Business History Books » Business Plans » rBGH – Laugh OF THE DAY!
rBGH – Laugh OF THE DAY!
Question:
# : >Newsgroups: rec.food.veg, misc.health.alternative, sci.med, # : > sci.med.nutrition, alt.folklore, herbs # Here is the simple solution. DON’T BUY MILK OR DAIRY PRODUCTS. The farmers # will get the message real quick. Increased supply due to use of rBGH amd # reduced demand= lower prices. Lower prices+milk subsidies=same profit. — * //www.pantheon.cis.yale.edu/ ** Fruit flies like a banana. * * ~jnilsen/index.html ** Drosophila like plantains. *
Response:
>Some of us do recommend drinking water instead of milk, for lots of >reasons. Yeah, Bernie? How come none of the reasons given by the alternatives are that you might promote cancer? (Babies get cancer too, do they not?) And why is nobody upset about milk as they are with rBGH, if they both contain IGF-1 in amounts that are comparable (that is, you can easily get as much IGF-1 by drinking a little more ("rBGH-free" milk, as you could by drinking rBGH milk). Methinks I smell quite a lot of hypocrisy here. My motive in entering the "milk causes cancer" debate was not to express an opinion on this topic, but merely to get in a kick at this most over-hyped drink. Milk and other dairy products are a leading source of saturated fat in the diet, is the most common cause of food allergies, and causes a a great many people GI distress, which they and their doctors, blinded by the dairy propaganda machine, often fail to diagnose. I would be much more concerned about the glass of milk which acompanies the peanut butter sandwich than the peanut butter itself. Speaking purely hypothetically, it does not follow that if rBGH increases the level of IGF-1 in milk, that drinking an increased amount of non-treated milk is equivalent. For perhaps the untreated milk contains other protective factors and the rBGH throws the ratio of protective to noxious factors out of balance. — http://ra.stsci.edu/bps/top.html Use aspartame, get brain cancer.
Response:
The deliberate or accidental release of some of man made organisms into the environment may lead to forms of "biological pollution" which have never been experienced before. Genetically engineered products often contain genetic material from dissimilar plants, animals, viruses and bacteria. Eating a product containing even one animal gene would be repugnant to a vegetarian (or even a non-vegetarian!), or prohibited by those with religious guidelines about the way they eat. One odd gene could cause alergic reactions in others. And what of splicing in human genes into the genes of other species of plants or animals? This has already been proven to be possible. The genetically engineered bovine growth hormone approved of by the FDA in February of 1994 is being used in the processing of milk now on the the shelves of grocery stores all over the county. Though the use of rBGH is not universal, milk from many dairies is often combined togenter into one batch. So, one can assume that every carton of consumer milk has some trace of rBGH processed milk in it. Check out the Washington based Pure Food Campaign, 202/775-1132, to demonstrate oposition to BGH and other genetically engineered products. Peas, Pamela http://www.earthbase.org/vivavegie
Response:
Um, learning disabilities and below average are not identical. As the parent of a normal but LD child I would like to explain that LD means they child has difficulty with some part of the learning process. LD crosses the range of intelligence, but is not identical to it. Cher
Response:
: Um, learning disabilities and below average are not identical. As the : parent of a normal but LD child I would like to explain that LD means : they child has difficulty with some part of the learning process. LD : crosses the range of intelligence, but is not identical to it. : Cher I have to echo this here, particularly since a person on my BBS, where I sponsor a newsgroup on LDs (not Internet) recently equated LD with mentally retarded! LD does not equal ‘below average’ or stupid. There are many people with LDs who are also gifted. People with ADD or dyslexia who are math wizards, folks with dyscalculia who are highly literate, etc. Learning disability is often about either a perceptual difference (as in dyslexic folks who can’t see all of a picture or who don’t see all the letters in a word) or a very small part of the information processing process in the brain. For example, a person may have excellent memory (including long term, auditory, visual, sequential memory) *except* for short term memory, which means they have to work very hard and use adaptive techniques to get a piece of info from short term into long term memory. *Stop the execution of Mumia Abu Jamal: A new trial now!* Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna BBS 213-766-1356 "The board that Hates Rush Limbaugh *and* Newt Gingrich With A Passion"
Response:
>Mmmm, since genes themselves are nothing more than sequences of the amino acids (? — if I got the word wrong, someone please correct me!) >cytosine, guanine, adenosine and thymine,
They are, in fact, linear sequences of the four nucleotides adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. Three adjacent nucleotides (more speci- fically, bases) constitute a codon which represents the DNA codeword for one of the 20 amino acids. Peter
Response:
>It may be even worse than this. I was talking to an educational >psychologist who said that nearly 50% of our children are mentally >below average.
