"No Significant Difference": The True Story of Cancer Cows, the FDA & Population Control (rbST)

For the third time in a week, I noticed this annoying little disclaimer on a dairy product:

“No significant difference has been found in milk from cows treated with artificial hormones” - It bothered me that companies that don’t use a product have to advertise for the product they declined. As I scowled at the advert, I wondered, “Why did they choose this wording? Why didn’t they just say no difference? What does Significant actually mean?” - we assume it means great, large or powerful, but is that really what it means? I looked it up and discovered that actually isn’t the definition of the word. Significant is defined as having or likely to have a major effect.

So, when we look back at the message printed on the cheese (because we live in one big insane asylum where medical disclaimers are slapped on little cheese snacks for products they don’t contain), what it says is, “Dairy from cows jabbed full of a lab made concoction to make them grow faster and produce more milk is probably fine. Just eat it.”

My curious mind wondered how this text on my cheese came to be, so I Googled it. But instead of getting an answer, what I received was page after page of “It’s safe, we pinky promise!”. When I switched to Brave browser, I was told more of the same; the FDA had meticulously reviewed this miracle product and there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned with - but I know that when they go to these lengths to bury something, there’s a whole lot more to the story, this means more digging was required.

I first came across a publication with a creepy title, hosted on USDA.gov, written in 1998:

The file is about rbST, “a laboratory version of bST, a growth hormone that stimulates milk production in cows”. More specifically, the document is about the stupid public and its stupid outrage over Science doing something as simple as pumping cows full of artificial hormones to increase dairy industry profits output. It goes on to say that, despite people being livid that they were tinkering with the food supply, it didn’t hurt the demand for milk therefore it was worth it in the end (like your mother always told you, never give up and you will succeed).

It goes on to outline the history of the approval process and dealing with the plebs, but what I found interesting about this file is that it doesn’t really say who created this super-duper-safe BST. And upon a quick skim over the six page publication, it doesn’t say who created the magical rBST either… quite odd for a document outlining the history of the significant great product, eh? Further research was required, and within a matter of 20 minutes, I found myself at the intersection of WTFville and What The Hell is Going on Here town. Let me show you what those cross streets look like…

I needed to track down the original studies which showed the safety of BST because those will show us everything. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is usually a good place for a first internet search if you know what you are looking for; keywords like Rockefeller, Pfizer, The World Bank, United Nations and so on. Once you get a lead on who is behind something and the year it happened you can leave Wiki and start a real document dig. Here’s what Wikipedia says about BST,

“The FDA approved it in 1993, and required that any milk advertising that its cows were not treated with rBST include the disclaimer "The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST treated and non-rBST treated cows". - ok, now we have a year, 1993. Step 1 is mostly complete.

On Wiki we also learn that “the FDA,^[14] World Health Organization,^[6] and National Institutes of Health^[15] have independently stated that dairy products and meat from rBST-treated cows are safe for human consumption. The American Cancer Society issued a report declaring, "The evidence for potential harm to humans [from rBGH milk] is inconclusive.” - alright, there’s some secondary players (maybe I should change that to “secondairy” players? Har har har).

Now that we have obtained a year, we can ditch Wiki (because I don’t trust it at all) and hunt for the actual safety studies that lead to the 1993 approval.

On FDA.gov there’s a page called BST:

And this page is even less informative than Wiki. “FDA approved a bST product in 1993 with the brand name “Posilac™” (sometribove zinc suspension) after determining that its use would be safe and effective.” - now we have a drug name and a cliché; a two-for-one bargain.

If we scroll down to the very bottom of the page, buried right before the footer, here we find what we were looking for:

Since we should always start with the oldest document, here’s the 10-page long Finding of No Significant Impact paper:

Mmmhmm… Monsanto. The same people who made cancer corn that reduces fertility…. corn that could be put into every single corn-based processed food product. And if you just want a serving of corn because you’re a clean eater, on a diet or a vegan, you can have your sperm count lowered too because Monsanto is an equal opportunity employer deployer.

