It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harvard study: Pasteurized milk from industrial dairies linked to cancer ..where's the swat team?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM
Cow milk is for calves, our women make their own milk for when we need it. Maybe nature is on to something with this?

I drink very small quantities of milk. The last jug I bought was 2L of organic milk for $5.50!! I paid the extra cash as it said "organic" on it. Hope that means something.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:53 PM
Your OP is misleading.

Pasteurized milk is not linked to cancer. The Harvard study showed a link between the pasteurized milk that comes from cows given estrogen hormones.

So, you can still have pasteurized milk that wouldn't carry the link to cancer ... as long as you don't pump the cows full of hormones.

There are plenty of milk producers that don't use hormones on their cows. Most of them put some sort of statement on their products. Look for them. Buy them.
edit on 28-2-2012 by tyranny22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:12 PM
and that ladies and gentleman is the reason i don't drink milk. haha nah this is news to me but very interesting. its odd that also lactose intolerance is the number one food digestion issue on the planet. i don't believe humans should be drinking milk pass a certain age, especially not milk from a cow. We have human breast milk for a reason.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by tyranny22

More than 90% of Americans want mandatory labelling on hormone-enhanced milk. But they're not going to get it as long as Monsanto has a say in it. Monsanto has even paid for a law that makes it illegal for a store to advertise that it sells hormone-free milk -- and they have sued stores that try!

My Op is open, not misleading, and causing entertaing controvercy so the members can have a say.

Pasturization is part of the denial of nutrition which is broadbased eugenics.
So is armed law being sicked on raw milk producers, and corporate parctice which ignores real health findings in persuit of profits, while realy healthy products are made illegal.
hiding the truth from the people to perpetrate this corporate eugenics model is also just part of the methodology of eugenics
Patriotic Raw milk and organic milk squared of aginst the pasturized corporate fascist police state.
IMHO, all good interesting elements of the thread....
edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

PS edit to add pretty sure you can't sell raw milk in my part of the world as I posted earlier
edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Danbones

(NaturalNews) The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the 'American Tower of Babel' that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers

I had to stop right there~! HOLD the damm train a minute! I was RAISED on a dairy farm for 11 years till the age of 18.. I drank raw milk after it was strained out of the bucket.. for 11 years.. ok I have experience. Here's the REAL issue(s)..

1) populations have been drinking raw milk since the dawn of creation,

2). the MILK is the by product of what cows eat... it's the FEED they are being fed~!

3) Pasteurized/homogenized is also the culprit.........RAW milk is NOT.

4) it is NOT the 'way' they feed the cows, it's the all the damn chemicals/additives in the feed and the 'super' antibiotics they are being shot with. Milk cows don't need to be shot with drugs on a continuous bases, ONLY when they're sick. just like human's. Milk cows as with ALL animals get sick, just like humans.. and need a boost to their immune system once in a while.

this is nothing more than to bring down the hard working dairy me, the state has put a MASSIVE clamp down on how many cows a family of 4 can have now.. it's more.....unless you get a $500 license and then you need to BUY the amount of cows needed to start that business........if not .. they yank your license.. and your out $500.

there's A LOT more going on behind this curtain of 'bad milk' policy.... to include the FAA making restrictions on who can have cell phone or high speed internet in rural communities.. think it's a joke, a family member of mine had to go to Washington last year to fight to show they needed it.. ~!

it's a pure NWO grab to ensure the economy stays down .. next up..

Cheese will be bad for you .. as will chicken, pork beef, vegetables .. UNLESS it's ALL GMO..

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

I went to the think-aboutit site you referenced and just before the paragraph you quoted was this:

Giant transnational corporations like Monsanto, in collusion with the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, seek to commodify and privatize the world's water and put it on the open market for sale to the highest bidder. Millions of the world's citizens are being deprived of this fundamental human right, and vast ecological damage is being wrought as massive industry claims water once used to sustain communities and replenish nature. In Cochabamba, Bolivia, the people, led by union leader Oscar Olivera, forced the giant engineering company Bechtel, a globalist partner of Monsanto, to leave the country and stopped a World Bank–imposed privatization scheme that more than doubled the price of water to the local people. The mainstream press was, of course, reluctant to tell this story.
There's a lot I don't know but the claims in this pargaraph SEEM to be wildly excessive, making me doubt the validity of the rest of it.

You mentioned that you wanted this thread to be "entertaining," I hope you're finding it satisfactory in that respect.

With respect,

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Danbones

Complete and utter misrepresentation of the truth.

You're falling for naturalnews' agenda here, hook line and sinker.

This has NOTHING to do with pasteurisation and everything to do with modern battery farming techniques.

Please, the issue is concerning enough without the BS layered on top of it!

I will continue reading the rest of the post but this is completely spot on.

More unnecessary fear mongering

But hey, Fear sells ... it's the new Sex

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:24 PM

MODSSS, this artical is FAKE

do some reasearch, this doctor doesn't exist and the only paper he ever realsed was from china


posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by Horza

its a fake paper to begin with, just stop thinking about this topic all togather

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by Danbones

I am an advocate of organic products and natural foods as much as anyone. But if you want to convince people that something unhealthy is going on, you need to represent actual information.

