Skip to content
Share This Post

CytoSolve® reveals the difference between correlation and causation in this review of this scientific study about the relationship between fish consumption and skin cancer. Short video above. Full video here: Transcript Below.

Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior-Scholar

Attend Truth Freedom Health® Thursday Open House

You are invited to attend an OPEN HOUSE with Dr.SHIVA this THURSDAY at 11 AM EST or 8 PM EST.

RSVP at:

CytoSolve® was invented by Dr.SHIVA at MIT to discover healing compounds from nature without animal testing. Find out more at Support the CytoSolve® Open Science Institute:

Dr. SHIVA’s most recent innovation is the Truth Freedom Health® SYSTEM that is an educational, community, and technology platform that is enabling everyday people to become wiser and smarter – to think beyond Left & Right, “Pro-” and “Anti-” – by learning the SCIENCE OF SYSTEMS – to see events and things as they truly are to know the real problem to innovate the real solution.

To learn more about the Truth Freedom Health® System, visit: or and either contribute to this educational movement or become a Warrior-Scholar.

Find out more at

Be the Light!

Twitter: @va_shiva

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.


Hello, everyone, this is Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. Today we’re going to be having a discussion about fish consumption and skin cancer.

So this is the agenda that we’re going to go through today, we’re going to cover the paper that came out about fish consumption and melanoma and skin cancer. But we’re going to look at it from the context of the science. And the truth will come to this, in some ways how the New York Times sort of tries to push a narrative, and they should know better because they claim they know better than everyone else.

And then we’re gonna look at the health possibilities, you know what that involves in the mechanism. So we’ll come back to that little more detail. And we’re going to look at the clinical study that was done that shows a correlation between people who consume fish and melanoma, and the paper specifically says, quote, fish intake and the risk of melanoma in NIH, a RP, diet and health studies.

But the way the New York Times presented this study, they did it in a click baiting way to essentially force in my view, because they know better, they want to force the narrative that without educating the readers that it’s sort of a done deal that the correlation established, it’s done. And you don’t really need to worry about the knowing the why. But our approach at VA she of everything we do is to educate you on a systems approach.

About a month ago, I shared all with you a study that we have done that went beyond correlation, but took a systems approach to understand causation. And this is from correlation to causation we shared with you work that we did in an NIH funded project with the City of Hope, where they had found again, this correlation between people who drank green tea, people drank green tea was highly correlated with when they got a transplant, let’s say they got a lung transplant, or trans, whatever it was, they had a much greater chance of the transplant not being rejected. That means green tea consumption.

So if you got to transplant you had a higher chance that your transplant would take would not be rejected. If you’re drinking green tea, again, you understand this is a correlation. We weren’t just in finding out why in order to do that, you need to take a systems approach.

A Systems Approach cannot be done by just doing input output, which is what modern science really works at Systems Science allows us to do that. And by the way, we published our research, which I’ll share with you very briefly, you can go see the green tea video, but I just want to share with you the difference we published in the clinical nutrition journal, one of the leading journals for Clinical Nutrition, but in order to do this, we use cytosol, which is a systems approach to understanding this and as many of you know, the systems approach that we do so this study just came out by Lee at all, and it came out in the journal called cancer causes and control and here are the authors of the journal right here. eufy Lee Linda Lau, Rashmi Sinha, Taan Xiang Xiang, Terence Vance Brar Qureshi and Yong Yong Chol.

So the title is fish intake and risk of melanoma in the na nih AARP thinks retired people died in health study, what did this study do? Well, what this study did was in the abstract of most of these papers, they will try to give sort of what they’re going for. And it says purpose prior epidemiological studies, when you see epidemiology, it’s typically input output. It’s not going to a systems analysis, let me be clear, an EPA dimmi.

Illogical study or analysis is not a systems analysis, we at VA, Shiva and all the work we do is to deepen your consciousness to understand the why. But regardless of that, sometimes it’s good to understand if you do this here, what occurs here, because then you can understand what’s occurring inside that black box. So this has prior epidemiological studies evaluating the association between bring this up between the intake between fish intake and melanoma risk have been few and inconsistent.

Few studies distinguish different types of fish intake with the risk of melanoma. So what they claim is that’s what their study really did. So they looked at nearly 44 91,367 participants, and then they use statistics, and then we’re going to go through this but what they concluded was it said, we found that higher total fish intake tuna intake and non fried fish and take a closer look at the three groups total fish intake.

