After Prostate Surgery

Why would someone ask me if I want to make a donation to support prostate cancer? Why would I support something as awful as that?

Why does breast cancer get more support then prostate cancer?

Support breast cancer month yall, for sure I will . But when will guy's prostate cancer get the same love ? First of all ladies if you have or know somebody that has breast cancer I wish they get better and/or hope somebody comes with a cure soon. There's no doubt I will support breast cancer by donating and such . BUUUUTTTT I have to ask since more guys are diagnosed with prostate cancer than women getting diagnosed with breast cancer and guy die more because of prostate cancer than women with breast cancer(looked it up).... where is the month to support prostate cancer ? The mile run to find cure for prostate cancer donation ? The prostate cancer ribbon ? Athletes wearing something that reps/support bringing a cure for prostate ? Commercials that ask for donation for prostate cancer ? My point is why isn't prostate cancer not getting the same support as breast cancer even though guys die more and are diagnosed more with prostate cancer, than women with breast cancer ? Can prostate get a month worth of support too?

What Type Of Chocolate Bar Could Be Used To Support Prostate Cancer? http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtEavWX4XpY.pndX3nvMDa78Tn1G;_ylv=3?qid=20091020061930AAp3Wfp

Will Obama Cut Back on Prostate Cancer Research to Support Women's Health Issues? ... as Dems like Pelosi and Hillay want? Do you put your husband's hard earned money towards breast cancer research or prostate cancer research? Do you care about protecting your daughters or your sons?

Prostate is diagnosed more than breast cancer. But why isn't there equal support for prostate cancer ? Breast Cancer out paced prostate cancer research $548mill to $306 mill according to NCI(National Cancer Institute). Even though there are more diagnoses Prostate Cancer than Breast Cancer by 230,110 new cases to 215,990( www.cancer.org/downloads/MED/Page4.pdf). There fundraisers for breast cancer like the pink ribbon fundraiser which is great but where is the ribbon for prostate cancer ? There are telethons for breast cancer, 10k runs for breast cancer, collection on airline flights for breast cancer. There isn't equal support for prostate cancer even though prostate is diagnosed more than breast cancer. Why ?Why do we care more about women than men? Does anybody find this disturbing ?

Where can I find/buy the wristbands that MLB players wear on Father's/Mother's day that support cancer causes? They wear the Blue ones on Father's day and Pink on Mother's day. The blue support Prostate cancer awareness and the pink are for Breast cancer awareness and I'd like to know if they let you buy those or if anybody had any clue of where to find them.

where can I buy authentic prostate cancer awareness bracelets? Hi, I am interested in buying prostate cancer awareness bracelets to support the cause. Any idea where I can buy bracelets like this that will actually support research? Thanks.

Why is there more focus on breast cancer than prostate cancer when both kill equally? The NFL is a host of...yes, Breast Cancer. The commercials on Fox today supported Breast Cancer and not prostate cancer. Both are equally deadly but we see more "breast cancer" because it is PC. If you disagree, you are retarded (hate to say it).

Do Women Ignore their Dads, Sons Who Die From Prostate Cancer While Supporting Breast Cancer? Prostate cancer kills 1/2 as many people as breast cancer. Lots of women have dads, sons who either did or will die from prostate cancer. Do those women, if they are married, make sure that their families give equal support to the men in their lives? Do women care more about their moms and daughters than they care about their dads and sons? (Breast cancer research gets 10 times as much money as prostate cancer research.) A male (FDR) made sure that women were taken care of in their old age. Do women care about men? Have you ever seen a dad shrivel from 200 pounds to 65 pounds because of prostate cancer? Will Hillary show a sign of "greatness" and make sure that male cancers get fair attention? The silence is deafening.

Are there any support groups for the wifes of husbands who have had prostate cancer? My happy married life has crumbled since my husbands prostectomy from cancer. The little problems here have snowballed ,and now i am sleeping in a seperated bedroom . I am in a place that i do not want to be right now.

My Dad Shrank from 220 Lbs. to 73 Lbs. From Prostate Cancer. But, I Don't Care.? I still make sure that my money goes in the jar for breast cancer research. Well, occasionally I might give a tiny bit to support prostate cancer research. I think it's funny that breast cancer research gets almost 10 times as much money as prostate cancer. I trust you stuff the breast cancer jar too. Right? Are you just like me? Oh, of course he died.

Supplement to support prostate health? Anyone know of any good supplements to support healthy prostate? Prostate cancer runs in the family and I want to try and avoid it by keeping it healthy while im still young

Why doesnt prostate cancer receive equal funding as breast cancer? I support equality for women in all cases but I think that breast cancer funding should be the same for prostate cancer as for men. An equal amount of men die from prostate cancer than breast cancer. Also if anything men should have more health funding since women live 7 years longer than men. Had it been vice versa the argument would have been valid for women to have more health care which they do even though men die before women.

my cousins dad has prostate cancer how do i approch and support him without him feeling akward? please help!

How many women wore Prostate Cancer ribbons on Father's Day? On Mother's Day, many men wore pink ribbons to support the fight and research against breast cancer. Many men marched in breast cancer research-funding walks and parades. Many men joined women in various charity drives for the support of breast cancer research. In fact, the Major League Baseball players (all men) used pink bats and wore pink armbands in the games that Mother's Day to support this very same cause. http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070513/capt.cd510df56c504e299e2882c9d02adfc9.marlins_nationals_baseball_rfk108.jpg Now, how many women wore prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day? *crickets* Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men. Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand. How many of you women even know what a Prostate Cancer ribbon looks like? Probably none of you. Don't worry ladies, I've provided a link: http://www.theribbonlady.com/images/light-blue-layout.jpg Shivers, you seem angry. I wore breast cancer ribbons on Mother's day and light-blue ribbons on Father's Day. Also, contrary to what you said, I did provide facts -- one being that there are roughly as many prostate cancer cases each year as there are breast cancer cases. You say men should say " 'what about me' victim stuff", well, what exactly do you think feminism does constantly, hypocrite? Feminism is inherently a "what about me" victim-mentality movement. Rio Madeira: Light-blue ribbons and armbands were worn by MLB players on Father's Day, although to my knowledge there were no light-blue bats - indicating that feminist society says we should care more about women. MLB players on Father's Day: http://briananderson.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/brianandersonribbontatto.jpg http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/18/morneau.jpg http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/atf/cf/%7B705B3273-F2EF-4EF6-A653-E15C5D8BB6B1%7D/CIN-Homeplate-ceremony.jpg If this were a women's professional league; pink would be worn on Mother's Day, and Father's Day would be ignored. Thank you feminism. Carrie: I have never seen the "save the ta-tas" shirt, but if that is true then that is pretty uncouth and unnecessary. Sounds like they're trivializing the importance of it by linking it with sexual pop-culture terminology. But I guess they thought they were being "cute". When I think of something such as "cancer", be it breast cancer or anything, the last thing we should be thinking about is how it's sex-related. Lee: I know you're a troll, because all of your responses to every question is about how men die and men get diseases. You're either a man posting as a woman, and you want to make women look bad, or this is some kind of S&M fetish to you. Or you're a woman that's just a misandrist. And I have to correct you -- breast cancer tends to be deadlier than prostate cancer. Prostate cancer patients have about a 95% chance of survival if they treat it.

