Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 A little surprised not to have found any comments on the posted article yet. I have been thinking about it for the whole day. There are many people on this group even who do not tolerate milk. But then there are peoples like the Swiss or African tribes and many others that rely heavily on milk and its products and i have not heard of them having very high percentages of breast cancer. Could the denaturation of modern milk be to blame? what about people here on this list who get raw milk and are still allergic to it? what is left to eat? Grains might not be optimal for a lot of people, nor starchy vegetables, nor too many fruits with their sugars, fish is problematic, now milk,... i am getting confused and overwhelmed by all this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 At 12:05 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >A little surprised not to have found any comments on the posted article yet. >I have been thinking about it for the whole day. Me too. And I sent it to a lot of people. But it's a little overwhelming to even comment on. >There are many people on >this group even who do not tolerate milk. But then there are peoples like the >Swiss or African tribes and many others that rely heavily on milk and its >products and i have not heard of them having very high percentages of breast >cancer. My guess is that most of them do not drink plain milk. They eat a lot of cultured milk, which is a whole different thing. AND they were pregnant most of their lives, which also changes things. AND they have been eating the same thing for hundreds or thousands of years, so the susceptible folks maybe died off. Also -- most of my ancestors drank goat milk, not cow milk. > Could the denaturation of modern milk be to blame? what about people >here on this list who get raw milk and are still allergic to it? I react to casein. I did not react as much to raw milk, which says something. But it gives me migraines, which also says something. I really DO NOT like figuring this out!!!! > what is left >to eat? Grains might not be optimal for a lot of people, nor starchy >vegetables, nor too many fruits with their sugars, fish is problematic, now >milk,... i am getting confused and overwhelmed by all this! Well, everyone is different. My diet is hardly lacking, though a year ago if someone had said " you can't eat milk or wheat " I would have freaked out. Did freak out, in fact, just avoiding wheat!!! But now I eat different things, and actually enjoy them more. Hash browns and kimchi are currently my favorites, and anchovies. Don't ask me why. And rare steak. We eat really, really good food, and I have lots of visitors who don't give a rip about health, and they just think I am a really gourmet (picky) cook. No one has even noticed the lack of cheese and wheat ... Most of the world does just fine on no dairy, no wheat (the worst two offenders). If you want to feel a little better though, pick up a Thai or Korean or South American cookbook, and you will find hundreds of LUSCIOUS recipes without milk or wheat. Other cuisines manage to muddle through somehow without rice or seafood either. Until very recently, people ate a lower-carb, higher-fat, really tasty cuisine. I personally think a lot of the allergies might be related to the " big two " , gluten and casein, plus a lack of probiotics. A lot of celiacs, once diagnosed and on a non-gluten diet, can start tolerating a lot of the other foods after they have healed, and a lot of the sugar issues go away too. The antibodies produced by those two attack the pancreas and liver, and tend to mess up the whole body. We have been brought up on a diet that consists mainly of wheat and milk, and it is really scary to think that those may be harmful. But it reminds me a little of my chickens. When I first got them, all they would eat was commercial chicken food! Now they only eat it if they are really, really hungry -- they prefer leftovers. The issues with gluten and casein is that they are also ADDICTIVE, so part of what you are feeling is the same as a heroin addict being told that heroin might not be good for him ... Heidi S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Many years ago I came to the conclusion that there is no thing on this planet that someone is not allergic to. Over the years I have also come to the conclusion that many of the health problems in this country are caused by the nutrient-free, low-fat diet that has been forced upon us. The human body is a marvelous piece of machinery that is able to withstand the onslaught of many less than optimal conditions. But when that body is denied the proper fuel it fails in its task of keeping us healthy. It is very simplistic to blame any one thing as the sole cause of any disease or problem. I glanced through the article just before I went to bed, but did not really read it, and this morning I can find neither it nor the reference to it, so cannot really comment directly on it. Many people are allergic to peanuts, (I love the label on the peanut jar that says " May contain peanuts) and others are unable to eat other things, including milk. Were foods banned because some people cannot eat them we would all starve. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- At 12:05 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >A little surprised not to have found any comments on the posted article yet. >I have been thinking about it for the whole day. Me too. And I sent it to a lot of people. But it's a little overwhelming to even comment on. >There are many people on >this group even who do not tolerate milk. But then there are peoples like the >Swiss or African tribes and many others that rely heavily on milk and its >products and i have not heard of them having very high percentages of breast >cancer. My guess is that most of them do not drink plain milk. They eat a lot of cultured milk, which is a whole different thing. AND they were pregnant most of their lives, which also changes things. AND they have been eating the same thing for hundreds or thousands of years, so the susceptible folks maybe died off. Also -- most of my ancestors drank goat milk, not cow milk. > Could the denaturation of modern milk be to blame? what about people >here on this list who get raw milk and are still allergic to it? I react to casein. I did not react as much to raw milk, which says something. But it gives me migraines, which also says something. I really DO NOT like figuring this out!!!! > what is left >to eat? Grains might not be optimal for a lot of people, nor starchy >vegetables, nor too many fruits with their sugars, fish is problematic, now >milk,... i am getting confused and overwhelmed by all this! Well, everyone is different. My diet is hardly lacking, though a year ago if someone had said " you can't eat milk or wheat " I would have freaked out. Did freak out, in fact, just avoiding wheat!!! But now I eat different things, and actually enjoy them more. Hash browns and kimchi are currently my favorites, and anchovies. Don't ask me why. And rare steak. We eat really, really good food, and I have lots of visitors who don't give a rip about health, and they just think I am a really gourmet (picky) cook. No one has even noticed the lack of cheese and wheat ... Most of the world does just fine on no dairy, no wheat (the worst two offenders). If you want to feel a little better though, pick up a Thai or Korean or South American cookbook, and you will find hundreds of LUSCIOUS recipes without milk or wheat. Other cuisines manage to muddle through somehow without rice or seafood either. Until very recently, people ate a lower-carb, higher-fat, really tasty cuisine. I personally think a lot of the allergies might be related to the " big two " , gluten and casein, plus a lack of probiotics. A lot of celiacs, once diagnosed and on a non-gluten diet, can start tolerating a lot of the other foods after they have healed, and a lot of the sugar issues go away too. The antibodies produced by those two attack the pancreas and liver, and tend to mess up the whole body. We have been brought up on a diet that consists mainly of wheat and milk, and it is really scary to think that those may be harmful. But it reminds me a little of my chickens. When I first got them, all they would eat was commercial chicken food! Now they only eat it if they are really, really hungry -- they prefer leftovers. The issues with gluten and casein is that they are also ADDICTIVE, so part of what you are feeling is the same as a heroin addict being told that heroin might not be good for him ... Heidi S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 At 12:05 AM 2/28/03 -0500, you wrote: Could the denaturation of modern milk be to blame? Yes, I'm sure if she'd looked more to the time frame of the increase in the disease, whats been done to the product by man within that time frame in this country, and followed the fat through the process to breasts rather than to look at a dairy intolerant culture she did a soil study with (not that soil isn't important, its the beginning process) she'd be blaming man's processing instead of cows. Don't think its as simple as the alteration of one group of dietary fats. Hormones (replacement therapy and in food supply) environment, stress. I've seen bras and antiperspirants with aluminum as theories to cause that make sense because they block the lymph system. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: <SbrHaub@...> Subject: Re: breast cancer > Could the denaturation of modern milk be to blame? what about people > here on this list who get raw milk and are still allergic to it? what is left > to eat? Grains might not be optimal for a lot of people, nor starchy > vegetables, nor too many fruits with their sugars, fish is problematic, now > milk,... i am getting confused and overwhelmed by all this! > Hi, Personally I feel that good nutrition is a well rounded thing. If you tolerate milk and or grains then fine, but I think it is hocus pocus to just attempt to pin point one specific food and label that as a culprit. Just look at the usda and their bashing of animal fats and eggs. To me nothing is all good or all bad. If it helped her to eliminate dairy then good for her, but I doubt it was the only thing she changed in her lifestyle. I have just recently been informed that almost " all " scents in products (soap, deodorant, lotion, perfume etc.) are petroleum based and are readily absorbed through the skin. I am willing to bet that I could do a study linking them and breast cancer in Hong Kong. Women there I am sure are just like any other place obsessed with putting any and all kinds of perfumed products on their bodies. May as well take a swig of gasoline daily. Maybe we are killing ourselves with aromatherapy? Relax today, die of some cancer down the road. Take Care, Adrienne Georgia Naturals Farm one can not always be magnificent, but simplicity is always a possible alternative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 I appologize. This will be long. I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I haven't really come to any earth shattering conclusions but here are some observations. 