Cow's milk - why do you keep sipping the poison?

Dr Davaasambuu, in the Harvard link in your OP, said approximately that about her findings. "More study is needed," or words to that effect. As in

quote:

---

What claim did you support with evidence?

---

You asked a question, I answered it.As far as the rest of your questions, it seems to me that you're the one who has yet to support your contentions. Others have pointed out that many of the substances you complain about are naturally found in humans, and at levels lower than those found in milk. The research showing milk is safe is the fact that millions upon millions of people drink it daily with no observable adverse effects. Certainly some people are unable to tolerate it, but that's no different from just about any other food you'd care to name.Let me suggest that if you want to eliminate nonsense from this thread, you start with the OP.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

There is not a consensus on whether or not cow's milk is generally healthy or generally not healthy. With respects to what your opening post outlined, there are a number of issues that could be concerning to humans -- mostly growth hormones. And the rise in lactose intolerance is another instance that may point to problems.But you can be sure that there is no smoking gun that would medically link cow's milk to any serious aliment in human beings. Nicotene has a smoking gun linking it to the proliferation of cancer cells within the human body. Okay, this comment is baseless as far as it could be considered a defense of your initial proposition. Those animals you outlined are also too stupid to drink cow's milk, so it is pretty much pointless to mention that, because they don't, that it must some how be evidence that we are not supposed to be drinking it. By what cosmic rule does it violate?Mankind has been using animals to feed us and to make jobs easier for as long as history has been around. While it is reasonable to question the ethics of it, and legitimate to question whether or not there are any actual health benefits or risks associated with it, this comment does not qualify.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Which rise would that be?

In how many people have problems digesting dairy products.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Please, share with us the data on the rise in lactose intolerance. None of the data in this thread has suggested any such thing.In fact, the data suggests that human populations with many generations of access to cows milk are not lactose intolerant, while populations without such access tend to be lactose intolerant.This is indicative of an evolved human trait to be more tolerant of lactose over time, not less.

No, only testerone levels were lower, all the other hormone concentrations that i could find info on, were higher in cow's milk than in human blood serum. See peage 2.

Agobot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where is the evidence that what is in milk is sufficient to be a cause for concern?

---

​

Obviously you have trouble understanding me

---

No, I understand you quite well. You've got a lot of bluster, but no details.

quote:

---

The evidence is on page 1(ONE), the first page of this topic(move a page back and you are right there).

---

Incorrect. What is there is an assertion. There is no evidence. It is not enough to say that there is an elevated hormone level in modern milk. You have to show that the elevated level is significant.Your first source doesn't go anywhere.Your second source doesn't say anything except "elevated levels" and tries to point out that Japan is seeing a higher rise in cancer and link it to dairy...despite the fact that Japanese people are largely lactose intolerant and thus don't eat much dairy at all.This isn't enough. You need to show causation, not mere correlation.Where is the evidence that what is in milk is sufficient to be a cause for concern?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Before you continue to try and tar and feather me, bear in mind that I am not in favor of Agobots ideas. I am simply allowing him the courtesy to express his points.Just days before he posted this information, my pediatrician was telling me all about the silent horrors of milk, and recommended that I not give cows milk to my children any longer, claiming that cows milk does not produce useful calcium for things like osteoporosis, but is actually the cause of it.All the other doctors in her office felt the same. It became apparent, however, that she is a vegan and so are the other doctors in the office. So go figure that they are spreading propaganda about how atrocious milk and meat is. Then why are so many Americans, in the hundreds of thousands, lactose intolerant? These are people around dairy all the time. That's because it is genetic and has nothing to do with anything else.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Hundreds of thousands of lactose intolerant Americans is not the same as a rise in lactose intolerance, Buzz.The US contains a giant mix of all geological origins, meaning Europeans who are largely tolerant of lactose as well as Asians who are mostly lactose intolerant are all here, and in many cases interbreeding - of course there will be many lactose intolerant individuals.Further, lactose tolerance/intolerance no longer has selection pressure - you aren't more or less likely to survive based on whether you can consume milk or not. It's gone from a beneficial trait to a neutral one so far as survival and reproduction is concerned.So while we've observed that populations with easy access to dairy have a much stronger likelihood to be tolerant of lactose (indicative of a rise in tolerance over time, as I said earlier), we wouldn't expect lactose tolerance to continue to rise in first-world countries where lactose tolerance no longer means the difference between adequate vs inadequate food for survival. It should remain neutral now, affected only by the genetics of parents.Your statement makes it sound like simply being around dairy results in lactose tolerance, through some form of osmosis. That's not how evolution works.You claimed:

quote:

---

And the rise in lactose intolerance is another instance that may point to problems.

---

No data in this thread has suggested there has been a rise in lactose intolerance. Rather, it appears that humans are normally lactose intolerant, but that people from cultures that had easy access to dairy developed a mutation that allowed them to tolerate cow's milk, and this mutation was beneficial in times where cow's milk could be additional nutrition when food was scarce. This is indicative of a rise over time in lactose tolerance, not intolerance.If you have data suggesting that lactose intolerance has been on the rise, please post it, because so far none of the data in this thread suggests any such thing.

Rahvin writes:

quote:

---

Rather, it appears that humans are normally lactose intolerant, but that people from cultures that had easy access to dairy developed a mutation that allowed them to tolerate cow's milk, and this mutation was beneficial in times where cow's milk could be additional nutrition when food was scarce. This is indicative of a rise over time in lactose tolerance, not intolerance.

---

In fact, lactose tolerance is one of the more recent genetic mutations in humans, looking at the molecular clock.But that said, being able to digest lactose beyond infancy still doesn't indicate whether milk is good or bad. None of the information proferred here has put forth any real data. Instead, there have just been assertions regarding how milk has certain chemicals in it. No indication has been shown if these chemicals are absorbed by the body and if they are, if they actually cause any significant change.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

this site: "Vitamin linked to brain shrinking"helps understand the impact of Aqobot's avoiding milk on his mental processes.

AnswersInGenitals quotes a study:

quote:

---

Older people with lower than average vitamin B12 levels were more than six times more likely to experience brain shrinkage, researchers concluded.

---

It should be pointed out that B12 is an animal vitamin and does not occur in plants (or, more accurately, it is created by bacteria that occur in animals, not plants.) Those who refrain from all animal products need to be careful to supplement their diet. B12 supplements can do so as can a sufficient source of dietary cobalt as there are bacteria in our guts that can convert the cobalt into cobalamin (vitamin B12).B12 deficiency leads to pernicious anemia.Milk, however, is a very good source of B12.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Of course there are vitaimins in milk. Cow milk is a precision balanced foruma of complex chemicals designed to replace natural food for calves, baby rats, baby dogs, baby mongooses, etc. However it's species-specific, meaning that its highly complex composition is in its state because Nature used natural selection in conjunction with environment pressure to come up with the best possible compound for the conditions and environment in which calves live. Its composition has absolutely nothing to do with what our human bodies need and desire. We are trying to adapt our bodies to cow's milk composition which I consider a very wrong path, but everyone is free to do as they please. I am disgusted how you choose to drink cow milk - not because it's good for humans or because cow's DNA and body is similar to our human's, but because presumably it's more tasty than the milk of foxes, wolves and rats. That's a helluva reason to choose cow's milk over all other mammals milk. That could have possibly been a good reason 4 or 5 millinia ago when people had not invented the wheel and the alphabet and when people had no idea about DNA damage and cancer but in 2008 we are "aware" and conscious of much more of nature's ways.I am fully aware that meat is also damageing while still having lots of positive effects on the human body. While meat's negative effects are probably much less than those of cow milk, it just goes to show what a mess our bodies are trying to adapt to different foods. I believe our bodies got accustomed to meat(extracting every possible positive element out of meat) while still some of the ingredients are doing their damage(cholesterol, hormones, roasted meat causing cancer, etc.). At this stage(afetr consuming meat for more than a few million years) it might be too late to cut off meat consumption as our bodies are so accustomed to it that it will probably inflict much more damage than benefit. But it very clearly shows what a terrible mess our bodies are and it gives you a hint that the creator is either non existent or is really an idiot.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

False.Dairy cow's milk composition has been altered by artificial selection because of what human's desire.

quote:

---

Genetic improvement of dairy cows, which has increased the milk yield of cows in the UK by 1200kg per lactation in 12 years, is an excellent example of the application of quantitative genetics to agriculture.

​

source

---

That's just yeld so here's this too:

quote:

---

In our analyses, three associations met the criteria of consistency-a C blood group effect on rump angle, an L effect on milk yield and composition traits, and an S effect on milk fat yield. The M locus appears to be directly associated with effects on milk and protein yields.

​

source

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.