Prostate cancer = weaken immunity? I'm currently doing a nursing assignment on prostate cancer, one part of it is discussing the health issues that a terminal prostate cancer has on a palliative care patient. I've been researching on the Internet and haven't been able to find anything directly to support that Prostate cancer could cause a weaken immunity. I'd really appreciate it if anyone had any information? Thank-you all in advance! :)

How many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day? On Mother's Day, many men wore pink ribbons to support the fight and research against breast cancer. Many men marched in breast cancer research funding walks and parades. In fact, the Major League Baseball players (all men) used pink bats and wore pink armbands in the games on Mother's Day to support this very same cause. Now, how many women will be wearing prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day? Let me take an educated guess based on previous patterns, and say: "nowhere near as many men that wore breast cancer awareness ribbons." Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men. Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each) -- the number difference between the two diseases only being a few thousand. Prostate Cancer Ribbon Pin: http://www.phoenix5.org/advocacy/prostateribbon.html ♀M☼♪δ♥: I agree with what you said. I don't think "all women are bad". But I applaud you in having the courage to support this cause. You deserve the utmost respect. We need to spread the awareness around of both breast and prostate cancer.

what is the range of psa tests for prostate cancer? how high can a psa test go? before being diagnosed with cancer, my husband's score was 4.9. Now, three years later it is 0.7 after being 0.0-0.1. one of the men in his support group said his had gone into the hundreds, is this possible?

Why so much Breast Cancer research support? For the last 8 to 10 years the fund raising and charity events in support of breast cancer research has grown. In the last few years I see the pink ribbon on cars, products, even food items at the grocery store mention a part of the proceeds will be donated to breast cancer research. Where I live, they had a "Run For The Cure" today all in support of breast cancer. I don't mean it to sound cold but I guess my question is... What about all the rest of the cancer? Prostate cancer? tumors?..... I never, ever see a portion of product sales going to support research for anything else. Now I realize breast cancer is a big one.... but it's not the only one. Statistically every man alive will get prostate cancer at some point? Isn't that big enough to take some notice? I'm not going to get breast cancer.... My grandfather died of a brain tumor.... Maybe I'm missing something?

If you have prostate cancer, can you get good treatment or no? Is there also support groups and everything??

My father-in-law has prostate cancer and I am collecting well-wishes for him...? I am compiling a book of well-wishes for my father-in-law, who is going through cancer treatments. I did this when our son was deployed to Iraq, and it gave him such a boost! If you would like to help, please send me your greeting, and don't forget to add where you are from. Thank you so much for your support!

Do masturbation reduce risk of prostate cancer? Is there a medical basis or reseach to support it? I heard already myths.. please don't add... We need proof... So that we could enjoy it to the fullest.. guilt-free... oops! i think these belongs to mens health section.. no hearsay/heresy pleaseee.... We want SOLID PROOF!

My dad has just told me he has aggressive prostate cancer, I'm absolutely devastated, my dad is my whole world? I don't know how i'm going to cope, I have two children, who i am trying to hide it from and my dad has asked for my support, but who can support me, he has asked me not to tell my mum, who is divorced from and it's killing me, because other than my dad, she's the only one I can really talk too, please help, I feel so useless and scared. I don't want him to die.

Shoot for the Cure - Prostate Cancer? I woud like try and to start an event, with a name like, Shoot for the Cure, to raise money to fight prostate cancer. It would be something like a basketball tournament, I'm not sure at this point how it would work out exactly. But anyhow, I would also like to try to coincide my event with the Race for the Cure, so maybe after people finish their walk/run, they can come out to a basketball court nearby to participate in a basketball tourney So my questions: 1) Do you think people would be interested and support this? 2) Do you think the Komen people would take exception to the name, since it is similar and all? 3) Do you think the Komen people would take exception to scheduling the event on the same day? Well, this is an idea I've been tossing around for a while, and I just wanted to get some opinions. Alright, maybe the name isn't the best. Hoops for the Cure perhaps, I still like Shoot for the Cure better.

What's the five year survival rate for prostate cancer? (Other questions)? And what about for longer periods? Also, what percentage of men become impotent, incontinent, or otherwise impaired? Do younger men (under 45) have different risk rates or different prognoses? And what's treatment like? What kind of support is most helpful? I have a friend who may have it. :(

Hey guys. How many of you are as pissed off as I am about the inequities of male vs female cancer research? It seems like all the support and research money goes to breast and cervical cancer research while testicular and prostate cancer are all but forgotten about. Hell, there are a couple thousand breast cancer foundations but I cant find 1 testicular or prostate organization. They now even have a supposed vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Wheres the research or development for all us? All I want is some equality in the research time, money, and in treatment. I've even called places like American Cancer Society, civic groups, many other non profit organizations nobody wants to do anything to help with this or start an organization. So I wanted to hear all your feedback

My Dad is wearing an urostomy bag (due to prostate cancer), is it safe if he goes to swim? Hello everyone, my Dad got prostate cancer 5 year ago. He had prostate cut 4 year ago and the bladder removed recently. Now he is using urostomy bags. With these bags, the urinary comes straight from the hole on the belly to the bag through a tube. His desperate dream now is coming back to swim as before (the surgery). Is it possible? If yes, how can he do that (with any equipment/product's support)? The problem is the water may come inside the hole on the belly. Please help. Any advice is much appreaciated. Thank you.

How do you console a husband, who is about to lose his brother to Prostate Cancer? My husband's brother has been fighting Prostate Cancer that has spread, for quite a while now! My husband and his brother are extremely close. There is nothing more that the Dr.s can do for him and the Dr.s said it will be anytime now! His brother is at home, because that's where he wants to be, in his own familiar surroundings, when he passes away! According to the Drs., it could be anytime now! My husband's brother is the only blood relative, that he has left. His mother and father have both passed away. My husband is on his way right now to his brothers house, to spend some time alone with him, and be there with him, for support. I did not go with him, because I respect the fact that he wants to have some time alone with his brother. I can understand how he feels! When my father passed away, who I was also extremely close to, no one could console me, no matter what anyone said to me or did for me.. My husband is understandably scared, because he doesn't know how bad it's going to get, when his brother dies, and of course he doesn't want to let him go. Other than being there for my husband, how else can I console him and try to get him through this sad time in his life? I'm so scared that once his brother dies, that something is going to happen to my husband! I would really appreciate it, if you would be kind enough to say a prayer, that when his brothers time does come, that he does not suffer and that he goes peacefully. Will you please also, Star this question for me? Thank You! I just want to Thank You all for your support and your prayers through this. I also want to say that I am very sorry, for all of you that have a family member that is sick or that has passed away. My thoughts and prayers are also with all of you! You have all been there for me, in this last year, while going through the situations with Gigi, Zoe, My Uncle and now my Brother In Law! I can't tell you how much that means to me! It's been very hard for me and it's nice to know that I have friends out there, that really care! To kay_floo, or whatever your name is! What an incredibly heartless thing to say! Do you feel better now? I asked a simple question!Your remarks to me were uncalled for! You know nothing about me, or my life and what I've been through. It sounds to me, like you have some serious issues and you are the one that should consider getting some counseling and Anger Management Classes while you are at it! You claim to be a nurse, which I hope you are not. Nurses have compassion for other people, which is something you definitely lack! I hate to see your bedside manner with your patients, if you are really a nurse. Don't go judging others, when you know nothing about them. A little compassion goes a long way. It is comforting to know that some of the people on this site do care about how another person feels and do everything they can to support them, like the others that answered this question. If you don't have anything nice to say, then keep your mouth shut! I just wanted to update everyone on my husbands brother! Last night Wednesday January 28th at 7:45 P.M., my brother in law, passed away at home. My husband and his brothers wife were right by his side holding his hand, so he did not die alone! My husband is trying to stay strong for his brothers kids, who are 18 and 21 years old, but at the same time, his heart is breaking. Thanks again to everyone who responded, for your support!

