U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-31-2014, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,398 posts, read 28,234,455 times
Reputation: 28974

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
"When cow's milk is consumed by human non-infants, it behaves as a cancer-accelerator. IGF-1 is not destroyed in the pasteurization process nor during human digestion and is therefore biologically active in humans, being associated with breast, prostate, and colon cancers."

Bovine Growth Hormone: Milk does nobody good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Lies ... and why do you keep doing it? It's all you do ... every stinking thread that you comment on ... lies.

I'm not going to address each one of them ... just the most obvious one!.

Growth hormones are most certainly given to dairy cattle in order to maximize milk production, and shows up in milk and other dairy products ... RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE (rBGH). This is highly controversial among HONEST researchers, which are particularly hard to locate in the United States of Deception anymore. Of course, the entire European Union has banned it .... Canada has banned it ... several other countries around the world have banned it ... but here in the good ole US of A, no problem ... pump em' up with rBGH, and watch those profits climb.

The is common knowledge, and has been the subject of heated debate for years, as well as massive protests from the research scientists not on the take, and the REAL consumer watchdog groups that are trying to get the FDA to actually do it's job for a change ... which they stubbornly continue to refuse to do.

I wish there were rules about this kind of abuse of the truth.
Guy, I stand corrected. I should have said not treated with estrogen, since birth control pills do not contain growth hormone.

Regarding rBGH:

Is Milk from rbGH-Injected Cows Safe? Why Isn\'t It Labeled?

"Assumptions that milk levels of IGF-I increase after cows are treated with rbGH and that biologically active IGF-I is absorbed into the body are not supported by the main body of science (10). Carefully analyzing published literature provides no compelling evidence that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1 compared to milk from untreated cows. Although some studies claim that milk proteins protect IGF-I from digestion, the vast majority of published evidence indicates that very little IGF-I is absorbed following ingestion. IGF-I content of milk from rbGH-treated cows has been extensively reviewed and its safety confirmed."

Regarding the EU:

"Outside the U.S., countries that are signatories to the World Trade Organization cannot bar milk from cows injected with rbGH based solely on its production method, unless there is scientific evidence that it affects human health or safety (3). But the E.U. has been staunch in its opposition to such milk in part due to consumer concerns that arose in the 1990s as a result of certain food safety outbreaks, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (13), that were not effectively handled by existing regulatory systems. In 1999 the E.U. decided not to approve sales of milk from rbGH-treated cows in E.U. member countries, based not on human health concerns but on animal welfare issues (14). Today milk and milk products from rbGH-treated cows are recognized as safe in the E.U. and can be marketed in E.U. countries (15, 11), but the use of rbST in their dairy herds is not approved."

here is no evidence that rBST is dangerous to humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2014, 10:28 AM
 
11,638 posts, read 5,925,103 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Guy, I stand corrected.
Hold that pose!

Now, introduce a mix of growth hormones and antibiotics into the human food supply and see what you get.

"No more, say infectious disease experts, who increasingly are seeing these "super bugs" - strains of Staphylococcus aureus unfazed by the entire penicillin family and other first-line drugs." Staph Strain Infects More Healthy People (Flesh Eating Bacteria)

"Nobody dreamt when we were in medical school that this would ever enter the community," said Dr. Rajendra Kapila of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark."

"Flesh-eating bacteria cases, fatal pneumonia and life-threatening heart infections suddenly are popping up around the country, striking healthy people and stunning their doctors."

"The cause? Staph, a bacteria better known for causing skin boils easily treated with standard antibiotic pills."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 10:40 AM
 
9,078 posts, read 5,607,909 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Guy, I stand corrected. I should have said not treated with estrogen, since birth control pills do not contain growth hormone.

Regarding rBGH:

Is Milk from rbGH-Injected Cows Safe? Why Isn\'t It Labeled?

