/Tell Me Again How Good Milk is for Your Kids- Homogenized milk

[Guest guest]

,

Here is what surely is a controversial article. There may be some truth to

parts of it and since you need to go off milk, I thought you might

appreciate it. There are numerous accounts of people doing better in terms

of some behaviors and certainly in terms of ear infections when not

consuming milk.

Anyway, hope this makes you feel better about going off milk. There are

some scary assocations mentioned here. As I said, i don't know which parts

are true and which parts are not, but it looks like looking into more

details could be worthwhile.

http://www.rogerkyoung.com/cowsmilk.html

MODERN HOMOGENIZED BOVINE

(COWS)MILK.....BAD

=

There are legions of studies that indicate that because

of what it is or has become thanks to modern man, how it is treated

(homogenization and

pasturization), the chemical/biological agents that are given to cows and

then passed onto the milk have created a toxic substance. Hardening of the

arteries, Multiple sclerosis, Ovarian Cancer, Vitamin D toxicity, Depletion

of the Immune system (making heavy dairy consumers much more

susceptible to diseases and infections), diabetes, allergies and many

diseases are all being

linked back to heavy dairy consumption. It has also been shown to be a very

poor source of calcium

and in some diets can actually lead to calcium depletion in bones. There

is now concern that the

Mad Cow disease can be passed onto humans via milk since the prion is not

destroyed in

either the homogenization or pasteurization

process. =

TOXIC MILK REPORT Milk Hardens Blood Vessels

" " Homogenized cow's milk transforms healthy butterfat into

microscopic spheres of fat containing xanthine oxidase (XO)

which is one of the most powerful digestive enzymes there is. The

spheres are small enough to pass intact right through the

stomach and intestines walls without first

being digested.

Thus this extremely powerful protein knife, XO, floats throughout the

body in the blood and lymph systems. When the XO

breaks free from its fat envelope, it attacks the

inner wall of whatever vessel

it is in. This creates a wound. The wound triggers the

arrival of patching plaster to seal off that wound.

The patching plaster is cholesterol. Hardening of the

arteries, heart disease, chest pain, heart attack is

the result. " "

Atherosclerosis,1989;77:251-6.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

STOP RIGHT HERE! If the foregoing statement is true, the rational

mind instantly ceases ingestion of anything with

homogenized milk in it. Certainly, you will instantly remove all such

material from your abode if children are in your care. If

you are rational; and if the statement above is

true. There are lots

of corroboration here on this site, in this page, and on two

other milk reports: Milk II and Milk III.

Homogenization is to mechanically whip whole milk so hard its

butterfat molecules separate from their natural clumps to

float in perpetual microscopic suspension throughout the water. This

distributes the flavor-bearing fat all over the water of

the milk. From a naturally totally blah white liquid with a floating

layer of rich, creamy, fatty goo, you get a mildly tasty

beverage absent anything floating above

it. But

now it's a killer poison circulating all over your body.

In your heart, your liver, your brain!

Milk is good for you?

The dairy industry food engineers invented this process to

open a huge 1930s Great Depression

market for milk, school children. Children were given a

little carton of milk with a straw for payment

of 1 cent at least once per day in

classrooms.

When they added a dollop of chocolate flavor (with lots of

sugar) to create sugared chocolate milk,

the market flew to the moon. Suddenly little children

began to experience epidemics of polio,

tooth disease, bronchial disturbances, and

head colds.

The tragedy of this systematic poisoning of little children

under the guise of good nutrition, is that the

tiny capillaries and veins of the brain close down

completely when they clog with cholesterol

patches triggered by fat globule released

xanthine oxidase.

Children arriving from this era as late teens and early twenties,

fallen Korean War soldiers in the 1950s, were autopsied and

found with hardening of the cardiovascular system,

heretofor an old man's disease.

Multiple sclerosis is suspected of coming from milk

harboring an undiscovered virus that attacks

people who have vulnerable immune systems. MS was rare

when mothers breast fed.

Neuroepidemiology 1992; 11:304-12.

Milk is heavily promoted as the best source of dietary

calcium. All false propaganda. Milk is a very

poor calcium source because the calcium/phosphorus ratio

is important for optimal use of all

bone-building minerals. Too much phosphorus will upset

the balance, which could lead to

progressive bone loss. The ideal ratio is 2.5 to 1. The

ratio in cow's milk is only 1.3 to 1. When

calcium and phosphorus reach the intestine together, they

compete for absorption. The more

phosphorus there is, the less calcium will enter the

body. Some phosphate compounds form

insoluble calcium salts in the intestine. In addition,

excess phosphorus triggers the release of

parathyroid hormone, which sucks calcium out of

bone. Atkins, MD

=

MILK by iel Mead, Natural Health- July/August

1994

Galactose. Ovarian cancer rates parallel dairy-eating

patterns around the world. The culprit seems to

be galactose, the simple sugar broken down from the milk

sugar lactose. Animals fed galactose go

on to develop ovarian cancer. According to Boston

gynecologist Cramer, women with this

cancer often have trouble breaking down

galactose.

