You will find out about a host of diseases caused by milk (products) including well-researched studies from scientists the world over.
From a world company we received the demand for not using 4864 different names. They are mainly prescription drugs, etc. Including "I" for the active ingredient in the body that inhibits diabetes. We now use "shortcuts" and have deleted some passages and numerous helpful links. The original contribution can only be viewed by members (membership is possible at the top left of our pages, EE June 2019).
Milk and dairy products are so well marketed that it is difficult for readers to take the contents of this book seriously enough. Only people who have acquired their own factual information independent of the food industry can understand the data provided in the book. Just on the subject of osteoporosis, the book makes clear how dishonest the food industry has been in manipulating the public opinion.
Minimally read the PDF report of a respected and very independent medical professor under the heading of mineral water. This PDF is in one of the yellow boxes and you can click on it to enlarge it.
Besides the combination of the components in milk which is harmful to humans, there is the problem of "growthhormones". A calf needs to gain 2.2 to 3.3 lbs a day...
Just like the dairy industry, this book also shows some one-sided research results. Therefore I wrote a later article on milk and dairy products, which is as balanced as possible; because nothing exists that has only disadvantages or only advantages.
Enough results from large studies can be found here, which prove explicitly that one should not use milk and dairy products, except as an infant and then it should be breast milk from the infant’s mother, who likewise should not consume dairy products for minimally the duration of the time she nurses!
The fact is that animal protein encourages the loss of calcium through the urine because it lowers the body's pH level, and because of sulfur-containing amino acids and sodium in milk.
Vegetable proteins, however, tend to integrate calcium into the bones. This is because there is enough magnesium. Vitamin D is also important for the absorption of calcium in the bones along with magnesium. However, oxalates, phytates and other substances can interfere with calcium absorption as well.
I have to admit, I do find the book "Milk Better Not!" by Maria Rollinger, better researched and more comprehensive. You can find a detailed book review on it here. I believe it is the best book on the subject. Unfortunately it is only available in German at this time.
Robert Cohen, an ardent opponent of milk and dairy products, reports what trickery Monsanto and its minions used to get approval for the genetically engineered "BovineGrowthHormone" rBGH ("Posil..") in the US. This can now also be found in the milk and blood of those who consume it.
The author takes up the possible reasons for diseases caused by milk and dairy product consumption especially in the last quarter of the book. They are documented through scientific studies. Animal welfare, ecology, and environmental awareness are addressed very briefly. The book essentially focuses on human health.
The extreme title catches a lot of attention. But the author and his book leave room for attack, which led to retaliatory responses, mostly by representatives of the dairy industry. Based on a photo of the author taken four years after the publication of the book, i.e. 2002, I have to assume that he preaches water and drinks wine. See below. On his website he writes in his blog about fasting for 205 days in 1999 to 2000. Through my own experience with fasting, I must say that I doubt the truth of certain statements he makes on that.
After all, he presents 337 mostly verifiable references which are often based on studies. He lists many distinctive scientists on whose findings he based his statements. The dairy industry was not able to suppress everything Robert Cohen revealed.
References (Page 289)
Index (Page 307)
America's drugstores and supermarkets are full of remedies that are intended to counteract diseases which were created by milk and dairy products: pills for headaches, sprays against nasal stuffiness, nasal drops and antihistamines (histamine antagonists) for the relief of allergic symptoms or remedies to bring relief from gas, bloating, diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome due to lactose intolerance.
Milk also contains certain pathogens such as bovine leukemia (bovine leukemia virus BLV), in other words enzootic bovine leukosis, tuberculosis in cattle and bovine immunodeficiency virus (lentiviruses). Today's milk differs massively from the milk before the Second World War.
The supposedly healthy milk contains disease-causing "GrowthFactors" (specific proteins). At least in the US, Monsanto has been having cows injected with genetically engineered "growthhormones" to increase milk production. These genetically engineered "growthhormones" of course show up in the milk that one drinks.
Monsanto invested a billion dollars to get this artificial hormone passed by the political authorities. The argument was that the artificial "growthhormone" would be indistinguishable from the natural one, which is not true.
Despite warnings about the health effects of dairy consumption, the dairy industry (milk production, milk processing, milk marketing) has increased sales every year.
© CC-by-sa 3.0, Gunnar Richter, Wikipedia
If we compare the consumption of dairy products and beer, we cannot talk about beer bellies, but would have to explain about the milk bellies.
The evidence is shown in this link for abdomen.
I’ll summarize the important points. We should distinguish between the effects of milk consumption in specific cases and the consequences of many years of milk consumption with today’s average amounts consumed. In the first case, problems occur immediately or within a short period of time.
But most diseases arise only after decades of dairy products consumption, such as osteoporosis, arthritis, and coronary heart disease. Statistics also show an increase of certain types of cancer with increased milk consumption, but it has been difficult to get unambiguous verification.
Ask a doctor what you should do to prevent osteoporosis. He will recommend dairy products. But milk and dairy products will bring about the exact opposite result and that is clearly proven.
The dairy industry is aware of the scientific works on this subject. Osteoporosis mainly affects women. Chronic diseases caused by milk often begin with joint osteoarthritis (arthritis) in the hip and/or knee, or finger joints.
Too many small factors are brought into play and the industry can produce immediate counter-studies.
Interested consumers can’t see the forest before the trees. However, a logician will recognize a connection just by the number of "growthhormones" in the milk and how they show up in our blood.
Whether you will suffer directly or indirectly from cow’s milk also depends on your genes and their expression. Unfortunately, no one makes money from describing risks of milk consumption, except perhaps the book’s author. That's why these facts are usually not known to the public.
Some genetically caused problems such as lactose intolerance show up immediately. Others show up in infants or small children, such as juvenile diabetes or certain inflammations in the ENT area (paranasal sinuses, tonsils, and ear). Allergies can show up immediately or years, even decades later.
Through complete elimination of milk and dairy products off of one’s diet and limited consumption of other animal proteins, such ailments can be cured, if not too advanced, in about 3 months. Many such success stories exist. A good amount of exercise and sports is also beneficial.
In studies on milk and dairy products, researchers found the following conditions common in children who drank milk: allergies, ear and tonsil infections (otitis, tonsillitis), bedwetting (enuresis), bronchial asthma, intestinal bleeding (gastrointestinal bleeding), colic and diabetes (diabetes mellitus type 2, juvenile diabetes). In adults the medical conditions tends to be coronary heart disease, arthritis, allergies, sinusitis (sinus infections), leukemia, lymphoma (lymph node cancer), and other cancers. (Page 212)
The German Wikipedia asserts the following:
A retrospective statistical, not placebo-controlled study in 2005 by Clement Adebamowo (Boston/USA) asserted to have found that there is a statistical link between the consumption of certain dairy products and the onset of acne in young women by analysis of questionnaires from more than 47'000 nurses.
You can find three studies that prove that in the English Wikipedia under Acne!
Section 2.14 contains a summary on milk alternatives. My notes confirm that there are more concentrated sources of calcium other than milk. Compared to milk, you can receive several times the amount of calcium from certain vegetables.
Good milk substitutes for calcium are kale, broccoli, fennel, leek, pak choi, almonds, figs and some mineral waters or suitable drinking water. The residential community should know the composition of drinking water.
After the book review I list books on the subject of milk and dairy products.
Prof. Dr. Benjamin Spock M.D. pointed out that children under one year of age should not be given cow's milk. He created the standard work on infant and child care in 1946. His main argument against cow's milk: Negative reactions to "cow hormones" that pass through the stomach because milk temporarily neutralizes stomach acid to a pH of 6.
Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recognized that the human body does not absorb the iron in cow’s milk properly. AAP is the largest organization of pediatricians.
In April 1995, Dr. Neal D. Barnard M.D., author of Food for Life and director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, listed a large number of reasons why dairy products are not appropriate for human consumption and often cause disease.
He points out:
There is no nutritional requirement for dairy products, and there are serious problems that can result from the proteins, sugar, fat and contaminants in milk products. (Page 100)
Problem areas which are treated are, for example, immunoglobulins, i.e. antibody proteins in the milk, lactoferrin, a protein with multifunctional enzyme activities (catalyst activity) and other substances. Some of these are quite different in amount and effect as compared to human milk (breast milk).
The lysosomes of human milk with their digestive enzymes affect the intestinal flora of an infant very significantly. Breast milk contains about 30 times more of it than cow's milk, for important reasons.
Also various "growthhormones" determine the future intestinal flora. In children, who were breastfed you can find amazing differences compared to infants who received infant formula or baby food quite early.
Dr. Robert Kradjian M.D. points out the chaos that the so-called scientific studies cause with physicians and consumers, because most of these studies are done on behalf of the industry and are set up in such a way as to create the result suiting their needs. Critical studies are a small minority, which generate very little attention.
Cow's milk contains so little iron compared to breast milk that anemia occurs (Dr. Frank A. Oski in "The Journal of Pediatrics", 1983: 72-253). Oski was the director of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and is the author of "Do Not Drink Your Milk". He received the E. Mead Johnson Award in 1972 from the Society for Pediatric Research (a member of the American Pediatric Society).
Dr. John Postley M.D. lists milk as one of the main evils regarding allergies in his book "The Allergy Discovery Diet". We should pay attention to the ingredients, such as grains (gluten) and casein in products.
Even Harvey and Marilyn Diamond write in their bestseller "Fit for Life", that
nothing undermines health more than milk and dairy products. They specifically mention the cholesterol in milk and dairy products, the allergies and lies about the effects of calcium in cow’s milk.
