Connect with us

Uncategorized

New Study Shows Drinking Dairy Milk Could Increase Risk of Breast Cancer

For women who drink two to three cups of diary milk per day, the study proclaimed the associated risk of developing breast cancer rose by more than 70%.

Published

on

Drinking Dairy Milk
Like this article? Get the latest from The Mind Unleashed in your inbox. Sign up right here.

(TMU) — Drinking dairy milk may be a contributing factor in having an increased risk of developing breast cancer, according to a new study conducted by researchers at Loma Linda University Health.

Researchers published the controversial study this week in the Oxford International Journal Of Epidemiology. They looked at the dairy intake of 53,000 American women and found that higher intakes of diary milk were associated with greater risks of developing breast cancer. The average age of participants in the study was 57 years old.

Women are typically diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s and 50s, therefore those women had a higher chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer then younger women.

The national rate of breast cancer in the U.S. is 13 percent. It is believed that about one in eight women will contract the cancer. The rate of breast cancer frequency in the study was lower than the national average.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the World Cancer Research Fund as a part of a health study exploring the links between lifestyle, diet, and disease.

According to the study, there is an association between milk consumption and breast cancer—but not causation.

The scientists found that consuming as little as a third of a cup of milk a day was associated with a 30 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer. For women who drink two to three cups of diary milk per day, the study proclaimed the associated risk of developing breast cancer rose to more than 70 percent.

The study found no significant difference in comparing full fat to non-fat milk.

However, the researchers did not take into account other risk factors for breast cancer, including environment, ethnicity, family history, and genetics. The study was also done via questionnaire and analysis through a database rather than through independent testing, which may skew the results. In other words, the study is not fully conclusive and more testing is needed. However, the researchers are warning that “current guidelines for dairy milk consumption could be viewed with some caution.

Since there was no independent testing conducted, it is unknown if there is a connection or not.

According to American biochemist Dr. T. Colin Campbell, daily milk is one of the most harmful foods consumed by humans, and he has the scientific research to back up his claim. Campbell has been warning people for years that milk “turns on cancer” and that it “leeches calcium from your bones.” Dr. Campbell is known for his influential book The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health. The book, based on a 20-year long study conducted by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University, and the University of Oxford, documents serious negative implications of consuming milk.

The China Study examines the link between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart diseasediabetesbreast cancerprostate cancer, and bowel cancer.[3] The authors conclude that people who eat a predominantly whole-food, plant-based diet—avoiding animal products as a main source of nutrition, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of numerous diseases. [Source]

According to Campbell, the main protein found in cow’s milk is called casein and is a serious carcinogen that can have major consequences for public health in America and around the world.

Casein is the most relevant chemical carcinogen ever identified, make no mistake about it.” – Dr. Colin Campbell

Campbell says that milk actually makes bones weaker by leaching calcium from them.

One thing animal protein does is trigger metabolic acidosis. This happens when the body produces too much acid and becomes very acidic, which can be caused by multiple things, including the absorption of casein found in animal protein. Casein makes up almost 90 percent of the protein in a cow’s milk. When the body experiences this type of acidosis, it actually forces the body to compensate by leaching calcium from the bones to help neutralize the increased acidity. Over time, all of this can have severe and detrimental effects on bone health, and studies have shown this,” Katherine S. Pollard, a PhD at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a lecture.

The primary reason for this, as Dr. Campbell states, is that the consumption of casein protein creates an acidic condition in the body, known as metabolic acidosis, which is widely perceived to be a primary driver of a litany of diseases and poor health conditions and has even been called a precursor to cancer.

A previous study of men suggested dairy products might increase a male’s risk of developing prostate cancer by 30 to 50 percent.

Last year TMU reported that a trial showed that human breast milk may do the opposite due to a chemical contained within called Alpha1H. This chemical helps break tumors up into smaller fragments which the body can then rid itself of via urine.

So what’s a milk lover to do? There are many alternatives on the market for daily milk. Milk doesn’t just come from cows. Alternative milks, including those made from coconuts, almonds, oats, flax, and more are readily available in stores and are very easy to make yourself. Often these milks provide even more nutrients than cow milk does too.

By Aaron Kesel | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]

News

Pot-Smoking White House Staffers Punished and Ousted For Past Use Despite Assurances

Published

on

Like this article? Get the latest from The Mind Unleashed in your inbox. Sign up right here.

Dozens of White House staffers have been suspended, relocated, or asked to resign over past marijuana use, despite initial indications from transition officials that recreational use of cannabis would not be a disqualifying factor, according to the Daily Beast, citing three anonymous sources.

The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal. Sourcesfamiliar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed past marijuana use in an official document they filled out as part of the lengthy background check for a position in the Biden White House.” –Daily Beast

Staffers were initially told by transition higher-ups that the administration would likely overlook past marijuana use, only to later be asked for their resignation.

“There were one-on-one calls with individual affected staffers—rather, ex-staffers,” one former White House staffer told the Beast. “I was asked to resign.”

“Nothing was ever explained” on the calls led by White House Director of Management and Administration, Anne Filipic. “The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained.”

The news comes after a February report from NBC News that the White House would waive the requirement that all potential appointees in the Executive Office obtain “top secret” clearance.

