Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

- - WARTS ON CONSUMER REPORTS

Expand Messages
  • i4crob@earthlink.net
    Somebody kissed a handsome Prince (Consumer Reports) and turned him into a festering wart on a toad s tush. CONSUMER REPORTS ATTACKS MILK CRITICS In the past,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Somebody kissed a handsome Prince
      (Consumer Reports) and turned him
      into a festering wart on a toad's tush.

      CONSUMER REPORTS ATTACKS MILK CRITICS

      In the past, the mother of all consumer
      safety organizations existed to protect
      the health interests of consumers.

      These watchdogs of society rigorously
      tested and analyzed consumer products and
      reported unbiased results to their readers.

      The September, 2001 issue of Consumer
      Reports focuses its usually unbiased
      eye upon the milk controversy. Instead
      of using a clear 20/20-style analysis
      of real science, Consumer Reports reveals
      that their editors and writers are
      astigmatic mono-chromatic deuteranopes.

      In other words, they see fuzzy, their
      vision is clearly out-of-focus, and
      they're color blind.

      http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.jsp

      In their milk analysis, they have
      compromised their standards, sacrificed
      their integrity, and, in doing so, have
      betrayed all consumers by ignoring
      the real scientific evidence.

      Their biased review of milk consumption
      begins with this question, aimed at
      critics:

      Got Proof?

      Such a question should have been
      aimed at the National Fluid Milk
      Producers (NFMP) who continue
      to make outlandish claims, not the
      critics.

      MINDLESS RUBBERSTAMPING

      Study after study, point after point,
      comment after comment, the Consumer
      Reports reviewers blindly accepted
      dairy industry propaganda published
      by the non-scientists at the dairy
      industry's public relations firm,
      BSMG.

      They reviewed press releases and milk
      mustache ads and criticized the
      milk critics.

      Consumers Reports reLIEs upon a study
      by Robert Heaney, M.D., to assess milk's
      bone-strengthening effects.

      They ignore the fact that Dr. Heaney
      works for the dairy industry.

      They cite the Harvard Nurse study,
      (78,000 participants), but selectively
      omit a key observation of that study:

      Women who drank milk and ate
      cheese as teenagers develop higher
      rates of pelvic and forearm fractures
      as adults.

      Consumer Reports recommends that
      one eats 1000 milligrams per day of
      calcium, ignoring the fact that Eskimos
      eat 3500 milligrams per day and by
      age 40, most are crippled with
      osteoporosis.

      Consumer Reports does not explore how animal
      protein creates an acid condition in the
      blood, which causes calcium bone loss.

      The Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported
      that dietary protein increases production
      of acid in the blood which can be neutralized
      by calcium mobilized from the skeleton.
      That reference and many others represent
      real science that the staff of biased
      Consumer Reports researchers neglected
      to review:

      http://www.notmilk.com/o.html

      Consumer Reports utilizes every bit of
      phony non-science-based marketing
      published by the dairy industry to
      reinforce milk myths.

      Consumer Reports claims that milk is
      good for the heart, ignoring every
      bit of commonly held wisdom teaching
      that saturated animal fat and cholesterol
      do not do the cardiovascular system
      any good.

      Heart researchers found that animal
      food groups were directly correlated
      to mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD),
      defined as sudden coronary death or
      fatal myocardial infarction, and vegetable
      food groups were inversely correlated with
      CHD mortality. Analysis showed significant
      positive correlation coefficients for
      butter (R = 0.887), meat (R = 0.645),
      pastries (R = 0.752), and milk (R = 0.600)
      consumption, and significant negative
      correlation coefficients for legumes
      (R = -0.822), oils (R = -0.571), and
      alcohol (R = -0.609) consumption.

      That study and additional real science
      that Consumer's ignores is cited:

      http://www.notmilk.com/h.html

      When it comes to cancer, Consumer
      Reports completely ignores the advice
      of their own senior researcher, Michael
      Hansen, Ph.D. Dr. Hansen recognizes
      that milk contains insulin-like growth
      factor-I (IGF-I), the key to cancer.

      I've lectured with Hansen and respect
      his work.

      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
      the key factor in breast 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 like pouring gasoline
      on a fire.

      IGF-I plays a major role in human
      breast cancer cell growth. Consumer
      Reports contradicts their own
      expert by not even considering
      the following critically important
      evidence regarding breast cancer:

      http://www.notmilk.com/b.html

      Scientists have found that the
      IGF-I 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.

      More science that Consumer Reports
      never accessed:

      http://www.notmilk.com/g.html

      As for lactose intolerance, Consumer
      Reports promotes the antidote,
      lactase, while ignoring the real
      problems.

      The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
      reported that lactose malabsorption
      is a chronic organic pathologic
      condition characterized by abdominal
      pain and distention, flatulence, and
      the passage of loose, watery stools.

      Researchers noted that the introduction
      of a lactose-free dietary regime relieves
      symptoms in most patients...who remain
      largely unaware of the relationship
      between food intake and symptoms.

      The above study and many others
      regarding lactose consumption are
      cited here:

      http://www.notmilk.com/l.html

      Consumer Reports explores whether
      milk is safe for kids. They ignore
      the advice of the most respected
      pediatrician in American history,
      Dr. Benjamin Spock, who said
      that no human child should ever
      drink cow's milk.

      They ignored the advice of Dr. Frank
      Oski, once Chief of Pediatrics at
      Johns Hopkins, who advised all
      people to not drink milk or eat
      dairy products. Oski wrote that
      at least 50% of all children in the
      United States are allergic to milk,
      many undiagnosed. Oski believed
      that dairy products are the leading
      cause of food allergy, often revealed
      by constipation, diarrhea, and fatigue.
      Dr. Oski found that many cases of
      asthma and sinus infections are
      eliminated by cutting out dairy.

      More real science regarding juvenile
      illness that Consumer Reports ignored:

      http://www.notmilk.com/j.html

      Consumer Reports has a clear agenda.
      They wish to preserve their subscriber
      base. People hearing that milk is
      unhealthy usually respond by attacking
      the messenger.

      Consumer Reports could have performed
      a public service by fairly reviewing
      the milk controversy.

      After all, the average American consumes
      29.2 ounces of milk and dairy products
      per day. That's 666 pounds of milk per
      individual. I enjoy the significance
      and symbolism of that number, 666.
      That's the sign of something evil.

      Consumer Reports gets this consumer's
      lowest rating for their gutless, biased,
      unscientific analyses of milk and dairy
      products. They've compromised all that
      they once stood for and have earned
      my complete distaste and lack of respect
      for what they now represent.
      _________________________________________

      NOTE: SHOULD YOU WISH TO SEND THIS COLUMN
      TO YOUR FRIENDS OR RELATIVES, HERE IS THE
      LINK:

      http://www.notmilk.com/custamp.html
      _________________________________________

      Robert Cohen
      http://www.notmilk.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.