Not at Lake Wobegon!
Response:
: >In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day : >they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and : >40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food : >supply. : It may be even worse than this. I was talking to an educational : psychologist who said that nearly 50% of our children are mentally : below average. Condemning 50% of our children in this way is : inexcusable. I’m told that arithmetic is to blame. It’s time something : was done about this. Arithmetic is to blame, eh? (think about it…) Okay, even though a.f.h is not the group for this, I’m gonna answer anyway. Go read _The Bell Curve_, yes that "evil, racist" book about IQ studies. "Learning disabilities" is a very broad topic that covers everything from autism to retardation to organic brain syndrome… anything that prevents a child from learning in the "normal" fashion. Genetics is a big part of it, pure and simple. Environment and nurturing, especially in the first five years, is another. If our children are not learning, it’s not because of some nebulous conspiracy is intentionally preventing them from doing so. –jen
Response:
>>In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day >they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and >40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food >supply. >It may be even worse than this. I was talking to an educational >psychologist who said that nearly 50% of our children are mentally >below average. Condemning 50% of our children in this way is >inexcusable. I’m told that arithmetic is to blame. It’s time something >was done about this.
Chris, I think this probably has something to do with the fact that east coast liberal elitists have been using billions in Beltway dollars to get half the kids above the median and further millions to be above the averages. When will the pointy-heads stop interfering? -dlj.
Response:
: Genetically engineered products often contain genetic material from : dissimilar plants, animals, viruses and bacteria. Eating a product : containing even one animal gene would be repugnant to a vegetarian (or : even a non-vegetarian!), or prohibited by those with religious guidelines : about the way they eat. Mmmm, since genes themselves are nothing more than sequences of the amino acids (? — if I got the word wrong, someone please correct me!) cytosine, guanine, adenosine and thymine, and there are ZILLIONS (non-scientific number) of possible permutations which COULD occur naturally through mutation, and since it’s possible that ALL living things may share certain sequences, I think your repugnance is a little far-fetched. Even if I DID object to eating animals (I don’t), if the food in question did not involve killing any, it wouldn’t bother me in the least to eat it. Animals is animals, and chemicals is chemicals, and I’m not so sure of the ethics of depriving an onion of its life and chance to reproduce, either! Smiles, Natalie
Response:
A whole lot of stuff…… > The James Fleets and Steve Harris’ of this world should welcome — no > they should demand the release of these additional data so that any > controversy end once and for all. How can an individual with an open and > unbiased mind not want all of the facts – especially a medical doctor.
Betty- As I have continued to say and argue – your arguement is based upon incomplete science and inappropriate extrapolations. I will explain the few that keep sticking in my mind once again: (1) rBGH may indeed cause many negative effects in rat studies. However, the doses are injected and they are higher than used commercially. This data might be usable for the health effects on cows (because the hormone is directly injected into the cows) but it has no relevance to humans consuming milk from rBGH treated cows. (2) The risk due to consuming milk with higher IGF-1 levels (which you note has been shown in milk of cows treated with rBGH) or growth hormone levels (which you do not show but which is also probably elevated) is unknown. Saying otherwise is foolish and has not been proven regardless how many cell culture studies you quote (more on these later). With regard to this point, I believe that Monsanto has an obligation to show whether or not serum IGF-1 or growth hormone levels increase in people who have consumed milk from treated cows. I also believe, based upon my understanding of endocrinology and nutrition, that there won’t be a significant effect. (3) IGF-1 has many biological effects. Cell culture studies have helped us understand these effects. However, one can not talk about the biological actions of IGF-1 in vivo without including the IGF binding proteins in the picture. You and the experts you quote don’t seem to include this factor in your assessments. Without considering the IGF binding proteins (and when looking at cell culture data that was done in the absence of serum or the binding proteins) a person can determine the amount of FREE unbound IGF-1 that will have a biologic action. This number will always be