Consumption of milk and its products may reduce the risk of colon cancer

15 תגובות

1. Avi Blizovsky - Bambi answered you and showed that the article lacks due disclosure because its author receives money from the dairy industry. And you give him an evasive and not really scientific answer.
   The title of the article is beautifully worded "may reduce the risk", one could also write equally "may increase", maybe yes or maybe not, no certainty, but the impression is created...

   There is one thing in the article that is probably certain "participation in school milk distribution programs is associated with a 30% decrease in the risk of developing colon cancer in adulthood"

   The question arises as to whether it is now possible to prove that this happened due to the whole milk as a whole, or the calcium, or another factor such as those who drank milk underestimating the consumption of meat.
   I think Dr. Avni will continue to sleep peacefully (to response 1), he did a good job and this is not unreasonable in this article.

   Later Legal (response 13) - there are clear studies that show that he is right, you can read about them in the book "China Research".

   In summary, milk is currently associated with many diseases, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, skin problems (you can read about them at Dr. Avni's and in the China study). If there is perhaps a point benefit in a certain case of colon cancer, it still does not justify all the other problems that the milk may cause.

   As a precautionary measure, you should greatly reduce milk consumption, and be careful to eat calcium-rich vegetables and legumes such as beans, and to combine foods high in quality protein such as rice with lentils, hummus with tahini, quinoa, or soy

2. The studies show a connection between calcium consumption and cancer, but what is the connection between milk or yogurt and calcium, and others write that these are foods high in calcium. This requires a change of perception but.. there is no connection between the milk and calcium
   On the contrary - the milk causes the loss of calcium and does not add to the body.

   Since the amount of sodium and phosphorus in milk and cow products is very high, the body excretes all the mineral components including calcium (and many other important reserves for the body) as a reaction to this food and to the acidity (PH) in the blood caused by them.

   The result is that you lose much more calcium than is in the milk to begin with - so you actually lose calcium when you drink milk or eat cheese.

   As I said - it requires a change of perception for everything we were taught, but in the end we learn the bitter truth!

3. I lived in China and Thailand. Almost no dairy products are eaten there
   They are perfectly fine, eat more soy. In my opinion they are healthier, the old people there move more and don't look like they are going to die and go to the hospital all the time. I don't know what about cancer...they are healthier but at the rate that McDonald's branches are appearing...not for long.
   I drank milk in Thailand and China, imported (Holland) resistant milk. It should be noted that before I went on the trip I had "lactose" sensitivities in Israel. When I arrived in China I would drink a liter of milk every day...nothing, no problem...maybe it's also fake milk I thought.
   But also in Thailand, certain companies, their milk didn't do anything for me (mainly from the Netherlands)..so I don't know anymore
   I came back to Israel, I drank a drop...no milk, and I felt that my stomach was exploding, as if poison had entered my body with very strong suffering and pain. What's more, both my father and I, (they say it starts at a certain age) exactly that year we started to be sensitive to milk, which means that we changed the milk, something in the production process.
   In short, I would be more afraid of what is put into milk in Israel. Because all the cleanliness of the milk, the hormones that enter the cow, go find out what we drink.

4. Bambi:
   I only commented to you because I did not find examples of demagoguery in other comments that interested me.

5. You're right, I wasn't precise.
   But it is also demagogic to comment on the subject of demagogy only on my comments in this thread.

   The bacterium originates from animals (for which it is not harmful) and not from humans (assuming that it is of natural origin of course)
   Referring to the strains that are fatal to humans as an example
   E. coli O157:H7, E. coli O121 and E. coli O104:H21.

   What is interesting is that many studies have indicated that cows that were not allowed to eat in the meadow but were allowed to eat grains (the entire industrial economy) - produce the strains that are fatal to humans
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#E._coli

6. Bambi:
   I am a vegetarian and I also share your desire to make sure that the world is based on plants for its nutrition instead of animals and this is for many reasons including the ones you mentioned.
   But this does not constitute for me a justification for demagoguery.

   There is no connection between resistance to the source of pesticides and chemicals and lethality to humans. There simply isn't. Man is not high in pesticides and chemicals, therefore adapting to an environment high in pesticides and chemicals does not create resistance to the immune system or to the drugs that a person does take (and he, as we know, does not need pesticides - not even to eradicate his diseases - because it is quite stupid to eradicate yourself along with the disease).
   Certainly none of this has anything to do with the lethality of the bacteria. There are many bacteria that live very well in a person without being fatal for him (and many times even the opposite - their resistance in the human environment allows them to contribute to the person).

