Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Nanoparticles may affect disease

Researchers who've found strange nanoparticles in a handful of kidney stones say the self-replicating specks may play a role in disease.

The U.S. researchers are not sure whether these tiny particles, 50 to 100 nanometres across, are living nanobacteria or some strange, non-living, self-assembling ball of chemicals.
"We have some evidence that would support either possibility," said kidney specialist Dr. John Lieske of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

He and colleagues report their findings in the December 2006 issue of the Journal of Investigative Medicine.At some point in their life about 10 per cent of people will get kidney stones, a painful condition in which calcium deposits clog the kidneys.

Scientists aren't sure what causes these deposits, but a theory Lieske and his colleagues are investigating is that tiny calcium-covered particles are partly to blame.Previous research has found such particles in human serum, urine, renal cysts from patients with kidney disease, as well as in kidney stones.

Lieske says some researchers dub the particles nanobacteria, and propose they are a new disease-causing agent. But Lieske says there is not yet enough evidence to say the particles are alive. Whether they are alive or not, understanding the role of nanoparticles in kidney stones will be useful in developing treatments, Lieske says.

What is known is that harmful calcification in the body is caused by nanoparticles, whether or not they can be classified as a form of bacteria. Furthermore, these nanoparticles depend on getting ‘fed’ calcium and phosphorous from the bloodstream.

It is interesting to note that dairy milk, which is highly acidic, is also rich in calcium and phosphorous. This combination of high acidity and high levels of calcium and phosphorous serve to overwhelm the bloodstream, forcing the calcium and phosphorous to be made available to nanoparticles wherever they may be lurking in the body.

This means that the regular consumption of dairy milk may significantly contribute to the proliferation of nanoparticles and harmful calcification in the human body. This subject is examined in depth in in The Milk Imperative, a remarkable new book that explodes many myths about dairy products.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Use soy milk with caution

James Rutz, chairman of the Open Church Ministries, and writing in the publication WorldNetDaily, opines that when you eat or drink excess soy products, you’re also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

According to Rutz, the danger for a man of consuming soy milk and tofu is the suppression of your masculinity and stimulating your “female side,” both physically and mentally. The culprit is the excess intake of estrogen and the suppression of testosterone.

“Estrogens are female hormones. If you’re a woman, you’re flooding your system with a substance it can’t handle in surplus. If you’re a man, you’re suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your “female side,” physically and mentally. In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.”

Babies in particular should not be fed soy milk, as in later life this may result in feminizing a boy or over-developing a girl. Children and adults should consume soy products sparingly and in moderation; replacing dairy milk with soy milk is not the best option.

As explained in The Milk Imperative, there are many other types of non-dairy milk that can be used in place of dairy or soy milk. The Milk Imperative has the best collection of non-dairy milk recipes ever published. These recipes are quick and easy to make, and offer truly delicious and nutritious milk alternatives for the whole family. To find out more go to

Thursday, November 02, 2006


The following article was released by Patrick Holford on 2 Nov. 06 (

Dear Reader

More than any other food, milk is controversial. We guzzle it by the gallon, spending almost £3 billion a year on dairy products, and many people believe it's vital in pregnancy, for growing children and for keeping your bones healthy in later life. Yet, two thirds of the world's population, including some of the healthiest nations, don't eat dairy products.

So, what's the truth about milk? Thanks to Dr Justine Butler, whose comprehensive scientific report on the health consequences of consuming milk has just been published, you can find out for yourself. Dr Butler's extensive report, available free on-line at, goes through a long list of health concerns - from acne to osteoporosis - and examines the evidence, or the lack of it in the case of preventing osteoporosis. It makes for very interesting reading - but beware, it might put you off your pint.

Apart from the clear evidence that consumption of dairy products is linked to increased risk of cancer - especially breast, prostate and colorectal cancers - cardiovascular disease and numerous digestive disorders from Crohn's to constipation and colic in babies, you will learn that today's cows are literally milked to death.

Selective breeding and high protein feeds has increased the average daily yield of a cow from 9 litres to 22 litres - that's 39 pints a day from just one animal! On top of this, while a cow is designed, like humans, to produce milk for the first few months after a nine month pregnancy, today's intensive dairy farming means that cows are both pregnant and being milked at the same time for most of each year. There are two consequences of this: the first is that today's dairy cows only live for about five years, compared to 20 or 30 years natural life expectancy; and secondly, this tremendous strain increases the risk of infections causing mastitis. These infections mean there is a significant amount of somatic - or pus - cells in milk. The official maximum allowed is 400,000 cells per millilitre, which means that a litre of milk containing 400 million pus cells can be sold legally for human consumption. That's equivalent to two million pus cells in one teaspoon.

