Fast Food will Kill You Fast




By Dr. Gabe Mirkin, M.D.

According to a study in Circulation (July 2, 2012), people who eat fast foods:

* ONCE a week increase risk for dying of heart attacks by 20 percent;

* 2-3 TIMES a week increase risk by 50 percent;

* 4+ TIMES a week increase risk by more than 80 percent, and increase risk for diabetes by 27 percent.

The study was done on Chinese people in Southeast Asia to explain the recent incredible rise in heart attacks and diabetes that is associated with the increase in fast food restaurants there.

They had the same results as the many studies already done on Western-Caucasians in the United States.

Foto de una carretera en la cual se destacan a...Foto de una carretera en la cual se destacan anuncios de los restaurantes de comida rápida KFC, Wendy’s y Taco Bell entre otros. Picture of a highway in which fast food ads are featured:KFC, Wendy’s and Taco Bell among others. Taken in Bowling Green, KY. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Saturated fats in meat, milk shakes and ice cream, and burnt fats (called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or PAHs) in all fried foods such as fried chicken and French fries:

* block insulin receptors, to

* prevent the body from responding to insulin, to

* cause high rises in blood sugar.

Sugary foods, particularly sugared beverages, also can cause very high rises in blood sugar levels.

High rises in blood sugar cause sugar to stick to the outer surface membranes of cells to destroy the cells. This damages cells in every part of your body to cause heart attacks, strokes, dementia, nerve damage, blindness, deafness, and the other effects of diabetes.

Sugar enters muscle and liver cells. If the sugar is not burned for energy to power the cells, it will first be stored inside the muscle and liver cells as glycogen.

However there is only a very small and limited amount of sugar that can be stored in cells. Once the cells are full of glycogen, all extra sugar is converted to a type of fat called triglycerides. Triglycerides fill up liver cells to cause a fatty liver.

Having a fatty liver virtually guarantees that you are diabetic or are becoming diabetic..


Eighteen slim and healthy men and women ate at least two fast food meals at fast-food restaurants every day (Gut, published online Feb 14, 2008). In four weeks, they gained an average 14.5 pounds (one put on 26 pounds).

After one week, their liver test called ALT quadrupled from 22 U/l to of 97 U/l and their liver cells filled up with fat.

This means that they were on their way to developing a fatty liver after just ONE WEEK of fast food meals.

Diabetes is the most significant cause of heart attacks in North America today.


Colin Campbell Phd

About T. Colin Campbell

For more than forty years, Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Project, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted.  Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than seventy grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers and coauthor of the bestselling the book, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health.

Copyright: The Dairy Education Board Text Only

Sunday, July 25, 1999 

T. Colin Campbell
      Turn to the back cover of many of today’s best-selling books on alternative medicine, and chances are that you’ll find a quote from T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., professor of nutritional science at Cornell University.Dr. Campbell has been one of the great spokespersons for a plant-based diet and is best known for his landmark scientific study, the China- Oxford-Cornell Study. Campbell has linked heart disease and cancer to diet and his work is well respected and accepted throughout the world.


That study is the most comprehensive investigation of diet and disease in world history. Campbell was once a meat-eater, but the scientific evidence gathered from his work was convincing enough for him to adopt a plant-based diet. On May 8, 1990, Jane Brody of the New York Times wrote:

“Campbell’s China study is the grand prix of all epidemiological studies.”

It is interesting to note that Jane Brody is no advocate of a vegetarian lifestyle, yet, she accepts and praises Campbell’s science.


The major finding from Campbell’s study was that people who eat a typically American animal-based, protein-rich diet have seventeen times the death rate from heart disease as do people who satisfy their protein needs from fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains. Data from his study indicated that women who derived their protein from meat and dairy products were five times as likely to die of breast cancer than those who ate a plant-based diet.


The China Project is a uniquely comprehensive study that is yielding scientifically solid, groundbreaing information that can directly impact your health now and for the rest of your life -information that you can use on:cancer
heart disease
osteoporosis and
many other topics of concern to you”..The ‘Grand Prix’…the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease… tantalizing findings: -The New York Times


I met T. Colin Campbell at the North American Vegetarian Conference in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Since that first meeting, we’ve spoken many times on the telephone. T. Colin Campbell is a brilliant lecturer, commanding the attention of his “students” with his sparkling brown eyes and piercing Irish wit.

We have discussed bovine proteins. Dr. Campbell calls casein “carcinogenic.” Casein represents eighty percent of the protein in milk.

We also discussed “politics.” Cornell University has historically been a great friend to the dairy industry. Cornell professors like Dale Bauman, David Barbano, and Culberto Garza have received many millions of dollars from dairy industry sources. The influence of these three men has shaped government policy and influenced dietary guidelines and food pyramids.


The subject of his talk at Johnstown was the confusion in newspapers and conflicting views concerning “information overload.” I took notes at his lecture, furiously scribbling down his words of wisdom. Campbell noted:

“I cannot imagine how the public at large can possibly understand all of the information and dis-information.”

