milk & cancer....

[Tadpole]

Tadpole, how is milk so bad for you?

Cow’s milk is unnatural for humans to drink. Human milk in its self is unnatural to drink after weaning; we are the only animals that drink the milk of other animals. In nations that consume vast quantities of milk, there is a corresponding increase in diseases like heart disease, osteoporosis cancer, diabetes and asthma. Just look at nations where they drink milk, we find these diseases are common. In countries like the USA England, and Canada where cheese consumption has tripled in the last 30 years, we find also a tripling of asthma and breast cancers. Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweden have in the past years noticed that, as their dairy product consumption has risen so has their rates of certain types of cancers, most noticeable breast cancer.

The USA surprisingly is not the world leader in coronary heart disease, it’s Denmark, followed by Norway, Holland and Sweden, why? Because those nations have a high rates of dairy consumption.

The Harvard Nurses’ Health, followed 78,000 women for a 12-year period and found that milk did not protect against bone fractures. Indeed, those who drank three glasses of milk per day had more fractures than those who rarely drank milk. Let’s face it there are lots of other sources to get your calcium; without the need to turn to the chemical enhanced white poison that we are raised to believe is good for us, and who tells us it is good for us? The very industry with the most to gain.
Better to get your minerals from elsewhere. there is lots of it about you know, Calcium is after all one of the five most common metals in the earths crust. It is found in most, if not all green vegetables, for example like Kale, dark salad greens; cabbage; broccoli; green beans; cucumber; peas; soybeans; squash; most types of beans including cocoa; kiwi; real maple syrup; brown sugar; and tomatoes.
From the same report, it was found that the rate of hip fractures in the U.S. for people of many races and ethnic origins is exactly inverse to their rates of lactose intolerance. In other words, those who are likely avoiding milk as adults have the fewest fractures.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that calcium absorbability was actually higher for kale than for milk, and concluded that “greens such as kale can be considered to be at least as good as milk in terms of their calcium absorbability”

As far back as 1974, the Committee on Nutrition of the American Academy of Paediatrics was answering the question, "Should milk drinking by children be discouraged?"
A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Paediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Paediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used, yet continued to recommend its use.
Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Paediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of occult gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-borne infections and contaminants, said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end?

Dr. William Ellis, a retired osteopathic physician and surgeon in Arlington, Texas, who has researched the effects of dairy products for 42 years. Dr. Ellis is listed in Marquis' Who's Who in the East, Leaders of American Science, the Dictionary of International Biography and Two Thousand Men of Achievement.
Dr. Ellis says dairy products are

"simply no good for humans... There is overwhelming evidence that milk and milk products are harmful to many people, both adults and infants. Milk is a contributing factor in constipation, chronic fatigue, arthritis, headaches, muscle cramps, obesity, allergies and heart problems.

In 1974 the Federal Trade Commission felt compelled to take legal action against advertising claims made by the California Milk Producers. The ads claimed "Everybody Needs Milk." The FTC prosecuted the milk producers for "false, misleading and deceptive" advertising. The FTC complaint cited the high incidence of lactose intolerance, allergies caused by cow's milk and the increased risk of heart disease. The FTC won and the milk producers had to come up with a new slogan.
A recent review on dairy products and bone health published in the official journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics challenged the " milk good for healthy bones" notion by concluding that there is

“very little evidence to support increasing the consumption of dairy products in children and young adults in order to promote bone health”

This review examined the effects of dairy products and total dietary calcium on bone integrity in children and young adults and found that out of 37 studies, 27 showed no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health.
In the remaining studies the effects on bone health were either small or results were confounded by the fortification of milk with vitamin D. An increasing amount of evidence now suggests that milk is not the best source of calcium at all and goes further to suggest that our bone health would benefit enormously if we switched to plant-based sources. In addition, research suggests that physical exercise is the most critical factor for maintaining healthy bones, followed by improving the diet and lifestyle; this means eating plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, and for young adults cutting down on caffeine and avoiding alcohol and smoking.

Which ever brand of "Expert" you trust they all seem to say that same thing... Cows milk is not good for humans.

 

[Bjorn Victor]

Wow!! You've done your homework!

Interesting article...

Is soy milk a good alternative?
They did recommend "plant sources". Does soy milk qualify?

Thanks for the info.

Bjorn

 

[Tadpole]

Wow!! You've done your homework!

