The respondents make a good and valid point about Cow’s milk being a food which is designed to make young calves grow at essentially four times the rate a young human child does. This has always been one of the arguments that has concerned me most about milk as I feel it really has some truth behind it which is hard to ignore or explain away in the sense that not many if any other foods human beings consume have effect of such strong growth promotion.Good point. I'm just wondering if you would be hard pressed to find a food that doesn't have these issues....? Not sure what to think tbh
So I can see how once you develop a cancerous lesion then milk may provide the necessary cellular signals to fuel its growth.
However the other side of the argument is that the odds risk ratio the paper was stating was for every glass of milk consumed women had a 1.15 x greater risk of dying and men a 1.03 x greater risk. However at 4 glasses of milk per day they said for women the ratio was 1.93 x greater risk of dying, which is almost double the risk for non-milk drinkers. However the odds risk ratio for lower consumption doesn’t seem to add up to that found at higher consumption levels so i am a bit confused how they arrived at the calculations. For men the risk doesn’t seem that high for the nutritional benefits milk might bring.
The response letter was absolutely clear though in painting milk as a poisonous cocktail of growth promoting molecules that should only be drunk by calves and not humans.
I don’t know to be honest....and I’m a molecular biologist LOL!!!