Vegetarian Discussion: Fertilizing Your Cancer Cells

Fertilizing Your Cancer Cells
Posts: 60

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

B*@hotmail.com
2005-10-26 13:34:27 EST
From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:21 pm
Subject: Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Cancer




Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Existing Cancers

There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
nature, and only one hormone that is identical between
two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
growth factor, or IGF-I. When consumed in cow's milk and
other dairy products, IGF-I survives digestion. IGF-I has
been identified as a key factor in the growth of every
human cancer.

An important clue in the cancer equation was published in
the August, 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 2, 447-452.

Blood serum levels of IGF-I were measured in Danish children
at the Department of Human Nutrition and the Centre for
Advanced Food Studies, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural
University, Frederiksberg, Denmark, and the Department of
Growth and Reproduction, Copenhagen.

Researchers had previously noted that intake of milk
protein is associated with "greater velocity of linear
growth in childhood." The objective of this study was
to "examine associations between protein intake, serum
insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) concentrations,
and height in healthy children."

Data led the scientists to conclude:

"Milk intake was positively associated with IGF-I
concentrations and height. An increase in milk intake
from 200 to 600 mL/d corresponded to a 30% increase in
circulating IGF-I."

So...the scientists focused entirely upon growth, but
ignored a second and even more importent avenue of
scientific investigation. Hundreds of studies in the
scientific literature have previously established
that IGF-I is a key factor in the proliferation and
growth of every human cancer. See:

http://www.notmilk.com/b.html
http://www.notmilk.com/g.html

Thousands of chemicals and events have been suspected or
identified as being carcinogenic agents. Dioxins. X-rays.
Cigarette smoking. Microwave transmissions. Once you get
cancer, one powerful internally secreted protein growth
hormone can help an existing cancer to grow out of control,
IGF-I.

This powerful growth factor is the only hormone in all
of nature that is identical between two species. The
odds of a perfect match of one hormone's structure
shared by two species is astronomical. Yet, human and
bovine IGF-I are identical. Humans manufacture IGF-I in
their bodies. They drink it in cow's milk. They eat it
in cheese and ice cream.

The consumption of milk and dairy products resulted in
an increase of IGF-I levels by a factor of 30%.

Should not every parent be advised of the danger of
ingesting cow IGF-I for his or her children? Should
every child be equally concerned for parents and
grandparents?

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com


U*@montana.edu
2005-10-27 13:40:36 EST

b*k@hotmail.com reproduced Robert Cohen's lies:
> From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
> Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:21 pm
> Subject: Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Cancer

> There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
> nature, and only one hormone that is identical between
> two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
> growth factor, or IGF-I.

No, Ron. Cohen is lying. To prove it beyond any doubt, run the human
insulin (not IGF-1) A chain:

mgiveqcctsicslyqlenycn

... and B chain:

mfvnqhlcgshlvealylvcgergffytpkt

sequences against the database using BLAST:

http://tinyurl.com/43dua

Aren't they identical with dog insulin, Ron? Gorilla? Chimp?

And what about all the hormones that aren't peptides, Ron? Isn't
epinephrine identical between ALL species?

Are you really that stupid, Ron?


> This powerful growth factor is the only hormone in all
> of nature that is identical between two species. The
> odds of a perfect match of one hormone's structure
> shared by two species is astronomical. Yet, human and
> bovine IGF-I are identical.

Yet, Cohen is lying and you are too dense to see it. Human and bovine
epinephrine are identical. Human and canine insulin are identical.

Does repeating a lie make it true, Ron?


Phil McCavity
2005-10-28 08:13:39 EST
u*m@montana.edu wrote:
> banmilk@hotmail.com reproduced Robert Cohen's lies:
>> From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
>> Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:21 pm
>> Subject: Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Cancer
>
>> There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
>> nature, and only one hormone that is identical between
>> two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
>> growth factor, or IGF-I.
>
> No, Ron. Cohen is lying. To prove it beyond any doubt, run the human
> insulin (not IGF-1) A chain:
>
> mgiveqcctsicslyqlenycn
>
> ... and B chain:
>
> mfvnqhlcgshlvealylvcgergffytpkt
>
> sequences against the database using BLAST:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/43dua
>
> Aren't they identical with dog insulin, Ron? Gorilla? Chimp?
>
> And what about all the hormones that aren't peptides, Ron? Isn't
> epinephrine identical between ALL species?

