http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1000
NOTMILK - Bad Housekeeping: Cohen: Murray 6.17.3

Subject: NOTMILK - Bad Housekeeping
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:21:57 -0000
From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
Reply-To: notmilk-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: notmilk@yahoogroups.com

Good Housekeeping Magazine's online health headline:

Men Need Milk Too June 13, 2003

<http://magazines.ivillage.com/goodhousekeeping/hb/news/article/0,,co
mtex_2003_06_13_up_0000-3097-bc-us-milk~ew~xml,00.html>

Good Housekeeping (GH) reports:

"The Dairy Council of California says recent studies have
linked the consumption of dairy foods by men with decreased
risk for...colon cancer. In 2003, 72,800 new cases of colon
and rectal cancers will be diagnosed in men. The American
Cancer Society estimates that over 28,000 men will die this
year from these cancers."

How does one earn the famous GH "Seal of Approval"? By purchasing
full page advertisements in their magazine, that's how. A full
page ad in GH will set you back $200,000, and if that's not in
your personal 2003 budget, take note that America's milk producers
have averaged one full-page milkstache ad per issue through June
of 2003. That's $1,200,000 investested for their cause.

Let's examine the dairy industry's claim that milk
consumption lowers colon cancer risk as reported by
Good Housekeeping. The "recent" study referred to in
the GH article actually was published by the Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA) five years ago.

JAMA is America's most quoted medical authority. "According
to an article published in JAMA..." is a phrase that appears
in bundreds or more newspapers each month, heralding blockbuster
news. Every two weeks this journal is sent to 350,000
subscribers in the United States.

In 1998, three months before the study was actually published
(September 23/30, 1998 issue), the dairy industry held a press
conference in New York announcing this earth shattering news:

"Drinking low fat milk prevents colon cancer!"

The senior author of the JAMA study, Peter Holt, MD, gratefully
acknowledged the support of the National Dairy Council, which was
kind enough to foot the bill for his phony research.

COLON CANCER

This year, one out of 48 Americans will develop polyps in his/her
colon. Of those who develop polyps, the additional risk of having
that polyp develop into a colon cancer is about 2 1/2 percent, or
one out of 40. Therefore, this year it is expected that one out
of every 1,920 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer of the
colon. Holt's article was titled: Modulation of Abnormal Colonic
Epithelial Cell Proliferation and Differentiation by Low-Fat Dairy
Foods. Publication of the study enabled the dairy industry to make
fraudulent claims about their product.

A review of the JAMA paper found that only seventy-three people
with polyps were studied, and not even one person was diagnosed
with colon cancer before or during the study. Less than half of
these "subjects" were given low-fat dairy products containing
calcium. Each of the human "laboratory animals" went home and kept
a journal regarding his/her dairy consumption. Only one of these
people was expected (based upon cancer statistics) to get colon
cancer, yet the author and sponsor of the study placed great faith
upon the incorrect assumptions and conclusions. So great was this
fraud that that the dairy industry called a press conference and
then wined, dined, and milked the nation's media into reporting
their enormous lie.

JAMA was aware that they were participating in a fraud, and tried
to cover up evidence of milk mustache stains under their noses.
The title page of the "clinical investigation" contains this news:
"For Editorial comment see P. 1095."

I reviewed the actual study and was outraged. Reporters rarely
read scientific studies. That was clearly evidenced by the
conclusions reached by those reporting this story. The editorial
writer expressed both a sense of outrage and a sense of humor.
This scientific journal could not run as coarse a headline as:

"Sh*t happens." Instead, their classy satiric headline read:
"Proliferation Happens."

The author of the editorial, Dennis Ahnen, MD, in criticizing
the experimental methodology and conclusions of Holt, wrote:

"The fundamental relationship of proliferation (growth) to
carcinogenesis (cancer) remains unclear...the value of
proliferative (growth) measurements for identifying high risk
subjects appears to be low...the reliability of proliferative
(growth) measurement in the colon is uncertain."

This medical editorial writer and fellow physician also criticized
the experimental design and lack of professional technique and
ethics of the researchers by writing:

"The proliferative (growth) parameters measured were not stable
over time...many of the statistically significant differences
between the two groups (test subjects and placebo) were due as
much (to other factors than those claimed by the researcher) to
changes in proliferative parameters in the control group as they
were to changes in the treatment group."

Dr. Ahnen's outrage clearly can be read between the lines:

"The timing of the proliferative changes also were not consistent
during the study by Holt et. al. These types of variability suggest
that if there is a treatment effect from low-fat dairy food, it is
either too small or too variable to be consistently detected..."

Dr. Ahnen, the JAMA critic, concludes that there is no way to
accurately measure what Holt and the dairy industry claim to have
measured.

Good Housekeeping should not place their "Seal of Approval"
on outrageous health claims because of advertising revenue.
They compromise more than just their own integrity when
doing so. Such lies and deceit for payment compromise the
health of Good Housekeeping's readers.

So what is the difference between Good Housekeeping
and bad housekeeping? In the case of bad housekeeping,
one occasionally sweeps dirt and dust and truth under the
rug. Good Housekeeping's rug may appear to be fresh and clean
on the outside, but that which they hide is gross filth.

Robert Cohen http://www.notmilk.com
----------------------------------------------------
THE NOTMILK NEWSLETTER:
SUBSCRIBE: send an empty Email to-
notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Forward this message to your milk-drinking friends:
MILK from A to Z: http://www.notmilk.com/milkatoz.html
2O QUESTIONS: http://www.notmilk.com/notmilkfaq.html

What is an excellent alternative for NOTMILK?

http://www.soytoy.com ... make your own grain milks!
SoyToy recipes forum: soytoy-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
***********************************************************************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/984
aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity:
Murray 6.17.3 rmforall

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983
aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 6.17.3 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
for 1000 posts in a public searchable archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ 658 member group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989
EU votes 440 to 20 to approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate
aspartame & stevia: Murray 4.12.3 rmforall

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame (12.4.2): 59 pages, 230 references

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/910
formaldehyde & formic acid from methanol in aspartame:
Murray: 12.9.2 rmforall

It is certain that high levels of aspartame use, above 2 liters daily
for months and years, must lead to chronic formaldehyde-formic acid
toxicity, since 11% of aspartame (1,120 mg in 2L diet soda, 5.6 12-oz
cans) is 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol), immediately released into the
body after drinking (unlike the large levels of methanol locked up in
molecules inside many fruits), then quickly transformed into
formaldehyde, which in turn becomes formic acid, both of which in
time become carbon dioxide and water-- however, about 30% of the
methanol remains in the body as cumulative durable toxic metabolites of
formaldehyde and formic acid-- 37 mg daily, a gram every month.
If 10% of the methanol is retained as formaldehyde, that would give 12
mg daily formaldehyde accumulation, about 60 times more than the 0.2 mg
from 10% retention of the 2 mg EPA daily limit for formaldehyde in
drinking water.

Bear in mind that the EPA limit for formaldehyde in
drinking water is 1 ppm,
or 2 mg daily for a typical daily consumption of 2 L of water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
RTM: ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999
5.30.2 rmforall

This long-term low-level chronic toxic exposure leads to typical
patterns of increasingly severe complex symptoms, starting with
headache, fatigue, joint pain, irritability, memory loss, and
leading to vision and eye problems and even seizures. In many cases
there is addiction. Probably there are immune system disorders, with a
hypersensitivity to these toxins and other chemicals.
************************************************************************