1. Jane came to her conclusions via a logical " aha " followed up by a review of some secondary literature which supported her aha. 2. Jane is a geochemist. That is neither good nor bad as it relates to this information, but it is portrayed that she is a scientist, which to many would imply that her aha was scientific and therefore accurate. Not necessarily true. 3. On Jo 's www.eatwild.com website you can find references to the impact of CLA on breast cancer. Grass fed cows have significantly higher levels of CLA in their milk and meat than confinement fed cows. She states that women with the highest CLA levels had a 74% lower risk of breast cancer than those with lower levels. This highest level of CLA would be obtained by drinking one glass of milk, one ounce of cheese, and one small serving of meat per day from grass-fed sources. 4. Jo also says that EPA and DHA have a supressive effect on the development and spread of most cancers. Grass fed milk is much higher in all omega-3 fatty acids, including EPA and DHA. 5. Mercola has several studies linking imbalanced omega-6/omega-3 ratios with breast cancer. This ties back again to the denatured product we get in the store now vs. traditional raw, grass-fed milk 6. Mercola has several studies pointing to vitamin D deficiency being linked to both breast and prostate cancer. Traditionally grass-fed cows have a lot of vitamin D in their milk. This is a full complex vitamin D, not a synthetic, factory produced vitamin D3 that is added to the milk at the time of processing. 7. We've dramatically reduced both fat soluble and water soluble vitamins and anti-oxidants in our diets that help to protect us from cancer. 8. Dr. Price did not note any unusual rates of breast or prostate cancer with the Swiss or Masai people. The information presented implies that should have been an obvious 1000X observable increase in breast cancer between groups that consumed dairy products and groups that didn't. 9. In the information presented, Jane discusses several important things like homogenization, pasteurization, she implied lack of fat soluble protective vitamins, plastics, environmental pollution. There are likely several other factors as well that when stacked show the cancer rates she observed. When multiple variables are stacked, you can't imply that one is THE cause without significant study. That study has not occurred. Stacked variable will frequently exhibit a multiplicative relationship with each other on the end state as opposed to additive. 10. It may very well be that if she compared rates of pesticide use at the times the statistics were developed that there would be a nearly perfect correlation between cancer rates. This points to the question of correlation rather than causation. 11. Jane has laid out some very important information. She has presented her observations and the logic behind her conclusions. Observations and conclusions based upon logic don't adequately develop causal relationships. 12. Jane does not mention the benefits that occur from dairy products. In an interesting study that was posted on the Traditional Nutrition message board an evaluation of different diets and different types of diseases was made. The focus of the study was to show that vegetarians had lower rates of heart disease than non-vegetarians. In fact, utilizing the statistics from the particular study, there was a statistically significant difference with high meat eaters having more heart disease than vegans (about 24%). But if you scrolled down to the bottom of the table at the all causes death rate, there was no difference. The point is that demonizing one particular food without a balanced evaluation of the benefits is lopsided. Over the last 50-60 years we have changed the nature of milk dramatically 1. Moved from nearly 100% grass fed to high grain-fed diets--messing up CLA and omega fat balance 2. Average milk production per dairy cow in early 1940's was about 6,500 pounds per year (average of breeds at that time). The average milk production today is approximately 20,000 per year (dairy cows are almost all Holsteins now). The breeding that has gotten us there has emphasized cows with higher and higher levels of " naturally " occurring hormones 3. Moved from raw, whole milk to pasteurized, homogenized, low-fat, synthetically fortified milk. 4. Added oxidized milk powder to lowfat dairy products to give the products body 5. Increased pesticide use on crops, that carry through in the milk 6. Increased the use of pesticides directly on cows to control flies, which again carries through in the milk 7. Increased environmental pollution, which carries through in the milk 8. In North America, we have allowed Monsanto's rBGH hormones to be injected into the cows, which flow through in the milk In the Nasty, Brutish, and Short article, you will find the following: Modern milk is denatured through pasteurization and homogenization; stripped of its valuable fat content; filled with antibiotics and pesticides; laced with additives and synthetic vitamins; and comes from cows bred to produce huge amounts of milk and fed everything under the sun except what cows are supposed to eat—green grass.24 There is evidence to link such milk with the whole gamut of modern ailments including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, breast cancer, osteoporosis, autism and allergies. As has been commented