Cheese Endemitriosis and sperm counts

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

No worries. The main thing I'd say about global non-GMO varieties (like what you'll find on their site) is to really research the growing conditions & expected results for each one you want to get. I try to focus on highly productive varieties and easy to grow varieties, because some varieties look and sound great, but need large amounts of work, aren't productive at all, and/or simply taste bad.

Some of the commonly overlooked strengths of GMO crops is that they're generally very productive and very durable (both the vegetation and the fruit/veggie/crop).

a reply to: anonentity

Let's analyze the evidence he used: first study, at 1:10 minutes is not recent but from 17 years ago. And the conclusion says it supports the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. Keywords here: calcium (not just milk or milk products), lower concentrations of Dyhidro D3 hormone and prostate (not cancer in general as you have said and as in the title of the video). To summarise: an old study that shows a high calcium intake may (I stress may) lower a hormone that protects against prostate cancer. It does not show that 'milk causes cancer'.

He is a hypocrite showing that study as evidence, as plant based drinks (soy milk, almond milk, etc) are also fortified with calcium which is what causes lower levels of Dydhidro D3 which increases the risk of prostate cancer!

Second study he published is based on studies done between 1983 and 2003, once again outdated and once again only about prostate cancer. And so on.

Then he talks about estrogens in milk but, besides sensationalizing the study, he doesn't explain that estrogen in milk is extensively inactivated in the gastrointestinal tract and that less than 5% of all the estrogen we consume reaches the liver.




Allow me now to post recent evidence , a meta-analysis of ALL the studies on milk and dairy products, yes, all the studies ever done. The conclusion:

The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent.

Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence

a reply to: Agartha


You can quote all the Data all the studies that prove concussively that Dairy is good or its bad. But it can be said with certain fact that milk is essentially liquid meat, and if it goes over ten per cent of the average diet, then nasty things start happening to the human body. It was designed for Cows not humans.
With regards to your studies, if Milk is removed from the general society, the health improves, for that look up Denmark during the second world war. the drop in heart disease was immediate from the time the Cows were heading for Germany. Then we have Japan when dairy was introduced by the Americans after the War, female mensuration rates went down from sixteen to twelve. Quoting Dairy board paid for studies does not change that fact.

a reply to: anonentity

There's a massive problem with your Denmark and Japan examples. Assuming you're correct, can you prove that dairy consumption was the only thing that changed in those 2 countries? For all we know, Japanese female menstruation rates may have declined there because of PTSD from the war, because of the effects of the nuclear fallout from our nukes, or from any number of other changes there.

Also, where are you getting the idea that the US introduced dairy to Japan after WW2? LOL You might want to check out the history of beef & dairy consumption in Japan before continuing with those claims.

Here's a long article about the history and types of beef consumption in Japan (here), which includes the following:

Buddhism also discouraged the eating of meat. In A.D. 675, Emperor Temmu prohibited people from eating the meat of horses, monkeys, dogs, chickens and cows. The Temple of the Butchered Cow in Shimoda was erected shortly after Japan opened it doors to West. It honors the first cow slaughtered in Japan and the first violation of the Buddhist tenant against eating meat.

For a long time meat was sold only in back alley restaurants and shops by people described by one source as “disagreeable ruffians...who liked to brag that they had eaten meat." Meat only became widely embraced in 1872 when “it was publically announced that Emperor Meiji partook of beef and mutton on a regular basis."

And here's another article about the history of dairy consumption in Japan (here), which includes the following:

Anyway, in line with the encouragement of meat consumption, the Meiji government also established several national dairies to produce milk and cheese. Again to encourage the masses of the sanctity of this new diet, it was announced that the emperor enjoyed drinking milk twice a day. Significantly, milk and cheese and meat were the culinary and nutritional element of bunmeikaika- the civilization and enlightenment of the new Japan on a culinary level. So it was that the Japanese government itself introduced dairy into the Japanese diet. These dairies were established in Hokkaido in the 8th year Meiji year which is about 1876. Private companies were eventually established and some of them are still around today including Yukijiroshi and Meiji. They made processed cheeses. Ice cream was popular as well.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Have a look at this, its fairly straightforward, especially if you live in the USA , and like to drink milk. notmilk.com...
rBGH has been in use since the eighties it makes Cows produce 25% more milk, all the studies on its safety were done by interested parties to get it on the market. It's banned in many countries, but its still in normal milk anyway its what gets a Calf into a two ton animal in eighteen months, just the same hormone as humans produce to grow. Its made by Monsanto, but is it ethical, to do this to an animal?, the teats then get mastitis and then have to be injected with antibiotics, the farmers use an antibiotic which does not show up when the milk goes to get tested. Must be a nod nod wink job, because most of the milk would be rejected anyway, if the antibiotic was on the watch list.
A mate of mine worked in a Dairy factory , because of all the mechanization, he said a lot of mineral oil and other # gets into the milk anyway , the fats absorb it. Milk has always been dicey, but for some reason its always been drunk, until the Pasteurization it was a great spreader of TB.Even if it had gone off they would put a chemical in it to stop the rotten smell.

a reply to: anonentity

So you're just going to ignore the fact that beef and cow milk have been widely consumed in Japan for roughly 70 years before your claim, which implies that any alleged post-war decreases in menstruation rates isn't because of milk?

