The following is an extract form an article published by Courtney Kaminski at www.brockpress.com.
Issue date: 10/10/07
"The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent osteoporosis is another step in the wrong direction," said the Harvard School of Public Health, in a 2005 study on the consumption of dairy products.
Most current university students grew up in the heyday of the "Got Milk?" campaign that had countless celebrities, professional athletes and even cartoon characters sporting milk mustaches in support of drinking milk for strong bones.
Yet, amid this push to get everyone drinking three glasses of milk` a day, some evidence has come forward that suggests that milk may not in fact be the surefire way to stave off osteoporosis, and instead, may in fact be part of the cause.
Unlike the West, most of the globe does not consume cow's milk, and still most of these countries have much lower rates of osteoporosis, than what is experienced in the USA.
Milksucks.com, a Web site dedicated to exposing the alleged myths that have been perpetuated about the health benefits of milk, cites one study that points to milk as a potential cause of osteoporosis.
"In one study, funded by the National Dairy Council, a group of postmenopausal women were given three eight-ounce glasses of skim milk every day for two years, and their bones were compared to those of a control group of women not given the milk. The dairy group consumed 1,400 mg of calcium per day and lost bone at twice the rate of the control group. According to the researchers, 'this may have been due to the average 30 per cent increase in protein intake during milk supplementation ... The adverse effect of increases in protein intake on calcium balance has been reported from several laboratories, including our own'; they then cite 10 other studies."
Milksucks.com also indicates that dairy products contain both saturated fats and cholesterol, which have been linked to causing heart disease, cancer, Crohn's disease, and "a host of childhood illnesses from asthma to diabetes".
There was also a study by Yale University researchers, looking at 34 studies in 16 countries, which demonstrated the highest rates of Osteoporosis were found in countries where people had the highest meat, milk, and animal product intake.
More conclusively, in 2000, a review of all the related research collected since 1985 about the relationship between dairy products and bone health, published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, stated: "If dairy food intakes confer bone health, one might expect this to have been apparent from the 57 outcomes, which included randomized, controlled trials and longitudinal cohort studies involving 645,000 person-years … There have been few carefully designed studies of the effects of dairy foods on bone health; the body of scientific evidence appears inadequate to support a recommendation for daily intake of dairy foods to promote bone health in the general U.S. population."
Still not convinced that that glass of ice cold refreshing milk is bad for you? Consider that unlike the multi-billion dollar dairy industry, science does not have $300 million annually to debunk the wonders of milk that have been ingrained in Western society.
According to Milksucks.com, "Dr. Walter Willett, veteran nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that calcium consumption via dairy-product intake 'has become like a religious crusade,' overshadowing true preventive measures such as physical exercise."
While it may be tempting to disregard this and similar Web sites as mere propaganda, it's hard to see a real difference between it and the famous "Got Milk?" advertising campaign. It is reminiscent of the tobacco industry claiming that there was no relation between smoking and cancer. It begs the question: How do you know milk is good for you?
If it is simply because the dairy industry (the same people that will lose the most financially if you stop consuming dairy) told you, then you may want to re-evaluate what you know to be true.
***********
For a more detailed study of the scientific evidence showing how milk actually increases the risk of osteoporosis, go to www.milkimkperative.com.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Link between iron deficiency, obesity and milk
Scientists Establish Link Between Iron Deficiency And Childhood Obesity
September 5, 2007 7:27 a.m. EST
Nidhi Sharma - AHN News Writer
Washington D.C. (AHN) - Obese American kids run an alarmingly high risk of iron deficiency, a study by UT South western Medical Center researchers has found. The study, appearing in the September issue of the journal Pediatrics, is the first to report an link between iron deficiency and childhood obesity among children as young as 1 to 3 years old.
A national survey of 1,641 toddlers has found that 20 percent of overweight toddlers to be iron-deficient compared to 8 percent of those at risk for being overweight, and 7 percent of normal-weight toddlers.
Iron-deficiency anemia in infancy and early childhood can also lead to delay in behavioral and cognitive development, including impaired learning, decreased school achievement, and lower scores on tests of mental and motor development.
Scientists also added that iron deficiency in kids can be attributed to parents who let their children drink cow's milk and juice from a bottle, instead of weaning them and introducing iron-rich foods.
Bottle-fed children tend to drink too much milk and juice, which are low in iron, and don't get enough solid food.
*********************************
Comment by Russell Eaton: as explained in The Milk Imperative, many studies show that milk causes anemia in infants:
1. Dairy milk contains virtually no iron and therefore contributes nothing towards the prevention of anemia. The trace amount of iron that dairy milk contains (less than one milligram per quart) gets poorly absorbed: the indigestible protein in milk binds with the iron and leaves the body without being absorbed into the bloodstream.
2. Dairy milk makes an infant less interested in eating other foods that are good for body growth and that provide better sources of iron. This is so because dairy milk is filling, thus satiating feelings of hunger for more nutritious food.