on already, many people cannot tolerate milk, even raw milk. Different foods impact each of us differently. For me and my family, I have no problem with organic, raw, grass-fed milk. Although I found the article interesting and thought provoking, observation, correlation, and logic are not proof of the hypothesis. I would love to see a study which adequately addressed the questions at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 I concur with much of whay you say. I'm not impressed by the description of her scientific process. Scientists don't generally start their research 'knowing' the answer. I think it was Wanita that mentioned anti-perspirants as as possible culprit. I happen to think this is highly logical. I wonder if this " scientist " looked at her entire lifestyle and all the chemicals within it. I doubt it. She seemed convinced that it was diet based (and it may have been) and not something that she could have been consuming in another way (like an anti-perspirant). The article doesn't impress me as being scientific at all. --- In , Tyler Leishman <tylerl@u...> wrote: I appologize. This will be long. I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I haven't really come to any earth shattering conclusions but here are some observations. 1. Jane came to her conclusions via a logical " aha " followed up by a review of some secondary literature which supported her aha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 An excellent assessment of the situation. I commend you. One thing I do not trust is when the results of studies are given in percentages, which can be extremely misleading. Hypothetical Example: A study is done on 20,000 women on breast cancer. They are divided into two equal groups. Those who drink milk and those who don't. At the end of the study it was found that the milk drinkers had 50% more cancer than the non-milk drinkers. Impressive? Yes. Truthful? Yes. Misleading. Extremely. Misleading because the numbers showed that two of the milk drinkers got breast cancer but only one of the non-milk drinkers got breast cancer. A 50% difference? Yes, Significant? Not even close. I question any and all studies that give only percentages. Even if the percentages indicate the results I want to see. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- I appologize. This will be long. I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I haven't really come to any earth shattering conclusions but here are some observations. 1. Jane came to her conclusions via a logical " aha " followed up by a review of some secondary literature which supported her aha. 2. Jane is a geochemist. That is neither good nor bad as it relates to this information, but it is portrayed that she is a scientist, which to many would imply that her aha was scientific and therefore accurate. Not necessarily true. 3. On Jo 's www.eatwild.com website you can find references to the impact of CLA on breast cancer. Grass fed cows have significantly higher levels of CLA in their milk and meat than confinement fed cows. She states that women with the highest CLA levels had a 74% lower risk of breast cancer than those with lower levels. This highest level of CLA would be obtained by drinking one glass of milk, one ounce of cheese, and one small serving of meat per day from grass-fed sources. 4. Jo also says that EPA and DHA have a supressive effect on the development and spread of most cancers. Grass fed milk is much higher in all omega-3 fatty acids, including EPA and DHA. 5. Mercola has several studies linking imbalanced omega-6/omega-3 ratios with breast cancer. This ties back again to the denatured product we get in the store now vs. traditional raw, grass-fed milk 6. Mercola has several studies pointing to vitamin D deficiency being linked to both breast and prostate cancer. Traditionally grass-fed cows have a lot of vitamin D in their milk. This is a full complex vitamin D, not a synthetic, factory produced vitamin D3 that is added to the milk at the time of processing. 7. We've dramatically reduced both fat soluble and water soluble vitamins and anti-oxidants in our diets that help to protect us from cancer. 8. Dr. Price did not note any unusual rates of breast or prostate cancer with the Swiss or Masai people. The information presented implies that should have been an obvious 1000X observable increase in breast cancer between groups that consumed dairy products and groups that didn't. 9. In the information presented, Jane discusses several important things like homogenization, pasteurization, she implied lack of fat soluble protective vitamins, plastics, environmental pollution. There are likely several other factors as well that when stacked show the cancer rates she observed. When multiple variables are stacked, you can't imply that one is THE cause without significant study. That study has not occurred. Stacked variable will frequently exhibit a multiplicative relationship with each other on the end state as opposed to additive. 10. It may very well be that if she compared rates of pesticide use at the times the statistics were developed that there would be a nearly perfect correlation between cancer rates. This points to the question of correlation rather than causation. 11. Jane has laid out some very important information. She has presented her observations and the logic behind her conclusions. Observations and conclusions based upon logic don't adequately develop causal relationships. 