About 10% of the U.S. population lacks the enzymes to metabolize

galactose, says Cramer. Since you can't tell whether you

lack these enzymes, unlike lactose intolerance, in which there are

clear signs of digestive upset, I just tell my patients they

don't need dairy. Yogurt, cheese, and other fermented dairy

products, as well as those containing Lactaid, are the richest

sources of galactose.

Pesticides Pesticides concentrate in milk of both farm

animals and humans. A study by the

Environmental Defense Fund found widespread pesticide

contamination of human breast milk

among 1,400 women in forty-six states. The levels of

contamination were twice as high among

the meat and dairy eating women as among

vegetarians.

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria ph Beasley, M.D., and

Jerry Swift wrote in The Kellogg Report

(The Institute of Health Policy and Practice, 1989) that

even moderate use of antibiotics in animal

feed can result in the development of antibiotic resistance

in animal bacteria, and the subsequent

transfer of that resistance to human

bacteria.

Vitamin D Toxicity Heavy consumption of milk, especially by

small children, may result in vitamin

D toxicity. Records show that dairies do not carefully

regulate how much vitamin D is added to milk.

A study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine,

April 30, 1992, showed that of forty-two

milk samples, only 12 percent were within the expected range

of vitamin D content. Testing of ten

infant formula samples revealed seven with more than twice

the vitamin D content reported on the

label; one sample had more than four times the

label amount.

Immune System Dysfunction Cow's milk proteins damage the

human immune system. Amino acids,

the units that make up proteins, are building blocks for all

living cells. When protein in our food is

properly broken down by the digestive system into amino

acids, it does no harm to the immune

system. Some food proteins, however, are absorbed into the

blood fully undigested, provoking an

immune response. Repeated exposure to these proteins

disrupts normal immune function and

may eventually lead to disease.

Cow's milk contains many proteins that are poorly digested

and harmful to the immune system.

Removing dairy from the diet has been shown to shrink

enlarged tonsils and adenoids, indicating relief

for the immune system. Doctors experimenting with dairy-free diets

often report a marked reduction in colds, flus, sinusitis,

and ear infections.

Dairy is a mucous producer and a burden on the respiratory,

digestive, and immune systems. Poorly digested bovine antigens

(substances that provoke an immune reaction) like casein become

allergens in allergic individuals. A. Oski, M.D.,

author of Don't Drink Your Milk (Teach Services,1992) and chief of

pediatrics at s Hopkins School of Medicine, cites

evidence that at least 50% of all

children

in the United States are allergic to cow's milk. Dairy

products are the leading cause of food allergy,

often revealed by diarrhea, constipation, and fatigue. Many cases of

asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved

and even eliminated by cutting out dairy. The

exclusion of dairy, however,

must be complete to see any benefit.

=

Diabetes and Autoimmune Diseases Consumption of cow's milk has been

associated with insulin-dependent diabetes. The

milk protein bovine serum albumin (BSA) somehow leads to an

auto-immune reaction aimed at the pancreas and ultimately

to impairment of the pancreas's ability to produce insulin.

According to a 1992 report in The New England Journal of

Medicine, all of 142

diabetic children studied had abnormally high levels of BSA

antibodies. This research suggests that

a combination of genetic predisposition and exposure to

cow's milk leads to juvenile diabetes.

Milk Diabetes

Juvenile onset (Type I) diabetes is caused by destruction

of the insulin-producing cells of the

pancreas. This type of diabetes is thought to occur in genetically

susceptible individuals, when an unknown environmental

factor triggers the immune system to attack the pancreas. Recent

evidence suggests that exposure to dairy products early in

life may be an important triggering

factor.

In epidemiologic studies, children who did not receive cow's

milk during the first three months of life

had 40% fewer cases of diabetes than children who did consume milk.

Animal research has provided evidence that at least

two different cow's milk proteins can promote damage to the

pancreas. Now, a group of Italian researchers has studied the

relationship between dairy-product

consumption and Type

I diabetes in nine regions of Italy. What they found is a very

close association between fluid milk consumption and the

incidence of Type I diabetes. However, cheese consumption was not

related to the incidence of diabetes. Fava D, et al.