Excuse my ignorance. I looked at the site, and didn't understand much at
all! You seem to know a lot me than me on the science of this subject.

Me being a simple soul, can you answer the following with a yes or no?

Is IGF-1 the same in cows as humans?

Are you saying there are other hormone matches between humans and other
species?

>
> Are you really that stupid, Ron?
>
>
>> This powerful growth factor is the only hormone in all
>> of nature that is identical between two species. The
>> odds of a perfect match of one hormone's structure
>> shared by two species is astronomical. Yet, human and
>> bovine IGF-I are identical.
>
> Yet, Cohen is lying and you are too dense to see it. Human and bovine
> epinephrine are identical. Human and canine insulin are identical.
>
> Does repeating a lie make it true, Ron?

Putting this aside for a moment, do you think that:

Milk consumption increases IGF-1 in humans?

An increased IGF-1 level increases the risk of cancer?

Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
produce)?

Thanks.


>

U*@montana.edu
2005-10-29 16:00:01 EST

Phil McCavity wrote:
> umbjm@montana.edu wrote:
> > banmilk@hotmail.com reproduced Robert Cohen's lies:
> >> From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
> >> Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:21 pm
> >> Subject: Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Cancer
> >
> >> There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
> >> nature, and only one hormone that is identical between
> >> two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
> >> growth factor, or IGF-I.
> >
> > No, Ron. Cohen is lying. To prove it beyond any doubt, run the human
> > insulin (not IGF-1) A chain:
> >
> > mgiveqcctsicslyqlenycn
> >
> > ... and B chain:
> >
> > mfvnqhlcgshlvealylvcgergffytpkt
> >
> > sequences against the database using BLAST:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/43dua
> >
> > Aren't they identical with dog insulin, Ron? Gorilla? Chimp?
> >
> > And what about all the hormones that aren't peptides, Ron? Isn't
> > epinephrine identical between ALL species?
>
> Excuse my ignorance. I looked at the site, and didn't understand much at
> all!

Maybe you should review what I wrote, Phil. I suggested *running* the
sequences against the database. Merely looking at the BLAST Web page
won't help you to understand that Cohen is lying, and that Ron
regurgitates those lies. It requires active engagement. There's plenty
of help information linked from the page.

> You seem to know a lot me than me on the science of this subject.

Count on it.
>
> Me being a simple soul, can you answer the following with a yes or no?
>
> Is IGF-1 the same in cows as humans?

Yes. As a simple soul, can you explain to me why you assumed that this
fact would be biologically relevant?

Hasn't bovine insulin kept millions of diabetics alive, despite not
being identical in cows and humans?

Don't human transgenes rescue mouse mutants all the time, despite
sequence differences?

> Are you saying there are other hormone matches between humans and other
> species?

Why, yes! How observant of you. Cohen is not only lying, but even if he
wasn't, his point would be irrelevant.

> > Are you really that stupid, Ron?

With Ron, that's a rhetorical question. So are you, Phil?

> >> This powerful growth factor is the only hormone in all
> >> of nature that is identical between two species. The
> >> odds of a perfect match of one hormone's structure
> >> shared by two species is astronomical. Yet, human and
> >> bovine IGF-I are identical.
> >
> > Yet, Cohen is lying and you are too dense to see it. Human and bovine
> > epinephrine are identical. Human and canine insulin are identical.
> >
> > Does repeating a lie make it true, Ron?
>
> Putting this aside for a moment,

Pardon me? Why should we put Cohen's dishonesty and ignorance aside,
Phil?

>... do you think that:
>
> Milk consumption increases IGF-1 in humans?

Bad question.

FOOD consumption increases plasma IGF-1 in humans. It's a marker for
nutritional status.