12. Jane does not mention the benefits that occur from dairy products. In an interesting study that was posted on the Traditional Nutrition message board an evaluation of different diets and different types of diseases was made. The focus of the study was to show that vegetarians had lower rates of heart disease than non-vegetarians. In fact, utilizing the statistics from the particular study, there was a statistically significant difference with high meat eaters having more heart disease than vegans (about 24%). But if you scrolled down to the bottom of the table at the all causes death rate, there was no difference. The point is that demonizing one particular food without a balanced evaluation of the benefits is lopsided. Over the last 50-60 years we have changed the nature of milk dramatically 1. Moved from nearly 100% grass fed to high grain-fed diets--messing up CLA and omega fat balance 2. Average milk production per dairy cow in early 1940's was about 6,500 pounds per year (average of breeds at that time). The average milk production today is approximately 20,000 per year (dairy cows are almost all Holsteins now). The breeding that has gotten us there has emphasized cows with higher and higher levels of " naturally " occurring hormones 3. Moved from raw, whole milk to pasteurized, homogenized, low-fat, synthetically fortified milk. 4. Added oxidized milk powder to lowfat dairy products to give the products body 5. Increased pesticide use on crops, that carry through in the milk 6. Increased the use of pesticides directly on cows to control flies, which again carries through in the milk 7. Increased environmental pollution, which carries through in the milk 8. In North America, we have allowed Monsanto's rBGH hormones to be injected into the cows, which flow through in the milk In the Nasty, Brutish, and Short article, you will find the following: Modern milk is denatured through pasteurization and homogenization; stripped of its valuable fat content; filled with antibiotics and pesticides; laced with additives and synthetic vitamins; and comes from cows bred to produce huge amounts of milk and fed everything under the sun except what cows are supposed to eat-green grass.24 There is evidence to link such milk with the whole gamut of modern ailments including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, breast cancer, osteoporosis, autism and allergies. As has been commented on already, many people cannot tolerate milk, even raw milk. Different foods impact each of us differently. For me and my family, I have no problem with organic, raw, grass-fed milk. Although I found the article interesting and thought provoking, observation, correlation, and logic are not proof of the hypothesis. I would love to see a study which adequately addressed the questions at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 I did not know what to think of this story at first. As everyone has pointed out there can be so many variables. However, I completely agree with Judith about percentages. This is how we ended up with the cholesterol and heart disease link. When looking at percentages one must always look at the actual numbers as it can be quite misleading. On another note I also noticed that after her breast cancer scare she has been consuming a lot of soy. Now I am no expert but I do know that soy is high in IGF-1, the same hormone she is blaming for breast cancer. Interesting no? --- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...> wrote: > An excellent assessment of the situation. I commend you. > > One thing I do not trust is when the results of studies are given in percentages, which can be extremely misleading. > > Hypothetical Example: > > A study is done on 20,000 women on breast cancer. They are divided into two equal groups. Those who drink milk and those who don't. At the end of the study it was found that the milk drinkers had 50% more cancer than the non-milk drinkers. Impressive? Yes. Truthful? Yes. Misleading. Extremely. > > Misleading because the numbers showed that two of the milk drinkers got breast cancer but only one of the non-milk drinkers got breast cancer. A 50% difference? Yes, Significant? Not even close. > > I question any and all studies that give only percentages. Even if the percentages indicate the results I want to see. > > Judith Alta > > -----Original Message----- > > I appologize. This will be long. > > I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I haven't really come to any > earth shattering conclusions but here are some observations. > > 1. Jane came to her conclusions via a logical " aha " followed up by a > review of some secondary literature which supported her aha. > 2. Jane is a geochemist. That is neither good nor bad as it relates to > this information, but it is portrayed that she is a scientist, which to > many would imply that her aha was scientific and therefore accurate. Not > necessarily true. > 3. On Jo 's www.eatwild.com website you can find references to the > impact of CLA on breast cancer. Grass fed cows have significantly higher > levels of CLA in their milk and meat than confinement fed cows. She states > that women with the highest CLA levels had a 74% lower risk of breast > cancer than those with lower levels. This highest level of CLA would be > obtained by drinking one glass of milk, one ounce of cheese, and one small > serving of meat per day from grass-fed sources. > 4. Jo also says that EPA and DHA have a supressive effect on the > development and spread of most cancers. Grass fed milk is much higher in > all omega-3 fatty acids, including EPA and DHA. > 