Interesting article...

Is soy milk a good alternative?
They did recommend "plant sources". Does soy milk qualify?

Thanks for the info.

Bjorn

Not really, soy milk contains 200 to 300 mg of calcium per 8floz of "milk" unfortunately soy milk contains phytates,( phosphorus compounds) naturally occurring substances found in whole-grain foods, legumes, and nuts that can decrease the absorption of calcium and other minerals, nor does it contain any vitamin B12. The effect of all this is that whilst the soy contains 200mg 300mg of calcium only 10% is “taken up” by the body.

 

[spamel]

Well, anyone with a missus who is breast feeding, I suggest you don't try human milk, it is minging!!!!

 

[Martyn]

Cow’s milk is unnatural for humans to drink. Human milk in its self is unnatural to drink after weaning; we are the only animals that drink the milk of other animals. In nations that consume vast quantities of milk, there is a corresponding increase in diseases like heart disease, osteoporosis cancer, diabetes and asthma. Just look at nations where they drink milk, we find these diseases are common. In countries like the USA England, and Canada where cheese consumption has tripled in the last 30 years, we find also a tripling of asthma and breast cancers. Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweden have in the past years noticed that, as their dairy product consumption has risen so has their rates of certain types of cancers, most noticeable breast cancer.

You know in summer, there is a relationship between how soft the tarmac on the roads is and heatstroke. There is absolutely no doubt that the softer the tarmac, the higher the number of people suffer from heat stroke. I'm sure some people could be convinced that heat stroke is caused by soft tarmac.

Yes, cancer is on the rise and heart disease and asthma, but so is obesity and pollution. You know if someone dies from a heart attack and it's found they eat large amounts of dairy products, you also need to consider they may only ever move their 32 stone bulk from in front of the TV to go and sign on or answer the door to the pizza boy. Anything in excess is bad for you.

My point is that there are so many extraneous factors that must be considered, when doing any kind of serious longditudinal study, that it is in all practicality, impossible to establish the veracity of any such claims about the health implications of milk consumption. You simply cannot write a testable hypothesis. No study can account for all the extraneous factors, so they have no choice but to simply ignore them. This is why there is no absolute answer and probably never will be. Any piece of research which claims to show some implication of good or bad over something as ubiquitous as milk consumption, needs to be taking with a pinch of salt. Anything which claims a difinitive good or bad, needs to be taken with a very, very big pinch of salt - in fact it's almost certain to be utter garbage, because the hypothesis is simply untestable.

Crack in and enjoy your milk.

...that's my professional opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[spamel]

With all the pollutants in the air, it won't be long before we are told that breathing is bad for you!! I've already stopped in an effort to beat the scientists!!





Actually, I've gone purple and I'm seeing stars, so I think I'll take my chances with the breathing!!

 

[Brian]

Spamel,

Just wear your S10 mate

Brian

 

[Martyn]

With all the pollutants in the air, it won't be long before we are told that breathing is bad for you!! I've already stopped in an effort to beat the scientists!!

Actually, I've gone purple and I'm seeing stars, so I think I'll take my chances with the breathing!!

Exactly mate!

In order to try an prove whether or not milk is good or bad, you would have to do several things.

You would need to study two groups of people, one who drank milk and one who didnt and compare their health over time.

But you would also need to control every other infuential factor. You would need to control what they eat, how much exercise they have, whether or not they smoke, the quality of air they breathe and a million other factors that can influence cancer, heart disease and asthma. So your two groups of people would need to be on a remote pacific island living under concentration camp conditions.

There would also need to be several thousand people in each group and both groups studied over a very long time, 50 years or so, to rule out things like random chance and genetics affecting the results.

These are basic principles of good science methodology.

There has never been any such study anywhere in the world and probably never will be, so any study which claims to "prove" milk is bad for you, can be regarded as very bad science at best and at worst, utter rubbish.

 

[spamel]

I must say though, as much as I like milk, what on earth was the first person who drank it doing and why didn't he go to jail for it?

 

[Tadpole]

Crank in and enjoy your milk.

...that's my professional opinion, for what it's worth.

Not to put any emphasis on this point but in the 1950s people were using that very same argument for not putting warnings on cigarettes, and again in the 1960 about using thalidomide as an anti nausea drug.
Today I’ve watched children go from normal to hyperactive, from eating sweets containing red food colouring. Everyday good kids going from happy perfectly content playing in the park with their friends, then after eating the sweets known as “lips and teeth”, within twenty minutes they are tearful aggressive hyperactive, tense. You don’t have to be a professional to notice a “link”
I’m a simple soul raised in the simple world of, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, tastes like a duck, chances are it’s a duck

milk makes me ill, I get bloated feel sick, sometime I am sick, I get diarrhoea and suffer from stomach pains.

 

[Martyn]

Not to put any emphasis on this point but in the 1950s people were using that very same argument for not putting warnings on cigarettes, and again in the 1960 about using thalidomide as an anti nausea drug.
Today I’ve watched children go from normal to hyperactive, from eating sweets containing red food colouring. Everyday good kids going from happy perfectly content playing in the park with their friends, then after eating the sweets known as “lips and teeth”, within twenty minutes they are tearful aggressive hyperactive, tense. You don’t have to be a professional to notice a “link”
I’m a simple soul raised in the simple world of, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, tastes like a duck, chances are it’s a duck

Back to the soft tarmac and heatstroke.

milk makes me ill, I get bloated feel sick, sometime I am sick, I get diarrhoea and suffer from stomach pains.

You may have lactose intolerance, it's a fairly common condition. If you get those symptoms when drinking milk, get it checked out by your GP.

 

[rik_uk3]

Cow’s milk is unnatural for humans to drink. Human milk in its self is unnatural to drink after weaning; we are the only animals that drink the milk of other animals. In nations that consume vast quantities of milk, there is a corresponding increase in diseases like heart disease, osteoporosis cancer, diabetes and asthma. Just look at nations where they drink milk, we find these diseases are common. In countries like the USA England, and Canada where cheese consumption has tripled in the last 30 years, we find also a tripling of asthma and breast cancers. Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweden have in the past years noticed that, as their dairy product consumption has risen so has their rates of certain types of cancers, most noticeable breast cancer.

The USA surprisingly is not the world leader in coronary heart disease, it’s Denmark, followed by Norway, Holland and Sweden, why? Because those nations have a high rates of dairy consumption.

The Harvard Nurses’ Health, followed 78,000 women for a 12-year period and found that milk did not protect against bone fractures. Indeed, those who drank three glasses of milk per day had more fractures than those who rarely drank milk. Let’s face it there are lots of other sources to get your calcium; without the need to turn to the chemical enhanced white poison that we are raised to believe is good for us, and who tells us it is good for us? The very industry with the most to gain.
Better to get your minerals from elsewhere. there is lots of it about you know, Calcium is after all one of the five most common metals in the earths crust. It is found in most, if not all green vegetables, for example like Kale, dark salad greens; cabbage; broccoli; green beans; cucumber; peas; soybeans; squash; most types of beans including cocoa; kiwi; real maple syrup; brown sugar; and tomatoes.
From the same report, it was found that the rate of hip fractures in the U.S. for people of many races and ethnic origins is exactly inverse to their rates of lactose intolerance. In other words, those who are likely avoiding milk as adults have the fewest fractures.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that calcium absorbability was actually higher for kale than for milk, and concluded that “greens such as kale can be considered to be at least as good as milk in terms of their calcium absorbability”

As far back as 1974, the Committee on Nutrition of the American Academy of Paediatrics was answering the question, "Should milk drinking by children be discouraged?"
A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Paediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Paediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used, yet continued to recommend its use.
Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Paediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of occult gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-borne infections and contaminants, said:
Dr. William Ellis, a retired osteopathic physician and surgeon in Arlington, Texas, who has researched the effects of dairy products for 42 years. Dr. Ellis is listed in Marquis' Who's Who in the East, Leaders of American Science, the Dictionary of International Biography and Two Thousand Men of Achievement.
Dr. Ellis says dairy products areIn 1974 the Federal Trade Commission felt compelled to take legal action against advertising claims made by the California Milk Producers. The ads claimed "Everybody Needs Milk." The FTC prosecuted the milk producers for "false, misleading and deceptive" advertising. The FTC complaint cited the high incidence of lactose intolerance, allergies caused by cow's milk and the increased risk of heart disease. The FTC won and the milk producers had to come up with a new slogan.
A recent review on dairy products and bone health published in the official journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics challenged the " milk good for healthy bones" notion by concluding that there is This review examined the effects of dairy products and total dietary calcium on bone integrity in children and young adults and found that out of 37 studies, 27 showed no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health.
In the remaining studies the effects on bone health were either small or results were confounded by the fortification of milk with vitamin D. An increasing amount of evidence now suggests that milk is not the best source of calcium at all and goes further to suggest that our bone health would benefit enormously if we switched to plant-based sources. In addition, research suggests that physical exercise is the most critical factor for maintaining healthy bones, followed by improving the diet and lifestyle; this means eating plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, and for young adults cutting down on caffeine and avoiding alcohol and smoking.

Which ever brand of "Expert" you trust they all seem to say that same thing... Cows milk is not good for humans.

Wow,a lot of American sources of data there, but then, that's what they do well, pump out lots of data, often without real evidence, and often working on a narrow field of links. I'll ask the nutritionists at work to stop giving milk to the elderly patients I help nurse, I'm sure they will listen after reading your post

Sorry mate, milk, by and large, is good for most people. I don't say go and drink a gallon a day, but milk is a good source of food, enjoyed by, and benefiting most people. I would take Martyn's advice and have your lactose tolerance checked out.

Hyper children, yes, there is I think a link with food additives, but bear in mind that we all consume a lot more sugar, caffeine and processed food than in the history of humanity. This, combined with sensory stimulation via computer games, TV, loud music, drugs, poor parenting, education and social skills, all have their input into the way a young person will react in a given situation, and under the influence of peer pressure and group dynamics.

That's my penny's worth, I've now got the munchies, so I'm off for a tube of smarties and a Jack Daniels and Red Bull

 

[Tadpole]

Sorry mate, milk, by and large, is good for most people. I don't say go and drink a gallon a day, but milk is a good source of food, enjoyed by, and benefiting most people. I would take Martyn's advice and have your lactose tolerance checked out.

you don't have to be sorry, buying into the current Status quo is easier, which is why most people do it, as for Martyn’s advice, no thanks I’ve been checked out by experts and he is quite wrong, but that is ok.

 

[Martyn]

you don't have to be sorry, buying into the current Status quo is easier, which is why most people do it

Actually the hardist thing to do is remain objective, recognise evangelistic witch-hunts and cross-burnings for what they are, evaluate the science properly, weed out the wheat from the chaff and not jump on popularist or radical bandwagons untill any evidence has been properly peer reviewed, weighed and measured. I can say with near certainty that any "evidence" for milk being bad for you, is based on somones subjective "opinion". Regardless of who's opinion it is, or how otherwise esteemed they may be, opinion is not science and it's not truth.

It may sound like a duck, but there are other things that go "quack" especially in medicine.

A couple of months ago, we were treating a patient in intensive care. He had been on a mission to completely eradicate salt from his diet because somone had told him salt was bad for you. He was suffering from a self-imposed condition called hyponatremia - salt deficiency. Salt is an absolutely essential electrolyte necessary for the normal function of your body. Certainly too much salt is bad for you, but you absolutely must have some. Under normal animal conditions, you would get enough dietry salt from a normal balanced diet. But he had been eating salt-free processed meals in the belief it was healthy and would help him avoid heart disease. He was on a ventilator for 4 days and nearly died.

People will get obsessive about these things.

 

[Tadpole]

Actually the hardist thing to do is remain objective, recognise evangelistic witch-hunts and cross-burnings for what they are, evaluate the science properly, weed out the wheat from the chaff and not jump on popularist or radical bandwagons untill any evidence has been properly peer reviewed, weighed and measured. I can say with near certainty that any "evidence" for milk being bad for you, is based on somones subjective "opinion". Regardless of who's opinion it is, or how otherwise esteemed they may be, opinion is not science and it's not truth.

I’ll bring this up one last time as an example of what peer review and "commercially inspired head in the sand mentality" can do.
Frank Resnik, chairman of Philip Morris, claimed that information pertaining to the danger of a substance should be made available to the public only after it has been “indisputably” proved to cause disease. Since nothing in science is indisputable, such a Standard is unrealistic and dangerous. In my humble opinion science has an obligation to share findings that indicate significance threats to public health.

In the 1950s, when researchers first established that smoking causes cancer, Resnik's predecessors at Philip Morris and other cigarette companies declared the findings biased and promised the public that cigarettes were safe. Sworn testimony and internal documents uncovered in. the course of tobacco liability litigation show that the industry’s own laboratories had already confirmed the findings in independent experiments, results of which were withheld from publication. It was not until 1999 that Philip Morris stated that there is "overwhelming medical and scientific consensus" that smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. Nearly 50 years after there was evidence that people were dying from smoking related cancer. Even now the US Tobacco company is claiming that if their company is sued for causing death by cancer of a smoker the claimants “would still have to prove that their cigarettes caused the disease as opposed to any other factor”

In the UK, lung cancer is the most common cancer, with more than 40,000 new cases diagnosed every year.

Imagine what 50 years of drinking chemically altered milk is going to do to you, do you really think that the risk is worth it? When already there is evidence that milk consumption and some types of cancer go had in hand

 

[Martyn]

Imagine what 50 years of drinking chemically altered milk is going to do to you, do you really think that the risk is worth it? When already there is evidence that milk consumption and some types of cancer go had in hand

What evidence?

All you've shared is annecdote and opinion.

As I've already explained at length, any evidence that suggests there is a causal relationship between milk consumption and cancer rates, is going to be poor science at best. It is absolutely impossible to design out of a study, all the extraneous and known carcinogenic factors that influence cancer rates. There are simply so many potential carcinogens in everyones lives, that trying to draw a causal relationship between milk an cancer is lunacy. Unlike smoking, where you have a clear group of people who do and a clear group of people who dont and never have, it's fairly straightforward to draw reliable significance from increased cancer rates in one particular group. However, how on earth can anyone isolate a group of people who have never consumed milk products for their entire lives and have never been exposed to other, known causal agents?

I cant say that drinking milk doesnt cause cancer, but I can say there is no reliable scientific study on earth, that says it does. Any paper that suggests such a link, will be riddled with gross generalisations, assumptions and oversights. To ignore the flaws in this dreadfull science, is to fly in the face of good sense and to blindly and irresponsibly jump on an evangelistic bandwagon. I do know that is not a blanced and reasoned approach to health promotion.

If you have evidence, post it and let me review the science for myself?

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=19408

 

[rik_uk3]

Maybe a time out on this part of the thread lads, I'll work on my three day menu tomorrow

 

[Martyn]

Maybe a time out on this part of the thread lads, I'll work on my three day menu tomorrow

Indeed, enough of this nonesense, back to the 3 day menu's.

 

[bilko]

I gave up drinking cheap milk after discovering the way intensively farmed milk cattle are treated. I moved to happy or organic milk but still felt fatigue and discomfort after drinking it. this was a problem for me because i drink loads of white tea every day.
I moved to soya milk which i actualy now prefer in tea but wasn't aware that i may now be deficient in some of the things i was supposedly getting. Can anyone tell me in their proffessional opinion what a good healthy and happy substitute would be? Or is taking calcium and vitamin suppliments enough?

 

[Tadpole]

What evidence?


If you have evidence, post it and let me review the science for myself?

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=19408

The milk produced now is very different from that produced 100 years ago; modern dairy cows are frequently impregnated while still producing milk (Webster, 2005). Two-thirds of milk in the UK is taken from pregnant cows with the remainder coming from cows that have recently given birth. This means that the hormone (oestrogen, progesterone and androgen precursor) content of milk varies widely. It is the high levels of hormones in milk that have been linked to the development of hormone-dependent cancers such as ovarian and breast cancer.

Dr Sheila Bingham of the Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge has developed a new data-collection method. Bingham used food frequency questionnaire methods with a detailed seven-day food diary in over 13,000 women between 1993 and 1997. The study concluded that those who ate the most animal saturated fat (found mainly in whole milk, butter, meat, cakes and biscuits) were almost twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who ate the least. It was also concluded that previous studies may have failed to establish this link because of imprecise methods (Bingham et al., 2003).

A number of studies show that women with breast cancer tend to have higher levels of circulating oestrogens. Prospective studies follow groups of people over time. Generally these people are alike in many but not all ways (for example, young women who smoke and young women who do not). The prospective cohort study will then look for a link between their behaviour and a particular outcome (such as lung cancer). A prospective study conducted on the island of Guernsey examined serum levels of the oestrogen hormone oestradiol in samples taken from 61 postmenopausal women who developed breast cancer an average of 7.8 years after blood collection. Compared to 179 age-matched controls, oestradiol levels were 29 per cent higher in women who later developed breast cancer (Thomas et al., 1997).

In a study involving over 90,000 premenopausal women, researchers from Harvard Medical School confirmed that animal fat intake was associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer. Red meat and high-fat dairy foods such as whole milk, cream, ice-cream, butter, cream cheese and cheese were the major contributors of animal fat in this cohort of relatively young women. Interestingly, this research did not find any clear association between vegetable fat and breast cancer risk; the increased risk was only associated with animal fat intake. It has been suggested that a high-fat diet increases the risk of breast cancer by elevating concentrations of oestrogen. However, the author of this study, Dr Eunyoung Cho, suggests that if this were true a diet high in animal fat and a diet high in vegetable fat should both lead to higher rates of cancer, and that was not the case in this study. Cho suspects that some other component such as the hormones in cow’s milk might play a role in increasing the risk of breast cancer (Cho et al., 2003).

In a review of the relationship between breast cancer incidence and food intake among the populations of 40 different countries, a positive correlation was seen between the consumption of meat, milk and cheese and the incidence of breast (and ovarian) cancer. Meat was most closely correlated with breast cancer incidence, followed by cow’s milk and cheese. By contrast, cereals and pulses were negatively correlated with the incidence of breast cancer. This review concluded that the increased consumption of animal foods may have adverse effects on the development of hormone-dependent cancers. Among dietary risk factors of particular concern were milk and dairy products, because so much of the milk we drink today is produced from pregnant cows, in which oestrogen and progesterone levels are markedly elevated (Ganmaa and Sato, 2005).

A positive relationship between ovarian cancer and dairy products was first reported in the Lancet in 1989 when it was suggested that lactose consumption may be a dietary risk factor for ovarian cancer (Cramer et al., 1989). More recently, data collected from the Harvard Nurses Health Study was used to assess the lactose, milk and milk product consumption in relation to ovarian cancer risk in over 80,000 women. Over 16 years of follow-up, 301 cases of one particular type of ovarian cancer were confirmed in this study group. Results showed that women who consumed the most lactose had twice the risk of this type of ovarian cancer than women who drank the least lactose. It was suggested that galactose (a component of lactose) may damage ovarian cells making them more susceptible to cancer (Fairfield et al., 2004).

Susanna Larsson and colleagues of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, published a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined the association between intakes of dairy products and lactose and the risk of ovarian cancer. In this study of 61,084 women aged 38 to 76 years, the diet was assessed over three years and after 13.5 years 266 participants had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Results showed that women consuming four or more servings of dairy a day had double the risk of ovarian cancer compared to low or non-dairy consumers. Milk was the dairy product with the strongest positive association with ovarian cancer. The authors of this study observed a positive association between lactose intake and ovarian cancer risk and concluded that high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer (Larsson et al., 2004).

I’m sure that you will say that milk only play a limited part in the above reports, and you might be right, but as with the other examples I posted, smoking etc, why wait for the “indisputable” proof that milk (and too much dairy produce) is harmful just because the evidence is currently being glossed over by governments, producers, interested parties. My mothers generation was told (and sometimes prescribed by doctors) laudanum was good to calm kids down, that milk stout was good for pregnant mothers, tiny amounts of brandy in formula milk would aid a babies sleep. Cigarettes were recommended to people to help reduce stress. Doctors appeared in adverts extolling the virtues of smoking. Now we have foetal alcohol syndrome, infant drug withdrawal syndrome. Babies are born small due to mothers smoking and now experts are finding there are links with cot death, miscarriage and chest problems during the first few months of a baby’s life. I’d rather look back when my daughter is my age and say ok I was wrong, than look back and see her suffer unnecessarily from the common cancers, linked to milk consumption breast cancer, cancers of the colon and rectum, ovarian cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, gallstones, crohn’s disease, dementia, kidney disease, migraine, multiple sclerosis and autoimmunity, obesity, osteoporosis, all currently being linked to milk and milk by-products.

I'm not going to reply to any other posts on this thread, I was asked my reason for not using milk and I gave it, I don't come to this forum to fight or my my opinions mocked.
time will either prove me right or not, I'm not willing to wait only to later regret it. Action now is better than reaction later (just look at the state of the planet)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.