The labeling of hormone free milk hasn't been made illegal, it is under dispute in most states. it is not because the states don't want people drinking hormone free milk, it is a consumer issue. Because there aren't commercial tests to say if a milk has the hormone in it or not, all the farmers have to do is sign an affidavit. So some producers are just signing the affidavit so they can sell hormone laced milk at organic prices.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by Danbones

PS I'm glad I quit drinking milk years ago, however I still love butter on my spuds, and cream in my coffee.....Grrrr

Hey -- try coconut milk. I get the brand at Trader Joe's -- it's cheap, delicious, and good in coffee. You can also make your own by buying coconut milk in a can and mixing it with water to make a thinner milk. It's excellent!

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
stay tuned to the next page where i kick Horza and 3rd and Chads butts please!!!!!
all links from HARVARD too

HINT: Just so you know: they reverse the sir names where the lady Doctor is from

reply to post by charles1952

I would hope that this thread is of some benefit to its readers...I hope they read it because there are many interesting points of view it has to beat TV for a few minutes lol.

While these quotes are a bit old they illustrate just how creeping control is insinuating itself into the non corporate small producer structure that has been a long standing source of national strength for a lot of countries.
Targeting the small familly farm and health in general is a sure way to weaken not just the US, but any people kissinger said : " oil controls countries, food controls people.."
IMHO water controls life

I think Komodo's post is very illustrative of this as well

Removing ‘Navigable’ From CWA Creates Regulatory Quicksand
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 22, 2009 – Legislation that would remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and allow the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all interstate and intrastate waters could put farmers in “regulatory quicksand,” according to Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse testified before the House Small Business Committee regarding the Clean Water Act.
Testifying today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation before the House Small Business Committee, Kruse, a Dexter, Mo. corn producer, said the bill leads to increased compliance costs, burdensome permit processes and extends the reach of the Clean Water Act to any body of water in the United States.

Kruse cited a number of cases that point out the hurdles farmers across the country will face if the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) is approved. In one example, Kruse told the account of a small farmer in Minnesota who wanted to improve existing drainage on 11 acres of his land.

“USDA and the state did not consider his land a wetland, but the Corps did,” Kruse testified. “They told him he needed both a permit and 17.7 acres of mitigation. The cost of compliance – $77,000 – was more than the property was worth, and the farmer could not afford to comply.”

In 2009, Polaris submitted a nomination of the United Nations' CEO Water Mandate in the 'Greenwash' category for its role in facilitating greater control of water resources by multinational corporations while simultaneously 'greenwashing' socially and environmentally damaging corporate behavior.

“Not only does the Global Compact and the CEO Water Mandate facilitate more corporate control of water,” said Richard Girard, “but, it makes the United Nations an apologist and enabler of corporate greenwashing.”

Established under the auspices of the United Nations’ Global Compact, the CEO Water Mandate is a voluntary, non-binding, public-private partnership. Under the guise of environmental stewardship, the CEO Water Mandate provides multinational corporations--including well-documented environmental abusers such as Coca Cola, Dow Chemical, Nestlé, Royal Dutch Shell and Suez--with a platform to directly influence governments in order to secure continued access to water. As a result, these companies are allowed to conceal their socially and environmentally damaging operations with the blue flag of the United Nations.

“The United Nations has no business facilitating corporate water grabs,” said Tony Clarke, Director of the Polaris Institute. “Instead, the UN should return to the mandate they abandoned some 35 years ago, effectively regulating the operations of transnational corporations around the world.”

Take the guns, the food, the water, and control the air (Co2), and limit protest, and rig the vote, buy the judges...whats left of the good ol USA or Canada after that?

PS i forgot control the fertilizer, and premise IDs limiting animal ownership too

edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: PS

edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: teaser an whooopin added to header

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by WanderingThe3rd

he does not exist but has released an article?

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Horza

you have stated an opinion
what have you to justify it?
a link or two would help support your view

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Hormone labeling is not a consumer issue. Its an FDA issue.
Its a known fact that Monsantos hormone milk causes cancer.

However Monsanto has bed fellows in the FDA, and the USDA.
Therefore, they get away with murder.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:55 PM
fake?..... hmmm
here it is posted by a Dr Weil

Dr. Davaasambuu cited a study comparing diet and cancer rates in 42 countries that showed a strong correlation between milk and cheese consumption and the incidence of testicular cancer among men age 20 to 39 – rates were highest in high consuming countries such as Switzerland and Denmark and low in Algeria and other parts of the world where people eat less dairy. She also linked rising rates of dairy consumption to the increased death rates from prostate cancer (from near zero per 100,000 men five decades ago to seven per 100,000 men today) and noted that breast cancer also appears to be linked to milk and cheese consumption.

your turn

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by WanderingThe3rd

this doctor doesn't exist and the only paper he ever realsed was from china

it a she not a he...sure you know what you are talking about?
edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: fixed quote

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by burntheships

here is an awesome scientific type milk site,

Wow, good work, and thanks for the link. Just now catching up on the

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
oh look:

Read why the milk and dairy recommendation on Harvard's new Healthy Eating Plate differs from that of the U.S. Government's MyPlate.

Harvard's New Guide to Healthy Eating....
...Limit milk and dairy products to one to two servings per day, since high intakes are associated with increased risk of prostate cancer and possibly ovarian cancer. ..imagine that
edit on 28-2-2012 by Danbones because: missing link

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Thaxter

I love cocnut oil
I just discovered it and I use in place of butter in some recipies and it has been working out great

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in