Interesting little piece Kevin wrote on Cow's milk... Cow’s milk is a short term nutrient for newborn calves until weaned. Obviously the milk of every species is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. Cow’s milk is very much richer in protein than human milk, three or four times as much, and has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is lacking in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers’ milk. It is simply not designed for humans. The cow is used due to its docile nature, its size and the fact that of all animals it will produce the most milk. This choice seems normal and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Or is it about the money? Factory Farming Modern dairy farming has become an intensive industry. With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce up to 27 litres of milk a day — ten times more than they would produce naturally. Fifteen years ago an average cow produced 4,000 litres of milk per year. Today the top producers yield 7,000 litres of milk per year per cow! Everyone who lives in the country has seen dairy cows crossing the road, with udders so huge they are rubbing both back legs and almost touching the ground. It just doesn’t seem natural to me, how could a cow with udders like that have any chance of escaping a predator in the wild? This is accomplished by specialised breeding, drugs, hormones and forced feeding plans. Bovine growth hormone or BGH is a genetically engineered drug designed to stimulate milk production. According to the hormone’s manufacturer (Monsanto) it does not affect the milk or meat, but there have been no long term studies on the effects of humans drinking cow’s milk. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia, Japan and New Zealand have banned BGH because of safety concerns. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50-70%) in mastitis. The cow then requires antibiotic therapy and residues of antibiotics are found in the milk together with the cows white blood cells (pus). Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) BGH causes an increase in an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in the milk of treated cows. IGF-1 is a hormone naturally produced in the liver and body tissues of mammals. IGF1 in cows is identical to human IGF-1 in that the amino acid sequence of both molecules is the same. In human and cattle IGF-1 the same 70 amino acids occur in exactly the same order. It has been suggested that IGF-1 is not destroyed during pasteurization. Furthermore it has also been suggested that it is not completely broken down in the human gut and that it may cross the intestinal wall and be absorbed into the bloodstream. This raises concerns that IGF-1 from cow’s milk could increase normal blood IGF-1 levels and so increase the risk of certain cancers linked to IGF-1. IGF-1 regulates cell growth, development and division; it can stimulate growth in both normal and cancerous cells. Even small increases in serum levels of IGF-1 in humans are associated with increased risk for several common cancers including cancers of the breast, lung, prostate and colon. Homogenisation/Standardization. Most milk is homogenized, which is also called standardization. (Read the label) The process was originally designed for processing milk and other dairy products by Auguste Gaulin. It is a mechanical process that forces milk through a tiny aperture at a pressure of 2,500psi. This reduces the fat globules to extremely small and uniformly sized particles producing a fat-in-water emulsion. The fat in milk normally separates from the water and collects at the top (cream line). Homogenisation is the process of breaking up that fat into smaller pieces so that it no longer separates from the milk. Although the basics of milk processing have not changed much over the years, there have been numerous technical changes resulting in lower bacteriological content and thus a longer shelf life for processed milk. The shelf life of processed milk has increased from around 6 days to around 11 days over the last 20 years. The homogenisation process allows a bovine milk enzyme, known as xanthine oxidase (a harmful free radical) to become free. In humans, xanthine oxidase (XO)is normally found in the liver and not free in the blood, but because homogenisation reduces the fat globules to a fraction of their original size, the xanthine oxidase is encapsulated by the new outer membrane of the smaller fat globules. This new membrane protects the xanthine oxidase from digestive enzymes, allowing XO to -29- pass intact within the fat globules from the gut into the blood when homogenized milk is eaten, thus freeing the XO for absorption into the body.