growth hormone rBGH is a health disaster

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: HumblePie

No that's not the only reason, just part of it. You claim there are no studies. I claim there are. In fact I prove that there are and there is one COMPLETED by princeton U that shows that IGF is infact very very very bad for humans when in excess. That one is being "repeated" now as we speak and the repeated preliminary findings are showing what princeton U found. I list links to other studies searching for different things related to IGF as well. There are plenty more where that came from.

This one from "Princeton?"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...Abstract&list_uids=9247884&query_hl=14

And now for the truth:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23

As I pointed out before, it's a sham. Not even a study, but a hypothesis based on nothing but biased activist conjecture and a loose correlation.

Princeton was used by The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to promote vegan propaganda:

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep?s clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that its pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent the opinion of the medical community.

The American Medical Association (AMA), which actually represents the medical profession, has called PCRM a ?fringe organization? that uses ?unethical tactics? and is ?interested in perverting medical science.?

They are a PETA front. Of COURSE they want to spread fear about animal products.

Meanwhile, you still have NO valid peer reviewed and repeated studies showing harm. None.

I'm calling you a moron because you kept calling others conspiracy theorists, and fear mongers, and yet, you didn't even do a single bit of research into their side of the story now did you? Shame on you.

Shame on me? No, shame on you for claiming activist propaganda is anything close to a valid scientific study.

let it go Amused :roll:

you've flamed back and forth enough over this.

Let what go? Stop posting facts over fear mongering and activist propaganda?

Sorry, but never.

And no, I have not flamed in this thread. In case you didn;t see it, *I* was the one he called a moron.

no you haven't flamed at all in this thread :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

And no, I have not flamed in this thread. In case you didn;t see it, *I* was the one he called a moron.

I guess calling people 'nutjobs' is not flaming, eh?

I never directly called anyone I was addressing a nutjob.

How does it feel to be in the same league as the UFO, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster nutjobs?

See that?

At any rate, it's kinda funny how when I destroy the claims of proof of of harm, people start whining about flames. :::scratches head:::

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

And no, I have not flamed in this thread. In case you didn;t see it, *I* was the one he called a moron.

I guess calling people 'nutjobs' is not flaming, eh?

I never directly called anyone I was addressing a nutjob.

How does it feel to be in the same league as the UFO, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster nutjobs?

See that?

At any rate, it's kinda funny how when I destroy the claims of proof of of harm, people start whining about flames. :::scratches head:::

no, we just got bored with it and with your condescending tone.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Amused

And no, I have not flamed in this thread. In case you didn;t see it, *I* was the one he called a moron.

I guess calling people 'nutjobs' is not flaming, eh?

I never directly called anyone I was addressing a nutjob.

How does it feel to be in the same league as the UFO, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster nutjobs?

See that?

At any rate, it's kinda funny how when I destroy the claims of proof of of harm, people start whining about flames. :::scratches head:::

no, we just got bored with it and with your condescending tone.

Sorry you find facts condescending. That was not my intent.

 

[tooltime]

and if you eat chicken or eggs...?

 

[cheesehead]

I got my information from a butcher. He's a union boss, to boot; he only recently retired.
He told me about all the nasty problems with growth hormone affected cows. They tend to be skinny, sick, and to have large abcesses filled with nasty pus, and he refuses to eat the stuff. Also, I read in the Science News (Science Times? It's reputable, I know that) an article describing how in Argentina, where a large amount of the world's beef is produced and a great deal of growth hormone ends up in runoff into rivers and streams, that girls are starting to reach puberty as young as 7. I've also heard about a study stating that women who consumed BGH while pregnant bore male children with smaller penises, but I'm not quite so sure about that one.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: tooltime
and if you eat chicken or eggs...?

Full of growth hormones, you should avoid it.

 

[jak stat]

Without taking sides in the rBGH debate, there are a couple of points people should know. First, IGF-1(aka somatomedin) is not the only growth hormone in humans, in fact it is a seconday hormone that needs stimulus from just plain growth hormone (aka somatotropin) to be released. In addition, IGF-1 is only one of several hormones that have a role in the onset of puberty, including leptin, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) and neuropeptide-Y.