Human - cow - sheep - goat - horse milk comparison (according to Wikipedia - German, July 2014, Breastmilk)
|Water||87,2 %||87,5 %||82,7 %||86,6 %||90,1 %|
|Carbohydrate||7,0 %||4,8 %||6,3 %||3,9 %||5,9 %|
|Fat||4,0 %||3,5–4,0 %||5,3 %||3,7 %||1,5 %|
|Protein||1,5 %||3,5 %||4,6 %||4,2 %||2,1 %|
|Trace minerals||0,3 %||0,7 %||0,9 %||0,8 %||0,4 %|
We are not aware that only a small percentage of people show no lactose intolerance. Lactose intolerance can be developed later by not consuming milk for a few years.
"MILK The Deadly Poison" is an exaggerated title for this book and yet the direction is right. But the billion dollar marketing budgets of the dairy and food industry leave no room to access popular public print media and electronic media. The advertising income is too high. The advertising would be canceled quickly, not only for milk and dairy products.
Robert Cohen explains in his preface how the knowledge that the Monsanto Agricultural Company manipulated the natural "growthfactor" in cow's milk shook him up in the summer of 1994. Employees of Monsanto figured out how the Coli bacteria (Escherichia coli) and the genetic material of the cow could be combined to form a new "growthhormone". Cows injected with it are supposed to have increased milk production. That's doping of defenseless animals.
The book was published in 1998, after three years of work (actually four), in a time when 25 million women over 40 suffered from bone destructive arthritis and/or osteoporosis in the United States. (Page xi) These women drank an average of more than one liter of milk per day throughout their life. He then posed the question why doctors were not recognizing this connection. Doctors did not ask themselves why the high milk consumption did not prevent these diseases, although milk consumption is supposed to prevent osteoporosis.
This brings up the question of what the real reasons for the condemnation of milk actually are. Because attentive consumers now recognize from various sources that there are good reasons to avoid dairy products. But we rarely find the hard facts. Although the information has been available for decades, it remains hidden from consumers as if locked up in a poison cabinet.
Monsanto hasn’t yet managed to obtain approval for the genetically engineered "growthhormone" in Europe. That's why I address the problems caused by the added hormones and the reasons why the competent authorities completely failed only very briefly.
The reasons mainly include the intimate interdependence of industry and scientists, influence in the sense of manipulation of politics by lobbyists (lobbying) in the departments (institutions) and, finally, the indirect control of the mass media (fourth estate) by the companies of the industry and trade.
Surely, you believe milk was particularly healthy, do you not? Even vegans abstain sometimes from dairy products simply because they are against the suffering of animals, not because of the effects of milk. This book is not interesting because Cohen wrote it, but because he so painstakingly amassed facts from others. That was a very big job.
The facts were partly created by highly respected scientists with studies funded independent of the dairy industry. They show such a different picture than the studies authorized by the dairy industry, that you barely want to trust it.
Although these scientists published very convincing evidence in the best scientific journals, the truth has no chance against the overwhelming power of manipulation described above with billion dollar budgets for propaganda. Moreover, few people can weigh those facts properly and reflect on the matter with the onslaught of the constant propaganda.
Thus, a rethinking by the public (or masses) is not possible. How, when even doctors believe such tales as “milk is good against osteoporosis?” And why should doctors get a different view if the myth is deeply embedded in their mind and where training invitations come from the industry representatives? They have to stick to the dogmas or the dictums (doctrines), which they have been taught.
Robert Cohen began a hunger strike on November 7, 1999, which he kept up for 205 days until 29 May 2000 according to his website notmilk.com.
He writes every day in his blog, among others things, about the history of the approval of Monsanto's artificial "growthhormone" (Monsanto was also the developer of Roundup) and other injustices. His site has an Alexa rank of 649,579 and Google PR4, suggesting quite a few readers.
Picture of Robert Cohen holding a lecture in March 2001.
How does this portrait fit with an alleged fasting of a total of 205 days until May 2000, unless he was drinking alcohol instead of water?
The Dr. title in Echoworld is not his problem. Is psychoneuroendocrinologist correct? I got no answer from him. In this profession you study the hormonal system associated with behavior and experience.
Jane Heimlich, the author of the foreword, is author of the book "What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You". She remembers her father's words, when she didn’t finish drinking her daily milk which shows how we are conditioned, based on lies.
You find out that Monsanto put $500 million towards research and development. This is supposed to achieve a higher milk yield by farmers (by 20 %, through direct injection of synthetic "growthhormone" "Posil.." (not Prosilac) in the cows). The name of the artificial hormone gets slightly amended by adding an r in front of "bovineSomatoTropin" (bST or BST, "bovinesomatotropin" or BGH for "BovineGrowthHormone") which stands for recombined.
This "growthhormone" produced by Eschericchia coli thus is called rBST or rBGH (recombinant "BovineGrowthHormone" or rBST for recombinant bovine "somatotr...."). Posilac is the trademark of Monsanto. Licensees may use other brand names.
The German Wikipedia even says:
As a side effect, the cow can suffer udder inflammation and pus gets produced, which is excreted into the milk. As a countermeasure, an increased use of antibiotics is recommended. Moreover, hormone components and antibiotics go directly into the cow's milk.
In English Wikipedia also says:
Milk from rBST-treated cows is not, however, chemically identical to traditional milk. Milk from rBST-treated cows contains slightly elevated levels of hormones such as BST, and the "InsulinlikeGrowthFactor 1" (IGF1).
She criticizes the government bodies (departments, agencies) that were responsible for the approval, as well as the WHO and the professional organization of physicians, the American Medical Association (AMA). They would not listen to the increasing criticism of dairy farmers and have failed in their examination.
Robert Cohen collected facts for three years to finally come to the conclusion that dairy products cause heart disease (cardiovascular disease) and increased risk of breast cancer. The reader learns that milk is not only a poor calcium source, but why milk is a primary cause of allergies and much more.
One doesn’t just have to believe Cohen. The book shows the processes and facts concerning the deceptions and lies from Monsanto, authorities such as the FDA, JAMA, Science News and even Science, the Cadillac of scientific publications.
In certain places, the book reads like a detective novel. She also stresses that the book was meticulously (thoroughly, accurately) documented. In fact, I count 337 references (sources), which are usually verifiable.
Jane Heimlich knows similar experiences of her husband about blindness of institutions. Her husband is Dr. Henry Jay Heimlich M.D., who developed the Heimlich maneuver, an effective and life-saving method for patients to dislodge something stuck in their throat. Because tapping on the back, makes the object slide even deeper into the trachea. The American Red Cross (ARC), however, would continue the nonsense because of bureaucratic blindness, instead propagating the life-saving Heimlich maneuver. Nevertheless, Wikipedia explains it.
In countries with little or no milk consumption osteoporosis or osteoarthritis occur only in exceptional cases. Cohen believes that the millions of cleverly invested advertising money have blinded us to the facts. He also points out that the stomach does not destroy the artificial "growthhormones" in milk like it does with meat. Actually, that's the first listing of all causes and effects of milk on the human body, which he then takes up and goes on to explain in further detail in the book.
As explained above, I only briefly discuss the first few chapters, which go over the history of how Monsanto fraudulently obtained approvals for their artificial "growthhormone" in the US and its impact on animals and humans. This artificial "growthhormone" is not approved in Europe.
The first chapter covers the market power of the dairy industry, namely milk producers (milk production) and milk processors (dairies) and begins with the statement that hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the dairy industry in order to ensure that Americans consume dairy products.
This money flows partly to the media and partly to politicians, universities, researchers and their institutions. The American Dietitians Association (ADA) directly promotes the consumption of dairy products.
One would instinctively realize that milk is made for infants of their own kind, not for another species.
The milk of each different species has a very specific composition that greatly varies during the lactation period and is fully adapted to the "growing" needs for the offspring of that specific species. The first food for mammals, including humans, is milk, first in the form of colostrum and then milk which continues to change. This food is perfectly adapted to the respective species. This also highlights the large difference in composition between cow's milk and human milk. The book does not address all the individual component parts of breast milk and the possible diseases of cows.
The fact that the dairy industry dominates the subject of milk in Wikipedia, can be recognized by an observant reader immediately!
The corresponding components for this "growing" are enormous amounts of cholesterol, proteins and fat, so that the calf grows fast during the time that it is suckling, resulting in rapid weight gain. Today this is 2.2 to 3.3 lbs per day. And humans?
Because of today’s inhumane treatment of cows and the increased amount of milk production they are being bred for, milk contains insecticides, antibiotics, viruses and bacteria. (Page 1)
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) the average American consumed 584 pounds of milk products, 394 pounds of vegetables, 193 pounds of meat, 192 pounds of flour and only 121 pounds of fruit in the year of 1995. This also includes the milk hidden in pizza and ice cream, etc. According to current information that is an inverted food pyramid.
The author reminds us of the ever-present milk advertising featuring celebrities. Actresses and sports heroes are displayed with a white mustache of milk, so that the viewer thinks they just drank a glass of milk. The advertisement suggests:
Drink milk and you're pretty as a picture! or
Real men drink milk!
Film director Spike Lee, politician Bob Dole and president Bill Clinton contributed to these advertisements. As an aside, Clinton later goes on a vegan diet due to circulatory problems. Also a telephone number, 1-800-WHY-MILK is set up so the public can request more advertising material.
The logo of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) is emblazoned on the back of a brochure that is available at this number. The brochure reads,
advice from experts, followed by
Pour it, don’t pop it! as an allusion, insinuating that
Popeye was wrong and that spinach has outlived its usefulness. Spinach is described as being incomplete... At least with respect to iron the opposite is true!
Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) probably came originally from Southwest Asia (Persia). Young leaves are healthy when eaten raw in a salad. The seeds of spinach are edible raw or cooked. As a medicinal plant, spinach prevents flatulence.
Spinach has a high content of minerals, vitamins (beta carotene, pro-vitamin A, vitamins of the B group, vitamin C) and protein. It contains high levels of iron (3.5 mg in 100 grams of fresh spinach) as compared with other vegetables.
Debatable is the absorption of iron from spinach in our digestion. 100 g fresh spinach has 92.7 g of water, 2.5 g protein, 1.6 grams carbohydrates, 1.2 g of fiber and 0.4 g of fat. Noteworthy are 16 other ingredients such as carotenoids, vitamins, potassium (450 mg), calcium (130 mg), etc.
Spinach is superior to many other vegetables, but the availability of calcium is impaired because of oxalates.
Significant amounts of oxalate also occur in chocolate (cocoa), nuts, rhubarb, star fruit, black pepper, parsley, poppy seeds, amaranth, chard, beets, blueberries, sorrel and white goosefoot.
The National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board (NFMPPB) is responsible for the promotion of milk. This is an authority that denies proven findings such as
milk contains a lot of fat and calories and calls them myths.
The following persons are expressly mentioned in the advertising of NFMPPB as experts for milk as a food:
Susan I. Barr, Ph.D., who admitted that she is a “non-expert” on matters of milk upon written request by COHEN. At the time she was an associate professor of Nutrition at the University of British Columbia and a member of the National Institute of Nutrition of Canada (NIN), which warns in 1995:
Dairy products are a significant source of fat, saturated fats and cholesterol, all of which have been shown to increase blood cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Epidemiological studies suggest a relatively strong association between dietary fats and colorectal cancer.
A few studies have reported a positive association between milk intake and ovarian cancer.(Page 5)
The next "expert" is Suzanne Oparil, Ph.D. She was professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at that time. According to NFMPPB she is also president of the American Heart Association and is considered a national advisor to the American Dietetic Association's Nutrition and Health Campaign for Women. But she admitted to the author, that she also did not possess appropriate expertise on the subject of milk.
Another expert is Prof. Dr. Robert P. Heaney M.D. He replied to the author that he no longer believed what the NFMPPB brochure represents even though he may have at one time believed that milk provided the necessary dietary calcium.
He is a calcium expert and professor of medicine at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska.
He accepted the study by The American College of Nutrition published in June 1995. It clearly shows that the human body absorbs only 25% of calcium from milk as compared to absorbing 42% of calcium from apple juice. (Page 6)
Public Relations (PR) in marketing organizations also means taking advantage of viral marketing, (e.g. viral videos) and taking advantage of social media. In most statements, we get very one-sided views. But this applies also to the other side. The comparison of milk and apple juice with the absorption rate of calcium being 25% as compared to apple juice at 42% clearly goes in favor of apple juice. But what does it actually show? Factually nothing because apple juice contains only 8 mg/100ml of calcium, while the same amount of milk provides 125 mg.
By contrast, spinach would probably win with 99-110 mg and higher utilization. However, kale would certainly win with 210 mg, or how about linseed 230 mg and sesame 780 mg. Mineral water may contain calcium above 50 mg/100ml.
USDA data from 1970-1995 illustrates the fact that Americans consumed significantly more skim milk instead of whole milk, but the overall use of milk fat did not fall because cheese consumption soared during that same time period.
Thus, the USDA reports, in 1995, that “only” 584 pounds of dairy products were consumed per person per year.
Measured in milk yield, this would be 932.05 pounds or 2.55 pounds (US-pounds) daily per person. Ten million cows produced 663 million pounds per day or 152 “billion pounds” or 46 million pounds per day. A breakdown for 1995 can be found on page 7.
But this calculation is incorrect by 247 million pounds because the USDA doesn’t include losses. It allows the discrepancy to disappear by omission. A lot of money is involved. The farmers have to pay 15 cents per hundred pounds of delivered milk for marketing to the Dairy Marketing Board.
Is it 228 or 364 million dollars? the author questioned at the hotline number, but couldn’t get an answer.
The author shows that the myth about milk has been in existence for seven generations. Like a prayer wheel, dietitians, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., spread the falsehood that cow's milk and its products give you a healthy body and an excellent brain, although the opposite is true.
The author emphasizes that milk in the 21st century is in many ways different than it was in the 17th century. Farmers called it luck if you got “one quart” a day from a cow back then. Cohen briefly describes the changes that took place since the landing of the first cows in America in 1620 to this day. (Page 14)
Today, a cow is supposed to deliver 50 times the amount of milk it was producing more than a decade ago. Cohen explains the reasons for the huge increase, and how different the food of high yielding cows must be so that they produce this much milk.
Without getting pregnant, a cow isn’t going to produce milk and after giving birth to a calf, it will naturally produce milk for only a number of months (lactation period). The exploitation of cows is so great, that they live for only a fraction of their life expectancy.
After being made to give birth a few times, the cow is deemed to be insufficiently productive, thus current life expectancy for a cow amounts to 4 to 5 years instead of the normal 20 to 25 years.
By the way: Because I was farming and exporting organic bananas in Tenerife in the 1980s, I had to build and operate a large dairy farm for natural fertilization with manure.
Today (2014), the question arises whether Monsanto & Co will gain entry to our house through the use of the free trade agreement.
The following information on pasteurization is quite interesting. Pasteurization was invented in 1856 by Louis Pasteur and declared mandatory in 1908 in Chicago, Illinois. Although this process destroys vitamins and enzymes to some extent, it also kills harmful bacteria. Artificial vitamin D was added to milk in 1932. Homogenization, which was introduced in 1919, is now the rule rather than the exception. Also the plastic containers introduced in 1964 are now prevalent.
Cohen writes autobiographically on page 18, that he studied physiological psychology under Robert K. Orndoff (Ph.D.) at Long Island University's Southampton College, specializing in biopsychology (psychobiology) and finally worked in the field of psychoneuroendocrinology. He writes that he never wanted a doctorate but instead wanted to immediately do a study. The FDA commissioned him to comment on 55'000 pages of studies from Monsanto.
After that, he takes up the publication by Julian Whitaker and Jane Heimlich, which focuses on the problems of milk. They wrote for example the following (which really applies to the U.S. only at this time):
Incredible as it sounds, the FDA's assumption that rBGH is safe for humans is based upon short-term rat experiments done by Monsanto-sponsored scientists, not independent ones. Contrary to FDA conclusions, biochemist Dr. William von Meyer, president of Fairview Industries (a firm conducting genetic and biochemical research), Middleton, Wisconsin, found that these rats showed significant bone "growing" and changes in liver size.
Even Wikipedia knows about this and other crimes committed by Monsanto. See article entitled Monsanto, poison and genes!
BST ("BovineSomaTropin") and BGH ("BovineGrowthHormone") are two abbreviations for the natural "growthhormones" in milk.
The author repeats Jane Heimlich’s arguments. A genetically engineered BGH in combination with bacteria gets the letter "r" before its name, for recombinant hormone. The abbreviation is thus rBST or rBGH. If the cows get injected with these artificial hormones, rBST will show up in the milk in addition to the natural hormones.
Essentially, a calf must gain a lot of weight in a short period of time.
The Albert Schweitzer Foundation takes up in detail that the intensive fattening of adult beef cattle goes on for less than 400 days, with the animals reaching a final weight of 680-750 kg. Female beef cattle gain weight at an average of 2.2 lbs per day and bulls gain up to 3.3 lbs daily.
China now wants to make their people taller with milk. This requires six to eight times more land.
Monsanto brought this product on the US market in 1995 and promised farmers a 20% increase in milk production. Moreover, Monsanto claimed that the two "growthhormones" were indistinguishable, which convinced the authorities, primarily the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The result: more diseases in cows, more use of antibiotics, more "growthhormones" in the milk and some calves born with genetic deformations.
© CC-by-sa 2.0, Samuel Epstein
In his other book, entitled "Explicit Conflicts of Interest and Failure of the FDA", Epstein writes on page xxvi,
Unlabelled milk and other dairy products from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered "growthhormone" (rBGH) are contaminated with high levels of IGF-1 and their consumption thus poses increased risks of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
This generated opposition and thus a "Jane Heimlich milk column" was established.
The author discussed not only with these critics, but also with Robert Collier (Ph.D.) from Monsanto, who provided him eleven documents described in the book.
"Dairy Products in Human Health and Nutrition" by M. Serrano-Rios et al., 1994, ISBN 90 5410 3590 lists works from Campbell & Baumrucker, 1989; Jskevich & Guyer, 1990, Malven et al., 1987b; Nagashima et al., 1990; Prosser et al., 1989; Shams & Einspanier, 1991 on the subject of IGF-1. That book is pro-milk.
But the same works, Jskevich & Guyer, 1990, also appear in the book "Criminal Indifference of the FDA to Cancer Prevention" by Prof. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein M.D. from December 30, 2013.
This generated opposition and thus a "Jane Heimlich milk column" was established.
This opposition included:
The author discussed not only with these critics, but also with Robert Collier (Ph.D.) from Monsanto, who provided him eleven documents described in the book (Page 26).
The book contains a number of quotations from the correspondence with Monsanto, on rBGH or rBST and the effects on IGF-1 (also spelled IGF-I or IGF1) in human blood. Fortunately, this isn’t an issue in Europe yet. Nevertheless, a person who looks into this fraudulently obtained approval recognizes what went wrong.
The following quote is clear enough:
The amino acid sequence between normally occurring bGH and genetically engineered rbGH were known to FDA. How could they write that these two proteins were ‘biologically indistinguishable?’(Page 38)
And on page 40:
This same genetically engineered hormone caused the spleens of lab animals to increase in size by 46 percent, this same hormone with a ‘freak’ amino acid. This is the same hormone that caused cancer in every one of the animals treated with rBST in one study which FDA has and refuses to release.
On page 46 he takes up that two FDA inspectors, Margaret Miller and Suzanne Sechen were employed by Monsanto while still working for the FDA! The author quotes and comments a lot on the investigations done by Juskevich & Guyer (FDA reviewers) from 1990.
The author is described at Amazon as follows:
“Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and former Congressional consultant. His awards include the 1998 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal. He has authored 270 scientific articles and 18 books on the causes, prevention and politics of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979); Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (2005); and Healthy Beauty (2010). Dr. Epstein is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer in air, water, consumer products, and the workplace.”
The German Wikipedia contains the following under Samual S Epstein:
“Epstein anonymously had private and secret documents from the Monsanto corporation leaked to him. These documents showed that an attempt was made to cover up the risks posed by the "growthhormone" "Posil.." to the general public and in particular to dairy cattle. Posilac is supposed to increase milk production of dairy cattle. Epstein was eventually the one who informed the public about it.”
“According to his theory, the increased incidence of cancer is essentially caused by chemicals such as Posilac, which is now everywhere in the environment and accumulates in the food chain."
“In 1998 Epstein was honored for his ‘exemplary academic work and his commitment to prevent pollution-induced cancers’ with the Right Livelihood Award.”
"Interviews with Epstein can be seen in the documentary The Corporation and The World According to Monsanto. Please click at least the last link." Of note is that the English Wikipedia does not provide the above information in its entry on Samual S. Epstein.
In this chapter Cohen explains the importance of hormones, which are biochemical messengers such as pheromones (vertebrate pheromone), steroid hormones such as estrogens, progesterone (a progestogen and gonadal steroids), "testostero..", and adrenaline (called epinephrine in medicine, see INN) a stress hormone.
He describes some of the effects and then compares the two images, provided by the WHO in 1992, of the amino acid sequence of rBGH and rBST (artificial "bovinesomatotropin" "Posil.." sold to Eli Lilly), with the IGF-1 or "somatomed.." C (SM-C).
These hormones make cells grow. The natural IGF-1 of cows and humans have 70 identical amino acids in precisely the same sequence (order).
Later, Cohen describes his fight against the FDA, which Searle did not take into consideration or failed to publish in 1989 as part of the studies commissioned by Monsanto. Those studies proved the harmfulness of milk.
On the basis of seven tables, the author shows the clear and stark results in animal studies. Under the guise of trade secrets, Monsanto refused access to any and all documents concerning these tables.
The following is an excerpt from the German Wikipedia under the term "BovineSomatoTropin":
As a side effect the cow can suffer udder inflammation and pus gets produced, which is excreted into the milk. As a countermeasure, an increased use of antibiotics is recommended. Moreover, hormone components and antibiotics go directly into the cow's milk.
The English version of the same article is extremely whitewashed. The only thing known for certain is that people who consume dairy products and soy milk products have 10% more such "growthhormones" in their blood. Under "InsulinlikeGrowthFactor", is the following:
It plays a major role in the "growthphase" of the organism. A gene deletion of the IGF-1 gene has corresponding consequences. In studies, an effect of IGF-1 was detected in the regulation of both physiological states and pathological conditions, especially in cancer development (carcinogenesis). It specifically had an influence on cell proliferation and apoptosis prevention. IGF-1 consists of 70 amino acids in a single chain with three disulfide bridges and has a molar mass of 7.6 kDa. ...
What is remarkable is the involvement of IGF-2 (IGF-II) in brain tumors in children and also in breast cancer. Chronically elevated serum levels of IGF-2 (as well as IGF-1) may also greatly increase the risk for development and progression of prostate cancer. ...
When IGF is abusively used, the following side effects may occur:
Extremities "growing" (especially during prolonged, continuous use)
Reduction of "growthhormone" release
"Growing" of existing tumors
Since this topic in the book "MILK The Deadly Poison" mainly affects the milk in the United States, I will detail only the most important deceptions committed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were the first authority to be provided research by Monsanto on their own product. Following that, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) received the positive and uncritical assessment by the FDA.
This adopted assessment and the comments by the GAO then went to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for further assessment. The papers completed by the NIH were then passed on to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).
Finally, even the "Journal of the American Medical Association" (JAMA of the AMA) gave their blessing including the World Health Organization (WHO).
Just two examples of how representatives of such organizations do business with the industry, from Wikipedia regarding the WHO:
The WHO was and is under fire because of its conduct in the fight against pandemics. After the appearance of the H5N1 virus (so-called bird flu H5N1) in May 2005, governments purchased the flu drugs "Tamif.." and "Relen.." for millions of dollars because of the warnings by former Director of Immunization, Klaus Stohr, of a possible global flu epidemic (‘up to 7 million dead’). Although the virus spread worldwide, rarely anyone got sick from it, in fact only 152 people died of 'Avian Influenza H5N1,' which was far less deaths than from a seasonal flu. Klaus Stohr, of the WHO, joined pharmaceutical corporation Novartis in 2007.
After the occurrence of the A/H1N1 virus (so-called swine flu), the WHO increased the epidemic warning level with the spread of the disease gradually to the highest level 6 (pandemic). Governments then ordered vaccines (in Germany alone, to the tune of about 450 million Euros) and flu remedies. Criticism was sparked by the fact that the current Director of the WHO Department of Immunization, Ms. Marie-Paule Kieny, had priorly worked for the French pharmaceutical company Transgene S.A., which maintains strategic partnerships for vaccine production with the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche. The Council of Europe had already suspected that there was close cooperation between the WHO and the pharmaceutical industry.
Added to this is the very questionable cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The author draws attention to the simultaneous endorsement of the artificial "growthhormone" rBST by separate organizations, which would indicate collusion between various organizations. He lays out how this was an extraordinary strategically organized operation between JAMA and "Science News" publications by the FDA (Science).
The author explains as follows:
The verdict, previously decided, was in. Each report contained innumerable contradictions and falsehoods. After formal approval on November 5, 1993, a three-month moratorium was placed on actual rBST use until the White House had the opportunity to issue their report. That report, reviewed in this chapter proves that the best comedy writers in America are employed by the Executive Branch. (p. 97)
Nevertheless, the author published the names of responsible persons and their involvement with Monsanto, as well as correspondence with the White House.
Includes are names like David Barbano and Dale Bauman. Bauman is a scientist at Cornell University who wrote dozens of so-called scientific works together with Monsanto employees (such as Miller) for Monsanto. These two were responsible for the “independent” JAMA article.
These two and co-author Dr. med. William Daughaday, with paid Monsanto connections allegedly to JAMA, reported that the artificial hormone was identical to the natural one, although Monsanto intentionally or unintentionally incorrectly built the genetic code by inserting a bacterium component in position #144 which resulted in N-epsilon-acetyllysine or N(6)-acetyl-L-lysine, thus an analog instead of a regular lysine (L-lysine). (p. 99)
Despite the higher milk yield which was achieved by injecting rBST in the cows, the dairy lobby got approval for a price increase of milk by 14%, while a price reduction would have been expected.
Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also announced that the human body does not absorb iron in milk properly. This is the largest organization of pediatricians (Pediatrics).
In April 1995, Dr. Neal D. Barnard M.D., author of Food for Life and at that time Director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, listed a large number of reasons why dairy products are not suitable for human consumption and cause illness. He pointed out,
... there are serious problems that can result from the proteins, sugar, fat and contaminants in milk products. (p. 100)
This is followed by publications of various correspondences with mostly government agencies. These show that even with the best arguments you have no chance in this political circus without an economically powerful organization.
In this chapter Robert Cohen reveals the involvement and collusion between Monsanto, the FDA and Congress. On page 129 he lists the names of 13 Congress members and how much they were paid in bribes, which totals at least $2'647'921. The data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics and Federal Election Commission, 1994.
He further explains the collusion with the Dairy Committee of Agriculture. The American Medical Association (AMA) had donated money in this way to government officials. It received, for example, $30'000 for the "education of the public" from Monsanto.
There is even an official committee to influence the public, the Political Action Committee (PAC). He covers the role of Margaret Miller at Eli Lilly, to whom Monsanto later sold the rights for the marketing of rBST. The key issue in this chapter is the issue concerning the approval of genetically engineered "growthhormones".
There are a host of studies that clearly show how damaging rBST, BST and IGF-1 are for humans. Unfortunately an easy to grasp overview is missing as the studies are too detailed.
The author takes up what the media covered and how lobbyists influenced politicians like Todd Sieben, who tried to get a law passed that would prohibit and imprison anyone who tried to publish disadvantages of products that contain rBST.
Monsanto also sued companies that sold milk which did not contain rBST and had “rBST-free” written on their product labels.
Examples include Swiss Valley Farms and Pure Milk and Ice Cream. (Page 176) Even the well-known independent politician Bernard Sanders (Bernie) was not able to achieve anything because the FDA claimed that rBST and BST were not distinguishable, despite existing evidence to the contrary.
There was a film made about the columnist Betty Martini and Barbara Mullarkey, who also mentioned the problems with rBST and the approval for it, called "I Love Trouble". Julia Roberts played the role of Barbara Mullarkey. However, the film flopped, in contrast to the film Erin Brockovich. The topic of that film was also the discovery of economic scandals with cases similar to reality.
