They just showed how milk can cause cancer.
And it's a wrong assertion, backed up by no significant studies. I suppose calves are going to fall over and die of cancer now.
You need to be a little more careful in this argument with what I said.
Milk is meant for the suckling and the contents of the mothers' milk changes throughout the breast feeding cycle.
I did not mean to say that milk would cause cancer in the calves as since milk is its natural food. This would make no sense at all.
The point is that through consuming milk as a part of your diet, then you are more susceptible to cancer if your cells have been damaged in the case of a cystic breast:
"In cystic breasts, breast-cells are more sensitive to substances stimulating cell-fission, and therefore cell-reproduction-rate is higher. And by taking testosterone, prostate- and muscle-cells are more stimulated to reproduce. In tissues where reproduction-rate is increased, growth of mutated cells is stimulated as well, increasing cancer-risk.
By absorbing external growth factors, tumors can originate. And tumors can become malignant when they, due to a mutation, start producing more growth factors, stimulating their own reproduction.
Therefore, tissues sensitive to the growth factors in milk are susceptible to cancer through consuming milk.
A large number of scientific investigations have revealed that consuming milk increases prostate cancer-risk (28), and also breast (29) and lung cancer risk. (in men) (30)"
My point was that you can find any study that claims something is bad for you and will cause cancer.
But look at the facts too.
You will see that the growth factors in milk can increase cell division and that perhaps in a cystic breast or cancerous cell those growth factors would stimulate fission, thus increasing the the spread of cancer.
Of course not all milk is going to immediatly give you cancer, just like everyone doesn't get cancer from smoking. Perhaps this will help your understanding of what I meant?
I believe that if animals consumed the flesh of cows, especially those that produced milk, that the animals would consume the flesh of their teets, along with some of the milk inside of the animal itself.
But the point is that it isn't a staple of their diet.
Humans drink it everyday, while wild animals do not make it a part of their diet, unless there the young.
RAW MILK is PERFECTLY FINE for consumption.
What about the excessive calcium causes osteoporosis theory?
I largely agree with portions of what Wai says, about things being RAW, but I disagree about the propaganda about milk -- and I think the amount of fruit that the Wai diet asks for is absolutely ridiculous.
What about the high fruit consumption makes it so ridiculous?
Too much sugar?
Too little fat?
You can eat more animal food on this diet or even more avocadoes, its not like you have to eat all sugary fruit.
I consume mostly fat and protein in my diet, with a few fruits. And, in terms of health, I feel much better on this diet.
Good to hear.
Did you ever try the Wai diet?