This situation is even worse in the US where cows are given Bovine Somatotrophin (BST), a growth hormone to further increase milk yields and profits. While it is illegal to import BST enhanced dairy products from the US into Britain, dairy products from the US can be sold to other EU countries, then imported into the UK. If you do decide to drink milk, my strong advice would be to limit the quantity and only buy organic milk products.

Not Recommended for BabiesOf all the cow's milk myths, possibly most damaging is the belief that it can be substituted for breast milk. Cow's milk is designed for calves, and is very different from human milk in a number of respects, including its protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron and essential fatty acid content. Early feeding of human babies on cow's milk is now known to increase the likelihood of developing a cow's milk allergy, which affects close to one in ten babies. Common symptoms of such an allergy include diarrhoea, vomiting, persistent colic, eczema, urticaria, catarrh, bronchitis, asthma and sleeplessness. The American Society of Microbiologists has even suggested that some cot deaths may be attributable to cow's milk allergy. Cow's milk should not be given to infants under four months in any circumstances. There is also evidence that, in those genetically susceptible, it may increase the risk of developing Type 1 diabetes.
Conversely, breast milk is nothing but good news. A breast-fed baby has, on average, a four point higher IQ. This advantage can be doubled by giving the pregnant and breastfeeding mother a supplement of Omega 3 fish oils.

Not a good source of mineralsWhile milk is a good source of calcium, it is not a very good source of other minerals. Manganese, chromium, selenium and magnesium are all found in higher levels in fruit and vegetables. Most important is magnesium, which works alongside calcium. The ideal calcium to magnesium ratio is 2:1 - ie you need twice as much calcium as magnesium. Milk's ratio is 10:1, while cheese is 28:1. Relying on dairy products for calcium is likely to lead to magnesium deficiency and imbalance. Seeds, nuts and crunchy vegetables like kale, cabbage, carrots and cauliflower give us both these minerals and others, more in line with our needs. Milk is, after all, designed for young calves - not adult humans.

From the current evidence and given the present state of intensive farming, milk (especially for young children) should not be staple foods if you really want to pursue optimum nutrition. But this is no loss - not only is it possible to have a healthy diet without including dairy produce, it's also almost certainly going to decrease your risk of the common killer diseases. You can substitute organic soya or rice milk, or buy organic milk and have much less of it. If you suspect you might be allergic, stay off all dairy produce for 14 days. If it makes no difference, limit your intake of milk to 1 pint a week.


For the best collection of non-dairy milk recipes ever published, go to You can also download a free report on how milk causes osteoporosis.

Monday, October 30, 2006

An End to Prostate Problems?

Breakthrough Detoxification Research Now Being Conducted
Posted by Dr. Eddy on Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 5:02 PM Permalink
California, August 30, 2006.

Prostate conditions such as prostatitis, enlarged prostate and prostate cancer are affecting men worldwide. In fact, more than 50% of all men 50 and over suffer from an enlarged prostate (Benign Prostate Hyperplasia or BPH). The problem gets worse as men age. That’s just one possible prostate condition. Another widespread affliction is prostatitis. It affects younger as well as older men.

This week, World Health Products received full Investigational Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct clinical trial on an innovative detoxifying product, Detoxamin®, in conjunction with the antibiotic, tetracycline. Pre-study trials indicate that this combination therapy will reduce or eliminate prostate problems. The study is slated to begin September 9, 2006 at the Tustin Longevity Center in Tustin, California under the direction of Rita Ellithorpe, MD, a specialist in integrative medicine.A recent discovery has revealed a minute life form, much smaller than the smallest bacteria. It’s called nanobacteria.

Many medical scientists believe these culprits cause hardening of the arteries, kidney stones and other degenerative conditions. These ultra microbes are thought to encase themselves in a shell of calcium. Researchers involved in this current study have uncovered convincing evidence pointing to nanobacteria forming calcifications or stones on the prostate. These continually growing stones are thought to cause pressure on the prostate giving rise to prostatitis and BPH.

Studies suggest that calcium biofilm surrounding the nanobacteria can removed by an amino acid, EDTA, contained in a product called Detoxamin.The nanobacteria are exposed and then destroyed by tetracycline. This one-two approach of killing the nanobacteria with tetracycline and dissolving the calcium deposits with Detoxamin is the foundation for conducting this study.

There is evidence that EDTA also has beneficial results in diminishing hardening of the arteries, atherosclosis. Detoxamin also chelates or binds poisonous heavy metals within deep tissues and enables the body to easily eliminate the toxins through urine and feces. “Our clinical trial will determine if prostate calcifications will either reduce in size or be eliminated altogether. Furthermore, we will also find out if symptoms decrease or disappear,” says Larry Clapp, PhD, co-investigator and author of Prostate Health in 90 Days.