3. Dairy milk causes some infants to lose iron from their intestines through intestinal bleeding (the harsh casein in milk irritates the delicate lining of the baby’s intestines). This bleeding is pervasive and usually not sufficiently severe to be noticed in stools, but enough to cause anemia. It is estimated that half the iron-deficiency in infants in the USA is from cow-milk induced intestinal bleeding! Many studies have been carried out that show how dairy milk causes intestinal bleeding. Here are extracts from some of these studies:
Milk consumption has been shown to cause intestinal bleeding, resulting in low hemoglobin count. The result: weakness, depression, irritability. (Robert Cohen, Milk A-Z, 2001, Argus Publishing, ISBN 0965919684).
Babies who are fed whole cow’s milk during the second six months of life may experience a 30% increase in intestinal blood loss and a significant loss of iron in their stools. (Journal of Pediatrics, 1990, 116).
Children with iron deficiency had a higher intake of cow’s milk compared to those with sufficient iron. Intake of cow’s milk is significantly higher in children with iron deficiency. (Acta Paediatrica, 1999 Dec, 88:12).
Cow’s milk-induced intestinal bleeding is a well-recognized cause of rectal bleeding in infancy. In all cases, bleeding resolved completely after instituting a cow’s milk-free diet. (Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 1999 Oct, 34:10).
Significant rectal bleeding is the most common symptom in cow’s milk allergy. (West Virginia Medical Journal, 1999 Sep-Oct; 95,5).
Cow’s milk has been linked to a variety of health problems, including hemoglobin loss, mood swings, depression, and irritability. (Townsend Medical Letter, May, 1995).
The association with anemia and acute intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. (Robert Cohen, Milk – The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, January 1, 1998, ISBN: 0965919609).
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Milk causes diabetes and heart cancer
Milk causes diabetes and heart disease
According to the results of the study conducted out of the University of Cardiff in the UK and as promoted in media throughout the world during July 2007, drinking a pint of milk a day may protect men against diabetes and heart disease. But upon closer examination of the research, Jon Barron concludes that the study is decidedly flawed and without merit.
Jon Barron of The Baseline of Health Foundation (http://www.jonbarron.org/newsletters/07/7-30-2007.php) makes the following comments in his latest newsletter:
The Study
The 20-year study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, analyzed how the rates of metabolic syndrome were affected by dairy consumption.
Metabolic syndrome (also known as syndrome X or insulin resistance syndrome) is a cluster of conditions including obesity, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, and high triglycerides that increase the risk of heart disease. Metabolic syndrome is said to be the fastest growing disease entity in the world. On the other hand, although it does predict vascular disease and diabetes quite powerfully, it is probably not a true syndrome and should be thought of more as an elaborate risk formula -- increasing the risk of death by some 50%.
The background
According to the study, which tracked 2,375 men between the ages of 45 and 59 over a 20 year period, eating dairy products reduces the risk of metabolic syndrome. The more they consumed, the lower the risk. At the start of the study, 15% had metabolic syndrome and had almost double the risk of coronary artery heart disease and four times the risk of diabetes of those without the syndrome. But the researchers found that men were 62% less likely to have the syndrome if they drank a pint or more of milk every day and 56% less likely to have it if they regularly ate other dairy products.
The more dairy products the men consumed, the less likely they were to have the syndrome.
The reality
In fact, although the study tracked a decreased risk of metabolic syndrome with increased dairy consumption, it found little actual correlation between dairy consumption and the incidence of diabetes itself. There were only 7 more cases of diabetes among the lowest consumers of dairy versus the highest. The incidence of heart disease was not tracked.
Also, people who had diabetes at the start of the study were excluded from the results so that we don't know if their condition improved or deteriorated while drinking milk. That would be significant information in determining the overall health value of dairy when it comes to metabolic syndrome.
Why it means nothing
There are a number of problems with the study, but let's start with the two most obvious.
- What were the non milk drinkers drinking?
- What does drinking milk say about the overall diet of the participants?
If not milk, what?
The study only references the amount of milk and dairy products people were consuming -- nothing else -- not, for example, what else they were drinking or eating. The simple fact is that people only drink so much liquid in a day. If they're drinking more milk, they're drinking less of something else. Conversely, if they're drinking less milk, they're drinking more of something else. If that something else is soda pop or sugared energy drinks, that's a problem. Each ounce of soda contains almost a teaspoon of sugar, usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup. That's a major factor in the onset of metabolic syndrome. Tea and coffee drinkers don't necessarily escape scot-free either. Six cups of coffee a day with 2 teaspoons of sugar in each cup still works out to 40 lbs (18.4 K) of sugar a year.
In other words, the so called health benefits attributed to milk in the study may have nothing to do with milk at all. They may instead be a reflection of lowered consumption of more harmful highly-sugared beverages.
