For the past few months, I have noticed a strange, sharp pain in my lower right abdomen. It's not very painful....but not very comfortable either. At first I thought it was my appendix becasue of the location, until I started feeling the same thing on my left side.....could these be cysts? Ovarian cancer? Or something else? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.
Signs on Ovarian Cysts?
Some women feel themselves ovulate monthly as a sharp pain on one side or the other. However, if you have this more often than that, you really should check with your doctor. There is no way to tell about cysts except for an ultrasound or pelvic exam. Your health is important. Take care.
Reply:Ive had the same problem! I ended up in hospital with them thinking i had appendicitis, they did testing and i didnt have it and both times it was around the time of my period!
Ive had a ovarian cyst before a very very large one, the obvious smptoms are: pain, bloating (even when your not on yur period), fullness, not being able to lay on your stomach. Go to the doctor and express you concern about it and ask for an ultrasound jsut to make sure! That will pick up if you have one or not!!
Good luck with it, most of the time if there found early and there small the doctor will wait 2 months, do another scan and it will mostlikely be dissolved!
Hope all goes well!
Reply:It could be a cyst. Typically cysts aren't harmful, but they can be EXTREMELY painful. The pain depends on the size of the cyst... I had a cyst on my left ovary that took 4 months to go down, and when it first appeared it was at least the size of a grape according to my doctor.... anyway.... it hurt to the point of me not being able to walk without being in pain, it felt similar to a really bad bruise, but the pain slowly went down. If it doesn't go away you should have it checked by your doctor.
Reply:Need more info. If you are on the birth control pill, this lessens the chance that it could be ovarian cysts.
If you are NOT on the pill, have noticed what time of the month this pain is occurring?
If it is near your period, could be just that.
If it is 7-10 days after your period (and you are NOT on the pill) could be pain from ovulation.
But you can go to your nearest Planned Parenthood if you don't want to ask your parents. They can do a pap smear, get you free birth control, do a pelvic check to see what the pain is caused by. Could be an STD like Chlamydia. (You didn't say if you were sexually active or not, so i will assume you are) but there is NO charge at Planned Parenthood, and they are completely private. If they have to call your house for any reason, they will act like they are a friend, in case your parents answer.
But don't ignore it. If you do have a cyst, and it twists around an ovary or bursts, you could be in some serious trouble...
Reply:Okay this has happened to me before.When i walked a got pain in the same spot that you described on both sides.Then i had to go to the doctor and they did an ultra sound on me.They found three on one side and 4 on the other.They said that they would probably go away by them selves but if not they would either put me on birth control or go in a take them off.Birth control has some sort of hormone in it and it makes then go away.But mine went away by itself.Now when I walk or do activities nothing hurts.You probably just have a cyst on them its no big deal.I wish you the best of luck and have a great day!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Should I remove my lungs to prevent lung cancer?
I'm really tired of getting told that I should get my indoor cat spayed to prevent her from getting ovarian cancer. Yes, she goes into heat and she can be annoying, but it's natural and it's a part of her personality.
I believe a cat should only be spayed or neutered (this IS surgery and stressful and painful for the animal) if there's a risk of the cat getting pregnant or breeding with other cats. Overpopulation of stray cats is a problem, but my cat has never been outdoors (without being held onto) and never makes a break for the door when it opens.
I do have a male cat who spent most of his life at my previous home in a large house on a 5-acre lot of land. He frequently went outside and explored, but I had him neutered when he was six months old to prevent any risk of reproduction.
But I keep hearing that there are other benefits associated with spaying a cat, like preventing ovarian cancer or getting a uteral infection.
Should I remove my lungs to prevent lung cancer?
Yes, brilliant idea.
Reply:Yes ASAP
Reply:YEAS ASAP!!!
if u wanna DIE
Reply:Get the cat spayed and simplify both your lives.
Reply:In the mood to rant?
Reply:well if u remove ur lungs to prevent lung cancer u might as well make funeral arrangements being as how u can breathe without ur lungs.......
Reply:interesting, I hear what your saying and Im not a vet so Im not sure, but I do own pets a dog and a female cat who I do not plan to get spayed because she is a indoor cat only.
Reply:sounds like you are being sarcastic. Yeah i hate everybody telling me what to do.
Reply:Why not remove your brain instead. That way you won't have to think about any of those things.
Reply:Are you serious? Do you really want to harm yourself.
Reply:um. 2+2=4 and 2+3=5
Reply:Well I personally wouldn't advise that!
Sometimes you just have to ignore the world if you feel strongly enough about something!
Your cat, your house, your life.
Do the best for you and your animal!
Good luck!
Reply:Sur, that makes as much sense as freezing yourself in an icebox now, to prevent you from catching any diseases and die.
Reply:You should remove your brain, because you're stupid.
Cats do escape, and they don't have to be in heat to become pregnant. Not only that, but I know two people who had stray cats barge into their house because their cats were in heat. Guess what? Their cats had kittens not long afterwards.
Reply:I enjoyed reading your question! Am confused ; aren't you kidding esp in the additional details!
And yes, remove your PC/Laptop lest you get Comuter Related Injury (CRI). Goodluck.
Must write to me if you do the needful!
Reply:Yes! While you are at it, you need to remove your bones, for the possibility of bone mets with cancer, your uterus for uterine cancer, your heart for any type of heart disease, your brain for brain cancer, and your tongue for tongue cancer (yes, this is real!). If you are going to get sick, you are going to get sick.
Reply:no u shouldnt your lungs are obviously vital and your breasts are part of who you are they are a gift and you should embrace them....not to sound weird or cheesy lol
Reply:That would definately prevent it...
Reply:you do realize if that was the case you would have to remove every part of your cat's entire body becasue your cat could get cancer anywhere??? just keep that in mind before you begin loping off body parts. good luck
Reply:I am gonna go ahead and take a stab at this one...first of all your sarcasm isn't helping BUT, HAVE you seen all of the unwanted animals out there? DO you realize each year millions of dogs and cats are put to death and burned as a result of your line of thinking? WHY not spay your cat and help NOT CONTRIBUTE to the over-population problem? I would think if you loved her like you say you wouldn't want her to be bred over and over and have kittens that you could not get homes for, even if you got homes the likelihood of them keeping the cat long term is less than 30%. I think you need to visit the http://www.hsus.org/ and read some .....
Reply:DON't remove anything...
Reply:Honestly, just get the cat sprayed, unless you want a bunch of kittens your gonna half to find a home for. I doubt theres anybody %26lt;i%26gt; forcing you %26lt;/i%26gt; to get your cat sprayed.