\tOnce xanthine oxidase gets into the bloodstream, it causes damage which scars over in the heart and artery tissues, which in turn can stimulate the body to release cholesterol into the blood in an attempt to lay a protective fatty material on the scarred areas. This can lead to arteriosclerosis (Hardening of the arteries). Pasteurization The process of pasteurization was famously created by Louis Pasteur. Pasteur's aim was to destroy bacteria, molds, spores etc. He discovered that bacteria can be destroyed by exposing them to a minimum temperature for a specified minimum time. Furthermore, he discovered that the higher the temperature the shorter the exposure time required. After this process, some of the bacteria (such as e.coli, lysteria, and salmonella) are not destroyed; they still exist in pasteurized products, but in very low concentrations. Refrigeration keeps the bacteria from further growth. There are other bacteria that aren't harmful to humans, but they produce acids that turn the milk sour. They are called lactophilic as they consume the lactose in milk and produce acids. Pasteurization also typically uses temperatures below boiling since at temperatures above the boiling point for milk, casein micelles will irreversibly aggregate ("curdle"). Unfortunately the process of pasteurization not only kills bacteria, it also destroys nutrients and the essential water soluble vitamins. Types of pasteurization There are two types of pasteurization used today: high temperature/short time (HTST) and ultra-high temperature (UHT). There are two methods for the HTST type of pasteurisation in use, batch and continuous flow. In the batch process, a large quantity of milk is held in a heated vat at 63C (145F) for 30 minutes, followed by quick cooling to about 4C (39F). In the continuous flow process also known as HTST, milk is forced between metal plates or through pipes heated on the outside by hot water. HTST is by far the most common method. Milk simply labelled "pasteurized" is usually treated with the HTST method, whereas milk labelled "ultra- pasteurized" or simply "UHT" must be treated with the UHT method. UHT involves holding the milk at a temperature of 138 C (280 F) for at least two seconds. Health Implications It is widely accepted that saturated animal fats raise cholesterol and increase risk of heart disease. Official dietary guidelines across the world recommend that no more than 10% of calories should come from saturated fats. In the UK, dairy foods contribute about 20% of total fat intake and over 1/3rd of saturated fat. Saturated animal fat is the main dietary cause of high blood cholesterol. The British Nutrition Foundation recommends that you limit your saturated fat intake to 7–10 percent (or less) of total calories each day. Saturated animal fats raise blood cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol also raises blood cholesterol. A high level of cholesterol in the blood is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, which leads to heart attack, and also increases the risk of stroke. The message to cut dairy fat to promote good health is clear, but the dairy industry has chosen to put profit above health and keep on pushing dairy fat into the food supply. The success of the dairy industry in recycling its unwanted fat (from -30- skimmed and semi-skimmed milk?) is shown by the fact that the amount of fat and protein supplied by dairy products other than butter has remained remarkably constant in the UK for the last four decades despite whole milk sales plummeting. Mucous Forming I also knew that cow’s milk was mucous forming. Someone I know calls milk ‘cow snot’! Dairy products from cow’s milk, whether pasteurized or raw, are the most mucous forming of all foods. Goat’s milk, however, is substantially less mucous forming than cow’s milk. “In all respiratory conditions, mucous-forming dairy foods, such as milk and cheese can exacerbate clogging of the lungs and should be avoided” Professor Gary Null. On contacting Prof Null he replied, quote “goat and sheep milk are not the problem”. Cancer patients always suffer from Mucositus, a side effect of chemotherapy, in which the lining of the gastrointestinal tract and the inside of the mouth, throat and stomach become inflamed and ulcerated: The body produces excess mucous in an attempt to protect the ulcers. No cow’s milk then, or products, if undergoing chemotherapy.
And how about the millions of people who die of cancer despite eating maple syrup and vitamin D? The hubris in your bubble of douchery must be suffocating your logic and reason.
Please concentrate harder. Nobody has ever said in this thread that eating maple syrup or consuming vitamin D will prevent cancer. Or maybe you're deliberately trying to trivialise and falsify a protocol that has quite clearly worked in two cases I've pointed out to you, because your unjustified naive dismissal of it has folded. Please address the spontaneous regression then? Do you think that happened in both cases?
Does correlation mean causation? How would an n=1 or n=2 sample size influence the strength of this relationship and any ensuing scientific conclusions one might draw from it?