Relationship between dairy product consumption and incidence of

IDDM in childhood in Italy. Diabetes Care 1994;

17:1488-1490

The main allergen in milk is the protein casein. If you are

allergic to this protein, it doesn't matter

whether the casein came from polluted, organic, raw or pasteurized

milk, chocolate, sour cream, ice cream, yogurt, cottage

cheese, whipped cream, any kind of cheese, or

butter. Allergic reactions here

are dosage independent, whether a thimble full or a bucket

full is ingested, the reaction will be the

same. This allergy causes chronic headache and joint pain.

Clein, NW Cow's Milk Allergy in Infants

and Children, J.Nutr Med 1991;2:201

Hunter, JO Food Allergy, Cor Enterometabolic Disorder? The

Lancet, Aug 24,1991;338:495-496

Juvonen P et al, Macromolecular Absorption and Cow's Milk Allergy.

Archives of Disease in Children, 1990; 65:300-303

Milk is a factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin & Exp

Immunology, 1981;45-2:299-304.

Milk may cause a permanent, irreversible inability to metabolize blood

sugar. Insulin-dependent Type I diabetes is also called

juvenile diabetes. Amer J. Clinical Nutrition,

1990;51:489-91.

=

Poisonous Bovine Milk

[introductory comments: There is so much to learn here. This is an

extraordinary report by a talented writer about a tiny little

mouse of a civil suit in a county courtroom in

Florida arising from a breach of

two employment contracts in violation of Florida's

Whistleblower protection act. The information

coming out of this case is catastrophic for Monsanto and the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

DECEMBER 2000 UPDATE: The two reporters won their cases. The

man failed to persuade the jury

to give him damages money; his wife however, was given about

$400,000 in damages payment by

the jury. When you finish reading this lengthy story, you

will better understand why you are on this

site, getting information TV and newspapers

won't, or cannot deliver.

Here's the gist of this long report: Monsanto's synthetic

growth hormone cow injections force a cow

to give more milk than her body normally would. This

hypering of its metabolism triggers increased

yields of IGF-1 growth hormone. This is the same protein

humans use for growth hormone.

The hormone is not destroyed during digestion of the milk,

but is instead passed directly into the

blood stream intact to hit every cell in the body within

nine minutes of entry. Elevated levels of

IGF-1 is now positively correlated to prostate cancer in men, and

breast cancer in women and presumably, breast cancer in

men, too.

Monsanto lied to the public and to the FDA. It continues to

lie. It must not ever be trusted to tell the

truth about anything. The FDA is corrupt to the point where its

officials, from the top down, willfully violate strict laws

governing it, and invent new laws to suit their

criminal mendacity. Fox News,

highly touted as the most truthful of the major networks in reporting

the news, may still be the most truthful of its peers, but

it can be completely intimidated by Big Chemical and the Clinton

Criminal Administration working in tandem to spike a

purely local broadcast. Hats off to Bob

Guccione,

publisher of Penthouse magazine, for carrying information like

this to his five million or more readers.

After repeated efforts by a platoon of New York and

Washington DC heavy-hitter political lawyers

failed to kill the simple complaint (you can read the actual

court filing on their website cited below),

the case is now scheduled for trial in Tampa

in March, 2000.

Akre and , married ace reporters, cannot lose their

jury trial if the judge stays only 25%

honest. Bottom line: If you eat or drink anything from

supermarket commercial milk after

understanding all this, you deserve whatever ills befall

you, but that's an adult decision. What about

your trusting children? There is an optimistic epilogue to this at

the bottom of this long page. Also a splendid 1878 Edgar

Degas painting to reward you with a strong dose of

eye-candy. Burton Linne]

March'99 PENTHOUSE

=

FORMULA FOR DISASTER By JEFF KAMEN

After hours of happy play with her friends and with the

three huge dogs who adore her, my high

energy 18-month old daughter loves to curl up on the living

room rug with a baby bottle full of fresh

milk. First, she fluffs up a pillow, then rolls into her favorite

kick-back position, and for a moment, triumphantly hoists the

bottle on high like an Olympian basking in the glory of winning her

first gold medal. Within two minutes, the lush liquid has

been drained from the bottle, the baby is

full, happy,

and sound asleep. Soon after, I carry her upstairs to her crib,

trailed by one of our three, 150-pound, bright-eyed

Newfoundland dogs who curls up just outside the nursery

to watch over the toddler he

loves more than anything. It would be a big mistake for an

intruder to enter our home, a fatal error

to present even a hint of menace to the

baby.

But it takes more than devoted guard dogs and loving parents

to shield kids from invisible threats --

like the increased risk of cancer that independent

scientists maintain may come from drinking milk

from cows treated with genetically engineered BGH (bovine growth

hormone), which the U.S. government poses no danger

to consumers. In fact, if it were not for a small collection of

natural food companies, activists, and a handful of scientists

who dare to challenge current scientific

gospel, you

would be in the dark on this issue and without any options

to exercise when it comes to the dairy

products you put in your mouth and in the mouths

of those you love.

If the critics are correct, what's at stake could be a matter of

life and death and not only for babies. The critics say??and

there is new evidence to support them -- that consuming BGH-boosted

dairy products could contribute to your developing

cancer of the prostate and colon and present the women in your life

with a heightened risk of breast cancer. And last fall

Canadian government health officials triggered a scandal when they

complained to their union that their bosses, senior

regulators in Canada's version of the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, were pressuring them to give the green light for

BGH use in Canada even though the investigators believe it poses

potential health risks to both cows and humans.

=

The Background

In the 1980's four U.S.-based chemical companies were competing in

a high stakes race to create and market the first

FDA-approved genetically engineered veterinary drug -- Bovine Growth

Hormone -- a substance that biologically tricks

cows into producing lots more milk. The winner would seize the

high ground in a battle for what was perceived as a

multibillion-dollar global markets. There had to be a big payoff; it

was costing tens of millions to develop the drug and it

would cost lots more to sell it. Corporate careers would be on the

line. Winners would be richly rewarded. Losing was

unthinkable.

But in April of 1988, Monsanto, the winner in that race, seemed to be

in trouble with the FDA. In a 14-page letter evaluating

the company's application for review, the FDA slapped Monsanto for

sloppy work that failed to answer crucial questions.

For example, on page 6, paragraph 8 : " You have not established a

margin of safety nor have you established a no-effect

level for some of the parameters in your submission. " (As you read

on in this article, remember that phrase, " no effect. " )

The highly critical letter was signed by Lehmann, PhD, at

the time, director of the division of production drugs at

the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. His top Veterinary Medical

Officer on bio-engineered Bovine Growth Hormone

was Burroughs, DVM, a Cornell University-trained animal

doctor with almost 10 years in government service. Dr.

Burroughs had been in private practice and developed expertise on

dairy herds. The FDA hired him in 1979 and thought so

highly of him that the agency sent him off for advanced studies

in toxicology. Then he got his biggest assignment.

" Because I was the only one in the unit who had real dairy herd

experience, when these Bovine Growth Hormone

applications began coming in, my boss handed them to me, " Dr.

Burroughs told me during a recent interview.

Naively, Dr. Burroughs approached his task of testing BGH as though

he were merely doing the job of protecting the health

of farm animals -- not making decisions that could put at risk

hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate investment, to say

nothing of the careers of the executives who had spent that money.

Then there were the big dairy owners and the stockholders

of the chemical companies -- they had all been told that BGH was going

to be a gold mine for them, too. And don't forget the

politicians whose hands are routinely out to both the dairy interests

and the chemical companies. Dr. Burroughs didn't have a

clue and he became an almost immediate roadblock to the fast track

that all those interested parties hoped for and expected.

Without realizing it, Dr. Burroughs set about offending all of those

groups by ordering a longer, more complicated, more

detailed, and more exacting set of tests of the drug's impact on cows

than anyone in that collection of stakeholders wanted or

anticipated.

One specific example: Dr. Burroughs learned that the original plan

called for a single lactation study to prove that BGH

effectively triggers a boost in milk output. But Dr.

Burroughs said that wasn't adequate

as a safety test. He insisted on " doing at least a 2-year study

because the test cows have to get bred, they must have calves,

and they have to survive at least a second and third

lactation. Otherwise it's not a

viable product. "

At first, Dr. Burroughs' bosses let him do his job as he saw fit. He

was worried that the companies hadn't done adequate

testing of the drug to determine whether it could be harmful to cows,

perhaps by damaging their immune system. " I mean, it

was a totally new drug, " he says. " And we didn't know what its impact

would be on cow health. We already knew about the

increased risk of mastitis -- infection of the udder -- and the

resultant likely requirement for increased use of antibiotics, but

we needed to know a whole lot more. Some of the cows in early studies

of BGH by another company wouldn't breed at all. "

(In 1991 the Rural Vermont Farm Advocacy Group revealed, according

to the Rutland Herald, " that an unusually high

number of??BGH-treated cows and their offspring had health problems,

including difficulty in breeding and produced

deformed or stillborn offspring. " )

So Dr. Burroughs ordered FDA toxicology and immunology tests to try

to answer those questions. About a month later, on

November 3, 1989, he was summoned to a supervisor's office and

fired. Immediately after the agency threw him out, Dr.

