Dairy products are causing cancer.

[Rheghead]

What does the World Health Organisation say?

They say this as their key statement for breast cancer

Early detection in order to improve breast cancer outcome and survival remains the cornerstone of breast cancer control.

Detection yes but they are very mute on the causes of breast cancer. I always thought that prevention is better than cure.

I've put up several studies that strongly suggest that eating animal products are a significant risk factor in causing breast cancer. That is a bit of a shortcoming from WHO I think.

[Rheghead]

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine state

Recent scientific studies have suggested that dairy products may be linked to increased risk for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and possibly for ovarian and breast cancers.Prostate cancer has been linked to dairy products in several studies. In Harvard’s Physicians Health Study, including more than 20,000 male physicians, those who consumed more than two dairy servings daily had a 34% higher risk of developing prostate cancer than men who consumed little or no dairy products. Several other studies have shown much the same thing.

A recent analysis of studies examining a relationship between dairy product consumption and ovarian cancer risk found that for every 10 grams of lactose consumed (the amount in one glass of milk), ovarian cancer risk increased by 13 percent.

In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-re...dairy-products

[sids]

In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe.

There's a boat leaving today.

[Goodfellers]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.

[Rheghead]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.

I'm sure the the egg industry council or the replacement for the milk marketing board would sing a different tune but I'd be interested in their scientific studies (if any) to back up their statements. I'm trying to focus on the science, it is up to you to do what you want with the information, if you have devcided to continue to eat eggs and dairy then that is your decision, I will support your decision, it is your life afterall. As physicians though, the PCRM are oath-bound to give advice in the best interests of patients and public health and as a plant-based diet looks to be the best diet in terms of health then I cannot criticise them for their position. It worries me why the advice is watered-down in our own mainstream health organisations. They are supposed to adhere to the science as well and give people the best advice based upon that research.

I'd also give a caveat in the interpretation of the wording there. Science works by testing models and that means running experiments or studies based on sets of data and under certain criteria and testing them to see what results come out of the experiment. The criteria in most of these experiments or epidemiological studies is people's eating habits in relation to dairy, meat and eggs and testing against people who don't eat these products and the results show that people who eat animal products have a significant incidence of cancer rates than in the control group the vegans etc.

What the reports do not claim credit for is sets of factors or influences that may be outside the scope of the experiment, for example it may be that people who eat animal products might also smoke more , inhale glue, play Monopoly or whatever. But you have to take a reasonable judgement why that doesn't apply to the control group. You have to think if it is not the dairy, meat and eggs then what could account for the differences in cancer rates given that the scientists are testing a mechanism to those cancers as well and not just some random correllation. The deduction to any alternative mechanism has to be reasonable and logical.
So the language that can only be used in the conclusions is 'may cause because of other factors that be outside the scope of the experiment or study, the uncertainty may be real or it may be totally illusory depending on how much emphasis you may wish to place on what has not been deemed worthy of testing. So we must be careful not to confuse the emphasis of a scientific 'may' with a 'may' that we would use in everyday language. I've seen too many anti-intellectual arguments (from people who really should know better) who question the science in relation to other fields of study like Evolution and Climate Science, like "Yeah but Evolution is only a theory, right?" and "Climate Science is bunkum because they can't be 100% certain the IPCCC Report, they only claim fossil fuels is only likely to warm to the atmosphere above 2 degrees, so I will continue to drive my SUV." and the big one "Science can't disprove God because the Big Bang may have been the start of the Universe". It is the job of individuals and policy-makers to interpret the science and spread the word but in relation to eating dairy, meat and eggs it seems the message is not getting through.

What the reports also do not claim is the impeccable quality of the data so caution needs to be administered here if you think it is not too bad to be eating animal products. Because the criteria is dependent on who only 'claim' to be vegan but I've had often heard people who talk about their cousin or friend who went vegan once but who sneaked a sausage when nobody was looking. I also know that it is almost impossible to totally avoid eating animal products altogether because of poor food labelling and genuine mistakes or intentional acts to deceive in food preparation. As there seems to be no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that we can eat then we can be reasonable to assume that a lot of cancers in the vegan populations are due to eating animal products as well.

[Fulmar]

As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.

[Rheghead]

As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.

You are quite correct that age increases the number of mutations at the cellular level so therefore it is important that we adopt a suitable diet to reflect that vulnerability to cancer as we age. That means if you want the best preventative measure from cancer then a plant-based diet is the best answer. Studies show that aging populations could benefit the most from adopting a plant-based diet especially because of thel ower saturated, trans fat content but also the oestrogen in meat and dairy may be having an effect or keeping the level higher than the body needs it as we age, post-menopausal women have lower oestrogen levels etc etc. The question that every older person must ask themselves is 'why should I continue to eat meat and dairy if it will put me at greater risk of getting cancer?', life is precious especially if we want to see our grandkids grow up.

You mentioned cancer charities and how much you trust them and so you should. Lets take BreastCancerUK for an example, it is a charity dependent on subscription donations. It lists on its science and research page a list of risk factors that thought to cause breast cancer (with even less certainty than the risks with meat and dairy I might add) and yet no mention of the breast cancer risks associated with eating animal products? What is going on? There is enough scientific evidence for the link as I've just established. Well the answer is that well-established charities like it are also compared to businesses in the way they do their business. What would be the effect on their donorship if they now told everyone that they should stop eating meat and dairy? The response will be exactly the same resistance that every vegan gets who promotes a plant-based diet as a prudent action to prevent cancer. The response will be exactly what you have said, we need to 'weigh up the risks and decide what to do or not to do and for me'. That's a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks for telling me but I'm going to do what I want to do because I like what I'm doing". The end result for the charity is a reduced level of donor subscriptions a reduced global spread for its message...just for trying to address the number 1 cause of breast cancer to its members. You couldn't make it up, actually. People don't like being told what to do...even less they don't like people being 'oh holier than thou' and being on the moral pedestal. Changing people's behavior is hard, most health organisations won't tackle the main issues with eating meat and dairy because of the entrenched social, political, environmental and economic issues and people's lack of willing to change their habits. But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.

[Goodfellers]

Does anyone know why typed words end up linked when posted. Tried typing in Word then copy and pasting but still does it. Really annoying