Toxic heavy metals have been implicated in many diseases of aging from Alzheimer’s, to cardiovascular disease. “I have over 500 patients with a variety of conditions in my practice that I placed on Detoxamin; the reason, because mostly everyone I have tested has a variety of heavy metal build up in their bodies.

Detoxamin is a safe, effective and convenient way to remove these menacing toxins. Therefore, we eliminate the causative agents so that other therapies can work in combination and repair the damage heavy metals cause to cells, tissues and organs,” as stated by Dr. Ellithorpe, the Principle Investigator of the study. This new clinical study supports the use of combination therapy to curtail or eliminate the growing prostate problems.

Increasing evidence is showing that milk is the biggest dietary cause of prostate cancer. In the book The Milk Imperative, the direct link bewteen the consumption of dairy milk and prostate cancer is clearly shown. Calcium in milk actis to ‘feed’ nanobacteria, causing harmful calcification in the prostate which leads to cancer. Get the facts now – go to

Friday, October 27, 2006

Why vitamin D in milk is no good

(Extract from comments made by Dr. Joseph Mercola,

Basically there are two types of oral vitamin D supplements. The natural ones are D3, and they contain the same vitamin D your body makes when exposed to sunshine. The synthetic ones are vitamin D2, which are sometimes called ergocalciferol.

Once either form of the vitamin is in your body, it needs to be converted to a more active form. Vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2. While there have been no clinical trials to date demonstrating conclusively that D2 prevents fractures, every clinical trial of D3 has shown it does.

However, nearly all the prescription-based supplements contain synthetic vitamin D2, which was first produced in the 1920s through ultraviolet exposure of foods. The process was patented and licensed to drug companies for use in prescription vitamins. In case you didn't know, the vitamin D that is added to milk is NOT D3 but the highly inferior vitamin D2.

The study linked above concluded that "vitamin D2 should no longer be regarded as a nutrient appropriate for supplementation or fortification of foods."

That being said, optimizing your sun exposure and levels of vitamin D3 may, indeed, be one of the most important physical steps you can take in support of your long-term health.

Conventional medicine is finally beginning to get on board the vitamin-D3 bandwagon, using the natural power of sunshine to treat type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis during a woman's pregnancy and even tuberculosis.

It is important to understand that the ideal and STRONGLY preferred method of increasing your vitamin D3 level is through appropriate sun exposure. I really do not advise oral supplements, not even cod liver oil now, UNLESS you can have your blood levels regularly monitored.

It just is too risky. I have seen too many potentially dangerous elevations of vitamin D levels, including my own, from those that are taking oral supplements.

But when you get your vitamin D from appropriate sun exposure your body can indeed self-regulate and greatly reduce vitamin D production if you don't need it, which makes it very difficult to overdose on vitamin D from sun exposure.
Note: The book The Milk Imperative explains why vitamin D is a double edged sword, and why it is actually harmful to health when added to milk.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Raw milk is bad food

Washington Post (Letter to the Editor)

Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A20

I hope that Post readers will not disregard, as author Thomas Bartlett apparently did, the body of scientific evidence and the advice of public health experts at the Food and Drug Administration regarding the hazards associated with the consumption of raw milk ["The Raw Deal," Magazine, Oct. 1].

In the article, advocates cited belief in this or that benefit of raw milk without offering much data to support those beliefs. But the public health experts at the FDA cited many scientific studies, including epidemiological investigations, that tie the consumption of raw milk to human illness. It almost seems as if the raw milk advocates believe the FDA is lying about the hazards.
I wonder about accountability and consequences if something bad happens as result of people following the advice of these advocates. Even if they were not found to be legally liable for encouraging people to consume raw milk, they will have to answer to their consciences for any illnesses or deaths that result.

JACK MOWBRAYWest Friendship

Note: In the book The Milk Imperative evidence is provided showing why raw milk has no redeeming features at all. For more information go to

Monday, October 02, 2006

Eat Green Veggies for Strong Bones

(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Eat your greens! They're chock full of vitamin K. Dark green vegetables, like spinach and kale, may be the secret to healthy bones in women. Deficiency of vitamin K can lead to osteoporosis.

Researchers from the University of Michigan School of Nursing in Ann Arbor report healthy bone growth depends on adequate consumption of vitamin K. Most young women don't get enough of the vitamin to build strong bones and ultimately prevent osteoporosis.
Vitamin K is essential to make the bone protein osteocalcin fully functional. With adequate vitamin K, osteocalcin binds to calcium, strengthening bones. When estrogen levels decline during menopause, women experience an impairment in the function of vitamin K.
Researchers studied the bone density, diet, and blood tests of healthy middle-aged and young-adult women. The study reveals women are not getting enough vitamin K to maintain bone health before menopause.

They report women should try to strengthen their bones before menopause when declining production of estrogen causes bone density loss. Weight-bearing exercises can help young women protect their bones. All women should try to boost their intake of vitamin K, write the researchers.


Note: As explained in The Milk Imperative, dairy milk contains little vitamin K. Worse still, the antibiotics in pasteurized milk virtually cancel out many of the vitamins contained in the milk consumed. Research shows that vitamin K in dairy milk hardly gets absorbed or used by the body because of antibiotics. For more information go to

Friday, September 22, 2006

Organic milk is not healthier

Organic milk is not healthier, says food watchdog.

The Food Standards Agency says organic milk does not offer any extra health benefits to conventional milk.

Food watchdogs have rejected claims that expensive organic milk is any healthier than its conventional equivalent.

A succession of studies in Britain and around the world has found higher levels of vital nutrients, particularly omega-3. However, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) yesterday triggered a row with the organic lobby by ruling the milk does not offer any health benefits.

The decision is a body blow to organic dairy farmers, who have seen a boom in sales on the back of a belief that it is healthier, particularly for children.

A three-year study conducted at the Universities of Glasgow and Liverpool found organic milk contained 68per cent more omega-3 fatty acids on average than conventional milk.
Omega-3s are considered to cut consumers' risk of heart disease, and have been linked with better concentration in children.

The findings led 14 scientists from around the world to sign a letter asking the FSA to recognize the nutritional advantages of the milk. Such a pronouncement would have been a huge boost to the standing of organic agriculture and, particularly, organic milk.

However, the FSA yesterday rejected any health benefits following consultations with leading experts. The study dismissed the significance of so called ‘health benefits’ by saying these are of "limited health benefit" compared to the longer chain omega-3 fatty acids found in oily fish. “Organic milk consumed in volumes consistent with a healthy diet, would not provide sufficient amounts of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids to provide significant health benefits, over and above those associated with conventional milk."

This study confirms the findings in the book The Milk Imperative which shows that organic milk is as harmful to good health as regular milk. In fact, organic milk can be more harmful to health by encouraging a greater consumption of milk than otherwise. For the full facts go to

Thursday, July 06, 2006

How dairy milk causes prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is caused by calcification of the prostate. When you dissect a cancerous prostate you always find calcification. Dairy milk is one of the biggest causes of prostate cancer because the calcium in milk contributes to harmful calcification of the body. Virtually all the research on this subject is concluding that dairy milk is the biggest diatary cuase of prostate cancer. Why and how this happens, and the supporting evidence is given in my book 'The Milk Imperative' (
Russell Eaton
Author of The Milk Imperative

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Omega-3 milk ads dropped in health claims row

Here is an extract from a Press Release issued by Chris Mercer:

20/06/2006 - Dairy Crest has criticised Britain’s advert watchdog for telling the company to drop claims that its omega-3 milk could improve children’s ability to learn. Dairy Crest, one of Britain's biggest dairy firms, said there was scientific evidence to back its claim that “increasing the intake of omega-3 may enhance learning and concentration in some children”.

The firm said the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had told it to ditch the claim from two press adverts for its St Ivel Advance omega-3 milk, following complaints from the public.
The ruling, set to be published by the ASA later this week, deals a blow to the food industry as it looks to push health claims
for omega-3.

Britain's Joint Health Claims Initiative has approved a generic health claim that foods containing omega-3 benefit heart health, but not learning ability or concentration.
Still, Dairy Crest has built St Ivel Advance around the slogan “clever milk”.
The product has done well since its launch in May 2005, reaching annual retail sales of £13m after its first year and helping the firm move further into higher margin, added value markets.

Here is an abridged extract from The Milk Imperative (

Is dairy milk good for brain development? Quite simply, dairy milk contains no DHA and no fats (saturated or unsaturated) that serve the brain. DHA is the most important oil required for healthy brain development (DHA is a kind of omega-3 fatty acid).

If, as a parent, you are concerned about brain development in your child, depriving the child of dairy milk will enhance brain development for the following reasons:

1. It will help to redress the ratio of Omega-6 and Omega-3 fats in the diet by reducing Omega-6, which is high in dairy milk. (Much ill-health is caused by too much omega-6 and too little omega-3).
2. It will help to encourage the child to consume more healthy alternatives to dairy milk, since hunger will not be sated with dairy milk.
3. It will help to improve the general health of the child, as dairy milk causes nothing but harm and ill-health.

By avoiding dairy milk and giving the child food or supplements rich in DHA, the child will have the best chance of developing a healthy brain at a critical stage in brain development.
In his world-famous book, Baby and Child Care, Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote,

‘I no longer recommend dairy products. … The essential fats that are needed for brain development are found in vegetable oils. Milk is very low in these essential fats and high in the saturated fats that encourage artery blockage and weight problems as children grow.’

Russell Eaton

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

How calcium in milk causes breast cancer

The following study was recently announced:
Calcium And Vitamin D No Help Against Breast Cancer
Calcium and Vitamin D supplements do not reduce the chances of developing breast cancer, according to a seven-year study conducted by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).The report goes against earlier research, which showed a possible benefit from the supplements.Researchers said the number of cases did not differ between women taking supplements and women given a placebo.
This study is yet another nail in the coffin of calcium supplements. Study after study is proving that taking calcium supplements does nothing but harm to the human body. This is why dairy milk is so harmful – the calcium in dairy milk does not get assimilated in healthy way (because of the high acidity in milk). As a result, calcium from dairy milk, like calcium supplements, causes harmful calcification and cancer in the body. For evidence of this go to and get the facts.

Monday, May 22, 2006

milk increases chances of twins

An American study shows that drinking milk increases the chances for women to have twin babies. A study published in Journal of Reproductive Medicine shows that compared to vegetables-eating mothers, milk consuming mothers have a 13% higher chance of a multiple birth!

The study shows that this is due to bovine IGF-1 (a bovine growth hormone present is all types of dairy milk). As explained in The Milk Imperative, many studies show that IGF-1 is responsible several types of cancer and other diseases in humans who consume milk.
Gary Steinman of the Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, who conducted the study, took a sample of more than 1000 women who were consuming only vegetables and observed that these women had five times less chances of bearing twins compared to omnivorous ones. Dr. Steinman suggests that animal-product foodstuffs, especially dairy foods, can increase the chance of releasing during ovulation more than one egg, which could lead to a double fertilization.

This theory is also supported by the finding that in some traditionally dairy consuming populations, the rate of twin birth is high. If it is true that consuming milk increases the chances of a multiple birth, this adds further support to the horror story of IGF-1. Anybody consuming dairy milk will ingest this harmful bovine growth hormone, and this plays havoc with the natural hormonal balance of the human body. Giving birth to twins or triplets is an aberration in the human species, not a sign of good health.

The harm caused by IGF-1 in dairy milk is fully explored in the new edition of The Milk Imperative (

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

New edition of The Milk Imperative launched today

Hi Folks
I am pleased to report that the new edition of The Milk Imperative was launched today. It includes new devastating research that shows how harmful dairy milk really is. The book also includes the best collection of non-dairy milk recipes ever published.

The whole book has been thoroughly revised and updated, and improved in many ways. Also, some great free bonuses are being offered on the website. These relate to hormone replacement therapy (HRT), vitamin D, how to avoid bad breath (halitosis), and lots of other good stuff.

Please see without delay. You won't be dissapointed.

All the best,
Russell Eaton

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Dairy milk and birth weight

On 25 April 2006 a Canadian study reported that low intake of milk was associated with decreased birth rate. This study concluded that 'restricting fortified milk or vitamin D intake during pregnancy lowered infant birth weight in otherwise healthy, non-smoking, well-educated mothers. Our study is limited because only 24% of women who reported restricting milk consumption agreed to participate. Thus, our study demonstrates that in pregnant women living where sun conditions for year-round vitamin D synthesis are less than ideal, poor vitamin D intake from food sources (including fortified milk) and failure to select appropriate vitamin and mineral supplementation can result in lower infant birth weight..' (Source: Cynthia A Mannion, et al, Association of low intake of milk and vitamin D during pregnancy with decreased birth weight, CMAJ o April 25, 2006; 174 (9). doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041388).

The study looked at a total of 72 women (an extremely small sample for any kind of study of this sort). The study found that restricting vitamin D during pregnancy resulted in decreased birth weight. The study specifically said that protein from milk made no difference to birth weight: the study 'indicated no independent contribution of protein to birth weight, infant length or head circumference in our otherwise healthy mothers. Neither did calcium or riboflavin predict birth weight, infant length or head circumference.'

Furthermore the study concluded that 'Milk and vitamin D intakes during pregnancy are each associated with infant birth weight, independently of other risk factors.' In other words, vitamin D affects birth weight. But milk, with or without vitamin D, also affects birth weight. Naturally, anybody who consumes significant dairy milk will put on weight, whether or not pregnant. But it does not follow that increased birth weight as a result of consuming milk is beneficial, and there are no studies that show this. On the contrary, some research is showing that increased birth weight (above the norm) makes the baby more prone to cancer later in life (source: Susan E. McCann, et al, Birth Weight and Breastfeeding in Infancy May Affect Premenopausal Breast Cancer Risk, April 2006, The University at Buffalo School of Public health and Health Professions, NY State, USA).

The cited Canadian study does not say or imply that milk consumption is good or that it benefits babies in any way - and this, in spite of the fact that the study is sponsored by Dairy Farmers of Canada. The only conclusion drawn by the study is that it is important for pregnant women to get enough vitamin D as this ensures a healthy birth weight. Milk is mentioned in the study but it is a red herring because Canadian milk has a high amount of added vitamin D3. Thus milk per se is of no benefit, it is the vitamin D in the milk that benefited the mothers in the Canadian study. It is much healthier to get vitamin D from sunlight or supplements than from dairy milk.

Press headlines like 'Avoiding milk in pregnancy could lead to a smaller baby' (Daily Mail, UK)are totally misleading because milk in other parts of the world has little or no added vitamin D. Avoiding milk in pregnancy will benefit both mother and baby. The mother benefits because by avoiding dairy milk she will avoid antibiotics, cow hormones, and other harmful substances in milk that get passed into the unborn child.

Just as important, a mother should not consume dairy milk after birth because hormones in dairy milk inhibit the production of human milk. This happens because the hormones in dairy milk are similar to the hormones produced by a breastfeeding woman. This upsets the woman's body chemistry, making the body reduce or shut down the production of human milk.

Also, if the mother consumes dairy milk after birth, the cow hormones will interfere with the human hormones oxytocin, leptin and prolactin. These hormones act to help the body shed surplus body fat, and suppress food cravings and over-eating. By consuming milk, the mother will have a much harder time regaining her former slim and healthy figure.

Russell Eaton
Author of The Milk Imperative

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Horrors of milk allergy

Vastly underrated, dairy milk allergy causes misery and suffering to millions of people all over the world. As explained in The Milk Imperative, little is said about this terrible affliction because most people don’t realize that their ill-health is due to milk allergy. For an excellent website on this subject go to, then scroll down the left and click on ‘milk allergy’.

This website is managed by Dr. Manik Hiranandani, a highly respected medical doctor. Here is a snippet from his website:

‘Milk allergy receives a significant mention in all recent text books of medicine as overwhelming evidence has accumulated about the horrendous problems an allergy to milk can cause. This article is an effort to present to you some of the problems a milk allergy can cause, and whether it is a worthwhile risk for you to continue consuming milk products.’

Russell Eaton

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Calcium and vitamin D increases bone density

It is well known (and well proven) that an increase in calcium and vitamin D increases bone density in the short term. Such studies are based on false logic:

First premise: Consuming greater calcium and vitamin D increases bone density.

Second premise: Greater bone density protects bones by making them stronger.

Third premise: By making bones denser and stronger you reduce the risk of osteoporosis.

This perverse logic is often found in so called ‘scientific studies’. When you increase bone density by consuming more calcium and vitamin D, it does not follow that this protects bones. The above second and third premises are based on false logic. Whenever you increase bone density you use up (i.e. erode) bone-making cells. The body has a finite number of bone-making cells. So when you increase bone density through greater calcium and vitamin consumption, you erode your finite reservoir of bone-making cells. This in turn increases the risk of osteoporosis.

Below is a good example of a so-called ‘study’ that shows how calcium and vitamin D increase bone density.

Title: Calcium- and Vitamin D3-Fortified Milk Reduces Bone Loss at Clinically Relevant Skeletal Sites in Older Men: A 2-Year Randomized Controlled Trial. Robin Daly, et al.

Published online 19 Dec. 06

Source: J Bone Miner Res 2006;21:397-405.

Summary: In this 2-year randomized controlled study of 167 men aged over 50, calcium and vitamin D3-fortified milk was provided, giving an additional 1000 mg of calcium and 800 IU of vitamin D3 per day. It was found that supplementing the diet of men over 50 with reduced-fat milk that was fortified with calcium- and vitamin D3 provides a ‘nutritionally sound and cost-effective strategy to reduce age-related bone loss at several skeletal sites at risk for fracture in the elderly.’

This disgraceful Study is yet another example of misguided disinformation. It is well known that in the short term an increase in calcium and vitamin D increases bone density, but this comes at a terrible price. The study erroneously concludes (without any scientific evidence) that this is a ‘nutritionally sound strategy to reduce age-related bone loss.’ Nothing could be further from the truth, and the researchers should hang their heads in shame.

