Here I will post studies that I have posted on other newsgroups in the past that are instructive in one way or another, along with brief commentary.

Animal Science Journal

Volume 73 Issue 5 Page 389 - October 2002 doi:10.1046/j.1344-3941.2002.00054.x

Comparison of the antioxidant activities of 22 commonly used culinary herbs and spices on the lipid oxidation of pork meat Hisako TANABE1, Masami YOSHIDA1 and Nanae TOMITA2 The antioxidant activities of 22 selected culinary herbs and spices (i.e. ginger, cinnamon, clove, bay, sage, rosemary, thyme, savory, oregano, sweet basil, parsley, coriander, tarragon, sansho, allspice, cumin, black and white peppercorns, nutmeg, caraway, dill and fennel) when they were added to pork homogenate were measured and expressed as a thiobarbituric acid (TBA) value. The addition of liquid extracts of all the herbs and spices significantly suppressed lipid oxidation of the pork, especially the extracts of sansho, sage and ginger, which showed the strongest inhibition of lipid oxidation.

This study is important because it shows that lard, a "saturated fat" according to many "nutritional experts" is very susceptible to lipid peroxidation, which is very dangerous to cells. If this study were done with fresh coconut oil, it would be worthless, because the coconut oil generates so little lipid peroxidation that there would be little contrast among the herbs and spices. Thus, in a sense, many Westerners are "held hostage" by the nonsensical classification scheme of "nutritional experts," many of whom don't seem to have much, if any understanding of the biochemistry involved. If they did, they would be advising people to avoid food that acts as an oxidizing agent, regardless of how it ranked in the older nutritional framework. Instead, many stubbornly try to figure out how to make it look like the old framework is correct, despite the incredible contradictions and also the fact that another explanation is much better and is not contradicted by any of the evidence.

Here are some studies that try to determine why "meat" seems to be so dangerous:

"Our study of screening-detected colorectal adenomas shows that red meat and meat cooked at high temperatures are associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma."

Source: Cancer Res. 2005 Sep 1;65(17):8034-41. Meat, meat cooking methods and preservation, and risk for colorectal adenoma. Sinha R, Peters U, Cross AJ, Kulldorff M, Weissfeld JL, Pinsky PF, Rothman N, Hayes RB.

"These data suggest that mutagens such as HCA that form when meat is cooked may be culpable substances in rectal cancer risk, not red meat itself."

Source: J Nutr. 2004 Apr;134(4):776-84. Meat consumption patterns and preparation, genetic variants of metabolic enzymes, and their association with rectal cancer in men and women. Murtaugh MA, Ma KN, Sweeney C, Caan BJ, Slattery ML.

"Red and processed meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Fat and saturated fat are not likely to contribute to the underlying carcinogenic mechanism because the findings for fat from meat and dairy products differed. Carcinogenic substances related to meat preparation methods might be responsible for the positive association."

Source: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Oct 5;97(19):1458-65. Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer: the multiethnic cohort study. Nothlings U, Wilkens LR, Murphy SP, Hankin JH, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN.

What these studies don't mention is the role played by dietary PUFAs in this situation, for example:

"Dietary heterocyclic aromatic amines (HCA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are both believed to play a role in colon carcinogenesis... These results show that COX, and COX-2 in particular, can play a substantial role in HCA activation, especially in extrahepatic tissues like the colon. Furthermore, the obvious interactions between PUFA and HCA in COX-2 expressing cancer cells may be important in modulating colorectal cancer risk."

Source: Mol Carcinog. 2004 Jul;40(3):180-8.

Title: "Effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids on prostaglandin synthesis and cyclooxygenase-mediated DNA adduct formation by heterocyclic aromatic amines in human adenocarcinoma colon cells."

Moonen HJ, Dommels YE, van Zwam M, van Herwijnen MH, Kleinjans JC, Alink GM, de Kok TM.

Here's something interesting from the "HIV/AIDS" experts:

"The highest levels of total intake (from food and supplements) of vitamins C and B1 and niacin were associated with a significantly decreased progression rate to AIDS... The relation between total vitamin A intake and progression to AIDS appeared to be U-shaped; the lowest and highest quartiles of intake did most poorly, while the middle two quartiles were associated with significantly slower progression to AIDS... Increased intake of zinc was monotonically and significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to AIDS..."

Source: Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Dec 1;138(11):937-51.

As one group of zinc researchers, who have pointed out how dangerous low levels of zinc can be, stated:

"To our surprise, zinc salts at 80�?00 µmol/L added exogenously to standard RPMI 1640 cultures for 8 h could induce 30�?0% apoptosis in thymocytes..."

You can read this excellent study (Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:1399S-1406S) at:

http://jn.nutrition.org:80/cgi/content/full/130/5/1399S

My point is that the evidence is overwhelming that "diseases" ("AIDS," in this instance) are at best tangentially related to "bugs" (especially considering that they were here before we were), and that much of this evidence is of the best quality, that is, molecular-level. Most "experts" have placed the emphasis on the the wrong agents, and due to excessive specialization (and perhaps a few other factors), simply go along with "the program." And here the "program" is that "HIV causes AIDS," even though if that were true this evidence of vitamins and minerals and "AIDS progression" (and plenty of other studies) should not exist. It contracts the model the "bug hunters" have put forth.

It is worthy of note that I've been struck by how uninquistive so many "people of science" actually are. I, on the other hand, was trained to examine evidence in an exhaustive and highly critical way (in history graduate school).