Overall diet
A question that occurs to me is: why are men in their forties and fifties drinking milk every day? Is it because they want something to drink with their cookies and cake at lunch like children (probably not), or is it because they are making what they consider to be a conscious health choice (even if misguided)? If so, what does that say about the rest of their diet? We know that people who drink lots of soda pop also tend to be high consumers of fast foods and snack foods. In fact, they're usually sold in tandem, not only in fast food restaurants (KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, for example, are owned by Yum! Brands, a spin-off of PepsiCo) but also in grocery store power aisles. So if the drinking of milk was the result of an attempt by some of the participants to avoid fast foods and sodas, were those men also more likely to have eaten whole grain foods and fresh produce as opposed to fast foods and sugared snacks? We know that fast food diets are more likely to contribute to the onset of metabolic syndrome, and that whole foods are more likely to keep it at bay? It sounds likely that the men drinking milk were eating an overall better diet, but the study doesn't tell us either way. In any case, without that information, the study is meaningless. You could probably come up with the same results (maybe even better) by doing a survey on how much water the men drank -- the more water, the lower the incidence of metabolic syndrome.
Heck, why didn't the researchers just cut to the chase and ask about the participant's sugar intake in foods and beverages?
What do we actually know?
When it comes to dairy, we actually know quite a lot. For example:
- Consumption of cow's milk in children has been linked to a threefold increase in Type 1 diabetes.
- Consumption of milk has been associated with insulin-dependent diabetes in numerous studies.
- Milk consumption is repeatedly promoted as lowering the incidence of obesity, and yet numerous studies indicate that it does just the opposite.
Then, of course, all the Cardiff study looked at were the triggers for Metabolic Syndrome. Perhaps milk is implicated in other problems such as cancer, allergies, arthritis, infection, and toxicity. And it is!
In Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, I talk about a number of the health problems associated with dairy consumption. Those are actually only highlights; there's much more. First of all, the following two sites might be of interest.
- The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. www.pcrm.org
- The NotMilk homepage www.notmilk.com
To summarize some of the things that you will find there, there are many, many problems associated with consuming dairy. Many of these are probably conditions you are already noticing in your own body -- particularly those that relate to allergies, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders. For example:
- Galactose - Ovarian cancer rates parallel dairy-eating patterns around the world. The culprit seems to be galactose, the simple sugar broken down from the milk sugar lactose.
- Pesticides - concentrate in the milk of both farm animals and humans. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund found widespread pesticide contamination of human breast milk among 1,400 women in forty-six states. The levels of contamination were twice as high among the meat-and-dairy-eating women as among vegetarians.
- Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria - Joseph Beasley, M.D., and Jerry Swift wrote in The Kellogg Report (The Institute of Health Policy and Practice, 1989) that even "moderate use of antibiotics in animal feed can result in the development of antibiotic resistance in animal bacteria - and the subsequent transfer of that resistance to human bacteria."
- Vitamin D Toxicity - Heavy consumption of milk, especially by small children, may result in vitamin D toxicity. Records show that dairies do not carefully regulate how much vitamin D is added to milk. (Milk has been "fortified" with vitamin D ever since deficiencies were found to cause rickets.) A study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine (April 30, 1992) showed that of forty-two milk samples, only 12 percent were within the expected range of vitamin D content. Testing of ten infant formula samples revealed seven with more than twice the vitamin D content reported on the label; one sample had more than four times the label amount.
- Growth Hormones - Recently, cows have started to receive growth hormones to increase their milk production, although the long-term effects on humans are unknown.
- Casein - Perhaps the biggest health problem with cow's milk arises from the proteins in it: Cow's milk proteins damage the human immune system. Repeated exposure to these proteins disrupts normal immune function and may eventually lead to disease. Cow's milk contains many proteins that are poorly digested and harmful to the immune system. Fish and meat proteins are much less damaging, while plant proteins pose the least hazard.
Removing dairy from the diet has been shown to shrink enlarged tonsils and adenoids, indicating relief for the immune system -- even more so if you are lactose intolerant.
Similarly, doctors experimenting with dairy-free diets often report a marked reduction in colds, flu's, sinusitis and ear infections. In addition, dairy is a tremendous mucus producer and a burden on the respiratory, digestive and immune systems.
- Colic and Ear Infections - One out of every five infants in the United States suffers bouts of colic. Another common problem among infants receiving dairy, either directly or indirectly, is chronic ear infections. You just don't see this painful condition among infants and children who aren't getting cow's milk into their systems.
- Allergies, Asthma and Sinus Problems - Poorly digested bovine antigens (substances that provoke an immune reaction) like casein become "allergens" in allergic individuals. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by diarrhea, constipation and fatigue. Many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved and even eliminated by cutting out dairy. The exclusion of dairy, however, must be complete to see any benefit.
- Arthritis - Antigens in cow's milk may also contribute to rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. When antibody-antigen complexes (resulting from an immune response) are deposited in the joints, pain, swelling, redness and stiffness result; these complexes increase in arthritic people who eat dairy products, and the pain fades rapidly after patients eliminate dairy products from their diets.