So they looked at people over a 15 year period, it says during this period of all these people over a 15 year period, they had 5030 for malignant melanomas and 3200 for case of melanoma in situ, which is which means they hadn’t spread yet. So these were malignant, these are things that hadn’t spread yet. And so again, just to be clear, it was 491,367 participants in this study, and if you looked at that number of participants over 15 years, they come up with an interesting number 6,611,941 person year so that’s that’s sort of the full scope over that period that 5034 cases of malignant melanoma which means melanoma, that spreading is pretty bad and 3284 cases of melanoma in situ and what they found was a higher total fish intake, tuna intake and non fried fish intake were positively associated with the risk of both malignant melanoma and melanoma in situ.

Again, melanoma in situ means that as it spread, further studies are needed to investigate the potential biological mechanisms underlying these associations. So they are actually point this out. But the New York Times really didn’t point that out.

The researchers had brought that out. And this is the why. So here we’re looking at the details.

The study population here again was 491,367 participants over 15 years, ages 50 to 71. You can see all different ethnicities black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander American Indian, Alaskan native, and the fish intake was fried and non fried, and it varied between three times 3.2 grams per day to 43 grams per day.

So it’s a pretty wide range. And so they had these different quintiles of people quintiles one through quintile five, these are different segments of people. So then what I also wanted to point out is they had quintiles by fried and non fried so this group was those quintiles separated by the fried group, people did fried fish intake and the non fried fish intake.

And what you notice the correlation by the way, if you see a P value of point oh one that means highly correlated with relative to reference. And you see here, the fried fish and take group is not correlated the multivariate analysis and here both in malignant melanoma here, and here, this is a reference point three 6.06.

But here, if you notice in the non fried fish group, it’s point o three and point oh, oh 3.01, the lower that P value numbers, which means it’s highly correlated with the results of the study, see, a confidence interval one indicates strong correlation. So what that means is any so all study groups Q one to Q five showed positive correlation between fish intake and cancer diagnosis and correlation was observed in both observed for both sexes, all ages and all ethnicities, okay, so very high correlation, total fish intake in all these different groups, again, in the malignant melanoma, and melanoma in situ.

So here’s getting into a little bit of the details. So what they found was this is what’s fascinating, they found that if you looked at those group of people who had tuna, and so if you look at it can have like StarKist tuna, that’s about a five ounce can of tuna. So they found out those people who took about point three grams, which is point oh, one ounces, which is by the way, a 10th of a tablespoon.

And if you compare that to those people who had just a tablespoon, by the way, this is over that 15 year period, just to be clear, we’re looking over a longitudinal study. So over that 15.5 year period, I want to make sure I’m being clear over that 15 year period, if someone had about one tablespoon of tuna, which is what that 14.

2 grams, it’s a half an ounce, if you think about a can of tuna is about five ounces. And if you take one tablespoon, and you have a tablespoon spread out over 15 years, which roughly comes to around 14.2 grams, and if that’s the median, average amount you consume, then you’re going to have an increase of 20% higher risk of malignant melanoma and 17% higher risk of stage zero which is melanoma in situ, which means it hasn’t spread.

So there’s melanoma it hasn’t spread a malignant melanoma it spread. So again, just to give you those numbers, this is two nuts. So think about someone I don’t know how much is let’s say you have a tuna fish sandwich and you use a whole can and that would be sort of 10 of those units because and let’s say you had one Ken every 10 days for 15 years, you have a 20% higher risk of getting malignant melanoma and 17% higher risk of stage zero melanoma.

So that’s the first takeaway. The second thing that was interesting was again, this is again, a correlation was when they compared the point three group, which is about a 10th of a tablespoon and then compare that to people who did 17.8 grams, which is a little more than a tablespoon of non fried fish per day.

This is non fried fish. So this can be sushi, this could be can macro, this is any fish, any kind of fish, if you were having about little more than a tablespoon a day, in this case over 15 years 18% higher risk of melanoma pretty much close to that tail, the tuna but a 25 higher risk of stage zero melanoma. All right.

And what’s fascinating is the researchers did not identify significant associations between consumption of fried fish and risk of malignant melanoma or stage zero. So isn’t that fascinating? So this gets down to the causation piece. So people were assuming non fried fish or tuna had a 17 to upwards of 25% risk of the melanoma which wasn’t spreading in melanoma, which was spread.

Okay, so that’s one of the but if you fried the stuff, there was really no risk. All right. So let’s go to the next part here.