Are you ignorant enough to think that IGF-1 is some sort of poison,
Phil? What happens when humans or mice are incapable of synthesizing
sufficient IGF-1?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=147440

If you lack the intellectual stamina to read this review instead of
merely looking at it, skip down to the section titled "Molecular
Genetics" for a hint:

"In a patient with severe prenatal and postnatal growth failure,
sensorineural deafness, and mental retardation associated with IGF1
deficiency (608747), Woods et al. (1996) identified homozygosity for a
partial deletion of the IGF1 gene."

And as a final exercise to demonstrate the idiocy of Cohen's argument,
you should calculate the ratio of IGF-1 in, say, 3 liters of milk from
BGH-treated cows to that produced by your very own body in a single
day. Note that you can even make the laughably false assumptions that
all of the IGF-1 escapes digestion and is absorbed into the
bloodstream.

Can you think independently for a sufficient period of time to acquire
the information and do the calculation, Phil?

> An increased IGF-1 level increases the risk of cancer?

Nope. Do you?

I know that some cancers produce their own IGF-1, and this would
obviously produce an association between plasma IGF-1 concentrations
and cancer. Did you?

Did you know that for a host of reasons including this one, correlation
is not logically equivalent to causation?

Did you know that cancer, defined in a single sentence, is the
progressive genetic LOSS of responsiveness to growth factors including
IGF-1? IOW, for the most aggressive tumors, the presence of IGF-1 makes
no difference at all.

> Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
> humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
> produce)?

Nope.

Try thinking for just a minute. If you believed that, and were gullible
enough to think that the 100% sequence identity between human and
bovine IGF-1 was biologically significant, mustn't you also necessarily
conclude that breastfeeding increases the risk of humans getting
cancer?

You do realize that human milk contains IGF-1, don't you?
>
> Thanks.

You're welcome. I look forward to some evidence of independent thought
in your response.


