pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" >
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
*STILL* the sloppiest, most amateur hack page anyone
ever did. Truly awful.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>>>>>>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
>>>>>>>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
>>>>>>>> large brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy to clear that up for you.
>>>>>>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
>>>>>>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
>>>>>> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
>>>>>> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
>>>>> I have read the paper
>>>> You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
>>>> abstract. The abstract is not the paper.
>>> It IS the paper.
>> You didn't read the paper. You are not competent to
>> read it. You have no background in the field.
>
> You're an idiot and a liar.

Nope. You can't read papers in that field at all,
because you are *INCOMPETENT* to do so.

And, as I said, the sloppy copypasta does not refute
the central points.


>> The sloppy copypasta you did does not refute the
>> central point: meat is a prominent part of the
>> chimpanzee diet, and pre-human hominids at meat for
>> more than 2.25 million years before the appearance of
>> homo sapiens sapiens. H. sapiens evolved from these
>> pre-hominid ancestors *AS* a meat-eating species, and
>> we are adapted to meat eating. This is not disputed by
>> any legitimate scientist. Only irrational religious
>> loons like you dispute it, and you cannot dispute it on
>> legitimate scientific grounds, but rather based on your
>> misapplication of snippets of scientific papers.
>
> ALL refuted by legitimate scientists.

*NONE* refuted. Scientists unanimously acknowledge
that homo sapiens sapiens evolved as a meat-eating
species. There is only argument about precisely when
and how and why the pre-hominid ancestors began making
meat a *staple* part of their diet, but there is *NO*
dispute on the fact that it *is* a staple, and there is
*unanimity* that it was millions of years before the
appearance of homo sapiens sapiens.

The scientific consensus is that homo sapiens is
adapted to eating meat. No scientist disputes that.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" >
>>>
>>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>> The sloppiest, most amateur hack page anyone ever did.
>> Truly awful.
>
> Like ~you~ have ANY credibility.

Plenty.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
>>>> time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
>>>> saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
>>>> developed the tools to do so.
>>>>
>>>> In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
>>>> completely as a function of environmental factors.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
>>>> parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
>>>> condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
>>>> adapted to make this so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
>>>> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
>>>> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
>>>> sloppy scholarship.
>>>>
>>>> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
>>>> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
>>>> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
>>>>
>>>> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
>>> So go in peace..
>> So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
>> don't have.
>
> Stop pretending YOU have credibility and knowledge,

I have lots of those, coupled with immense ability with
logic. You have none. You are a foot-rubbing *FRAUD*
and liar.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...

> >> So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
> >> don't have.
> >
> > Stop pretending YOU have credibility and knowledge,
>
> I have lots of those, coupled with immense ability with
> logic. You have none. You are a foot-rubbing *FRAUD*
> and liar.

You're a self-deluded and fundamentally dishonest psycho.


Flame on. liar. I've wasted too much time on you already.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>> So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
>>>> don't have.
>>> Stop pretending YOU have credibility and knowledge,
>> I have lots of those, coupled with immense ability with
>> logic. You have none. You are a foot-rubbing *FRAUD*
>> and liar.
>
> You're a

Scholar.


>
> Flame on. liar. I've wasted too much time on you already.

Ha ha ha ha ha! This is at *LEAST* the 20th time
you've said you've wasted too much time on me! But
you'll be back - you can't help yourself. You have no
self control.

lesley flooded the newsgroups with a hectoliter of
diarrhea:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
>> large brain.
>>
>> Happy to clear that up for you.
>
> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
> [snip most of shit hemorrhage that lesley DID NOT read, except]
>
> Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy,
> the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide
> range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on
> availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human
> ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal
> matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon,1987; Couplan, 1997).

There you go: *unspecialized* human gut, into which
meat frequently went.

> >> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
> >> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that
range is
> >> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation,
and
> >> sloppy scholarship.
> >>
> >> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the
strength
> >> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific
view
> >> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak
areas.
> >>
> >> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
> >
> > So go in peace..