The best strategy for elderly people at risk of osteoporosis is to avoid dairy milk (particularly if it is fortified with calcium and vitamin D) as this erodes precious bone-making cells. To learn how best to protect your bones go to

Monday, February 27, 2006

Heart Attack, Osteoporosis Linked in Men Over 50

Here is a summary of a recent newsrelease:
February 27, 2006
Men who have survived a heart attack are at increased risk of bone loss and osteoporosis in later life, says Tulane University researcher Jeanette H. Magnus.
"We have long known that heart disease and osteoporosis have similar risk factors, but this is the first study to examine the relationship between heart attack survivors and low bone mineral density," says Magnus. "According to our data, people who reported a previous heart attack were more likely to have low bone mineral density than those who did not report a heart attack. We recommend that men who survive heart attacks be screened for bone density loss," concluded
The results are published in a recent issue of Osteoporosis International.
This Study corroborates evidence published in The Milk Imperative which shows a direct link between osteoporosis and heart disease. But what is this mysterious link? As explained in the book, the common link is harmful calcification. And what is the biggest cause of harmful calcification in the human diet? The answer is that a regular consumption of dairy milk is by far the biggest dietary cause of harmful calcification. To see the evidence go to

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Dietitian says milk does not protect against osteoporosis

Susan Levin, Staff Dietitian for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, discusses her belief that drinking milk does not protect against bone diseases like osteoporosis, but physical activity does.
(Original source:

Here is a summary:

‘As a dietitian, I know that, contrary to a recent letter, drinking milk is not a healthy or effective way to prevent osteoporosis ("Milk plays an important role in good health," Dec. 21). According to a recent review of the role of dairy or dietary calcium and bone health in children and young adults, the majority of scientific studies on this topic found no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health. And in a 12-year Harvard study of 78,000 adult women, those who drank milk three times a day actually broke more bones than women who rarely drank milk. Studies have shown that physical activity has a positive impact on bone health. Here in the United States, our level of dairy product consumption is among the highest in the world, yet our osteoporosis and fracture rates are also among the highest. But science shows that we can build strong bones and healthy bodies by adopting healthier diets, including plant-based sources of calcium-and increasing physical activity.’

The evidence that milk does not protect bones is now very solid. But there is mounting evidence that milk actually causes osteoporosis, and several long term studies are firmly showing this to be the case. For more information go to

Monday, January 30, 2006

Why osteoporosis is so bad in India

An extensive study published in Jan. 2006 reveals that Indians are increasingly being afflicted with osteoporosis. This study, conducted by the National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health, shows that an estimated 61 million Indians suffer from osteoporosis. Commenting on the study, the director-general of the World Health Organization (Gro Harlem Brundtland) said that osteoporosis will see a manifold increase in the developing world.

As explained in The Milk Imperative, in India both genders are affected by osteoporosis, as shown by another study by the Britannia New Zealand Foods and the Arthritis Foundation of India. This has revealed that in cities like Kolkata and Chennai, 45 per cent of men have brittle bones. Another disturbing trend revealed by the study is that an increasing number of Indians even as young as 26 are falling prey to this disease.

WHO reveals that one out of eight males and one out of three females in India suffer from osteoporosis, making India one of the worst affected countries. The Arthritis Foundation of India says there has been an estimated 200 per cent jump in cases across Asia in 10 years.

Why is osteoporosis increasing at such an alarming rate in India? As shown in The Milk Imperative, the answer unfortunately is simple: a dramatic increase in milk consumption in India in recent years has gone hand-in-hand with a dramatic rise in osteoporosis. In 2002, some 18,000 million liters of milk where produced by Operation Flood's cooperative unions each day. As a result, milk consumption in India has risen from a low of 107 grams per day in 1970 to over 220 grams per day in 2002; and people in all parts of India are now able to buy and consume dairy milk without scarcity of supply. Since 2002, the increase in milk production and consumption in India has risen enormously, growing at a rate of over 4% per year according to FAO. This makes India the fastest growth market in the world in milk production and consumption.

Russell Eaton
Author of The Milk imperative

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

High homocysteine bad for the bones

The Archives of Internal Medicine, January 9, 2006, published the results of a study showing that homocysteine is bad for the bones. The study found that women who have high levels of the amino acid homocysteine in the blood are at increased risk for low bone mineral density (BMD). The European investigators reported:

"Our finding adds to the increasing evidence that avoiding homocysteine is important for good bone health," lead author Dr. Clara Gram Gjesdal from the University of Bergen in Norway told Reuters Health.

Women with high homocysteine levels were nearly two times more likely to have low BMD compared with women with low homocysteine levels.

It is interesting to note that skim and low fat milk have higher amounts of non-digestible protein and lactose, and lower amounts of folic acid and vitamin B, a particularly harmful combination of factors.

According to Dr. William Grant, a Nasa Research Scientist, this combination promotes a build-up of homocysteine, a promoter of heart disease, stroke, and dementia. This view is reinforced by many studies, including a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal (January 2005) which says that a quarter of all heart attacks could be caused by high levels of homocysteine. This can explain why even some people who are apparently healthy, slim, and non-smoking, get heart attacks – they have high homocysteine levels. This subject is examined in greater detail in The Milk Imperative, available as a paperback or as an ebook which you can download now by going to

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Goat's milk worse than cow's milk

Here is an extract from an article issued by the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE on January 10, 2006:

‘Americans no longer cowed by goat milk


Goat milk is different from cow milk in the concentration and forms of its nutrients. Compared to cow milk, goat milk contains 13 percent more calcium and more vitamins. It does not contain the major protein of cow milk to which many people, including babies, are allergic.  As a result, goat milk often agrees with sensitive or weak digestive systems. Many lactose-intolerant people are able to tolerate goat milk well. Cow milk-sensitive seniors in need of calcium often turn to goat milk because of its digestibility. As one grows older, sensitivity to cow milk tends to increase.’

In fact, goat milk is even worse for your health (and pocket) than cow’s milk for the following reasons:

  1. The higher concentration of calcium in goat’s milk serves to erode bone making cells, thus increasing the risk of osteoporosis.
  2. Goat’s milk contains 10% more galactose than cow’s milk.  Galactose, in this concentration is toxic to the human body and it causes serious disease including a greater risk of cataracts.
  3. Goat’s milk contains more calories and more saturated fat compared to regular cow’s milk.
  4. Goat’s milk contains about 10% more lactic acid than cow’s milk.  Lactic acid is bad for the digestion and it prevents the efficient assimilation of nutrients from the food you eat.
  5. Goat’s milk contains about 14% more casein than cow’s milk, a harmful sticky protein that clogs the respiratory system and coats your organs with a glue-like substance.  This makes goat’s milk more difficult to digest than cow’s milk.
  6. The nutritional content of Goat’s milk (vitamins and minerals) is indeed different to cow’s milk, but not sufficiently different to warrant consuming for this reason alone.  The main difference is that it contains about 47% more vitamin A compared to cow’s milk.  However, vitamin A is readily available from a wide variety of fruit and vegetables, and people generally are not lacking in this vitamin.
  7. Goat’s milk costs more than cow’s milk.

For more information about goat’s milk see The Milk Imperative.

Friday, January 06, 2006

US: Dairy farmers say drink milk to lose weight

In a press release issued on 5 Jan 06 the USA Milk Processor Education Program stated:


"When women diet they often make two big mistakes that can actually result in weight gain - skip breakfast and ditch dairy," said Somer, author of the new book ‘10 Habits That Mess Up a Woman's Diet’. "But in reality, eating breakfast and including 24 ounces of milk each day are two small steps that could make a significant difference in achieving a healthy weight."  (Source:


This logic is ludicrous.  Skipping breakfast may not be a good thing, but it does not follow that consuming milk for breakfast helps keep a healthy weight!  The evidence that dairy milk causes surplus body fat and obesity is absolutely overwhelming, and to suggest otherwise simply reflects vested interests.  Any food high in saturated animal fat is fattening, period.  Low-fat milk is even more fattening than regular milk:  as explained in The Milk Imperative, this is so for a variety of reasons that have been proven in numerous research studies.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

No goverment should subsidise school milk

Here is an extract from The Guardian newspaper in the UK:
Government may stop school milk subsidies

Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent
Wednesday January 4, 2006
The Guardian

The government is considering ending milk subsidies for 1.2 million primary school children in England as they cost too much to administer and do little to improve health, the Guardian can reveal.
All I can say is HOORAY!  It is absolutely disgraceful for any government to subsidise school milk.  This is a complete waste of tax payers money - but worse still, dairy milk causes nothing but harm to school children.
Russell Eaton, author of The Milk Imperative.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Milk doesn't safeguard against osteoporosis

Here's a news article published in on Jan. 2, 2006:

As a dietitian, I know that, contrary to a recent letter, drinking milk is not a healthy or effective way to prevent osteoporosis ("Milk plays an important role in good health," Dec. 21).   According to a recent review of the role of dairy or dietary calcium and bone health in children and young adults, the majority of scientific studies on this topic found no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health. And in a 12-year Harvard study of 78,000 adult women, those who drank milk three times a day actually broke more bones than women who rarely drank milk.

Studies have shown that physical activity has a positive impact on bone health.

Here in the United States, our level of dairy product consumption is among the highest in the world, yet our osteoporosis and fracture rates are also among the highest.  But science shows that we can build strong bones and healthy bodies by adopting healthier diets, including plant-based sources of calcium-and increasing physical activity.

Staff Dietitian
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Washington, D.C.

Free ebook: Osteoporosis Can Be Prevented