DOES MILK REALLY LOOK GOOD ON YOU? DON'T DRINK IT!

[Guest guest]

Does Milk Really Look Good On You? Don't Drink It!

 

by Ingri Cassel

 

Pasteurized, homogenized cow's milk has been promoted as the perfect

food for humans, especially for our children. This multi-generational

advertising campaign has been so successful that the industry has a

$multi-million advertising budget and a legislative lobbying

influence in congress so powerful that every child in a public school

receives a pint of milk each day -- whether he or she can pay for it

or not.

 

In 1999 the Department of Agriculture donated $200 million to

America's dairy farmers despite the fact that the wholesale price for

milk had reached the highest levels in history.

 

Most people have been so conditioned to believe that the healthy

growth of their children's bones is dependent upon receiving calcium

from processed cow's milk that they view milk commercials as more of

a public service announcement than an attempt by businessmen to sell

a product.

 

Several well-footnoted books and countless articles on the subject

show that processed cow's milk is not healthy for humans and, to the

contrary, has been linked to a wide range of physiological

complications. The list of problems that have been associated with

the consumption of milk and dairy products includes iron deficiency

anemia, allergies, diarrhea, heart disease, colic, cramps,

gastrointestinal bleeding, sinusitis, skin rashes, acne, arthritis,

diabetes, ear infections, osteoporosis, asthma, autoimmune diseases

and possibly even lung cancer, multiple sclerosis and non-Hodgkin's

lymphoma.

 

Milk and dairy products are acid-forming and mucus-producing

substances that provide the ideal bodily environment for many

children and adults to experience increased frequency of colds and

flues.

 

The milk of mammals is species-specific and cow's milk is a species-

specific food for calves. Dr. Frank Oski explains in his book Don't

Drink Your Milk!, ìThe milk of each species appears to have been

specifically designed to protect the young of that

species.....Heating, sterilization, or modification of the milk in

any way destroys the protection.î

 

There is a tremendous difference between human babies and baby calves

and a corresponding difference between the milk intended to nourish

human babies and baby calves. It takes about 180 days for a human

infant to double its birth weight, and human milk is five to seven

percent protein. It takes only 45 days for a calf to double its birth

weight and cow's milk is 15 percent protein. This protein in cow's

milk is of a different composition than that of human milk and is

poorly assimilated in the human body. The primary type of protein in

cow's milk is casein. According to Dr. John R. Christopher, N.D.,

M.H., there is up to 20 times more casein in cow's milk than human

milk which makes the nutrients in cow's milk difficult (if not

impossible) for humans to assimilate.

 

Lost in the process

 

Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes and reduces the vitamin content by

over 50 percent. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria such as

lactobacillus acidolphilus which holds the putrefactive bacteria in

check. This is why raw milk will eventually curdle and sour if

allowed to sit at room temperature. Pasteurized milk, not having any

beneficial bacteria or enzymes, eventually rots.

 

The irony of pasteurization is that it destroys the germicidal

properties of milk. Experimental animals deteriorate rapidly on

pasteurized milk. For instance, calves fed pasteurized milk die

within 60 days, as shown by numerous experiments. So why do we

pasteurize milk? 1) It extends the shelf life of milk from five days

to several weeks and 2) It enables the farmer to have lower standards

of cleanliness. The standards for certified dairy herds and milk

handlers of raw milk are considerably higher than for herds whose

milk is to be pasteurized. Homogenizing milk has been linked to the

rise in arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and heart

disease. The culprit is an enzyme in milk called xanthine oxidase

(XO) which partly survives pasteurization (40 percent). When the

cream in milk is in it's natural state, the fat globules are too

large to go through the intestinal wall and into the bloodstream.

 

Homogenization changes that by straining the fat through tiny pores

under great pressure. XO attaches to the fat molecules (now reduced

in size but increased in amount a hundred times) which are now small

enough to get into the bloodstream and do its damage.

 

Scientists have discovered that a significant amount of XO is present

in areas of hardened and blocked arteries. XO is not present in human

milk. In clean, raw cow's milk. XO is not absorbed by the intestines.

 

Your bones are a mineral bank for your body storing 99 percent

calcium, 85 percent phosphorus and 60 percent magnesium. When mineral

levels are low in the blood, osteoclasts break down bone to free up

these minerals and deposit them in the blood. Excessive animal

protein intake increases the need for calcium to neutralize the acid

formed from digesting animal protein. This indicates that the

drinking of processed milk destroys bone in the process of digestion -

- the opposite of what the Dairy Farmer's Association of America, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration

has been telling the American public for generations.

 

Conditioning the American public to believe that processed cow's milk

is beneficial, if not critical to growing healthy bodies is not

unlike conditioning the American public to believe that fluoride

prevents tooth decay.

 

Jethro Kloss, author of the internationally recognized and revered

herbalist resource guide ìBack to Edenî stated in 1939 that, ìCow's

milk is unfit for human consumptionî and causes the symptoms of

ìintestinal auto-intoxication.î

 

The Monsanto connection

 

In 1994 the FDA approved the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin

(rBST -- better known as bovine growth hormone -- BGH), a genetically-

engineered hormone manufactured by Monsanto that increases milk

production in cows by 10 percent to 25 percent. The milk from cows

treated with BGH contains elevated levels insulin-like growth factor-

1 (IGF-1), one of the most powerful growth factors ever identified.

While IGF-1 doesn't cause cancer, it definitely stimulates its

growth. Recent studies have found a seven-fold increase in the risk

of breast cancer in women with the highest IGF-1 levels, and a four-

fold increase in prostate cancer in men with the highest levels of

IGF-1.

