AroundtheSon said:

Trust God.

---

AroundtheSon said:

The emperor is here to stay. When you stop living in fear, you will know Love.

---

AroundtheSon said:

The emperor is here to stay. When you stop living in fear, you will know Love.

---

Haha... I love your posts.

d33p said:

AroundtheSon said:

The emperor is here to stay. When you stop living in fear, you will know Love.

---

belief in the emperor can only extend so far at this point.

---

DragonChaser said:

Seriously.  You guys can believe whatever you want, but bottom line, you'll probably die from cancer if you live in the states.

The people who feed you and make everything you use give you cancer so you can go to the medical corporations to try to cure you, and all the while the people who feed you and the medical corporations are having secret buttsecks.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

DragonChaser said:

Seriously.  You guys can believe whatever you want, but bottom line, you'll probably die from cancer if you live in the states.

The people who feed you and make everything you use give you cancer so you can go to the medical corporations to try to cure you, and all the while the people who feed you and the medical corporations are having secret buttsecks.

---

cant stay in business if you cure the diseases or make cars that last for 60 years

---

Visionary Tools said:

Ever wondered why girls are getting periods earlier and earlier, and more and more breast cancer? Bovine growth hormone!

Codex alimentarius is the codeword for plagues and misery. Amongst other things, it bans the sale of vitamin and mineral tablets, making them prescription only (like piracetam and numerous other drugs that are safe, but forgotten). It forces taxes on organic food, to price it out of the market and force more people to go for dangerous, steriliity and cancer causing genetically modified food.

Codex Alimentarius is responsible for the mentality behind the FDA claiming cheerios is a drug and asking for them to retract the claims that *gasp* oats lower cholesterol!

Look, this UN "world law" is fucking bad news for everyone's health, and it's going to be a massive, massive boon for the pharma's profits.

But I know more and more of you know this isin't bullshit, and will go and research codex alimentarius for yourself. Clue yourself up, decide for yourself if you want to choose what you can put into your body, or if the UN should choose for you. Once you've made that decision, join us, or die. That's the only choice really. Life with cancer is not life.

---

AroundtheSon said:

Girls are getting periods quicker in the united states due to our high fat content, not growth hormone. At least, that is what the majority of scientists think. Time magazine had a spread a while back.

---

Quote:

Vitamins and minerals should be regulated in my opinion.

---

Quote:

Despite all your points, we have increasing life expectancies in the United States. Cancer rates, while alarming, are likely due to our longer life spans more so than our environmental pollutants

---

AroundtheSon said:

Despite the fact that vitamins are not absorbed easily, that does not mean that we should not have systematic ways of knowing what we are ingesting. Regulating would help this process and reduce faulty claims.

---

Quote:

Thank you for your the anecdotal evidence regarding your grandmother. Good day sir!

---

ah yes, anecdotal evidence is always discounted as opposed to
'majority scientists' who have nothing to do with studies of
these growth hormones that 'think' that it's fat that's causing
changes in the development of humans and your belief that the
increase in rates of diagnosis in cancers are due to longer
lifespans without taking into account the increase in cancerin
young people makes up a large portion of that

please feel free to prove me wrong on genetics and environment
playing a more important role in longevity, it also plays a
large role in cancer resistance

check this out, vitamin supplement labeling









yup... more redundant legislation required for the uninformed
that's too lazy to look at the bottle and read the label

AroundtheSon said:

3. Because the supplement industry is unregulated in the U.S., consumers only have about a 1 in 5 chance of buying a product with the ingredients stated on the label -- and product contamination is an even more serious issue. It is therefore absolutely crucial that you choose a manufacturer that follows pharmaceutical GMP compliance, which is the highest standard possible.

---

Quote:

How Vitamins are Regulated

Vitamin products are regulated by FDA as "Dietary Supplements." The law defines dietary supplements, in part, as products taken by mouth that contain a "dietary ingredient" intended to supplement the diet.

Listed in the "dietary ingredient" category are not only vitamins, but minerals, botanicals products, amino acids, and substances such as enzymes, microbial probiotics, and metabolites. Dietary supplements can also be extracts or concentrates, and may be found in many forms. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 requires that all such products be labeled as dietary supplements.

In June 2007, FDA established dietary supplement "current Good Manufacturing Practice" (cGMP) regulations requiring that manufacturers evaluate their products through testing identity, purity, strength, and composition.

---

AroundtheSon said:

Good points! I will let the research guide us on the effects of hormone.

Despite the fact that vitamins are not absorbed easily, that does not mean that we should not have systematic ways of knowing what we are ingesting. Regulating would help this process and reduce faulty claims.

I have no double standard in regard to drugs. I wish they were regulated as well so as to obtain quality and potency - this has nothing to do with legalization, but regulation.

Thank you for your the anecdotal evidence regarding your grandmother. Good day sir!

---

Visionary Tools said:

The point is, it's my choice. I don't need the fucking UN wasting our collective resources to say "Well fruits and veg (which we intend to fuck over with the joys of GM) are better so fuck you.