Possible vaccine for breast cancer announced today, males have their uses, agreed? If it works do you think feminists will start working on a vaccine for prostate cancer, seeing as women can do anything men can do and do it better? Also to keep gender equality? Do you think feminists will support a vaccine for men or is it only good when men help women's health?

help with dealing with boyfriend going through cancer treatment? My boyfriend and I just started dating a few months ago -- we got close really fast and both fell in love as well. He is 30 yrs old and just recently got diagnosed with stage 3 prostate cancer. We are ALSO in a long distance relationship. He has told me several times that I'm not doing a good job of being supportive and during different arguments he will always say "fine I'll just go thru this treatment alone I don't need your help". I wanted to go with him to appointments and to his first treatment friday but he WON'T LET ME! Ever since then I have received all of 3 texts...I've told him how hurt I am by him not wanting me to be there and since I'm not physically there to KNOW what's going on, I have to ask questions and then he says I'm annoying with questions...but he barely tells me anything..I have no clue what hospital he has been to, no clue how treatment even went, he had to go back to the hospital after complications,etc etc. I just can't understand why he is shutting me out esp. when he tells me he loves me. How can he tell me I'm not being supportive yet refuses to even let me be, or says the effort I AM doing (being positive, loving, asking questions, researching, asking other cancer patients about experience) isn't good enough. He also says I don't "have any idea the type of person he is and I have no idea about the kind of support I should be giving". I've talked to people, researched cancer support websites and I don't really see how I'm far off with what I'm TRYING to do. He tells me he wants to get married and have a family someday...but you can't just push people out during critical times -- I don't know many married people who tell there wife or husband they can't talk to them or be there with them during treatment. A significant other is one of the FIRST people I would want with me. Can anyone help me to understand this? I'm not trying to be selfish and I realize it is a confusing time but at the same time we ARE in a relationship. If he would rather just concentrate on treatment then we shouldn't even be a couple right now and I can just be a friend. I don't think I can last much longer being hurt by someone I care deeply for acting like I'm the last person they want to see and not even wanting to let them know basic information about what's going on. I know breaking up with someone during treatment would be horrible but I'm extremely hurt by these choices

Is there a link between uncircumcised men and prostate cancer???? Ok, my hubby and I had the debate today on whether or not we should have our son circumcised (if it's a boy, we haven't found out yet). I told him that after a lot of research I was against it. I don't want to put him through that pain and I've also read many studies that say men who have been circumcised have less sensitivity in their penises and suffer from erectile dysfunction more often. All of the pros that I've read about circumcision pretty much boil down to how it looks (which sounds pretty vain to me). There have even been studies that show no correlation between uncircumcised men and a higher risk of STDs or other diseases. So, after making this point to him he said that he wants our son circumcised because there is an increased chance he will develop prostate cancer if we don't get him circumcised. After doing some research I found nothing that supports this. Does anyone know if there is any truth behind this? And if so, where can I read about it? Thanks! Thanks for all the comments so far. And to add a detail that I left off, my husband is uncircumcised as well so there is no link there between him wanting the baby to look like him.

Isn't Socialist Medicine the wrong prescription for America? Another horror story from Canada: September 4, 2007 A shortage of urologists has become so pronounced that patients' lives are at risk, managers of a St. John's-based health authority have been warned. Andy Grant, a member of a prostate cancer support group in St. John's, said he is afraid that people will die — or already have — while waiting for surgery. "First of all, [patients deal with] the shock you might have prostate cancer, then the shock of being confirmed with prostate cancer," he said. "Now you have the shock of saying, 'I have to wait until next year?' " http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/09/04/urology-shortage.html?ref=rss Hmm, isn't it interesting how Fatso (a.k.a. Michael Moore) 'forgets' to include these little tidbits in his propaganda films?

my dad in august and was 95 years old & had prostate cancer to, He went to hospitol & more below,? Then after his Prosate cancer got worse, He had a Bad Ache, & he thought it was a Bad Back Acting up, & OK, heres My question, When he went to nusing home, He was Eating/ & all of a Sudden Refused to eat, He Was alert enough to Sign Papers Not to Put Tubes/ wires/ On him, Ok, heres My real question, My older sister, Told the Nursing Home to increase his Morphine, to take him faster, & it did, What if They didnt? We kissed him on His cheek, He said Thank you, Very Faint, He Screamed in pain, & i keep thinking of The gross things i seen, When will it pass? the best advice, support, Story, will be best answer,

Why Does America Give So Much $ to Breast Cancer and Not Prostate Cancer? Have women taught America to ignore the suffering of men? Men are 1/2 as likely to die of PC as women are to die of BC. Why does BC research get 10 times the amount of money. Every male who dies is a son. Would you give 10 times as much money to save your daugher/mom than to save your son/dad? Does this come from the feminism that Hillary and Pelosi support? Texas, Do you mean like the millions of Libs who want HANDOUTS from hard working Americans?

I've been asked if the files limit of 5mgb can be extended temporarily.? I run prostate cancer support e-group and there has been a big conferece in the USA - it would be good to share the presentations across the world so that people from other countries and not able to attend can see them. Please copy to bryan.metcalf@virgin.net if possible

I'm looking for a Cancer survivor/supporter pendant. Where should I look? My mom and dad are in Tulsa at the Cancer Treatment Center. My dad is being treated for prostate cancer. I would like to purchase a pendant I can wear in support of him. Does anyone know of a website I can look at? P.S. I don't want one of those rubber bracelets.

please explain the problem of the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it. This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing. Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others. “Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.” Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480. Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both. The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years. A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option. One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004. “Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.” Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer. “We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.” Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either. Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials. By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years

State what the problem you are fixing in the main body of the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it. This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing. Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others. “Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.” Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480. Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both. The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years. A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option. One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004. “Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.” Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer. “We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.” Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either. Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials. By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years. “This is the state of prostate cancer,” Mr. Kirk of Us Too said. “There aren’t any clear answers.”

please explain the problem about the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it. This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing. Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others. “Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.” Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480. Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both. The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years. A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option. One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004. “Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.” Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer. “We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.” Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either. Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials. By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years

jut one paragram to explain the main idea and prbolem about this article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it. This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing. Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others. “Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.” Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480. Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both. The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years. A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option. One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004. “Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.” Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer. “We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.” Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either. Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials. By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years

How can makers of cranberry foods claim cranberries help the urinary tract when its not supported by the FDA? I've also heard the claim that cranberries and cranberry extract helps prevent prostate cancer, but the FDA does not support or deny this claim. Why are claims allowed to be made when the FDA does not support or deny the claim?

Has this world become sexist against males? Postnatal depression seems to be the only depression focused on by the world. We see it as a big problem... which it is... but it receives so much more support and attention than other types of depression (eg, bipolar disorder), which are suffered mainly by men. Four times as many men than women suffer from depression, and four times as many men than women commit suicide because of it. Yet we never seem to focus on this issue and lean towards other issues that effects females. Another example... breast cancer. Just as many men are diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer as women do from breast cancer... yet we focus completely on a world breast cancer day (which is fine), and it is promoted world wide every year with loads of support. Why does prostate cancer not receive the same attention and support? Why is world Prostate cancer day not advertised and supported world wide? The same drug is used to treat breast cancer and prostate cancer... yet here in Australia, women receive the drug for free, but men have to pay for it. Is that not sexist? (TWO MORE COMING) Another issue... prison terms. Just last month, a woman who was 39 had a shower with 2 under age male teens and received 11 months in prison (In the USA). How long do you think a 39 year old man would have received if he was having a shower with 2 under age female teens? It would be more around the 11 year mark. Divorce... A rich man marries a poor woman... poor woman divorces and takes half of everything... or more than half. Justice? Is it right? If he worked his a*se off for it, why should she be entitled to half of it? Custody... the man could be the best father in the world, and will be stripped for child support and never get to see his kids. Is this right? If it is joint custody, why should he still be made to pay child support if the kids are shared 50/50? (ONE MORE COMING) The list of issues continue, and while men received more rights 80 years ago, is it right for the balance to now swing in the completely opposite direction? Please share your thoughts and opinions, and maybe raise other points which you may have. And please don't bring up "But in the middle east...", because I am refering completely to westernised countries... not middle eastern countries. 10 points to the most mature response, no matter what side you take. Impress me the most and you will get the best answer. wyndorf thor - Are you just as stupid as you appear to be? Not only have you embarrassed yourself, you have also made everyone think you are a complete f**king idiot. Let me just say to start, that these statistics I pulled were studies created by BeyondBlue, an AUSTRALIAN depression organisation... so no point in you saying that crap about your "2009 USA" sh*t, because this was a question with statistics based on Australian FACTS. Like most arrogant and ignorant Americans, you have succeeded in looking like a fool to the rest of the world. And I did clearly mention it when I said "Here, in Australia...". In AUSTRALIA, women get free breast cancer screens every year... every trip to the protologist for a man to check his prostate costs around $120. And read what I wrote again... I never said the same drug is used to treat ALL cancers. I said the same drug is used to treat BREAST and PROSTATE cancer (far from every cancer in the world... it is IGNORANT to think that those 2 cancers are every cancer in the world)... oh, and the drug is called Buserelin... which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buserelin . Feeling kind of stupid now, huh? Now do your nazi feminist a*se a favour, and crawl back into the hole you came from. Thanks for the laugh though... I enjoy meeting idiots. It makes me comfortable knowing that when I feel a little down, I can look back at people like you and feel just that little better in myself, and that I wasn't unfortunate enough to have the small amount of brain cells people like you have.