"Assumptions that milk levels of IGF-I increase after cows are treated with rbGH and that biologically active IGF-I is absorbed into the body are not supported by the main body of science (10). Carefully analyzing published literature provides no compelling evidence that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1 compared to milk from untreated cows. Although some studies claim that milk proteins protect IGF-I from digestion, the vast majority of published evidence indicates that very little IGF-I is absorbed following ingestion. IGF-I content of milk from rbGH-treated cows has been extensively reviewed and its safety confirmed."

Regarding the EU:

"Outside the U.S., countries that are signatories to the World Trade Organization cannot bar milk from cows injected with rbGH based solely on its production method, unless there is scientific evidence that it affects human health or safety (3). But the E.U. has been staunch in its opposition to such milk in part due to consumer concerns that arose in the 1990s as a result of certain food safety outbreaks, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (13), that were not effectively handled by existing regulatory systems. In 1999 the E.U. decided not to approve sales of milk from rbGH-treated cows in E.U. member countries, based not on human health concerns but on animal welfare issues (14). Today milk and milk products from rbGH-treated cows are recognized as safe in the E.U. and can be marketed in E.U. countries (15, 11), but the use of rbST in their dairy herds is not approved."

here is no evidence that rBST is dangerous to humans.
Nonsense. The moment you say there is "no evidence", everything that follows can be summarily dismissed as completely untruthful. The same crap was claimed regarding the ill health effects to the animals receiving this hormone. But after years of denials, the evidence proved, and Monsanto was forced to include in its own rBGH product literature, warnings of 20 toxic effects to cows injected with this genetically modified growth hormone! One of the most common effects is mastitis resulting in puss in the milk,, which must then treated with antibiotics. This results in pus contaminated milk, along with the antibiotics, and the increased IGF-1 growth factor that is implicated in several types of cancer.

The truth is, Monsanto claims there is no danger to human health from consumption of this milk, but given it's undeniable status of shamelessly lying and being caught repeatedly doing so, any assurances coming from them isn't worth a penny. Nor are the claims of the FDA at this point about anything, given it's absurd claims that mercury isn't harmful ... aspartame isn't harmful ... fluoride isn't harmful .. etc.

The EU member nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan represent the majority of developed nations do not permit the use of this for a good reason. That it is permitted in the US only provides additional evidence of the defunct nature of the FDA, and the well documented revolving door between it and the corporations it is supposed to be regulating. The hard cold fact is, the FDA stamp of approval would be better illustrated in a skull and crossbones, as opposed to anything resembling an assurance of safety, for which it now means nothing.

As for the comments about chicken, we know the deplorable truth about this too ... fed massive amounts of antibiotics, with arsenic added to the feed these animals must be given to keep them alive long enough to make it to market, poses another set of health risks which is answered with another set of lies and denials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 11:09 AM
 
9,078 posts, read 5,607,909 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
Hold that pose!

Now, introduce a mix of growth hormones and antibiotics into the human food supply and see what you get.

"No more, say infectious disease experts, who increasingly are seeing these "super bugs" - strains of Staphylococcus aureus unfazed by the entire penicillin family and other first-line drugs." Staph Strain Infects More Healthy People (Flesh Eating Bacteria)

"Nobody dreamt when we were in medical school that this would ever enter the community," said Dr. Rajendra Kapila of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark."

"Flesh-eating bacteria cases, fatal pneumonia and life-threatening heart infections suddenly are popping up around the country, striking healthy people and stunning their doctors."

"The cause? Staph, a bacteria better known for causing skin boils easily treated with standard antibiotic pills."
Hahahaha ... hold that pose ... you're too much, my friend. You're either hyperthetically crazy, or your IQ is beyond the grasp of us mere mortals .... perhaps a combination ... or should I say, recombinant human intelligence factor (rHIF)?

In any case, what we now know is that if Satan were a corporation, his name would be Monsanto, and sitting by his side, his faithful servants, the FDA, USDA, CDC, EPA, and the NGO's of the medical establishment, too numerous to list, who owe an enormous debt of gratitude to them for their endless list of patients that no one entering medical school, in their wildest dreams, could have imagined.

