Leukemia

[Guest guest]

Leukemia

DRINKING VIRUS-INFECTED BOVINE BODY FLUIDS

 

I thought that I was beyond being shocked

about the extent of sickness on America's

dairy farms. Today's column contains a

most disgusting revelation, guaranteed to

make you choke and gag on your next slurp

of ice cream.

 

The current issue of Hoard's Dairyman,

(Volume 147, number 4), the self proclaimed

" National Dairy Farm Magazine, " contains a

revelation that surprised even me.

 

Ads are supposed to promote products, and

I suppose this one does. It advertises a test

for one very serious cow disease. This ad

most certainly does not promote the dairy

industry's objective of trying to convince

you that their product is wholesome.

 

The editors of the February 25, 2002 issue

must have been counting the money and

ignoring possible repercussions from the

half-page ad which appears on page 150.

The ad shows cows in a field, and challenges

the reader in a bold type statement:

 

" You Can't Tell By Looking "

 

The text of the ad reveals that " most dairy

herds are affected by bovine leukemia virus. "

 

What? America drinks body fluids from cows

with leukemia?

 

I knew that bovine leukemia is a problem, but

I had no idea of the extent of that problem.

According to the ad, 89% of the dairy herds in

the United States have cows infected with leukemia.

 

In my own neighborhood of northeast Bergen County,

New Jersey, we have two major milk suppliers,

Tuscan Farms and Farmland. Each of the two dairy processors

buys and pools milk from an average of 600 New York,

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey farms. On average,

534 of the 600 farms have cows infected with leukemia.

 

What happens if they incorrectly pasteurize the milk?

What happens to those drinking raw milk? I shudder

at the thought.

 

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by breast

cancer surgeon, Robert Kradjian, M.D., to his patients:

 

" 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 pasteurised

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 No. 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 p

resent 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)!

 

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 accessÂ…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. "

 

Doesn't every consumer have the right to know this

information?

 

Please share this column with a friend.

 

 

---

-----------

 

Robert Cohen author of: MILK A-Z>

(201-871-5871)

Executive Director (notmilkman)

Dairy Education Board

http://www.notmilk.com

 

 

---

-----------

 

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these

milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or

this entire file to them.

 

Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so,

have them send an empty Email to notmilk-

and they will receive it (automatically)!