Remember, this portion of the Nurses study didn’t talk about all kinds of cancer, just colon cancer. Some of you will remember that breast cancer is supposed to be another one that comes from animal fat. Official government agencies say it’s so. What did the Nurse’s Study say about that?
In the Willett breast cancer study, it was the low fat quintile that stood out from all the rest. Every woman whose total dietary fat intake was 33% or more developed breast cancer at a rate of 114 cases per quintile (636 per 100,000), but the one quintile whose total fat intake was below 33% of the diet, just the way official government bodies suggest it should be, had a whopping 145 cases in their quintile, which comes to 813 cases per 100,000.
Willett’s team denied that this finding was statistically significant, but my statistical analyst says it certainly is. In fact, there is only 1 chance in 100 that these figures, suggestive of low fat intake as a contributing factor in breast cancer, could have been achieved by chance and what this really adds up to is the most significant diet cancer connection yet discovered epidemiologically.
To return for a moment to the colon cancer study, the underwhelming evidence that the Harvard researchers accumulated could have been predicted from some of the smaller yet well performed case control studies done before. Studies in Marseilles, Paris, Japan, and Belgium all failed to show any correlation between fat intake and colon cancer.9 The 1989 Belgian study was even able to “finger” what I think is the real criminal oligosaccharides, better known as the simple sugars.
What if Surgeon Captain Cleave was right, and Professor John Yudkin was right? I think the evidence is surprisingly strong. After all, people eat more fat, because they eat more sugar: That’s because sugar leads to increased calorie intake and obesity. And sugar is the Western world’s most frequently consumed carcinogen.