Barbara Mullarkey also made herself a name by publicizing data about aspartame, as can be seen from this link The Bressler Report (archive.today). Nevertheless, aspartame also got approved...
Cohen cited some examples of advocates of truth and of specific publications from magazines. He also shows on the example of Sam Epstein that criticism had no chance (p. 183). Monsanto and the FDA had so much power and so much to lose, that they did everything possible to stifle such voices.
Various professors such as Erik Millstone (not Eric, not Dr.) at the University of Sussex, England, uncovered the deceptions, for example in "Nature" (UK), one of the best-known trade journals aside from "Science" from the AAAS (USA): "Plagiarism or Protecting Public Health" (Nature Vol. 371, October 20, 1994, p. 647).
Cows nowadays are milk machines and dairy is big business, writes Cohen. After a short period of time, the animals end up as "fast food” which is a criticism of modern animal husbandry. These practices seem to be far more cruel in the US than in Europe.
He also mentions the book "Milking the Public" by Michael McMenamin and Walter McNamara, published in 1980. (Page 197)
The book reveals that President Richard Nixon received more than $3 million from the dairy lobby. His decisions based on the undue influence from the dairy industry cost the nation billions of dollars. Tapes which document this were found as part of the Watergate affair in March 23, 1971.
The correspondence between Cohen and the Dannon Company (Danone) concerning the National Yogurt Association (NYA) is interesting. It details how the whole milk industry fought against a possible distinction between the milk of untreated cows and cows that are injected with rBST.
The incomplete elimination of BST by pasteurization is also a topic. The author then takes up the subject of mastitis and its continual recurrence. He also explains why cows are expected to produce increasing amounts of milk, although the United States already lives in a flood of milk.
Something that was of great interest to me was the information provided by Dr. Alan Greene M.D. regarding breastfeeding (starting on p. 203) and the impact on the quality of the milk.
Problem areas such as immunoglobulins, i.e. antibody proteins in the milk, lactoferrin, a protein with multifunctional enzyme activities (catalyst activity) and other substances are taken up in that section. Essentially, the amount and activity of certain substances are much different comparing mother's milk (breast milk) to cow's milk.
The lysosomes of human milk with their digestive enzymes affect the intestinal flora of an infant very significantly. Breast milk contains about 30 times more lysosomes than cow's milk, for important reasons. Also various "growthhormones" significantly determine the future gut flora in an infant. Children with a prolonged breast milk diet show amazing differences compared to infants who received early infant formula or pre-packaged baby food.
In Wikipedia under the subject of baby food, nutritional classification:
Breast milk is the species-specific formula for humans making it unique and due to its complex composition making it superior to industrially produced foods (formula foods). It not only ensures optimum prosperity, but also protects against numerous infections and possibly other risks, including the sudden infant death syndrome, diabetes mellitus type I and II, obesity, hypercholesterolemia and asthma. In addition to the health-promoting effects, mother's milk was found to influence the gross and fine motor controls as well as cognitive development of children. There was no evidence on how it affected intelligence. These positive effects are attributed to various ingredients of breast milk that are not included, or at least not in the same quantity, in formula foods. In addition to intact cells of the immune system and immunoglobulins, this includes the amino acids taurine and glutamine, polyunsaturated fatty acids, polyamines, nucleotides, lactoferrin, lysozyme, oligosaccharides, inositol, carnitine and antioxidants.
Breastfeeding is recommended for two years. This may also include pumping/breastfeeding with a breast milk pump. Only then should a mixed diet replace that and at the latest after three years, weaning is recommended. If the mother regularly consumes nicotine or alcohol and/or other drugs, or takes certain medications, then formula would be preferred because of the toxins. Hexachlorocyclohexane, DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in breast milk are now fortunately no longer a problem.
The allergens contained in cow’s milk and soy milk are an important factor for infants. One reason for this is the very different time of deactivation. These strange but similar proteins pass through the stomach, because the stomach passage takes up to four times longer than that of breast milk (Page 206). Also, the lipid content of milk, the milk fat, is quite different in breast milk and is designed to prepare the baby for future digestion of a large number of other types of food. See also formula diet.
Cohen states provocatively that:
He gives the example of migraine headaches and epileptic symptoms in patients. Doctors send them to neurologists instead of asking whether they take the artificial sweetener aspartame in the form of diet soft drinks such as Coca Cola Zero, which is known to cause those symptoms.
Physicians usually don’t know either the reactions to cow's milk, nor the influence of the taste enhancer monosodium glutamate (MSG). A strong lobbying group and paid scientific studies prevent conventional medicine from paying attention to such substances.
However, Dr. Neal Barnard M.D. (known by the book "Power Foods for the Brain"), Dr. Robert M. Kradjian (known by the book "Save Yourself from Breast Cancer") and other doctors describe the link between eating habits (diet psychology) and lifestyle diseases (diseases of affluence, diseases of civilization).
Cohen describes the training of doctors and mentions that their business is of course not preventive medicine. He believes that dentists on the other hand, are a step ahead of medical practitioners: For decades they carried a prophylaxis in dentistry, in the form of dental checkups which created another source of income for them. However, he points out that disease prevention would set wrong incentives in regards to diet, because the whole activity would be controlled again by the food and the pharmaceutical industry, such as is the case in the training of dietitians and nutritionists.
On pages 211-232 is a long letter from Dr. Robert Kradjian M.D., which he distributes to his patients. Robert Kradjian points out the chaos that so-called scientific studies must create for doctors and consumers, because most of the studies get done at the behest of the industry and are as much as possible created in such a way that the results are skewed in their favor.
Critical studies remain a small minority that finds virtually no attention. The industry calls them myths. Moreover, critical studies are always refuted by commissioned studies, at least at first glance. That suffices for a campaign. The truth, however, cannot defend itself.
Kradjian is Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, i.e. head physician for breast surgery. His “letter” is called “The Milk letter: a message to my patients.” The link leads to a PDF, which contains a number of quotations from this letter.
In German-speaking forums or books the saying is “don’t trust any statistic that you have not falsified yourself” which is attributed to the statesman Winston Churchill.
But in actual fact, that was altered from, “I believe only the statistic that I have falsified myself” which comes from the Nazi propaganda against Churchill, as is described by official German sources in the link. The negative propaganda about Churchill is still stuck in certain people’s minds. To me, scientific studies are similar.
Kradjian explains what happens when official bodies and the omnipresent marketing industry constantly suggest that you need to consume milk and dairy products in order to meet your calcium needs. Moreover, nutritionists make you believe that dairy products form an essential food group. Kradjian does mention that the majority of the global population currently does not consume milk or dairy products. In fact most humans would not even tolerate it.
Only “white people,” Caucasians or “light-skinned Europeans,” adapted to milk to a certain degree. He goes on to quote from the Utne Reader March/April 1991 (on page 211 it incorrectly states “Medical Reader”):
If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether.
Kradijian probably thinks that nutritionists and most nutritional scientists (NB.: quite unthinkingly and uncritically) disseminate what they learned years ago. Instead, he advises us to first study nature, then man’s evolutionary history (NB.: the last 2 or 4 million years would suffice). Then analyze scientific literature.
From 1988 to 1993, more than 2'700 references about milk were found in the medical archives.
1'500 of these treated milk as the main topic. 500 of them were concerned with animals, esoteric research or were inconclusive.
None of the authors from the 500 scientific works that Cohen studied designated milk as good food. Most of those studies examined the effects of milk as intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding (gastrointestinal bleeding), anemia, allergies in infants and children or infections caused by milk, for example salmonella.
He noted infections caused by viruses such as the bovine leukemia virus (bovine leukemia virus (BLV) and enzootic bovine leukosis) and the presence of diabetes mellitus. Contamination of milk by blood, pus, chemical impurities and insecticides are also discussed.
In children, the following diseases were linked to milk consumption: allergies, ear and tonsil infections (otitis, tonsillitis), bedwetting (nocturnal enuresis), bronchial asthma, intestinal bleeding (gastrointestinal bleeding), colic, diabetes (formerly diabetes mellitus type 2 and type 1, juvenile diabetes, but not MODY diabetes).
In adults who consumed milk, there is a high incidence of coronary heart disease, arthritis, allergies, sinusitis (sinusitis), leukemia, lymphoma (lymph node cancer), and other cancers. (p. 212)
He also points to a study from England published in the Lancet 1992 Vol. 339, pages 261-264 which showed a ten year study of two large groups. The first group of breastfed children had a higher IQ by 10 points than the second group who were fed infant formula and cow's milk. The cow's milk lacks a sufficient proportion of linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid.
In the middle of the 20th century a cow produced up to 1'000 liters of milk a year, now it is up to 25 times more than that. The author highlights the connection of a 50 % to 79 % higher incidence of mastitis and thus the increased use of antibiotics since rBGH has been being injected to increase the milk yield. He lists out the suppliers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly and American Cyanamid Company, but not the licensor Monsanto.
Nevertheless, 38% were contaminated with sulfa drugs and other antibiotics. The test was very superficial and in truth it would have been 51% of cases. There is the Charm II test that detects 40 drugs, but they do not want to apply that anymore...
It seems that high yielding dairy cows (milk production) now develop mastitis routinely (Colimastitis, Streptococcus uberis), which introduces white blood cells in the milk, in other words pus. This is supposedly in such low concentrations that it is not dangerous. A cryptic statement from a specialist reads as follows: occurrence of macrophages with many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles (phagocytosis). This is commonly called pus.
Half of that amount of pesticides was found in the breast milk of vegetarians. (p. 216)
© CC-by-sa 3.0, Mech, Wikipedia NL
Even cow's milk allergy and other problems which occur only with cow's milk are possible through breast milk if the nursing mother is drinking milk.
Cow's milk contains so little iron compared to breast milk that anemia occurs (Dr. Frank A. Oski M.D. in "The Journal of Pediatrics", 1983. 72-253). Oski was the director of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and is the author of "Don’t Drink Your Milk". He received the E. Mead Johnson Award in 1972 by the Society for Pediatric Research (a member of the American Society of Pediatrics).
On the subject of osteoporosis: German Economic News, October 28, 2013: "Harvard: Milk from cows is not healthy".
The scientists at the Harvard Public School for Health tested 75,000 women over a period of twelve years concerning the effect of milk on their bones. As it turned out, the bones of the subjects did not become more resistant, but developed an even higher risk of fracture. This is explained with the excessive acidification of the body, which is triggered by frequent milk consumption. To neutralize it, the body pulls calcium from its bones, thus osteoporosis susceptibility increases. ...
Many dairy products are high in saturated fat, a risk factor for heart disease. More studies suggest that women may be exposed to a higher risk of ovarian cancer because of the lactose contained in the milk.
In men, however, a high calcium intake (whether from dairy products or vegetables) may lead to an increased susceptibility to prostate cancer.
In another long-term Harvard study of 20'000 male participants it was found that those who consumed dairy at least twice daily, had higher risk of getting prostate cancer by 34% as compared to those who consumed little or no dairy products.
The authors also point out that the calcium-absorption capacity from milk is much lower than certain vegetables such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts and salad greens, which sometimes contain even more calcium than milk.
He mentioned the work of Harvard Professor Dr. (Ph.D. 1940) David Mark Hegsted (1914-2009, CV PDF from NAS), which shows that the correlation of osteoporosis in countries with a lot of milk consumption is very high. Countries with high dairy consumption show a particularly high rate of osteoporosis. This coincided with the research done by Ancel Keys of the University of Minnesota.
The text in the book shows Hegsted to be in England ... But see this post from 2001 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Despite these clear and actually frightening results, Wikipedia asserts the following: “Adequate calcium intake of approximately 1g/day contributes significantly to prevention (basic therapy from DVO, German Osteology Association). One gram of calcium is contained in a liter of milk or 100 g of hard cheese. Besides milk products, (here especially milk and yogurt) mainly green vegetables such as kale and broccoli are an excellent source of calcium.”
It is clear that milk and dairy products have the opposite effect, namely, extracting the calcium from the bones for various reasons.
Nevertheless, in the English Wikipedia, the words “milk” or “dairy” are no longer found in this context, whereas not all alternative sources of calcium are listed in the German version and new findings concerning milk are negatively discussed because studies were missing.
Of course, the industry does not fund such studies. ... Who else? After all, there are prospective studies (PMC1380936), which show that assertions about milk being good for the bones are a complete falsehood and cause massive damage to the population. Fairy tales are hard to eradicate. But should the industry be permitted to continue its deceptions?
Dr. Robert M. Kradjian M.D. writes that Eskimos eat an estimated 25 % of animal protein, plus have a particularly high calcium intake of 2500 mg/day. But Eskimos show a record high incidence of osteoporosis. (Page 228) Bantus in South Africa take less than half the amount of proteins as compared to Eskimos. Their proteins are also predominantly of vegetable origin.
They manage well with just 200-350 mg/day of calcium, or about half of the amount contained in a standard Western diet. Result: Even though they give birth to six children on average, they rarely suffer from osteoporosis, unless they have immigrated to the United States. Then the figures start resembling that of the US.
When asked where the calcium should then come from if not from dairy, Kradjian reminds us that natural cows only eat grass. Humans do not use grass because of the difference in digestion, but eat all kinds of green vegetables. He points out that even elephants, horses and rhinoceroses are vegans. They all have no trouble with osteoporosis, as well as about half of humanity, who consume virtually no dairy products and only have a small incidence of osteoporosis.
In the future, Asians in Asia and the Africans in Africa will suffer increasingly from Western illnesses, as the industry is working to expand their market and, for example, the Chinese want to achieve more rapid "growing" of their children so that they come up to the size of Westerners. Early sexual maturation goes along with it.
It's not just dairy products that cause osteoporosis, but the excess of animal protein and lack of bone stress (exercise, usage) are the causes. Slowly, official bodies are realizing that the old claims as to how much protein is needed are way too high. This is demonstrated by ever lower recommendations over the past 60 years. But today, the recommendations for protein are much too high. Indications that humans would benefit much more from plant-based proteins are nowhere to be found. Instead people are still haunted by comical ideas, such as that you have to combine vegetable proteins, for example, egg and potato. Today it is a known fact that this is not the case and that the body adjusts any imbalances.
Prof. Dr. Benjamin McLane Spock M.D. (1903-1998), the most well-known pediatrician in the US, was an advocate of breast milk. He claimed that a really cheap trial comparing babies of vegan mothers and those on a normal diet would never be done because no one can pull a profit from it.
Kradjian details in his letter other problems caused by the use of raw or pasteurized milk. A study by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) showed that more than a third of the salmonella infections (salmonellosis) originated in California in 1980 to 1983 because of the consumption of raw milk.
He also refers to an article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association 251: 483, 1984) concerning the incidence of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica, caused by pasteurized milk. Yersinia enterocolitica along with Y. pseudotuberculosis is the causative agent of yersiniosis. (Page 218)
Enteral yersiniosis is an infectious diarrhoeal disease with spasmodic abdominal pain and fever caused by specific serotypes of yersinia enterocolitica or yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Infection sources may be contaminated food (raw meat), drinking water or pets. It is also one of the zoonoses. ...
Because of its symptoms, yersiniosis is also called pseudoappendicitis. In Germany it is classified as a disease that must be reported. The Robert Koch Institute must be informed of suspected cases of disease or death. In 2006, there were 5,162 cases of illness reported in Germany. In 2007 there were 4,987 cases, in 2011 there were 3,500 new cases. This would be about 4 out of every 100,000 inhabitants. Most cases are observed in young children, geographically concentrated in Thuringia, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt.
Late effects are known as yersinia arthritis, persistent ileitis (pseudo-Crohn’s disease) and erythema nodosum.
Kradjian cites a Canadian study of several countries, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 1990. It describes a significant correlation between the consumption of unfermented milk protein and diabetes mellitus type 1, the so-called juvenile diabetes. Affected people suffer from it for a lifetime. Conversely, a negative correlation exists in children who receive breast milk.
Another study in Finland shows that children with type 1 diabetes also show more antibodies in serum against milk (Diabetes Research 7 (3): 137-140 March 1988).
Some “scientists” still argue that diabetes type-1 is only genetically caused, even after the study of children from Pakistan who migrated to England. They were found to have approximately ten times higher proportion of diabetes type-1 (British Medical Journal, March 18, 1992). The New England Journal of Medicine published a report, which was republished by the Los Angeles Times on 30 July 1992.
The study came from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and researchers from Finland. It shows that Finland has the highest consumption rate for milk and dairy products and concurrently, has the highest rate of type 1 diabetes. 40 out of 1'000 children are afflicted by this terrible disease, compared to 6 to 8 in the United States. The affected children have at least eight times the number of antibodies against milk protein, which leaves no doubt that these trigger an autoimmune response.
Because of the great similarity of these proteins with those of humans, it is urgently advised that no products containing cow's milk should be given a child prior to the child’s body developing an ability to distinguish between the two substances. That time period seems to be after a year, if you believe the milk lobby and find milk a necessary food ingredient.
A long-term study of 400 children and an additional 3'000 should be available today. A period of 9 months was the criterion. Unfortunately, the study did not specify that the breastfeeding mothers should not take animal proteins so as not to alter the results...
On this subject, Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer M.D., president of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), stated that this would not mean that children should not drink cow's milk because it had all those “good proteins!” Dr. Robert Kradjian M.D. poses the question as to how strong the dairy industry supports the ADA. (p. 220)
Studies have shown that cow's milk consumed at an early age destroys "insulinproducing" pancreatic cells (Langerhans cells) through antibodies. This creates diabetes type-1, previously called juvenile diabetes. The transition from normal to sick is fluid (blood sugar).
Kradijian then provides information that the bovine leukemia virus in the US occurs in about 80 % of the herds and the contamination increases up to 90 to 95 % because milk from different suppliers gets mixed. But this is only a problem in raw milk, not with correct pasteurization. He refers to dairy specialist Dr. Virgil Hulse M.D., who thinks that the United States is the runner-up to Venezuela which has the highest rates. (p. 221)
In Germany and Switzerland, authorities are trying to eradicate the BLV (enzootic bovine) according to Wikipedia (June 2014). Many animals show no clinical symptoms nor changes in blood count, which is why it is not known with certainty whether the disease is eradicated in Germany or not.
The most important bacterially caused diseases in cattle according to Wikipedia are:
Brucellosis, anthrax, paratuberculosis, whitlow, blackleg, salmonellosis, and tuberculosis. The main diseases caused by viruses are: bovine herpesvirus IBR/IPV, mucosal disease/viral diarrhea BVD, and foot-and-mouth disease, FMD. The most common metabolic disorders are ketosis, hypocalcemia, and tetany. The main parasites are: lungworms, roundworms, flukes and coccidian.
The most communicable bovine diseases would probably not pose a problem to humans. We should note that as a vindication for milk. Also BSE seems to be under complete control.