Simple as that :P
Reply:Removing your brain and fingers might be helpful.
Reply:your cat can live without ovaries! It is not to prevent cancer. And yes it is natural but the stress relief for the cat after it is done benefits to cat, not you. She is more stressed when she is in heat then being spayed. Be kind to your cat and do what benefits her not you.
Reply:This is a dumb question. How do you think you can mange if you get ALL of your organs taken out? If you feel like dying then........YOU do YOU! But these are dumb and not well thought statements.
Reply:why not just remove one half of all the above
thus reducing your risk but still allowing their function to be utilised
Reply:That is stupid.
It is your responsability to prevent undo harm to your animals. So spaying and Neutering is a good thing. You reduce the risk of many health risks to indoor cats and outdoor cats by doing this.
You say yourself she has never made a break for it. But there is the chance that she will when she is in heat and smelling some young hot stud cat outside your door then they run across the street and Honk Honk splat no more kitty.
After coming back to reread this question. I think it is a good idea that you have your lungs removed. Because that is one less idiot using air that a person with a brain could be using to better the world.
Reply:I understand your thinking but your reasoning is a bit flawed. The reason to have your female cat fixed is because if she is not permitted to mate she will remain in a state of estrous much too Long. Being in heat puts a lot of stress on her. Nature is pressuring her to reproduce, yet she cannot.
She is also sending out chemical signals to every non-neutered male cat in the area, stressing them as well.
I strongly recommend neutering any animal that is not specifically kept for breeding purposes.
.
Reply:The reality of the situation is something down the line is going to take your cat out. If you have her spayed to prevent ovarian cancer she may get some other type of cancer. If she is happy and safe there is no need to spay her.
Reply:If you removed your vital organs your body would not be able to sustain itself. To put it in blunt terms - you could not survive.... it would be an impossibility. Removing the lungs which supply oxygen to the blood and oxygen to the brain would make it an impossibility to breathe. Your brain would starve of oxygen and turn a "blue" colour, your blood would also become "deoxygenated"
(Hmmm - people do have strange thoughts??)
P.S I don't think you could ever find a surgeon that would be stupid enough to try and carry out this procedure anyway....
Hope this has answered your question.... ^^
;-)
Reply:Death ends all concerns...just not well.
I believe a cat should only be spayed or neutered (this IS surgery and stressful and painful for the animal) if there's a risk of the cat getting pregnant or breeding with other cats. Overpopulation of stray cats is a problem, but my cat has never been outdoors (without being held onto) and never makes a break for the door when it opens.
I do have a male cat who spent most of his life at my previous home in a large house on a 5-acre lot of land. He frequently went outside and explored, but I had him neutered when he was six months old to prevent any risk of reproduction.
But I keep hearing that there are other benefits associated with spaying a cat, like preventing ovarian cancer or getting a uteral infection.
Should I remove my lungs to prevent lung cancer?
Yes, brilliant idea.
Reply:Yes ASAP
Reply:YEAS ASAP!!!
if u wanna DIE
Reply:Get the cat spayed and simplify both your lives.
Reply:In the mood to rant?
Reply:well if u remove ur lungs to prevent lung cancer u might as well make funeral arrangements being as how u can breathe without ur lungs.......
Reply:interesting, I hear what your saying and Im not a vet so Im not sure, but I do own pets a dog and a female cat who I do not plan to get spayed because she is a indoor cat only.
Reply:sounds like you are being sarcastic. Yeah i hate everybody telling me what to do.
Reply:Why not remove your brain instead. That way you won't have to think about any of those things.
Reply:Are you serious? Do you really want to harm yourself.
Reply:um. 2+2=4 and 2+3=5
Reply:Well I personally wouldn't advise that!
Sometimes you just have to ignore the world if you feel strongly enough about something!
Your cat, your house, your life.
Do the best for you and your animal!
Good luck!
Reply:Sur, that makes as much sense as freezing yourself in an icebox now, to prevent you from catching any diseases and die.
Reply:You should remove your brain, because you're stupid.
Cats do escape, and they don't have to be in heat to become pregnant. Not only that, but I know two people who had stray cats barge into their house because their cats were in heat. Guess what? Their cats had kittens not long afterwards.
Reply:I enjoyed reading your question! Am confused ; aren't you kidding esp in the additional details!
And yes, remove your PC/Laptop lest you get Comuter Related Injury (CRI). Goodluck.
Must write to me if you do the needful!
Reply:Yes! While you are at it, you need to remove your bones, for the possibility of bone mets with cancer, your uterus for uterine cancer, your heart for any type of heart disease, your brain for brain cancer, and your tongue for tongue cancer (yes, this is real!). If you are going to get sick, you are going to get sick.
Reply:no u shouldnt your lungs are obviously vital and your breasts are part of who you are they are a gift and you should embrace them....not to sound weird or cheesy lol
Reply:That would definately prevent it...
Reply:you do realize if that was the case you would have to remove every part of your cat's entire body becasue your cat could get cancer anywhere??? just keep that in mind before you begin loping off body parts. good luck
Reply:I am gonna go ahead and take a stab at this one...first of all your sarcasm isn't helping BUT, HAVE you seen all of the unwanted animals out there? DO you realize each year millions of dogs and cats are put to death and burned as a result of your line of thinking? WHY not spay your cat and help NOT CONTRIBUTE to the over-population problem? I would think if you loved her like you say you wouldn't want her to be bred over and over and have kittens that you could not get homes for, even if you got homes the likelihood of them keeping the cat long term is less than 30%. I think you need to visit the http://www.hsus.org/ and read some .....
Reply:DON't remove anything...
Reply:Honestly, just get the cat sprayed, unless you want a bunch of kittens your gonna half to find a home for. I doubt theres anybody %26lt;i%26gt; forcing you %26lt;/i%26gt; to get your cat sprayed.
Simple as that :P
Reply:Removing your brain and fingers might be helpful.
Reply:your cat can live without ovaries! It is not to prevent cancer. And yes it is natural but the stress relief for the cat after it is done benefits to cat, not you. She is more stressed when she is in heat then being spayed. Be kind to your cat and do what benefits her not you.
Reply:This is a dumb question. How do you think you can mange if you get ALL of your organs taken out? If you feel like dying then........YOU do YOU! But these are dumb and not well thought statements.
Reply:why not just remove one half of all the above
thus reducing your risk but still allowing their function to be utilised
Reply:That is stupid.