very low – but then again, this is also true when you compare free IGF-1 relative to the total amount of IGF-1 found in the serum (most IGF-1 is bound). (4) Elevated levels of serum IGF-1 have not been shown to be a risk factor for cancer in epidemiologic trials. If you know of a study that shows otherwise, then you should be using it rather than the cell culture studies. I assure you that it will carry more weight in an arguement. This is probably the third time that I have posted this information in one form or another. I would appreciate a point by point reply rather than a long rampling one that never gets to the point. As I said before, I’m not interested in promoting rBGH or Monsanto, however, your arguement is weak as you currently make it. A reasonable scientist can come to the conclusion that milk from cows treated with rBGH is safe. As for consumers being able to get rBGH-free milk – I’m all for it. I don’t see how it will be regulated (there is no test for rBGH that differentiates it from natural bovine growth hormone) – it will have to be an honor system, I suppose. J.C. Fleet, Ph.D. Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy
Response:
> Re: rBGH – Controversy – The Facts > Organization HNRC at Tufts University > Newsgroups sci.med.nutrition,sci.med,rec.food.veg,misc.health.alternative > (1) rBGH may indeed cause many negative effects in rat studies. > However, the doses are injected and they are higher than used > commercially. This data might be usable for the health effects > on cows (because the hormone is directly injected into the cows) > but it has no relevance to humans consuming milk from rBGH treated > cows.
Jim, Again, you are ignoring the fact that rBGH is found in milk from cows injected with rBGH. We can’t say with certainty that a lifetime of ingestion of rBGH causes health problems, but we can’t say that it doesn’t. It was the responsibility of Monsanto to conduct long-term tests where rBGH is given *as part of milk*. It was never done. So, any statement that rBGH in milk causes no health effects over a lifetime is simply wishful thinking on the part of Monsanto and the FDA. If "wishful thinking" is the new standard for FDA safety assessments, they should let the public know. > (2) The risk due to consuming milk with higher IGF-1 levels (which > you note has been shown in milk of cows treated with rBGH) or growth > hormone levels (which you do not show but which is also probably > elevated) is unknown. Saying otherwise is foolish and has not been > proven regardless how many cell culture studies you quote (more on > these later). With regard to this point, I believe that Monsanto > has an obligation to show whether or not serum IGF-1 or growth > hormone levels increase in people who have consumed milk from > treated cows. I also believe, based upon my understanding of > endocrinology and nutrition, that there won’t be a significant effect.
I have repeatedly stated that Cohen cites a number of other experiments suggesting that free IGF-1 increases the rate of cancer growth. That article is on my web page for you to read (or I can email it to you). You are getting the same responses to your posts because you are ignoring evidence and reposting the same critique of one single study. Please look at all of the evidence. Then, if you disagree, I would be more interested in hearing what you have to say as an experienced research scientist. Monsanto had the responsibility to show that increase IGF-1 levels did not cause any health problems after a lifetime of ingestion as part of milk. They did no such thing. Finding out whether IGF-1 from milk increases free IGF-1 levels in the body is interesting, but it is more important to find out if it has any health effects over a lifetime of use — even local effects on the intestines. > (3) IGF-1 has many biological effects. Cell culture studies have > helped us understand these effects. However, one can not talk about > the biological actions of IGF-1 in vivo without including the > IGF binding proteins in the picture. You and the experts you quote > don’t seem to include this factor in your assessments. > Without considering the IGF binding proteins (and when > looking at cell culture data that was done in the absence of serum or > the binding proteins) a person can determine the amount of FREE > unbound IGF-1 that will have a biologic action. This number will > always be very low – but then again, this is also true when > you compare free IGF-1 relative to the total amount of IGF-1 found in > the serum (most IGF-1 is bound).
I believe that it is the free, unbound IGF-1 that Cohen is referring to as having effects at nanogram levels. Please see the article on my web page (or I can email it to you) with several citations. > (4) Elevated levels of serum IGF-1 have not been shown to be a risk > factor for cancer in epidemiologic trials. If you know of a study > that shows otherwise, then you should be using it rather than the > cell culture studies. I assure you that it will carry more weight > in an arguement.