To summarize where we are before moving forward, in 1993, Monsanto got FDA approval for their hormone injection called POSILAC which sounds so much like Prilosec that it’s driving me crazy. But just to be clear, this is POSILAC:

And this is Prilosec:

So, in the Monsanto paper, which was submitted to the FDA to gain the 1993 approval, we get to see the studies they conducted to prove this wonderful injection was safe (and effective!). Do you want to hear how such information was determined? Oh trust me, you will want to hear it. Maybe when I am banned from Substack I will make this into an illustrated children’s book because it’s that enjoyable of a story.

The tale begins with whom decided Prilosec POSILAC was safe. You’re thinking, “The good doctors of the FDA?”. No.

“The good doctors of a different 3-or-4-letter agency?”. No.

“Bill Gates?”. Always a good guess, but no.

“The CIA?”. Nope.

“Freemasons?! It’s always the Freemasons!”. You already guessed CIA and I already said No.

The entity who determined BST was safe was…*drum roll*…

…The Center for Veterinary Medicine.

“Oh… I thought you meant safe for humans” - as did I. But surely there was human testing, so let’s keep reviewing this document so we can learn more.

In the paper, we see that the product was going to be manufactured through fermentation (Hey! The disgusting “vitamin” manufacturing process makes yet another appearance!). What were they going to ferment to make this incredible injection? E. coli. Well technically, it’s the parent strain of E. coli, so although it’s a Class 1 Agent according to the National Institutes of Health's "Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules" (which are toyed with in Biosafety Level 1 labs), it’s totally cool.

So, Monsanto was going to f*ck around with the genes of E. coli’s mom and make an injection to jab into cows that produce the milk that the United States consumes, what could possibly go wrong? According to this paper, nothing!

I scroll past all of the blah, blah, blah about how wonderful E. coli is and how they are going to alter it because, quite frankly, I don’t care, just show me the safety studies. I’m now on page four of ten and still no studies.

On page 6 we learn people working with this marvelous product (meaning the cow jabs) shouldn’t come in contact with it. We also learn dairy farmers are going to get kits with free postage so they can mail their used syringes back to Monsanto - see, I told ya they were generous!

Page 7 of 10 is “Impacts on Land Use and the Dairy Industry”, in which they lay out how the government can offer “higher price support” which will “favor greater numbers of cows, higher BST absorption rates and greater potential for effects on the dairy industry due to BST use” - so we are going to use tax dollars to fund this? Yup. It will no longer be from farm to table, it will be from your pocket to farm to table, which doesn’t have as nice of a ring to it, now does it?

The last page of the document deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the scheme but goes on to say the amount is trivial… and that is where the paper ends. “So no safety studies?” - Not in that one. Ok, time to look at the other 1993 document:

This one is 2,668 pages long, of which we are able to see 124 of them. It covers the same info as the 10-page document but goes into further detail. On page 82, they state the E. coli strains they are using can survive in water for 15 days, soil for 20, live in sewage for 10 but they absolutely cannot live inside of animals… however, if you continue reading, you discover that many of the studies they used were not from the 1990s, in fact, they weren’t even from the 1980s or ‘70s… they date back to the 1950s:

---

---

But they did perform some studies leading up to the 1993 approval. Would you like me to tell you about them? “You bet!” - excellent.

In 1986 they injected BST into a chicken. Want to know what happened? It grew fast.

They then fed BST to a chicken. It also grew fast. They say that it grew so damn fast that, in only a week, it was putting on weight and demonstrating bone growth faster than Rosie O’Donnell. However, in the second week it didn’t show rapid growth. Because science does what science does, they used this to determine that the chicken built up an immunity to the concoction, therefore it must be injected to work and as long as it isn’t injected, it has no effect (I rolled my eyes too).

“Then they fed it to humans, right?” - hold your horses! Or more appropriately, your turtles, because those were the next study. They jabbed up green sea turtles and those grew fast.

