diary of everything they ate. Details of deaths were collected
in 2003. Each man was given a triple-beam balance scale and
was required to weigh every bit of food and drink that he
consumed.
I said, "Try not to laugh."
Milk was measured from milk drinks, breakfast cereals, and
custard. The scientists forgot to include cheese, pizza,
ice cream, yogurt, sour cream, whipped cream with crumpets
in their analyses of what might have led to strokes or
other events associated with heart disease.
Regarding the consumption of milk, the scientists write:
"...most of the differences are small and it would
be impossible to predict how these would together affect
relations with vascular disease."
I was quite anxious to review the food charts in great detail.
After all, I suspected some form of experimental bias was at
work here. Over 2,500 men were in the original study, but
only 665 were given scales and food questionnaires. Was this
a double blind study? What other foods were eaten, and in
what quantity? How much Stilton and Devonshire cheese did
these Brits eat? Sadly, we'll never know. The only food
that the scientists reported (Table #2) was liquid milk.
The study was absurd. The conclusions were worse. The
reporting of this study is criminal. June is National
Dairy Month in the United States. Expect to see this
June publication heavily promoted by those who had
the three-month insider lead time to design and publish
well-placed magazine stories and advertisements.
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com
> From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
> Date: Thu May 26, 2005 7:44 am
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> press conference, and the work of fools is given equal
> weight to the work of Nobel Prize-winning scientists.
Which publication has the NoMilk industry bought and has used to present
it's agenda?
> The dairy industry's latest con job (they've fooled
> the media and they've fooled most consumers) claims
> that drinking milk lowers strokes and heart disease.
> That so-called scientific study was published in the
> June, 2005 issue of the British Journal of Epidemiology
> and Community Health, whatever the heck that is...
A journal specifically bought out by the milk industry as you stated.
> So...I called the closest college library to my New Jersey
> home, Fairleigh Dickenson University (201-692-2289). FDU
> carries approximately 1,000 titles, but the Journal of
> Epidemiology and Community Health is not in their stacks.
It is a British Journal.
> I then called Princeton University (if it was good enough
> for Al Einstein, it's good enough for me). Princeton's
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the unprestigious Journal of Epidemiology and Community
> Health.
You have proven that it doesn't exist.
> I wrote to the journal and asked how many subscribers
> they had. Sonia McEwan, Editorial Assistant, was kind
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> a reduced risk of an ischaemic stroke, and possibly a reduced
> risk of an ischaemic heart disease event."
And you are unhappy with that? A published article is there so anyone can
question it.
You have a Mickey Mouse site that publishes things in it. So what?
> The lead scientist and author off this study, Peter Elwood,
> retired ten years ago in 1995. His colleagues tried to honor
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> is certain. This bad study has been marketed by brilliant
> professionals.
You can teach them many things about how to market things.
How many people have you bribed?
> America's Press exaggerates their conclusion, but members
> of the media tend to do that after being coddled and fed
> gourmet lunches at lavish press conferences.
Don't you wish the American Press could exaggerate your NoMilk crap?
> American consumers have been left with the impression that
> dairy products prevent heart disease. How bogus.
And they are not aware of cholesterol or drinking of low fat milk?
Amiericans consumers are stupid by your definition. You are so smart. Maybe
you can tell people on your web site what to eat and not eat.
> Having no known college library or hospital in the
> United States carrying this obscure journal, I did what
> any other notmilk guy would do. I paid the $12 fee and
> downloaded and printed the study. What can I say? Mickey
> (my parent's Amazon parrot) will soon have a new liner for
> the bottom of his cage.
If Mickey can read then he would want to drink milk to prevent heart
disease.
> Please try not to laugh by the following:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> in their analyses of what might have led to strokes or
> other events associated with heart disease.
Forgot to include? What would the numbers look like if they had included
them? they were looking at milk.
> Regarding the consumption of milk, the scientists write:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I was quite anxious to review the food charts in great detail.
Can I laugh now? Sorry, that's right we promised not to.
> After all, I suspected some form of experimental bias was at
> work here. Over 2,500 men were in the original study, but
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> these Brits eat? Sadly, we'll never know. The only food
> that the scientists reported (Table #2) was liquid milk.
That's exactly what they were looking at.
You can do one with cheese if you want. Normally only one variable is looked
at. These are not rats where you can control everything.
> The study was absurd. The conclusions were worse. The
> reporting of this study is criminal. June is National
> Dairy Month in the United States. Expect to see this
> June publication heavily promoted by those who had
> the three-month insider lead time to design and publish
> well-placed magazine stories and advertisements.
Dare I say that you are biased. I doubt that more people will start drinking
milk or more people will stop drinking milk because of Bozos like you.
> Robert Cohen
> http://www.notmilk.com
SPAM
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 27 May 2005 05:14 GMT
>>Dare I say that you are biased. I doubt that more people will start drinking
milk or more people will stop drinking milk because of Bozos like you
[Cohen]. <<
COMMENT:
Indeed. If you go to medline, you find that not only did Elwood do his
own epidemiological study of dairy consumption, but also a
meta-analysis of 10 other pretty good studies. Result--- a small but
statistically significant suggestion that there is something in milk
which prevents stroke. An example of this kind of finding is from the
Honolulu Heart Program, which found the protective effect of milk (non
milk drinkings had twice the stroke risk), but not other calcium foods,
suggesting that whatever is in milk which protects against stroke, if
anything, it's NOT the calcium. We don't KNOW what it is. Geez,
wouldn't it be politically incorrect if it turned out to be the dairy
fat. Shades of Woody Allen and Sleeper.
