Watched on an award winning TV documentary program.
Then start to google keywords "dr colin campbell milk cancer"
random pick any of the returned results. example
News start around 2012, but first time I learnt this myself in Australia.
Slightly concern as our kids drink milk daily at home.
Is this fact or myth?
Plant milks in Australia are known not to contain vitamin H. (Vitamin H - also known as common historical appeal - also known as "this is what we've always done so how can it be wrong.")
A lot of people took it very seriously when Dr Campbell came out with his study. Fortunately for us, peer reviewing scientific work with a high degree of scrutiny is very common nowadays.
His report is mostly nonsense based on cherry picked data and he makes wild connections that won't add up if you look at the statistics. If anything the data just shows that to reduce your chances of cancer its best to have a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables.
Here is a detailed overview and a statistical analysis of his work
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal…
Fortunately for us, peer reviewing scientific work with a high degree of scrutiny is very common nowadays
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Background of people in study
Dr C. Campbell - Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry - Cornell University
Richard Peto - Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology - Oxford University
Reviewed in peer to peer review journal Leonardo by
Wilfred Niels Arnold, - Professor of biochemistry at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
"…In fact, the surprising data are difficult to interpret in any other way.
described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".
VS
Nutritionist Loren Cordain
Harriet Hall, a physician and skeptic who writes about alternative medicine
in a blog entry posted on the Science-Based Medicine website
Who would you rather believe?
eatwell365, now its your turn to cherry pick facts…maybe intentionally? Or just confused? The book and supporting marketing certainly goes a way to creating this confusion. I don't know your motivations. But you've come on here asking if a conclusion from the book is a work of fiction, now you're arguing a position.
There are two things that need to be separated. The project is not the same as the book!
We have a pretty good data gathering project called the The China-Cornell-Oxford Project. Which generated a bunch of data, but like any project, is interesting but very in-conclusive about a lot of things. And can't clearly show causality.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutriti…
We have a book for sale. And a lame attempt, which is fairly well debunked, (yes Loren Cordain is one of them but there are many others) at SELECTIVELY USING AND OMITTING different data from that project to justify a bunch of other crap.
http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-Implicat…
Do not confuse the two in attempt to justify your position. I see you're using Richard Peto, who was involved in the project to justify the position of the book. It is misleading. He was involved in the project, and makes none of the same conclusions that the book makes.
The book is not a scientific work, published in a proper scientific journal with peer review
There is plenty of criticism, but nothing like the mountain of criticism you'd get if you tried to publish that in a major peer reviewed scientific journal, aside from the fact that it would never be published. Most serious scientists couldn't be bothered responding to some book.
Not the one from BitTorrent!
That's a pretty bad argument. You cant believe something just because someone in authority says so, if the data doesn't agree with a hypothesis then it is either false or partly false.
Regarding casein (the milk protein), there is may be a correlation with casein and the likelihood of cancer when it is the only substance consumed, HOWEVER, milk also contains a protein called Whey. Whey reverses any small impact casein may have, (experiments have shown a fairly good correlation that it reduces cancer risks) so as long as you drink milk as a whole and not extract the Casein to eat it by itself you will be more than protected.
If you enjoy scientific reading then check out this one on the role for milk proteins and their peptides in cancer prevention - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17430183
really need to emphasis this point - the book and the study are two different things.
To all readers on this thread
1. disclosure - I have zero financial interest directly or indirectly from starting discussion on this thread.
2. like most of us, I come to this forum to learn, to discuss, to share knowledge, to find a bargain and to have a bit of fun. Neither I come here to debate with the intention to win an argument, nor I will attempt to suppress others idea.
3. If only you are interested, read the few pages from 478 on Handbook of Educational Psychology about the pros and cons of group discussion in science.
In short, +1 on the majority does not mean it is right in science. It means social norm or a value most people think, group discussion can sometimes suppress individual ideas.
With all sincerity, i respect and learn from you, I read and validate points before forming a view.
I believe we would like to write to each other in respect in the spirit of this forum and democracy.
can't believe something just because someone in authority says so.
totally agree with the above statement. in kinders, we learn from authority and teachers. in high school and uni, we learn ourselves by critical and lateral thinking. that is why most of us are lucky to enjoy education and our society moves forward.
What do people learn the first thing to do when reading a scientific paper or study?
read about the authors and the credential of a paper published.
It does not mean all, but papers are not as easily accepted in big journals; Professors in reputable institution are not professors because they are called so and write high number of blogs/twitters in Internet forums.
With all sincerity, i respect and learn from you, I read and validate points before forming a view.
I believe we would like to write to each other in respect in the spirit of this forum and democracy.
Noble goals, as I said, I can only speculate on your motivations. But you have spread misinformation and seek to deceive, unintentionally or otherwise.