“Then humans?” - NO! Then they stuck needles in carp, followed by the next most logical thing… Eels! They fed American Eels BST and they grew… fast. They wrote, “…it can be calculated that 2 ppm corresponds to a dose of approximately 0.95 mg/kg per 10 days or 0.667 mg/kg per week” - only 2 parts per million, eh? I’m no mathematician, but that sounds like a tiny amount is required.

“But then, surely then, they fed it to people?” - not at this point, sweetheart. Now it was time for salmon. Years worth of salmon BST studies occurred and guess what those salmon did? Spoiler alert: they also grew… and they did it at a brisk pace. In fact, the heroic men in white lab coats discovered that the best way to make a big, fat salmon was to feed them the growth hormones when they were babies. Hmmm…

Next came the rat studies. Then, after they put growth hormones into all of Noah’s Ark, it was time for the most important studies of all. “The human-“ NO! For cryin’ out loud, I said the most important studies! This meant the Missouri River water studies!

Long story short, they put some good ol’ river water into a bucket (beaker, vial, flask, Petri dish, BPA-free water bottle, whatever science puts river water in) and squirted their miracle serum in it. Then, to perfectly mimic nature, they kept the river water at a consistent 78.8F (26C) for the entirety of the study. Warning: this next part of the story is a real tear jerker:

After a week, the little E. coli moms started dying by the tens-of-thousands. Come the 15-day mark, billions were dying; a true genocide of E. coli parents.

When the study ended, the lab men were shocked, they couldn’t believe what they had witnessed. They collectively gasped as they thought to themselves, “It’s all almost the exact same!”. “There were no significant differences” between the E. coli water and the normal river water, they said with a grin, as they stuffed their sleigh full of all of the Christmas gifts under the trees in Whoville.

…“No significant? Where have we heard that phrase before?”, you ask. I toss you a bag of $9 snacking cheese:

“… Now that they had all the children’s presents in their sleigh, now was time for the studies on humans?” - Nope. Next they found that, “BST is unlikely to have any significant effect on land use and will have no significant environmental impact.”.

“…but then?” - Then they asked the government to subsidize the program.

“…and then?” - The document ends. Did you enjoy your trip to What The Hell is Going on Here town?

Those are the two 1993 documents on the FDAs site. “Well that was depressing!” - but there’s good news! Back in 2008, Monsanto decided to sell their cow-tampering business.

Why? To focus on GMO crops. YAY! But perhaps they actually decided to sell because all of Europe was like “Hell no, this ain’t coming here!”. But the EU also decided that, although European farmers won’t be stabbing their European cows with Monsanto potions, the United States and the 20 other countries that high-fived growth hormones can import their dairy (because it was important that all the good people of the continent had equal access to tainted foods, you know?). The British citizens learned of this and said “Blimey! That’s a bunch of Codswallop!”, then ate fish and chips with actual chips, not fries because if it was supposed to be served with fries it would have been called fish and fries.

So how did this come to be? Well, it turns out, years before the FDA gave Monsanto the reach-around (again), Europe had access to some studies that the FDA, Wikipedia, Google, Microsoft Edge and Brave forgot to include on the topic (because there’s only so many hours in a day and adding links to studies takes forever) and these studies left the blokes of Europe unsure if plowing hormones into cows was a great idea, so they gave it the middle finger. The EU went on to publish a report outlining concerns over an increased risk of breast, prostate and colon cancer, but the FDA replied, “a little ass cancer never hurt anyone” “Have you seen our population size?!” “The fluoride isn’t working fast enough” “We feel differently.”. The studies the EU saw, you know, those ones that the FDA, Google and pals forgot to mention, included some of these:

If you want to read those studies, you will have to dig for them and probably have to pay money because the one I looked up took 15 minutes to find and only provided an it’s-totally-safe-and-there’s-a-label-on-your-cheese summary. The rest of the study required a pay-to-view account because if there’s one thing that needs to be behind lock and key, it isn’t internet porn or snuff films, it’s cow-hormone studies. But, because some awesome person did the hard work for us 20 years ago, we get to see a nice summary of those publications, for free.