It is not up to the general public (Betty or myself) to conduct epidemiological trials measuring free IGF-1 and cancer *growth* rates. That’s up to scientists who are considering approving milk from rBGH-injected cows. As I have said repeatedly, there are a number of studies showing that free IGF-1 increases cancer growth rate. That should be enough to keep the product off of the market (preventing the wholesale experimentation on the general population) while truely independent scientists carefully resolve the issue. > As for consumers being able to get rBGH-free milk – I’m all for it. > I don’t see how it will be regulated (there is no test for rBGH > that differentiates it from natural bovine growth hormone) – it will > have to be an honor system, I suppose.
It should have been quite simple for consumers to avoid it since it should not be on the market while significant health questions still remain (or have been swept under the run by the FDA and Monsanto). A test should be developed before it is sold to the public. Best Wishes, - Mark http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html (Web articles on Food & Nutrition, Yoga, aspartame/NutraPoison, sweetener resources, stevia, toxic carpeting, rBGH, fluoride, MSG detoxification, mental health resources. Much more to come. Lots of links to medical and holistic healing sites. Will email articles if you do not have WWW access.
Response:
: Before you say such-and-such-percent of children have learning : disabilities, you have to define "normal learning ability." : 50% of children are below average, that’s for sure 
If average is defined as the mean, this may or may not be true. It depends on the distribution function. 50% are below the *median*. : — : Michael A. Covington http://www.ai.uga.edu/faculty/covington/ : Artificial Intelligence Center <>< : The University of Georgia Unless specifically indicated, I am : Athens, GA 30602-7415 U.S.A. not speaking for the University.
Response:
>>In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day >they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and >40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food >supply. >It may be even worse than this. I was talking to an educational >psychologist who said that nearly 50% of our children are mentally >below average. Condemning 50% of our children in this way is >inexcusable. I’m told that arithmetic is to blame. It’s time something >was done about this.
Not only that, but 50% of the test scores in this state are below average! And there is NOTHING that can be done about it! Callie http://www.writepage.com | All the books that are fun to read.
Response:
>(1) rBGH may indeed cause many negative effects in rat studies. >However, the doses are injected and they are higher than used >commercially.
(more deleted…) >(2) The risk due to consuming milk with higher IGF-1 levels (which >you note has been shown in milk of cows treated with rBGH) or growth >hormone levels (which you do not show but which is also probably >elevated) is unknown. (more deleted…) >(3) IGF-1 has many biological effects. (more deleted…) >(4) Elevated levels of serum IGF-1 have not been shown to be a risk >factor for cancer in epidemiologic trials (more deleted…)
I would appreciate a point by point reply rather than a long rampling one that never gets to the point. > As I said before, I’m not >interested in promoting rBGH or Monsanto, however, your arguement >is weak… >A reasonable scientist can come to the conclusion that milk from cows
treated >with rBGH is safe. >J.C. Fleet, Ph.D. >Tufts University >School of Nutrition Science and Policy
Dear James, As I see it, there is only one point to argue… Why put the stuff in my body? Do I need it? Does it benefit me? If a company makes a product that they want me to buy, it has to be a product that I NEED or WANT. rBGH doesn’t fit the bill. Thanks for trying, but I’ll pass… — Greg Parks Los Angeles
Response:
Before you say such-and-such-percent of children have learning disabilities, you have to define "normal learning ability." 50% of children are below average, that’s for sure — Michael A. Covington http://www.ai.uga.edu/faculty/covington/ Artificial Intelligence Center <>< The University of Georgia Unless specifically indicated, I am Athens, GA 30602-7415 U.S.A. not speaking for the University.
Response:
>In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day >they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and >40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food >supply.
It may be even worse than this. I was talking to an educational psychologist who said that nearly 50% of our children are mentally below average. Condemning 50% of our children in this way is inexcusable. I’m told that arithmetic is to blame. It’s time something was done about this. — Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205 "The mind reigns, but does not govern" — Paul Valery
Response:
>In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day >they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and >40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food >supply. >It’s time to start thinking about our children!