With the above conditions of scholarship in mind, what is your exact
thesis about human evolution, development of meat tool handling
technology, interaction of humans with geography and changing food
resources as they spread worldwide into all environments, and changing
dietary behaviors?

> wrote in message ...
> > >> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
> > >> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that
> range is
> > >> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation,
> and
> > >> sloppy scholarship.
> > >>
> > >> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the
> strength
> > >> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific
> view
> > >> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak
> areas.
> > >>
> > >> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
> > >
> > > So go in peace..
>
>
>
> With the above conditions of scholarship in mind, what is your exact
> thesis about human evolution, development of meat tool handling
> technology, interaction of humans with geography and changing food
> resources as they spread worldwide into all environments, and changing
> dietary behaviors?

'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
Patrick Pasquet
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
FranceClaude-Marcel Hladik
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France
...

Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to
meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is
likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid
diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
....
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was
summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that
"the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an
absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid
and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of
hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link
between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the
enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been
highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foley and Lee,
1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).

In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler
(1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue
hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the
increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a
high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced
intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy
cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-
expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and
Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the
relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all
mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue
is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler
proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.

Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed
further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution.
For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut
morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong
argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In
fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut
adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted
a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
....
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would
imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of
the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not
supported by the measurements of human gut size that are
plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the
best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..

Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary
adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly,
Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the
mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain
size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the
relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.

Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body
weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous
mammals SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.

Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets
(folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut
relationship between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus
likely that a compensatory energetic reduction that allows the
functioning of the large brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's
law) may affect all body parts, rather than being exclusively
focused on gut tissue.

DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION

Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement
of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves,
or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible
dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various
categories of food items available in different habitats throughout
the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term
omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize
a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate
species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter
to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally
eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein
requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).

Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy,
the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide
range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on
availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human
ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal
matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon,1987; Couplan, 1997). The
present consensual picture of our past feeding behaviour includes
three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate shift,
hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively
shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and
more animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging;
(2) the hunter-gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized
the mid-Pleistocene period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the
ice-ages, hominids had to specialize in large game; (3) these
successive phases, as described by Gordon(1987), were followed
by progressive control of animal and vegetable resources through
domestication and cultivation, allowing some human groups to eat
more vegetable matter than during previous periods.

Meat was consumed, but it is unlikely that animal flesh (especially
lean meat) was a staple for long periods. As highlighted by Speth
(1989, 1991), fat and fatty meat provide energy for meat eaters,
and lean meat can rapidly become unhealthy if used as an only
food. During "lean periods", meat must be complemented with
vegetable matter as an energy source, especially to provide the
necessary energy for reproduction.

The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for
the incipient hominids could have been drawn from alternative
sources rather than the fat meat of large game. Wrangham et al.
(1999) have provided a new and very exciting hypothesis on the
possible process of hominization, made possible by the early
use of fire for cooking. As far back as 1.9 My (Plio-Pleistocene),
the first Homo Erectus tended towards a large body (and brain
size), for both sexes, with a reduction of teeth. This was possible
by (and likely to be selected for) a shift to a high caloric diet that
did not require much mastication. Either a cooked fatty meat or
a cooked wild tuber may have provided this type of diet.
Cooking in embers considerably improves the taste and texture
of both kinds of food and may explain why it could have been
rapidly adopted by hominids able to master the technique of fire
(with brain increase obviously related to technical skills). However,
the best efficiency for obtaining calories would be with cooked
starchy tubers (50% more energy from starch after cooking).
Furthermore, most wild yam species are non-toxic and available
in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A.
Hladik and Dounias, 1993). Although clearly identified long-lasting
hearth locations have never been found by archaeologists before
the mid-Pleistocene, the evidence of early utilisation of fire based
on charcoal residue fragments mentioned by Wrangham et al.
would be quite a convincing argument for anyone who has recently
visited an abandoned Pygmy forest settlement, and searched for
tiny pieces of charcoal. After a few months, no obvious trace of a
hearth is visible, although meat and tubers,wrapped in large leaves,
have been cooked in the embers by the Pygmies.

Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in
hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted
adaptation to various diets. Taking into account the allometric
factors in the comparative study of primate gut anatomy, there is
no evidence to support theories such as a change in gut anatomy
that allowed carnivorousness and a simultaneous increase in brain
size. Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the
nutritional, behavioural and social consequences of this pattern -
could have been a major milestone in the hominization process.

http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.m...om19/21-31.pdf

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>>>>> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
>>>>> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that
>> range is
>>>>> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation,
>> and
>>>>> sloppy scholarship.
>>>>>
>>>>> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the
>> strength
>>>>> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific
>> view
>>>>> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak
>> areas.
>>>>> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
>>>> So go in peace..
>>
>>
>> With the above conditions of scholarship in mind, what is your exact
>> thesis about human evolution, development of meat tool handling
>> technology, interaction of humans with geography and changing food
>> resources as they spread worldwide into all environments, and changing
>> dietary behaviors?
>
> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts

He didn't ask for a dull copypasta of material you HAVE
NOT READ and that DOES NOT REFUTE what he has said earlier.

You are doing exactly what he accused you of doing:
flooding the thread with a shit hemorrhage of stuff in
a vain attempt to appear more knowledgeable about the
topic than you really are.

When asking for your exact thesis you present:

'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts'

Which fully takes into consideration but one small slice of the full
thesis as you were requested. More important, it is not your thesis and
not one original word from you is presented. Not to be ignored is that
the paper has no problem including meat dietary sources and behaviors in
its views. It fits well within the concensus of accepted ideas on the
question of meat in the diet and provides a good example of how the
details not the central idea that meat *was* not involved are at issue.

We await your thesis in your words on the other 90 percent of that
requested of you.

wrote:
> When asking for your exact thesis you present:
>
> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts'
>
> Which fully takes into consideration but one small slice of the full
> thesis as you were requested. More important, it is not your thesis and
> not one original word from you is presented. Not to be ignored is that
> the paper has no problem including meat dietary sources and behaviors in
> its views. It fits well within the concensus of accepted ideas on the
> question of meat in the diet and provides a good example of how the
> details not the central idea that meat *was* not involved are at issue.
>
> We await your thesis in your words on the other 90 percent of that
> requested of you.

You'll wait in vain. She won't state any
scientifically credible or testable thesis. She
*can't* - she doesn't know science at all.

Rudy Canoza > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> When asking for your exact thesis you present:
>>
>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts'
>>
>> Which fully takes into consideration but one small slice of the full
>> thesis as you were requested. More important, it is not your thesis and
>> not one original word from you is presented. Not to be ignored is that
>> the paper has no problem including meat dietary sources and behaviors in
>> its views. It fits well within the concensus of accepted ideas on the
>> question of meat in the diet and provides a good example of how the
>> details not the central idea that meat *was* not involved are at issue.
>>
>> We await your thesis in your words on the other 90 percent of that
>> requested of you.
>
> You'll wait in vain. She won't state any
> scientifically credible or testable thesis. She
> *can't* - she doesn't know science at all.
>

Vegetariism is great if you like chronic diarhea.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Harry" > wrote in message .. .
> Rudy Canoza > wrote in
> :
>
> > wrote:
> >> When asking for your exact thesis you present:
> >>
> >> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> >> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts'
> >>
> >> Which fully takes into consideration but one small slice of the full
> >> thesis as you were requested.

"With the above conditions of scholarship in mind, what is your exact
thesis about human evolution, development of meat tool handling
technology, interaction of humans with geography and changing food
resources as they spread worldwide into all environments, and changing
dietary behaviors?"

What was left out? "meat tool handling technology". Like?

> >> More important, it is not your thesis and
> >> not one original word from you is presented.

You were given a paper by authoritative scientists in the field.

> >> Not to be ignored is that
> >> the paper has no problem including meat dietary sources and behaviors in
> >> its views.

It's always been accepted that meat was sometimes eaten.

> >> It fits well within the concensus of accepted ideas on the
> >> question of meat in the diet and provides a good example of how the
> >> details not the central idea that meat *was* not involved are at issue.

'Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to
meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is
likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid
diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
....
Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the
nutritional, behavioural and social consequences of this pattern -
could have been a major milestone in the hominization process.

http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.m...om19/21-31.pdf

Which supports the arguments I've been posting all along.

> >> We await your thesis in your words on the other 90 percent of that
> >> requested of you.
> >
> > You'll wait in vain. She won't state any
> > scientifically credible or testable thesis. She
> > *can't* - she doesn't know science at all.
>
> Vegetariism is great if you like chronic diarhea.

.... of the verbal kind, from desperate meat-head shills and trolls.

On the other hand...

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent
CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-
2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week
= 2.74, 95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

pearl wrote:
> "Harry" > wrote in message .. .
>> Rudy Canoza > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> When asking for your exact thesis you present:
>>>>
>>>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
>>>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts'
>>>>
>>>> Which fully takes into consideration but one small slice of the full
>>>> thesis as you were requested.
>
> "With the above conditions of scholarship in mind, what is your exact
> thesis about human evolution, development of meat tool handling
> technology, interaction of humans with geography and changing food
> resources as they spread worldwide into all environments, and changing
> dietary behaviors?"
>
> What was left out?

A scientifically testable thesis. You don't have one,
so naturally there was none in any of your posts.


>>>> More important, it is not your thesis and
>>>> not one original word from you is presented.
>
> You were given a paper

That you haven't read, and that you are *INCOMPETENT*
to read. It was just more ultra-selective cherry
picking - invalid.


>>>> Not to be ignored is that
>>>> the paper has no problem including meat dietary sources and behaviors in
>>>> its views.
>
> It's always been accepted that meat was sometimes eaten.

Meat has been eaten at all times and places by humans,
*and* by their hominid predecessors for 2.5 million years.


>>>> It fits well within the concensus of accepted ideas on the
>>>> question of meat in the diet and provides a good example of how the
>>>> details not the central idea that meat *was* not involved are at issue.
>
> 'Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to
> [ SNIP ]

You didn't read that paper, and it DOES NOT REFUTE the
central point: that meat has been a staple feature of
human diet for all of the existence of homo sapiens
sapiens (about 250,000 years), as well as of our
hominid predecessor species for 2.25 million years
before that - a total of 2.5 million years of hominid
and human meat eating.


>
>>>> We await your thesis in your words on the other 90 percent of that
>>>> requested of you.
>>> You'll wait in vain. She won't state any
>>> scientifically credible or testable thesis. She
>>> *can't* - she doesn't know science at all.
>> Vegetariism is great if you like chronic diarhea.
>
> ... of the verbal kind,

That's all you do.

Not acceptable, you were not asked to support nor explain nor comment
upon the abstract you posted.

You were asked in your words to advance your thesis about human
evolution, the role of meat tool technology, the interaction with
environment and changing food resources the world over and changing
dietary behaviors and human adaptation to same.

No evidence was requested, just your thesis.

> pearl wrote:
> > Flame on. liar. I've wasted too much time on you already.

> Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Ha ha ha ha ha! This is at *LEAST* the 20th time
> you've said you've wasted too much time on me! But
> you'll be back - you can't help yourself. You have no
> self control.

*sigh* Here is the evidence of his pleasure in creating an emotional
rise, gaining attention, and disturbing the flow of rational
discourse.

Ignore the troll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

On Mar 3, 5:57 pm, Harry > wrote:
>
> Vegetariism is great if you like chronic diarhea.
>

I've been vegan for 13 years. I pass stool once, every morning upon
waking up. Is bowel movement once a day considered to be chronic
diarrhea? If that's the case then it must be perfectly healthy for
rotting flesh to reside in the human gut for 2 days. Can you say
"toxic constipation? How about "colon cancer"?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_cancer
***
It is the third most common form of cancer and the second leading
cause of cancer-related death in the Western world. Colorectal cancer
causes 655,000 deaths worldwide per year.
***
In June 2005, a study by the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and Nutrition suggested that diets high in red and processed
meat, as well as those low in fiber, are associated with an increased
risk of colorectal cancer.
***