Dave
2005-10-29 19:22:13 EST

u*m@montana.edu wrote:
> Phil McCavity wrote:
> > umbjm@montana.edu wrote:
> > > banmilk@hotmail.com reproduced Robert Cohen's lies:
> > >> From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
> > >> Date: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:21 pm
> > >> Subject: Milk Proteins are Rocket Fuel for Cancer
> > >
> > >> There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
> > >> nature, and only one hormone that is identical between
> > >> two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
> > >> growth factor, or IGF-I.
> > >
> > > No, Ron. Cohen is lying. To prove it beyond any doubt, run the human
> > > insulin (not IGF-1) A chain:
> > >
> > > mgiveqcctsicslyqlenycn
> > >
> > > ... and B chain:
> > >
> > > mfvnqhlcgshlvealylvcgergffytpkt
> > >
> > > sequences against the database using BLAST:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/43dua
> > >
> > > Aren't they identical with dog insulin, Ron? Gorilla? Chimp?
> > >
> > > And what about all the hormones that aren't peptides, Ron? Isn't
> > > epinephrine identical between ALL species?
> >
> > Excuse my ignorance. I looked at the site, and didn't understand much at
> > all!
>
> Maybe you should review what I wrote, Phil. I suggested *running* the
> sequences against the database. Merely looking at the BLAST Web page
> won't help you to understand that Cohen is lying, and that Ron
> regurgitates those lies. It requires active engagement. There's plenty
> of help information linked from the page.
>
> > You seem to know a lot me than me on the science of this subject.
>
> Count on it.
> >
> > Me being a simple soul, can you answer the following with a yes or no?
> >
> > Is IGF-1 the same in cows as humans?
>
> Yes. As a simple soul, can you explain to me why you assumed that this
> fact would be biologically relevant?
>
> Hasn't bovine insulin kept millions of diabetics alive, despite not
> being identical in cows and humans?
>
> Don't human transgenes rescue mouse mutants all the time, despite
> sequence differences?
>
> > Are you saying there are other hormone matches between humans and other
> > species?
>
> Why, yes! How observant of you. Cohen is not only lying, but even if he
> wasn't, his point would be irrelevant.
>
> > > Are you really that stupid, Ron?
>
> With Ron, that's a rhetorical question. So are you, Phil?
>
> > >> This powerful growth factor is the only hormone in all
> > >> of nature that is identical between two species. The
> > >> odds of a perfect match of one hormone's structure
> > >> shared by two species is astronomical. Yet, human and
> > >> bovine IGF-I are identical.
> > >
> > > Yet, Cohen is lying and you are too dense to see it. Human and bovine
> > > epinephrine are identical. Human and canine insulin are identical.
> > >
> > > Does repeating a lie make it true, Ron?
> >
> > Putting this aside for a moment,
>
> Pardon me? Why should we put Cohen's dishonesty and ignorance aside,
> Phil?
>
> >... do you think that:
> >
> > Milk consumption increases IGF-1 in humans?
>
> Bad question.
>
> FOOD consumption increases plasma IGF-1 in humans. It's a marker for
> nutritional status.
>
> Are you ignorant enough to think that IGF-1 is some sort of poison,
> Phil? What happens when humans or mice are incapable of synthesizing
> sufficient IGF-1?
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=147440
>
> If you lack the intellectual stamina to read this review instead of
> merely looking at it, skip down to the section titled "Molecular
> Genetics" for a hint:
>
> "In a patient with severe prenatal and postnatal growth failure,
> sensorineural deafness, and mental retardation associated with IGF1
> deficiency (608747), Woods et al. (1996) identified homozygosity for a
> partial deletion of the IGF1 gene."
>
> And as a final exercise to demonstrate the idiocy of Cohen's argument,
> you should calculate the ratio of IGF-1 in, say, 3 liters of milk from
> BGH-treated cows to that produced by your very own body in a single
> day. Note that you can even make the laughably false assumptions that
> all of the IGF-1 escapes digestion and is absorbed into the
> bloodstream.
>
> Can you think independently for a sufficient period of time to acquire
> the information and do the calculation, Phil?
>
> > An increased IGF-1 level increases the risk of cancer?
>
> Nope. Do you?
>
> I know that some cancers produce their own IGF-1, and this would
> obviously produce an association between plasma IGF-1 concentrations
> and cancer. Did you?
>
> Did you know that for a host of reasons including this one, correlation
> is not logically equivalent to causation?
>
> Did you know that cancer, defined in a single sentence, is the
> progressive genetic LOSS of responsiveness to growth factors including
> IGF-1? IOW, for the most aggressive tumors, the presence of IGF-1 makes
> no difference at all.
>
> > Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
> > humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
> > produce)?
>
> Nope.

AIUI Consumption of milk has been positively correlated with prostate
cancer. Not sure what effect it has on other cancers.
>
> Try thinking for just a minute. If you believed that, and were gullible
> enough to think that the 100% sequence identity between human and
> bovine IGF-1 was biologically significant, mustn't you also necessarily
> conclude that breastfeeding increases the risk of humans getting
> cancer?

Yes but a lack of a link between IGF-1 and cancer does not
mean a lack of a link between cow's milk and cancer.

> You do realize that human milk contains IGF-1, don't you?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> You're welcome. I look forward to some evidence of independent thought
> in your response.


Phil McCavity
2005-10-30 05:43:01 EST
u*m@montana.edu wrote:
snip
>
> You're welcome. I look forward to some evidence of independent thought
> in your response.

How about I think you're an arrogant fucking arsehole?


>

Phil McCavity
2005-10-30 08:46:43 EST
u*m@montana.edu wrote:
snip the crap.
>
>> Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
>> humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
>> produce)?
>
> Nope.

Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?

===============================
Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish
Mammography Cohort. AJCN Vol. 80, No. 5, 1353-1357, November 2004:

Our data indicate that high intakes of lactose and dairy products,
particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous
ovarian cancer.

Women who consumed >1 glass of milk/d had double the risk of serous
ovarian cancer compared with women who never or seldom drank milk.

===============================

Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians'
Health Study. AJCN Oct 2001; 74: 549 - 554:


Men in the highest categories of dairy product and calcium intakes had a
statistically significant ~30% greater risk of prostate cancer than did
those in the lowest consumption categories. We observed significant,
positive linear trends for both dairy product and calcium intakes. Each
additional 500 mg Ca from dairy products consumed per day corresponded
to a 16% increase in risk of prostate cancer.

