growth hormone rBGH is a health disaster

[dawnbug]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
ever wonder why girls are starting puberty earlier and earlier? how about the ingesting of hormones? could that be it?

I always heard that the reason girls are starting puberty earlier is because of better nutrition, and higher weights at younger ages. For the past 50 years or so, for the first time ever, food deficiency has not been an issue for US citizens (except in special circumstances related to medical issues or extreme poverty). People are growing faster, and it's no surprise that people are beginning puberty sooner, too.

That said, I am concerned about hormones in food, but I'll keep eating beef and drinking milk until conclusive evidence comes out that rBGH is bad for people.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: moshquerade
ever wonder why girls are starting puberty earlier and earlier? how about the ingesting of hormones? could that be it?

I always heard that the reason girls are starting puberty earlier is because of better nutrition, and higher weights at younger ages. For the past 50 years or so, for the first time ever, food deficiency has not been an issue for US citizens (except in special circumstances related to medical issues or extreme poverty). People are growing faster, and it's no surprise that people are beginning puberty sooner, too.

That said, I am concerned about hormones in food, but I'll keep eating beef and drinking milk until conclusive evidence comes out that rBGH is bad for people.

And small dogs are small because they're not fed enough food to grow large.

Hopefully we can get a super suppliment soon so we can get babies out of the house at one year old, hell 5 years old would be fine with me. It's a shame the undernourished have to wait 'til 30 to hit puberty.

 

[dawnbug]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: moshquerade
ever wonder why girls are starting puberty earlier and earlier? how about the ingesting of hormones? could that be it?

I always heard that the reason girls are starting puberty earlier is because of better nutrition, and higher weights at younger ages. For the past 50 years or so, for the first time ever, food deficiency has not been an issue for US citizens (except in special circumstances related to medical issues or extreme poverty). People are growing faster, and it's no surprise that people are beginning puberty sooner, too.

That said, I am concerned about hormones in food, but I'll keep eating beef and drinking milk until conclusive evidence comes out that rBGH is bad for people.

And small dogs are small because they're not fed enough food to grow large.

Hopefully we can get a super suppliment soon so we can get babies out of the house at one year old, hell 5 years old would be fine with me. It's a shame the undernourished have to wait 'til 30 to hit puberty.

:roll: Okay, point taken.

But at the same time, small dogs can be overweight, and isn't weight often times a signal for hormones to speed up/slow down? I was a chunky kid and started getting my period before any of the other girls that I knew.

 

[DAGTA]

Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

 

[Acanthus]

I drink nearly a gallon of milk a day (protein diet)

you people need other things to do with your life.

 

[Bozono]

Outlawed here. I always found it funny how when we got mad cow(Canada) you guys spewed on about it for like 2 years straight and then you guys get it just after and half of you don't even know about that. Barely a blip on the news.

 

[ruffilb]

Shens.

This happens all the GD time >.>

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

You can CLAIM all the harm you want and run around like chicken little screaming about the sky falling... but it wont change one very simple fact: There exists no valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing ill health effects in humans by using these substances in dairy and meat cows. None.

Until that exists, what you have is suspicion, innuendo and fear. Nothing more.

No one here is "choosing" to be ignorant. Unless, of course, you call the scientific method ignorant... then I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[rahvin]

Amused, it's worthless argueing with them. Science knowledge in this country died over the last 20 years. Peer review and scientific evidence are no longer requirements in this country, inuendo and baseless fear mongering are the order of the day.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Amused, it's worthless argueing with them. Science knowledge in this country died over the last 20 years. Peer review and scientific evidence are no longer requirements in this country, inuendo and baseless fear mongering are the order of the day.

:::sigh::: I know. And this type of thing backrupted Dow over breast implants, not to mention countless apple growers over the Alar scare.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

You can CLAIM all the harm you want and run around like chicken little screaming about the sky falling... but it wont change one very simple fact: There exists no valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing ill health effects in humans by using these substances in dairy and meat cows. None.

Until that exists, what you have is suspicion, innuendo and fear. Nothing more.

No one here is "choosing" to be ignorant. Unless, of course, you call the scientific method ignorant... then I truly feel sorry for you.

You can 'feel sorry' for me all you like. And you can keep believing there is no valid peer reveiewed and repeated studies when, in fact, there are. You don't hear about them because they are surpressed by your All-Knowing FDA. There are dozens of doctors and scientists that have spoken up about milk and other drugs/chemicals in the last 30 years. Nearly all of them were silenced by having their businesses taken away from them or being fired. Sure sure... "tin foil hat"... that's just another example of how fantastic a job the propaganda spewed in this country has done. All the sheep are trained to scream, "tin foil hat!" anytime any person disagrees with their gov't. Well, it's either "tin foil hat!" or "you're unpatriotic!".