   The bacterium has already been identified as a bacterium of human origin, so there is no need to pin the cause of its existence on all kinds of factors that want to blame.

   The chance that a bacterium of human origin will reach the various crops on farms that use sewage water or fertilizers that include human excrement is infinitely higher than the chance that something similar will happen as a result of using clean and disinfected water and fertilizers that do not include human excrement. This could be known for sure even if the current disaster had not occurred.

7. The story with Koli Island is really interesting.
   You meant the last suspicion, before that it was cucumbers from Spain... tomorrow it will be okra from Jaffa.
   The truth is they don't know yet.

   As of this moment:
   From the German organic farm, samples were taken to the laboratory - and the bacteria was not there

   Besides, it is known that sprouts only need water, there is no manure or pollution
   And the standard for using water under the organic seal is extremely strict.
   (Although not in Israel, but that's another story)

   If anything, quite the opposite - a bacterium becomes evolutionarily resistant to a source rich in pesticides and chemicals and becomes a new and deadly strain.

8. Bambi and someone, I also live in the same world as you live in it and am aware of its shortcomings, and I don't even hate tycoons to say the least, but from here to constant persecution from any action someone does is a long way. For your information, according to the latest findings, the source of the resistant E. coli bacteria in Germany was sprouts grown on an organic farm, meaning that it was precisely the rejection of the hated "industrial" fertilizers and pesticides that led to the outbreak of the disease that killed dozens of people in Europe.

9. And if you already mentioned global warming and the quality of the environment -
   Your interest is to stop the industrial use of animals.
   They are among the biggest contributors to global warming and damage to the environment

   According to a report by the Food and Agriculture Authority of the United Nations:

   "Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."

   http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

   You can find the official report on Wikipedia under the name
   Livestock's Long Shadow report

10. My dear father, you are wrong.
    I am not a conspirator but live in the real world saturated with business interests and power.

    Your article cites "Dr. Niva Shapira, a clinical nutritionist from the Nutrition Research Institute at Blinson Hospital and a consultant to the Association to Fight Cancer, states the findings of a new study,"

    The same respected Dr. is also:

    Strauss has for many years employed Dr. Niva Shapira, who serves as an external consultant for the entire Strauss-Elite concern. "

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3112210,00.html

    Is there a conflict of interest?

    You know very well that the clip of the Australian Animal Welfare Society describes the very ugly reality as it is in the dairy industry.
    You can start eating vegetables for calcium and not be a part of this horror.

11. Avi (3) Please note: the Cancer Society just compiled studies
    exist, not she performed them. You will know who funded the studies
    found by the association's informants.

    I am not arguing against drinking milk (I consume dairy products occasionally)
    Bambi still seems to me to be right, there are quite a few plant sources
    Available and rich in calcium (black beer for example) and even if we ignore it
    From the humanitarian side there are two good reasons in my opinion against drinking
    Milk in quantities as a source of calcium:

    Calcium from milk in coffee, cocoa and tea is less well absorbed
    From calcium in clean milk (but how many drink it clean?).

    I'm afraid that food produced from animals is "exploded" with drugs
    And hormones that "do not contribute" to our health to say the least.

12. Bambi, your theory falls apart when the person who published the article is the Cancer Society which has no specific interest in the dairy industry, but what if a conspiracy theory holds that an entire industry that helped us increase our life expectancy killed us, no amount of reality will be able to change that. Especially when it comes from those people who oppose evolution and believe that the earth is not warming (another truth....).
    And YouTube movies as you know are not a scientific source

13. After all, there are studies (such as the 2005 study by Ganma Vasto that gathered material from 40 countries) that determined that there is a connection.

    That is, at the very least, it can be said that there is a dispute. (We will ignore for the moment that the dairy industry will only fund studies with positive results for them of course)

    So why not just recommend the consumption of calcium from vegetables?
    As far as I know, there is no dispute about a negative health effect - quite the opposite.

    Let's not forget that we are not just calcium and stomach and there is the moral and the heart.
    The dairy industry is as cruel as it gets
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kdpcFaNsw

    Calcium intake from vegetables is ideal in all respects.

14. If Dr. Avni, the author of the book 'The Milk Whips', reads these findings
    He will turn a little pale. 🙂
    I wonder what he will have to say about it.
    In my opinion there is merit in Dr. Avni's claims but as in life
    Every rule has exceptions and you will know if the New Zealand population
    Over the generations, she biologically adapted herself to increased consumption
    of milk and its products, etc.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.