in meat intake (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.42). 3 bladder
Beta-carotene (RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.30) 3 bladder
Low in vegetable intake (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.34) 3 bladder
Grain Fiber (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.77-2.03) 8 stomach
High Fructose and Glucose intake RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.59; 6 pancreatic
High in fat intake (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.62) 3 bladder
Low in fruit intake (relative risk (RR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 1.83) 3 bladder
Fairly high Corn and wheat-flour intake 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-2.0) 12 esophageal
Sucrose 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.61 5 breast
Vinegar (OR = 4.41; 95% CI = 1.18-16.50) 1 bladder
Pork (OR = 4.55; 95% CI = 1.30-15.93) 1 bladder
Canned meat (OR = 8.38; 95% CI = 1.74-40.36) 1 bladder
Liver (OR = 13.81; 95% CI = 2.49-76.69) 1 bladder

Worst Is liver wurst really? (hehe)

Separate section for genetic relation:

Meat if you have NAT2 gene 3.6, 95% CI 1.3-9.7 2 bladder
Meat if recessive NAT2 gene 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.5 2 bladder
Meat if no NAT2 gene 0.9; 95% CI 0.5-1.7 2 bladder

* Fruits and vegetables are much more significant in reducing cancer for smokers!

Caveat: Studies can be slanted - Lung cancer was not connected to cancer in 40 years of study. Studies on Chemo and Radiation treatments are often setup so that anyone not living through the treatment period may be tossed out of the data pool - thus those treatments need more than just a review of the CI to really know the benefits or harm from them. This does not apply to most of the information on this page which is for early cancer detection. So, for example when the data shows a positive value for radiation read more because the study length may have been five years with a treatment length of three years and setup so if a treated person dies in those three treatment years their data point is tossed out because "The did not finish treatment" versus the controls who are counted anytime they die in the first three or last two years.
Another study found fish cut bladder cancer by 40% and then states: "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings suggest that fish intake is not likely to be appreciably associated with the risk of bladder cancer."11 bladder Why not say "Fish significantly decreases the risk of bladder cancer." Really, why are they not saying that?