It is your responsability to prevent undo harm to your animals. So spaying and Neutering is a good thing. You reduce the risk of many health risks to indoor cats and outdoor cats by doing this.
You say yourself she has never made a break for it. But there is the chance that she will when she is in heat and smelling some young hot stud cat outside your door then they run across the street and Honk Honk splat no more kitty.
After coming back to reread this question. I think it is a good idea that you have your lungs removed. Because that is one less idiot using air that a person with a brain could be using to better the world.
Reply:I understand your thinking but your reasoning is a bit flawed. The reason to have your female cat fixed is because if she is not permitted to mate she will remain in a state of estrous much too Long. Being in heat puts a lot of stress on her. Nature is pressuring her to reproduce, yet she cannot.
She is also sending out chemical signals to every non-neutered male cat in the area, stressing them as well.
I strongly recommend neutering any animal that is not specifically kept for breeding purposes.
.
Reply:The reality of the situation is something down the line is going to take your cat out. If you have her spayed to prevent ovarian cancer she may get some other type of cancer. If she is happy and safe there is no need to spay her.
Reply:If you removed your vital organs your body would not be able to sustain itself. To put it in blunt terms - you could not survive.... it would be an impossibility. Removing the lungs which supply oxygen to the blood and oxygen to the brain would make it an impossibility to breathe. Your brain would starve of oxygen and turn a "blue" colour, your blood would also become "deoxygenated"
(Hmmm - people do have strange thoughts??)
P.S I don't think you could ever find a surgeon that would be stupid enough to try and carry out this procedure anyway....
Hope this has answered your question.... ^^
;-)
Reply:Death ends all concerns...just not well.
What triggers breast/ovarian cancers, and diabetes...?
and if there's a way to prevent...
What triggers breast/ovarian cancers, and diabetes...?
not sure about the cancers, but diabetes can happen in a few ways. It is hereditary and can be passed to children from their parents. my mom is diabetic, her mom and uncle were, etc. Second way is by diet/exercise, or rather lack thereof. If you are a coach potato, don't exercise, eat bad and are obese, you are more prone to diabetes. this was typically considered type 2, adult onset diabetes, however as americans get fatter each year, there are kids being diagnosed with this every year with alarming rates. The solution was simple, eat a good diet and exercise. simple as that.
What triggers breast/ovarian cancers, and diabetes...?
not sure about the cancers, but diabetes can happen in a few ways. It is hereditary and can be passed to children from their parents. my mom is diabetic, her mom and uncle were, etc. Second way is by diet/exercise, or rather lack thereof. If you are a coach potato, don't exercise, eat bad and are obese, you are more prone to diabetes. this was typically considered type 2, adult onset diabetes, however as americans get fatter each year, there are kids being diagnosed with this every year with alarming rates. The solution was simple, eat a good diet and exercise. simple as that.
Cancer monster?
Heard there was a type of cancer (ovarian) that grows up into a tumor with eyes hair and teeth.
Ewww
Are there any documented cases and could you tell me more about it. Like did it blink and growl when it first came out?
Cancer monster?
you might mean a molar pregnancy,this is malignant and contains hair and teeth,try google
Ewww
Are there any documented cases and could you tell me more about it. Like did it blink and growl when it first came out?
Cancer monster?
you might mean a molar pregnancy,this is malignant and contains hair and teeth,try google
Question about ovarian cysts and CT scan........?
I hope somebody out there might know the answer to this. I had an abdominal/pelvic CT scan done about 6 or 7 wks ago which showed that I have an ovarian cyst on my right ovary. I'd had a laparascopy done about 6 wks prior to the CT scan but the dr wasn't able to see my right ovary during the procedure. I've been experiencing extreme pain right in the area where the right ovary is but the dr isn't sure if it's the cyst causing the pain or something else so we're trying a couple of different things %26amp; I go see him again in about 3 wks from now. But now I'm worried thinking, oh my god, if he couldn't see the ovary during the laparoscopy, %26amp; I have a cyst on my ovary, how do I know that it might not be cancer? I know that the majority of cysts are not cancerous %26amp; are just fluid-filled, but I'm assuming that the CT scan wouldn't be able to tell if it was fluid filled or not. So how would they know that it's a cyst as opposed to a tumour? Is there anybody out there who can give me more info?
Question about ovarian cysts and CT scan........?
Hey! I had a masive cyst on my left ovary 3 years ago that was picked up in a simple ultrasound (and i mean massive it had 5 litres of fluid in it). The only way that you can tell if its a tumour and cancerous or just a cyst is when its removed, they take it off for testing and come back and tell you if its cancerous or not.. as you said more times that not it is non cancerous and just fluid filled! The best thing to do is stop stressing out and wait untill the doctor removes it!!
Good Luck!
Reply:There are many different types of ovarian cysts because of the fear of ovarian cancer, cysts are a common cause of concern but it is important to know that the vast majority of ovarian cysts are not cancer cyst may cause discomfort the good news is that almost all ovarian cysts will go away by themselves without any treatment if you have massive pain or discomfort it could do to the rupture of the cyst most doctors give cysts the chance of them going away with out treatment if they discover the cysts have not yet decreased or dissolve in the time period they gave between your appointments then most possible scenario would be to remove it and as of the possibility of it being a tumor those are normally easily detected with just a simple ultrasound so if your gynecologist didn't mention that possibility then mostly likely that is not the problem so maybe you should just give it time and hope for the best like i said cysts are known to go away by them self with or without pain and discomfort just try not to stress about it its worse to do so good luck and wish you the best xoxo
ohh well if your bleeding or spotting and if it has a funny smell i think you should get that checked right away specially if your still feeling pain here go to this website and search for all that you could think of that has to do with cysts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_cys...
Question about ovarian cysts and CT scan........?
Hey! I had a masive cyst on my left ovary 3 years ago that was picked up in a simple ultrasound (and i mean massive it had 5 litres of fluid in it). The only way that you can tell if its a tumour and cancerous or just a cyst is when its removed, they take it off for testing and come back and tell you if its cancerous or not.. as you said more times that not it is non cancerous and just fluid filled! The best thing to do is stop stressing out and wait untill the doctor removes it!!
Good Luck!