Burroughs told me, he learned that " they had quit doing the

toxicology studies I'd requested. " In an interview with the

Humane Farming Association, which the HFA posted on its Website,

Burroughs said, " I was told that I was slowing down

the approval process. It used to be that we had a review process at

the FDA. Now we have an approval process. I don't think

the FDA is doing good, honest reviews anymore. They've become

an extension of the drug industry. "

Today Dr. Burroughs is rebuilding his private practice, but

he still cannot fathom the way he was

treated by the FDA's bureaucracy. His firing, according to an

FDA personnel official, was motivated

by " performance-related " matters. When PENTHOUSE sought comment

from Dr. Lehmann on Dr. Burroughs' job

performance, Lehmann refused to discuss the case,

saying, " I've been retired from

FDA for five years. I did have something to do with [Dr.

Burroughs being fired] but I am not

going to discuss it. "

Unencumbered by the likes of Dr. Burroughs mucking up its

plans, the FDA proceeded along the track

of approval for BGH despite alarmed appeals from organizations like

Consumers' Union, publisher of Consumer Reports so

many Americans rely on to sort out the truth about product claims. In

an April 5, 1993 letter to then-FDA Commissioner Dr.

Kessler, Consumers Union called into question a sudden

change in the use of language by the FDA:

" We are seriously concerned that, in its deliberations on

whether to approve Bovine Growth Hormone,

the [FDA's] Center for Veterinary Medicine is introducing an

entirely new regulatory concept that is not authorized by the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--the concept of

'manageable risk'.

" In a discussion at the FDA's Veterinary Advisory Committee on March

31, 1993, the Committee was asked to consider

whether the increased incidence of mastitis caused by BGH use

represents a 'manageable risk.' The Committee (with the

exception of its consumer representatives) then concluded that the

risks to human and animal health are 'manageable' and

that BGH therefore should go forward.

" This is the first we have heard of 'manageable risk' as a standard

for approving a veterinary drug for use in a food animal, "

Consumers Union said and went to remind the FDA of the agency's own

letter dated April 3, 1988, which expressed concern

to Monsanto that the company had not demonstrated a 'no-effect' level

for side effects from BGH: " You have not established

a margin of safety nor have you established a no-effect level for

some of the parameters in your submission. . .this is

particularly true for clinical entities such as mastitis . . . it

is clear from the data presented that if you seek approval of a

range of 250-500mg [of BGH] in cows/heifers you may not have even a

1x margin of safety. Under current standards, this is

unacceptable for an over-the-counter

approval.

" We think it appropriate, " Consumers Union continued, " that to obtain

approval of a production drug, a drug not designed to

cure any known disease, a manufacturer should be required to

demonstrate no adverse side effects at the level it is proposing

for commercial use. In fact, we would expect that [the FDA] would

impose a margin of safety so that there would be no

adverse effect at five times the

proposed dosage level.

" Unfortunately, it begins to appear that FDA is revising its

criteria for approval to accommodate Monsanto's needs. After

apparently years of trying, Monsanto has been unable to demonstrate a

" no effect " level for BGH. The criteria for approval

have therefore been revised to be whether BGH use

represents a 'manageable risk'. "

Chew on that for a moment: Can't meet the existing criteria for

safety approval? No sweat. Just get the criteria changed.

Wouldn't you like to be able to do that on your job? Consumers

Union might as well have saved its breath. The power

behind BGH was not going to be denied.

Consumers Union told PENTHOUSE that the FDA in its reply attempted

to trivialize the consumer group's profound

concern, saying that effect that everything

carries some risk.

I first learned of the most important facts in this story because a

computer scientist in California, who reads my reporting in

PENTHOUSE on the cancer drug hydrazine sulfate, took the time to

email my editor a copy of an excellent newsletter,

's Environment and Health Weekly. 's editor, Dr.

Montague, had written in detail about what he and

others see as the emerging cancer threat from Posilac, Monsanto's

trade name for its bioengineered BGH. He also focused

on the situation of a husband-and-wife team of investigative

reporters fired by the Fox-owned TV station WTVT in Tampa

for refusing to tell untruths or " water down " the results of their

investigation into Posilac after Monsanto apparently

intimidated the station's owners. Dr. Montague shared some of his

research documentation with me, for

------ End of Forwarded Message