Background of people in study
Dr C. Campbell - Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry - Cornell University
Richard Peto - Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology - Oxford University
You haven't addressed why you link the name Sir Richard Peto to the book The China Study, it's not his book, he didn't contribute to it and he's never backed the claims made by the book. Probably because Richard is smart enough to know that correlation ≠ causality. Richard Peto is involved in the project only. A lot of the marketing for the book I believe does the same thing and links him to the book.
described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".
You also quote the New York Times comment, which should be attributed to the The China-Cornell-Oxford Project and not the book.
This is misleading. I don't know why you would do this.
While you're looking at various psychology text books to explain away all the other opinions and critiques of the book, you might also want to consider one aspect of being human, that is Confirmation Bias. Which should also be covered somewhere in those books.
@ChickenTalon:
The wiki wrote:
"The China-Cornell-Oxford Project—the "China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties," referred to in the book as "the China Study". Write to the wiki if you think their information is misleading and deceitful.
@eatwell365: I'd agree with that, finding out about the author and their credentials is definitely useful information to have when looking at scientific journals but whats more important (in my opinion) is how his peers with similar qualifications critiqued his work. Why? Because we are not all from the same scientific background and may not be able to fully evaluate his work. But in this case we cant look at peer reviews for the China Study because it is book and Not a scientific paper that was published in a Journal.
The book was only "loosely based" on a study called the China–Cornell–Oxford Project, it was a large epidemiology study that was actually Published in a scientific journal - you may be confusing the two. it was this study that was peer reviewed and described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology", not the book. I can see why you'd think the study and book would have the same conclusions but they don't, the study shows completely different things from the book. I noticed how you copied the Wikipedia entry on Dr. Harriet Hall, unfortunately its not worded correctly. she is not a skeptic who writes about alternative medicine in blogs but someone who is skeptical OF alternative medicine and writes about how she openly analyses them.
If i seem a bit a too passionate about this it may be because a friend of mine read the china study and went on a diet in accordance with the book(despite me telling her it was a bad idea), within just 3 months she had such a severe vitamin D deficiency that she needed regular injections. Needless to say, she is no longer vegan. I have nothing against vegans and there may very well be information on how to have a nutritionally sound vegan diet out there somewhere but it is not to be found in this book.
@deal seeking missile: your comment has summed it up nicely. sorry to hear but thank you for sharing about your friend.
I got lost when you said "Calcium you can find in Vegas" lol
(I gotta stop speed reading).
Anyhow, the Earth isn't flat? (Who knew?)
Its not proven because the Universe might be flat and so Earth flat too.
Lol what.. Please explain.
Misspelled veggies as well on the edit lol
So what do you mix with cereal for breakfast?
Soy with muesli. Too much sugar in cereal for my liking.
Took awhile to get used to soy, but goes well with coffee without having to add any extra sugar - soy is sweet on its own.
There's plenty of issues associated with soy milk too, you know…in fact, I actively avoid soy.
@Mistymoo: do you actively avoid beef too? Most beef is fed with soy. Soy is also in many processed products. The destruction of the amazon rainforest for soy production is almost entirely for cattle feed
@Mistymoo: Perhaps you should reconsider. Soy (like all beans) is protective against many conditions including cancer. I would still actively avoid GMO soy though due to detectable pesticide levels, sadly GMO soy is mainly used to feed livestock so the pesticides build up in larger amounts and end up on your plate anyway.
Consume enough soy and you can drink your own milk!
I found it was the added sugar in some soy milk products that made it sweet.
So what do you mix with cereal for breakfast?
You eat breakfast?!?!?!
Don't you know if you eat anything before 12:09:54PM for more than 20797.7 consecutive days your wang will fall off???
Thank god you told me… I was 1 day away from having my wang fall off… wait… nvm today is 20797.8 consecutive days.
Shit….
In fact we have a very low number of sick days compared to others at work/school.
And there you go happily falling back to confirmation bias to strengthen your pet theory.
You don't need to consume dairy for calcium. You get calcium from leafy greens and some legumes without the heart disease factor. Milk contains vitamin d which is important for calcium absorbtion. Leafy greens contain vitamin k which is also important.
I like "cows milk is for cows".
I said that to my friends and they all laugh at me.
geez i'm glad i'm not your kid
I don't know but play it safe, drink almond milk
read this article from business insider "why almond milk is basically a scam?". And coca cola starts to sell milk at twice the price?!!! OMG.
almond milk is overrated and contains way too much omega 6. it's a popular fad that vegans believe in, but really it's really zero benefit and costly on the environment to produce.
More damaging than the dairy industry? Doubt it
Probably more damaging to your wallet than anything if buying retail… going off recipes, it is 80% water
DIY almond milk:
It's a popular fad that some vegans believe in. I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and I don't drink almond milk.