Reply:There are many different types of ovarian cysts because of the fear of ovarian cancer, cysts are a common cause of concern but it is important to know that the vast majority of ovarian cysts are not cancer cyst may cause discomfort the good news is that almost all ovarian cysts will go away by themselves without any treatment if you have massive pain or discomfort it could do to the rupture of the cyst most doctors give cysts the chance of them going away with out treatment if they discover the cysts have not yet decreased or dissolve in the time period they gave between your appointments then most possible scenario would be to remove it and as of the possibility of it being a tumor those are normally easily detected with just a simple ultrasound so if your gynecologist didn't mention that possibility then mostly likely that is not the problem so maybe you should just give it time and hope for the best like i said cysts are known to go away by them self with or without pain and discomfort just try not to stress about it its worse to do so good luck and wish you the best xoxo
ohh well if your bleeding or spotting and if it has a funny smell i think you should get that checked right away specially if your still feeling pain here go to this website and search for all that you could think of that has to do with cysts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_cys...
Cancers, how to test for them.?
Well, it's like this, every time i have my period, i have extreme pain in my abdomen. i do not usually get this and when i do, it only lasts for about half an hour. after wards, i always find a lump of 'meat'. again, my GP says that it may simply be a blood clot, but what i get looks like a miniature fillet! it is not small, the smallest one was about 1cm long. i have had this since i was 17. what could it be? Ovarian cancer? Cervical Cancer? a Uterine cancer? Please help.
Cancers, how to test for them.?
Since you have doubts about your GP's comment, seek another doc for a 2nd opinion (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, seek as many opinions as you need, as a good doc would not be offended that you want more objective opinions). Abdomen pain is usually not a cancer symptom. The diagnostic tests are usually ultrasonography; endometrial biopsy, colposcopy, or dilatation and curettage with hysteroscopy to obtain tissue for histologic exam; testing for blood in stool; and vaginal and cervical specimen to test for infections. This is a brief description of the cancer symptoms:
CERVICAL CANCER
Vaginal spotting or heavier bleeding, usually after sex or douching, but can also occur spontaneously. Persistent, pink-tinged, foul-smelling vaginal discharge and postcoital (after sex) pain. As the cancer spreads, back and sciatic (nerves near the back of the hip) pain, leg swelling, anorexia, hematuria, dysuria, rectal bleeding.
ENDOMETRIAL HYPERPLASIA/CANCER
Thin, brownish bleeding or bright red, profuse bleeding following sex or douching. Bleeding progressively become heavier and more frequent, leading to clotting and anemia. Pelvic, rectal, lower back and leg pains may accompany the bleeding,
OVARIAN TUMORS
Can also cause endometrial shedding and heavy bleeding unrelated to coitus or douching. Palpable pelvic mass, increased cervical mucus, and/or breast enlargement may occur as well.
VAGINAL CANCER
A thin, watery vaginal discharge occurs before spotting or bleeding, which can be spontaneous, but usually after sex and/or douching. There may be ulcerated vaginal lesion (looks like blisters); dyspareunia, urinary frequency, bladder and pelvic pain, rectal bleeding and vulvar lesions later.
I hope this helps to ease your worries. But do pay close attention to subsequent periods that might have similar type of clotting. Write down the details, such as the size, how thick, the color, when does each period begin (regular or irregular pattern?), how long each period lasts, how long or how often each clotting occurs, and so on. When necessary, bring that journal to your doc's attention.
Reply:It's also possible that the lump you may have noticed could have been a lymph node which can enlarge if there's infection (giving an example only). The only way to know for sure is to see a gynecologist for further evaluation of the situation to see what they think could be going on.
Reply:You should talk to another dr. My friend had a lump there and it was a fibroid. Cervical cancer you cant "feel"...its just starts growing, that's why u need regular paps. Or it could be a hernia. Or it could be a lump of fat. Thats why you need to see a dr. that specializes in female repro. because they will probably know whats going on and give you an utrasound or something. GP like to think they know everything about everything, but gyno's really DO know everything about repro. stuff!!
wall flower
Cancers, how to test for them.?
Since you have doubts about your GP's comment, seek another doc for a 2nd opinion (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, seek as many opinions as you need, as a good doc would not be offended that you want more objective opinions). Abdomen pain is usually not a cancer symptom. The diagnostic tests are usually ultrasonography; endometrial biopsy, colposcopy, or dilatation and curettage with hysteroscopy to obtain tissue for histologic exam; testing for blood in stool; and vaginal and cervical specimen to test for infections. This is a brief description of the cancer symptoms:
CERVICAL CANCER
Vaginal spotting or heavier bleeding, usually after sex or douching, but can also occur spontaneously. Persistent, pink-tinged, foul-smelling vaginal discharge and postcoital (after sex) pain. As the cancer spreads, back and sciatic (nerves near the back of the hip) pain, leg swelling, anorexia, hematuria, dysuria, rectal bleeding.
ENDOMETRIAL HYPERPLASIA/CANCER
Thin, brownish bleeding or bright red, profuse bleeding following sex or douching. Bleeding progressively become heavier and more frequent, leading to clotting and anemia. Pelvic, rectal, lower back and leg pains may accompany the bleeding,
OVARIAN TUMORS
Can also cause endometrial shedding and heavy bleeding unrelated to coitus or douching. Palpable pelvic mass, increased cervical mucus, and/or breast enlargement may occur as well.
VAGINAL CANCER
A thin, watery vaginal discharge occurs before spotting or bleeding, which can be spontaneous, but usually after sex and/or douching. There may be ulcerated vaginal lesion (looks like blisters); dyspareunia, urinary frequency, bladder and pelvic pain, rectal bleeding and vulvar lesions later.
I hope this helps to ease your worries. But do pay close attention to subsequent periods that might have similar type of clotting. Write down the details, such as the size, how thick, the color, when does each period begin (regular or irregular pattern?), how long each period lasts, how long or how often each clotting occurs, and so on. When necessary, bring that journal to your doc's attention.
Reply:It's also possible that the lump you may have noticed could have been a lymph node which can enlarge if there's infection (giving an example only). The only way to know for sure is to see a gynecologist for further evaluation of the situation to see what they think could be going on.
Reply:You should talk to another dr. My friend had a lump there and it was a fibroid. Cervical cancer you cant "feel"...its just starts growing, that's why u need regular paps. Or it could be a hernia. Or it could be a lump of fat. Thats why you need to see a dr. that specializes in female repro. because they will probably know whats going on and give you an utrasound or something. GP like to think they know everything about everything, but gyno's really DO know everything about repro. stuff!!
wall flower
Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?
"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.
The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.
Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.
Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."
You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.
There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
March/April 1991 Utne Reader:
If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.
Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
they simply repeating what their professors learned years
ago? What about the new voices urging caution?
I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.
Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.
How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.
I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature %26amp; what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.
Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.
WHAT IS MILK?
Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.
IS ALL MILK THE SAME?
Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?
Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.
Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans.
Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
composition that is critical for the very best in health and
growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
its unique specializations.
Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.
Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?
In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
neurological disorders cleared.
In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.
In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.
WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE
Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
that's how.
The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992: 330-32).
Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.
As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
think that milk is the safest product we have."
Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).
What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
of the milk samples showed drug traces.
Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our
understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.
One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
forever getting infections around the udder that require
ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the
study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.
IT GETS WORSE
Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).
A recent report showed an increased concentration of
pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
describe problems. Just scan these titles:
1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15
There are many others. There are dozens of studies
describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.
A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
borne infections and contaminants, and said:
Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?
In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:
It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
infant in the first year of life because of its association
with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.
I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.
In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:
I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
This is despite safety precautions.
All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".
Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes
Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
this study:
We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.
The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
greater in the English group compared to children remaining
in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
do with the disease.
The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
association says: "It does not mean that children should
stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
in the past?
LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!
I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).
This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of
Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
Master's degree in Public Health.
As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
California.
What happens to other species of mammals when they are
exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
particles?
If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
intestinal wall.
An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
department feels that this is an economic and not a human
health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.
What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:
1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
Infant. 75:182-186; 1985
In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.
One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!
An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.
Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
article follow:
The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
membrane.
This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
disease.
Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.
There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."
The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
ill "downer cows."
The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.
The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
E. coli deaths of 1993.
A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.
OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?
Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.
Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
These articles come from two of the country's leading
institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.
Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
drinking whole milk.
For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
difference.
There are not many reports studying an association between
milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
patients and comparable control subjects:
Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.
WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
drink cows' milk?
It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
it's a source of amino acids (proteins).
Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
egsted in England has been writing for years about the
geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
given below.
Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
important such article appeared recently in the British
Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
among people living on a natural diet without milk.
For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at
calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
difference that is modified by diet.
To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.
If animal references do not convince you, think of the
several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.
THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
milk is fitted right in.
As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.
For this information we rely on the most authoritative
source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
Richard Havel of the University of California in San
Francisco.
First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
a day if necessary!
Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.
IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.
What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
into the blood stream without first being broken down into
monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
to break down the galactose into glucose.
Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
milk from another group of mammals that the survival
advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
lose it?
Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources
were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant
calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to
humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high
degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned
people.
How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely
blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.
Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are
midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and
abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake
in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.
The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A
lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of
$117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)
What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy
products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is
largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy
your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar
in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed
this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).
One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of
fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to
constipation and bowel disorders.
The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding
in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from
its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the
intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with
articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and
vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a
double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency
of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of
childhood allergy.
LOW FAT
One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common
and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't
it?"
The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low
fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the
public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to
weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%
water!
"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat
milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern
is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little
or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein
and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more
of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to
boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live
in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,
and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry
cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond
milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned
about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same
calcium concentration as milk.
SUMMARY
To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk
or use milk products. That is just because we simply want
to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of
our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste
and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our
throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for
us and provided milk in our earliest training and
conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably
the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described
"to die for".
I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious
vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his
diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting
one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice
cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration
for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -
and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good
health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had
a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and
helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several
years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation
unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.
So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight
of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body
good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's
nutritional value and safety.
Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully
without cows' milk. You can too.
It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since
childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."
I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health
and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?
Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?
wow. Looks like you had allot of thought to this. My thoughts to this. People have been drinking milk for positively centuries and millenia. If you like it, drink it. If you don't, don't.
Reply:Well its a good source of calcium for rebuilding bones. But since you're no longer growing adults should only have around a cup a day max. I would say children certainly should drink plenty of milk to help their bones grow. Report It
Reply:Zomg I'm not reading that Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:if that is your picture you'll probably commit suicide
Reply:Excellent essay. is that your writing or are you quoting someone? If it's the latter can you provide a citation or link to where you found it? I'd like to keep that in my personal folder of veg resources.
On another note: How come every time I try to post a long question it tells me I'm out of room?
Reply:Wow that was long. I used to drink milk when I was a kid and I would always be coughing, getting ear infection, my thoat would hurt and the list goes on. All of that went away when I stopped drinking milk. I'm gonna star your "question" because I really liked it and it is so important.
How where you able to post such a long question? I don't think I can do that.
Reply:No antibiotics are allowed in milk for human consumption. None.
Not low levels, NONE.
Milk is checked many many times before it reaches the table.
So if you are against it, don't drink it! Why worry about what we are doing? It's our choice!
Oh, and don't cook your food either.
By the way, did you know that ants milk aphids? Is that unnatural too?
Reply:I only read half of this before I got a little bored, sorry. Some of your references are wrong though, be sure to make the noninsignificant differentiation between BGH, a naturally occuring hormone that cows produce in order to produce milk, and rBGH or recombinant bovine growth hormone, the lab-produced hormone that is injected into cows in order to increase their milk production. Oh, and people drink goat's milk and sheep's milk, too, and have for thousands of years. There are probably other animals that are milked, too. Also, I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk, actually knocking the top off of the colostrum milk container in the barn so they can reach the milk. It was almost really good, but your sources weren't all exactly on. If you're turning that in for credit, you might want to double check those.
Reply:Who wrote this? You don't credit it, but it wasn't you; it says 'I had one patient who...'. You say elsewhere that you're 17.
I'm a vegan, but this essay has pissed me off. It is reproduced in shortened form inthe Cancer forum, titled 'Breast cancer and dairy???????' The text doesn't mention breast cancer, though.
Users of the Cancer forum are very used to people, often teenagers as here but always people who haven't had or studied cancer, posting their half-baked theories about what causes cancer and lecturing us on how to avoid or cure it.
Reply:I drink organic milk. All milk is taken from cows that have been given the bovine growth horomones. These horomones make the cows have boils on the insides of their udders %26amp; sometimes they pop %26amp; leak pus into the milk. So unless you buy milk that says 'not treated by cows w/ bovine growth horomones' you are drinking up to 45% pus.
go organic
Reply:And The Question Is?
Reply:I know more about milk than most people. I used to milk cows for a living as a young person. Then I was a pasteurisor in a dairy. Prior to that I went to agricultural college, but with respect, I haven´t time to read your "very" long question.
Milk is very good for you. Semi skimmed is better for dietary concerns, but above all it is the best way to get the necessary calcium your body needs.
Reply:I couldn't make it all the way through your dribble.
Milk is good and good for you.
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.
The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.
Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.
Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."
You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.
There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
March/April 1991 Utne Reader:
If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.
Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
they simply repeating what their professors learned years
ago? What about the new voices urging caution?
I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.
Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.
How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.
I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature %26amp; what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.
Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.
WHAT IS MILK?
Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.
IS ALL MILK THE SAME?
Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?
Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.
Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans.
Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
composition that is critical for the very best in health and
growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
its unique specializations.
Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.
Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?
In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
neurological disorders cleared.
In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.
In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.
WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE
Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
that's how.
The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992: 330-32).
Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.
As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
think that milk is the safest product we have."
Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).
What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
of the milk samples showed drug traces.
Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our
understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.
One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
forever getting infections around the udder that require
ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the
study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.
IT GETS WORSE
Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).
A recent report showed an increased concentration of
pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
describe problems. Just scan these titles:
1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15
There are many others. There are dozens of studies
describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.
A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
borne infections and contaminants, and said:
Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?
In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:
It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
infant in the first year of life because of its association
with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.
I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.
In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:
I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
This is despite safety precautions.
All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".
Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes
Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
this study:
We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.
The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
greater in the English group compared to children remaining
in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
do with the disease.
The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
association says: "It does not mean that children should
stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
in the past?
LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!
I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).
This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of
Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
Master's degree in Public Health.
As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
California.
What happens to other species of mammals when they are
exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
particles?
If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
intestinal wall.
An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
department feels that this is an economic and not a human
health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.
What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:
1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
Infant. 75:182-186; 1985
In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.
One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!
An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.
Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
article follow:
The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
membrane.
This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
disease.
Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.
There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."
The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
ill "downer cows."
The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.
The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
E. coli deaths of 1993.
A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.
OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?
Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.
Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
These articles come from two of the country's leading
institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.
Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
drinking whole milk.
For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
difference.
There are not many reports studying an association between
milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
patients and comparable control subjects:
Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.
WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
drink cows' milk?
It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
it's a source of amino acids (proteins).
Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
egsted in England has been writing for years about the
geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
given below.
Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
important such article appeared recently in the British
Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
among people living on a natural diet without milk.
For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at
calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
difference that is modified by diet.
To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.
If animal references do not convince you, think of the
several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.
THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
milk is fitted right in.
As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.
For this information we rely on the most authoritative
source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
Richard Havel of the University of California in San
Francisco.
First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
a day if necessary!
Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.
IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.
What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
into the blood stream without first being broken down into
monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
to break down the galactose into glucose.
Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
milk from another group of mammals that the survival
advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
lose it?
Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources
were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant
calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to
humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high
degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned
people.
How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely
blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.
Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are
midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and
abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake
in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.
The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A
lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of
$117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)
What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy
products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is
largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy
your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar
in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed
this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).
One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of
fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to
constipation and bowel disorders.
The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding
in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from
its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the
intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with
articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and
vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a
double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency
of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of
childhood allergy.
LOW FAT
One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common
and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't
it?"
The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low
fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the
public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to
weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%
water!
"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat
milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern
is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little
or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein
and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more
of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to
boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live
in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,
and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry
cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond
milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned
about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same
calcium concentration as milk.
SUMMARY
To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk
or use milk products. That is just because we simply want
to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of
our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste
and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our
throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for
us and provided milk in our earliest training and
conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably
the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described
"to die for".
I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious
vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his
diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting
one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice
cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration
for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -
and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good
health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had
a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and
helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several
years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation
unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.
So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight
of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body
good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's
nutritional value and safety.
Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully
without cows' milk. You can too.
It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since
childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."
I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health
and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?
Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?
wow. Looks like you had allot of thought to this. My thoughts to this. People have been drinking milk for positively centuries and millenia. If you like it, drink it. If you don't, don't.
Reply:Well its a good source of calcium for rebuilding bones. But since you're no longer growing adults should only have around a cup a day max. I would say children certainly should drink plenty of milk to help their bones grow. Report It
Reply:Zomg I'm not reading that Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:i think that many ppl think that it is good n many ppl think its bad but everybody has an oppion n thats good Report It
Reply:if that is your picture you'll probably commit suicide
Reply:Excellent essay. is that your writing or are you quoting someone? If it's the latter can you provide a citation or link to where you found it? I'd like to keep that in my personal folder of veg resources.
On another note: How come every time I try to post a long question it tells me I'm out of room?
Reply:Wow that was long. I used to drink milk when I was a kid and I would always be coughing, getting ear infection, my thoat would hurt and the list goes on. All of that went away when I stopped drinking milk. I'm gonna star your "question" because I really liked it and it is so important.
How where you able to post such a long question? I don't think I can do that.
Reply:No antibiotics are allowed in milk for human consumption. None.
Not low levels, NONE.
Milk is checked many many times before it reaches the table.
So if you are against it, don't drink it! Why worry about what we are doing? It's our choice!
Oh, and don't cook your food either.
By the way, did you know that ants milk aphids? Is that unnatural too?
Reply:I only read half of this before I got a little bored, sorry. Some of your references are wrong though, be sure to make the noninsignificant differentiation between BGH, a naturally occuring hormone that cows produce in order to produce milk, and rBGH or recombinant bovine growth hormone, the lab-produced hormone that is injected into cows in order to increase their milk production. Oh, and people drink goat's milk and sheep's milk, too, and have for thousands of years. There are probably other animals that are milked, too. Also, I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk, actually knocking the top off of the colostrum milk container in the barn so they can reach the milk. It was almost really good, but your sources weren't all exactly on. If you're turning that in for credit, you might want to double check those.
Reply:Who wrote this? You don't credit it, but it wasn't you; it says 'I had one patient who...'. You say elsewhere that you're 17.
I'm a vegan, but this essay has pissed me off. It is reproduced in shortened form inthe Cancer forum, titled 'Breast cancer and dairy???????' The text doesn't mention breast cancer, though.
Users of the Cancer forum are very used to people, often teenagers as here but always people who haven't had or studied cancer, posting their half-baked theories about what causes cancer and lecturing us on how to avoid or cure it.
Reply:I drink organic milk. All milk is taken from cows that have been given the bovine growth horomones. These horomones make the cows have boils on the insides of their udders %26amp; sometimes they pop %26amp; leak pus into the milk. So unless you buy milk that says 'not treated by cows w/ bovine growth horomones' you are drinking up to 45% pus.
go organic
Reply:And The Question Is?
