Who Bacon W.H.O. ?

[Bearcarver]

Can't go by me:

I ate too much, drank too much, and smoked too much for 46 years, but it was a so called "Doctor" who did all but kill me on Nov 8, 2012.

Bear

 

[smokin phil]

.

 

[wade]

Whether processed meat does or does not actually cause cancer, the problem is really in the way which it is reported. Everything we do in life contains some risk - even staying in bed doing nothing - so the risk of eating the meat needs to have something to reference it against.

The fact that they have now included processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen (the same category as tobacco) would not at all be surprising when you look at the reported evidence... The IARC’s experts have concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.

WOW! that really seems bad!. However when you then realise that the risk of you developing colorecatal cancer without eating processed meat is 5% - by eating processed meat this risk is only then increased to about 6%. I wonder what the experimental margins of error are for both of the calculations??

To compare the relative risks of processed meat and tobacco - the 18% increased likelihood for colorectal cancer with processed meat pales into insignificance with the reported 2,500% increase likelihood of lung cancer with tobacco.

This report almost suggests that they have a few too many bureaucratic jobsworths in the WHO. No - surely not!

 

[atomicsmoke]

Wade,

As counterintuitive as might seem... the groups they came up with are based on "confidence in cancer causation" not on the risk numbers. What they are saying is "we are just as sure bacon increases risk of cancer as we are about asbestos". Yet the risk of one dying from cancer from processed meats is way smaller than from asbestos cigs or other nasties. On the other hand...red meat being in another group means: we think there is a relationship here but we are not sure.

 

[chewmeister]

Wade,

As counterintuitive as might seem... the groups they came up with are based on "confidence in cancer causation" not on the risk numbers. What they are saying is "we are just as sure bacon increases risk of cancer as we are about asbestos". Yet the risk of one dying from cancer from processed meats is way smaller than from asbestos cigs or other nasties. On the other hand...red meat being in another group means: we think there is a relationship here but we are not sure.

The problem with the WHO is that they are a politically driven organization and that is reflected in their "studies."

 

[SmokyMose]

Just read a story yesterday about a 116 year old lady in a nursing home in NY who eats 4 slices of bacon every morning and swears that's what made her live so long. My paternal grandmother made it to 102 with bacon & eggs every day. Grandpa left us at 70 with prostate cancer. Who really knows? I've seen 3 different ways to brush your teeth in the last 40 years...
Just live life like there's no tomorrow and enjoy it!

 

[ak1]

Wade,

As counterintuitive as might seem... the groups they came up with are based on "confidence in cancer causation" not on the risk numbers. What they are saying is "we are just as sure bacon increases risk of cancer as we are about asbestos". Yet the risk of one dying from cancer from processed meats is way smaller than from asbestos cigs or other nasties. On the other hand...red meat being in another group means: we think there is a relationship here but we are not sure.

At least someone gets it. Too bad the media isn't as honest.