Carcinogenicity of casein

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, Heather McDougall, John McDougall, carolve

Carcinogenicity of casein

Postby TanneryGulch » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:40 pm

Heretic raised a little prickly pear of a point in another thread that I felt warranted breaking out as a separate thread. I understand Campbell's work showing that in rats exposed to aflatoxin B1, you can "turn cancer on or off like a switch" by varying the casein from 5% to 20% of calories, and the effect is so dramatic that the low-casein groups were virtually cancer-free and the high-casein groups were all dead, and that the effect disappeared when soy protein was substituted. Campbell, as we know, generalized this into the broad claim that animal protein causes cancer in dose-dependent fashion, period.

Heretic makes the rather dubious claim that it's the unique combo of aflatoxin + casein and that casein itself is harmless. I went looking for data to rebut that, but I found that in every study mentioned in The China Study aflatoxin was the carcinogen, and I also found this one, where a different carcinogen was used and casein was protective (!!): http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/r ... 12/905.pdf

This ought to be a slam-dunk for this crowd, who bases much of their rationale on Campbell. Can you find me studies showing:

1. the "on/off switch" effect of casein with a carcinogen other than aflatoxin?

2. the "on/off switch" effect with a different animal protein -- say, whey or a defatted meat protein concentrate?
TanneryGulch
 

Re: Carcinogenicity of casein

Postby landog » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:38 pm

TanneryGulch wrote: I went looking for data to rebut that, but I found that in every study mentioned in The China Study aflatoxin was the carcinogen


The China Study By T. Colin Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell, II
Page 63

"We wanted to know about the effect of casein in HBV-induced liver cancer in mice. This was a big step. It went beyond aflatoxin as a carcinogen...
...
...we had more than enough information to conclude that casein.. dramatically promote liver cancer in:
- rats dosed with aflatoxin
- mice infected with HBV"

If you continue reading you will find that casein had a similar effect on other carcinogens, as well.

I could go on, but the Campbells make the case much more effectively than I. I'd suggest that you read the book.

Hope that helps,
-dog
User avatar
landog
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:26 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Postby Heretic » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:39 pm

Deb, the second part of your sentence quoted from Wiki reads as follows:

debbie wrote:... and this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casein and the quote "When coagulated with rennet, casein is sometimes called paracasein. ... promotion of cancer and other diseases which was discovered in the 1980s by ...

... nutrition and health researcher, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study.

Can you see the problem? :thumbsdown:
User avatar
Heretic
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:10 am

Postby TanneryGulch » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:05 pm

Heh... :o Yep, there it is, with graphics and everything, plus another study showing the same effect on breast cancer with two other chemical carcinogens. Dunno how I missed it. Thanks, 'dog.

Care to retort, Heretic?


If someone doesn't mind doing the rest of my homework for me, can anyone answer #2?
TanneryGulch
 

Postby karin_kiwi » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:10 pm

TanneryGulch wrote:Heh... :o Yep, there it is, with graphics and everything, plus another study showing the same effect on breast cancer with two other chemical carcinogens. Dunno how I missed it. Thanks, 'dog.

Care to retort, Heretic?


No, he won't. :D This is one of the points that I discussed with Stan months ago. He said only casein-aflatoxin was a problem in The China Study and pretended to be interested if anyone had evidence for casein's promoting other cancers etc. As usual, once he's effectively proved wrong he abandons that argument until a later point in time.

OK, I went and found where he said this before and where a couple of us responded (his post is about halfway down the page). TanneryG, your Q2 might have some answer here as well:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... c&start=15
User avatar
karin_kiwi
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby Heretic » Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:01 am

karin_kiwi wrote:
TanneryGulch wrote:Heh... :o Yep, there it is, with graphics and everything, plus another study showing the same effect on breast cancer with two other chemical carcinogens. Dunno how I missed it. Thanks, 'dog.

Care to retort, Heretic?


No, he won't. :D This is one of the points that I discussed with Stan months ago. He said only casein-aflatoxin was a problem in The China Study and pretended to be interested if anyone had evidence for casein's promoting other cancers etc. As usual, once he's effectively proved wrong he abandons that argument until a later point in time.