Betty, You’re a marvel. You produce these really nice, tightly argued and sane pieces of prose that have me really rootin’ for ya — and then you almost always go and throw in something right off the wall! "Between 30 and 40%" in your plaint above has all the objectivity of of Floogle’s Law. (Floogle states that 47.3% of everything is something, but further studies are needed to identify what.) And "admitted"? When did they ever claim otherwise? "This is inexcusable." Who made an excuse? And which ten percent were they making what excuse for? And "food supply"? As though there were this one pipe with a single nipple on the end. What ever happened to your plain old food? That’s what I prefer to food supply. I eat it all the time. Finally, like a whipped cream and cherry bouquet on top of this Hagen Daz explosion of nonsense, you supply us with the gloriously whacko "It’s because of the chemicals"! Of course it is. If it was the vibrations we’d have to look for you on alt.home-wiring.paranormal to read your stuff. I’mm glad you’re here with us in the nutrition department: you’re wonderful! Agents must be lining up at your door to book you for Fourths of July into the infinite future. Have you considered taking up a sideline in fluoridation for the rest of the year? If course some of something is the damn chemicals. Maybe even somebody’s learning disability, as defined by some particular diagnostic routine. Your only problems are how much of what is which, and then whose which by what? Other than that you have it nailed down exactly. :-) Best wishes, -dlj.
Response:
>: Genetically engineered products often contain genetic material from >: dissimilar plants, animals, viruses and bacteria. Eating a product >: containing even one animal gene would be repugnant to a vegetarian (or >: even a non-vegetarian!), or prohibited by those with religious >: guidelines about the way they eat.
If cultists choose to make up their own whacko guidleines, I don’t think there’s anything the rest of us can do about it. Just for the record, the Orthodox Rabbinate (which produces some of the best food technologists around) has ruled on the kashrut of genetically altered tomatoes, which are part pig: they’re kosher. -dlj.
Response:
So that those who are interested in this controversy will have more facts here is part of a letter to Dr. Christine Gilbert of SCIENCE on July 15, 1995. Robert Cohen filed a petition with the FDA to revoke its use and recently filed suit against the FDA for their refusal under Freedom of Information to release information as per article. Robert Cohen’s number for those who wish more information – 201 -599-0325. Dr. Christine Gilbert SCIENCE 1333 H Street Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Doctor Gilbert: Quite often when bad news is received, the recipient attacks the messenger and ignores the message. I have requested that SCIENCE address the issue of "PEER REVIEW" and request that MONSANTO release reference #42 of the Juskevich and Guyer paper published 8/24/90 in your journal. Your response did not address this request. Why not? I reject your "unsigned" analyses of my technical comment. I will not allow myself to be degraded in this FRAUD the way Dr. Sam Epstein was. I will debate any scientist on any of the issues contained in my comment. This controversy does not end with your denial. ..This one example is just a small part of the data manipulation and fraud which was perpetrated on the entire scientific community. SCIENCE was duped, and played for a fool. In the conclusion part of the Juskevich and Guyer article the authors state: "…90% of BGH in milk is destroyed upon pasteurization." Even those activists familiar with this controversy do not dispute this "FACT." Dr. David Kessler, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) director relied upon the reference when testifying before Congress. Dr. Stephen Sundlof, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and Michael Taylor who is now an Under Secretary at the Department of Agriculture both testified that no further toxicology studies were required for BST because most of it was destroyed by pasteurization. The authors felt justified in making that conclusion (on page 878) by citing reference #47, which is Moore, Journal of Endocrinology, 122,2920 (1988). Moore never researched this, nor said any such thing. Perhaps Juskevich and Guyer were referring to Groenewegen, reference 49. Let’s examine how one fraud leads to another. Groenewegen, on page 519 of his publication, Journal of Nutrition, 120,514 (1990) says: "..heat treatment (Pasteurization) effectively reduced the immunoreactive qualities of BST in milk." There are methods in this madness but something is rotten in Denmark) Let us examine Groenewegen’s methods. On page 515 Groenewegen explains that there are three different METHODS for pasteurizing milk. 1) 63 degrees Centigrade (145 degrees Fahrenheit) for 30 minutes. 2) 72 degrees Centigrade (161 degrees Fahrenheit) for 15 seconds. 