What a windfall, indeed, not to mention job security in these troubled times of economic uncertainty. Sickness truly is the growth industry of the future ... until the golden goose dies from all of the protection and healthcare it receives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 11:25 AM
 
11,638 posts, read 5,925,103 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Hahahaha ... hold that pose ... you're too much, my friend. You're either hyperthetically crazy, or your IQ is beyond the grasp of us mere mortals .... perhaps a combination ... or should I say, recombinant human intelligence factor (rHIF)?
Some have accused me of being some kind of Cray bot.

I'm more than that.

I know I am.

At least, I think I must be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49btEJenUGw

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 03-31-2014 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,398 posts, read 28,234,455 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I have no doubt that we poison our own environments. I doubt the stuff in say bathroom cleaner is good to inhale. Personally, I wonder how much of the increase in ADD, autism and cancers is due to all the products we use to clean our environments. Between central air and heating, we use these products in a closed environment most of the year. Most people have carpet in their houses as well and anything you track in from the outside, like pesticides and fertilizers from your lawn can get down deep and break down over time. We also kill germs on every surface including our hands leaving our immune systems that were developed to be very active with little to fight on a regular basis. And then there's all the processed foods we eat. I'm pretty sure we weren't intended to live this way.

I find it interesting when some study tries to point to one thing like the thread on Fluoridated water. Seriously folks so much has changed in the last 100 years that it's hard to separate what effect anything has. We slather chemicals on our skin (sunscreen, anti aging creams), clean our houses with who knows what that we inhale and absorb through our skin as we use the products, use hand sanitizers like they're going out of style, breathe residue from the chemicals we use outside and inside our homes, breathe the by products of manufacturing the products we use every day (that new car smell is plasticizers and mold release agents degassing into your closed environment) and then eat crap. I'd be surprised if we weren't poisoning ourselves.

100 years ago, your house was only closed up in the winter when it was cold and then it wasn't sealed very well so the air exchange was good. Today we have high efficiency furnaces (I have one) that draw their make up air from the outside to minimize air exchange and central air in the summer so the house is rarely open to air out. I'm sure lots of toxins accumulate in our environments as a result of closing ourselves up like we do and using the products we do. Is the smell of bleach really something we should like in our homes? Or those air fresheners we use? What are they made of? What are you breathing when you use them? Scented candles? Incense? Furniture cleaner? Carpet cleaner? Oven cleaner? What are we bringing into our now closed up homes in the name of cleanliness, killing germs and making our environment smell good?

And you can add medicine waste to the list too. How much medication enters our waste water stream because people pee it out or dump unused medications? This stuff ends up in our environment.
Despite all your concerns, life expectancy in the US has increased overall from an average of 52 years for men and 57 years for women in 1914 to 76 years for men and 81 years for women in 2010. This is largely fueled by better health care for children, including prevention of infectious diseases with vaccines, but if a toxic environment is leading to widespread health problems, it's hard for me to see it.

At the present, the biggest threat to health in the US is eating too much food. Obesity and its complications may even cause average life expectancy to decline, outweighing gains due to declines in smoking:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ha...pdf?sequence=1

Not flushing unused medication is a simple way to reduce what gets into waste water. Mix it with coffee grounds or kitty litter, put it in a sealed container, and throw it in the trash. Some communities also collect unwanted meds.

How to Dispose of Unused Medicines

By the way, the incidence of many cancers is actually decreasing, and the apparent increase in autism may be accounted for by many factors unrelated to anything in the environment, such as changes in diagnostic categories and motivation to attach a label to a child which will result in access to specialized services. That much of autism is genetic is becoming clearer and clearer.

Certainly we should eliminate toxins from the environment as much as possible, but it does us no good to impute dangers to everyday chemicals which are probably harmless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 01:16 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,728,188 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
I know how to shut this study down. Birth Control is a poison and it is in our water with all the women taking it. Girls are maturing faster and I don't know what it is doing to boys---making them more female?