===============================

Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer: meta-analysis of
case-control studies. Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(1):22-7

A meta-analysis method was conducted to estimate the combined odds ratio
(OR) between milk consumption and prostate cancer from case-control
studies published between 1984 and 2003 using commercial software
(comprehensive meta-analysis). The combined OR was 1.68 (95% confidence
interval = 1.34-2.12) in the 11 published case-control studies. The
combined OR varied little by study stratification. Additionally, we
evaluated the possible risk factors in milk for prostate cancer. In
conclusion, we found a positive association between milk consumption and
prostate cancer.

===============================

You seem to know more about less and less, and becoming overtly arrogant
with it. - A sign of a very small mind.


Dutch
2005-10-30 19:36:58 EST

"Phil McCavity" <philmccavity@mailinator.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3sk150Fokme3U1@individual.net...
> umbjm@montana.edu wrote:
> snip the crap.
>>
>>> Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
>>> humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
>>> produce)?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?
>
> ===============================
> Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish
> Mammography Cohort. AJCN Vol. 80, No. 5, 1353-1357, November 2004:
>
> Our data indicate that high intakes of lactose and dairy products,
> particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian
> cancer.
>
> Women who consumed >1 glass of milk/d had double the risk of serous
> ovarian cancer compared with women who never or seldom drank milk.
>
> ===============================

Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15531686&dopt=Citation
RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, women who consumed >/=4
servings of total dairy products/d had a risk of serous ovarian cancer (rate
ratio: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.06) twice that of women who
consumed <2 servings/d. No significant association was found for other
subtypes of ovarian cancer.

According to the data, increased risk of serious ovarian cancer was
associated with four or more glasses of milk per day compared with one or
less. No increased risk was shown with one, two or three glasses of milk per
day, and no increased risk at all was found with any other form of ovarian
cancer. Therefore he was correct in stating that no increase in risk exists
if you "assume an average consumption of milk and dairy".







Phil McCavity
2005-10-31 13:52:59 EST
Dutch wrote:
> "Phil McCavity" <philmccavity@mailinator.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3sk150Fokme3U1@individual.net...
>> umbjm@montana.edu wrote:
>> snip the crap.
>>>> Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk of
>>>> humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
>>>> produce)?
>>> Nope.
>> Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?
>>
>> ===============================
>> Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish
>> Mammography Cohort. AJCN Vol. 80, No. 5, 1353-1357, November 2004:
>>
>> Our data indicate that high intakes of lactose and dairy products,
>> particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian
>> cancer.
>>
>> Women who consumed >1 glass of milk/d had double the risk of serous
>> ovarian cancer compared with women who never or seldom drank milk.
>>
>> ===============================
>
> Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15531686&dopt=Citation
> RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, women who consumed >/=4
> servings of total dairy products/d had a risk of serous ovarian cancer (rate
> ratio: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.06) twice that of women who
> consumed <2 servings/d. No significant association was found for other
> subtypes of ovarian cancer.
>
> According to the data, increased risk of serious ovarian cancer was
> associated with four or more glasses of milk per day compared with one or
> less. No increased risk was shown with one, two or three glasses of milk per
> day,

You are WRONG! - See extracts from THE report drawn by the people who
WROTE the report, not by some numpty on the Internet.

and no increased risk at all was found with any other form of ovarian
> cancer.

So that makes it alright that it's ONLY the most common form of ovarian
cancer?

Therefore he was correct in stating that no increase in risk exists
> if you "assume an average consumption of milk and dairy".
>

You've (purposely?) misinterpreted the researchers findings. If you read
the WHOLE report, rather than draw your own misguided conclusions you
will know that:

"When lactose was analyzed as a continuous variable, each 10 g/d
increase in lactose intake (the amount of lactose in ~1 glass milk)
was associated with a 20% greater risk of serous ovarian cancer
(multivariate RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.5). The corresponding RRs
for total ovarian cancer and nonserous tumors was 1.1 (95% CI:
0.9, 1.3) and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8, 1.2), respectively."

and

"The results of our cohort study are broadly consistent with
findings from the Iowa Women’s Health Study (10) and the
Nurses’ Health Study (11). In the Iowa Women’s Health Study,
in which 139 cases of epithelial ovarian cancer were diagnosed
among postmenopausal women, Kushi et al (10) found that
women who drank <1 glass of skim milk/d had a 73% greater
risk of total ovarian cancer than did those who drank <1 glass of
skim milk/wk."


Also you have also dismissed the other two citations that show an
association with milk consumption and cancer without even a mention. - I
guess with an intent to deceive (a lie you might say).

No doubt you'll go as quiet as the other ignoramus / liar.

>
>
>
>
>

Dutch
2005-10-31 16:43:03 EST

"Phil McCavity" <philmccavity@mailinator.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3sn7f9Fodo46U1@individual.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Phil McCavity" <philmccavity@mailinator.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:3sk150Fokme3U1@individual.net...
>>> umbjm@montana.edu wrote:
>>> snip the crap.
>>>>> Does cow milk consumption (assume the average milk) increase the risk
>>>>> of
>>>>> humans getting cancer (assume an average consumption of milk and dairy
>>>>> produce)?
>>>> Nope.
>>> Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?
>>>
>>> ===============================
>>> Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish
>>> Mammography Cohort. AJCN Vol. 80, No. 5, 1353-1357, November 2004:
>>>
>>> Our data indicate that high intakes of lactose and dairy products,
>>> particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous
>>> ovarian
>>> cancer.
>>>
>>> Women who consumed >1 glass of milk/d had double the risk of serous
>>> ovarian cancer compared with women who never or seldom drank milk.
>>>
>>> ===============================
>>
>> Do the following highlight your ignorance or are you a liar?
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15531686&dopt=Citation
>> RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, women who consumed
>> >/=4
>> servings of total dairy products/d had a risk of serous ovarian cancer
>> (rate
>> ratio: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.06) twice that of women who
>> consumed <2 servings/d. No significant association was found for other
>> subtypes of ovarian cancer.
>>
>> According to the data, increased risk of serious ovarian cancer was
>> associated with four or more glasses of milk per day compared with one or
>> less. No increased risk was shown with one, two or three glasses of milk
>> per day,
>
> You are WRONG! - See extracts from THE report drawn by the people who
> WROTE the report, not by some numpty on the Internet.

The National Library of Medicine is "some numpty"?

> and no increased risk at all was found with any other form of ovarian
>> cancer.
>
> So that makes it alright that it's ONLY the most common form of ovarian
> cancer?

No, it makes it a finding of the research.

> Therefore he was correct in stating that no increase in risk exists
>> if you "assume an average consumption of milk and dairy".
>>
>
> You've (purposely?) misinterpreted the researchers findings. If you read
> the WHOLE report, rather than draw your own misguided conclusions

I quoted verbatim from the National Library of Medicine website report on
the study.

> you will know that: "When lactose was analyzed as a continuous variable,
> each 10 g/d
> increase in lactose intake (the amount of lactose in ~1 glass milk)
> was associated with a 20% greater risk of serous ovarian cancer
> (multivariate RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.5). The corresponding RRs
> for total ovarian cancer and nonserous tumors was 1.1 (95% CI:
> 0.9, 1.3) and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8, 1.2), respectively."
>
> and
>
> "The results of our cohort study are broadly consistent with
> findings from the Iowa Women\ufffds Health Study (10) and the
> Nurses\ufffd Health Study (11). In the Iowa Women\ufffds Health Study,
> in which 139 cases of epithelial ovarian cancer were diagnosed
> among postmenopausal women, Kushi et al (10) found that
> women who drank <1 glass of skim milk/d had a 73% greater
> risk of total ovarian cancer than did those who drank <1 glass of
> skim milk/wk."
>
>
> Also you have also dismissed the other two citations that show an
> association with milk consumption and cancer without even a mention. - I
> guess with an intent to deceive (a lie you might say).
>
> No doubt you'll go as quiet as the other ignoramus / liar.

No doubt you'll continue to toss out insults rather than supply your
sources.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron