Medical imaging tests expose patients to dangerous amounts of unnecessary radiation

Medical imaging tests expose patients to dangerous amounts of unnecessary radiation

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A University of Wisconsin (UW) study has found that patients who receive computed tomography (CT) scans for various abdominal and pelvic conditions often receive a slew of additional scans that are unnecessary and that expose them to excess radiation. The findings were presented at the meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

A typical CT scan involves taking images of the patient using an intravenous injection of an imaging chemical in order to contrast the image. Occasionally it is helpful to take more than one image, but many times doctors will order multiple images unnecessarily.

In many cases, doctors are not being careful to assess the doses of radiation they are administering to patients. Though they are supposed to take certain measures to accurately ensure that the radiation dosages are as minimal as possible while still achieving successful scans, Kristie Guite, M.D., of UW emphasized that many doctors do not follow this principle.

Study coauthor J. Louis Hinshaw, M.D., backed up this point by explaining that CT protocols are meant to be custom-tailored to a patient’s specific condition. In a great majority of cases, a one-size-fits-all approach is taken that puts the patient at increased risk.

Dr. Hinshaw suggests that patients who are prescribed CT scans should ask their doctors about the risks involved. They should also find out from the CT facility how many image exposures will need to be taken and if a lesser amount would suffice for their particular conditions.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
These last few weeks have been huge for revelations about the dangers of medical imaging tests. It’s not just CT scans, either: Mammograms are also under fire for exposing women to excess radiation and actually causing cancer.

Western medicine is strangely preoccupied with the desire to visually map physical tissues in the body as part of a diagnostic process. Why is this so strange? Because most modern illnesses have nothing to do with the physical structure of tissues. Instead, they are expressions of the function of the body’s tissues and organs.

Some systems of medicine focus more on the functional relationship between organs than the physical, compartmentalized appearance of those organs, and they have far more success in helping patients without harming them. For example, I know a Chinese Medicine doctor who can tell you more about your heart, liver and kidneys by simply feeling your pulse than a whole hospital full of CT scans and MRI machines. Imaging your body is rarely necessary unless you’ve suffered some sort of acute physical trauma such as being struck by a flying pitchfork or hit upside the head with a heavy stack of health insurance forms. For most health conditions that exist today, medical imaging tests are not merely unnecessary, they are dangerous!

Medical imaging radiation isn’t good for you. Just one CT scan exposes you to as much radiation as 100 chest X-rays. Shockingly, many doctors don’t know this! And they fail to take medical imaging radiation into account when prescribing these procedures for patients.

The next time a doctor wants to subject you to medical imaging tests, ask WHY you need the test and WHAT the test might reveal that could be helpful to your physician. You might also ask if there’s a safer alternative that could provide the same diagnostic information without the radiation shower.

And if you don’t believe me, just ask yourself this: How come every time you get a chest X-ray, a mammogram or a CT scan, the doctor flees the immediate area and only returns after the imaging is done? The reason, of course, is because they’re not stupid enough to hang out in the radiation zone and be exposed to the very same radiation they’ve ordered for you.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea…

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

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!, ?The 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.?

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 ?Back to Eden? stated in 1939 that, ?Cow’s milk is unfit for human consumption? and causes the symptoms of ?intestinal auto-intoxication.?

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 ?vague? or confusing, was published long before Monsanto was able to further contaminate milk with bovine growth hormone. If cow’s milk was ?unfit for human consumption? 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, ?During 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….

?Perhaps 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….

?I 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.?

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.

The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular

The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular

By Dr. Joseph Mercola
with Rachael Droege

Who is Lucy Lock? You will be seeing much more of Lucy as she will be starting a regular column at Mercola.com.

I was happy to see a published story that documents how some families have become aware of the health benefits of raw milk and are switching to it, despite the warnings of public health officials who are ignorant about the serious damage that pasteurization does to the quality of the milk.

Less than 1 percent of the milk consumed in America is raw, which is most unfortunate as raw milk is a highly health-promoting food. Public health officials warn that raw milk poses the risk of transmitting bacteria such as listeria, E. coli and salmonella, but pasteurizing the milk kills these bacteria while extending the milk’s shelf life, which also happens to be more profitable for the dairy industry.

While it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. But it seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists. This excerpt from the Weston A. Price Foundation Web site further states my point:

Except for a brief hiatus in 1990, raw milk has always been for sale commercially in California, usually in health food stores, although I can remember a period when it was even sold in grocery stores. Millions of people consumed commercial raw milk during that period and although the health department kept an eagle eye open for any possible evidence of harm, not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.

Fortunately, even though the sale of raw milk is legal only in a limited number of states, more and more people are realizing its benefits and finding their own legal sources. Here are a few of the major reasons why more people are choosing to drink their milk raw.

It Has More Nutrients

Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzmes, and it is, in my estimation, the finest source of calcium available.

The pasteurization process, which entails heating the milk to a temperature of 145degrees to 150 degrees F and keeping it there for at least half an hour and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F, completely changes the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization) into something far less than healthy. While the process certainly destroys germs and bad bacteria, it also destroys the milk’s beneficial bacteria along with many of its nutritious components.

Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins,destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens.You may notice that raw milk left out will sour naturally but pasteurized milk will rot. This is because the beneficial bacteria in the raw milk helps to keep putrefactive bacteria under control. Pasteurized milk, however, does not have any of the beneficial bacteria left to keep it from rotting.

Then, of course there is the issue of the antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows are raised on grains, not grass, like they were designed to. This will change the composition of the fats in the milk, especially the CLA content.

People Feel the Health Benefits

Pasteurized cow’s milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been associated with a number of symptoms and illnesses including:

Diarrhea
Cramps
Bloating
Gas
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Iron-deficiency anemia
Skin rashes
Allergies
Colic in infants
Osteoporosis
Increased tooth decay
Arthritis
Increased tooth decay
Growth problems in children
Heart disease
Cancer
Atherosclerosis
Acne
Recurrent ear infections in children
Type 1 diabetes
Rheumatoid arthritis
Infertility
Leukemia
Autism

Raw milk, on the other hand, is not associated with any of these problems, and even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.

Raw milk is truly one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume, and uou’ll feel the difference once you start to drink it.

It Tastes Better

As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Freshraw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf-life of several weeks. Ultra-high-temperature milk can be stored without refrigeration for about six months.

Even people who have never liked the taste of milk find that raw milk has a soothing,pleasant taste that they can’t resist.

Obtaining raw milk can be a challenge but it is well worth the effort to seek out. You can go to http://www.realmilk.com for some help, but if you are unable to find any through that site I would suggest contacting a dairy farmer and asking him or her to buy the raw milk directly.

It is technically illegal to sell in many states but many people tell them they are using the milk for their pets. Alternatively, another strategy that has stood nearly every legal test is the cow-share program. One merely purchases a small ownership of a cow for $10 or $20 and then the farmer is able to sell you the milk from the cow as you are part owner and it is perfectly legal to drink raw milk from your own cow.

The Newest Pasteurized Milk Myth

The Newest Pasteurized Milk Myth

The popularity of milk may start to boom, considering research found a milk-heavy diet does not increase the risk of heart disease and stroke, and may even be protective against it.

Throughout the 20-year study — which spanned from 1979-1983 — researchers asked 764 male patients, ages 45-59, to weigh and record every food and drink they consumed for seven consecutive days. Participants received comprehensive check-ups four times over the two decades.

Over time, 54 men had a stroke, 139 developed symptomatic ischemic heart disease (heart attack or angina) and 225 died.

But what about milk consumption?

When the study began, almost all of the men drank whole (full-fat) milk; however, a random sampling in 2000 of the surviving participants showed almost all of them had switched to low-fat skim milk (or semi-skimmed milk) within the previous eight years. Further:

Men who drank the most milk — a pint or more a day — had a higher energy intake, meaning they were likely more active.

Cholesterol levels and blood pressure readings were similar in both high- and low-milk drinkers.

Men who consumed the most milk had a reduced risk of ischemic heart disease or stroke compared to those who drank the least (less than half a pint).

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health June 2005, Vol. 59, Number 6: 502-505

Science Daily May 24, 2005

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Now, I stopped watching TV many years ago and I don’t listen to the radio, but I suspect many of you were confused by this report when it hit the media. Don’t you just love the confusion that the media gives you?

You really do have to be a full-timer in health to even start to sort through the variety of conflicting messages out there — OR you could just simply subscribe to this newsletter and we can help you sort through the confusion.

First of all, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some element of truth to this finding. After all, milk is a wonderful, natural food, and it contains one of the finest sources of calcium for humans.

In fact, the first article I had published was 20 years ago, and that was on the association between calcium and hypertension. My review 20 years ago supported this association.

But is that the whole truth?

I don’t think so. Twenty years ago I didn’t realize there were negative health effects when consuming pasteurized milk (even if it’s organic).

These effects occur regardless of whether it’s full-fat or not, and there are diseases you can acquire other than heart disease. For instance, drinking up to two glasses of pasteurized milk daily was recently blamed for doubling a middle-aged man’s risk of Parkinson’s disease later in life.

Pasteurization is a destructive process that changes the physical structure of the fragile proteins in milk (especially casein) and converts them into proteins your body was never designed to handle — and that can actually harm you. Additionally, the pasteurization process virtually eliminates the good bacteria normally present in the milk and radically reduces the micronutrient and vitamin content of this healthy food.

It is equally important to consider that reduced-fat, low-fat, or fat-free versions of milk are virtually void of metabolically beneficial vitamin D and calcium. These milks are also typically homogenized, a process that keeps the milk from naturally separating. The homogenization process creates a substance known as xanthine oxidase, which is thought to play a role in oxidative stress by acting as a free radical in the body.

If you want to drink milk, I’m all for it, but I recommend finding an authentic raw-milk source, whose cows are pasture-fed. I have seen so many of my patients recover their health with raw milk that I actually believe it to be one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume (if you can tolerate it based on your body’s unique nutritional type).

If you are unable to find a local dairy farmer in your area who sells raw milk, I encourage you to visit the Real Milk site to locate a source close to you. I am happy to say that we are making a dent when it comes to informing the public about milk. If you type in “raw milk” on Google, the Real Milk link comes up #1 and Mercola.com comes up #2. We are finally starting to spread the truth about this vital food.

Finally, if you have a difficult time digesting milk, especially if you are lactose intolerant, I would recommend obtaining some raw milk and making kefir out of it. Kefir is a cultured milk beverage that tastes a lot like yogurt. It is made by adding kefir starter, a powdered probiotic mixture, to fresh milk and allowing it to ferment for a day or so. This process not only eliminates most of the lactose present in the milk, it also predigests the milk protein casein, another common culprit in milk sensitivities, making it easier for you to digest and absorb.

Don’t Drink Your Milk! Processing Is the Problem

Don’t Drink Your Milk!
Processing Is the Problem

The path that transforms healthy milk products into allergens and carcinogens begins with modern feeding methods that substitute high-protein, soy-based feeds for fresh green grass and breeding methods to produce cows with abnormally large pituitary glands so that they produce three times more milk than the old fashioned scrub cow. These cows need antibiotics to keep them well.

Their milk is then pasteurized so that all valuable enzymes are destroyed (lactase for the assimilation of lactose; galactase for the assimilation of galactose; phosphatase for the assimilation of calcium).

Literally dozens of other precious enzymes are destroyed in the pasteurization process. Without them, milk is very difficult to digest. The human pancreas is not always able to produce these enzymes; over-stress of the pancreas can lead to diabetes and other diseases.

The butterfat of commercial milk is homogenized, subjecting it to rancidity. Even worse, butterfat may be removed altogether. Skim milk is sold as a health food, but the truth is that butter-fat is in milk for a reason.

Without it the body cannot absorb and utilize the vitamins and minerals in the water fraction of the milk. Along with valuable trace minerals and short chain fatty acids, butterfat is America’s best source of preformed vitamin A.

Synthetic vitamin D, known to be toxic to the liver, is added to replace the natural vitamin D complex in butterfat. Butterfat also contains re-arranged acids which have strong anti-carcinogenic properties.