Kradjian illustrates the far-reaching effects milk can have with an example of an incident that occurred in April 1985 in a Chicago area dairy processing plant. Due to cross-contamination, raw milk was mixed with pasteurized milk, resulting in 4 deaths and 150'000 sick people. The pasteurized milk contained aggressive salmonella.
He poses the question, what if that milk would have contained leukemia viruses and recalls the "San Francisco Chronicle" report from 10 June 1990 on leukemia clusters. The detection of leukemia often takes many years. Even in the case of Elbmarsch, a community in Lower Saxony, Germany, there was a great incidence of leukemia in children but the causes for it were never clarified.
Bovine leukemia infected human cells in vitro, but direct contagions are not detected. A transmission path is necessary for that to occur, which is officially not being attributed to milk. Nevertheless, the question arises why the human body sometimes makes antibodies against milk after its consumption (p.221), and why veterinarians and people in areas with contaminated herds develop leukemia.
The states of Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically significantly more leukemia victims than the other states. A similar picture emerges in Sweden and Russia.
Dairy farmers in particular, suffer from a significant increase in leukemia rates:
Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gain access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall.
The author lists four publications that address the problem and explains that discussions on the topic of bovine leukemia are only concerned with the health of the cow population, because a sick cow gives more milk at the beginning, as long as it does not show a significant lymphocytosis. Then they go to the slaughterhouse, because they are no longer profitable.
Next, he describes a study about Norway, published in the "British Medical Journal", 61: 456-9 of March 1990. (Pages 222-223) The study followed 1422 people for over eleven years, who drank two glasses of milk daily. They developed 3.5 times more malignant lymphoma (lymph node cancer) than the general population.
In the book, "There is a Cure for Diabetes" by Dr. Gabriel Cousens M.D., it talks about 15'914 people for a prospective study on page 51. Is it really the same study?
Cousens called milk “liquid meat.” In his work "Lymphomas and Animal Protein Consumption", he compares countries with particularly high milk consumption with Japan. In 1955/56 Japan had a consumption of only 1.5 grams/day/person as compared with 43.8 g in New Zealand (followed by the USA and Canada). Japan has a memorial for the first slaughtered cow in Japan, in 1930.
According to Cousens, there is a highly significant relationship between human deaths from lymphoma and milk consumption. Japanese in the United States are affected with a similar high rate of deaths as Americans. This clearly shows that this is not genetically caused, as representatives of the dairy industry and the gullible doctors want us to believe. Finally, he describes the possible route of more than 100 different antibodies, also from pasteurized milk, in our bloodstream.
According to Kradjian there is a correlation between milk consumption and ovarian cancer with 3.1 times more risk for those consuming more than one glass of milk a day. For lung cancer the risk increases only by a factor of 2. This explains why smokers in Japan have a lower risk than people in areas of high milk consumption.
In terms of prostate cancer, a study from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute, published in Cancer 64 (3): 605-612, from 1959 found 2.49 times more incidence of cancer because of increasing milk consumption and links this to the content of animal fat. Today this is the most common cancer with the second highest death rate for men.
Regarding kidneys, Kradjian, the author of the letter, refers to Prof. Dr. Barry M. Brenner M.D., who was awarded several honorary degrees, including for his standard work on kidneys.
Brenner was the first to point out the problem of too much protein intake for the kidneys. The dangers of fat and cholesterol were already known. Human milk contains about three times less protein than cow's milk. Sheep's milk and goat's milk show an even worse ratio than cow's milk.
Kradjian also mentioned in his letter the problem of vitamin D and how living Northern Caucasians (i.e. Northern Europeans) shut off the naturally occurring lactose intolerance at the end of lactation. Therefore too many toddlers suffer from milk allergies, increased permeability of the intestine, intestinal bleeding, and anemia because of milk. He also shows that skimmed milk still has 24 % to 33 % fat, which has a lot of calories, if the water is not counted in.
Subsequent to these 21 pages of the letter by Kradjian, Robert Cohen mentions another important person, namely Dr. Neal Barnard M.D. from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who, among other things, also wrote "Food for Life".
Cohen’s "MILK The Deadly Poison" forwards Barnard’s opinion on milk.as follows: Barnhard states that there is no nutritional need for dairy products.
A substantial body of scientific evidence raises concerns about health risks from cow's milk products. These problems relate to the proteins, sugar, fat, and contaminants in dairy products, and the inadequacy of whole cow’s milk for infant nutrition. (p. 233)
Cohen goes on to say,
Cow’s milk products are very low in iron. To get the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance of 15 mg of iron, an infant would have to drink more than 31 quarts of milk per day. (p. 233)
The indication of the required amount is somewhat misleading, even if you count the intake, not the resorption. The requirement for an adult is 1 to 1.5 mg/day, for an infant it would be a fraction of that and they usually have a store of iron lasting 6 months. Breast milk contains 58 micrograms per dl (100 ml) according to Wikipedia about the same amount of iron as cow's milk. Breast milk is tailored to the child, even if the iron resorption rate is only about 10%. Wikipedia: Most infants drink between 600 ml and 1200 ml daily in five to twelve meals.
Dr. Daniel Fischer challenged the following statement expressly and in detail:
According to a study by the German Research Institute of Child Nutrition at the University of Bonn, breastfed infants may get iron deficiency.
Under the title: "Baby food: The Truth about iron deficiency in breastfed children", he enlightens readers about the fraud.
Dr. Fischer’s conclusion:
It is the familiar pattern: Industry pays institute for industry-friendly study. The study says exactly what the industry wants it to say. Institute gives the result with great fanfare to the press. Study result is indiscriminately disseminated in all media. And the lie, which has been heard a hundred times, becomes the truth. People believe and do what the industry wants.
The lactose tolerant body breaks lactose apart into glucose and galactose. Too much galactose generates ovarian cancer and cataracts after enough time. In lactose intolerant bodies, however, bacteria digest the milk, with a corresponding development of gas and diarrhea.
He also lists certain by-products in milk and goes over osteoporosis again. He mentions that the body gets significantly more calcium from, for example, kale than the same amount of milk. Animal proteins can cause calcium loss in the bones!
A sip of milk contains hundreds of different substances. That is a fact, but Cohen goes a little too deep into the color of milk, claiming that all the colors mixed together would result in white (p 235). However, this is only for additive color mixing (such as light). This is not the case for integrated color mixing (Harald Kuppers). Object color or the body color adds up to gray or brown.
87.2 % of the milk is composed of water. Nevertheless, the average American consumes about 750 kcal by the consumption of dairy products. The cholesterol contained in this amount corresponds to 53 slices of bacon per day, the author says. That is a million slices of bacon in 52 years. Because milk has about the same amount of amino acids and protein as meat, he calls it “liquid meat.”
Weight lifters dope mainly with the artificial "growthhormone" IGF-1 ("somatr....") or with EPO. The endocrinologist Clark Grosvenor published a list of known hormones and "growthfactors" in cow's milk in 1982`. That's more than 50 different substances, mostly hormones. And for humans, these are from a different species!
These are only the most important bioactive substances of hundreds contained in milk. Michael Klagsbrun (not Klagsburn, page 239) demonstrated in 1978 that the "growthhormones" in the milk stimulate "cellgrowth" and published his findings in the following work: "Human Milk Stimulates DNA Syntheses and Cellular Proliferation in Cultured Fibroblasts" (PMC336262).
In particular, the "InsulinlikeGrowthHormone", IGF-1 appears to be a problem for humans. Many scientists consider this hormone responsible for cancer "growing" (not for onset). IGF-1 is the most potent "growthhormone".
Wikipedia about Bombesin: “Since tumor cells have increased amounts of neuropeptide specific receptors and bombesin was also involved in the development of breast and prostate cancer, metabolically stable bombesin analogs is currently being studied, which are radioactively labeled and can be utilized both in diagnostics and as radiopharmaceuticals for the targeted treatment of various malignancies.”
Wikipedia about "Somatr....": “In the doping scene, "somatr...." is considered the expensive ‘silver bullet.’ The use of "somatr...." in people without a deficiency leads to acromegaly with severe side effects that are often irreversible.”
The authors, Dr. Kurt A. Oster M.D. (1909-1988) and Dr. Donald J. Ross M.D. called their book from 1983 on the problems of milk "The XO Factor: Homogenized Milk May Cause Your Heart Attack". As cardiologists and cardiac researchers, they found the absence of plasmalogen in the hearts of heart attack patients.
Oster focused on the xanthine oxidase (XO, XO, sometimes XAO) or xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH) resulting in the liver, a metalloenzyme (a hydroxylase), which catalyzes the oxidation of xanthine and hypoxanthine to uric acid in the kidney and liver.
They published their work in 1973. They finally found a high correlation between consumption of homogenized milk and death rates due to heart disease. Since the fat particles after homogenization are particularly small, digestibility is bad.
Human bodies have very little X-O in the blood. Oster and Ross realized that X-O of milk passes through the mucosal membranes in the intestine without problem, but they did not see that IGF does the same. They found a way to use antibodies to determine the presence of milk proteins and thus also the scapegoat, homogenized milk.
They showed that a portion of the milk proteins passes through the stomach intact and enters through the intestine membranes into the bloodstream.
Finally they carried out double-blind trials on heart attack survivors. This proved that cow's milk X-O (BMXO) reaches the cardiovascular system (blood circulation), causing atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries).
The results were verified and confirmed by the University of Delaware.
Oster and Ross recognized BMXO as a long-term biologically significant source of disease.
First Cohen shows how much time passes before a cancer is detectable at all and that it takes even more time for a person to notice that something is wrong. Every cancer requires the "growthhormone" IGF-1 in order to grow. The body builds its own IGF-1. People, who consume milk and dairy products, take on too much IGF-1.
Unlike other food products, casein protects the hormone IGF-1, so that IGF-1 manages to pass through the stomach. In the case of homogenized milk much more of these hormones get into the bloodstream. The degeneration of the first cell and the non-recognition of danger come about through different reasons.
Wikipedia on casein: Cow's milk contains about 10 g/l of αS1-casein, 2.6 g/l αS2-casein, 9.3 g/l beta casein, and 3.3 g/l k-casein. The total of amount of 2.6% casein in cow's milk corresponds to approximately 80% of the total protein. These four casein types occur in humans, but with a different number of amino acids.
Casein can act as an allergen and trigger very violent, even life-threatening reactions in humans. An allergy to casein is quite rarely visible. It is not to be confused with lactose intolerance, which is enzyme-related intolerance to lactose.
The digestion of casein is very slow. It can be up to eight hours. Athletes use this as an advantage (especially bodybuilders) to reach an amino acid supply for several hours (overnight, for example).
Paid PR articles from the dairy industry and big advertising budgets for dairy products are a necessary source of income for the media and thus they will cover up the true facts.
The pharmaceutical industry/medicine try to suppress the effects of IGF-1 with "tamoxif..", says Cohen. However, "tamoxif.." binds as selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) to estrogen receptors in this only adjuvant therapy.
Cohen refers to the publication by Andreas Friedl et al. in the European Journal of Cancer (1993, 29A (10), pp. 1368-1372), according to which the IGF-1 "growthhormones" are suppressed by "Tamoxifentreatment".
Further, the author suggests that IGF-1 promotes more than just breast cancer. He mentions a report that, for example, shows a great influence on pancreatic cancer cells (J. Gillespie et al.), and another that shows that IGF-1 also plays an important role in the regulation of glucose metabolism in the CNS of the tumor. F. Atig et al., demonstrated the effect of IGF-1 on colorectal cancer.
T. Yashiro et al. proved the effect of the IGF-BP (IGF-binding protein IGFBP) in thyroid cancer. IGFBP is necessary for the transport of the IGF-1.
Up to at least 1994, there was no nationwide cancer registry in the United States. Robert Cohen raises the question, if this isn’t an intentional inefficiency because neither the powerful food industry nor the powerful industry that lives from disease, is interested. Thus, unfortunately, he alleges a conspiracy theory: “It seems that some ‘power’ has inefficiently designed a system intended not to reveal facts about cancer rates.” This whole system is that way and requires no conspiracy.
He reveals how the data gets compiled and that is quite interesting:
Some numbers were prepared by the Milk Industry Foundation and were published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). That is today's IDFA, definitely a special interest group with great political influence.
Finally, he compares countries that have high dairy consumption with those of low dairy consumption in terms of breast cancer incidence and draws attention to a high correlation. He writes that the East German population before the Wall fell had probably a similar amount of fat in the diet as people in West Germany.
But in the East Germany (former GDR) only a small amounts of dairy products were available and they had a much lower rate of breast cancer.
The table on page 248 does not support the correlation in my opinion, however.
To summarize: In six pages Cohen tells us briefly what at least 25 scientific teams found out: milk and dairy products promote numerous cancers. In the appendix of the book you will find the relevant works and references, mostly from 1991 to 1994, listed out. Among others: bone tumor, osteosarcoma, renal cancer, and (again by A. Krasnick et al.) ovarian cancer are found there.
With the article "New Ability To Find Earliest Cancers: A Mixed Blessing?" in The New York Times, November 8, 1994, page C1, Gina Kolata describes that probably every adult developed in his life cancer cells, but the body usually eliminates them. This depends on the genes and the conditions in the body. This article points out that at that time, only 1% of women were given a cancer diagnosis between 40 to 50 years of age.
Cohen describes the shocking rat tests that Monsanto carried out in order to obtain the approval of the "growthhormone" rBST, and how these statistics were falsified. In February 1988 a Japanese researcher (published in The Lancet) revealed that the number of leukemia cases in children increases considerably by administering "growthhormones".
In May 1988, the "Lawson Wilkins Study" followed, which confirmed the above. Nevertheless, the FDA classified the treatment as a safe. When "hGHorHGH" was administered, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease occurred. COHEN says:
Keep drinking milk and you bathe your system with unwanted "growthhormones".
At least in the US, drug stores and food chains (retailers) are well-supplied with remedies to fix the physical reactions to milk and dairy products consumption. These include headaches, mucus, nasal congestion, sinusitis (sinus infection, including often maxillary sinusitis), asthma, allergies, irritable bowel syndrome in children, and earaches.
The author is convinced that we definitely do not reach our genetically planned age because of milk and dairy products.
Many diseases have been attributed to milk and dairy consumption. Not only have bovine proteins been linked with allergies but they’ve been implicated as the cause of serious diseases such as cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis. (p. 258)
In his book "The Discovery Allergy Diet" Dr. John Postley M.D. lists milk as one of the main evils causing allergies. You should pay attention to the ingredients, such as grains (gluten) and casein in food products. Even Harvey and Marilyn Diamond write in their bestseller Fit for Life, that nothing undermines health as much as milk and dairy products. They especially cover cholesterol in milk and dairy products, allergies caused by dairy and the lies about the effect of calcium from milk.
Yet two sentences later in that book, you read that such occurs only in one out of a thousand people. How was Hippocrates supposed to accurately observe, whether it really happened that rarely, with the comparatively minimal milk consumption at that time, asks Cohen.
"Clothes make the man,” doesn’t apply here, instead it would be “Titles make the readers blind.”
Wikipedia on common sense: “Common sense has three aspects: First, the idea of a ‘normal mind,’ an average power of judgment without methodological detours and is not clouded by doctrines or prejudices in its judgment; secondly, an empirically-working mind, which makes objective, intuitive judgments, based on everyday (life) experience and is mainly oriented towards practical application rather than abstract theory; thirdly, the idea of a general understanding shared by mature people, which takes (real and potential) judgments of all other people in consideration in its judgments." ...
“As an objective, pragmatic mind it is often used in opposition to the abstract, speculative expert mind. Science and common sense hold plenty of prejudices against each other, although they are dependent on each other.”
The "Townsend Letter For Doctors" gives advice from doctors to doctors. This pamphlet to which you may subscribe, launched the first controversy over milk products, by exposing the cunning and financially strong marketing by the dairy industry and then explains the real facts about milk and dairy products:
|Mucus production||Hemoglobin loss||Diabetes Type I|
|Kidney stones||Mood swings||Depression|
However, nine months earlier Nathaniel Mead wrote in the August issue of Natural Health an article entitled "Do not Drink Your Milk!" It begins with a statement of the pediatrician Dr. med. Russell Bunai, who answers the question, what would be the most important thing to omit in the diet. That was not meat, but clearly milk and dairy products. An inquiry by Mead to the Chief of Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine revealed:
At least 50 percent of all children in the United States develop allergies triggered by dairy. Many of them are undiagnosed. Dairy products are the most common causes of food allergies, often discovered because of diarrhea, constipation or fatigue. Many cases of asthma and infections of the sinuses occur. By dispensing with milk, the condition improves massively or the problem disappears completely. However, that requires a complete elimination of milk and dairy products from the diet.
Many scientists share the hypothesis that SIDS (crib death, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is related to cow's milk consumption. The three diseases causing allergens in milk products are casein (casein), beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin (see whey protein).
On the subject of sudden infant death syndrome Wikipedia lists “dispensing with breastfeeding” in last place as a risk factor. The entry in the English Wikipedia at least says the following: “A lack of breastfeeding is linked to SIDS.” Hauck FR, Thompson JM, Tanabe KO, Moon RY, Vennemann MM (July 2011). Breastfeeding and Reduced Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics 128 (1): e103–10. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-300. PMID 21669892.
Overall, however, it is only a helpless poking into possible causes... Although the study examined 24 works and concluded: “Breastfeeding is protective against SIDS, and this effect is stronger when breastfeeding is exclusive.”
The result would probably be much clearer, if the mothers would forego drinking milk, at least during breastfeeding, since cow's milk components otherwise also get into the breast milk.
As early as 1960 an article appeared in The Lancet (Vol. 2, 7160, November 19, page 1106-1110) by W.E. Parish et al. called "Hypersensitivity to Milk and Sudden Death in Infancy", which probably received no attention.
But even back then the following was already clear:
There is no doubt that most infants fed on cow’s milk develop antibodies to the proteins of the milk. Gunther, Aschaffenburg, Matthews, Parish, and Coombs (1960)... Anderson and Schloss (1923) showed that in infants with some types of nutritional disorders, milk proteins were absorbed via the alimentary tract and that subsequently precipitins to milk protein could be shown in the infants’ sera, and these antibodies could sensitize guinea pigs passively to anaphylaxis.
Another study was published in "The Lancet" Vol. 344 on November 5, 1994: "Cow Milk Allergies and Sudden Infant Death". This showed that breastfed children died 14 times less from diarrhea-related complications than those who received early cow's milk or baby food and died four times less of pneumonia.
Cohen lists further works, such as of W. J. Howatt et al., The Lancet, Vol. 343, June 4, 1994, pages 1390-1392: "Pulmonary Immunopathology of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome". It was not the task of the study to find the root cause, the researchers only commented that something “strange” in the food elicited such strong body responses.
Cohen said sarcastically, maybe it’s because the child was smoking a cigar or drinking brandy ... Somehow I understand his reaction, that such a thing will just be disregarded and no further studies get funded to determine what the babies last drank or received.