3) 89 degrees Centigrade (192 degrees Fahrenheit) for 1 second. ..He combined the 30 minute method with the 15 second temperature! (He used 71 degrees Centigrade or 160 degrees Fahrenheit.) Groenewegen would have expected BST to be degraded by such high temperature and duration. Here’s what actually happened. Table #3 on page 517 reveals the concentrations of BST in normal milk and rBST treated milk, before and after pasteurization. (‘The best laid plans of rats and men, often defeated by Centigrade.") Nanograms/liter control milk before pasteurization 3300 BST-treated milk before pasteurization 4200 control milk after pasteurization 2700 BST-treated milk after pasteurization 3400 HERE’S THE FACTS.. After pasteurization BST in normal milk decreased 18.10% After pasteurization BST in BST treated milk decreased 19.05% The "scientific community" believes that 90% of BST in milk is destroyed by pasteurization. FDA and Monsanto relied upon this evidence to gain approval for rBST. UNTIL YOU DEMAND THAT MONSANTO AND FDA RELEASE REFERENCE #42 FOR REVIEW, I WILL HAVE NO RESPECT FOR YOUR JOURNAL. Signed Robert Cohen CC: Monica Bradford, Rita Colwell, Letters to Editors, Scientists, activists, etc. It should be noted that Robert Cohen talked to Groenewegen who is a graduate student. He knew about flaws in his studies and was outraged that these studies were used in the approval of BST. People we don’t want another horror like NutraSweet now in 5000 products with an expired patent. As people are constantly warned throughout the world by our warning flyer, and return to normal health after removal of this chemical poison, we are realizing the magnitude of this worldwide epidemic. We are realizing how many different neurological diseases and symptoms have been triggered by this poison and records are being accurately kept. Some people were not warned in time and perished. This, too, a Monsanto poison. They are powerful because they have the billions they made selling us poisons. They fund trade organizations, Congress and powerful people. In the NutraSweet issue the people themselves had to rise up and hundreds of thousands start distributing warning flyers the world over. Robert Cohen started researching because he was concerned about his own children drinking milk. He was horrified as he called scientists around the world and more and more information unraveled. He could have stopped here when he took his family off rBGH dairy products and only let his kids use dried milk. But he was concerned about your children too. He has funded this effort out of his own pocket and filed suit against the FDA for their refusal to release information under Freedom of Information. In talking to the National Academy of Child Development the other day they admitted that learning disabilities in children are between 30 and 40%. This is inexcusable. Its because of the chemicals put in our food supply. It’s time to start thinking about our children! Regards, Betty The subject line must be typed exactly like the above line. Betty Martini 1. Take the 60-day No-Aspartame test Mission Possible and send us your case history. PO Box 28098 2. Tell your doctor and your friends. Atlanta GA 30358 3. Return Aspar-Poisoned foods to the store. USA (Nutrasweet(tm), Equal(tm), Spoonful(tm), etc) We are dedicated to the proposition that we will not be satisfied until death and disability are no longer considered an acceptable cost of business.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Simon) writes: > Do we hear him pointing > out that there is IGF-1 in mother’s milk? That you can cut your IGF-1 > intake far more by not drinking milk at all, than by buying milk from > cows not treated with rBGH? So why aren’t we upset about drinking milk > rather than water in the first place, if IGF-1 may be so awful? Why > aren’t we hearing this? After all, it’s not as though milk IGF-1 > levels increase by 1000%– they only increase 50%. Which is as much as > you’d get by drinking 50% more regular milk at a sitting… >Some of us do recommend drinking water instead of milk, for lots of >reasons. >– >http://ra.stsci.edu/bps/top.html Use aspartame, get brain cancer.
Yeah, Bernie? How come none of the reasons given by the alternatives are that you might promote cancer? (Babies get cancer too, do they not?) And why is nobody upset about milk as they are with rBGH, if they both contain IGF-1 in amounts that are comparable (that is, you can easily get as much IGF-1 by drinking a little more ("rBGH-free" milk, as you could by drinking rBGH milk). Methinks I smell quite a lot of hypocrisy here. There is the story of the new England farmer who gets a knock on his door, and finds his new neighbor, asking to borrow his axe. "I can’t let you have the axe," says the farmer, "for I’m boiling water." "What does boiling water have to do with an axe?" asks the neighbor in confusion. "Well, if I don’t WANT to let you have the axe, one reason’s as good as another." Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
: >Newsgroups: rec.food.veg, misc.health.alternative, sci.med, : > sci.med.nutrition, alt.folklore, herbs Here is the simple solution. DON’T BUY MILK OR DAIRY PRODUCTS. The farmers will get the message real quick. Increased supply due to use of rBGH amd reduced demand= lower prices. I stopped buying milk about a year ago. I now use soy or rice milk, and the children like it just fine. No colds or flu so far this winter either! We do buy organic yogurt and cheese sometimes though, and the local health food store has just started carrying organic whole milk. I won’t pay $5.00 a gallon for it though.
