Add a Comment
Save my information
I’m going to quote M.D. Nicholas Gonzalez who treats cancer patients said that coffee intake are detrimental to the overall health, and coffee in enemas are a great treatment for cancer. He literally says “In terms of its physiological action, oddly enough when you drink coffee it stimulates the stress nervous system and also suppression of liver function.” I do believe coffee affects more the health that we think. When this label is going to be implemented? Good for CA
there is good evidence that antioxidants can slow cancer, or even prevent it.
coffee is the *MAIN* source for people in the USA to get antioxidants.
that said, fresh coffee from freshly ground beans have much higher antioxidant levels,
then pre-ground stuff…
also, people often use paper filters which absorb some of the oils and other compounds.
(it has 100s of compounds, many are beneficial)
well made coffee tastes amazing
cheap, old, pre-ground coffee is crap.
there is a huge difference in health aspects between the two.
obviously even the cheap-old stuff has some antioxidants. which to me means,
if you stop people from drinking it, they will be less healthy.
(unless they replace it with something healthier)
The author uses the questionable carcinogenic danger of coffee to mask the danger of industrially produced substances. It is clear that highly-developed economy correlates with high cancer incidence. This throws substantial doubt on the claim that 2/3 of cancer result from normal body functions, not carcinogens. See: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-higher-cancer-countries.html
California is known to the state of California to contain chemicals, substances and radiation that can cause cancer, injury and reproductive harm in excess of any benefit that may be derived from entering California, particularly taking into account its high taxes, natural disasters, high solar radiation, crude oil contamination and housing shortages.
At 61 and after drinking coffee for at least 41 years, I’m as healthy as I’ve ever been. My mother is 84 and has been drinking coffee for most of those long years. She DOES NOT have cancer. I respect David Ropiek for this article. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of Elihu Berle’s decision. I read an article about carcinogens when I was 20. At the top of list was BURNT TOAST. Most coffee offered for sale in these times is dark roast. The most common aspect of dark roasted coffee is carbonization. Dark roast = burnt beans. I roast my own coffee and I always roast it light. Cancer is more commonly cause by a bad diet and exposure to chemical compounds known to create cancer stem cells. The right diet will kill cancer stem cells before they can grow. People generally live to an old age by knowing how to keep threats in check.
I am astonished that Undark published this remarkably unscientific story by David Ropiek with its disproven claim that 2/3s of cancer are cause by “natural” mutations. The story links to a shoddy paper making this claim, but fails to acknowledge that the claim is provably incorrect, as experts told Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/728.1
In addition Ropiek’s client list includes corporations known for selling carcinogens, such as Dow Chemical, DuPont and Bayer. Has Undark become Unhinged? This is not real journalism, it looks like native advertising. Was Undark paid to promote this unscientific article? Was it given to the magazine for free? What is going on here?
Tom Paine is right. All people should be labeled “People have been known by the state of California to commit murder.”
I’m beginning to think that the “state of California” is similar to a “state of inebriation” or a “state of credulity.”
Let’s create a state of guaranteed no-risk, no-threat. We can all live in pods.
Prop 65 has got to be one of the stupidest pieces of regulation ever enacted. The warnings appear so many places people have learned to ignore them entirely.
Prep 65 provides no useful information. I see warning signs posted sometimes, like in parking garages. I don’t think they drive anyone away. Nobody knows what they’re supposed to do.
I think the author, David Ropiek, MIGHT (emphasis mine) murder someone some day.
If Ropiek might murder, it’s safer to treat him like he has, right?
David Ropiek must be jailed for life.
It’s natural to jump to conclusions that feel protective. In legal terms this “better safe than sorry” instinct is known as the precautionary principle, and precaution just seems to make common sense.