 

BGH is banned in both Canada and Europe. BGH-treated cows are also

more likely to contract mastitis, a persistent infection of the cows'

udders. These cows are then treated with a myriad of antibiotics and

sulfa drugs. Trace amounts of these drugs as well as pus and bacteria

from the infected udders are also found in their milk. Many of these

antibiotics, even in trace amounts, can cause allergic reactions --

from mild reactions such as hives to anaphylactic shock.

 

The role of Monsanto, one of the world's largest chemical

corporations and developer of the terminator gene for seed crops, in

the willful adulteration and contamination of milk must be

considered. Monsanto, also one of the world's most prolific

polluters, intends to control the world's food supply by making sure

that farmers must come back and purchase its seed year after year

because terminator gene-containing plants will not produce viable

seed. Monsanto also developed the FDA-approved bovine growth hormone

that increases production at the expense of the cow and the health of

the adults and children who drink the milk.

 

Kloss' statement, which cannot be interpreted as ìvagueî or

confusing, was published long before Monsanto was able to further

contaminate milk with bovine growth hormone. If cow's milk was ìunfit

for human consumptionî in 1939, has Monsanto and the FDA, with the

introduction and approval of BGH, made it more or less fit than it

was before WWII?

 

Dietary alternatives to cow calcium

 

Our nutritional education in school (funded in part by the dairy

industry) taught us that dairy products are one of the four basic

food groups we ALL need for proper nutrition. Largely as a result of

this K-12 conditioning, the average American consumes 375 pounds of

dairy products a year. One out of every seven dollars spent on

groceries in the U.S. goes to buy dairy products.

 

There is no question that cow's milk contains calcium. What is in

question is how much of that calcium is made available to the body

through the digestive process.

 

We have been told all of our lives to drink plenty of milk in order

to build strong teeth and bones. Curiously, the U.S. as a whole

records the highest consumption of dairy products in the world and

also boasts the highest incidence of bone fractures and osteoporosis

in the world. In the January 1988 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology

and Metabolism, scientists reported that calcium excretion and bone

loss increase in proportion to the amount of animal protein ingested.

Animal proteins, due to their high sulfur content, alter the kidney's

reabsorption of calcium, so that more calcium is excreted on a diet

based upon meats, eggs and dairy products. People on high protein

diets excrete between 90 to 100 mg. of calcium a day.

 

The difference in health between consumers of milk and those who

choose to abstain are astounding. Dr. John R. Christopher tells the

story of a woman who came to his office with her three grown

daughters. All three daughters were encouraged by their mother to

drink lots of milk but one of the daughters had rebelled. The two

daughters who dutifully drank their milk and lots of it wore false

teeth whereas the third daughter who abstained still had all her

teeth intact.

 

Being a former La Leche League leader, I have heard numerous stories

told by mothers of the trials and tribulations of raising children.

The most frequent success stories I have heard about resolving

chronic ear infections and frequent trips to the doctor's office is

the elimination of dairy products. Over and over again these women

relate how surprised they were to have healthy kids at last. Others

have found that milk, being quite addictive, was more difficult to

eliminate totally. These families would go on a dairy binge

periodically. The following week they would pay for it with a flare

up of symptoms from the build up of mucus.

 

Dr. J.Dan Baggert, a pediatrician in Alabama, describes his

experience after recommending that ALL his patient's eliminate cow's

milk from their diets:

 

In Don't Drink Your Milk, Dr. Baggert was quoted as stating, ìDuring

the years from 1963 through 1967, I referred an average of four

appendectomy cases per year. During the past five and a half years, I

have referred only two patients for appendectomy, the last one being

three years ago. Both of these children were professed milk

guzzlers.... I do not have a single case of asthma. In fact, I have

nearly forgotten how to prescribe for them....

 

ìPerhaps the most significant thing I have learned is that Group A

beta-hemolytic streptococcus germ will not, under ordinary

circumstances, establish an infection in a child kept on an

absolutely no-milk-protein dietary regimen. I have been aware of this

for the past two and a half years and, so far, there have been no

exceptions. Anytime a patient of mine is found to have streptococcal

pharyngitis or pyoderma, we can establish by history that he ingested

milk protein within five days prior to onset of symptoms or signs

bringing him to the office....

 

ìI now admit an average of 12-14 patients per year to the hospital.

Their average hospital stay is three days. Between 1963 and 1967, I

admitted an average of 100+ patients to the hospital per year. Their

average stay was five days.î

 

Considering all this evidence, it would be difficult to still buy

into the media hype that cow's milk is the perfect food and natural

for humans to consume. So what do you drink instead? Distilled water,

herbal teas and fresh-extracted fruit and vegetable juices. And if

you are a newborn infant, there are two obvious alternatives -- the

right and left breast of your healthy mother.

 

To increase dietary calcium, consider increasing your consumption of

green leafy vegetables such as collards, kale and spinach. Adding

these greens to soups, stews and even chili is a more appetizing way

to incorporate them into your diet. Carrots and their juice are also

an excellent source of highly assimilable calcium.

 

From the February 2000 Idaho Observer:

 

http://proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

 

The article states the case quite nicely for avoiding milk. However,

the author is not a physician and does not realize that one also

needs vitamin D for calcium absorption. Vitamin D is added to nearly

all milk and is a highly important nutrient to supplement if you live

in a climate (most of us) that does not allow you access to regular

sun exposure in the winter. I advise 400 units from October to April

for anyone in this situation. Toddlers likely require half that

amount I would also advise seeking a natural, not synthetic vitamin

D.