Replace vegans with yuppies and you're spot on
Vegans: Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish, or ride.
@Gorodemon: That vaguely works for vegetarians, but not really vegans (and of course isn't remotely funny and also applies to most meat eaters!).
to be honest, i don't think almond milk contains much of anything.
re omega 6 pufas: i don't see a problem if it is consumed from whole foods like nuts. nut consumption is associated with a decrease in cvd. it's processed rubbish like industrial pufa vegetable oils that you need to avoid
"to be honest, i don't think almond milk contains much of anything."
exactly, which is why it's not really worthy of buying. you might as well get some blueberries, carrots and maybe an avocado and turn it all into a smoothie.
Almond milk is for almonds.
Rev is for… cars?
Hemp milk is for Seth Rogen.
highon2str has a point regarding the calcium level in milk. the truth is you can also get calcium from having a lot of vegetables as well, and it might be the case your body may even absorb it better from them compared to milk.
the other thing you should recognise when you drink milk from the supermarket is that it's been heat treated so hard that all of the healthy stuff from it is gone. whether or not it causes cancer is inconclusive, and so you should be aware of documentaries that nit pick studies and facts to prove/drive an agenda.
heat treated so hard that all of the healthy stuff
What healthy stuff?
I want names of compounds not some new age crap like "energy" or appeals to the fairy goddesses that live in milk until it's pasteurised (presumably).
you can easily research what is in full fat grass fed milk - it's not hard.
trace amounts of omega 3, conjugated linoleic acid etc.
by the way, 'energy' isn't "new age crap" it's a scientific term with meaning. goof.
I believe diji1 is referring to "spiritual" energy as opposed to calorific energy. Calories can be measured through scientific means and has units whereas spiritual energy is based on anecdotal evidence. Energy is a scientific term but doesn't necessarily mean it is always used in a scientific sense.
By the way just because something like "conjugated linoleic acid" says that it can fight cancer on the bottle doesn't mean it's true. Supplements are exempt from a lot of testing as it is neither a food or drug, it is an untested supplement. Studies take thousands of participants over decades to prove the effectiveness of a drug.
@alm865: yeah…but i really couldn't care about drinking milk. the entire premise that drinking milk is important to developing and maintaining strong and healthy bones is a farce. you get all that from resistance/weighted exercises and not being a slob.
you can easily research what is in full fat grass fed milk - it's not hard.
When you are the one presenting an argument, in this case that unpasteurised milk has more healthy stuff, it's up to you to present the proof. "Go look it up" is one of the worst (profanity) replies to someone arguing with you as it just shows you don't really know what you're talking about and/or your sources are most likely random tumblr blogs.
@miicah: i'd love to go full retard and argue with a stranger on the internet and cite sources from pubmed papers and whatnot but i have better things to do.
@rogr: You've convinced me. How could one possibly argue with logic like that and such irrefutable facts?
@endotherm: cause they dont want you to argue with the facts. they don't want you to stop drinking milk.
@rogr: Ah, I see, they are involved. Which "they" is it? The gummint? Men in Black? Big Dairy? I'd just look it up myself but there are so many conspiracy theories these days, and I have better things to do.
@endotherm: it was a joke involving a meme relating to DJ Khaled, but nevermind. i ceebs expanding on my argument, point is milk is crap and it's importance is overrated.
@rogr: The best part about 'research' these days is nearly half of it is a load of rubbish because the people providing the money to researchers pretty much decide the outcome. I think Coke has been exposed paying people to write in their favor.
How is energy new age? Please explain Diji1.
Everything causes cancer these days…
Doctors who make wild claims about cancer causes remind me of economists regularly claiming the 50% housing bubble which was supposed to happen 10 years ago and every year since. Haha
1970's to be precise for Australia LOLOL
Even if a burst happens we technically would still be in a 'bubble'. The best part is that house prices in the US have risen past pre GFC levels now.
Once I heard about this I stopped taking Casein powder.
Tbh it tasted like crap compared to whey protein.
everything causes cancer
from burnt food, to pesticides in vegies, the milk, the air we breath in, our mobile phones, Wi-Fi, microwaves, non stick pans,
That's true but I think there is different levels of impact. Digesting it is more harmful than mobile phone us rage I would imagine?
yeah but I drink maybe one cup a day
we have our mobile phones with us like 15 hours a day, some sleep with it next to them
@eatwell365:
do you place the mobile in ur pocket or do you carry a manbag
cause if its in ur pocket its no good too close to ur manhood!
do you sleep with ur mobile next to ur bed? if not that's no good too
Does anyone here get ear ache when talking on the mobile on the ear
Only when speaking to my wife.