---

Quote:

American Milk: Colon and Breast Cancer Risks

American dairy farmers use rBGH hormone to increase milk production

    * rBGH increases cancer risk of milk
    * Citizen advocacy groups escalate efforts against rBGH

Study Warns of Colon and Breast Cancer Risks from rBGH Milk

January 23, 1996, Washington, DC - The Cancer Prevention Coalition and Food & Water, released a study today reporting that milk from cows injected with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans. This study is published in the January issue of the International Journal of Health Services, a peer-reviewed, leading international public health journal.

The study summarizes evidence that rBGH increases levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in milk. IGF-1 is a powerful stimulator and regulator of cell-growth and division in humans and cows. The study concludes that increased IGF-1 levels are risk factors for breast and colon cancer.

rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered," warned Samuel Epstein M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of the new report. "The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"

Since 1986, independent scientists have expressed concern about the lack of research on the potential health effects of IGF-1 in rBGH milk. More recently, the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association admitted that: "Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine IGF-1 is safe."

Increased IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk exert their cancer promoting effects directly on cells lining the colon, and on breast cells, following absorption into the blood.

" Monsanto 's claims that rBGH is perfectly safe have been proven dead wrong today. This study further validates the health concerns of millions of consumers about this controversial product," said Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and Water. "Only Monsanto is benefiting from this drug. It's time for dairy companies to side with consumers by adopting a policy that they will not allow rBGH, under any circumstances, to be used by their farmers."

Epstein concluded, "The entire nation is currently being subjected to a large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product which is very different than natural milk."

Statement by the Cancer Prevention Coalition on IGF-1 and Breast and Colon Cancer

The FDA has ignored the wide range of converging evidence that associates increased consumption of insulin growth factor-i (IGF- 1), which increases in milk from rBGH treated cows, with a potential risk of breast and other types of cancer.

Published research shows that rBGH use on dairy cows induces a marked and sustained increase in levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, or IGF-1, in cow’s milk. This is admitted by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990), and more explicitly by others (Prosser 1988; Prosser 1989; Mepham, 1992). A recent admission by another manufacturer of rBGH (Eli Lilly & Co.) reports a ten fold increase in IGF-1 levels. Furthermore, there is suggestive evidence that IGF- 1 in rBGH milk is more bioactive than in non-hormonal milk (Mepham, 1992).

IGF-1 regulates cell growth, division and differentiation, particularly in children. Human and normal bovine IGF-1 are identical, they are largely bound in protein and thus probably less biologically active than unbound IGF1 in rBGH derived milk.

IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact this process substantially increases IGF-1 levels in milk. (Juskevich and Guyer, 1990). Nor is IGF-1 destroyed by digestion. Moreover, FDA admits that IGF-1 is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990); this was also previously admitted by Monsanto in 1987. Further confirmation is also provided by other authorities (e.g. Mepham, 1992). Additionally, recent research indicates that IGF-1 can be absorbed into the bloodstream where it can effect other hormones. (Donovan and Odle, 1994)

FDA and other industry sources have not published any detailed studies on the oral toxicity of IGF-1 Rather, they have consistently refused to make available their findings and raw data. A highly condensed summary of an IGF- 1 Monsanto short term test in mature rats was released by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990). The agency alleges that this study confirms IGF- 1's "lack of oral activity." At the outset it should be noted that the Monsanto test was contracted out to Hazelton Laboratories, which has a two decade history of misrepresentation of scientific data. (Epstein, 1978). However, even the cited Monsanto/Hazelton data explicitly reveal statistically significant evidence of growth promoting effects. Feeding relatively low doses of IGF-1 to mature rats for only two weeks resulted in statistically significant and biologically highly significant systemic effects: increased body weight; increased liver weight; increased bone length; and decreased epiphyseal width. These results are confirmatory of prior theoretical predictions.

The FDA has failed to investigate the effects of long-term feeding of IGF- 1 and rBGH-milk on growth, or on more sensitive sub-cellular effects, in infant rats or infants of any other species.

Significantly, cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-l in breast (udder) epithelial cells; this does not occur in untreated cows. (Furlanetto, et al, 1984; Gregor, et al, 1985; Campbell, et al, 1986.) IGF-1 induces rapid division and multiplication of normal human breast epithelial cells in tissue cultures. It is highly likely that IGF- 1 promotes transformation of normal breast epithelium to breast cancers. (Furlanetto, et al, 1984; Harris, et al, 1992, growth factors such as IGF-1 "are responsible at least in part for the evolution of normal breast epithelia to breast cancer...'). Moreover, IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs. (Lippman, 1991, 1993). IGF-l has been similarly associated with colon cancer (Tricolo, et al, 1986).

The undifferentiated pre-natal and infant breast is particularly susceptible to hormonal influences. (Ekbom, et al. 1992) Such imprinting by IGF-1 may increase future breast cancer risks, and may also increase the sensitivity of the breast to subsequent unrelated risks such as mammography and the carcinogenic and estrogen-like effects of pesticide residues in food, particularly in pre-menopausal women. (Elwood, et al, 1993).

