Linda McCartney
bakertd
subscriber to this group. Recent tv interviews with Paul McCartney reminded
me about a question that I had when his wife Linda died, and that still
bothers me:
Linda was a vegetarian for over twenty years; she also did not have many of
the known risk factors for cancer - she had children, she was slim, she
lived
an active meaningful life, she seemed to have a positive outlook on life,
without the stress of worrying about money, and it seemed that she did not
even expose herself to carcinogenic dyes in cosmetics. Yet, as we all know,
Linda McCartney died of Breast Cancer!
Does her death from cancer cause doubt as to the anti-cancer protective
value
of a vegetarian lifestyle? Has anyone discovered what really did cause Linda
McCartney's cancer? Was she a cigarette smoker? Could it have been marijuana
use? Or radiation from mammograms? (Because I have never done these things,
I
would feel "safer" if they were the real reasons.) I don't remember reading
anything that answered questions about why Linda McCartney, of all people,
got
cancer.
Thanks, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but as I said, these questions
have
concerned me for a long time.
TDB
Don Wiss
>Does her death from cancer cause doubt as to the anti-cancer protective value
>of a vegetarian lifestyle?
Looks like it. She died of breast cancer that spread to her liver. The
evidence points to her grain based vegetarian diet contributing to it. Read
on....
Franceschi S, et.al; "Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer"
Lancet 1996;347(9012):1351-6
This study was done in the Italian population which having a low awareness
of diet and cancer issues there is less scope for recall bias. They found
the risk of breast cancer decreased with increasing total fat intake
whereas the risk increased with increasing intake of available
carbohydrates.
Lutz, W.J., "The Colonisation of Europe and Our Western Diseases", Medical
Hypotheses, Vol. 45, pages 115-120, 1995
In support of the above, Dr. Lutz, in the face of epidemiological studies
that failed to support the current belief that fat intake was at the root
of coronary disease and cancer, has done his own explorations of
epidemiological data. His findings show a clear, inverse relationship
between these civilisatory diseases and the length of time the people of a
given region of Europe have had to adapt to the high carbohydrate diet
associated with the cultivation of cereal grains that was begun in the Near
East, and spread very slowly through Europe.
But this isn't new information. In
Vilhjalmur Stefansson's book _Cancer Disease of Civilization_ 1960; Hill
and Wang, New York, NY.
it points out that Stanislaw Tanchou "....gave the first formula for
predicting cancer risk. It was based on grain consumption and was found to
accurately calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain
consumed, the greater the rate of cancer." Tanchou's paper was delivered to
the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated that cancer would
likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search
among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and
explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans were
"civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found
within these populations, although after they adopted the diet of
civilization, it became common.
More recently Bruce Aimes of U.C. Berkeley published a series of articles
on cancer causation in the journal Science (#236,238,240) one of which
(in#238,Dec 18,1987) is titled "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution and
Carcinogens".
Could she have done something about the cancer after it was discovered?
Apparently cancer LOVES carbohydrates. Conversely, a low-carb/hi-fat diet
seems to slow tumor growth.
Swink TD, et. al. The ketogenic diet: 1997. Adv Pediatr (1997) 297-329.
Nebeling LC and Lerner E. Implementing a ketogenic diet based on
medium-chain triglyceride oil in pediatric patients with cancer. J Am
Diet Assoc (1995) 95:693-697.
Experiments using Low-Carb to Treat Cancer (link n.g.?)
http://dp.cs.uiuc.edu/~jyelon/lowcarb.med/topic8.html
Also yes, according to Aajonus Vonderplanitz in his book "We Want To Live:
Out of the Grips of Disease and Death and Healthfully (the facts)." His
prescription for health for everyone is to get back to basics, and start
eating the way our ancestors reputedly ate. His basic philosophy is that
(a) food is to be eaten in a live, raw condition; and (b) a diet rich in
raw fats and raw meats from natural sources is essential to health.
The book is $29.95 plus tax and shipping and can be ordered by calling
1-800-247-6553 (in the U.S.); 419-281-1802 (international). Postal
orders: Carnelian Bay Castle Press; c/o BookMasters; P.O. Box 388;
Ashland, OH 44805. Or order from Barnes & Noble ISBN 1-889356-77-8.
Some web pages:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A1=ind9709&L=raw-food#84
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A1=ind9709&L=raw-food#2
http://www.ralphmoss.com/Vonderplanitz.html
http://www.odomnet.com/live-food/
http://drbass.com/aajonus.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~welive/
Don (donwiss at panix.com).
Karen C. Greenlee
only speculate.
My personal opinion is that Linda may have had a genetic predisposition to
breast cancer and that *perhaps* her vegetarian diet actually lengthened her
life -- instead of acquiring breast cancer in her 20s or 30s, it developed when
she was in her 50s. Who knows?
Linda became a vegetarian in her 20s. One of the things that can reduce the
risk of breast cancer is starting menstruation and menopause later. Vegetarian
women, in general, start both later. Obviously, Linda was already past the
beginning menstruation stage.
Although Linda was a vegetarian for a long time, that doesn't necessarily
mean she was eating a low fat diet. More than likely, like most of us were
before we learned more about fat, she may have eaten a high fat diet for many
years.
Again, no one will ever know the answer to this, we can only speculate, but
I am quite sure that her vegetarian diet did not "cause" her breast cancer! You
are right that there is a *lower* risk of breast cancer among vegetarian women,
but that does not mean they are immune to it just as not smoking does not make
one immune to lung cancer, just less likely to get it.
Karen
********************************************************
Have you joined my MasterCook vegetarian
recipes list, Veg-Recipes?
To join: http://www.onelist.com/group/Veg-Recipes
********************************************************
Vicky Conlan
> cancer - she had children, she was slim, she lived an
> active meaningful life, she seemed to have a positive
> outlook on life, without the stress of worrying about
> money, and it seemed that she did not even expose herself
> to carcinogenic dyes in cosmetics.
If it isn't a silly question ... why is having children a
reducing risk factor?
--
Charity auction: http://comps.org/auc/
UK Competitions: http://uk.comps.org/
Hourly prizes via freewin: http://comps.org/freewin.html
Karen C. Greenlee
during pregnancy and the hormone found to protect against breast cancer is
increased (I *think*,but I'm not sure, the first one is estrogen and the
second one estradil(?)). The same principle applies to breast feeding too
-- the longer and more children a woman has breast fed, the more reduced
her risk of breast cancer.
Karen
Vicky Conlan wrote:
> If it isn't a silly question ... why is having children a
> reducing risk factor?
********************************************************
George Russell
> Franceschi S, et.al; "Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer"
> Lancet 1996;347(9012):1351-6
>
> This study was done in the Italian population which having a low awareness
> of diet and cancer issues there is less scope for recall bias. They found
> the risk of breast cancer decreased with increasing total fat intake
> whereas the risk increased with increasing intake of available
> carbohydrates.
simple as that. If you some more considered criticism of this study look
up the two letters to the Lancet and the reply of the authors. (Volume 348
pages 137-138.)
In my own inexpert opinion, it seems to me very hard to draw definite conclusions
from this study. The study compared dietary intake among two groups of
hospital patients (I'm now going to summarise like made);
(1) breast cancer patients; (2) other in-patients (I suppose they must be female),
with "acute non-neoplastic non-gynaecological disorders not related to hormonal
or acute digestive tract diseases or to long term modification of diet",
which the authors break down as 27% trauma (broken bones and the like);
33% other orthopaedic disorders; 15% acute surgical disorders; 18% eye disorders;
12% other miscellaneous disorders. After controlling for a number of variables
(age in decades, years of education, and so on), there is indeed a correlation
in that for example (speaking very broadly) people in the breast cancer group
tended to consume less fat than those in the control group. But as one of the
letter-writers pointed out, there were in fact differences (years of education
for example) between the two groups. This means that the difference MAY be
due to variables which weren't controlled in the study. In any case I would
personally wonder how the authors can be so sure that diseases of women in the
control group are "not related ... to long term modification of diet". For
example, fractures in older women (presumably a group emphasised in this study
as it being one at risk of breast cancer) could very well be due to osteoporosis,
which I believe does have a relationship to "long term modification of diet".
The truth could therefore be not that women who eat lots of fat are more
likely to get breast cancer, but that women who eat less fat are more likely
to get osteoporosis. Or indeed it could simply be that women who eat more fat
are less health-conscious in other ways not controlled for (for example, they
could take longer to get around to seeing a doctor, and so need more serious
hospital care when they do).
I think the moral is that drawing firm conclusions from a single medical study
is virtually impossible. That's why it took so long to demonstrate that smoking
causes lung cancer, even though everyone has "known" or at least suspected
it for about the last 40 years.
RJH
the typical amount of dairy.
Cow milk contains the same hormone as humans; IGF-1. This hormone has
been associated with prostate, breast, and colon cancers. Might as well
say all cancers. Hormones are needed by baby cows and baby humans to
produce rapid growth. Adults of any species no longer need hormones
in excess of their inheirent levels of hormone.
Cows in this regard are smarter than humans since once weaned never go
back to drinking milk.
The free and active amount of IGF-1 present in the adult human body is
around 2,000 nanograms. The same amount of identical hormone present in
a large glass of milk. Since every adult over age 40 has cancer cells,
adding extra IGF-1 is like throwing gas on a fire.
Got Milk? Got Cancer. http://www.notmilk.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bakertd
>> she also did not have many of the known risk factors for
>> cancer - she had children, she was slim, she lived an
>> active meaningful life, she seemed to have a positive
>> outlook on life, without the stress of worrying about
>> money, and it seemed that she did not even expose herself
>> to carcinogenic dyes in cosmetics.
>
>reducing risk factor?
>
>Charity auction: http://comps.org/auc/
>UK Competitions: http://uk.comps.org/
>Hourly prizes via freewin: http://comps.org/freewin.html
In the lists of cancer-risk factors that are commonly reported in women's
magazines ("get a mammogram if..."), not having children at all, or waiting
until one is over thiry to have a child, is supposed to increase one's risk
of
breast cancer. Something to do with uninterrupted flow of estrogen to the
breasts, I believe.
TDB
Vicky Conlan
> If McCartney's cookbooks were any indication, she appears to have consumed
>the typical amount of dairy.
It's not, she was quite well documented as a vegan.
Her cookbooks are trying to aim a little wider, I think.
RJH
I don't ever remember her being called anything other than vegetarian
during her life.
---
"NO" to WTO, "NO to NATO, "NO" to NAFTA
Great...@discountvegetarian.com
of dairy and eggs. As well as a good amount of cooked food. I believe
this did not help her.
Jennifer Pumphrey
that they are in the greatest of health. I know that this
group doesn't tend to focus strictly on veganism, but it's
my contention that consuming the bi-products of other
animals as part of a regular diet shouldn't be expected to
shield one from developing diseases. Quite the contrary when
you consider that most vegetarians were once carnivores, and
as such, are conditioned to "fill the void" on their plates,
and naturally do so with dairy products and eggs. Granted,
these items aren't as harmful to one's health as say a
T-bone steak, but the cholesterol and fat content are still
present. I think weight gain from becoming vegetarian was
already discussed in a previous thread.
Anyway, I agree that it is a shame about Linda McCartney.
She gave a voice to the vegetarian population and did so
without militance.
Thanks
Jennifer Pumphrey
bakertd wrote:
>
> Please excuse if this topic was discussed another time, but I am a new
> subscriber to this group. Recent tv interviews with Paul McCartney reminded
> me about a question that I had when his wife Linda died, and that still
> bothers me:
>
> Linda was a vegetarian for over twenty years; she also did not have many of
> the known risk factors for cancer - she had children, she was slim, she
> lived
> an active meaningful life, she seemed to have a positive outlook on life,
> without the stress of worrying about money, and it seemed that she did not
> even expose herself to carcinogenic dyes in cosmetics. Yet, as we all know,
> Linda McCartney died of Breast Cancer!
>
> Does her death from cancer cause doubt as to the anti-cancer protective
> value
amers
Pills). Progesterone is what reduces the risk of breast cancer.
-Amy
MSU
estrogens.
amers <am...@NOSPAM.massed.net> wrote in message
news:8dlvdm$7ln$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
amers
-Amy
Mark Stahl
risk, assuming no particular overwhelming exposure to carcinogens, etc. it
is completely unsurprising that some individuals would still develop cancer
despite having few if any of the risk factors which have been identified in
large populations. you really can't directly extrapolate large
epidemiological studies to individual cases (even though that's really why
we do it, right?)
all you can really do is look at the risk factors we've identified in large
populations and reduce exposure to all of them as much as possible (never
really knowing, for example, that one's particular genetic makeup and
environmental exposure puts them at extremely low risk for, say, colon
cancer and they don't really have to worry about it- while special care
should be taken to prevent, say, atherosclerosis). does that make sense? the
new era of genomic-based medicine may help us to make more specific
recommendations to our patients in the future.
in any case (and without making specific commentary)- beware of some of the
'information' found in newsgroups- i noticed some pretty questionable claims
in this thread alone (although my training is in medicine and not
specifically nutrition, so i won't try to answer them specifically. take
care.
p.s.- if you're in the appropriate age group, it probably wouldn't be a bad
idea to get that mammogram...
"bakertd" <bak...@wku.edu> wrote in message
news:38F8...@webmail.wku.edu...
bakertd
my
question about Linda McCartney's death from cancer.
If I ever find the time (sigh), I'll look up articles, preferably with
candid
photos, to see if Linda was a smoker. I've seen pictures of the Beatles,
including Paul, smoking cigarettes. The Beatles probably also used
marijuana,
judging from their musical innuendos.
Maybe Linda even said something herself regarding getting cancer. When Adele
Davis ("Let's Eat Right..") developed cancer, she made a statement about it
interms of why did she, a proponent of healthful eating, get cancer anyway.
(I
don't remember exactly what she said.)
Again, thanks to all who responded.
TDB
kshapiro
We know certain groups are at risk and certain behaviors (i.e. smoking) can
lead to cancer. The role of pesticides is not clearly understood. The role
of BGH in dairy products is not clearly understood (not enough time has
passed since it was introduced into the food chain for anyone, including the
FDA to declare it safe).
We are the victims of genetically engineered foods. What that does over the
long term no one knows. Again, not enough time has passed since the
introduction of these foods.
What killed Linda McCartney was a disease. The causative factor of that
disease may never be known. What is known is that she contributed greatly
to the vegetarian movement and lived what she preached. May she rest in
peace.
Kathy
bakertd <bak...@wku.edu> wrote in message news:38FB...@webmail.wku.edu...
cassandr...@gmail.com
...m...
observed in large data sets, but in the end even the healthiest person in
the world can be bumped by a cosmic ray just-so and that one bit of
defective DNA does the rest...
...you roll your dice, you take your chances...
...m...