Response:
Do we hear him pointing out that there is IGF-1 in mother’s milk? That you can cut your IGF-1 intake far more by not drinking milk at all, than by buying milk from cows not treated with rBGH? So why aren’t we upset about drinking milk rather than water in the first place, if IGF-1 may be so awful? Why aren’t we hearing this? After all, it’s not as though milk IGF-1 levels increase by 1000%– they only increase 50%. Which is as much as you’d get by drinking 50% more regular milk at a sitting… Some of us do recommend drinking water instead of milk, for lots of reasons. — http://ra.stsci.edu/bps/top.html Use aspartame, get brain cancer.
Response:
>There’s more than that cell culture experiment showing the IGF-1 plays >an important role in regulating cancer growth (at nanogram levels). I >already directed you to Robert Cohen’s article on my web page for more >references.
How about reposting a few here? I’d particularly like to see the evidence that drinking milk with a little more IGF-1 in it raises your serum levels enough for any test to show it. Do all of those references prove beyond a shawdow of a doubt >that added IGF-1 will increase the speed of cancer growth (including >undiagnosed cancers that *many* people have)? Of course not. But the >evidence is reasonably strong and, once again, it is important to note >that it is Monsanto’s responsibility to demonstrate that slight increases >in IGF-1 levels will not increase the speed of cancer growth in
people. No, no, this is stupid. Plain exercise raises growth hormone levels and also IGF-1 levels. Do we hear Mr. Cohen wringing his hands about whether exercise promotes cancer? Do we hear him screaming that doctors should have tested exercise with a randomized study over 40 years before recommending it to people? No. Do we hear him pointing out that there is IGF-1 in mother’s milk? That you can cut your IGF-1 intake far more by not drinking milk at all, than by buying milk from cows not treated with rBGH? So why aren’t we upset about drinking milk rather than water in the first place, if IGF-1 may be so awful? Why aren’t we hearing this? After all, it’s not as though milk IGF-1 levels increase by 1000%– they only increase 50%. Which is as much as you’d get by drinking 50% more regular milk at a sitting… Duh. Steve Harris, M.D. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->the use of rBGH is a very dangerous >experiment with possible dissasterous consequences down the road. >I have addressed what I perceive to be your misuse of research data >in previous posts. I don’t do this just to be difficult (nor do I >have anything personal to gain from appearing to defend Monsanto), >but because I honestly think that your hypothesis is invalid. >If you can answer the above two questions, I can assure you that >your arguement will be stronger. If not, I encourage you to (1) look >for this data in the scientific literature, and (2) lobby to >have Monsanto (or someone else) do the research. >The experts like Robert Cohen and that cancer researcher can probably >make stronger scientific arguments, but it is unlikely that they can >prove beyond a shawdow of a doubt that lifetime use of milk from >rBGH-treated cows will increase the cancer death rate. This would be a >very difficult experiment to design for humans. If it was an animal >experiment, we would once again be left with only clues as to what might >happen in humans. Until we know alot more about cancer, the rBGH >approval amounts to dangerous recklessness on the part of the FDA with >possible disasterous consequences. If experiments were conducted, it >would be crucial that they be conducted by truely independent researchers. >Of course, there are other issues such as serious animal health problems, >antibiotic use increases, etc. rBGH seems like a bad idea for a number >of reasons. See my web page for information about rBGH as well as a list >of vendors who state that they do not use milk made from rBGH cows. >Best Wishes, > – Mark > http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html > (Web articles on Food & Nutrition, Yoga, aspartame/NutraPoison, > sweetener resources, stevia, toxic carpeting, rBGH, fluoride > detoxification, mental health resources. Much more to come. > Lots of links to medical and holistic healing sites. > Will email articles if you do not have WWW access.