Now watch how this study comes to a screeching stop. LOL No one can touch our sacred BC pills.
That would be a war on women.
I would say it is a war on women, if you start with the smallest source of estragen into the water supply. Why do you go there if not for some hate of Birth Control.

Why not start with Cows, yep - live stock is responsible for 5x as much of these compounds into your water supply as women birth control. Add in agriculture and manufacturing. . .

and really, birth control isn't a significant additive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 01:20 PM
 
11,638 posts, read 5,925,103 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Despite all your concerns, life expectancy in the US has increased overall from an average of 52 years for men and 57 years for women in 1914 to 76 years for men and 81 years for women in 2010. This is largely fueled by better health care for children, including prevention of infectious diseases with vaccines, but if a toxic environment is leading to widespread health problems, it's hard for me to see it.

At the present, the biggest threat to health in the US is eating too much food. Obesity and its complications may even cause average life expectancy to decline, outweighing gains due to declines in smoking:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ha...pdf?sequence=1

Not flushing unused medication is a simple way to reduce what gets into waste water. Mix it with coffee grounds or kitty litter, put it in a sealed container, and throw it in the trash. Some communities also collect unwanted meds.

How to Dispose of Unused Medicines

By the way, the incidence of many cancers is actually decreasing, and the apparent increase in autism may be accounted for by many factors unrelated to anything in the environment, such as changes in diagnostic categories and motivation to attach a label to a child which will result in access to specialized services. That much of autism is genetic is becoming clearer and clearer.

Certainly we should eliminate toxins from the environment as much as possible, but it does us no good to impute dangers to everyday chemicals which are probably harmless.
Posing can be sooo boring!

Do you wanna dance?

I love your high kicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UFa-2rLfs8

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 03-31-2014 at 01:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 02:46 PM
 
9,078 posts, read 5,607,909 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Despite all your concerns, life expectancy in the US has increased overall from an average of 52 years for men and 57 years for women in 1914 to 76 years for men and 81 years for women in 2010. This is largely fueled by better health care for children, including prevention of infectious diseases with vaccines, but if a toxic environment is leading to widespread health problems, it's hard for me to see it.
The responsible elements are electricity, refrigeration , sanitation and clean water, just as can be witnessed today in third world countries lacking in those areas who suffer poor life expectancy numbers.

Now, in a circular reasoning way of looking at this, it is often said that these people would live longer if they had access to modern medications to treat these infectious diseases, and vaccines to prevent them. So they in effect are suffering from a lack of good medical care, when the reality is much simpler ... they suffer from poor living standards ... improve those, and the problem of lack of pharmaceutical treatments becomes a moot point.

This is the model of healthcare amplified .... don't bother to clean up the disease carrying water, we have treatments for those diseases, and vaccines! Just drink the dirty water, and let us take worry about the problems!!

Going back even further, there is a little secret hiding in plain sight which is revealed in the average life expectancy of historic figures in American history who lived well beyond those averages you cite. John Adams, 90 years old ... Franklin 84 years old ... poor honest George only made it to 67, but he fought the revolutionary war, and that probably took it's toll.

The truth is, the wealthy aristocracy enjoyed lifespans similar to, and frequently beyond that of today. The low life expectancy numbers were accounted for by the commoners living in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation, conducive to the incidence and spread of infectious diseases. This same pattern can be seen in underdeveloped countries today who lack the modern conveniences of electricity, refrigeration, indoor plumbing and clean drinking water, yet have easy access to a smorgasboard of WHO provided vaccines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzy_q2010 View Post
The threat to health in the US is eating too much food. Obesity and its complications may even cause average life expectancy to decline, outweighing gains due to declines in smoking:
You can't type even a single sentence without including a piece of propaganda. Low and behold, it's probably all those twinkies that have prevented us from realizing the anticipated benefits of the anti smoking.campaign!!