Reply:I know more about milk than most people. I used to milk cows for a living as a young person. Then I was a pasteurisor in a dairy. Prior to that I went to agricultural college, but with respect, I haven´t time to read your "very" long question.
Milk is very good for you. Semi skimmed is better for dietary concerns, but above all it is the best way to get the necessary calcium your body needs.
Reply:I couldn't make it all the way through your dribble.
Milk is good and good for you.
Pelvic pain feels like ovary pain please help I eppreciate all advice Thanks?
hello everyone could anyone give me any information about ovarian cancer or pelvic pain at 23 i have had on again off again right sided pelvic pain feels like my ovary i have had frequent urination for 2 years i recently for 2 months had urgent urination i have back pain,pain during sex deep shrp stabbing pain not all the time, fatigue bloating and other symptoms but they could be from so many different things i had an ultrasound a year ago or so and the results came back fine so my dr dissmissed the pain thing told me it is nothing to worry about. my dr just did a manual pelvic axam and a pap smear both fine my grandma just told me that my grandpa's mom died from ovarian cancer and his sister died from cancer i don't know what kind. my grandmas ant had breast cancer and my mom had some srt of pre cancer (don't know what that is) but i am only 23 any answers would be so appreciated i don't really think it it is ovarian cancer but the thaught that it could be is in the back of my mind
Additional Details
13 hours ago
i also had urine test and there are no signs of infection this and the pelvic exam was done 2 days ago the ultrasound was dont a year ar so ago thanks for all answers
1 hour ago
i have pain during or after sometimes both when haveing intercourse with my husband and i pass stool everymorning but it switches between slight constapation to very soft mith some mucus (sorry for the gross details )my pelvic area does feel like there is fullnes so for all test like bacteria in the urine normal ulrasound a year ago normal manual pelvic exam done by doctor normal thyriod and all that normal no signs of diabetes all tests normal thank you all so much for all your wonderful answers :):):)
Pelvic pain feels like ovary pain please help I eppreciate all advice Thanks?
I also have a sharp pain when my husband and I have sex and he goes too deep! When I asked my OB about this, he said that it is because I have a "tilted pelvis" and it just causes pain if sex is too deep.
It could also be that you have a bit of Endometriosis. Its nothing to worry about but it can cause you to have pain during sex and much more pain then normal during your monthly periods!!
You might also go see your OB again and have another ultrasound done. It could be that you have a cyst or something on your overy.
My friend actually just recently went through the very same thing. She was having horrible pain on her right side, it hurt to have sex, and it got MUCH worse when her period started! It finally got to the point where she simply couldnt tolerate the pain anymore so she went to her OB. She had a cyst on her overy which had ruptured and was hemmoraging! It was actually bleeding INTO her overy. Her overy was turned around 180 degrees and had lost blood flow. She had to have that overy removed and the cyst removed. It wasnt a HUGE deal... just something you dont really want to take a chance with ESPECIALLY if you havent had the children that you want yet! Luckily my friend has already had the 3 children she wanted! Its not that she CANT have anymore... its just that she is only "working with" one overy now! :)
In any case, you should really go to your OB. Better safe then sorry! But I would NOT worry about cancer!! I know its a scary thing and it seems like almost EVERYONE is getting some type of it these days, but at this point, worrying will do you no good!! Much luck and I am sure that you will be fine!! :)
I hope that helps!! Take care!
Reply:Do you drink alot of soda? Kinda sounds to me like you don't drink enough water. All of your symptoms listed can be acquainted with not drinking enough water.
Reply:I'm 19 and I have sharp pelvic pains around both my ovaries and have very irregular periods. Plus I've always struggled with my weight and hardly ever overeat. I'm supposed to get an ultrasound but I'm afraid they'll tell me I have polycystic ovaries and can't have children or worse ovarian cancer (which my grandmother nearly died from). I suppose I'll get my ultrasound and if your interested I could keep you posted about what the doctors think is going on with me, since we have similar symptoms. Plus I just had a pap smear and bloodwork done that did come back normal...but I guess that doesn't mean anything. Have you been tested for pcos?
Reply:Hi.
I am on here for the same reason as you are, so I dont know if I can help to answer your Q, but will try. I am 27. Have had 2 children, 1st one by C-section, 2nd one vaginally. I have all the same problems that your describing, right down to the stoll probs. I find with sex it doesnt matter how much lube we use, how into it I am, how much foreplay, it almost always hurts, and for about a day after intercourse I have a severe dull ache in my lower pelvic musles, and low in my stomach between the pubic bone and my belly button. Deep sex is certainly more painful, but shallow does it too! It is awful, and I think it certainly impacts my marriage, even though he is understanding, I feel bad about not being able to finish sex once its started, and often I just dont let it start, for fear of the pain. I have goole searched, and so far I have only come up with "vaginisum. Maybe look that up, and see what you think. If you do find something more suited, please email me at abycat7802@yahoo.com.au (is it meant to have .au on the end???) I hope you find the solution, I understand how you feel, and Im sure its not cancer! They (Drs) would have found something. Good luck.
Kate
Reply:I have the same problem with pain in my right side, ovary. My ultrasound, pelvic exam, pap smear and hormone tests came out fine. I'm going in tommarrow at a different clinic for a second opinion. Is your period normal? Mine is very messed up. I'm also 23, no children, but plan to so I don't want this problem to get worse.
Reply:i had similar problems years ago....
i did get pain during sex alot ...but found if i changed positions regularly while having sex i was in less pain...
doc found cysts in my ovaries.....(they were removed and drained)..
i haven't had problems in years...
.
until recently my doc thought i was pregnant as i hadn't had periods since February...
i just found out 2 weeks ago i have PCOS..
and i am now getting treated for it....
i needed to be tested again in 2 months to see if things have changed....
good luck...
and if your not happy with what your getting told keep asking for more info of the doctor...
Reply:i get the very same thing, but also have polycystic ovaries.
When you get this pain do you sometimes get the pain in the bowel areas too, like shooting pains when you move?
I have the same symptoms as you, it starts in my right side near the ovary area and travels to my back, then it will travel to my bowels, i find it hard to move because of the pain.
After doing a lot of tests and finding nothing wrong with me, i finally looked at some sites online and found that i may have IBS - irritable bowel syndrome. I went to my doctor about this and fund that i did infact have IBS.
With IBS you may find that sometimes you will become constipated for no reason and other times you will find that your bowel movements are a lot looser. It is very common in women, some women do not suffer as bad as others so it goes unnoticed and untreated.
Go to your doctor and ask to test for IBS, if this is what you have there are a few things that can help prevent it, like your diet etc. Be very persistant with your doctor though they may push the test forward a lot quicker which may give you a diagnosis a lot quicker, which will help with treatment.
Until then i find Ibuprofen helps, its an antiinflamitory which will help if the cause os infammed, so the pain will ease off a little or maybe go away, they works wonders on me, i take them as soon as i feel it coming on so i never have to feel the horrible strengh of the pain.
I feel for you though because if it is IBS the pain can be extreley bad, to the point where you cannot move because the pain is too much.
Reply:You may have a cyst
Reply:well you are just 23 you can't have anything malign. maybe it is an inflammation...
Additional Details
13 hours ago
i also had urine test and there are no signs of infection this and the pelvic exam was done 2 days ago the ultrasound was dont a year ar so ago thanks for all answers
1 hour ago
i have pain during or after sometimes both when haveing intercourse with my husband and i pass stool everymorning but it switches between slight constapation to very soft mith some mucus (sorry for the gross details )my pelvic area does feel like there is fullnes so for all test like bacteria in the urine normal ulrasound a year ago normal manual pelvic exam done by doctor normal thyriod and all that normal no signs of diabetes all tests normal thank you all so much for all your wonderful answers :):):)
Pelvic pain feels like ovary pain please help I eppreciate all advice Thanks?
I also have a sharp pain when my husband and I have sex and he goes too deep! When I asked my OB about this, he said that it is because I have a "tilted pelvis" and it just causes pain if sex is too deep.
It could also be that you have a bit of Endometriosis. Its nothing to worry about but it can cause you to have pain during sex and much more pain then normal during your monthly periods!!
You might also go see your OB again and have another ultrasound done. It could be that you have a cyst or something on your overy.
My friend actually just recently went through the very same thing. She was having horrible pain on her right side, it hurt to have sex, and it got MUCH worse when her period started! It finally got to the point where she simply couldnt tolerate the pain anymore so she went to her OB. She had a cyst on her overy which had ruptured and was hemmoraging! It was actually bleeding INTO her overy. Her overy was turned around 180 degrees and had lost blood flow. She had to have that overy removed and the cyst removed. It wasnt a HUGE deal... just something you dont really want to take a chance with ESPECIALLY if you havent had the children that you want yet! Luckily my friend has already had the 3 children she wanted! Its not that she CANT have anymore... its just that she is only "working with" one overy now! :)
In any case, you should really go to your OB. Better safe then sorry! But I would NOT worry about cancer!! I know its a scary thing and it seems like almost EVERYONE is getting some type of it these days, but at this point, worrying will do you no good!! Much luck and I am sure that you will be fine!! :)
I hope that helps!! Take care!
Reply:Do you drink alot of soda? Kinda sounds to me like you don't drink enough water. All of your symptoms listed can be acquainted with not drinking enough water.
Reply:I'm 19 and I have sharp pelvic pains around both my ovaries and have very irregular periods. Plus I've always struggled with my weight and hardly ever overeat. I'm supposed to get an ultrasound but I'm afraid they'll tell me I have polycystic ovaries and can't have children or worse ovarian cancer (which my grandmother nearly died from). I suppose I'll get my ultrasound and if your interested I could keep you posted about what the doctors think is going on with me, since we have similar symptoms. Plus I just had a pap smear and bloodwork done that did come back normal...but I guess that doesn't mean anything. Have you been tested for pcos?
Reply:Hi.
I am on here for the same reason as you are, so I dont know if I can help to answer your Q, but will try. I am 27. Have had 2 children, 1st one by C-section, 2nd one vaginally. I have all the same problems that your describing, right down to the stoll probs. I find with sex it doesnt matter how much lube we use, how into it I am, how much foreplay, it almost always hurts, and for about a day after intercourse I have a severe dull ache in my lower pelvic musles, and low in my stomach between the pubic bone and my belly button. Deep sex is certainly more painful, but shallow does it too! It is awful, and I think it certainly impacts my marriage, even though he is understanding, I feel bad about not being able to finish sex once its started, and often I just dont let it start, for fear of the pain. I have goole searched, and so far I have only come up with "vaginisum. Maybe look that up, and see what you think. If you do find something more suited, please email me at abycat7802@yahoo.com.au (is it meant to have .au on the end???) I hope you find the solution, I understand how you feel, and Im sure its not cancer! They (Drs) would have found something. Good luck.
Kate
Reply:I have the same problem with pain in my right side, ovary. My ultrasound, pelvic exam, pap smear and hormone tests came out fine. I'm going in tommarrow at a different clinic for a second opinion. Is your period normal? Mine is very messed up. I'm also 23, no children, but plan to so I don't want this problem to get worse.
Reply:i had similar problems years ago....
i did get pain during sex alot ...but found if i changed positions regularly while having sex i was in less pain...
doc found cysts in my ovaries.....(they were removed and drained)..
i haven't had problems in years...
.
until recently my doc thought i was pregnant as i hadn't had periods since February...
i just found out 2 weeks ago i have PCOS..
and i am now getting treated for it....
i needed to be tested again in 2 months to see if things have changed....
good luck...
and if your not happy with what your getting told keep asking for more info of the doctor...
Reply:i get the very same thing, but also have polycystic ovaries.
When you get this pain do you sometimes get the pain in the bowel areas too, like shooting pains when you move?
I have the same symptoms as you, it starts in my right side near the ovary area and travels to my back, then it will travel to my bowels, i find it hard to move because of the pain.
After doing a lot of tests and finding nothing wrong with me, i finally looked at some sites online and found that i may have IBS - irritable bowel syndrome. I went to my doctor about this and fund that i did infact have IBS.
With IBS you may find that sometimes you will become constipated for no reason and other times you will find that your bowel movements are a lot looser. It is very common in women, some women do not suffer as bad as others so it goes unnoticed and untreated.
Go to your doctor and ask to test for IBS, if this is what you have there are a few things that can help prevent it, like your diet etc. Be very persistant with your doctor though they may push the test forward a lot quicker which may give you a diagnosis a lot quicker, which will help with treatment.
Until then i find Ibuprofen helps, its an antiinflamitory which will help if the cause os infammed, so the pain will ease off a little or maybe go away, they works wonders on me, i take them as soon as i feel it coming on so i never have to feel the horrible strengh of the pain.
I feel for you though because if it is IBS the pain can be extreley bad, to the point where you cannot move because the pain is too much.
Reply:You may have a cyst
Reply:well you are just 23 you can't have anything malign. maybe it is an inflammation...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)