- Childhood Anemia - Cow's milk causes loss of iron and hemoglobin in infants (one reason the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants not drink cow's milk) by triggering blood loss from the intestinal tract. Some research also shows that iron absorption is blocked by as much as 60 percent when dairy products are consumed in the same meal.
- Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Lung Cancer - A 1989 study in Nutrition and Cancer linked the risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with the consumption of cow's milk and butter. High levels of the cow's milk protein beta-lactoglobulin have also been found in the blood of lung cancer patients, suggesting a link with this cancer as well.
Concluding that dairy is good for you while ignoring these issues hardly makes sense.
Incompletely digested large dairy proteins, such as casein, become antigens (substances that provoke immune reactions) once they enter the bloodstream in individuals who are sensitive to them. Plus, the milk you buy in the store is not raw milk. If you must drink milk, be smart about your choices:
- Raw organic, if you can find it, avoids many of the problems -- but presents health issues of its own unless you can be sure of the source.
- Organic pasteurized is better than non-organic, but because of the heat used in pasteurization, it presents significantly higher allergy problems than raw.
I do not recommend non-organic, pasteurized, homogenized dairy products under any circumstances. - And while whey eliminates the casein problem, it still contains the two main allergenic proteins, alpha-lactalbumin and beta-lactaglobulin -- the two most heat sensitive proteins.
- Soy milk, of course, is not an effective alternative, since it is high in allergens itself, blocks the absorption of important minerals such as calcium, and contains high levels of phytoestrogens, which although beneficial in moderate amounts, can be counter-productive in large amounts -- particularly for children.
Raw Milk
- Are there any health benefits to drinking raw milk? According to the FDA, no. And if all you measure are protein and fat content and added vitamin D, they are correct. But if you consider that pasteurization involves heating milk to approximately 1450 Fahrenheit for 30 minutes or longer and therefore kills all enzymes and beneficial bacteria in the process, then the answer is not so obvious. Heating the milk to pasteurize it "denatures" dairy proteins making some of them much more allergenic than they are in their natural state. Consider that many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved, and even eliminated, by simply cutting out dairy. And if you toss in the fact that pasteurization makes calcium insoluble and unavailable to the body (a key reason countries with the highest pasteurized dairy consumption have the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world), the health benefits swing decidedly in favor of raw milk.
- Can raw milk become contaminated? Yes, absolutely -- but not often. Most raw milk dairies tend to run extremely clean operations because of the liability issues. And keep in mind that in this recent outbreak only 8 illnesses were reported. We see far more E. coli contamination in meat each year than in raw dairy -- even as a percentage of users. And in fact, we regularly see contamination of pasteurized dairy too, but the FDA never seems to propose that people stop eating meat and pasteurized dairy. It seems raw milk just doesn't have a big enough lobby supporting it.
So am I ( Jon Barron) advocating drinking raw milk?
Not necessarily. I still have issues with some of the proteins in dairy that tend to trigger allergic reactions, whether that dairy is raw or pasteurized. But if you are going to drink milk, raw organic milk is a healthier option than the pasteurized, homogenized moo-cow juice you find in the supermarkets.
Conclusion
I know that peer reviewed studies are the sine qua non of the medical world, but in reality many of them are so much less than they appear. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, you can get a study to prove any point you want -- even contradictory points. And once a flawed study is published, it's then cited by other studies over and over again, until utter nonsense becomes incontrovertible "fact." Here are some examples.
Bottom line, when it comes to the current dairy study, pay no attention; it's decidedly flawed.
Note from Russell Eaton, author of The Milk Imperative: clearly, milk does nothing to reduce the risk of diabetes and heart disease. As explained in The Milk Imperative, all the evidence and peer-reviewed research is showing the opposite: milk actually increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease. The misleading publicity given to the University of Cardiff study (no doubt encouraged by the milk industry) is a travesty and does a grave disservice to human health. For more information go to www.milkimperative.com.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The horror of homogenized milk
Virtually all pasteurized milk is also homogenized. Homogenization is a mechanical process that forces the milk through thin nozzles to break down and disperse the fat globules into very small particles. This stops cream rising to the top.
Technically, this is what happens: when milk is passed through a fine filter at pressures equal to 4,000 pounds per square inch, the fat globules (liposomes) are made smaller (micronized) by a factor of 10 times or more. These fat molecules become evenly dispersed within the liquid milk, so that just one pint of milk can contain over one-trillion tiny protective fat "vehicles."
Homogenization can cause serious health problems for three reasons:
1. Increase in toxins. The tiny homogenized fat globules that get through to the bloodstream act as ?vehicles? for harmful toxins, hormones, and proteins (lead, mercury, dioxins, IGF-1, etc) that may be present in the milk and food we consume.
Normally, our body gets protected from the harmful elements of consumption: our digestive system and liver act to filter out harmful things in the food we eat. But when dairy milk is consumed, the tiny homogenized fat globules ?absorb' these harmful elements and carry them into the body, bypassing the liver.Once there, the toxins get carried to vital organs and other parts of the body where they get 'offloaded' when the micronized fat eventually dissolves, causing disease and illness. This is how harmful bovine growth hormones (IGF-1) survive digestion and gets into all parts of the body.
This homogenization process, referred to as micronization of fat, is so effective that some medications are encapsulated into micronized fat as a way of delivering them into the body orally instead of using injections. Although the amount of toxins and heavy metals we consume may be very small, they accumulate in the body over a period of time. As heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead are highly toxic, only small amounts are needed for serious illness to develop. Dairy milk provides more heavy metals than just about any other kind of food because of their presence in the milk, combined with a highly effective delivery system.
2. Increase in harmful body fat. Most of the homogenized fat globules that get through to the bloodstream do not get used as energy or as useful nutrition. Instead, they cause illness or get stored as surplus body fat. This occurs for four reasons:
2.1 The homogenized fat globules are made of long chain saturated fatty acids (14, 16 and 18 chain carbon atoms). The 14 and 16 long chain fatty acids are known to increase the level of harmful (oxidized) cholesterol in the bloodstream, leading to arterial disease.
2.2 Saturated animal fat consumed in the diet cannot be used by the body unless it is first converted into non-saturated fat. Since the body cannot easily convert 14 and 16 chain fatty acids into non-saturated fat, they get dumped by the bloodstream, i.e. stored as surplus body fat.
2.3 The 14 and 16 chain homogenized fatty acids are more harmful than saturated fats (virtually on a par with trans-fatty acids). This is so because, like trans-fatty acids, they enter the body and become lodged within the cell membranes of various organs where they cause harm. They can do this because of their small size and because their molecular composition prevents them from being broken down and used by the body.
2.4 Although the 14 and 16 chain homogenized fatty acids are technically classified as saturated fat they behave more like trans-fatty acids inside the body. In pasteurized whole milk, most of the saturated fat is made up of 14 and 16 chain fatty acids (about 67%). This means that about two thirds of the saturated fat from dairy milk is not only fattening, but harmful on a par with trans-fatty acids.
3. Increase in allergy. During homogenization there is a tremendous increase in the surface area of the fat globules (lots of small fat globules have a bigger total surface area than fewer bigger fat globules). This greater surface area makes the fat globules incorporate a much greater portion of casein and whey proteins. It is thought that this accounts for the increased allergenicity of homogenized pasteurized milk.
Milk is a natural hormonal delivery system designed for growing calves. When homogenization is added to the equation, you get a super-powerful delivery system into all parts of the body, bypassing normal digestive processes. As a consequence, harmful steroids and hormones (not to mention toxins) are delivered to delicate organs, the brain, and virtually all other parts of the body.
As mentioned, almost all pasteurized milk also undergoes homogenization. This includes the various skim, low-fat, non-fat, and long-life varieties (including organic dairy milk). As a result, millions of people all over the world are causing specific and life-long harm to their bodies as a result of consuming dairy milk. This subject, and the supporting evidence, is fully explored in the book 'The Milk Imperative'.
To get more information please go to http://www.milkimperative.com/.
Technically, this is what happens: when milk is passed through a fine filter at pressures equal to 4,000 pounds per square inch, the fat globules (liposomes) are made smaller (micronized) by a factor of 10 times or more. These fat molecules become evenly dispersed within the liquid milk, so that just one pint of milk can contain over one-trillion tiny protective fat "vehicles."
Homogenization can cause serious health problems for three reasons:
1. Increase in toxins. The tiny homogenized fat globules that get through to the bloodstream act as ?vehicles? for harmful toxins, hormones, and proteins (lead, mercury, dioxins, IGF-1, etc) that may be present in the milk and food we consume.
Normally, our body gets protected from the harmful elements of consumption: our digestive system and liver act to filter out harmful things in the food we eat. But when dairy milk is consumed, the tiny homogenized fat globules ?absorb' these harmful elements and carry them into the body, bypassing the liver.Once there, the toxins get carried to vital organs and other parts of the body where they get 'offloaded' when the micronized fat eventually dissolves, causing disease and illness. This is how harmful bovine growth hormones (IGF-1) survive digestion and gets into all parts of the body.
This homogenization process, referred to as micronization of fat, is so effective that some medications are encapsulated into micronized fat as a way of delivering them into the body orally instead of using injections. Although the amount of toxins and heavy metals we consume may be very small, they accumulate in the body over a period of time. As heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead are highly toxic, only small amounts are needed for serious illness to develop. Dairy milk provides more heavy metals than just about any other kind of food because of their presence in the milk, combined with a highly effective delivery system.
2. Increase in harmful body fat. Most of the homogenized fat globules that get through to the bloodstream do not get used as energy or as useful nutrition. Instead, they cause illness or get stored as surplus body fat. This occurs for four reasons:
2.1 The homogenized fat globules are made of long chain saturated fatty acids (14, 16 and 18 chain carbon atoms). The 14 and 16 long chain fatty acids are known to increase the level of harmful (oxidized) cholesterol in the bloodstream, leading to arterial disease.