No correlation doesn't mean causation. But in terms of probability, what are the chances that two men both with Prostate Cancer omit all conventional therapies and follow the same outlandish protocol and both have spontaneous regression of their cancers? I mean, is it really too far a leap of faith to think there just might be something to it?
Let's do the math and attempt to come a conclusion of some sort based on known facts. According to the American Cancer Society, ~6 million men are diagnosed with cancer each year in the world, 25% of which have prostate cancer (or 1.5 million new cases of prostate cancer every year). According to a source cited by wiki, approximately 1:100,000 cases of cancer go into remission spontaneously. All things being equal, these numbers suggest about 15 men each year diagnosed with prostate cancer are eventually cured without any logical reason. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that, of the 150 men cured of prostate cancer spontaneously in the last ten years, two of them tried the baking soda/maple syrup out of desperation. Now they've got videos all over the internet claiming correlation equals causation and people eat it up. That's a much simpler explanation than the "leap of faith" pseudoscience you're using to explain what happened. Yes, I would.
Well you're trying to support your entire argument with two pieces of anecdotal evidence, so I thought I'd point out that obvious flaw by forming a rebuttal of my own containing only "what if" situations. Fight fire with fire; fight ignorant bullshit with ignorant bullshit. It happened to this person: Spontaneous Remission from Prostate Cancer « Spontaneous Prostate Cancer Remission Oh, what's that? It's not convincing evidence because it only happened to one person? That's funny, because your undeniable evidence only happened in two cases.
i'm not going to read all of your post before immediately quoting myself.. :" i don't really care about WINNING an argument.. more like unveiling the truth and searching for it myself." Yes, I've considered it's possible it's not true.. i'm going based off a paper I read on it. i would love to post it here. even if it isn't true, my panties aren't going to be in a knot idk why you had to be so smarmy with me. i never said anything about scientists being evil if that's what you're implying as well. okay i would love to see these convenient facts that prove baking soda can't aid cancer.. and that many people who've came out and said it helped them are liars. i mean i really WON'T act like a total douche (like you) if i'm wrong.. I'm not a loser k? so please present me this evidence i'm missing...because all i've found is that the main doctor( advocating baking soda treatments) in the U.S got his license taken away for using baking soda treatment on a patient.. she got better but it was an unapproved procedure so they took his license away.. which is perfectly reasonable. then they tried to connect him to another patients death but the case never fell through. anyways this is coming from a lady who claims to be better. what the fuck ever though. maybe she's a lying rat and my grandmother did the smart thing for going to the experts, paying thousands of dollars to have high amounts of radiation beamed into her body to help decompose her flesh from the inside out. yah, really smart doctors we have here. yah, let's just kiss the ass of mainstream information.. i mean we are on a site concerning a prohibited "miracle plant". lol i mean it's proven that it shrinks tumors.. isn't that technically cancer curing? or am i misinformed about marijuana as well. REALLY gotta watch my step with you mr. omniscient dude all i'm really getting at is that you came off like a really immature and ignorant douche.. why you had to address me with the attitude that I had 0 competence is beyond me. i don't get how people approach people with 0 concern of their brash demeanor. just beyond me. and you came lol because I didn't say or believe half the things your post led on (which is also why you came off as ignorant) lol my unscientific background.. you sound like you have a stethoscope stuck up your ass bro
These cases happened within a year of each other. So we can calculate on 30 men, not 150. So what are the chances that 2 out of these incredibly lucky 30 men (1 in 100,000 probability), both omitted conventional therapies and both used a massively outlandish protocol? and that both had this 'spontaneous regression' during the small window of using this protocol? This man here used the protocol for just 11 days. Protocol So, what the chances the spontaneous regression occurred within those 11 days? How miraculously coincidental... I'd love to have all the data and variables to actually work out the percentage. Because I think then you would need a leap of faith to not see a connection.
I've mentioned two case studies to you, that doesn't mean there isn't a hell of lot more out there on the value of bicarbonate of soda as an anti-cancer treatment. You'll find testimonies on youtube (but i guess these people are just lying or just miraculously had spontaneous regression whilst coincidentally having a bi-carb treatment)
Okay, so there are probably a hell of a lot more cases of spontaneous remission too. And YouTube? Really?
Holy shit dude. I don't even know how to respond anymore to someone who thinks it is more a leap of faith to base one's conclusion on 50 years of medicine, biological, physiological, pharmacological, chemical and statistical data than it is to believe two random anecdotal stories and a reference to a few random youtube videos made by people who don't even know what cancer is. You are one special guy, and I don't mean that in the admirable way. Have a nice life, because it won't last long taking spoonfuls of bicarbonate for breakfast everyday.
I'll get back to your other points later, but I just want to bring something up here.... Anecdotal evidence by people who aren't doctors can't be taken as statistical data, because as the chief wrote, correlation does not equal causation. Plus, there are so many biochemical things going on in your body that they must be measured by trained professionals. Your diet, your sleep schedule, your psychological state of being, blood pressure, and much much much more are all taken into account by doctors. This helps narrow down the possibilities of why the cancer regressed. If I start doing hand-stand pushups after being diagnosed with cancer, and then my cancer vanishes, does that mean doing hand-stand pushups is correlated with curing cancer? Not even slightly... unless that's what I want to focus on by ignoring all other data taken into account
There are many cancer "cures" that are misleading, only cure specific cancers, and some like dichloroacetate (DCA) are toxic at higher doses. Phoenix Tears Why waste your time with ANYTHING ELSE Cannabis cures cancer! Eating properly will prevent some cancers but it won't kill the cancers permanently, ingest or apply cannabis oil to cure cancers. Even smoking cannabis stops cancer growth. Please don't overestimate smoking cannabis in comparison to the oil. Cannabis oil cures cancers, smoking cannabis won't cure cancers but it will prevent them from growing. But if the cancer is too much then it does its damage anyway, which is why eating cannabis oil is the sane choice for those with any type of cancer.
What are you babbling about? Concentrate on what I've actually written before you hit the keyboard all excited. You're trying to trivialise my argument into something completely off the point, whilst simultaneously failing to address the question i raised of the probability of both of these case studies having a spontaneous regression during a small window of a bi-carb protocol. The fact you give no second thought or credence to that demonstrates just how pitifully closed and programmed your mind is. So no, I'm not comparing two case studies with 50 years of 'failed' cancer research. The war on cancer has been lost. Lost to the profiteers who benefit from the poisoning and burning that passes for 'treatment', despite the fact you would statistically live longer by having no treatment at all. If the cancer doesn't get you the chemo will right? The youtube videos I am referring to are of recorded testimonies of cancer patients who cured their cancers using a bi-carb treatment under the care of an oncologist (dr simoncini) - yes his career was dragged through the mud because if it. So I think these people know what cancer is you dimwit. Oh wait, they were paid Italian actors hired by arm and hammer! What an elaborate an ingenious PR campaign. For the record I don't supplement with bi-carb and I certainly don't need nutritional advice from you. I'm a qualified (non-practicing) nutritionist who studied for the sheer passion of it, alongside my career.
But would such a correlation raise a flag of interest to you? Would it not at least prick your ears and stir up some curiosity justified of further investigation in a controlled environment? That's all I ask! That at least it would be enough to conjure up an open mind approach?
You seem to lack a basic understanding of how probabilities work. If you flip a fair two-sided coin ten times and get heads every time, the probability of getting heads on the eleventh throw is still 50%. Therefore, although two cases of spontaneous remission is not a very probable situation, the fact that they happened within a few years of each other is irrelevant. Assuming the probability of spontaneous remission is 1/1000, if one person spontaneously goes into remission, the probability of some other person also going into spontaneous remission is still 1/1000. The fact that someone else did has no bearing on the probability. It's basic math. No. Wouldn't decades of medical research raise a flag for you? And the environment in these cases was in no way "controlled." Do you even know what that means? It means every single aspect of the person's life must be identical except for the one variable in question. I'll have an open mind when you give me a reason to do so.