Guys: Do you think guys are becoming soft nowadays? In this Post-Feminist world, women are becoming more successful and independent. I noticed a lot of guys nowadays have lost assertiveness or a sense of identity and purpose. Too often we have to pander to women. Society has tried to feminise men by the metrosexual movement and it is now even acceptable to wear pink and support Breast Cancer Research. But too often men's needs are ignored - we don't see support for Testicular or Prostate Cancer very often, much less for depression or male suicide. What do you think?

Men: Does it bother you that no one seems to care about your prostate? Breast cancer awareness is SO hot right now. It is everywhere, and was even before it had it's own awareness month. But, something like 75% of men who die in old age die with prostate cancer, not knowing they have it, or too old to get it treated. My father is a prostate cancer survivor. How come nobody cares about your prostates? How come prostate cancer awareness is not supported on Campbell's soup cans and Energizer battery packages? Wouldn't you guys like a month dedicated to your prostates? What color would you like your ribbon to be? EDIT- oops. I just found this. How come nobody seems to know about it? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080825-4.html Apparently, we missed it.

If Mothers Day Has Pink Bats, WIll Fathers Day Have Blue Bats? In MLB, I know the players use the pink bats to raise support for breast cancer. But what about fathers day? Will Baseball use Blue bats too? For Support On Prostate Cancer?

Is there a ribbon campaign for men? Women have the pink ribbon to support breast cancer. Is there a male equivalent for say prostate cancer?

In your opinion is the cancer research 'race for life' charity raiser discriminative against men? This charity 5k run is (as you may or may not be aware) limited to women only. My arguement against is that this acts under the massive assumption that women only get breast cancer whereas (although uncommon) it is a condition which men can get also. If you lost your mother/wife/daughter (whatever) to breast cancer, surely you'd want to help raise some cash for it through this supported event. To my knowledge there isn't a 'men only' prostate cancer charity run... and I wouldn't consider that fair if there was. Over to you for your thoughts?

Why is breast Cancer fought so heavily? My question is about the difference in national and possibly world views on breast cancer as opposed to prostate cancer. I saw separate studies in which one said the risk of breast cancer in women is 1 in 8- and the risk in men for prostate cancer is 1-6. Which means effectively more men will get prostate cancer than women get breast cancer. But I'm confused as to why I don't see or hear much press about prostate cancer walks, or commercials on TV, or just the overwhelming support and acknowledgment that Breast Cancer and its victims get. What gives?? http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_1X_How_many_people_get_breast_cancer_5.asp http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_1X_How_many_men_get_prostate_cancer_36.asp?sitearea= Check out the links tracey, breast cancer doesn't kill more 1 in 35 die of each according to cancer.org but the overwheliming support and interest "seems" to be leaning toward the breast cancer side- appears odd, am i wrong? thanks professor

Can my Dad go to swim while wearing an urostomy bag? Hello everyone, my Dad got prostate cancer 5 year ago. He had prostate cut 4 year ago and the bladder removed recently. Now he is using urostomy bags. With these bags, the urinary comes straight from the hole on the belly to the bag through a tube. His desperate dream now is coming back to swim as before (the surgery). Is it possible? If yes, how can he do that (with any equipment/product's support)? The problem is the water may come inside the hole on the belly. Please help. Any advice is much appreaciated. Thank you.

Do Women Who Fight Breast Cancer Hate Their Dads and Sons? Isn't it interesting that such women will fight so hard to protect their moms and daughters while doing farrrrrrrrrrrr less to help their sons and dads? There is the same chance that their dads and sons will die a tragic, painful death from prostate cancer as their moms and daughters will die from breast cancer. Would you work hard to protect your daughter and do far less for your son? I bet many of those women have husbands who are hard at work trying to support the ENTIRE family while those women are out supporting ONLY females. Breast cancer research gets almost 10 times as much money as prostate cancer gets --- even though the odds of dying from each are almost equally deadly. Marc, Do you spout lies or do you have a low education. Do you know that girls watch their dads shrink from over 200 pounds to about 80 pounds as the man dies from PROSTATE cancer?

Why does breast cancer get more attention than other cancers? Breast cancer seem more well publicize to general public in particular in well developed countries which I think is great along with HIV aids as the rates of women dying from Breast cancer is alarming. However dont you think its sort of leaving out the men? If men are to be encouraged to see the doctors ( which at times they dont), wouldn't it be nice if there was a national awareness week or day on certain cancers that affect and kill a lot of men such as prostate cancer? We hear of the pink Ribbon Campaign (in Australia) and you see university's, our harbour bridge and Oprea house lighting their lights pink for beast cancer awareness....and there's much more. We never see anything on this scale where there is an awareness for cancer that men suffer such as prostate or Testicular cancer which in effect sends that message out that men should suffer in silence rather than being encouraged to seek help. So are male related cancers discriminated against in terms of the lack of awareness and support by the general public? Some studies find that Cancer affects more men than women. So is the support disproportional?

Need info etc on prostate operation? Hi my dad who is 62 is going into hospital for an operation on his prostate and bladder. He is type 1 diabetic and in july he was really ill, so ill that he was.nt expected to survive. He was on life support. He had gone into heart failure, kidney failure, had fluid on his lungs. Thankfully he came out of it but when he came around and after he became better he could not urinate. So he has a catheter since july. His prostate is enlarged so i think they are removing it. His blood results for his prostate was low so they said it would be high if it was cancer so that was a good sign but could.nt rule it out yet. His own father (my grandad) died 3 months ago from prostate cancer. Anyway they are also doing surgery on his bladder. I do not know what this is for. He is keeping well since he was discharged but his blood sugars are still going very high sometimes. Up to 32mmol. Most of the time its fine but maybe every 2nd day it would go high. He has also lost some weight since being discharged from hospital. I am just worried about this opperction because of his health conditions and worried that this could set him back alot, or even is there likely to be complications because of his diabetes?

I found out that my "best friend" was avoiding me during my cancer treatments because of the radiation? She had just had a baby when I started my cancer treatments and the day she had her, I was too sick from the chemo to go to the hospital like I normally would've. But during my treatment, she did call and check on me, but she never came over or wanted to see me. I told her I really wanted to see the baby and invited her over a few times when I was getting treatment, and a few times I asked what she was up to because I was feeling up to stopping by for a visit. Sometimes she would already have plans, sometimes she wouldn't call me back for a week. Well finally after my treatments were done, she asked me how long it would take for the radiation to leave my body. I told her that it never was "in my body", radiation is not contagious. I think she was thinking back to her grandpa who had radioactive seeds implanted for his prostate cancer and he couldn't be around kids or certain people. Anyways, I didn't have that, but she never bothered to ask me. Anyways, I am a little upset that she didn't just ask me about the radiation and that she avoided me during my cancer treatments, during a time that I would've really appreciated a little more support from her. Especially since she has been my "best friend" for over 10 years now. But I am not that upset about it. But my family, other friends and boyfriend think its really terrible and don't think I should talk to her anymore. I was venting to them about the fact that I was a little upset with her for avoiding me through this, but she admitted it to me and she felt bad about it. I don't feel like this should end a 10 year friendship. She was sincerely fearing for the safety of her baby. Would you continue a friendship with someone who did this? Or do you think I'm being stupid for staying friends with her? Because no matter what answers I get, I will still consider her a very good friend. Just wondering if my friends and fam are blowing this out of proportion or if I am being too nice. Idk. Thanks.

I am raising money for Breast Cancer - any ideas? My partner and his friends and my family all took part in Movember last year, growing moustaches throughout November to raise money for Prostate Cancer. It was a hgue success and on the last day, we arranged for a live band to play in our local, invivted everyone we knew along to see the finished products and all the women wore fake moustaches to support their men. It was a huge success. This year, the ladies want to do something and we have named it 'Octobra'. We are going to do something for the whole of October and get sponsored for it. I have a company that will sponsor our t-shirts that we can wear on the last day to do a similar social event. The only idea we can come up with so far is that we all wear something pink every day for the whole of October - none of us are particularly girly so it's quite a good one and it must be something obviously seen. Has anyone got any other ideas of challenges we could do for a month that might get us more money for the charity? Thanks!

Need MO vember Quiz Songs? Hello all, I have a charity quiz next week, and I am trying to compile a music round, and since the charity is Movember, I want to link all the artists / songs to the following 3 criteria..... 1. Have November in title 2. Have "Mo" in the song (eg. One "Mo"ment in time) 3. Singer has a moustache I've so far got "November rain" - Guns and Roses, "One Moment in time" - Whitney, Don't stop me now - Queen, and Scatman by Scatman john (he had a Mo)..... Now need to get another 12 for the quiz. Thanks in advance for supporting the cause and helping with the Quiz, which is supporting Prostate Cancer. G

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? "MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk. Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt. Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal." You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill. There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader: If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood. Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution? I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies. How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'. Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. WHAT IS MILK? Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning. IS ALL MILK THE SAME? Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal? Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one. Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans. Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations. Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves. Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect? In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared. In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding. In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk. WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how. The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32). Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows. As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have." Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990). What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces. Let's focus in on this because it’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion. One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc. IT GETS WORSE Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination). A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles: 1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15 There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant. A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said: Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end? In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented: It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases. In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation: I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved. OTHER PROBLEMS Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions. All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.". Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study: We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal. The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease. The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past? LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF! I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014). This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health. As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California. What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles? If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall. An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own. What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one: 1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985 In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990. One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)! An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930. Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow: The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane. This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease. Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma. There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote." The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows." The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must. The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993. A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom. OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE? Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators. Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine. Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk. For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference. There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality. WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk? It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins). Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below. Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk. For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet. To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis. If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health. THE PROTEIN MYTH Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in. As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein. For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary! Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals. IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE? Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years. What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose. Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it? Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people. How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.) What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s). One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders. The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy. LOW FAT One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?" The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water! "Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk. SUMMARY To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for". I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s. So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety. Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too. It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

annoying breast cancer awareness? Why is it that so many people make such a big deal about breast cancer awareness? there are so many other diseases out there that people can talk about, why isn't there prostate cancer awareness month. I think it is all annoying and WAY over done, why make something out to be worse than it is and put to much emphasis on it. Stop all this annoying pink ribbon crap.. it's on EVERYTHING I'm about to stop buying anything that remotely supports it cause it's too over done, I'm to that point, is anyone else with me on this??? Matthew, Prostate cancer doesn't just effect the old it can also affect young and it is very devistgating to a family because it is detected less and therefore kills more, I'm not just talking about prostate cancer, that was just a example what about heart disease month or lung cancer awareness, Why involve businesses to have that stupid pink ribbon, talk about it amoungst yourselves Why involve everyone that doesn't care about it!!

Will Senator Dodd go to the UK or Canada for surgery? Since he supports their systems so much, which country will he go to for surgery on his prostate cancer?

Is it wrong that MOST feminist or even just women only take a big issue only when women are the victim? I say this cause its ridiculous that there could be a group thats just supporting one gender and barely acknowledge or even totally ignore when men are in a victim role....For example parental fraud, mothers getting the kids in divorce 90% of the time, getting falsely accused of rape, not nearly as much support for prostate cancer as breast cancer even though PC is diagnosed more, women getting lower sentences for same crime, men get hit funny women get hit abuse, and the list goes on and on. But MOST women/ feminist very rarely try to help men out and that disappoints me. And thats why many women/ and most feminist are hated on by guys. THEY ACT LIKE THEY DONT CARE MEN ARE ON THE PLANET. You cant say that to guys though you will find many men on breast cancer donation runs, rallying for equal pay, and more right for women. They are out helping women more than themselves even though they dont agree 100%. We...( okay not all some are sexist piggies) in large, support both genders. Why cant women/feminist do the same ?

Absolutely the best chart u have seen in years.? Absolutely the best chart I have seen in years. SHARE THIS CHART Apples Protects your heart prevents constipation Blocks diarrhea Improves lung capacity Cushions joints Apricots Combats cancer Controls blood pressure Saves your eyesight Shields against Alzheimer's Slows aging process Artichokes Aids digestion Lowers cholesterol Protects your heart Stabilizes blood sugar Guards against liver disease Avocados Battles diabetes Lowers cholesterol Helps stops strokes Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin Bananas Protects your heart Quiets a cough Strengthens bones Controls blood pressure Blocks diarrhea Beans Prevents constipation Helps hemorrhoids Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer Stabilizes blood sugar Beets Controls blood pressure Combats cancer Strengthens bones Protects your heart Aids weight loss Blueberries Combats cancer Protects your heart Stabilizes blood sugar Boosts memory Prevents constipation Broccoli Strengthens bones Saves eyesight Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure Cabbage Combats cancer Prevents constipation Promotes weight loss Protects your heart Helps hemorrhoids Cantaloupe Saves eyesight Controls blood pressure Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer Supports immune system Carrots Saves eyesight Protects your heart Prevents constipation Combats cancer Promotes weight loss Cauliflower Protects against Prostate Cancer Combats Breast Cancer Strengthens bones Banishes bruises Guards against heart disease Cherries Protects your heart Combats Cancer Ends insomnia Slows aging process Shields against Alzheimer's Chestnuts Promotes weight loss Protects your heart Lowers cholesterol Combats Cancer Controls blood pressure Chili peppers Aids digestion Soothes sore throat Clears sinuses Combats Cancer Boosts immune system Figs Promotes weight loss Helps stops strokes Lowers cholesterol Combats Cancer Controls blood pressure Fish Protects your heart Boosts memory Protects your heart Combats Cancer Supports immune system Flax Aids digestion Battles diabetes Protects your heart Improves mental health Boosts immune system Garlic Lowers cholesterol Controls blood pressure Combats cancer kills bacteria Fights fungus Grapefruit Protects against heart attacks Promotes Weight loss Helps stops strokes Combats Prostate Cancer Lowers cholesterol Grapes saves eyesight Conquers kidney stones Combats cancer Enhances blood flow Protects your heart Green tea Combats cancer Protects your heart Helps stops strokes Promotes Weight loss Kills bacteria Honey Heals wounds Aids digestion Guards against ulcers Increases energy Fights allergies Lemons Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin Stops scurvy Limes Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin Stops scurvy Mangoes Combats cancer Boosts memory Regulates thyroid aids digestion Shields against Alzheimer's Mushrooms Controls blood pressure Lowers cholesterol Kills bacteria Combats cancer Strengthens bones Oats Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer Battles diabetes prevents constipation Smoothes skin Olive oil Protects your heart Promotes Weight loss Combats cancer Battles diabetes Smoothes skin Onions Reduce risk of heart attack Combats cancer Kills bacteria Lowers cholesterol Fights fungus Oranges Supports immune systems Combats cancer Protects your heart Straightens respiration Peaches prevents constipation Combats cancer Helps stops strokes aids digestion Helps hemorrhoids Peanuts Protects against heart disease Promotes Weight loss Combats Prostate Cancer Lowers cholesterol Aggravates Diverticulitis Pineapple Strengthens bones Relieves colds Aids digestion Dissolves warts Blocks diarrhea Prunes Slows aging process prevents constipation boosts memory Lowers cholesterol Protects against heart disease Rice Protects your heart Battles diabetes Conquers kidney stones Combats cancer Helps stops strokes Strawberries Combats cancer Protects your heart boosts memory Calms stress Sweet potatoes Saves your eyesight Lifts mood Combats cancer Strengthens bones Tomatoes Protects prostate Combats cancer Lowers cholesterol Protects your heart Walnuts Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer boosts memory Lifts mood Protects against heart disease Water Promotes Weight loss Combats cancer Conquers kidney stones Smoothes skin Watermelon Protects prostate Promotes Weight loss Lowers cholesterol Helps stops strokes Controls blood pressure Wheat germ Combats Colon Cancer prevents constipation Lowers cholesterol Helps stops strokes improves digestion Wheat bran Combats Colon Cancer prevents constipation Lowers cholesterol Helps stops strokes improves digestion Yogurt Guards against ulcers Strengthens bones Lowers cholesterol Supports immune systems Aids digestion

BEST TIPS For Your HEALTH? apples Protects your heart prevents constipation Blocks diarrhea Improves lung capacity Cushions joints apricots Combats cancer Controls blood pressure Saves your eyesight Shields against Alzheimer's Slows aging process artichokes Aids digestion Lowers cholesterol Protects your heart Stabilizes blood sugar Guards against liver disease avocados Battles diabetes Lowers cholesterol Helps stops strokes Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin bananas Protects your heart Quiets a cough Strengthens bones Controls blood pressure Blocks diarrhea beans Prevents constipation Helps hemorrhoids Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer Stabilizes blood sugar beets Controls blood pressure Combats cancer Strengthens bones Protects your heart Aids weight loss blueberries Combats cancer Protects your heart Stabilizes blood sugar Boosts memory Prevents constipation broccoli Strengthens bones Saves eyesight Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure cabbage Combats cancer Prevents constipation Promotes weight loss Protects your heart Helps hemorrhoids cantaloupe Saves eyesight Controls blood pressure Lowers cholesterol Combats cancer Supports immune system carrots Saves eyesight Protects your heart Prevents constipation Combats cancer Promotes weight loss cauliflower Protects against Prostate Cancer Combats Breast Cancer Strengthens bones Banishes bruises Guards against heart disease cherries Protects your heart Combats Cancer Ends insomnia Slows aging process Shields against Alzheimer's chestnuts Promotes weight loss Protects your heart Lowers cholesterol Combats Cancer Controls blood pressure chili peppers Aids digestion Soothes sore throat Clears sinuses Combats Cancer Boosts immune system figs Promotes weight loss Helps stops strokes Lowers cholesterol Combats Cancer Controls blood pressure fish Protects your heart Boosts memory Protects your heart Combats Cancer Supports immune system flax Aids digestion Battles diabetes Protects your heart Improves mental health Boosts immune system garlic Lowers cholesterol Controls blood pressure Combats cancer kills bacteria Fights fungus grapefruit Protects against heart attacks Promotes Weight loss Helps stops strokes Combats Prostate Cancer Lowers cholesterol grapes saves eyesight Conquers kidney stones Combats cancer Enhances blood flow Protects your heart green tea Combats cancer Protects your heart Helps stops strokes Promotes Weight loss Kills bacteria honey Heals wounds Aids digestion Guards against ulcers Increases energy Fights allergies lemons Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin Stops scurvy limes Combats cancer Protects your heart Controls blood pressure Smoothes skin Stops scurvy mangoes Combats cancer Boosts memory Regulates thyroid aids digestion Shields against Alzheimer's mushrooms Controls blood pressure Lowers cholesterol Kills bacteria Combats cancer Strengthens bones

After reading the following, can you still support the idea of "universal healthcare" (socialized medicine) Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help. Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told FOX News. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" The letter, which has been sent to other terminal patients throughout Oregon, follows guidelines established by the state legislature. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html Don't even bother bashing Fox News. This is a real person, with a real disease. glenford: I'm not going to report your answer, because I want for everyone to read it, so that they might understand what a brilliant person you are. Priceless! I've never been called a "motron" or a "dumass" before!

Is there any proven facts of Green Tea being good for you? The FDA doesn't think so: On June 30, 2005, in response to "Green Tea and Reduced Risk of Cancer Health Claim", they stated: "FDA concludes that there is no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for green tea consumption and a reduced risk of gastric, lung, colon/rectal, esophageal, pancreatic, ovarian, and combined cancers. Thus, FDA is denying these claims. However, FDA concludes that there is very limited credible evidence for qualified health claims specifically for green tea and breast cancer and for green tea and prostate cancer, provided that the qualified claims are appropriately worded so as to not mislead consumers." [11] On May 9, 2006, in response to "Green Tea and Reduced Risk of Cardiovascular Disease", they concluded "there is no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for green tea or green tea extract and a reduction of a number of risk factors associated with CVD

is there any problem, if someone at age 20 take one day mens' 50+ advantage? i am just wondering if there is any side effects if someone at age 20 take one-a-day mens' 50+ advantage ..i know its made for 50 and above ..but i am just curious to know .here is the description comparison: One-A-Day® Men's 50+ Advantage contains twice the Lycopene and five times the Selenium of Centrum® Silver® to support prostate health and it provides key nutrients to support heart health, eye health, and healthy blood pressure.* Plus, it contains Ginkgo to promote memory and concentration.* i mean the extra vitamins are there to help those areas of health that i'm worried about anyway in the future (prostate cancer, vision getting worse, memory) so would there be any negative consequences? on the othe rhand i find that if i don't eat pretty heavily before taking these, it upsets my stomach slightly. 2 years ago (Tiebreaker) Additional Details Complete Multivitamin Plus More† to Support:* * Memory and Concentration with Ginkgo * Prostate Health with Lycopene, more† Selenium, Vitamin E and Zinc * Heart Health with Vitamins B6, B12, C, E and Folic Acid * Healthy Blood Pressure†† with Calcium, Magnesium and Vitamin C * Eye Health with Vitamins E, A, C and Zinc Does Not Contain Iron Amount per Serving % Daily Value Total Carbohydrate < 1 g < 1%* Vitamin A (20% as beta-carotene) 2500 IU 50% Vitamin C 120 mg 200% Vitamin D 400 IU 100% Vitamin E 33 IU 110% Vitamin K 20 mcg 25% Thiamin (B1) 4.5 mg 300% Riboflavin (B2) 3.4 mg 200% Niacin 20 mg 100% Vitamin B6 6 mg 300% Folic Acid 400 mcg 100% Vitamin B12 25 mcg 417% Biotin 30 mcg 10% Pantothenic Acid 15 mg 150% Calcium (elemental) 120 mg 12% Iodine 150 mcg 100% Magnesium 100 mg 25% Zinc 22.5 mg 150% Selenium 105 mcg 150% Copper 2 mg 100% Manganese 4 mg 200% Chromium 180 mcg 150% Molybdenum 90 mcg 120% Potassi

Is there anything wrong with taking multivitamins geared towards seniors? I've been taking one-a-day mens' 50+ advantage because some of the amounts are higher that i'm looking for (to treat tinnitus), as well as others. here is the description comparison: One-A-Day® Men's 50+ Advantage contains twice the Lycopene and five times the Selenium of Centrum® Silver® to support prostate health and it provides key nutrients to support heart health, eye health, and healthy blood pressure.* Plus, it contains Ginkgo to promote memory and concentration.* i mean the extra vitamins are there to help those areas of health that i'm worried about anyway in the future (prostate cancer, vision getting worse, memory) so would there be any negative consequences? on the othe rhand i find that if i don't eat pretty heavily before taking these, it upsets my stomach slightly. Complete Multivitamin Plus More† to Support:* * Memory and Concentration with Ginkgo * Prostate Health with Lycopene, more† Selenium, Vitamin E and Zinc * Heart Health with Vitamins B6, B12, C, E and Folic Acid * Healthy Blood Pressure†† with Calcium, Magnesium and Vitamin C * Eye Health with Vitamins E, A, C and Zinc Does Not Contain Iron Amount per Serving % Daily Value Total Carbohydrate < 1 g < 1%* Vitamin A (20% as beta-carotene) 2500 IU 50% Vitamin C 120 mg 200% Vitamin D 400 IU 100% Vitamin E 33 IU 110% Vitamin K 20 mcg 25% Thiamin (B1) 4.5 mg 300% Riboflavin (B2) 3.4 mg 200% Niacin 20 mg 100% Vitamin B6 6 mg 300% Folic Acid 400 mcg 100% Vitamin B12 25 mcg 417% Biotin 30 mcg 10% Pantothenic Acid 15 mg 150% Calcium (elemental) 120 mg 12% Iodine 150 mcg 100% Magnesium 100 mg 25% Zinc 22.5 mg 150% Selenium 105 mcg 150% Copper 2 mg 100% Manganese 4 mg 200% Chromium 180 mcg 150% Molybdenum 90 mcg 120% Potassi

my grandpa was just diagnosed with skin cancerand I want to know....? He is 80 yrs old, he has beat prostate cancer, we dont know how bad this is but, the doc says it isnt good, is there anyhope? Also do you know of any on line support services?

Am I a bad person for getting back at boyfriends who have cheated on me? Long story short. bf, father of my daughter, now ex, bf had prostate cancer. he saw a dr. out of town. He needed a ride since he got a dwi and could not drive. we had gotten back together, and were planning on marrying. I picked him up out of town. He had hickies all over his neck. I said not a word about them. But I thought of a plan. we had two hours to drive to dr. it takes months to get an appt wth this dr. one hour into drive we stoppe for gas. I told him to pump and go pay. he told me to hold the rest of his money while he went into pay. i held his two hundred dollars. he went into pay and i drove away. he put in twenty dollars of gas and had a twenty he took in. he left his smokes in the car also. He had no cell phone, no money, no smokes and was told if he missed this appt. they would reschedule it. yes cancer is bad, but so is cheating. and the money i kept was not stealing. it was child support he never paid. so am I a bad person for what I did to him oh he is still alive and this was eleven years ago. if you think this is bad. you shoudl hear what I did to my husbabd who cheated on me. oh he is long gone now also.

How many women wore Prostate Cancer ribbons on Father's Day? On Mother's Day, many men wore pink ribbons to support the fight and research against breast cancer. Many men marched in breast cancer research-funding walks and parades. Many men joined women in various charity drives for the support of breast cancer research. In fact, the Major League Baseball players (all men) used pink bats and wore pink armbands in the games that Mother's Day to support this very same cause: http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070513/capt.cd510df56c504e299e2882c9d02adfc9.marlins_nationals_baseball_rfk108.jpg Now, how many women wore prostate cancer ribbons for Father's Day? *crickets* Further evidence that feminists have influenced society to ignore men's health issues. Further evidence that women today are far more sexist than men. Let me also state that there is roughly the same amount of reported cases of prostate cancer per year as there is breast cancer cases (slightly over 200,000 for each). The number difference between the breast and prostate cancer per year are only in the few thousands. How many of you women even know what a Prostate Cancer ribbon looks like? Probably none of you. Don't worry ladies, I've provided a link: http://www.theribbonlady.com/images/light-blue-layout.jpg How many feminist women here even care? *crickets* Smahteepanties: Plenty of people in the medical field wear ribbons. At my local hospital this past Mother's Day, a Breast Cancer Research drive was thrown with people wearing pink t-shirts, including many medical physicians. There are many doctors and nurses that ran in breast cancer research marathons to raise money. Just because they work in the medical field doesn't mean they have to feel "high-and-mighty" as if they don't need to support any cancer charities. Your choice to not wear ribbons is your own preference, but does not represent the views of all medical workers. Deirdre: What makes you think that myself and other Men's Rights activists aren't all over it? I've been spreading the word about prostate cancer awareness for the past year or so. Also, you sexist statement that the only way for men to address health issues is with stereotypical macho "posturing" and "bragging" only shows your lack of maturity that you try to conceal behind your thin veil of self-righteousness. It also shows how you poke fun at serious health issues regarding men; only further proving my point of feminist women's indifference to men's health issues. You really should work on ceasing to project your own immaturity and sexism on to others. Trinitrotoluene: Yes, women are far more sexist than men. The fact that you think such an idea is far-fetched is in itself a testament to your own sexism and prejudice against men. This is a socialized phenomena -- that we associate sexism with men, just as we associate racism with whites. Here's a study from Science Daily that showed that women are more prone to being prejudice and sexist against the opposite gender than men: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219211742.htm

What charity would you donate to? Myself and my partner have decided that we would like to raise some money for charity by doing a skydive, but we are unsure of what charity people would give to. I know alot of people give to cancer and it’s obviously a very worthwhile charity. It seems that everyone has been touched by cancer in some way these days (my own father died 8 years ago of prostate cancer) I have raised money for cancer before and would now like to raise money for a different charity. I would love to know what charities you support or would give to... Thanks

My ex husband has 5 yrs to live and wants me to move back in??? I need some advice/comments/thoughts please. I left my husband of 9 years because he treated me horribly and didn't work for one day of the whole 9 yrs we were married. I totally and completely fell out of love with him. We have a 3 year old who is with me from Friday afternoon to Monday morning (because I have to work and the ex doesnt work - yes, I pay HIM support). The ex was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Given 5 to 10 years to live. Sucks. Now he wants me to move back in with him so that he can spend as much time as possible with our child. The ex and I do NOT get along. But he says that he will just deal with me in order to be with our child all the time. What do I do?? Am I totally selfish and evil if I say no?? we live like 5 mins from each other. . . Just to clarify - he has our child from Monday morning through Friday afternoon

Women versus Men? I have been thinking and us women have the short end of the stick... here is why Women- Periods Child Birth Dealing with dead beat dads who don't pay child support/don't take care of their kids Cervical Cancer(at very young ages, very hard to cure) Ovarian Cancer(at very young ages, very hard to cure) Uterine Cancer Breast Cancer(no need to say anything here) menopause HPV PID Heart Disease(#1 killer in women) Men Prostate cancer(by time they have to worry about this they are so old it doesn't matter) Colon cancer(which is VERY curable if caught early on) and OH MY GOD..............IF THEY KNOCK UP A CHICK THEY "HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF IT" OR ATLEAST PAY CHILD SUPPORT.....THAT IS NOT FAIR HUH? JUST BECAUSE I MADE THAT BABY SHOULDN'T MEAN I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF IT........ ALSO, MEN AVOID TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS LIKE THE POOR KID IS CANCER. I READ A QUESTION ON HERE WHERE A GUY ASKED "HOW CAN I GET MY CHILD SUPPORT LOWERED". EXCUSE ME? Oh yeah I did forget Yeat Infections..sorry :) Oh yeah I did forget Yeat Infections..sorry :) Actually I did not get left buy a man. Why does it always have to be the womens responsibility for birth control? People get on women more about birth control than men.