Non-fat dried milk is added to 1% and 2% milk. Unlike the cholesterol in fresh milk, which plays a variety of health promoting roles, the cholesterol in non-fat dried milk is oxidized and it is this rancid cholesterol that promotes heart disease.

Like all spray dried products, non-fat dried milk has a high nitrite content. Non-fat dried milk and sweetened condensed milk are the principle dairy products in third world countries; use of ultra high temperature pasteurized milk is widespread in Europe.

Other Factors Regarding Milk

Milk and refined sugar make two of the largest contributions to food induced ill health in our country. That may seem like an overly harsh statement, but when one examines the evidence, this is a reasonable conclusion.

The recent approval by the FDA of the use of BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) by dairy farmers to increase their milk production only worsens the already sad picture.

BGH causes an increase in an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in the milk of treated cows. IGF-1 survives milk pasteurization and human intestinal digestion. It can be directly absorbed into the human bloodstream, particularly in infants.

It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes the transformation of human breast cells to cancerous forms. IGF-1 is also a growth factor for already cancerous breast and colon cancer cells, promoting their progression and invasiveness.

It is also possible for us to absorb the BGH directly from the milk. This will cause further IGF-1 production by our own cells.

BGH will also decrease the body fat of cows. Unfortunately, the body fat of cows is already contaminated with a wide range of carcinogens, pesticides, dioxin, and antibiotic residues. When the cows have less body fat, these toxic substances are then transported into the cows’ milk.

BGH also causes the cows to have an increase in breast infections for which they must receive additional antibiotics.

Prior to BGH, 38%of milk sampled nationally was already contaminated by illegal residues of antibiotics and animal drugs. This will only increase with the use of BGH. One can only wonder what the long term complications will be for drinking milk that has a 50% chance it is contaminated with antibiotics.

There is also a problem with a protein enzyme called xanthine oxidase which is in cow’s milk. Normally, proteins are broken down once you digest them.

However, when milk is homogenized, small fat globules surround the xanthine oxidase and it is absorbed intact into your blood stream. There is some very compelling research demonstrating clear associations with this absorbed enzyme and increased risks of heart disease.

Ear specialists frequently insert tubes into the ear drums of infants to treat recurrent ear infections. It has replaced the previously popular tonsillectomy to become the number one surgery in the country.

Unfortunately, most of these specialists don’t realize that over 50% of these children will improve and have no further ear infections if they just stop drinking their milk.

This is a real tragedy. Not only is the $3,000 spent on the surgery wasted, but there are some recent articles supporting the likelihood that most children who have this procedure will have long term hearing losses.

It is my strong recommendation that you discontinue your milk products. If you find this difficult, I would start for several weeks only, and reevaluate how you feel at that time.

This would include ALL dairy, including skim milk and Lact-Aid milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. If you feel better after several weeks you can attempt to rotate small amounts of one form of milk every four days.

You probably are wondering what will happen to your bones and teeth if you stop milk. The majority of the world’s population takes in less than half the calcium we are told we need and yet they have strong bones and healthy teeth.

Cows’ milk is rich in phosphorous which can combine with calcium — and can prevent you from absorbing the calcium in milk. The milk protein also accelerates calcium excretion from the blood through the kidneys.

This is also true when you eat large amount of meat and poultry products. Vegetarians will need about 50% less calcium than meat eaters because they lose much less calcium in their urine.

It is possible to obtain all your calcium from dark green vegetables (where do you think the cow gets their’s from?). The darker the better. Cooked collard greens and kale are especially good. If you or your child is unable to take in large amounts of green vegetables, you might want to supplement with calcium.

If you can swallow pills, we have an excellent, inexpensive source called Calcium Citrate, which has a number of other minerals which your body requires to build up maximally healthy bone.

It is much better than a simple calcium tablet. You can take about 1,000 mg a day. For those who already suffer from osteoporosis, the best calcium supplement is microcrystalline hydroxyapatite.

It is also important that you take vitamin D in the winter months from November to March. Normally your skin converts sunshine to vitamin D, but the sunshine levels in the winter are very low unless you visit Florida or Mexico type areas.

Most people obtain their vitamin D from milk in the winter; so if you stop it, please make sure you are taking calcium with vitamin D or a multi vitamin with vitamin D to prevent bone thinning.

Most people are not aware that the milk of most mammals varies considerably in its composition. For example, the milk of goats, elephants, cows, camels, wolves, and walruses show marked differences, in their content of fats, protein, sugar, and minerals. Each was designed to provide optimum nutrition to the young of the respective species. Each is different from human milk.

In general, most animals are exclusively breast-fed until they have tripled their birth weight, which in human infants occurs around the age of one year. In no mammalian species, except for the human (and domestic cat) is milk consumption continued after the weaning period. Calves thrive on cow milk. Cow’s milk is designed for calves.

Cow’s milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been well documented as a cause in diarrhea, cramps, bloating, gas, gastrointestinal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, skin rashes, atherosclerosis, and acne.

It is the primary cause of recurrent ear infections in children. It has also been linked to insulin dependent diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and leukemia.

Hopefully, you will reconsider your position on using milk as a form of nourishment. Small amounts of milk or milk products taken infrequently, will likely cause little or no problems for most people.

However, the American Dairy Board has done a very effective job of marketing this product. Most people believe they need to consume large, daily quantities of milk to achieve good health. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Public health officials and the National Dairy Council have worked together in this country to make it very difficult to obtain wholesome, fresh, raw dairy products. Nevertheless, they can be found with a little effort. In some states, you can buy raw milk directly from farmers.

Whole, pasteurized, non-homogenized milk from cows raised on organic feed is now available in many gourmet shops and health food stores. It can be cultured to restore enzyme content, at least partially. Cultured buttermilk is often more easily digested than regular milk; it is an excellent product to use in baking.

Many shops now carry whole cream that is merely pasteurized (not ultra pasteurized like most commercial cream); diluted with water, it is delicious on cereal and a good substitute for those allergic to milk.

Traditionally made creme fraiche (European style sour cream), it also has a high enzyme content.

More Reasons Why You Don?t Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk

More Reasons Why You Don?t Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk

“Pasteurization was also found to affect the hematogenic and growth-promoting properties of the special milk (raw milk from specially fed cows, whose milk did not produce nutritional anemia–whereas commercially pasteurized milk did) …”

-Krauss, W. E., Erb, J.H. and Washburn, R. G., Studies on the nutritive value of milk II. The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties of milk,” Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 11, January, 1933.

“Resistance to tuberculosis increased in children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the point that in five years only one case of pulmonary TB had developed, whereas in the previous five years, when children had been given pasteurized milk, 14 cases of pulmonary TB had developed.”

-The Lancet, page 1142, May 8, 1937

“Human or cow milk added to an equal volume of agar did not support the growth or allowed only slight growth of B. diphtheriae Staph. aureus, B. coli, B. prodigiosus, B. pyocyaneus, B. anthracis, streptococci, and unidentified wild yeast. The factors in human milk inhibiting bacterial growth (‘inhibins’) were inactivated by heating at 56 degrees C. (pasteurization temperatures of 60 to 70 degrees C.) for 30 minutes or by standing 12 to 24 days at 5 degrees C., but not by repeated freezing and thawing. The ‘inhibins’ in cow’s milk were not inactivated by heating at 80 degrees C. for seven minutes but were destroyed by heating at 85 degrees C. for seven minutes. Attempts have not been made to identify the natural antiseptics.”

-Dold, H., Wizaman, E., and Kleiner, C., Z. Hyt. Inf., “Antiseptic in milk,” The Drug and Cosmetic Industry, 43,1:109, July, 1938.

“Milk, an animal product, is the essential food of all infant mammals. Mammals are so classified in the scale of living things because of the common characteristic of the female nursing her young. The infant mammal is accordingly carnivorous in his natural habits irrespective of whether the adult of the species is herbivorous or carnivorous.

If the adults on a carnivorous diet show conditions of deficiency on cooked meat, is it not reasonable to suppose that growing infants on entirely cooked carnivorous diets will do likewise? Many experimenters, such as Catel, Dutcher, Wilson, and others, have shown such to be the case in animals fed on pasteurized milk …

Can human infants be born of mothers who are deficient, and yet attain a fair degree of skeletal development if given a proper raw milk supply? The three infants in figure 4 were born of mothers known to by hypothyroid. Prior to the birth of the infants shown, all three mothers had given birth to children within three years. Each of the previous children was asthmatic, showed infantile rickets, and possessed poor skeletal development.

The first child shown in Figure 4 was breastfed from birth, with the mother living under excellent health-promoting conditions. The second child was on powdered milk for four weeks, and on raw certified milk after that without cod-liver oil or orange juice. Both the first and second child began supplemental feedings when they were about five months old and were very healthy babies. The third baby was always sickly and had been on formulae since birth.

These formulae included powdered milk, pasteurized milk, boiled milk, boiled certified milk and canned milk. She had suffered from severe gastric distress during her entire infancy and when eight months old she developed asthma. She is very small though her parents are of larger build than the parents of the other two children.

The strictest bacteriologic standards for milk must always be maintained. The feeding of cattle should receive greater attention. It should be determined experimentally, if possible, whether health and resistance are undermined by pasteurization. If so, in our attempt to protect the child from milk-borne infections, we may be denying his heritage of good health by removing from his milk vitamins, hormones, and enzymes that control mineral assimilation and promote body development and general resistance to disease. Is it also possible that these same elements are as important to the adult invalid who needs milk as to the infant?

Let us have closer cooperation between raw-milk producers and public-health officials so that the growth-producing factors of raw milk can be studied. We cannot afford to pasteurize milk if it is found that pasteurization diminishes the potency of the growth-promoting factors that determine the skeletal development of our children. We cannot afford to lessen the resistance of our children to respiratory infection, asthma, bronchitis and the common cold when factors preventing them are present in greater amounts in properly clean raw milk than in pasteurized milk.”

-Pottenger, F. M. Jr., “Clinical and experimental evidence of growth factors in raw milk,” Certified Milk, January, 1937.

“Some have questioned whether pasteurized milk is really involved in the production of scurvy. The fact, however, that when one gives a group of infants this food for a period of about six months, instances of scurvy occur, and that a cure is brought about when raw milk is substituted, taken in conjunction with the fact that if we feed the same number of infants on raw milk, cases of scurvy will not develop–these results seem sufficient to warrant the deduction that pasteurized milk is a causative factor.

The experience in Berlin, noted by Newmann (Newmann, H., Deutsch. Klin., 7:341, 1904) and others, is most illuminating and convincing in this connection. In 1901 a large dairy in that city established a pasteurizing plant in which all milk was raised to a temperature of about 60 degrees C. After an interval of some months, infantile scurvy was reported from various sources throughout the city. Neumann writes about the situation as follows:

‘Whereas Heubner, Cassel and myself had seen only 32 cases of scurvy from 1896 to 1900, the number of cases suddenly rose from the year 1901, so that the same observers–not to mention a great many others–treated 83cases in 1901 and 1902.’

An investigation was made as to the cause, and the pasteurization was discontinued. The result was that the number of cases decreased just as suddenly as they had increased …”

-Hess, A. F., “Infantile Scurvy, V. A study of its pathogenesis,” Am. J Dis. Child., November, 1917.

“Although pasteurized milk is to be recommended on account of the security which it affords against infection, we should realize that it is an incomplete food. Unless an antiscorbutic, such as orange juice, … or potato water is added, infants will develop scurvy on this diet. This form of scurvy takes some months to develop and may be termed subacute. It must be considered not only the most common form of this disorder, but the one which passes most often unrecognized. In order to guard against it, infants fed exclusively on a diet of pasteurized milk should be given antiscorbutics far earlier than is at present the custom, even as early as at the end of the first month of life.”

-Hess, A. F., “Infantile Scurvy. III. Its influence on growth (length and weight),” Am. J. Dis. Child., August, 1916.

“One of the most striking clinical phenomenon of infantile scurvy is the marked susceptibility to infection which it entails–the frequent attacks of ‘grippe,’ the widespread occurrence of nasal diphtheria, the furunculosis of the skin, the danger of pneumonia in advanced cases …”

-Hess, A. F., “Infantile Scurvy. V. A study of its pathogenesis,” Am. J. Dis. Child., November, 1917.

“… Recently, Minot and his colleagues came to the conclusion that adult scurvy can be precipitated by infectious processes; in other words, that latent scurvy can by this means be changed to manifest scurvy. In general, therefore, investigations in the laboratory as well as clinical observations are in agreement in stressing the interrelationship of scurvy and bacterial infection.”

-Hess, A. F., “Recent advances in knowledge of scurvy and the antiscorbutic vitamin,” J.A.M.A., April 23, 1932.

This illustrates the futility of pasteurization of milk to prevent infection from diseases the cows may sometimes have, such as undulant fever. The infant is then made subject to the common infectious diseases, and deaths from these common diseases are not attributed, as they should be, to the defective nature of the milk.

Effects of Pasteurization of Milk on Tooth Health

The Lancet, page 1142, May 8, 1937 says that in children the teeth are less likely to decay on diet supplemented with raw milk than with pasteurized milk.

“Dr. Evelyn Sprawson of the London Hospital has recently stated that in certain institutions children who were brought up on raw milk (as opposed to pasteurized milk) had perfect teeth and no decay. Whether this was due actually to the milk being unheated, or possibly to some other, quite different and so far unrecognized cause, we cannot yet say; but we may be sure of one thing, that the result is so striking and unusual that it will undoubtedly be made the subject of further inquiry.”

-Harris, L.J., Vitamins in Theory and Practice, page 224, Cambridge, University Press, 1935.

Effect of Pasteurization of Milk on Growth

… Fisher and Bartlett “point out by statistical treatment that the response in height to raw milk was significantly greater than that to pasteurized milk. Their interpretation of the data led to the assertion that the pasteurized milk was only 66 percent effective as the raw milk in the case of boys and 91.1 percent as effective in the case of girls in inducing increases in weight, and 50.0 percent as effective in boys and 70.0 percent in girls in bringing about height increases.”

-Krauss, W. E., Erb, J. H. and Washburn, R.G., “Studies on the nutritive value of milk, II.” “The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties of milk,” Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 8, January 1933.

“… Daniels and Loughlin observed that young rats fed long heat-treated milks, evaporated, condensed, and pasteurized by the ‘hold’ method failed to grow normally, but if the precipitated calcium salts were incorporated into the various milk, growth was normal …”

-Daniels, A.L., and Loughlin, R., Journal of Biological Chemistry, 44.381, 1920, as abstracted by Holmes and Pigott, “Factors that influence the anti-rachitic value of milk in infant feeding,” Oil & Soap, 12.9:202-207, September, 1935.

Calcium Availability in Pasteurized Milk

“Kramer, Latzke and Shaw (Kramer, Martha M., Latzke, F., and Shaw, M.M., A Comparison of Raw, Pasteurized, Evaporated and Dried Milks as Sources of Calcium and Phosphorus for the Human Subject, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 79:283-295, 1928) obtained less favorable calcium balances in adults with pasteurized milk than with ‘fresh milk’ and made the further observation that milk from cows kept in the barn for five months gave less favorable calcium balances than did ‘fresh milk’ (herd milk from a college dairy).”

-Krauss, W. E., Erb, J.H., and Washburn, R.G., “Studies on the nutritive value of milk, II. The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties of milk,” Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 8, January, 1933.

“Guinea pigs fed raw milk with an addition of skim milk powder, copper and iron salts, carotene, and orange juice grew well and showed no abnormalities at autopsy. When pasteurized whole milk was used, deficiency symptoms began to appear, wrist stiffness being the first sign. The substitution of skim milk for whole milk intensified the deficiency, which was characterized by great emaciation and weakness before death … At autopsy the muscles were found to be extremely atrophied, and closely packed, fine lines of calcification ran parallel to the fibers. Also calcification occurred in other parts of the body. When cod liver oil replaced carotene in the diet, paralysis developed quickly. The feeding of raw cream cured the wrist stiffness.”

-Annual Review of Biochemistry, Vol. 18, Page 435. (1944).

In The Lancet, page 1142, May 8, 1937 it is shown that chilblains are practically eliminated (result of higher calcium values of raw milk or improved assimilation of calcium) when raw milk rather than pasteurized milk is used in the diet of children.

Pasteurization Destroys Vitamin A

“… According to S. Schmidt-Nielsen and Schmidt-Nielson (Kgl. Norske Videnskab. Selsk. Forhandl., 1:126-128, abstracted in Biological Abstracts, 4:94, 1930), when milk pasteurized at 63 degrees C. (145 degrees F.) was fed to mature rats, early death or diminished vitality resulted in the offspring. This was attributed to the destruction of vitamin A.”

-Krauss, W.E., Erb, J.H. and Washburn, R.G. Studies on the nutritive value of milk, II. The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties of milk,” Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 9, January, 1933.

Pasteurization Destroys Vitamin B Complex

“Pasteurization of milk destroys about 38 percent of the B complex according to Dutcher and his associates …”

-Lewis, L.R., The relation of the vitamins to obstetrics, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 29.5:759. May, 1935.

“Mattick and Golding’s “Relative value of Raw and Heated Milk in Nutrition, in The Lancet (220:662-667), reported some preliminary experiments which indicated that pasteurization destroys some of the dietetic value of milk, including partial destruction of Vitamin B1. These same workers found the raw milk to be considerably superior to sterilized milk in nutritive value.”

-Krauss, W. E., Erb, J. H. and Washburn, R.G., Studies on the nutritive value of milk, II. The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties of milk,” Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 7, January, 1933.

“… On the 7.5 cc. level two rats on raw milk developed mild polyneuritis toward the end of the trial; whereas three rats on pasteurized milk developed polyneuritis early, which became severe as the trial drew to a close. On the 10.0 cc. level none of the rats on raw milk developed polyneuritis, but three on pasteurized milk were severely afflicted.”

-Ibid, page 23.