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin
Amused, it's worthless argueing with them. Science knowledge in this country died over the last 20 years. Peer review and scientific evidence are no longer requirements in this country, inuendo and baseless fear mongering are the order of the day.

:::sigh::: I know. And this type of thing backrupted Dow over breast implants, not to mention countless apple growers over the Alar scare.

Yeah, because inserting a foreign substance into your body couldn't possibly be harmful. Nevermind the fact that the immune system reacts to it, scar tissue is created, and the electrical patterns of the body change. It can't possibly be harmful because the companies making money off of these products say so!

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: LadyBuggy

Originally posted by: moshquerade
ever wonder why girls are starting puberty earlier and earlier? how about the ingesting of hormones? could that be it?

I always heard that the reason girls are starting puberty earlier is because of better nutrition, and higher weights at younger ages. For the past 50 years or so, for the first time ever, food deficiency has not been an issue for US citizens (except in special circumstances related to medical issues or extreme poverty). People are growing faster, and it's no surprise that people are beginning puberty sooner, too.

That said, I am concerned about hormones in food, but I'll keep eating beef and drinking milk until conclusive evidence comes out that rBGH is bad for people.

Incorrect. I really need to dig up some findings. While this is partl responsible it is not the sole reason, just another side effect. How? Lacose Intollerant people who are just as well fed and live in the same areas but do not ingest milk do no exibit earlier signs of puberty.

Census records of foreign countries that are not exposed to dairy products or consume very little because they can't show on average smaller sizes, later purberty cycles, and less deaths due to cancer. While that is not a direct correlation, that is enough proof for me. You do know that only a mutation of a gene in European and Northern African humans and some cats allowed the digestion of milk past a certain age right? That the majority of the worlds population can not consume dairy products.

I think the biggest linking factors are native African tribes. Compare tribes that herd cattle and drink the blood as well as the milk versus tribes that do not herd cattle for a food basis. The ones that due are on average MUCH taller and enter puberty much sooner. There could be many factors effecting this, like geography and such but unfortunately, no one wants to do a real study with the scientific method on this. The FDA has done their tiny little cross sectional study on the effects of IGF on COWS, not humans and use correlations between one and the other. Look, I'm not a cow, and I don't like the FDA correlatng one to the other. Same stupid thing with Saccrin. Ohh it can cause cancer in some labratory rats. Whe we pump them with 5000 times the normal dosage daily for months on end, there is a 10% increased risk of cancer in section of rat tissues that humans don't even have. But because it's bad for rats it was deemed bad for humans at one point until over-ruled. That's the crappy "scientific" method done by the FDA, who doesn't always conduct the studies.

Seriously, look at some of the review processes done by the FDA and learn who REALLY does them. Then try and tell me that those studies aren't fallible.


As for the Quak in the original post. He's retarded. Mad Cow disease affects cows by PREONs, and not hormones. Preons are screwed up proteins which attack other proteins, most notably in the brain. There is a human form that is found amoungst cannibles, but it's so freaking rare it doesn't matter.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

You can CLAIM all the harm you want and run around like chicken little screaming about the sky falling... but it wont change one very simple fact: There exists no valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing ill health effects in humans by using these substances in dairy and meat cows. None.

Until that exists, what you have is suspicion, innuendo and fear. Nothing more.

No one here is "choosing" to be ignorant. Unless, of course, you call the scientific method ignorant... then I truly feel sorry for you.

You can 'feel sorry' for me all you like. And you can keep believing there is no valid peer reveiewed and repeated studies when, in fact, there are. You don't hear about them because they are surpressed by your All-Knowing FDA. There are dozens of doctors and scientists that have spoken up about milk and other drugs/chemicals in the last 30 years. Nearly all of them were silenced by having their businesses taken away from them or being fired. Sure sure... "tin foil hat"... that's just another example of how fantastic a job the propaganda spewed in this country has done. All the sheep are trained to scream, "tin foil hat!" anytime any person disagrees with their gov't. Well, it's either "tin foil hat!" or "you're unpatriotic!".

Now you're just getting silly. It is impossible to suppress independent studies from around the world.

Face it, you have no proof so you have to resort to conspiracy theories. How does it feel to be in the same league as the UFO, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster nutjobs?

 

[DAGTA]

Remember, cigarettes don't cause cancer! The tobacco companies have done many studies that were peer reviewed and none of them found any link to cancer. So, stop worrying and smoke up!