This research that we just talked about was a correlation based research input, output, input output. When you understand causation, you can actually create products that work, you can identify why and you can create healthy products. So what we did was we actually use cytosol, this causative approach to actually discover a product where we, by the way, cytosol has been used for 16 years by many, many companies, but we looked at the mechanisms of pain and inflammation, and we were able to discover a set of ingredients, which actually we’re talking about negative things which could cause cancer, but there are materials that you can take that actually will do beneficial things.

I wanted to let you know that we you was the technology here we’ve helped many, many companies over the last 16 years, a lot of smart, innovative companies. But we decided with all the mathematical models we’ve created, why don’t we try to use this to compute the best product we could think of from the science out there for reducing pain and inflammation, pain and discomfort, and that resulted in us Creating m v 25. Using cytosol.

We’re gonna have more products that are going to be coming. But let me just show you what MB 25 is about for those of you who haven’t heard about it, but this is using cytosol in a beneficial way not to just do research, but find combination therapies, I am firebrand, my hands would cramp up so that I couldn’t hold cards or knit or crochet. And they would go like that, not have to use this.

When I played cards with my grandkids and I started taking that MV 25. After bed, I was able to hold cards in my hand, very, very little cramping hardly at all anymore. MV 25 Hi, my name is Sandy.

I’m a Taekwondo instructor, I tore my ACL during Taekwondo, I had a lot of pain and limited mobility. I’ve been taking the MV 25 for about six months. Now, after the first week, I noticed the big difference after the second week, almost literally no pain.

My name is Jeremy and I suffer from a lower back problem hurt my back at work years ago. And I can go to the chiropractor and do all kinds of different things. And nothing seems to help.

And I decided to try MV 25, I didn’t notice a difference immediately. But within a few days, that pain went away, and it’s staying away, I’ve continued to take it. And even when I do things that I shouldn’t do, it seems to go away a lot quicker than I ever did before.

It’s clean food certified, it’s made in the US, if you go to Bac Right on the shop, you’ll click there. Or you can go right to MB 25 dot life either way, and then from there, you can click on the bottle and you can order if you buy six bottles, you get six bottles for free, please take advantage of it because first of all, it’s going to help you it’s going to help our movement.

And it really supports the fact that we want to take science based approaches to natural products. Now in the research that we did with cytosol. Again, this is an example of not a correlation study, but it was going from correlation to causation.

So as I mentioned, in this study, people have found green tea consuming green tea, lower transplant rejection. Pretty cool. So what we did with cytosol, which was published in this paper was we actually understood how that occurred.

So notice it says bioactive compounds and retain the improved transplant tolerance, a computational systems biology analysis, notice what we’re saying it’s not an epidemiological analysis, but a systems biology analysis. So we did here was we literally understood the composition of green tea, the caffeine, the minerals, amino acids, and poly phenols. And by the way, I’m not going to go through this in detail for the interest of time, but there’s an entire video I did on green tea and our research earlier.

So please go check that out. What we did here was we understood all the compounds in green tea, the molecules, and then we understood the molecular mechanisms, the actual the causes, we went through all the research and we pieced together causation, how individual molecules react and how the components of green tea EGCG, which is one of them are EPA catechin, with these molecules and green tea, how they actually affect the causation affecting other systems, which promote transplant tolerance. And we identified those anti inflammatory mechanisms and how it works, why it works.

And then we did the same to find out how other compounds in green tea EGCG, EPA, catechin, and gallic acid actually lower transplant rejection, essentially downregulate pro inflammatory mechanisms. So this is very powerful that we were able to identify the actual compounds, identifying the mechanisms. And this is what I mean by the why.

So we find out how green tea promotes transplant tolerance, and it inhibits transplant rejection to downregulating pro inflammatory mechanisms and upregulating anti inflammatory mechanisms. So I wanted to give you that as a data point to understand how you can use system science to understand causes. And so whenever you hear on the news, oh, because if you don’t have causation, you can be really bamboozled into a narrative, Oh, I did something here over this happen.

And we see that in every major topic. And this way, the world in the United States, in particular, split into left and right Pro and anti because the news media and essentially academics who can be paid because they’re now practicing the oldest profession in the world. And you can think about what that is, you can essentially just use correlation to manipulate people.

But if you go down to understand causation, which is a much harder thing to do, you will understand well, that may be true, maybe it’s not true. And that’s what’s also true with this example here with the with the example that we just went through, we’re going to go through with the fish and the melanoma. So that’s what I wanted to talk about.