2.2 Saturated animal fat consumed in the diet cannot be used by the body unless it is first converted into non-saturated fat. Since the body cannot easily convert 14 and 16 chain fatty acids into non-saturated fat, they get dumped by the bloodstream, i.e. stored as surplus body fat.
2.3 The 14 and 16 chain homogenized fatty acids are more harmful than saturated fats (virtually on a par with trans-fatty acids). This is so because, like trans-fatty acids, they enter the body and become lodged within the cell membranes of various organs where they cause harm. They can do this because of their small size and because their molecular composition prevents them from being broken down and used by the body.
2.4 Although the 14 and 16 chain homogenized fatty acids are technically classified as saturated fat they behave more like trans-fatty acids inside the body. In pasteurized whole milk, most of the saturated fat is made up of 14 and 16 chain fatty acids (about 67%). This means that about two thirds of the saturated fat from dairy milk is not only fattening, but harmful on a par with trans-fatty acids.
3. Increase in allergy. During homogenization there is a tremendous increase in the surface area of the fat globules (lots of small fat globules have a bigger total surface area than fewer bigger fat globules). This greater surface area makes the fat globules incorporate a much greater portion of casein and whey proteins. It is thought that this accounts for the increased allergenicity of homogenized pasteurized milk.
Milk is a natural hormonal delivery system designed for growing calves. When homogenization is added to the equation, you get a super-powerful delivery system into all parts of the body, bypassing normal digestive processes. As a consequence, harmful steroids and hormones (not to mention toxins) are delivered to delicate organs, the brain, and virtually all other parts of the body.
As mentioned, almost all pasteurized milk also undergoes homogenization. This includes the various skim, low-fat, non-fat, and long-life varieties (including organic dairy milk). As a result, millions of people all over the world are causing specific and life-long harm to their bodies as a result of consuming dairy milk. This subject, and the supporting evidence, is fully explored in the book 'The Milk Imperative'.
To get more information please go to http://www.milkimperative.com/.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
How milk causes acne
For decades scientists have searched for the causes of acne. Now a study has identified one of the key triggers: milk. Sanjida O'Connell finds out how a pinta causes pimples.
(Published: 08 May 2007, in The Independent newspaper, USA. )
Julianne never suffered from spots as a teenager, but by the time she was 28 she had terrible cystic acne along her jawline and across her neck. An American, she had travelled to Europe to learn to become a cook and a sommelier.
She decided to open a deli as well as a restaurant back in the States, so before she returned home she toured Europe, sampling every cheese she could find. As she recounted her story to the dermatologist Bill Danby, something clicked: "Oh my God, it's the cheese," she said. For six months, she cut out all dairy products. During that time she became 85 per cent free of acne, and her skin has continued to improve.
Milk has been anecdotally linked to acne for almost a century but, so far, few scientists have agreed on the real cause of acne and even fewer believe that diet plays a major role. Danby, who runs a private practice in Manchester, New Hampshire, and also works at Dartmouth Medical School, believes that milk does indeed cause acne - and that he knows what the mechanism could be.
Acne can affect anyone at any age, but it usually peaks at between 16 and 18, when up to 98 per cent of the population of Western countries is affected. A link between diet and acne has been suggested because acne is less common in other countries but increases when a Western diet is adopted. As well as being socially excruciating, acne is costly - £2bn is spent each year treating it.
Danby, who has long held that there is a link between diet and acne, persuaded Dr Walter Willett and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston to look into the matter. The team studied more than 47,000 women who are part of a research project called the Nurses Health Study II.
The women were asked to complete questionnaires relating to their diet as teenagers and to say whether they had ever been diagnosed with severe acne. The study found no link between food such as chocolate and chips and acne, but found one between women who had acne and those who had drunk a lot of milk.
But why should milk, such an essential bone-building nutrient, be bad for our skin? Willett believes it's because of the hormones in the milk, and Danby has taken this argument a step further. What most dermatologists usually agree on is that the male hormone testosterone (also found in women), changes to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the sebaceous glands, the oil-producing glands in the skin. Acne is produced when the hormone causes too many of the cells that line the duct of the gland to be produced too quickly. Unable to separate from each other, they stick together and form a plug in the pore - the first visible sign of acne.
Of course, everyone will respond differently to hormones. As Danby says: "The ability to develop acne is partly genetic and partly the result of hormone exposure. I tell my female patients that genetics are the key to the fact that Paris Hilton has lots of money and no zits and my patients have lots of zits and no money. It is all genetics."
The milk most of us drink is produced by cows for their calves. To ensure maximum milk yields cows are inseminated days after giving birth to their calves, which are taken away. A dairy cow will spend most of its life being milked and being pregnant at the same time.
So milk is full of hormones: not only ones intended to help the calf grow, but also those produced by the placenta to aid the cow's pregnancy. They include DHT, and other hormones that are the pre-cursors to DHT. In other words, the hormones teenagers naturally produce are plentiful in milk. It of course contains other growth-enhancing hormones too - as Danby says: "Milk is, after all, specifically designed to make things grow."