Concerns about increased levels of IGF- 1 in milk from cows treated with rBGH are not new. In 1990, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus panel on rBGH expressed concerns on adverse health effects of IGF-1 in rBGH milk, calling for further study on the treated milk's impacts, especially on infants. (NIH, 1991). In a 1989 letter to the FDA, I warned that the effects of IGF-1 "could include premature growth stimulation in infants, [breast enlargement] in young children and breast cancer in adult females." More recently, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated: "Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine insulin-like growth factor is safe for children, adolescents and adults." (AMA, 1991). Instead of further study, the FDA allowed for uncontrolled, unlabeled sales of treated milk to unwitting consumers.

Given the potential health impacts of consumption of milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH treated cows, all such products at a minimum be labeled so that consumers are aware of what they are purchasing and consuming. More prudently the FDA approval of rBGH should be withdrawn until the agency performs adequate long term testing on the impacts of increased levels of IGF- 1 in milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH treated cows.

References
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Biotechnology and the American Agriculture Industry. JAMA 1991:265:1429-1436

Ayre, S.G. et al. Neoadjuvant low-dose chemotherapy with insulin in breast carcinomas. Eur. J. Cancer. 1990: 26:1262-1263

Campbell, P.G. and Baumrucker, C.R. Characterization of insulin-like growth factor-1/somatomedin-C receptors in bovine mammary gland. Endocrinol. 116 (Suppl. 1 Abstract: 223, 1985.

Donovan, S.M. and Odle J., 1994. Growth Factors in Milk as mediators of Infant development. Annual Review of infant development. Annual Review of Nutrion, 14:147-67.

Ekbom, A. et al. Evidence of prenatal influence on breast cancer risk. The Lancet Oct.24, 1992:1015-1018.

Epstein, S.S. Polluted Data, The Sciences, Vol.18, 16-21, July, August, 1978.

Epstein, S.S. Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk hormones. Int.J. Health Services 1990:20:73-84.

Furlaneto, R.W., DiCarlo, J.N. Somatomedin-C receptors and growth effects in human breast cells maintained in long-term tissue culture. Cancer Res. 1984:44:2122-2128.

Glimm, D .R. et al. Effect of bovine somatropin on the distribution of immunoreactive insulin like growth factor-i in lactating bovine mammary tissue. J. Dairy Sci. 1988:71:2923-2935.

Gregor, P. and Burleigh, B.D. Presence of high affinity somatomedin/insulin-line growth factor receptors in porcine mammary gland. Endocrinol. 116 (suppl. 1, Abstract) :223, 1985.

Hanson, M.K. Biotechnology & milk: benefit or threat? Consumer Policy institute, New York. 1990.

Harris, J.R. et al. Breast Cancer. NEJM 1992:7;473-480

Juskevich, J.C., Guyer, C.G. (FDA). Bovine growth hormone food safety evaluation. Science 1990:249:875-884.

Lippman, M.E. The development of biological therapies for breast cancer. Science 1993:259:631-632.

Marx, J. Oncogenes evoke new cancer therapies. Science 193:249:1376-1378.

McBride, B.W. et al. The influence of bovine growth hormone on lactation of dairy cows. Res. Dev. Agric. 1988:5:1-21

Mepham, T.B. Public health implications of Bovine somatotropin use in dairying: discussion paper. J. Royal Soc. Medicine 1992:85:736-739

National Institutes of Health, Technology Assesment Conference Statement on bovine Somatotropin. JAMA 191:265:1423-1425

Prosser, C.G. Bovine somatotropin and milk composition. The Lancet November 19, 1988:1201

Prosser, C. G. et. al. Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor 1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone, J. Dairy Res. 1989:56:17-26

Source: Press Conference, National Press Club, Washington D.C., January 23, 1996

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
c/o University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health, M/C 922
2121 W. Taylor Street
Chicago, IL 60612

epstein@uic.edu

---

Visionary Tools said:

I looked into the bovine growth hormone thing. Doesn't seem to be associated with "precoscious puberty" but there is a solid link between it and cancer.

---

AroundtheSon said:

shhh...

you might bruise egos.

---

Quote:

FDA and other industry sources have not published any detailed studies on the oral toxicity of IGF-1 Rather, they have consistently refused to make available their findings and raw data. A highly condensed summary of an IGF- 1 Monsanto short term test in mature rats was released by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990). The agency alleges that this study confirms IGF- 1's "lack of oral activity." At the outset it should be noted that the Monsanto test was contracted out to Hazelton Laboratories, which has a two decade history of misrepresentation of scientific data. (Epstein, 1978). However, even the cited Monsanto/Hazelton data explicitly reveal statistically significant evidence of growth promoting effects. Feeding relatively low doses of IGF-1 to mature rats for only two weeks resulted in statistically significant and biologically highly significant systemic effects: increased body weight; increased liver weight; increased bone length; and decreased epiphyseal width. These results are confirmatory of prior theoretical predictions.

The FDA has failed to investigate the effects of long-term feeding of IGF- 1 and rBGH-milk on growth, or on more sensitive sub-cellular effects, in infant rats or infants of any other species.

---

AroundtheSon said:

look at me, I'm trolling!!!

---