Because now you're fast forwarding to 35+ years after the end of WW2 by talking about rBGH, which gives the impression that you're just throwing things against the proverbial wall to see if something sticks.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Dairy like in China was their no doubt , mainly consumed by the rich. Widespread use became the norm after the American occupation.

originally posted by: anonentity
With regards to your studies, if Milk is removed from the general society, the health improves

If you go back in history you'll see that our European ancestors that had developed a mutation that allowed them to digest milk in adulthood were healthier, stronger and had more children than those who couldn't. Hence the presence of the mutation increased: -- LINK --

But please, do explain why in countries where milk/dairy ingestion is lower -such as China and Japan- the incidence of hip fracture is 150% higher than Europeans? -- Link 2, Ethnic differences in bone health --

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: anonentity

There's a massive problem with your Denmark and Japan examples. Assuming you're correct, can you prove that dairy consumption was the only thing that changed in those 2 countries?

Exactly! What Anon is ignoring is that during war time cigarettes were harder to come by and people were smoking less, also there was a sugar rationing and its consumption halved. We also need to remember that more people were dying of infectious diseases, such as pneumonia, thus distorting the results of any study done on that particular timeline.

a reply to: Agartha


Cigarettes were given out to the troops in WW11 because , they were a great stress reliever. Stress kills many these days. But along with everything else now days the "give up smoking cure all". Is also flawed with pseudo science. Sure moderate smoking as with moderation in all things isn't the bogey man. Its when Dairy becomes more than fifty per cent of the diet, Or sugar being more than a once a week treat in a candy. Or consuming three packets of cigarettes a day, is when things become problematical. Each person has individual tolerances to the modern poisons, the air quality in London is the equivalent of smoking forty untipped cigarettes a day. That's even if you don't smoke. So demonizing the poor smoker wont do a thing to reduce lung cancer. But what it will do is cause , a moderate smoker to eat more , since they are no longer taking an appetite suppressant. If you believe consuming another animals milk is common sense, and will have no health consequences. Then its your decision anyway, It all comes down to individual choice but lets at least be able to make informed decisions.

a reply to: anonentity

Ahem.

You said the following 2 days ago:

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Agartha

But it can be said with certain fact that milk is essentially liquid meat, and if it goes over ten per cent of the average diet, then nasty things start happening to the human body.

But now you're saying this:

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Agartha

Its when Dairy becomes more than fifty per cent of the diet, Or sugar being more than a once a week treat in a candy. Or consuming three packets of cigarettes a day, is when things become problematical.

It's great that you want people to be informed about potential health risks from dietary choices. I personally try to avoid or reduce my intake of a lot of the additives, herbicides, and other chemicals that are added to foods for this very reason. I also don't consume prescription or recreational drugs for the same reason. It even takes a lot for me to concede & use over-the-counter medicines for allergies, headaches, etc simply because I like to keep my body clean. And I've been a vegetarian for more than 7 years now, partially because I wanted to lower my risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, and a bunch of other health ailments (there were other spiritual reasons too, though). So it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from.

However, I think you're losing your way on this. You're presenting your opinions as if they're facts and then just throwing out seemingly random stats (with no proof) to back up those opinions. The conflicting messages are making it hard to take this seriously.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


I disagree because of a fundamental choice with regards to deciding what is a fact. In the previous dialogue I have given information from reputable sources claiming Dairy is bad, and you have done the same from a different viewpoint. .Two different points of view with regards to this matter is factual heresy,although Dairy to a staving man is good. because if its the only food choice without it they will starve. So Dairy is good. If a mother cant give a baby breast milk, Dairy is a substitute.
When a source comes up like a reputable independent University study, that shows Hormone imbalances in people that consume Cows Milk. It's immediately countered by an equally reputable source which says its good for you. Take this for instance from a PHD who works for the department of agriculture, it cures everything, but he would say that wouldn't he? www.webmd.com... In my opinion its to late to do anything , because the amount of runoff from the excessive Dairy farms are causing some strange things like androgyny in the fish and wild life . If you are a vegetarian then you have crossed it off your dietary list for a reason.
Cheese takes ten liters of milk to make one kilo of cheese, so theirs ten times the level of hormone residue in it than straight milk.

a reply to: anonentity

For the record, I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. I still eat animal products like dairy & unfertilized eggs.