Another worrying hormone, as far as acne is concerned, is IGF-1. This "growth factor" peaks at age 15 in girls and 18 in boys, coinciding with peak acne levels. IGF-1 is thought to works with testosterone and DHT to cause acne. IGF-1 is present in cows' milk anyway, but levels rise by 10 per cent when cows are given injections of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk yield. Drinking organic milk is not a solution because the cows are still pregnant while lactating, so they have the same hormones in their milk as non-organic cows.
Danby's solution is to eliminate dairy from the diet - after all, he says, the Perricone diet is practically dairy-free. Nicholas Perricone, an American dermatologist who has launched a range of skin products, has also developed a skin-food diet based on eating large amounts of wild salmon.
For more information about how dairy milk causes acne go to: www.acnemilk.com.
(Published: 08 May 2007, in The Independent newspaper, USA. )
Julianne never suffered from spots as a teenager, but by the time she was 28 she had terrible cystic acne along her jawline and across her neck. An American, she had travelled to Europe to learn to become a cook and a sommelier.
She decided to open a deli as well as a restaurant back in the States, so before she returned home she toured Europe, sampling every cheese she could find. As she recounted her story to the dermatologist Bill Danby, something clicked: "Oh my God, it's the cheese," she said. For six months, she cut out all dairy products. During that time she became 85 per cent free of acne, and her skin has continued to improve.
Milk has been anecdotally linked to acne for almost a century but, so far, few scientists have agreed on the real cause of acne and even fewer believe that diet plays a major role. Danby, who runs a private practice in Manchester, New Hampshire, and also works at Dartmouth Medical School, believes that milk does indeed cause acne - and that he knows what the mechanism could be.
Acne can affect anyone at any age, but it usually peaks at between 16 and 18, when up to 98 per cent of the population of Western countries is affected. A link between diet and acne has been suggested because acne is less common in other countries but increases when a Western diet is adopted. As well as being socially excruciating, acne is costly - £2bn is spent each year treating it.
Danby, who has long held that there is a link between diet and acne, persuaded Dr Walter Willett and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston to look into the matter. The team studied more than 47,000 women who are part of a research project called the Nurses Health Study II.
The women were asked to complete questionnaires relating to their diet as teenagers and to say whether they had ever been diagnosed with severe acne. The study found no link between food such as chocolate and chips and acne, but found one between women who had acne and those who had drunk a lot of milk.
But why should milk, such an essential bone-building nutrient, be bad for our skin? Willett believes it's because of the hormones in the milk, and Danby has taken this argument a step further. What most dermatologists usually agree on is that the male hormone testosterone (also found in women), changes to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the sebaceous glands, the oil-producing glands in the skin. Acne is produced when the hormone causes too many of the cells that line the duct of the gland to be produced too quickly. Unable to separate from each other, they stick together and form a plug in the pore - the first visible sign of acne.
Of course, everyone will respond differently to hormones. As Danby says: "The ability to develop acne is partly genetic and partly the result of hormone exposure. I tell my female patients that genetics are the key to the fact that Paris Hilton has lots of money and no zits and my patients have lots of zits and no money. It is all genetics."
The milk most of us drink is produced by cows for their calves. To ensure maximum milk yields cows are inseminated days after giving birth to their calves, which are taken away. A dairy cow will spend most of its life being milked and being pregnant at the same time.
So milk is full of hormones: not only ones intended to help the calf grow, but also those produced by the placenta to aid the cow's pregnancy. They include DHT, and other hormones that are the pre-cursors to DHT. In other words, the hormones teenagers naturally produce are plentiful in milk. It of course contains other growth-enhancing hormones too - as Danby says: "Milk is, after all, specifically designed to make things grow."
Another worrying hormone, as far as acne is concerned, is IGF-1. This "growth factor" peaks at age 15 in girls and 18 in boys, coinciding with peak acne levels. IGF-1 is thought to works with testosterone and DHT to cause acne. IGF-1 is present in cows' milk anyway, but levels rise by 10 per cent when cows are given injections of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk yield. Drinking organic milk is not a solution because the cows are still pregnant while lactating, so they have the same hormones in their milk as non-organic cows.
Danby's solution is to eliminate dairy from the diet - after all, he says, the Perricone diet is practically dairy-free. Nicholas Perricone, an American dermatologist who has launched a range of skin products, has also developed a skin-food diet based on eating large amounts of wild salmon.
For more information about how dairy milk causes acne go to: www.acnemilk.com.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The problem with protein
The following article is by the author Robert Cohen (http://www.notmilk.com).
Many people refer to milk as liquid meat, for good reason. Our children are taught in kindergarten that animal protein consumption is essential for their good health. Year after year that lie is reinforced with only one side of the scientific story, and that is criminal.
Why do nations with the highest rates of bone disease also have the highest milk consumption rates? The highest rates of osteoporosis are to be found in Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden.