“Using standard methods for determining vitamins A, B, G and D, it was found that pasteurization destroyed at least 25 percent of the vitamin B in the original raw milk.”

-Ibid, page 30.

Pasteurization Destroys Vitamin C

“… The pasteurization of milk has been found to destroy 20 percent to 50 percent [of the vitamin C] the first month of life. The reasonable procedure, therefore, appears to be to use pasteurized milk to insure protection against disease germs of various kinds and to supply the vitamin deficiency through other foods. The success in infant feeding based on this principle is evinced especially in the amazing reduction in infant mortality in the summer months.”

-Jordan, E.O.,A Textbook of General Bacteriology, Twelfth Edition, Revised, page 691, W. B. Saunders Co., 1938.

“Within the past few years an increasing number of patients affected with scurvy have been brought to the Oregon Children’s Hospital. As the prophylactic amount of vitamin C (15 mg. daily) is contained in 300 cc. of breast milk, scurvy is rarely found in breastfed babies. The vitamin C of cow’s milk is largely destroyed by pasteurization or evaporation.”

-Overstreet, R.M., Northwest Medicine, June, 1938, as abstracted by Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “The Increase of Scurvy,” 42, 12:598, December, 1938.

“Samples of raw, certified , certified Guernsey and certified vitamin D milks were collected at the different dairies throughout the city of Madison. These milks on the average are only a little below the fresh milks as recorded in Table I, indicating that commercial raw and certified milks as delivered to the consumer lose only a small amount of their antiscorbutic potency. Likewise, samples of commercial pasteurized milks were collected and analyzed. On an average they contained only about one-half as much ascorbic acid as fresh raw milks and significantly less ascorbic acid than the commercial unpasteurized milks.

It was found that commercial raw milks contained an antiscorbutic potency that was only slightly less than fresh raw milks and that pasteurized milks on the average contained only one-half the latter potency. Mineral modification and homogenization apparently have a destructive effect on ascorbic acid.”

-Woessner, Warren W., Evehjem, C.A., and Schuette, Henry A., “The determination of ascorbic acid in commercial milks,” Journal of Nutrition, 18,6:619-626, December, 1939.

Reprint No. 7
Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
RealMilk.com

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

So don’t waste your money on “organic” milk anymore. This is a waste of your resources. Redirect your energy to find real raw milk sources.

Ideally, you can find a local farmer who will be willing to sell that to you. If you find one you will want to encourage him to consider restricting grains from the cows’ feed to improve the quality of the milk.

Check out this link to find out what states, according to the surveys they cite, permit (and prohibit) the sale of raw milk:

http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/sale.htm

WARNING: Drinking Low-Fat Pasteurized Milk Triggers Obesity

WARNING: Drinking Low-Fat Pasteurized Milk Triggers Obesity

The dairy industry has been heavily advertising the weight loss benefits of drinking more milk. And with the percentage of young people who are overweight reaching epidemic proportions, some parents feel making a switch from soda to milk is a wise health choice.

But is drinking milk much better? According to a study, children who drank more than three servings of milk a day were prone to becoming overweight.

Fattening Findings

Researchers analyzed data collected from more than 12,000 children (aged 9-14) participating in the Growing Up Today Study — an ongoing project examining the relationship between diet, exercise and other lifestyle factors, and an array of health issues — to uncover any links between milk consumption and weight over a 12-month period.

Results showed:

The more milk children drank, the faster they gained weight.
Children who drank more than three 8-ounce servings of milk a day put on the most weight.
The link held even though most of the children were drinking low-fat milk.
Based on the findings, researchers recommend water as a healthy alternative.

So the Burning Question Is …

Considering milk’s detrimental effect on children, why has the National Dairy Council spent $200 million since 2003 to promote the polar opposite?

The dairy industry argues it had said that only adults may be able to lose weight if they drink milk while cutting calories. In a ditch attempt to strengthen their case, one dietician speaking for the council stated that most children don’t even get one serving of milk a day.

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine June 2005;159(6):543-550

San Francisco Chronicle June 7, 2005

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

It seems very clear that anytime you use refined or processed foods you run the risk of developing problems. We all know that sugar and refined carbohydrates are major causes of weight gain. But, unprocessed sugar cane and unrefined grains are far less likely to cause weight gain, especially in carb nutritional types.

What works best for normalizing your weight and promoting good health?

Exercising.

Eating a diet low in sugar and grains, while consuming the right amount of carbohydrate intake — with vegetables — for your body’s unique metabolic type.

With respect to milk, one of the major issues is the primary processing of pasteurization that causes serious damage to the fragile milk proteins. So the key here is to avoid pasteurized milk.

I realize this study suggests low-fat milk may cause weight gain, but my suspicion is that this is more related to the fact that it is pasteurized, not that it is low-fat. However, if you are a carb nutritional type, low-fat raw milk may be quite healthy for you.

While you can’t purchase low-fat raw milk, it is easy to skim off the fat (cream) that rises to the top. This would be the last thing you would want to do if you were a protein type, as the milk fat will cause you to thrive. I myself go through one-third of a pound of butter a day because I am a protein type.

If you gave low-fat milk to some protein types, I suspect that it is certainly possible that it might cause weight gain.

There are other concerns with pasteurized milk as well. Pasteurization destroys raw milk’s vital enzymes, which are used by your body to help you digest it, and most pasteurized milk is also homogenized. The homogenization process turns fat naturally present in the milk rancid and contributes to the formation of xanthine oxidase, a potentially damaging enzyme that has been shown to contribute to atherosclerosis.

Additionally, conventional milk is virtually void of absorbable, metabolically active nutrients like natural, fat-soluble vitamins A and D (synthetic vitamin D, which is less usable by your body and potentially toxic, is added back later). Also, the calcium and other valuable minerals naturally found in milk are practically useless when the milk fat is removed.

For more information on the dangers of pasteurized milk, please read my article Don’t Drink Your Milk.

I have seen so many of my patients recover their health with raw milk from pasture-fed cows that I actually believe it to be one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume, if you can tolerate it based on your body’s metabolic type. If you are unable to find a local dairy farmer in your area who sells raw milk, I encourage you to visit the Real Milk site to locate a source close to you.