Campbell brought his audience to laughter when he said:

“I can design a study to show that a carcinogen is actually an anti-carcinogen.”

This is exactly what the dairy industry does by promoting cheese and claiming that dairy foods prevent colon cancer.


Campbell challenged the audience. He asked, “How many nutrients are there?” One listener called out “Nine.” That’s what the dairy industry claims can be found in milk. Nine essential nutrients.

In answering his own question, Campbell pointed out that there were countless things in foods which give us benefit, and noted that there were 600-700 different types of beta-carotene, carotenoids found in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Campbell taught me that the number of different variations of naturally occurring fiber could be measured in the tens of thousands.

Scientists speculate that an untold number of nutrients have yet to be discovered, but Campbell revealed that the number of known unique nutrients could be measured in the tens of thousands.


In science, we get caught up in dis-information. Campbell believes that we should re-think our concept of exatly what is a nutrient.


Campbell presented evidence that revealed the average American’s diet. The average intake of protein is 90-100 grams per day. The RDA for protein is 56 grams per day, while the minimum daily requirement is a mere 24 grams per person per day.

Dairy Subsidy

Jeffrey Simpson (Bill Grimshaw)


Canada’s a double-dealer in world trade


The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 20 2010, 4:35 PM EDT

Suppose you were a member of the Canadian Widget Makers Union. Your company tried to export widgets to Country X but couldn’t penetrate the market because of a 241-per-cent tariff. Chances are, you, the company and the CWMU would scream blue murder at the blatant protectionism.

Or suppose you were a wheat farmer. You want to export to Country Y but discovered that your product faced a 292-per-cent tariff, effectively shutting you out of the market.

It sounds implausible, even crazy, that anything like this could happen in today’s world of trade agreements. But it does happen, right here in good old Canada. Welcome to supply management.
If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota

Last month, eight Pacific countries gathered in Melbourne to begin negotiations toward what they believe could become a free-trade deal among them. They hope that such a deal could spread to other Asian countries, that continent being the world’s fastest growing area.

Canada, belatedly, wanted to be at the Melbourne table. Instead, we were told we weren’t welcome, except as observers.

The rebuff came from some of our closest friends – the United States, Australia and New Zealand. They wanted participants who are serious about free trade. They knew that Canada wouldn’t be serious, because Canadian participants would be obliged to exclude supply-managed agricultural products, just as Canada has done in every trade agreement.

Canada, as the world knows, is a double-dealer in world trade. We talk a great game, and work hard to create free or freer trade in some areas, because liberalized trade greatly benefits a country so dependent on exports.

Then Canada turns around and defends to the upmost supply-managed products with tiny import quotas and stratospheric tariffs on anything above those tiny quotas.

If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota: chicken, 238 per cent to 253 per cent; turkey, 154 per cent to 169 per cent; fluid milk, 241 per cent; cream, 292 per cent; yogurt, 237 per cent; buttermilk, 268 per cent; butter, 298 per cent to 313 per cent; cheese, 245 per cent; ice cream, 277 per cent; eggs, 163 per cent.

Think these are high? They were even higher before the mid-1990s, when Canada was forced to cut tariffs by 36 per cent. What did we do? We placed higher-than-stratospheric tariffs on supply-managed goods, then reduced them by 36 per cent to today’s level.

Here’s another part of the supply-management racket. Quotas for imported eggs, cheese, cream and chicken haven’t been raised since the mid-1990s, despite population and economic growth. Domestic supply-managed farmers, operating behind these tiny, static import quotas and huge tariffs on anything above the quota, have scooped up the new market, while raising domestic prices since they face no competition.

Supply-management lobby groups pat themselves on the back, saying their system doesn’t cost the taxpayer a nickel. This is absolutely true – and deeply misleading. Taxpayers don’t subsidize these farmers through the government, but they do as consumers with every purchase of these products, which are also used in many processed foods.

Low-income consumers are hurt the worst, because they pay a larger share of their limited household budgets on food than wealthier citizens. You would expect the New Democrats, self-appointed champions of low-income people, to be up in arms about this racket, except that their friends in the union movement and think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives never saw a liberalized trade agreement they liked.

The NDP, therefore, joins the other parties in pledging undying fealty to supply-managed farmers. Just before the last round of world trade negotiations, the House of Commons, whose members can seldom agree on the day of the week, unanimously passed a resolution instructing Canadian negotiators to defend supply management to their dying breath.

Australia and New Zealand, two of the countries that rebuffed Canada, used to have huge protection programs for dairy farmers. New Zealand swept away all subsidies in 1984 – and is now the world’s largest exporter of dairy products! Australia got rid of its subsidies by buying out farmers courtesy of a tax on milk that paid for the rationalization of the industry.

In Canada, the power of the Quebec and Ontario supply-managed farm groups frightens and paralyzes federal governments of whatever political stripe. The farmers compose the music. They write the libretto. Politicians sing what is put in front of them.