"Americans DREAD CANCER more than any other disease.
Slowly and painfully being consumed by cancer for months,
even years, before passing away is a terrifying prospect.
This is why cancer is perhaps the most feared of the major
diseases. . .
"So when the media reports a newly found chemical
carcinogen, the public takes notice and reacts quickly.
Some carcinogens cause outright panic. Such was the case a
few years ago with Alar, a chemical that was routinely
sprayed on apples as a growth regulator. . . The public
reaction was swift . . . [but] "the Alar story is not
uncommon. Over the past several decades, several chemicals
have been identified in the popular press as cancer-causing
agents. You may have heard of some: DDT . . . Nitrites . .
. Red Dye Number 2 . . . Artificial sweeteners . . . Dioxin
. . . Aflatoxin . . .
"I know these unsavory chemicals quite well. I was a
member of the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel . .
. charged with evaluating the potential danger . . . But
while these chemicals are significantly different in their
properties, they all have a similar story with regard to
cancer. In each and every case, research has demonstrated
that these chemicals MAY INCREASE CANCER RATES IN
EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS. . .
Then Dr. Campbell reports on their experiments with
"nitrosamines," which showed "that as chemical exposure
increases, incidence of cancer also increases . . . How
much NSAR (Nitrosamines) did the rats get? Both groups of
rats were given an incredible amount. . . . no human
studies were used to make the evaluation . . . Nonetheless,
animal experiments alone are considered enough to conclude
that NSAR is 'reasonably anticipated' to be a human
carcinogen. . .
"To summarize the story: MARGINAL scientific results can
make very big waves in the public when it comes to cancer-
causing chemicals. A rise in cancer incidence from 5% to
10% in RATS FED LARGE QUANTITIES of nitrite caused an
explosive controversy. . .
"BACK TO PROTEIN . . .The point isn't that nitrite is
safe. It is the mere POSSIBILITY, however unlikely it may
be, that it could cause cancer that alarms the public. But
what if researchers produced considerably more impressive
scientific results that were far more substantial? What if
there was a chemical that experimentally turned 'ON' cancer
in 100% of the test animals and its relative ABSENCE
limited cancer to 0% of the animals? "Furthermore, what if
this chemical were capable of acting in this way at ROUTINE
levels of intake and not the EXTRAORDINARY levels used in
the NSAR experiments? Finding such a chemical would be the
holy grail of cancer research. The implications for human
health would be enormous. One would assume that this
chemical would be of considerably more concern than nitrite
and Alar, and even more significant than aflatoxin, a
highly ranked carcinogen.
"This is exactly what I saw in the Indian research paper
when I was in the Philippines. THE CHEMICAL WAS PROTEIN,
fed to rats at levels that are well within the range of
normal consumption. PROTEIN! These results were more than
startling. In the Indian study, when all the rats had been
predisposed to get liver cancer after being given
aflatoxin, only the animals fed 20% protein got the cancer,
while those fed 5% protein got none. . .
"The question begged for answers. To further study this
question, I sought and received the two National Institutes
of Health (NIH) research grants . . . One was for a HUMAN
STUDY, the other for an experimental animal study. I did
not 'cry wolf' in either application by suggesting that
PROTEIN MIGHT PROMOTE CANCER. I had everything to lose and
nothing to gain by acting like a heretic. Besides, I wasn't
convinced that protein actually might be harmful. . .
"The NIH funding for this study continued for the next
nineteen years and led to additional funding from other
research agencies . . . On these experimental animal
findings alone, this project gave rise to more than 100
scientific papers published in some of the best journals,
many public presentations and several invitations to
participate on expert panels. . .
"From our extensive research, one idea seemed to be clear:
LOWER PROTEIN INTAKE DRAMATICALLY DECREASED TUMOR
INITIATION. This finding, even though well substantiated,
would be enormously provocative for many people. . .
"These experiments also demonstrated that the body could
'remember' early carcinogen insults, even though they might
then lie dormant with low protein intake. That is, exposure
to aflatoxin left a genetic 'imprint' that remained dormant
with 5% dietary protein until . . . later when this imprint
reawakened . . . with 20% dietary protein. In simple terms,
the body holds a grudge. It suggests that if we are exposed
in the past to a carcinogen that initiates a bit of cancer
that remains dormant, this cancer can still be 'REAWAKENED'
by bad nutrition some time later. These studies showed that
cancer development is modified by relatively MODEST changes
in PROTEIN CONSUMPTION. . . .