You know, when the French found that drinking a lot of red wine and
eating French cheese didn't automatically make you drop over dead,
nobody in particular accused them of being shills for the Bordeaux and
Brie industries. Though there was at least as much justification for
the suspicion. Rather, they went ahead and looked at a number of
studies to see if the effects were replicable and robust, and it turned
out that they were. So they scratched their heads. This is the
beginning of knowledge, of wisdom. You admit that what the principle
you thought was generally true, didn't predict a particular real
result. So maybe your worldview needs to be more complex.
Once upon a time, everybody knew for sure alcohol was bad for people.
And certainly cheese. And milk, well--- forgetabout it.
But reality just isn't that easy. Sorry.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;58(5):718-24.
Milk drinking, ischaemic heart disease and ischaemic stroke II.
Evidence from
cohort studies.
Elwood PC, Pickering JE, Hughes J, Fehily AM, Ness AR.
Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, University of
Wales
College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK. pelwood@doctors.org.uk
OBJECTIVE: Milk consumption is considered a risk factor for vascular
disease on
the basis of relevant biological mechanisms and data from ecological
studies.
The aim was to identify published prospective studies of milk drinking
and
vascular disease, and conduct an overview. DESIGN: The literature was
searched
for cohort studies, in which an estimate of the consumption of milk, or
the
intake of calcium from dairy sources, has been related to incident
vascular
disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ischaemic heart disease and ischaemic
stroke.
RESULTS: In total, 10 studies were identified. Their results show a
high degree
of consistency in the reported risk for heart disease and stroke, all
but one
study suggesting a relative risk of less than one in subjects with the
highest
intakes of milk. A pooled estimate of relative odds in these subjects,
relative
to the risk in subjects with the lowest consumption, is 0.87 (95% CI
0.74-1.03)
for ischaemic heart disease and 0.83 (0.77-0.90) for ischaemic stroke.
The odds
ratio for any vascular event is 0.84 (0.78-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Cohort
studies
provide no convincing evidence that milk is harmful. While there still
could be
residual confounding from unidentified factors, the studies, taken
together,
suggest that milk drinking may be associated with a small but
worthwhile
reduction in heart disease and stroke risk. SPONSORSHIP: The University
of Wales
College of Medicine and Bristol University. Current support is from the
Food
Standards Agency.
Publication Types:
Meta-Analysis
Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 15116074 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
==========================================
Stroke. 1996 May;27(5):813-8.
Effect of dietary calcium and milk consumption on risk of
thromboembolic stroke
in older middle-aged men. The Honolulu Heart Program.
Abbott RD, Curb JD, Rodriguez BL, Sharp DS, Burchfiel CM, Yano K.
Division of Biostatistics, University of Virginia School of Medicine,
Charlottesville 22908, USA.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that dietary calcium is
protective
against hypertension. This report examines whether the effect has an
influence
on thromboembolic stroke. METHODS: Since 1965, the Honolulu Heart
Program has
followed a cohort of men in a study of cardiovascular disease. This
report
examines the effect of baseline dietary calcium and milk intake on
stroke risk
in 22 years of follow-up in 3150 older middle-aged men (55 to 68
years).
RESULTS: Men who were nondrinkers of milk experienced stroke at twice
the rate
(P < .05) of men who consumed 16 oz/d or more (7.9 versus 3.7 per 100,
respectively). While the rate of stroke decreased with increasing milk
intake (P
< .05), the decline in stroke risk with increased consumption was
modest for
those who consumed under 16 oz/d. Intake of dietary calcium was also
associated
with a reduced risk of stroke (P < .01), although its association was
confounded
with milk consumption. Calcium intake from nondairy sources was not
related to
stroke, suggesting that other constituents or covariates related to
milk
consumption may be important. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an
association
between milk consumption and a reduced risk of stroke in older
middle-aged men
cannot be explained by intake of dietary calcium. Since milk is often
part of a
diverse pattern of dietary intake, it is difficult to determine whether
milk
consumption has a direct role in reducing the risk of stroke. Data
suggest that
consumption of milk in older middle age is not harmful, and when
combined with a
balanced diet, weight control, and physical activity, reductions in the
risk of
stroke may occur.
PMID: 8623098 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Doug Freese - 27 May 2005 11:52 GMT
> Indeed. If you go to medline, you find that not only did Elwood do his
> own epidemiological study of dairy consumption, but also a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> wouldn't it be politically incorrect if it turned out to be the dairy
> fat. Shades of Woody Allen and Sleeper.
Thank you Steve for a sensible scientific reply. I wonder if the
naysayers will let facts get in the way of a good myth. Rhetorical
-DF
Robert - 27 May 2005 19:04 GMT
> > Indeed. If you go to medline, you find that not only did Elwood do his
> > own epidemiological study of dairy consumption, but also a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> -DF
They will just say that it is all milk industry derived studies and bought
and paid for by them.
The several points made do not support the charge implied in the subject
line,ie. no conjecture of fraud in the pay of commercial intrests. I have
access to online journals at a local university and the journal is there.
Many smaller and not domestic journals are not bought by libraries but are
made avalible in large collections by services which sell these packages.
One implication you made was about peer review, because you downloaded the
article says you too had access to it and on the top of their home page is
this:
"A peer review journal for health professionals and researchers in all
areas of epidemiology"
As to milk byproducts being excluded, it all depends on the question being
asked as to the direction research takes. Without rereading whole milk
was the topic being questioned. Adding otherof the many milk products
would only be a confounding set of variables. If you wish to know about
milk products as a whole, that is a different question and the research
would tbe different accordingly. Many of the points presented were
irrelevant as to the question of milk consumption and risk factors and
even the only possible point of intrest questioning what was not recorded
in the diet is intresting but not conclusive so as to allow excluding any
possible notion. The wild eyed frothing at the mouth does support folk
coming to some conclusions.