Lycopene is connected with red color in plants, correct?
Yes. The best source I have here among the plants that have been analyzed is an invasive weed called Russian olive or autumn olive. It's richer in lycopene than tomato, watermelon, guava and the flower pot marigold. Lycopene could probably help prevent every cancer that's on the books. Turmeric is probably even better. I would recommend those to anyone with any hormone-related cancer. I would also tell them not to listen to their allopath if they tell them, "Don't you dare take the antioxidants while we're shooting you with chemotherapeutics." That's controversial, I know, but I certainly think that turmeric could be proven better than any chemotherapeutic out there.
But because the turmeric plant can't be easily patented like a drug, there's no financial incentive for a drug company to make the necessary investment to test that hypothesis. In theory, government could fund the studies, but they haven't. Also, I'm guessing that a study in which a group of cancer patients does not receive chemotherapy probably could not be approved, as things stand now.
It costs $1.7 billion now to prove a single chemical according to FDA specifications. And turmeric, provably, has 5000 chemicals. How much would that cost? And what company, or what country, has that kind of money? FDA and FTC are costing many American lives, making it impossible to attain this simple check. The way they could check it out would be to set up a clinical trial. Is turmeric better? Prove us wrong. Instead, the drug companies compare their drug to another drug, or with a placebo.
Daniel Redwood, DC, the interviewer, is a Professor at Cleveland Chiropractic College-Kansas City, and Editor-in-Chief of Health Insights Today and The Daily HIT.