-on my hand or fanny-like manbag.
-phone in pocket = lap top on the lap ie kills the future generation.
@eatwell365: I feel like the Catalyst program which got slam dunk by the experts.
better save than sorry
@eatwell365: It doesn't kill rather leads to mutations. Perhaps one day we will have Teenage Mutant Humans
better save than sorry
That's why we are on this web site!
@GameChanger: Pfft… we already have super powers… the power to sniff out a bargain from over the internet…
Does anyone here get ear ache when talking on the mobile on the ear? the ache stops when not doing so.
That's either the sound pressure from the speaker (your speaker is too loud) or you are pressing it against your ear. If it was from the phone's radio (the radiating part) you would be in constant pain as the phone uses the radio to stay connected to the phone tower.
OMG… that….. speechless….. statement with no evidence…. must resist bitter response……..
Ozbargain does not cause cancer
And if it does, you'll get an extra one free.
…and sex, don't forget that having plenty of sex sessions will give you cancer too (not too mention STD and etc)!
If mobile phones, microwaves and Wi-Fi caused cancer then sunglasses and sunscreen would not work. Sun protection blocks UV, not visible light. Radio waves have far, far less energy than visible light.
This basic diagram shows harmful (ionising) radiation and non-harmful (non-ionising) radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM-spectrum.svg
Maybe if someone licked their phone or Wi-Fi router (a lot) they might consume a potentially cancerous plasticiser?
I drink at least 2L if not 3L of milk every week. Full cream. Plus at least 2L of full strength beer. Stop being a pansy OP.
Ye proly gonna get heart disease then, but atleast ull hav strong bones
From what I have read milk doesn't affect adult bones very much, impact is more on children and young adults (like most vitamins and minerals)
Plus at least 2L of full strength beer. Stop being a pansy OP.
well at least the pansy might live to a ripe old age …
alcohol increases your cancer risk of every organ in your body in comes in contact with
and lots of milk isn't necessarily going to make your bones strong (not that i have anything against milk or dairy)
smoke as well?
HA! I'll stuff myself with meat and piss until there is no me no more. Cancer this and cancer that. You could get run over after replying to this post. Your point?
I drink 1litre milk everyday have been for the last 4 months
I'm glad you kids are drinking so much milk, Mum must be so proud!
It's all right OP, you can have cow's milk this Feb 29th, per your handle.
Was the documentary related the the book "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell?
Someone has crunched the raw data and found Campbell's book cherry picks the data to make his link to animal proteins. See her blog here where she analyses all the claims one by one and critically re-asses the data to either support or refute his claims
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal…
Specifically regarding cassein
"Campbell’s discoveries with casein and cancer, his work is no doubt revelatory. I give him props for dedicating so much of his life to a field of disease research that wasn’t always well-received by the scientific community, and for pursuing so ardently the link between nutrition and health. Unfortunately, Campbell projects the results of his casein-cancer research onto all animal protein—a leap he does not justify with evidence or even sound logic."
The China study has been debunked a few times:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
and the above posted article which I was also going to quote:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal…
Either one is good for understanding the flaws in the study.
Some scientists are so focused on 'proving' whatever they're working on, they forget what they learn in statistics / econometrics 101:
Correlation does not imply causation
Even an undergrad should know better… Far too many of these scientists nowadays and big media sensationalising these 'reports' are not helping at all.
Everything these days gets linked with cancer so why bother.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-sto…
Probable Increased Risk of Prostate Cancer
"A diet high in calcium has been implicated as a probable risk factor for prostate cancer. (17) In a Harvard study of male health professionals, men who drank two or more glasses of milk a day were almost twice as likely to develop advanced prostate cancer as those who didn’t drink milk at all. (18) The association appears to be with calcium itself, rather than with dairy products in general: A more recent analysis of the Harvard study participants found that men with the highest calcium intake—at least 2,000 milligrams a day—had nearly double the risk of developing fatal prostate cancer as those who had the lowest intake (less than 500 milligrams per day). (19)
Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk or calcium intake is safe."
yes, this study was mentioned in the documentary as well. And it is from Harvard.
And it is from Harvard.
And therefore automatically infallible lol.
To get into Harvard you need to have parents who went there (be a 'legacy'), be a minority or know how to play the flute.
I'd take studies from MIT or Oxford much more seriously.
You're conflating "getting into Harvard" with being a professor or a researcher at Harvard. A large proportion have degrees from outside of Harvard.
Oxford has their own issues with most of their student body coming from privileged backgrounds and the elite "public" school system - where students get in because of their parent's wealth and/or connections.
And frankly, none of that is really relevant to the quality of the research which comes out of those institutions, but I assume you were being flippant anyway.
not sure if joking or serious.