At present, the most likely scenario for the start of puberty is that it's regulated by an body fat levels that must be at a certain level in order to support the upcoming growth. IGF-1 is only one signal that body fat has reached an appropriate level to start puberty. All of the above hormones signal the hypothalamus which then releases pulses of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the only hormone that can start puberty. Obviously, increasing IGF-1 will lower the threshold for that particular signal, but you would still have to increase leptin levels as well as lower NPY levels which acts as a GnRH inhibitor. So at this point, it seems that better nutrition is the most likely cause for the decrease in the age of puberty, since this is a phenomenon that has been occuring for a century now.

And for whoever asked about the site of IGF-1 synthesis, it's in the liver. Somatotropin/GH is made in the anterior pituitary.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: FoBoT
your berret needs more tinfoil mosh

please educate yourself before you spew off played out messageboard quips.

:laugh:

w0w , you must be so much smarter than the rest of us

i research instead of spouting out one liners, so yes, i am more informed than you on this topic.

Originally posted by: moshquerade
here's some info for those in denial that bovine growth hormone is not safe.
rBGH causes mastitis in cows. the farmers treat that with penicillin. the penicillin DOES end up in the milk. we consume this antibiotic and the overexposure leads to antibiotic resistance which means the antibiotic won't work when we need to take it when we are actually sick.
this trend with penicillin's growing ineffectiveness is well documented.

The Monsanto rBGH product, sold under the trade name Posilac, comes with an insert sheet containing information about the drug. The Posilac insert sheet says, in part, "Cows injected with Posilac are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase. In addition, the risk of subclinical mastitis (milk not visibly abnormal) is increased. In some herds, use of Posilac has been associated with increases in somatic cell counts." [11] Somatic cell counts are another name for pus in milk. The insert sheet mentions other health effects of rBGH on cows: "Use of Posilac has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus during the treatment period." And: "Use of Posilac may result in increased digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea."

There is abundant evidence that, when cows get mastitis, farmers give them antibiotics. Mastitis (or the pus it puts into milk) is a major cause of lost revenues to dairy farmers. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), FDA has approved use of 30 antibiotics on dairy cows but an additional 50 antibiotics are suspected of being used illegally on dairy cows. A 1988 Illinois survey found over 200 different animal drugs on dairy farms, 58% of them not approved for use on dairy cows. Furthermore, the routine tests that FDA applies to milk nationwide can only detect 4 types of antibiotics, so FDA is not in a position to protect consumers from illegal use of antibiotics (which are sold without prescription at farm supply stores). Antibiotic residues in milk --which seem certain to increase with rBGH use --may cause adverse allergic reactions in some consumers, and very likely will contribute to development of strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, thus reducing the effectiveness of antibiotic medicinals against human and animal diseases. [12]

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn382.htm

Wow, good job on your research :disgust:

My Father-in-law runs a dairy operation. He does not treat his cows with rBGH to increase milk production. If and when a cow gets mastitis, he does inject the cow with penicillin. When that cow is milked, NONE of the milk goes in the bulk tank with the rest. That milk is dumped, and a sample is sent to be checked twice a day to make sure that the levels of penicillin are low enough or gone to be able to keep the milk.

Also, if he has a cow go down, and uses antibiotics to get it healthy, the milk is dumped until the tests come back telling him the milk can be used. If the the cow does not recover, it is killed and sent away on the rendering truck.

He also raises a few steers. They do not get antibiotics, or rBGH, and that is what I eat for beef. There are plenty of farmers raising steers, so if you take some time and pull the foil hat from over your eyes, and there are as many dairy operations around you as you claim, I'm sure you could find some "clean" meat.

I don't consciously make an effort to not eat meat or milk with rBGH, but I buy my beef direct from the farm, and buy milk that is supposedly rBGH free.

Originally posted by: Staples
I have not read the thread.

BGH is for milk production as far as I know unless this is some sort of other growth hormone.

I drink organic milk and eat organic beef so hopefully I will not be affected by this stuff (unless the farmers/stores are lying).

There is no way to test for rBGH, so even when I am drinking "rBGH free" milk, I am probably not.