Why You Don’t Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk

Why You Don’t Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk

There is no substitute for clean, raw milk as a food, so far as children are concerned. Science has not yet succeeded in providing, in the pasteurized variety, those essential qualities that are the only real foundation for a healthy child.

Unfortunately, many grossly distorted statements are current regarding our milk supply. If we are to believe the protagonists of the Pasteurization-of-all-milk-at-all costs Party, raw milk is as good, or rather as bad, as rat poison–although as the Minister of Agriculture recently stated, “the human race existed long before Pasteur was heard of.”

The process of pasteurization was debated in the House of Commons and the suggestion made that no raw milk should be sold for human consumption. This would mean installation of expensive machinery by every supplier, and if it should become compulsory there is little doubt that many small firms would shut down and the business pass in the hands of a few big dealers.

If we are to be compelled to drink pasteurized milk, we should at least understand what pasteurization means. It set out to accomplish two things: Destruction of certain disease-carrying germs and the prevention of souring milk. These results are obtained by keeping the milk at a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F for half an hour, at least, and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F.

It is undoubtedly beneficial to destroy dangerous germs, but pasteurization does more than this–it kills off harmless and useful germs alike, and by subjecting the milk to high temperatures, destroys some nutritious constituents.

With regards to the prevention of souring, sour raw milk is very widely used. It is given to invalids, being easily digested, laxative in its properties, and not unpleasant to take. But, after pasteurization, the lactic acid bacilli are killed. The milk, in consequence, cannot become sour and quickly decomposes, while undesirable germs multiply very quickly.

Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food–a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy farmer’s answer to the pasteurization zealots.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily, only one case of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose, which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluble the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.

In the face of these facts–which are undeniable–what has the Pasteurization Party to say? Instead of compelling dealers to set up expensive machinery for turning raw milk into something that is definitely not what it sets out to be–a nutritious, health giving food–let them pass legislation making the dairy farmers produce clean, raw milk–that is, milk pure to drink with all its constituents unaltered.

RealMilk.com

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

So don’t waste your money on “organic” milk anymore. This is a waste of your resources. Redirect your energy to find real raw milk sources. Ideally, you can find a local farmer who will be willing to sell this to you. If you find one you will want to encourage him to consider restricting grains from the cow’s feed to improve the quality of the milk.

If you are unable to find a local dairy farmer who will cooperate with you please try this link: http://www.realmilk.com/where.html.

If you are in the Chicago area you can obtain raw milk from Michigan Amish farmers that bring it to the area every week or so.

What is the Real Truth about Raw Milk?

What is the Real Truth about Raw Milk?

Read Fresh from the Cow and find out why people are willing to go to any lengths to obtain this “liquid gold.”

Curious about raw milk? You’ve come to the right place. On this site you will find information on raw milk including articles and many other tidbits of information on the benefits of raw (unpasteurized, unhomogenized, straight from the cow to you) milk versus the pasteurized milk found in the stores. Take some time and look around, there is a wealth of information.

Sale of raw milk is illegal in many states, legal for sale for animal consumption only in others, and just a few states allow raw milk to be sold in stores for human consumption.

In most states, you cannot simply walk into a store and purchase a gallon of raw milk. I find this a bit nuts considering all the other things you can purchase that have been proven again and again to harm or even kill (cigarettes,anyone? ). And what about raw spinach, peanut butter, and hamburger making many people sick recently? But you are perfectly able to walk into any store and purchase these items without any hassle.

Not so with raw milk, a product that it so amazing and that so few people know so little about.

But people are learning, and the raw milk “underground” is becoming more and more popular, and folks are out there spreading the raw milk gospel. More and more people are demanding the right to purchase this liquid gold.

Those who drink raw milk note many health benefits. You may find that your stomach and digestion issues clear up on a raw milk regimen. Allergies often vanish as well. Children with autism have been placed on raw milk and shown amazing improvement.

Accolades for raw milk abound, and some even feed it to their dogs and notice a decrease or total elimination of the flea population among many other health benefits.

Is raw milk the cure-all for every disease known to mankind? Perhaps not, but its benefits are truly wonderful. As you will realize, after perusing this site and reading some of the articles and information, the process of pasteurizing milk kills the friendly bacteria and vital nutrients in raw “real” milk which is what makes it so healthy. Keep in mind that in the “olden days” people existed without any pasteurization process and they had far less health problems.

If you are lactose intolerant, you will likely be able to drink raw milk.

There are those who go so far as to say pasteurization makes the milk toxic, and people are doing more harm than good in drinking milk from the store. Do enough research on the topic and you may come to the same conclusion.

Another thing to consider with store-bought milk from the big dairy companies is the health of the cow. They are kept in feed lots and fed large amounts of grain which is the worst thing you can do for a cow. You would not want to drink raw milk from such an animal. However, the small family-owned dairy farms that you can find scattered throughout the country know that a cow should be grass fed or at the most, very minimal grain, for optimum health.

If you can find such a farm near you willing to share their milk, you can’t do much better for your health

http://www.rawmilktruth.com/

Raw Milk as Medicine Medicine

Raw Medicine

Milk, of course, is designed to promote growth- specifically, the building of baby mammals. Curiously, the process of repair often mimics growth, and that’s undoubtedly how raw, grass-fed milk has earned its status as one of the world’s most powerful healing foods.

Eminent Canadian physician, Sir William Osler ( below, right 1849-1919) recommended it as a valuable aid in treating many serious diseases, often calling it ‘white blood.’ Today, an incredible array of milk-derived supplements are available for those seeking relief from disease or to improve their health in general.

Missing here in America, however, is one special substance, immune milk, that could revolutionize medicine and healthcare, but which, like raw milk, is largely suppressed. We’ll get to that in a bit, but first, some background on just how raw bovine milk products can foster growth and healing.

FIRST MILK

All mother mammals want their offspring to thrive- that’s one of the basic laws of survival, but how nature assists with this is nothing short of remarkable. Depending on the species, mom either passes on a little or a lot of her immune system to junior via the first milk she produces. But not just any milk. There’s a special name for the rich, yellowish broth of proteins, immunoglobulins (antibodies), lactose, growth factors and anti-microbial agents that make up baby’s earliest meals: colostrum.

