Dr. Mercola January 24 2008 61,149 views
Why do you post an article and fail to address statements that are clearly made within? While most of us are aware of the pitfalls of dairy and pasteurization, this article brings up the premise of whole milk vs. skim. ("researchers of food groups and consumption of dairy products found that drinking low-fat or nonfat milk increased the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk.") When you don't comment and sound like a broken record in the process you weaken your position. I for one find it no different then most industry and media skews that have most of America twisted in on itself.
I agree with cptdano. I also cannot follow Dr Mercola's logic here. He suggests calcium, in high levels, may impair the function of the enzyme that converts vitamin D to its active form 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D. This may be true. But the fact that milk fat REDUCES the risk of prostate cancer and fatless milk INCREASES the risk suggests that one or more of the fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E and K - are implicated - not calcium. Moreover, the research in question could not possibly implicate pasteurization, or growth factors, or any other factor. So why does Dr Mercola and others on this list go down that tangential path on the issue of cancer, in particular prostate cancer ? This is not to say raw milk is not healthier, but logically, if you consume raw skimmed milk you will also increase your risk of prostate cancer - unless there are enzymes in raw milk that somehow compensate for the loss of fat solubility is pasteurized skim milk. There is absolutely no evidence of that as far as I can tell.
I agree with the raw milk is best angle. But for those of us who have not had access (yet) to raw milk, and since the article focused on the link between "low-fat" milk, can we leave raw milk aside for now and focus on a comparison of low-fat vs. whole milk. Would these findings be the same if people consumed whole milk instead. I cannot find much information, but I do recll reading, and BELIEVING, that whole milk is better for you than low-fat milk. I am interested to hear other opinions on this.
"Dairy products have long been linked to prostate cancer, and the most popular theory as to why this may be is because calcium, in high levels, may impair the function of the enzyme that converts vitamin D to its active form 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D.
So, over time, if you consume too much calcium, you could actually be depleting your body of cancer-fighting vitamin D."
I do not consider that quote valid and don't take it seriously. That (my) comment is based on my personal long term intake of large dosages of calcium/magnesium and the high vit D level in my blood. I believe it is necessary to scrutinize the reaction of one's own body to any level of supplementation or supplement combinations. Thus I've have/had extensive blood testing done on a regular basis for decades. With employer funded insurance now gone, and as I have alluded to in previous posting, I now go here: http://www.lef.org/bloodtest for my blood work.
People have been eating dairy products for thousands of years. But, it's only been during the last half century that dairy products have been packaged in plastics. Since prostate and other endocrine system cancers are increasing, I doubt that the culprit is dairy, be it raw or pasturized.
Instead, I strongly suspect that the problem is the ingredients in the plastics. One of the chemicals, which has been identified in the bodies of my people in the developed world, is epoxy of bisphenol A. It is the building block of polycarbonate plastics, which include the coatings of cans, water and milk bottles, baby bottles, storage containers for purified water, such as WaterWise distillers. BpA moves from the container into the water, or food product, into our body.
See: The Chemicals Within
Many common household products contain compounds that could be affecting our health. www.newsweek.com/.../105588
For actual scientific studies, go to www.ourstolenfuture.org
These studies have not only citations, but bibliographies. They are not sound or print bytes, left to the interpretation of the reader.