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Incorrect. I really need to dig up some findings. While this is partl responsible it is not the sole reason, just another side effect. How? Lacose Intollerant people who are just as well fed and live in the same areas but do not ingest milk do no exibit earlier signs of puberty.

Interesting thing about lactose intollerance. Take a lactose intollerant person (such as me) and have them drink raw milk. Non-pastuerized, non-homogenized, organic milk. The lactose problems don't seem to occur when drinking raw milk. That was a huge surprise for me. Since about age 17, anytime I drank milk straight out of a glass, I would get gassy, bloated, a burning in my gut, and my stomach would hurt for an hour or two. I could handle some amounts of ice cream and cereal so long as I stayed home, but I couldn't drink milk straight.

Three times I purchased raw milk. Once was whole milk, the other two were skim. I drank a glass of that milk.... no problems at all. Digested as easily as water.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin
Amused, it's worthless argueing with them. Science knowledge in this country died over the last 20 years. Peer review and scientific evidence are no longer requirements in this country, inuendo and baseless fear mongering are the order of the day.

:::sigh::: I know. And this type of thing backrupted Dow over breast implants, not to mention countless apple growers over the Alar scare.

Yeah, because inserting a foreign substance into your body couldn't possibly be harmful. Nevermind the fact that the immune system reacts to it, scar tissue is created, and the electrical patterns of the body change. It can't possibly be harmful because the companies making money off of these products say so!

You do realize that what you are saying makes no sense at all, don't you? Everything you eat is a "foreign substance," be it naturally occuring or man made.

And just because something is man made does not automatically mean it's harmful.

This type of mindless fear mongering is more dangerous than all the chemicals in the world.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

You can CLAIM all the harm you want and run around like chicken little screaming about the sky falling... but it wont change one very simple fact: There exists no valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing ill health effects in humans by using these substances in dairy and meat cows. None.

Until that exists, what you have is suspicion, innuendo and fear. Nothing more.

No one here is "choosing" to be ignorant. Unless, of course, you call the scientific method ignorant... then I truly feel sorry for you.

You can 'feel sorry' for me all you like. And you can keep believing there is no valid peer reveiewed and repeated studies when, in fact, there are. You don't hear about them because they are surpressed by your All-Knowing FDA. There are dozens of doctors and scientists that have spoken up about milk and other drugs/chemicals in the last 30 years. Nearly all of them were silenced by having their businesses taken away from them or being fired. Sure sure... "tin foil hat"... that's just another example of how fantastic a job the propaganda spewed in this country has done. All the sheep are trained to scream, "tin foil hat!" anytime any person disagrees with their gov't. Well, it's either "tin foil hat!" or "you're unpatriotic!".

Now you're just getting silly. It is impossible to suppress independent studies from around the world.

Face it, you have no proof so you have to resort to conspiracy theories. How does it feel to be in the same league as the UFO, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster nutjobs?

Feels fine to me. When I'm healthy without cancer later in my life and you're dying, I'll just wish you had been willing to open your mind even a tiny bit, but your pride does not allow it.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Currently there are 26 chemicals and hormones in milk that the manufacturers do not need to put on the label, by law. 26. That tidbit comes from a Biology professor at Arizona State.

Arguing here is pointless, as mosh is finding out. The rest of you can keep choosing to be ignorant and the consequences to your health will catch up to you in the future. Or you can take the time to read past the FDA and see what other countries and other doctors have to say. The final proof is in how you feel. Change your diet to start avoiding as much processed foods as you can and see if you notice a difference. I did.

You can CLAIM all the harm you want and run around like chicken little screaming about the sky falling... but it wont change one very simple fact: There exists no valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing ill health effects in humans by using these substances in dairy and meat cows. None.

Until that exists, what you have is suspicion, innuendo and fear. Nothing more.

No one here is "choosing" to be ignorant. Unless, of course, you call the scientific method ignorant... then I truly feel sorry for you.

You can 'feel sorry' for me all you like. And you can keep believing there is no valid peer reveiewed and repeated studies when, in fact, there are. You don't hear about them because they are surpressed by your All-Knowing FDA. There are dozens of doctors and scientists that have spoken up about milk and other drugs/chemicals in the last 30 years. Nearly all of them were silenced by having their businesses taken away from them or being fired. Sure sure... "tin foil hat"... that's just another example of how fantastic a job the propaganda spewed in this country has done. All the sheep are trained to scream, "tin foil hat!" anytime any person disagrees with their gov't. Well, it's either "tin foil hat!" or "you're unpatriotic!".

If there are valid peer reviewed studies, you should be able to point them out here.

How exactly does the FDA "surpress" peer reviewed publications anyway? They have no sway over any academic journal, they don't even buy add space.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Remember, cigarettes don't cause cancer! The tobacco companies have done many studies that were peer reviewed and none of them found any link to cancer. So, stop worrying and smoke up!