According to an awesome person who wrote an eScholarship.org article, the vast majority of the safety studies were conducted by the very companies peddling the shots (kinda like how the FBI investigates themselves? - Yeah, just like that). The article says the sh*t in the jab is a “potent mitogen as well as an anti-apoptotic agent” - I have not the slightest clue what either of those words mean, but I know what this means, “Various studies implicate elevated IGF-1 levels in colon, prostate, breast, lung, skin and bladder cancers”. It then goes on to describe, in detail, how these cancers are caused by the growth hormone injections. I’m not a medical-sciency-stuff writer, I’m a hey look, the FDA is burying this stuff writer, but if you like reading about in-vivo studies, IGFs, tumorigenesis, rat livers and receptors, have at it.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Only eight years after the FDA gave Monsanto a wink and a smile, 13,000 dairy farms in America were plunging syringes into their heifers (but don’t worry, they were able to send those needles back to Monsanto free of charge!). Also, at the time, Monsanto claimed that nearly 33% of US Dairy cows were being hormone-ized with their grow-grow juice (and we thought athlete doping was a scandal…).

Fast forward to modern times and we now have three major players in the Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) game: American Cyanamid (why did they pick a name that sounds like Cyanide?), Eli Lilly (the company that made illegal drugs for the CIA so they could run around poisoning everyone), and Upjohn (I’d like to shove some bovine growth serum Upjohn’s you-know-what.). Each has developed commercial rBST products for our eating pleasure.

Remember how I wrote that two part series about the crazy history of the microwave (meaning the cute little countertop appliance, not the 5G tower pulsing you while you sleep)? I made that graph for the article showing cancer rates vs microwave purchases:

Let’s throw cancer cows on it:

I then learned that, within a few years following the 1993 documents, dairy farm subsidies started booming, exactly as outlined in the safety studies paper “safety studies” paper "studies” paper those documents:

But that’s not all. After years of injecting cows like they’re meth addicts, we would come to discover that these growth hormones cause an increase in health problems (who woulda thought?!). These conditions include infections, a greater risk of lameness and … … …

… … … (wait for it) … … …

… … … (wait for it) … … …

“serious reproductive problems”

YES! The growth hormones just so happen to decrease fertility… and just so happen to cause cancer… and just so happen to be a Monsanto creation… who just so happens to be the exact same company who patented the fertility reducing cancer corn… and it just so happens that corn would also get government subsidies. In fact, it would become the most subsidized crop from 2010 through 2019:

And it just so happens that soy now receives massive subsidies, and it too decreases fertility and is also made by, guess who? MONSANTO. And if that’s not enough of a kick in the balls for you, Monsanto also spammed the world with their glyphosate products, like RoundUp, which should be renamed RoundDown because that is what it’s doing to the population by disrupting sperm. And it just so happens that while this was going on, the fertility rates went down faster than Harvey Weinstein’s career:

Coincidence?

And since people keep claiming I don’t write my own content, here you go, today is November 3rd. I recorded this four-minute video timelapse showing the writing process of a piece I wrote this morning which is scheduled to publish on the 11th (but sometimes I change publishing order if something important comes along):

That was a really short, super easy article and it still took several hours. Longer articles can take 40+ hours each (some take that long just to research!). Not only do I wake up early but I donate my weekends to the cause of spreading Truth. Today is Sunday and, even though I don’t have to work my day job, I still woke up at 3am and I will (hopefully) have a second article finished before 8pm tonight, which is when I will call it quits so I can wake up tomorrow at 3am and do it again. It would be nice if this issue can now officially be put to bed, but I doubt it will.

NEXT READ

---

---

---

---

SOURCES, NOTES AND OTHER STUFF

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/50/4/690/2679474?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genentech

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/search/growth+hormones

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/bovine-somatotropin-bst

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5wh0g46z

https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/adafda/app/search/public/document/downloadFoi/514

https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/adafda/app/search/public/document/downloadFonsi/76

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42194/15284_aib74701_1_.pdf?v=824.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/67/1/25/2653853?redirectedFrom=fulltext