The rules about past marijuana use and eligibility for the clearance vary, depending on the agency: For the FBI, an applicant can’t have used marijuana in the past three years; at the NSA, it’s only one. The White House, however, largely calls its own shots, and officials at the time told NBC News that as long as past use was “limited” and the candidate wasn’t pursuing a position that required a security clearance, past use may be excused.” –Daily Beast

Reposted from Zero Hedge with permission.

Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]

Continue Reading

News

Trump Family Planning Takeover Of The RNC To Ensure Political Dynasty, Sources Say

Published

on

Like this article? Get the latest from The Mind Unleashed in your inbox. Sign up right here.

Donald Trump has still refused to concede the 2020 election to his Democratic rival Joe Biden, but even if he does leave the White House in January, his family is planning on beginning a Trump political dynasty. This week, three GOP advisers told CNN that Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle are making moves to expand their influence at the Republican National Committee. Other sources have said that they have ambitions to take over the party.

Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle are reportedly unhappy with RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel over what they perceive as a lack of support during a contested election. Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a Republican Party source with close ties to the White House said that Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle could seek leadership roles at the RNC.

“Don Jr. and Kimberly have an eye on the RNC, through themselves taking over or somebody close to them taking over,” the source said.

Donald Trump Jr. denied claims that he has ambitions to take over the party, as did Andrew Surabian, a Trump associate who said that the rumors are “100% incorrect.”

Still, for years Donald Trump insisted that he had no interest in getting involved in politics, and people usually don’t tell the media when they are after another person’s job. 

If the Trump family is able to expand its influence in the GOP and the RNC, they could position Donald Trump to run for president a second time in 2024, a possibility that has been floated by numerous Trump advisers. 

Rick Gates, an aide to Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, expects Trump to remain in politics for the long haul.

He’s going to continue to play a significant role in the Republican Party. He’ll have that locked up for at least the next few years,” Gates said.

Gates also said Trump would likely “seriously consider another run in 2024,” according to USA Today.

Gates is not the only Trump insider to make such a prediction. Mick Mulvaney, a former chief of staff, predicted a Trump 2024 campaign recently while appearing in a recent interview with Sky News.

“I would absolutely expect the president to stay involved in politics and would absolutely put him on the shortlist of people who are likely to run in 2024,” Mulvaney said.

There are historical precedents of presidents running for re-election years after losing.

In 1840, President Martin Van Buren lost his re-election campaign as the 8th President of the United States and chose to run again in 1848 as a member of the Free Soil Party. President Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president of the United States. He served as president from 1885 to 1889 and then again from 1893 to 1897.

Theodore Roosevelt became President in 1901 following the assassination of William McKinley and was elected to a full term in 1904. After leaving politics, he attempted a failed return in 1912 running as a Progressive.

The 22nd Amendment states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

Even if Donald Trump does not run for president again, his family has now entered the political arena, and they don’t appear to have any plans of leaving.

Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Scientists Finally Traced a ‘Fast Radio Burst’ To A Place In Our Galaxy For The First Time

Published

on

Like this article? Get the latest from The Mind Unleashed in your inbox. Sign up right here.

One of the most daunting questions scientists have faced for at least a decade is what causes fast radio bursts (or FRB’s) that pulse throughout the universe?

Scientists have long known about these energetic pulses — called fast radio bursts — for roughly 13 years observing them coming from outside our galaxy. The distance makes it harder to trace them back to what’s causing them. Making it even more difficult is that these bursts of energy happen so fast, in a couple of milliseconds and then don’t happen again for awhile.

TMU has previously reported on various FRBs with the latest being one that repeats in a looping cycle every 157 days outside of our Milky Way Galaxy. FRB 121102’ exhibits repeated burst activity for a period of about 90 days, before going quiet for about 67 days. Then the whole 157-day cycle repeats again.

FRB’s are energetic flares of radiation that last just a few milliseconds, and most of them flare randomly only once, then they are never detected again. Further, FRBs are believed to generate a billion times more energy than any known object in our galaxy. In fact, this energy equals what would be produced by 500 million of our suns, according to NASA.

As TMU further reported, scientists observed FRBs coming from somewhere deep in space in 2019. This was only the second time repeated blasts of signals of this type had ever been recorded.

Earlier this year, in April, a rare but weaker radio burst came from inside our own Milky Way galaxy that was spotted by two different astronomers using two separate telescopes: one a California doctoral student’s set of handmade antennas, which included pans, the other a $20 million Canadian observatory.

The researchers tracked April’s fast radio burst to a magnetar that’s 32,000 light-years from Earth, according to four studies published in the journal Nature.

Magnetars are incredibly dense neutron stars, with 1.5 times the mass of our sun jam packed into a space the size of a city. Magnetars have immense magnetic fields that pulse with energy, and sometimes flares of X-rays and radio waves burst come from them, according to McGill University astrophysicist Ziggy Pleunis, a co-author of the Canadian study.

The burst happened in less than a second containing about the same amount of energy that our sun produces in a month, and still that’s far weaker than the radio bursts detected coming from outside our galaxy, said Caltech radio astronomer Christopher Bochenek. Bochenak helped spot the burst with his handmade antennas, which the Associated Press reported costed him $15,000.

While astronomers believe they discovered what caused this FRB, they emphasize that magnetars may not be the only answer, especially since there are two types of fast radio bursts that repeat and those that occur only once. So the mystery continues…

Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending

The Mind Unleashed