Um, no. Tobacco use HAS been proven in peer reviewed and repeated studies to cause cancer, along with many other illnesses.

Try again.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin
Amused, it's worthless argueing with them. Science knowledge in this country died over the last 20 years. Peer review and scientific evidence are no longer requirements in this country, inuendo and baseless fear mongering are the order of the day.

:::sigh::: I know. And this type of thing backrupted Dow over breast implants, not to mention countless apple growers over the Alar scare.

Yeah, because inserting a foreign substance into your body couldn't possibly be harmful. Nevermind the fact that the immune system reacts to it, scar tissue is created, and the electrical patterns of the body change. It can't possibly be harmful because the companies making money off of these products say so!

You do realize that what you are saying makes no sense at all, don't you? Everything you eat is a "foreign substance," be it naturally occuring or man made.

And just because something is man made does not automatically mean it's harmful.

This type of mindless fear mongering is more dangerous than all the chemicals in the world.

If you can't see the difference between eating food and sticking platic into the tissues of your body, then you really are clueless.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Remember, cigarettes don't cause cancer! The tobacco companies have done many studies that were peer reviewed and none of them found any link to cancer. So, stop worrying and smoke up!

Um, no. Tobacco use HAS been proven in peer reviewed and repeated studies to cause cancer, along with many other illnesses.

Try again.

And what about during the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and early 1970's when every peer review kept saying it was 'safe'?

Hey, all those people were assured it was safe for decades. So dont' worry Amused, everything the FDA tells you is safe and in your best interests. Trust them implicitly.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Remember, cigarettes don't cause cancer! The tobacco companies have done many studies that were peer reviewed and none of them found any link to cancer. So, stop worrying and smoke up!

Um, no. Tobacco use HAS been proven in peer reviewed and repeated studies to cause cancer, along with many other illnesses.

Try again.

Um NOW it has through proof of carcenogens. The ORIGINAL studies made by tobacco companies and approved by the FDA did not do tests for carceogens and the prove that those are cancer causing agents. So yah, the tobacco companies did put out peer-reviewed, independant studies "proving" cigarettes caused no abnormal health risks. It was after a huge uproar that the FDA was forced to re-evaluate those old studies and then change eveything. It happens. Nothing is perfect.

As for studies you seek.. don'tmake me start digging for this stuff again. I posted long ago many studies done, or being conducted. Just because the finding aren't out yet, a few have released preliminary 7-year finding all of which validate further testing to 20 and 30 year tests. Do you know how long 30 years worth of injesting harmful products can do to you??? Here, let me get started in posting some of these reviews for you and you can look it up yourself.

Ma, Jing, et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein-3. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, April 7, 1999, pp. 620-25
Burroughs, Kevin D., et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I: a key regulator of human cancer risk? Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, April 7, 1999, pp. 579- 81 (editorial)

The Journal of Alzheimers disease is reporting early links in their studies for IGF and Alzheimers. Just run a search on the site for IGF and see about 30 different independant studies currently being done and ALL showing links of different forms of IGF (1, 2, and 3) to the disease.

http://www.j-alz.com/


I could go on but I'm tired of pwning MORONS. These tests you claim don't "exist" are being conducted RIGHT NOW. This crap doesn't happen over night and early indications of every test being preformed now are showing that the FDA reports, tests conducted by a ex-subsidary of Monosato, are WRONG.

Don't start calling people tin-foil hatters just because you don't have the time to do a little research on your own.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Remember, cigarettes don't cause cancer! The tobacco companies have done many studies that were peer reviewed and none of them found any link to cancer. So, stop worrying and smoke up!

Um, no. Tobacco use HAS been proven in peer reviewed and repeated studies to cause cancer, along with many other illnesses.

Try again.

And what about during the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and early 1970's when every peer review kept saying it was 'safe'?

Never happened. The first proof came about in the late 50s, early 60s. Tobacco company denials are, and were, moot

Hey, all those people were assured it was safe for decades. So dont' worry Amused, everything the FDA tells you is safe and in your best interests. Trust them implicitly.

Um, no. No reputable doctor EVER claimed tobacco use was safe after the valid studies in the 50s. Nor did the government.

It is simply amazing to me that you cannot see how silly, desperate and shrill you sound now.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Feels fine to me. When I'm healthy without cancer later in my life and you're dying, I'll just wish you had been willing to open your mind even a tiny bit, but your pride does not allow it.

hm, I wrote my Ph.D dissertation on the molecular origins of cancer. I'll keep eating meat and dairy products, thanks.