And one of the powerful things is when you really understand causation, and what we’ve done with cytosol is we’ve created a whole technology to understand causes When you understand causation, you can really go solve some very powerful problems. And I’ll come back to this because I want to share with you that using cytosol, for example, we actually understood the mechanisms of inflammation and pain in the body. And we went through all different natural compounds.

And we discovered a set of compounds that do that. And I’ll come back and share that with you shortly. But what’s happening in science is that you can easily have this sort of what I call attack on freedom, because you can have what I call the click baiting.

And this is sort of the click baiting that The New York Times did, can your diet really affect your skin cancer risk? Now, the New York Times really shouldn’t do this? Because if some other newspaper do they say, oh, that’s clickbait. But if the New York time does it, they’re very clever when they ask it as a risk. But the interesting thing is that there really goes to push a narrative in a very subtle way to assume the discussion is over this longitudinal study has shown it, but the reality is, we want to understand the causation.

So just like the green tea example, if you want to really get to the heart of health, we need to know what are the potential mechanisms, mechanisms of action, you may want to write that down. In biology, we call that mo a mechanisms of action that is very, very different than correlation. Correlation is input output.

But understanding mechanisms of action is saying I did this input, what were all the pathways that it went through to get this output. And that’s a much deeper complexity, you have to understand all the connections, and that’s called the mechanisms of action. So what were those mechanisms of action? What are the potential mechanism of action here that fish and take causes cancer? Well, here’s some ideas.

So there could be various things. And that’s what we do. Because if we’re wanting to understand the why we want to do that.

So here are some of the potentials of the why could be right. Maybe there’s the Mercury’s ubiquitous on the biosphere, including oceans, is there an association between higher mercury levels and skin cancer that’s already been established? So there’s been a number of papers written that shows that higher mercury levels and skin cancer are correlated, they don’t know the mechanisms, but that’s been established. So if you eat a lot of fish, is it the mercury and the mercury consumption in the US is mostly from fish.

And by the way, this was done in the United States, hence, there’s a potential link between fish intake and skin cancer. So again, what we’re proposing here is a potential causation. We’re proposing a causation here.

So this is the why we’re proposing another thing that we were thinking about is a processing of fish. How was the fish processed raw? Because what this research said it was all non fried stuff. So non fried, the can the boiled and the raw, it’s appears that these kinds of processing was a high correlation, just like tuna to the skin cancer.

All right. So is that and what does the mechanisms action? Or what happens when you fry something and you don’t fry something? So is it possible that you have fish with a lot of mercury? And maybe when you fry the hell out of it, it’s doing something in an interesting way that’s protecting the mercury, if in fact, isn’t mercury from affecting you? Or is it parasites? You know, is it sushi? So these are some very, very interesting questions. And that’s why many years ago, research came out that said, Oh, if you eat eggs, you’re gonna get heart disease.

And for 2030 years, people stop eating eggs. And again, it was one of these correlation studies, when in fact, it turns out if you soft boil an egg, don’t overcook the hell out of it, but soft, boil it and leave the yolk intact. There’s lecithin in there are some very good nutrients, which help you need certain amount of good cholesterol, but actually helps break down certain of the bad cholesterol.

So once you understand mechanisms, you can say, Whoa, what do you mean that everyone should stop eating eggs, or everyone should stop consuming fish and a lot of people stopped eating eggs. And if you really think about that, we can do a whole series on this, there’s a huge correlation between consuming one or two eggs and the reduction in stroke, the reduction in heart disease, the reduction in cholesterol, because mechanistically there’s constituent materials that actually help that. So we have to be very careful when we just look at these correlation studies.

That’s really the point that I wanted to make here. Now, in summary, if you look at this, going back to the mercury piece here, now there could be potential contaminants. There’s also someone put up there, there could be other things, PCBs, polychlorinated by phenols.

There’s a plastics, the dioxins, the arsenic, these things are also efficient, they’ve also been correlated with cancer. So there could be these other things. So in summary, what we want to really take away is that this study found that fish consumption is positively correlated with skin cancer.

Consumption of fishes like tuna and non fried fish increase the risk of malignant and skin zero skin which is malignant and stage zero, which is the means is cancer as in spread those kinds of cancer. On the other hand, consumption of fried fish was not positively correlated. And the study did not show any causation between fish consumption and skin cancer as I mean, they didn’t show causation they showed correlation and the potential causes may include many things mercury, PCBs, dioxins, arsenic, etc.

So this is now a verge, an area of research that people could explore Have a good evening be well

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health® you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health® in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems™ course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems™ Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health®, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System® tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health® portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health® Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved™.

Share This Post
Back To Top
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration