Yesterday (July 7, 2004), virtually every newspaper  and TV news program reported:  "A glass of milk each day may fight colon cancer."  Copies of this story were received by me from hundreds of readers asking for comment.  So...I obtained the actual eight-page article which appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute  Vol. 96, No. 13, 7/7/04.

Despite the fact that half of the cancers mice get, rats do not, this latest scientific paper supporting  milk consumption begins with this sentence:   

"Background:  Studies in animals have suggested that calcium may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.  However, results from epidemiologic studies of intake of calcium or dairy foods have been inconclusive."

Well, for that matter, studies in animals have also suggested the opposite.  One cannot rely upon animal studies when assessing human health, or lack thereof.  Particularly where digestive studies are concerned.  Rats have different enzymes than we humans do.  Rats also lack gall bladders.  In any event, today's subject is colon cancer.
 
One out of every 40 humans is expected to be diagnosed with intestinal polyps.  Of those so diagnosed, one out of 50 people with intestinal polyps is expected to be diagnosed with colon cancer.  Do the math.  That adds up to one out of 2,000 people.  Based on the population of the United States (291 million), some 145,500 unlucky Americans have colon cancer.

That same proportion of colon cancer cases should apply to any representative sample of the population.  One out of 2000.

This study added together the data from eleven different studies, which is absurd, once you analyze eleven different study paradigms.  Different subjects participated in each study.  Different questions were asked of the participants.  Apples, oranges, and tomatoes were compared, and the resulting mix of juices (when added altogether) tasted just awful.

In total, there were 543,536 human subjects.  Based on what we know
about colon cancer rates, we would expect to find 267 cases of colon cancer.  How many cases were detected? Some 4,992!  Already, something is wrong with the numbers.  The study does not add up.  Neither do the numbers.

Study     Number of Subjects     Cases  Expected(Expected)
Adventist Study             031,299  0169       (16)
Beta-Carotene Study     026,987  0184       (13)
Canadian Breast Study  056,837  0284      (28)
Health Pro Study            047,673  0408      (24)
Iowa Women's Study     034,903  0796       (17)
Netherland's Study          120,852 1147      (61)
New York Study              052,913, 0788      (26)
NYU Women's Study      013,258  0116      (06)
Nurse Health Study I      088,651  0220      (44)
Nurse Health Study II    068,540  0420       (34)
Sweden Breast Study      061,463  0460      (31)

Total human subjects     534,536  0460     (287)

Do you see a disturbing trend indicating that something is very, very wrong with this study?  Perhaps it is the fact that this study missed the mark by a factor of 19 times.  While 267 persons out of a population of  534,536 persons are expected to get colon cancer, this study reports 19 times that number actually got colon cancer.  Perhaps the scientists fudged the numbers a bit in order to arrive at their pre-determined results.

    The numbers do not lie.
    Scientists lie.
    Newscasters and reporters spread lies
    The naïve public accepts as truth.
    Did the scientists exclude some data?  Please try not to laugh too loudly.  Snickering is permitted.  On page 1016 of the journal article we are told:

"EXCLUSION CRITERIA
For the primary data from each study, we applied the exclusion criteria used by that study and then we further excluded participants if they had logged transformed energy intakes beyond three standard deviations from the study-specific log transformed mean energy intake of the population.  We also further excluded participants if they reported a history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer at the baseline."

Woe unto all of us.  They excluded cancer patients, and people who ate too many calories (ice cream and pizza eaters perhaps).  The ultimate in absurdity.  This is science?  I am sick to death over the universal reporting of such unscientific crap.

To arbitrarily discard key data and compare the mean scores from one study to another while ignoring the individuals within each study is intellectually corrupt, at the very least.  Comparing New York State males to Iowa females after different sets of questions are asked of each subject group demonstrates the depths to which scientific absurdity and depravity can sink.

Not one of the eleven studies dared to conclude that drinking milk prevented colorectal cancer, yet, the so-called scientists pooled the results of  eleven unrelated studies, each having different protocols, each asking different questions.  The researchers then fudged the numbers by completely eliminating data from subjects who ate too many calories (increased dairy) and ignored those subjects with existing cancers.  Pure folly.

This article is one of the series of informative daily email letters generated by Robert Cohen in support of his campaign to wean humans from drinking cow milk.  The introductory paragraph read:

"Another phony study, brought to you by a government and society that wants you to drink milk from specially-bred, hormone-producing 1,800-pound diseased Holsteins.  The dairy industry invests hundreds of millions of dollars each year into America's political system, and buys ads on television and in print media to motivate you to increase your dairy intake.  It is in the best financial interests of many to do so, despite the actual harm it does to your health."

Robert Cohen's web site is : http://www.notmilk.com

Return to CivAb index spring/summer 2004