While there is an element of truth in that food is the greatest risk to health ... it's not the quantity, but the contents of that food that pose the dangers. In fact, to call what is on the store shelves "food" is playing fast with facts. But not to worry, even those wise enough to read labels and avoid consuming things that they can't even pronounce, have no idea that much of the healthier choices are becoming dominated by GMO, making those choices perhaps even more unhealthy than the chemical laden processed foods. You can run, but you can't hide ... so sayeth the defenders of health at the FDA. Organic? Hahaha ... we've got a few secrets about that too ... organic GMO ... now that is truly enough to boggle Orwell's mind. Like genuine artificial leather ... the neo-organic natural artificial genetically modified yum yum ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzy_q2010 View Post
By the way, the incidence of many cancers is actually decreasing, and the apparent increase in autism may be accounted for by many factors unrelated to anything in the environment, such as changes in diagnostic categories and motivation to attach a label to a child which will result in access to specialized services. That much of autism is genetic is becoming clearer and clearer.
Cancers are not declining, they are exploding ... and we now lead the world in incidence rates, along with all the other major diseases.

And given the insistence that tobacco was the primary cause of lung cancer, isn't it odd that we've not enjoyed a comparative decline in light of the massive numbers of non smokers today, compared to 50 years ago? Makes you sorta wonder.

And the tripe about a genetic link to autism becoming clearer and clearer .... the only thing that is becoming clearer and clearer is that it's a neurological disorder caused by some factor that affects neurological function. Of course, it could not possibly be the injection of neurotoxins into two hour old infants, followed by subsequent injections for the following few years, bombarding their little defenseless systems with neurotoxins. Oh heavens no ... read our lips ... vaccines are good ... trust us ... really!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2014, 03:27 PM
 
9,078 posts, read 5,607,909 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
I would say it is a war on women, if you start with the smallest source of estragen into the water supply. Why do you go there if not for some hate of Birth Control.

Why not start with Cows, yep - live stock is responsible for 5x as much of these compounds into your water supply as women birth control. Add in agriculture and manufacturing. . .

and really, birth control isn't a significant additive.
Unless janelle's parents had a poor sense of humor or really liked the song "a boy named sue", I doubt she's engaging a war on women.

But the point you make is true insofar as BC being a minor factor compared to so many other sources. Yet, it is the combination of all sources that do contribute to the big picture, so dismissing one source in favor of another is like saying we can't waste time worrying about heart disease with all of the cancer problems we have.

We need to eliminate or mitigate all sources of health harming substances, not just the most prominent ones. But if it's a contest, Soy would win hands down in it's contribution of estrogenic affects upon the public health, yet that's where you will find a lot of Soy products ... in the "health food" section of the supermarket!

But trying to avoid soy is like trying to avoid sand at the beach ... it's everywhere, and in almost everything. Soy is even on the label of a can of tuna packed in spring water! Baked goods now contain not just wheat flour but also soy flour, soy oil, etc. You like a good dollop of mayo on that sandwich? Try finding a non soy mayo .. it can be done, but rarely at the mainstream grocery chains, and when you do find one, be prepared to pay double or more compared to the soy versions.

As I stated previously, infants being fed soy formula are receiving the equivalent of 5 birth control pills every day!!! This outrageous fact few people know, and it is criminal that this crap is allowed on the shelves at all, let alone to be the sole source of nutrition for babies. The havoc this is doing to their development is mind numbing.

The saddest part of all ... there is no way this is just incompetence ... this assault on the public is deliberate, and it is coming from every direction ... the water, the food, the air, the drugs, the cleaning products, carpet, furniture, wallboard, paint, cosmetics, soaps, personal products, clothing.

There is virtually no way to avoid all of it ... all one can hope to do is identify the many sources, and eliminate as many as you can, and rely on your body to flush out and deal with the rest. But you must help it by avoiding as much as possible,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top