by Phillip Day
Robert Kradjian MD, Chief of the Division of General Surgery at Seton Medical Center in Daly City, California, writes:
“Milk! Just the word itself sounds comforting. “How about a nice cup of hot milk?” The last time you heard that question, it was from someone who cared for you, and you appreciated their effort.
The entire matter of food, and especially that of milk, is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our first food. If we were fortunate, it was our mother’s milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother’s milk, it was cow’s milk or soy milk ‘formula’ – rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.
Now we are a nation of milk-drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults, even the elderly. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year each and add to that many pounds of ‘dairy’ products, such as cheese, butter and yoghurt.
Can there be anything wrong with this?” 1
Actually, there’s plenty wrong with it. Once again, the marketeers of Big Milk have wooed us with their impressive campaigns of creamy moustaches and “Got Milk?” and “Milk – It Does a Body Good”. There is one thing conspicuously missing in the logic of all this though. Cow’s milk is for baby cows.
Many today do not consume milk because it makes them ill. Caucasians, on the other hand, lead the pack as the only mammal weaned off its mum only to spend the rest of its life stuck under the udders of a completely different species. No animal in the mammal kingdom continues milk consumption past weaning and babyhood. Milk will take a little animal from birth to weaning, and after that it’s time for big-boy/big-girl food. This is a law of nature. No one drinks milk once they are up and walking. Except humans!
Harvey Diamond, author of the bestseller Fit For Life, sees milk as a politicised but failing food experiment now people are learning the truth: “You can be absolutely certain of one thing: milk is the most political food in America. According to the Los Angeles Times, the dairy industry is subsidized (meaning the taxpayer foots the bill) to the tune of almost three billion dollars a year! That’s 342,000 dollars every hour to buy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of dairy products that will in all likelihood never be eaten.… The demand for dairy products has declined substantially as it becomes more apparent they are not the perfect foods they were once touted to be.
But dairy production is continuous. Be assured that much of the publicity referring to the health benefits of dairy products is commercially motivated. In March 1984 the Los Angeles Times reported that the Department of Agriculture decided to launch a $140-million advertising campaign to “promote milk-drinking and help reduce the multibillion-dollar surplus.” Although the real reason for the advertising campaign is to reduce the surplus, the ads attempt to convince you to buy milk for its many so-called health benefits.”2
We’ve been hearing of milk lakes and butter mountains for years, especially in Europe, demonstrating that production of dairy greatly outstrips the demand. And why is that? Hundreds of studies exist with milk as the focus. The main thrust of these however, far from lauding milk as the perfect food we have been told it is, deals with a horrific litany of ills with which the white stuff has regaled humankind.
Do they tell us milk makes stronger bones and teeth and turns you into an Olympian athlete? If we were to believe the piffle fed to us through the udders of the mass communications media, science should be telling us to go out and fill our swimming pools and baths with the stuff to ward off those ills milk is allegedly perfect in preventing. They don’t. What a dastardly whitewash. How could the public have been so completely creamed? The pro-milk pitch is, of course, not grounded in science. It is the hype of the marketeer and the balance sheet.3
Mostly what you read in these studies is how cow’s milk brings on allergic reactions in humans, and asthma, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, colic, salmonella and reactions in children and infants. Toxicologists such as Dr Samuel Epstein have long been warning about other dangers, such as the chronic misuse of antibiotics and hormones in cattle farming, giving rise to a whole new era of problems. Increased estrogen intake brought on by farmers fattening their stock with estrogenic compounds shows links in adults to breast and ovarian cancers, atherosclerosis and heart disease.4 Notice once again that all these conditions can be termed ‘survival responses’ to a specific, or series of threats. Leukaemias and lymphomas, along with arthritis, accelerated sexual development in children and the potential for infection with bovine leukaemia virus as well as childhood diabetes, are also discussed by science in connection to milk and meat consumption.5 Contamination through the milk supply with pesticides and insecticides has also given rise to concerns with child health, including allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding and colic.6 On top of that, add in the problems of feminisation and infertility in adult males brought on by increased weight and the physiological changes wrought by progressive fat storage. Dr Wendy Denning and Vicki Edgson report:
“Obese men with pot bellies are likely to develop breast tissue. This is because fat is actually a hormonal gland and fat tissues in the abdomen convert testosterone into oestrogens. At the same time obese men are getting raised levels of estrogen, they’re not making much testosterone because of the foods they eat – a study has shown that eating a meal high in saturated fat reduced testosterone levels for up to four hours. On the other hand, protein and high-carbohydrate meals had no such effect.
So it appears that obese men can get testosterone deficiency as a result of abdominal fat cells, and also from the fat they eat. The resulting hormone imbalance of too much oestrogen and not enough free testosterone partially explains why so many men in this condition are impotent and experience a wide range of premature degenerative diseases, as well as the threat of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes.”7
NOT MY CUP OF TEA
Most milk-moustachers don’t realise milk contains blood and white (pus) cells from the animal. USDA inspectors in America know this and require milk-processors to keep the content of these white cells to a maximum of 1 to 1.5 million per millilitre (1/30th of an ounce). The other point is that fifty years ago the average cow produced 20,000 pounds of milk annually. Today, top gold-star bovines are churning out 50,000-plus pounds by comparison. Do you want to know how they do this? Charles Atlas’s Dynamic Tension Technique maybe? An LA sports club membership perhaps?
Antibiotics, drugs and recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH is a genetically engineered drug, produced by Monsanto, which swears blind the hormone does not affect the milk or meat of the animal. As the Duke of Wellington once said, “If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.” Dr Joseph Mercola writes:
“In 1997, a pair of reporters prepared a report for a Fox TV affiliate in Florida about the dangers of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in milk. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the network, sent letters promising ‘dire consequences’ if the story aired.
After attempts by Fox to bribe the reporters to keep quiet failed, the station agreed to air a revised version of the report. An unheard of 83 edits later (including Monsanto insisting that the word ‘cancer’ be replaced with the phrase ‘human health implications’), the report was shelved and the courts took over.
Although a lower court ruled in favour of the reporters for some $425,000, a Florida appeals court denied them whistleblower protection, claiming Fox and the media in general have no obligation to tell the truth, in effect, having the freedom to report what is fact and fiction as real news.”8
Beef hormones are big business because they fatten cows, which means farmers want to buy them since, in the case of estradiol, they add significant weight to an animal during its 100-day fattening period prior to slaughter. This can result in an extra $80 in the farmer’s wallet as a bonus. Dr Epstein, the cancer establishment’s long-time antagonist and critic, describes a frightening legacy of non-regulation and governmental irresponsibility:
“As of 1990, more than 95% of American beef cattle were implanted with carcinogenic growth-promoting hormones. The European Economic Community banned hormone-treated meat in 1989 and does not allow US or other producers to export their meat into the EEC. This ban was recently [February 1998] upheld by a World Trade Organisation appellate body.
In the absence of effective federal regulation, the US meat industry uses hundreds of animal feed additives, including antibiotics, tranquilizers, pesticides, animal drugs, artificial flavours, industrial wastes and growth-promoting hormones, with little or no concern about the carcinogenic and other toxic effects of dietary residues of these additives.”9
And so the predictable cast of manufacturers, ever greedy for a fresh slice of the drug pie, prowls around this lucrative profit-centre like fat cats around a milk churn. Naturally the drug companies don’t tell you that what gets fed to the cows invariably comes out in the whitewash. The milk produced by cows fed steroid-bolstered, antibiotic-laced, hormone-accelerated diets, which in certain cases can contain human excrement (France) and all those drug and bacterial elements, finds its way into the human food chain, bringing with it its Borgian payload. “But that’s what pasteurisation is for!” shrill the white-moustachers. Wipe your faces, my friends, and keep reading. It all gets so horribly compelling in a minute.
rBGH causes a significant increase in mastitis (udder infection) in cows requiring antibiotic treatment and salves. These drug residues show up in the milk and survive pasteurisation, which is designed to kill off harmful bacteria. Even the US Government’s General Accounting Office has stated federal and state legislation across America is failing to regulate the true extent of drug and hormone contamination.10 Pesticides and drugs taken in through meat and dairy products consumed by the mother show up in her breast milk and are then transmitted to the infant.1
Dr Frank Oski, of the Upstate Medical Center Department of Pediatrics, has spoken out against the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that whole bovine milk should be consumed by infants at all. Breaking ranks with his peers in Pediatrics, Oski states:
“It is my thesis that milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anaemia (cow’s milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to consume an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the iron RDA of 15mg), occult gastrointestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I further suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.”12
NOT IN MY VEIN
So why do we drink cow’s milk? Why don’t we drink lion’s milk to make us braver, or rat’s milk to make us slyer or cat’s milk so we can scratch up the furniture? The question is not as silly as it sounds. We drink cow’s milk because that is culturally what we have always done. Cows are easy to catch and they stand still when you milk them, cats I’m not so sure. You’re not likely to have the same success either if your penchant is for polar bear milk, and you probably won’t live to get the Queen’s telegram either.
No, we drink cow’s milk because it is readily available and we have been conned into believing we cannot get by without it. And then along comes the breakfast cereal industry and hooks us on sucrose, gluten and milk, all mixed up together with some raisins sprinkled on top for good measure, and persuades us to eat it during our morning elimination cycle. This then is our breakfast ‘health food’. What is the difference between my getting out of the car and suckling a cow in the field to your horror, and Sainsbury’s and Walmart obtaining it for me, packaging it and setting it on their supermarket shelves? Marketing. We’ll drink it if it is provided for us. If it isn’t, we won’t go suckle the cow. Figure out the logic of that one when you’ve got a minute.
Cow’s milk is no way similar or an ideal replacement for human milk. Milk varies widely according to species as would be expected. Cow’s milk, for instance, has three to four times more protein than human milk. Rat milk contains up to eleven times more protein than human milk.13 Cow’s milk is designed to assist baby cows in their development in very specific ways. It has five to seven times the mineral content but is deficient in essential fatty acids compared to human milk. Human milk contains up to eleven times the essential fatty acid components, most specifically linoleic acid, essential for neurological development, which is completely absent in cow’s milk when skimmed (cows are not renowned for their mental gymnastics).14 Actually, if milk-drinking had anything to do with logic at all (it doesn’t, we’re weaned under two years of age), we should all be drinking human mother’s milk. We should have factories up and down the country full up with women connected up to industrial milking machines. And if they don’t produce enough, there’s always Monsanto for a dose or two of their rBGH….
Harvey Diamond points out other problems with the white stuff: “The enzymes required to break down and digest milk are renin and lactase. They are all but gone by the age of three in most humans. There is a protein in all milk known as casein. There is three hundred times more casein in cow’s milk than in human’s milk. That’s for the development of huge [cow] bones. Casein coagulates in the stomach and forms large, tough, dense, difficult-to-digest curds that are adapted to the four-stomach digestive apparatus of a cow.
Once inside the human system, this thick mass of goo puts a tremendous burden on the body to get rid of it somehow. In other words, a huge amount of energy must be expended in dealing with it. Unfortunately some of this gooey substance hardens and adheres to the lining of the intestines and prevents the absorption of nutrients into the body. Also the by-products of milk digestion leave a great deal of toxic mucus in the body. It’s very acidic and stored in the body until it can be dealt with at a later time. The next time you are going to dust your home, smear some paste all over everything and see how easy it is to dust. Dairy products do the same inside your body. That translates into more weight instead of weight loss.
Casein, by the way, is the base of one of the strongest glues used in woodworking.” 15
When I was at school, we used to be given bottles of milk to drink in the playground. Of course in those days current political correctness and the Nanny State were but an embryo in the minds of the communist social architects of the 1960s, so milk got thrown everywhere, and so did the glass bottles that held it. My enduring memories of those days were the smell of decomposing milk, the thick mucus and taste of it in my mouth, and most of all the chronic runny noses and ear infections we all had, which weren’t just because of the limb-snapping cold that afflicts English kids in January. I know they were trying to kill us before the age of seven, for who else but the terminally psychotic would ever send trusting kids out in Siberia temperatures in short trousers to guzzle whole milk by the frozen (glass) bottle-load while we had sword-fights with the icicles?
One kid’s nose in particular used to gush like Niagara. Every time you saw Farr, he had those glassy pearls coming out of his nostrils. I was fascinated with this phenomenon and fully believed my mates when they told me Farr’s brains were coming out through his nose. Come to think about it, we all had those Niagara noses and thick, flobby gunk in our mouths after playtime. And we all suffered colds too as our bodies struggled to clear out the mess. At aged 21 I gave up drinking milk and haven’t had a problem since.
Dr William A Ellis, a retired osteopathic physician and surgeon, has reported on milk and its health-related problems for over forty years. His research shows conclusive links between high dairy consumption and heart disease, arthritis, allergies and migraines. In conclusion, he also states there is “…overwhelming evidence that milk and milk products are a major factor in obesity…. Over my forty-two years of practice, I’ve performed more than 25,000 blood tests for my patients. These tests show, conclusively in my opinion, that adults who use milk products do not absorb nutrients as well as adults who don’t. Of course, poor absorption in turn means chronic fatigue.” 16
Other studies have linked Type 1 diabetes to chronic milk consumption. On 30th July 1992 the New England Journal of Medicine wrote up a landmark report. Apparently in Finland there is “… the world’s highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world’s highest rate of insulin-dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there, contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States….
Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic make-up leaves them vulnerable.”17
These same researchers also studied 142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes and found that every one had at least eight times the level of antibodies against milk proteins than normal children. “Clear evidence,” one of the researchers stated, “that these children had a raging auto-immune disorder.”
THE CALCIUM MYTH
Another favourite maxim of Big Milk is that their product is ‘pure’ because of the pasteurisation and besides, milk gives you calcium to assist in the development of healthy bones. This too is complete nonsense bordering on the criminal. The pasteurisation technique of heating up milk to kill the bugs is widely known to kill off enzymes too, destroy the germicidal properties of bovine milk and reduce the usable vitamin content by at least 50%. Calves fed pasteurised milk die within 60 days so why do we think it’ll do our kids any good, unless…. Actually the benefits of pasteurisation revert to the farmer and the milk industry: pasteurised milk lasts longer on the supermarket shelves and the more hapless farmers can get away with a lower standard of cleanliness around the farm.
The calcium question confuses many. Calcium exists in the body for structure as well as providing a means to neutralise acid build-up. No-one’s denying milk contains calcium. The consumption of dairy, however, greatly increases acidity, requiring the body to use water and calcium to adjust the pH balance. The problem with milk calcium is that it is coarser than the calcium contained in human milk because it is bonded with casein, making it more unavailable. A further problem is that most dairy products have been pasteurised, skimmed, homogenised and otherwise adulterated, further degrading the calcium, rendering it even more difficult to absorb. Ingri Cassel remarks:
“Our nutritional education in school (funded in part by the diary 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 conditioning, the average American consumes 375 pounds of dairy products a year. One out of every seven dollars spent on groceries in the US goes to buy dairy products.
We have been told all of our lives to drink plenty of milk in order to build strong teeth and bones. Curiously, the US as a whole records one of the highest consumption of dairy products in the world and also boasts the highest incidence of bones fractures and osteoporosis.
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 sulphur [acidic] content, alter the kidneys’ 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 90-100mg of calcium a day.” 18
So once again, there’s Westernised humanity rendering themselves acidic on expert advice through the consumption of animal products which, by their very nature, strip sodium, calcium and magnesium to alkalise the acid onslaught. Don’t be fooled into the old protein deficiency myth. You couldn’t get a protein deficiency in the western world if your shortened life depended on it. Did you know it takes five hours for the blood to be cleared of fatty cholesterol sludge after a good old animal chow-down, and that goes for milk? A splash of milk in a cuppa is not what I’m talking about. I’m trying to stop people drinking gallons of the stuff in the belief that it’s giving them some sort of health benefit. With solid evidence now pointing to unweaned humans becoming sicker and more gummed up by the day, can we any longer maintain with even a shred of credibility that ‘milk does a body good’?
1 Kradjian, Robert M Don’t Get Milk, Seton Medical Center, #302, 1800 Sullivan Av, Daly City CA 94015 USA
2 Diamond, Harvey, Fit For Life, op. cit. pp.105–106
3 Lancet 2, “Beware of the Cow” (editorial), (1974): 30 4
4 Epstein, Samuel S, Politics…., op. cit. Estradiol, Trenbolone, Zeranol and Melengesterol Acetate are all used as hormonal anabolics in rearing cattle. Residues of these drugs are passed into the food chain with the consumption of milk and beef products. Estrogen is used because it has the ability to promote the storage of energy in the body as fat, increasing the weight of the animal.
5 American Journal of Epidemiology,“Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa” 112 (1980): 80 2; Science, “Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus” 213 (1981): 1014 3
6 Pediatrics, “Is Bovine Milk a Health Hazard?” Suppl. 75:182–186; 1985
7 Denning, Wendy and Vicki Edgson, The Diet Doctors Inside and Out, op. cit. p.89
9 Epstein, Samuel S, Politics… op. cit. p.585
10 Kradjian, Robert M, Don’t Get Milk, op. cit. p.7
11 Lancet, “Cow’s Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic With Breast Fed Infants” (1978):437 2; J. Pediatr. “Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast-Fed Infants”, 101 (1982): 906 3; J. Immunology, “The Question of Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women’s Milk” Vol. 19 (1930): 15
12 Pediatrics, 1983: 72–253
13 Bell, G Textbook of Physiology and Biochemistry, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1959
14 Kradjian, Robert M, Don’t Get Milk, op. cit.
15 Diamond, Harvey, op. cit. pp.107–108
16 Biser, Samuel The HealthView Newsletter, “The Truth About Milk”, 14, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Spring, 1978: 1–5
17 Also reported in the Los Angeles Times
18 Cassel, Ingri, The Idaho Observer, “Does Milk Really Look Good On You? Don’t Drink It!” http://proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm