rbGH: Paying The Price With Increased Cancer Deaths by LCD ..... Injustice, Fraud & Crime Watch
Date: 8/3/2004 9:36:01 PM ( 21 y ago)
Hits: 2,965
URL: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=269560
rbGH: Paying The Price With Increased Cancer Deaths
by Robert Cohen
America's Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Monsanto's
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) for cows on February 4th,
1994. Remarkably, milk from rbGH-treated test herds was allowed into America's
milk supply seven years before actual approval. One cow can produce 10,000
quarts of milk per year. A herd with 200 cows could produce 1 million quarts per
year. Conceivably, hundreds of test herds might have been producing one quart of
experimental milk for every American to drink during each of the years prior to
approval. Since 1994, most of America's milk supply has been tainted with milk
produced from cows injected with genetically modified organisms. Those symbolic
seven fat years of ignorance may have resulted in cracking the mirror of bad
luck for genetically modified foods. Like Joseph's amazing technicolor dream,
those years after rbGH approval have resulted in a cancer explosion of seven
years of bad luck.
The rest of the world watched America's experiment. The European community
considered an application for rbGH approval, which was turned down. Health
Canada also turned down Monsanto's application, preferring to wait and see what
might occur in the United States. Now the world will learn the truth.
How and why did FDA allow experimental milk into the food supply in 1989?
I obtained an internal memorandum that reveals the innermost betrayal in the
inner sanctum of FDA.
Monsanto had applied for approval of their genetically engineered bovine growth
hormone in December of 1986. Nearly eight years later, they received final
approval. During those eight years, Monsanto invested $500,000,000 and submitted
55,000 pages of data to FDA. Two months after the original application, Monsanto
sprung a trap. They requested a "zero withdrawal and milk discard period." What
that means is that Monsanto requested that FDA allow milk from test herds to be
placed into America's milk supply without any further research.
In granting Monsanto's 1986 request, Judy Juskevich wrote:
"Based on the results of the oral feeding study and our
knowledge of the characteristics and biological activity of bovine somatotropin,
we have no objection to granting the sponsor's requests."
For most of my adult life I have trusted the FDA. I assumed that our government
health regulators cared about human health and safety. This memorandum clearly
demonstrates that my trust in FDA had been incorrectly placed. Can anything be
clearer than this?
That 28-day study was "pivotal" in FDA's decision. It was more than pivotal. The
entire approval was based upon that lone study. Milk from dairy herds treated
with Monsanto's hormone was introduced into America's milk supply because FDA
deemed that milk was safe to drink seven years before the hormone was approved.
Before citing an animal research study, let me say that I do not believe in
citing animal research, for it proves nothing. Half of the cancers rats get,
mice do not get. Half of the cancers mice get, rats do not get. If one cannot
relate one species of rodent to another, that shows the absurdity in applying
experimental data from one species of rodent to humans. Rats do not even have
gallbladders. They lack human enzymes, which enable us to process certain foods.
I make one exception to my rule. When pharmaceutical companies lie, as they did
with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, I then write and lecture
about their deceptions. In the case of the milk hormone, Monsanto and FDA
concluded that there were no biological effects upon lab animals from rbGH-treatment.
That was not true.
Most Americans are unaware that laboratory animals treated with rbGH experienced
enormous changes in their lymphatic systems. The spleens of these animals grew
dramatically. FDA claimed that there was no evidence of biological effects.
Nonsense.
The approval process for rbGH was the most controversial drug application in the
history of the Food & Drug Administration. In order to address that controversy,
the FDA published an article in the journal SCIENCE (August 24, 1990).
Data in that paper reveal that the average male rat injected with rbGH developed
a spleen 39.6 percent larger than the spleen of the control animals after just
90 days of treatment. The spleens from rbGH-treated females increased in size by
a factor of 46 percent. Spleens of animals receiving rbGH orally also increased
in size, although not as dramatically as those animals injected with the
hormone. Based upon injections, researchers had the responsibility of rigorously
reviewing oral ingestion data. They did not. These are not normal reactions, and
portray animals in distress. These animals were "under attack" by the
genetically engineered hormone. The spleen is the first sentinel of defense in a
mammal's lymphatic system.
Lab animals treated with rbGH developed lymphatic abnormalities. After reviewing
the actual data from Monsanto's experiment in 1994, I predicted that the rates
of death from lymphatic cancers would soar in America.
A cancer takes 8-10 years to grow from one cell to one million cells. The
timeline for cancer deaths would be the year 2000 data. I anxiously awaited
those data. America's cancer surveillance statistics are three years behind real
time. Today, in April of 2003, I have just had the opportunity to review the
actual data.
As Americans continue to ingest genetically engineered milk and dairy products,
lymphatic cancer death rates have soared. Americans have become laboratory
subjects in genetic engineering's experiment, and the resulting data indicates
extreme cause for concern.
Let me make one further comment about cancer. As a result of increased
surveillance and awareness, cancers are being diagnosed much earlier than ever
before. As a result of increased technologies, cancer death rates have been
reversed. Breast cancer death rates have dropped. The May 3, 2003 issue of the
British Medical Journal (Vol. 326:949) reports that mammography screening in
European nations has cut the number of deaths from breast cancer by nearly 50
percent. Prostate cancer death rates have decreased. The same can be said for
colon cancer death rates. Sadly, my prediction for lymphomas has been right on
target. Death rates have soared, despite better medical treatment. Here are the
numbers, as recently published by the SEER cancer statistics review and the
National Cancer Institute. Rates are per 100,000 of population.
RESULTS:
I am shocked. And vindicated.
Milk is indeed a deadly poison. Shall we thank Monsanto, or is this about
dairy?
The consumption of concentrated dairy products has increased dramatically in the
last 30 years. In 1970, the average American consumed just 10 pounds of cheese
per year. Today, the average American consumes 31 pounds of cheese.
Cows treated with Monsanto's rbGH produce milk with increased levels of another
powerful hormone, IGF-I.
There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in nature, and only one
hormone that is identical between any two species. That powerful growth hormone
is insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has been
identified as a key factor in cancer's growth. IGF-I is identical in human and
cow.
If you believe that breast feeding "works" to protect lactoferrins and
immunoglobulins from digestion (and benefit the nursing infant), you must also
recognize that milk is a hormonal delivery system. By drinking cow's milk, one
delivers IGF-I in a bioactive form to the body's cells. When IGF-I from cow's
milk alights upon an existing cancer, it's the signal to grow. To proliferate.
Monsanto worked closely with government regulators, and their first priority
was to convince consumers that the new GMO milk was the same as the old milk. It
was not. The February 9, 1994 Executive Branch White House Report on rbGH,
concluded:
"BGH-treated milk is safe because it is indistinguishable
from normal milk."
That was not true.
A February 6, 1994 statement issued by C. Everett Koop, America's ex-Surgeon
General, convinced America's media:
"Milk from cows given supplemental bovine somatotropin is
the same as any other milk...Unfortunately, a few fringe groups are using
misleading statements and blatant falsehoods as part of a long-running campaign
to scare consumers about a perfectly safe food."
That was also not true.
Monsanto also issued a press release:
"Five independent authorities, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), World Health
Organization (WHO), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and
ex-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had found rbGH-treated milk to be
indistinguishable from normal milk."
After investigation one of those so-called independent authorities, the Journal
of the American Medical Association (JAMA), I learned that the two authors of a
JAMA study (Volume 264;8, 8/22/90) both worked for Monsanto.
JAMA reported:
"From 1984 to 1986, Dr. Daughaday was the recipient of a
research contract from Monsanto Company, a small fraction of which was paid to
Dr. Daughaday as a consulting fee."
I learned that his co-author, David Barbano, also worked for Monsanto. These
authorities were not independent.
SCIENCE magazine confirmed a difference in their 8/24/90 edition:
"Recombinant rbGH treatment produces an increase in the
concentration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in cow's milk."
The World Health Organization also confirmed my fears, and contradicted media
reports:
"After somidobove (rbGH) injection, mean IGF-I levels in the treated milk are
always higher than those found in the controls."
Even the National Institutes of Health confirmed the lie in their December,
1990 National Institutes of Health Assessment of Bovine Somatotropin:
"Levels of IGF increase in milk after cows are treated
with rbGH."
The following sixteen references together support sixteen converging laser-like
beams of evidence, focusing their pinpoint light upon America's 21st century
cancer fuel.
"A strong positive association was observed between IGF-I
levels and prostate cancer risk."
Science, vol. 279. January 23, 1998
________________________________
"Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, a mitogenic and
antiapoptotic peptide, can affect the proliferation of breast epithelial cells,
and is thought to have a role in breast cancer."
The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998
________________________________
"Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), in particular IGF-I
and IGF-II, strongly stimulate the proliferation of a variety of cancer cells,
including those from lung cancer. High plasma levels of IGF-I were associated
with an increased risk of lung cancer. Plasma levels of IGF-I are higher...in
patients with lung cancer than in control subjects."
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 91, no. 2.
January 20, 1999.
________________________________
"Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is expressed in many
tumor cell lines and has a role in both normal cell proliferation and in the
growth of cancers.
Cancer Gene Ther, 2000 Mar, 7:3
________________________________
"The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system is widely
involved in human carcinogenesis. A significant association between high
circulating IGF-I concentrations and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate
and pre-menopausal breast cancer has recently been reported. Lowering plasma IGF-I
may thus represent an attractive strategy to be pursued..."
Int J Cancer, 2000 Aug, 87:4, 601-5
________________________________
"...serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in the milk
drinking group, an increase of about 10% above baseline-but was unchanged in the
control group."
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no.
10. October 1999
__________________________________
"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I are i dentical. Both
contain 70 amino acids in the identical sequence."
Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249.
August 24, 1990.
____________________________________________
"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of
human breast cancer cells."
M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.
____________________________________________
"Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would
support the hypothesis that IGF-I has a regulatory function in breast cancer."
A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).
____________________________________________
"IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular
proliferation in the human breast carcinoma cell line."
J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)
____________________________________________
"Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast
cancer growth."
J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)
____________________________________________
"IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer
cells. IGF-I appears to be a critical component in cellular proliferation."
X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)
____________________________________________
"IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell
growth."
E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993
____________________________________________
"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast
cancer."
Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998
____________________________________________
"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk
drinkers, an increase of about 10% above baseline but was unchanged in the
control group."
Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no. 10.
October 1999
____________________________________________
"IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells."
M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993
Was it biotechnology which increased IGF-I levels in dairy products, or was it
the increased consumption rate of concentrated dairy products such as cheese and
ice cream? I believe that we've suffered a double whammy effect. Cancer and
dairy products have one thing in common. The delivery mechanism of powerful
growth hormones which make cancers grow.
Robert Cohen,
author of: MILK A-Z
(201-967-7001)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
<< Return to the standard message view
fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=269560