OK, I went and found where he said this before and where a couple of us responded (his post is about halfway down the page). TanneryG, your Q2 might have some answer here as well:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... c&start=15


I don't think so. Where exactly and in which subject I have been supposedly "proven wrong"? Could you post the quote and the source?

What exact study do you want me to respond to in regards to casein? could you provide a link?

I too would like to see if casein is problematic for any thing other than synergistic reaction enhancing the toxicity of aflatoxins (I remind you that aflatoxins come typically from molded plant produce!). I would like to see studies showing if casein is problematic at all regardless of aflatoxins, when given with other animal protein and good fats, rather than being the only protein provided (as in rats studies). What makes me particularly suspicious about Campbell's take on is is his statement that the effect is present only when casein is above 5%. That "switching on and off" effect. Why would less than 5% of casein be OK? Perhaps the mechanism is even more complicated than he thinks. High casein is also unrealistic in human cases, they only feed pure caseine in lab rat studies.

Again please post a study link! I am not saying that it is not impossible, only that I have not seen any source other than Campbell. I do not have Campbell's book.

Bottom line is please show me some specific papers and studies confirming or disproving the points 1 and 2 from Tannery's post above, using something something other than "Dr. Campbell said so".

Heretic

---------------

P.S.

karin_kiwi,

If you are really so concerned about casein synergy with aflatoxins just stop consuming the potentially aflatoxin contaminated grains and nuts!
User avatar
Heretic
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:10 am

Postby landog » Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:35 am

Heretic wrote:Again please post a study link! I am not saying that it is not impossible, only that I have not seen any source other than Campbell. I do not have Campbell's book.

Campbell references scores of studies that form the basis for his conclusions. There are footnotes throughout the book.

Maybe you could get the book. You might learn something.
User avatar
landog
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:26 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio


Postby hope101 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:55 am

Perhaps we could do it the other way. Rather than us come up with the burden of proof for our choice--on a board advocating a low fat, whole foods plant-based lifestyle--those who still have genuine doubt could pose their question to Jeff. I suspect you'll need more than one rat study to undermine his breadth of knowledge.
User avatar
hope101
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:41 pm

Postby landog » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:36 am

hope101 wrote:Perhaps we could do it the other way. Rather than us come up with the burden of proof for our choice--on a board advocating a low fat, whole foods plant-based lifestyle--those who still have genuine doubt could pose their question to Jeff. I suspect you'll need more than one rat study to undermine his breadth of knowledge.

The questions raised here are all addressed by the Campbells in The China Study.

It is absurd to respond to someone who criticizes Campbell, yet does not even have the book.

Heretic, skeptic, JC73, et al, do make one good case – that being to implement a moderated board. It can't happen too soon, IMO.

-dog
User avatar
landog
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:26 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Postby TanneryGulch » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:09 pm

Heretic, I've got to agree with Landog on this one: you haven't even read the book??

Anyway, here are Campbell's cites:

Transgenic HBV + casein == liver cancer
Hu J, Cheng Z, Chisari FV, et al. "Repression of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transgene and HBV-induced liver injury by low protein diet." Oncogene 15 (1997): 2795-2801.

Cheng Z, Hu J, King J, et al. "Inhibition of hepatocellular carcinoma development in heptatits B virus transfected mice by low dietary casein." Hepatology 26 (1997): 1351-1354.


Chemical carcinogens + casein == breast cancer
Hawrylewicz EJ, Huang HH, Kissane JQ, et al. "Enhancement of the 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) mammary tumorigenesis by high dietary protein in rats." Nutr. Reps. Int. 26 (1982): 793-806.

Hawrylewicz EJ. "Fat-protein interaction, defined 2-generation studies." In: C. Ip, D. F. Birt, A. E. Rogers and C. Mettlin (eds.), Dietary fat and cancer, pp. 403-434. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1986.