Women in the U.S. have it far better than men. Don't you agree? Women easily have it better... but you wouldn't know because they are much better at complaining about things than men. Examples: Breast cancer funding is 10x that of prostate cancer funding even though they both kill the same amount of people each year. If a woman has sex willingly and gets pregnant, she can either choose to kill the man's child via abortion or keep it and force him to pay child support for 18 years. Women have more choices in clothing: pants, skirts, dresses, shoes, etc. Women get to lie about how they look and it's somehow acceptable to everyone: lie about their figure by wearing girdles. Lie about their legs by wearing stockings, lie about their looks by using make up, lie about their height by wearing heels, etc, etc. Women, more than men, get to choose to stay at home and raise their kids - or not - and go to work. Although it is difficult to ddo either of these... they have more of a choice in society than men. Women get their meals paid for, doors opened more, books/bags picked up more than men do. Men at the office pick up and move heavy things for women all the time. Women can have multiple orgasms - not all of them - but a lot more than men. Women live longer, have the choice to go to war or not, have more funding for medical research in general, have separate gyms, changing tables in bathrooms more than men for their kids.... If you remove the cost to women's careers of them leaving work for raising their kids (which women do by CHOICE - by CHOOSING to have sex or have a kid after getting pregnant), then men and women earn the same amount for the same job. It goes on and on and on... One more thing: next time you see a commercial on TV for a product or service and the commercial has a man or woman (married or otherwise), notice that the man always plays the role of an idiot - and the woman is always the wise, responsible or all-knowing of the two.

Sexism. Have the roles reversed (slightly)? Back in the day, women were treated unjustly of being incompetent and unworthy; be that for careers or social status. Thanks in large to feminist organizations and influential characters, alot (if not all) of that has been dissolved. Woman have equal (if not greater) opportunites at careers. The stay-at-home mom is now a choice, not a commitment of being a parent. But I'm afraid that in our desire to balance the table we may have overlooked the male side. Like I said, businesses are often looking for female employees in an effort to better balance their corporation. Although this is viewed is ridding the country of sexism, it also offers females an advantage when it comes to employment in the here and now. In the media, women are portrayed as sex symbols, but also as intelligent. How many times do you see a man the butt of a joke insulting his intelligence in a commercial or tv show? In the media? There are women activist groups. As far as I can tell, there aren't any men activist groups. Or atleast, they get no attention. The most prevalent cancer charities are breast cancer charities. Breast cancer is the third deadliest cancer in the US (after lung and colon). Prostate is fourth, with ovarian rounding out the top 5. Breast cancer research raises more money than the other 4 combined (excluding cigarette awareness ads) and over 10 times as much as prostate cancer. There are marches and events in the name of breast cancer. Prostate events are few and get little attention. Two weeks ago, my local hospital created department of women's health stating that "research has shown that when women are healthy, society is healthy". Yeah, except for the other 50%. Women's studies is now a course you can take. While I support learning more about a woman's role in our history, science, and politics, it should be taught in those classes and not in a seperate class devoted entirely to women. It seems that if a man stands up for men, they are seen as sexist. If a woman stands up for women, they are a hero. Don't get me wrong, their are sexists out there, both male and female. But most are at the extreme ranges of anti-feminism and pro-feminism. I am only giving the male perspective. There is a female perspective that I'm sure is very different from mine. Also, there will be many men who don't agree with me. Either my views are wrong or their views have been influenced by today's supposed pro-equality society and values. I'd love to hear any side. I apologize for the typos. Got through it pretty fast. To both Donna and Marx - It's easier to blame the wage "gap" on sexism than it is to say women on average work at lower paying jobs than their male counterparts. When you look at a woman's pay in regards to the field they're in compared to a man's, it is more or less equal. People seem to have a problem with the numbers and manipulate them to argue their point. Women, on average, make less than males when considering every job lumped into one. When considering individual jobs, that is not the case. To Donna - Just like I don't support reparations to African American's for a past wrong-doing, I don't support reparations for women for a past wrong-doing. I have not committed an act against women. I support equality (the real definition of equality, not the one that many people believe implies revenge for women). To Merry - Where I'm from, the government has stipulated that if a man and a woman have equal or near equal qualifications, the woman will be selected for the job. When a man stands up for men like i have in this post. I'm glad that i have not been labeled that way as of yet. Perhaps there should be no women or men activists groups, and merely a group aimed at equality. Feminists are not that group.

Feminists- why do you feel "unequal" in society? Because lately, men get the shorter end of the stick. - In commercials, women are intelligent and beautiful, and men are stupid and fat. - Women have the sole choice for abortion but men are incarcerated for not paying child support for an unwanted child. -There are far more awareness and advertisements for breast cancer than there are for prostate cancer, but they both kill the same amount of people. -If a woman rapes a man its not taken seriously - If a woman hits a man then it is funny, but if a man hits a woman it is sexual assault, though there is nothing sexual about it. -Men get longer sentences for the exact same crime. -Statutory rape is only enforced when the perpetrator is male and the victim is female, but never vice versa. The list goes on, but I'm too lazy. ( another stereotype against men)

Who was the soldier who stated on here he came home from Iraq? and was not treated well. I would give you a big hug. Our soldiers, our service men deserve our love, loyalty and support. They defend our country. We owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude, but for you, those people you are fighting would be over here on our shores doing hand to hand combat with us, or worse. I pray for you often. We appreciate you. People may not agree with everything that goes on, or politically with the party, but we support you for what you do. I am so glad they caught Saddam, it would have not been done but for you people. May God bless you and your loved ones in all you do. Don't you feel bad for one minute. Remember you have been on an adrenalin high for a while now., on full alert, things are going to seem sort of low key here. It may not be they do recognize you, it is merely that it is such a low keyed atmosphere from being in a combat zone. Don't re up.Wait a little while? Calm down. God bless you. My husband served in Vietnam. He was not given a hero's welcome when he came home. I gave him a hero's welcome, he was my hero. I loved him. We dated four years. When I told him I would marry him, I didn't know he was going to Vietnam. I couldn't back out again. We were married twenty years. Had two wonderful children. He died of prostate cancer.

I had a really tough first semester. And even though I couldn't have helped it, I still feel bad.? Basically, my dad nearly died from a procedure gone horrendously wrong. He suffered from prostate cancer (went through all the chemotherapy and radiation he could take) for a year. He hasn't been working, and we have been living off of welfare (which has stopped) and food stamps. I am a college student at an Ivy League university, and I had to balance 2 jobs during my first semester to support or rather help out my family. It was really tough, and I was forced to go home nearly every weekend because things were just terrible. Because of this, I was never really on top of my studies. I wasn't as hardcore as I could have been, and I usually felt stressed and on the verge of breakdown (though I never had one). I feel bad now because my GPA definitely will not be as high as it could have been. I want to get into a good graduate school, so I know my grades have to be solid. Can anyone give me advice as to what I should do? I am just exhausted, really drained, and kind of scared for next semester. Things haven't improved at all at home, especially financially.

Are you concerned that colonoscopy is more dangerous than the establishment expects? Colonoscopy cuts out growths of a certain size within your colon. Supposedly, those larger ones are most susceptible of becoming cancerous. Makes good sense. However, would cutting such growths cause an in situ cancer (benign) to spread. I read that when you do biopsy of breast or prostate tissue, one can actually cause a benign cancer to spread and become dangerous. Why would it not work the same for the colon? In your answer please mention your field of expertise and reference supporting your opinion. These will be considered when selecting the best answer.

Must grocery store employees ask customers to make donations? My mom works for Vons and she is very disturbed by their newest fundraising campaing. She hates when people solicit her for donations at home, work or by phone. Now she is being told that she must ask every customer to make a donation to prostate cancer research. She has voiced her objections to her boss and he has told her that if she doesn't ask she will be suspended without pay. Now she feels threatened. When she called her Union representative about filing a grievence, they stated they would not support it. What can she do? Her contract does not state that she much raise funds for charities as part of her job description. Any advice?

is anyone good at photoshop that can help me with something?!?! pleaseeeeee? i want to get a tattoo to support my grandfather on my dads side, and my grandmother and grandfather on my moms side. i want to get a cancer awareness ribbon that starts one color and transforms into another. i want it to be light blue for prostate cancer then go into clear/white for lung cancer and then pink for breast cancer. i would like the blue and pink on bottoms and the clear/white on the loop area.. is anyone talented enough to help me? thank you so much here is a ribbon i found off the internet you can use as a base https://www.beacancerdancer.org/images/periwinkleribbonslant_copy_5w8h.jpg

Would someone plz post an Accomplishments BIO of OBama as I am of Hillary?