5. Mercola has several studies linking imbalanced omega-6/omega-3 ratios > with breast cancer. This ties back again to the denatured product we get > in the store now vs. traditional raw, grass-fed milk > 6. Mercola has several studies pointing to vitamin D deficiency being > linked to both breast and prostate cancer. Traditionally grass- fed cows > have a lot of vitamin D in their milk. This is a full complex vitamin D, > not a synthetic, factory produced vitamin D3 that is added to the milk at > the time of processing. > 7. We've dramatically reduced both fat soluble and water soluble vitamins > and anti-oxidants in our diets that help to protect us from cancer. > 8. Dr. Price did not note any unusual rates of breast or prostate cancer > with the Swiss or Masai people. The information presented implies that > should have been an obvious 1000X observable increase in breast cancer > between groups that consumed dairy products and groups that didn't. > 9. In the information presented, Jane discusses several important things > like homogenization, pasteurization, she implied lack of fat soluble > protective vitamins, plastics, environmental pollution. There are likely > several other factors as well that when stacked show the cancer rates she > observed. When multiple variables are stacked, you can't imply that one is > THE cause without significant study. That study has not occurred. Stacked > variable will frequently exhibit a multiplicative relationship with each > other on the end state as opposed to additive. > 10. It may very well be that if she compared rates of pesticide use at the > times the statistics were developed that there would be a nearly perfect > correlation between cancer rates. This points to the question of > correlation rather than causation. > 11. Jane has laid out some very important information. She has presented > her observations and the logic behind her conclusions. Observations and > conclusions based upon logic don't adequately develop causal relationships. > 12. Jane does not mention the benefits that occur from dairy products. In > an interesting study that was posted on the Traditional Nutrition message > board an evaluation of different diets and different types of diseases was > made. The focus of the study was to show that vegetarians had lower rates > of heart disease than non-vegetarians. In fact, utilizing the statistics > from the particular study, there was a statistically significant difference > with high meat eaters having more heart disease than vegans (about 24%). > But if you scrolled down to the bottom of the table at the all causes death > rate, there was no difference. The point is that demonizing one particular > food without a balanced evaluation of the benefits is lopsided. > > > Over the last 50-60 years we have changed the nature of milk dramatically > 1. Moved from nearly 100% grass fed to high grain-fed diets-- messing up > CLA and omega fat balance > 2. Average milk production per dairy cow in early 1940's was about 6,500 > pounds per year (average of breeds at that time). The average milk > production today is approximately 20,000 per year (dairy cows are almost > all Holsteins now). The breeding that has gotten us there has emphasized > cows with higher and higher levels of " naturally " occurring hormones > 3. Moved from raw, whole milk to pasteurized, homogenized, low- fat, > synthetically fortified milk. > 4. Added oxidized milk powder to lowfat dairy products to give the > products body > 5. Increased pesticide use on crops, that carry through in the milk > 6. Increased the use of pesticides directly on cows to control flies, > which again carries through in the milk > 7. Increased environmental pollution, which carries through in the milk > 8. In North America, we have allowed Monsanto's rBGH hormones to be > injected into the cows, which flow through in the milk > > In the Nasty, Brutish, and Short article, you will find the following: > > Modern milk is denatured through pasteurization and homogenization; > stripped of its valuable fat content; filled with antibiotics and > pesticides; laced with additives and synthetic vitamins; and comes from > cows bred to produce huge amounts of milk and fed everything under the sun > except what cows are supposed to eat-green grass.24 There is evidence to > link such milk with the whole gamut of modern ailments including heart > disease, cancer, diabetes, breast cancer, osteoporosis, autism and > allergies. > > As has been commented on already, many people cannot tolerate milk, even > raw milk. Different foods impact each of us differently. For me and my > family, I have no problem with organic, raw, grass-fed milk. Although I > found the article interesting and thought provoking, observation, > correlation, and logic are not proof of the hypothesis. I would love to > see a study which adequately addressed the questions at hand. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 At 04:46 PM 2/28/03 +0000, you wrote: >On another note I also noticed that after her breast cancer scare >she has been consuming a lot of soy. Now I am no expert but I do >know that soy is high in IGF-1, the same hormone she is blaming for >breast cancer. Interesting no? Was wondering myself if she possibly was drinking low fat dairy smoothies or diet shakes with soy protein isolate.Double whammy there with powdered milk in the low fat and the isolate. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 I'm so curious about your Chinese friend. I practice Oriental Medicine and have questions about the ACTUAL (I know it varies widely throughtout the country of China) dietary practices there. Also, . some of the fermented recipies would be fun to try if he (she?) has ideas that haven't been listed on the NT list. Thanks, Ken Morehead, Durham PS: I'll be at the WAP conference in May. If you go, we'll be able to meet there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 3M Corporation is building the " World's Largest Pink Ribbon " on a billboard in Times Square this October. For every person who clicks on this link and signs up, Post-It will donate $1 to breast cancer research and place a Post-It in their name on the billboard. Here's the link.... http://www.3m.com/us/office/postit/research/largest_pink_ribbon.jhtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 , Maybe she was doctor. I don't know really. It was in hospital and you get a variety of people doing this and that. I just called her a 'technician' since she was doing something technical. It was my own name for her. She could have been a doctor or maybe a person who specializes in this sort of thing. If so, I don't know what title she had. Barb > A " TECHNICIAN " DID THE BIOPSY?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE WAS YOUR DOCTOR????????????? > V. > :>( > > ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 we're ALL responsible for our OWN health care, barb--that's why you must KNOW who is working on you, you must KNOW they are qualified in the field in which they're working, etc....... " technicians " are a LONGGGGGGGGG way from doctor. v. [] Re: Breast Cancer , Maybe she was doctor. I don't know really. It was in hospital and you get a variety of people doing this and that. I just called her a 'technician' since she was doing something technical. It was my own name for her. She could have been a doctor or maybe a person who specializes in this sort of thing. If so, I don't know what title she had. Barb > A " TECHNICIAN " DID THE BIOPSY?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE WAS YOUR DOCTOR????????????? > V. > :>( > > ] FAIR USE NOTICE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 , You are right. I think I am pretty skeptical and ask a lot of questions but then I find myself like that just accepting what is happening to me again. The hospital is a good one and I 'trusted' them but your right, that isn't good enough. Thanks for reminding me. Barb > we're ALL responsible for our OWN health care, barb--that's why you must KNOW who is working on you, you must KNOW they are qualified in the field in which they're working, etc....... > > " technicians " are a LONGGGGGGGGG way from doctor. > v. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 you're welcome, barb -- but we ALL need to be aware, & know whats going on with our bodies. that includes me, myself & i too, lol! take care, v. [] Re: Breast Cancer , You are right. I think I am pretty skeptical and ask a lot of questions but then I find myself like that just accepting what is happening to me again. The hospital is a good one and I 'trusted' them but your right, that isn't good enough. Thanks for reminding me. Barb > we're ALL responsible for our OWN health care, barb--that's why you must KNOW who is working on you, you must KNOW they are qualified in the field in which they're working, etc....... > > " technicians " are a LONGGGGGGGGG way from doctor. > v. > FAIR USE NOTICE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Several young women in the building I worked in developed breast cancer and other types of cancer. Barth TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html --- t> Did anyone develop breast cancer after being exposed to toxic mold? t> If so, can you plese email me privately. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Barb - have the lump removed immediately and the whole thing biopsied. I don't want to scare you but here's (briefly) my story. had breast lump 3/2000 technician took a sample (seemingly from the edge) 3/00 was told non-cancerous /was prescribed hormones 4/00 I still didn't feel " right " Went to my other OBY-YN nurse practioner 9/00 she said to stop taking the hormones and... Was sent to hospital Breast Clinic 9/00 Spoke to breast Surgeon (specialist) He ondered why the hell they would leave a lump in (cancerous or not) and recommeded removal (I said hell yes !) Breast lump removed late 10/2000 Week later the test came back that the lump contained a small but very agresssive breast cancer that was also estrogen hormone receptor positive!!!!! 11/2000 Was immediately booked for lumpectomy and lymph node biopsy 11/00 Nodes came back negative as did surrounding extra tissue removed (Thank GOD) That was 5 years ago from diagnosis - so far cancer has NOT returned. (Of course now that I have found out that I have been living in a toxic environment this last year, that remains to be seen.) For sure though - had I not had the lump removed and continued taking hormones - I would probaby be dead right now. I would have that lump removed. What's a little tissue missing from a boob compared to living a long life? > > Did anyone develop breast cancer after being exposed to toxic mold? > > If so, can you plese email me privately. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Platy, I will consider this. I'm due for another thermography anyway so can discuss. Barb > Barb - > > have the lump removed immediately and the whole thing biopsied. I > don't want to scare you but here's (briefly) my story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.