In the 1920′s, Italian pediatrician Luigi Spolverini (below, right 1873-1965) echoing what millions of farm families had known for hundreds of years, advocated colostrum for use in treating infants.

Here’s a partial list of some of the more biologically active ingredients identified in bovine colostrum that helps explain why it’s such a potent tool for healing:

Immunoglobulins IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE, IgD: Large, complex sugar/protein (glycoprotein) molecules (also known as antibodies) used by the immune system to find and deactivate pathogens such as bacteria and viruses.
Transforming Growth Factor Beta: Stimulates growth and repair of the gastro-intestinal tract.

Epidermal Growth Factor: Biochemically regulates cellular growth, cellular division and cell type. Fosters rapid tissue repair.

Glutathione: Powerful antioxidant that offers protection to cells from free radicals.

Interferons: Specialized proteins that inhibit replication of viruses within cells throughout the body.

Interleukins: A large group of signaling molecules that help regulate the immune system.

Oligosaccharides: Groups of 3-10 sugar molecules that protect against pathogens by competing for binding sites on the intestinal epithelium and provide support to friendly probiotic bacteria.

Proline-rich Polypeptide (PRP) or Colostrinin: Anti-inflammatory hormone that helps regulate immune system activity by stimulating the thymus gland.

Transferrin: Immune system glycoprotein that binds free iron, which, in turn, inhibits bacterial growth.

In cows, newborn calves import up to 90% of their immunity to pathogens and disease from the first 24 hours of suckling. Human newborns get the bulk of their mother’s immunity transferred to them prior to birth (across the placenta) but still need that first colostrum to optimize their immune systems. Gentle reminder for all you mothers-to-be out there: whatever you do, make sure your infant gets its fill of your first milk, then continue to breast feed for as long as you can.

Fortunately for calves (and us), their mothers make a surplus of colostrum, roughly 6 gallons (22-24 liters) in the first 24 hours alone. After that, the concentration of antibodies and other factors tapers off quickly to the levels found in regular or ‘mature’ milk (see graph, below).

The immune factors in colostrum are highest in the first 12 hours, because calves are born with what are, essentially, ‘leaky guts.’ That is, their intestinal tract is porous to the large immunoglobulin molecules which are transferring their mother’s immunity.
To get full protection, they need 2-3 gallons of the richest colostrum before their gut lining closes completely, around 24 hours of age. Incidentally, this property is what makes colostrum so useful in healing damage done to the intestinal lining caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDS.

So, can humans actually take (and benefit from) bovine colostrum? As mentioned above, generations of farmers know the answer to be a resounding ‘Yes!’ The plethora of ads hawking supplements that contain it, and the thousands of scientific studies backing up the seemingly miraculous claims, all appear to confirm that the magic it works in cows applies to humans, too.

In truth, while there is a lot of variation in both quality and efficacy among the literally hundreds of products for sale out there, serious science seems to back up a lot of the claims: colostrum can be powerful medicine.

What is it touted to do? A very incomplete list includes: helps to restore and reset the immune system, speeds healing of surgical wounds, burns, and skin injuries, alleviates asthma and other inflammatory diseases, boosts athletic performance and protects against numerous disease-causing pathogens.

It’s important to understand that the bevy of beneficial ingredients in colostrum (and all foods, really) are designed to work in concert with one another. In other words, there is a synergistic relationship among all the substances which fosters the health of the organism that consumes them.

Individual components in overly processed colostrum, either damaged by pasteurization or deliberately separated out, can defeat this synergy and bypass natural systems of checks and balances, causing unwanted results. Stick with whole, unprocessed product wherever possible.

Also, what the animal eats and how it’s treated can have a major impact on the quality (and safety) of the end product. Unless you have access to a dairy farm or your own cow, the only colostrum you’re likely to encounter will be in processed and/or supplement form.

If you can find it straight from the cow, how much is enough? As with any new food, but especially with one as powerful as fresh, raw colostrum, start out with a small amount, say, half a cup, and see how well you tolerate it. Because we’re all biochemically different, even that small amount may be too much. Experiment until you find a level that works for you.

THE LITTLE KNOWN MIRACLE OF IMMUNE MILK

As if colostrum’s healing powers weren’t amazing enough, nature takes things one giant step further. It turns out, the cow’s udder is, for want of a better comparison, an honest-to-gosh biochemical laboratory! Researchers discovered that injecting a pregnant cow’s udder with pathogens or allergens caused the manufacture of antibodies to those substances which were then expressed in her colostrum, creating what’s known as immune milk or hyperimmune bovine colostrum.

Savvy scientists eventually injected blood from a patient into a cow’s teat and soon discovered antibodies to that patient’s ailment in the resulting colostrum. This is powerful, made-to-order medicine! Pioneer virologist Albert Sabin (right 1906-1993) is said to have discovered anti-polio antibodies in cow’s colostrum which eventually led to his oral polio vaccine. Perhaps he created them by taking advantage of the cow’s remarkable udder.

Ultimately, the discovery that cows could manufacture customized antibodies was patented (see U.S. Patent #3,376,198 for a great description of the process- it’s a fascinating read). Why affordable immune milk is unavailable in the United States today is one of life’s great mysteries, the answer to which might lie with the FDA and, probably, the USDA.
As far as I can tell, the creation and use of immune milk in the United States is still illegal, at least for humans. In other countries, like China, for instance, millions enjoy its benefits. For agricultural use in America, however, the bovine-derived vaccine market is booming.

Think of it. We have the technology to make a customized injectable vaccine that is completely safe and free of side effects, that is so inexpensive to manufacture it could be available to all, that jump starts the immune system and protects against bacteria, viruses, protozoans, fungi and allergens, and that is backed up by numerous studies attesting to its safety and efficacy. One’s heart must ache at the thought of all the unnecessary suffering caused by the suppression of this amazing substance.

Click here to read attorney Jonathan Emord’s excellent speech that outlines why a certain agency in Washington is seriously in need of an overhaul!