Huang HH, Hawrylewicz EJ, Kissane JQ, et al. "Effect of protein diet on release of prolactin and ovarian steroids in female rats." Nutr. Rpts. Int. 26 (1982): 807-820.


Fish protein similarly carcinogenic to casein
O'Connor TP, Roebuck BD, Peterson F, et al. "Effect of dietary intake of fish oil and fish protein on the development of L-azaserine-induced preneoplastic lesions in the rat pancreas." J Natl Cancer Inst 75 (1985): 959-62.

(This one was really comparing n6 to n3 fat, but it is suggestive of an answer to my #2 question.)
TanneryGulch
 

Postby karin_kiwi » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Stan seems to flop about whether, or to what extent, he's read Campbell. He certainly has had no compunction to tell us what Campbell has said or not said, and I'm fairly sure I remember his saying that he has read the book. Since clicking the link I provided was too hard, here's the key post I was referring to. Sorry for the length.

karin_kiwi wrote:
Heretic wrote:
Ann685 wrote:Campbell cited and repeated studies in "The China Study" where animal protein actually caused cancer tumors to grow. Switching to plant protein caused the cancer tumors to shrink. His studies convinced me that animal protein is a key factor in cancer growth.

To me this means that even though we come in contact with carcinogenes, our chances of actually becoming diseased with cancer are very low if we eat a plant based diet.


This is not the case. Campbell investigated carcinogenic effects of aflatoxins (a type of mold toxins) present sometimes in certain plant produce like nuts or grains, that are made worse by the presence of casein (milk protein) but not by other proteins. Thus his conclusions may be applicable to aflatoxins in conjunction with casein but not to animal protein in general. In addition, Campbell himself is supposed to have published the following data after his China Study research which does not seem to support the theory that animal protein were any more correlated with cancer than plant protein:

Campbell's publication wrote:FIGURE 1: Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers

Carbohydrates +23% [HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH CANCER]

Fiber +21%

Total Calories +16%

Total Protein +12%

Plant Protein +12%

Fish Protein +7%

Animal Protein +3%

Total Lipids -6%

Fat % Calories -17%

Fat(questionnaire) -29%* [MOST NEGATIVE CORRELATION WITH CANCER]

(*=statistically significant)


Capitalized text in square brackets are my comments.
Stan (Heretic)

---------------

Junshi, Chen, T. Colin Campbell, Li Junyao, and Richard Peto, Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990


Stan, the actual book I think you're referring to is "Mortality, Biochemistry, Diet and Lifestyle in Rural China: Geographic Study of the Characteristics of 69 Counties in Mainland China and 16 Areas in Taiwan" published in 2006. This book is simply raw data tables and anyone with half a brain knows that looking at a single table means nothing, especially out of context. You are in possession of a full brain and therefore know that doing this kind of thing is manipulative and done only with the intention of making a point that cannot be made with a fuller picture.

Unless you're going to say that Campbell is deliberately misleading people with fraudulent interpretation of the data, then The China Study should be regarded as what Campbell believes as a result of his entire career in the field - including interpretation of all the data and tables in that book. His position on animal protein (not just casein) is quite clear and based on many forms of protein.

You are only partly right about the casein - that was the protein in the rat studies. However, the human observations that prompted the rat studies showed a relationship between cancer formation in response to aflatoxin and total animal protein intake - not just casein. In The China Study, Campbell very clearly implicates animal protein in general (not just casein, which was not generally consumed by the Chinese in the study) as a primary factor that affects cancer and mortality. Animal protein intake even at the very low levels consumed by the Chinese (relative to Americans) had a strong correlation. I think that you know this and are choosing not to acknowledge it because it doesn't meet your agenda. As usual.

This is not a McDougall debate board, this is a McDougall support board. I'm getting very sick of the challenges and the posts supporting diets that are totally inconsistent with the McDougall Program. Not just from Stan, although he's by far the worst offender. He's not even pretending to seek information - he's just furthering his goal of promoting his own views and creating discord. Please be clear I'm not talking about posts from people who are genuinely questioning and seeking information, which of course are appropriate.

I personally wish that these anti-program posts could be removed or at least relocated to a special board dedicated to being a place to debate or challenge aspects of the program. I'm seeing more and more people utterly confused because of these posts, some of which are coming from people who are generally fairly well-informed and have promoted their healthcare/medical qualifications here - even though some of what they say directly contradicts McDougall (yeah, Geoffrey, this is you, too - though I do appreciate that your posts are well-intentioned, unlike Stan's). Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but the McDougall Support Board is not the place to promote alternative views and undermine the program. This kind of discussion is inappropriate for a place that contains lots of people who've barely skimmed the McDougall website, much less read any of the books properly, and are looking to the people here to inform them about what the McDougall program is and how it helps.

I don't want this to turn into the kind of place it was when it was at VS.

Rant over. :oops:
User avatar
karin_kiwi
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby TanneryGulch » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:18 pm

Karin: Your link merely reiterated the fact that Campbell generalized from casein to all animal proteins in his lay book; I already acknowledged that up at the top. Do you have something to add to this discussion? If so, by all means, please do. (E.g., some experimental evidence of an animal protein other than casein having the same "on/off switch" effect would be great!) If not, please stop derailing it with rants (your own term) about Stan's MO, which posts you want censored, or your delusional (and contradictory) notion that this Discussion Board is somehow a "support" board on which discussion is prohibited. If you're so interested in support, help this McDougaller (me) understand that he has good reasons for eating the way he does. That's the only form of support I'm interested in.


Stan: Your move. I've saved you the 15 bucks for the dang book and typed out the citations by hand. Either respond to these studies or concede that casein promotes cancer with any one of several initiating carcinogens, not just aflatoxin -- whereupon you will don a scarlet 'C' and eat an entire 1.5lb jumbo sweet potato in the town square. :D
TanneryGulch
 

Postby momof4 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:06 pm

TanneryGulch wrote: If you're so interested in support, help this McDougaller (me) understand that he has good reasons for eating the way he does. That's the only form of support I'm interested in.


Maybe that's where the problem is. I see no need to try to persuade you, or anyone else, to eat this way. I make that very clear to friends that I talk with that are interested in learning what I'm doing. I don't debate them. I tell them if they want to pursue the Weston A Price foundation, Nourishing Traditions, Atkins, etc, to go ahead, but that it's not what I believe in. I don't make it a struggle, or take it personally, if they chose another way.

There's so much information on this website--for free!!--that I think if many of the people were really sincere in trying to find out information rather than argue (which is what they're really doing, which I don't call debating), they'd have many of their questions answered. Dr McDougall has done a wonderful job of showing people why they should eat this way, and it's foolish to ask us to try to make you believe it.

I think that's why many of the supporters of this program are getting tired of this round-and-round stuff. At some point you need to take in the facts and use discernment for what you're going to believe, and stop putting the burden on other people to make your own decisions.
momof4
 

Tannery

Postby f1jim » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:59 pm

You are chiding Karin for derailing a thread????? You???? of all people? Did I use enough question marks for you? One might view the mirror before making those charges.
As to the use of the word "support" I have personally heard Dr. McDougall use those exact words in directing people to this forum at his facility in Santa Rosa. Perhaps he just made an error in speech. Perhaps he finds them synonymous. But you would know better, wouldn't you? You mentioned in another post that Dr. McDougall didn't seem like the type to back down from a good fight... I maintain he didn't set up this forum as an arena for fighting. You, and the late-comers from the Diet Debate Board have done that for him.
As far as your ability to look up "discussion" in the dictionary, I am impressed. How long did it take you to master that skill? I might inform you that a "discussion" requires good faith on both parties...Something lacking from Heretic and JC, whose obvious reasons for being here is to convince us we are wrong. Also because the forums they have inhabited in the past are functionally dead form their style of "discussion." They are simply here to sample the fresh meat(pardon the pun). Please re-read your scathing of Karin and see if you don't see in yourself, what you accuse me of, on a regular basis. Also look up the word smarmy.
f1jim
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11285
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Next

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.