EDITOR: For years, this editor has warned people who have
seen their cancers go into remission on The Hallelujah
Diet: "DON'T GO BACK TO CONSUMING ANIMAL PROTEIN!" Why had
I issued this warning? Because I had received testimonies
regarding a number of people who had seen cancers go into
remission on our pure, low protein, plant based diet,
RETURN AFTER ADDING CLEAN, ORGANICALLY GROWN, ANIMAL
PROTEIN (chicken, salmon, raw milk & cheese) back into
their diets. Up until now, I had not known "WHY" the
cancers came back after adding animal protein back into
their diets. Now, with Dr. Campbell's research, I
understand the "WHY?"
"NOT ALL PROTEINS ARE ALIKE . . . If you have followed the
story so far, you have seen how provocative these findings
are. Controlling cancer through nutrition was, and still
is, a radical idea. But as if this weren't enough, one more
issue would yield explosive information: did it make any
difference what type of protein was used in these
experiments? For all of these experiments, we were using
casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein. So the
next logical question was whether PLANT PROTEIN, tested in
the same way, has the same effect on cancer promotion as
casein. . .
"THE ANSWER IS AN ASTONISHING 'NO.' In these experiments,
PLANT PROTEIN DID NOT PROMOTE CANCER GROWTH, even at HIGHER
levels of intake. . . But the cancer-promoting factor in
this case was cow's milk protein. It was difficult enough
for my colleagues to accept the idea that protein might
help cancer grow, but cow's milk protein? Was I crazy?
"The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were
nothing less than spectacular. Rats generally live for
about two years, thus the study was 100 weeks in length.
All animals that were administered aflatoxin and fed the
regular 20% levels of casein either were DEAD or near death
from liver tumors at 100 weeks. All animals administered
the same level of aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet
were ALIVE, active and thrifty, with sleek coats at 100
weeks. . . Let there be no doubt: COW'S MILK PROTEIN IS AN
EXCEPTIONALLY POTENT CANCER PROMOTER in rats dosed with
aflatoxin. . .
"Okay, so here's the central question: how does this
research apply to human health . . . can we generalize
these findings to other cancers and to other carcinogens?
At the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago,
another research group was working with mammary (breast)
cancer in rats. This research showed that INCREASING
intakes of casein PROMOTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAMMARY
(BREAST) CANCER. . .
"An impressively consistent pattern was beginning to
emerge. For two different organs, four different
carcinogens and two different species, CASEIN PROMOTES
CANCER GROWTH . . . What effects did other NUTRIENTS have
on cancer . . . We initiated more studies . . . THE RESULTS
OF THESE, AND MANY OTHER STUDIES, SHOWED NUTRITION TO BE
FAR MORE IMPORTANT IN CONTROLLING CANCER PROMOTION THAN THE
DOSE OF THE INITIATING CARCINOGEN. . .
"Furthermore, a pattern was beginning to emerge: nutrients
from ANIMAL-BASED FOODS INCREASED TUMOR DEVELOPMENT while
nutrients from PLANT BASED FOODS DECREASED TUMOR
DEVELOPMENT. . . So much consistency was stunningly
impressive, but one aspect of this research demanded that
we remain cautious: all this evidence was gathered in
experimental animal studies. . . are these principles
regarding animal protein and cancer critically important
for all humans in all situations, or are they merely
marginally important for a minority of people . . .
"We need direct evidence from HUMAN research. . . Having
the opportunity to do such a study is rare, at best, but by
incredibly good luck we were given exactly the opportunity
we needed. . . . We were given the chance to do a human
study that would take all of these principles we had begun
to uncover in the lab to the next level. It was time to
study the role of nutrition, lifestyle and disease in the
most comprehensive manner ever undertaken in the history of
medicine. We were on to THE CHINA STUDY. . ."
This Editor considers Dr. Campbell's book, THE CHINA
STUDY, a MUST READ for all who are interested in the TRUTH
concerning the relationship of diet to disease. And though
this book is not written from a biblical perspective, you
will not read a book that promotes God's original Genesis
1:29 diet more powerfully. If you are interested in
obtaining a copy of THE CHINA STUDY, call Hallelujah Acres
at (800) 915-9355 or (704) 481-1700. In Canada call (519)