The key to bone disease is not how much calcium you eat. It's how much calcium you prevent from leaving your bones. Real science has taught that dietary calcium plays little or no role in preventing bone loss. (Note by Russell Eaton: this is true, and in fact dietary calcium can actually increase the risk of osteoporosis – for more information go to www.milkimperative.com).
Why Does Calcium Leave Bones? There are 28 amino acids in nature. The human body can manufacture 19 of them. The other nine are called "essential." We must get them from the foods we eat. One of those "essential" aminos is methionine. One needs methionine for many human metabolic functions including digestion, detoxification of heavy metals, and muscle metabolism. However, an excess of methionine can be toxic, making the blood too acidic. This in turn leaches calcium from the bones.
"Dietary protein increases production of acid in the blood which can be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the skeleton." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61,4).
Animal proteins (milk, meat) contain much more methionine than plant proteins. Dairy milk products are particularly acidic, and for this reason alone should be avoided.
In 1988, N.A. Breslau and colleagues identified the relationship between protein-rich diets and calcium metabolism, noting that protein caused calcium loss. His work was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology (1988;66:140-6).
A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Remer T, Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:1356-61) found that animal proteins cause calcium to be leached from the bones and excreted in the urine.
"Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one of the most important being too much dietary protein." (Science 1986;233, 4763). (Note from Russell Eaton: excess protein acidifies the blood. This in turn pulls calcium from the bones, setting up a chain of events that erodes valuable bone-making cells. This in turn leads to osteoporosis).
"Even when eating 1,400 mg of calcium daily, one can lose up to 4% of his or her bone mass each year while consuming a high-protein diet." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1979;32,4).
"Increasing one's protein intake by 100% may cause calcium loss to double." (Journal of Nutrition, 1981; 111, 3).
"Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased risk of hip fractures...metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium." (American Journal of Epidemiology 1994;139).
For more supporting evidence, go to www.milkimperative.com.
Many people refer to milk as liquid meat, for good reason. Our children are taught in kindergarten that animal protein consumption is essential for their good health. Year after year that lie is reinforced with only one side of the scientific story, and that is criminal.
Why do nations with the highest rates of bone disease also have the highest milk consumption rates? The highest rates of osteoporosis are to be found in Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden.
The key to bone disease is not how much calcium you eat. It's how much calcium you prevent from leaving your bones. Real science has taught that dietary calcium plays little or no role in preventing bone loss. (Note by Russell Eaton: this is true, and in fact dietary calcium can actually increase the risk of osteoporosis – for more information go to www.milkimperative.com).
Why Does Calcium Leave Bones? There are 28 amino acids in nature. The human body can manufacture 19 of them. The other nine are called "essential." We must get them from the foods we eat. One of those "essential" aminos is methionine. One needs methionine for many human metabolic functions including digestion, detoxification of heavy metals, and muscle metabolism. However, an excess of methionine can be toxic, making the blood too acidic. This in turn leaches calcium from the bones.
"Dietary protein increases production of acid in the blood which can be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the skeleton." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61,4).
Animal proteins (milk, meat) contain much more methionine than plant proteins. Dairy milk products are particularly acidic, and for this reason alone should be avoided.
In 1988, N.A. Breslau and colleagues identified the relationship between protein-rich diets and calcium metabolism, noting that protein caused calcium loss. His work was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology (1988;66:140-6).
A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Remer T, Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:1356-61) found that animal proteins cause calcium to be leached from the bones and excreted in the urine.
"Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one of the most important being too much dietary protein." (Science 1986;233, 4763). (Note from Russell Eaton: excess protein acidifies the blood. This in turn pulls calcium from the bones, setting up a chain of events that erodes valuable bone-making cells. This in turn leads to osteoporosis).
"Even when eating 1,400 mg of calcium daily, one can lose up to 4% of his or her bone mass each year while consuming a high-protein diet." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1979;32,4).
"Increasing one's protein intake by 100% may cause calcium loss to double." (Journal of Nutrition, 1981; 111, 3).
"Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased risk of hip fractures...metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium." (American Journal of Epidemiology 1994;139).
For more supporting evidence, go to www.milkimperative.com.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Impact Sports Increase Bone Density In Senior Athletes Says University Of Pittsburgh Study, but draws erroneous conclusions
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 14 – Running, basketball and other high-impact sports may lead to stronger bones as people age, according to a new study presented today at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Measurements conducted on senior Olympic athletes found that the bone mineral density (BMD) for those who participated in impact sports was significantly greater than athletes who competed in low-impact sports like swimming and cycling.
“While we know that exercise is vital as we get older, this study finds that the kind of exercise we choose can be just as important,” said Vonda Wright, M.D., lead author and assistant professor in the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “The findings show that a key to maintaining strong, healthy bones as we age is to engage in impact sports,” added Dr. Wright, who is an orthopedic surgeon at the UPMC Center for Sports Medicine.
This comment by Dr. Wright is a classical non-sequitor. It is well known that high impact exercise leads to higher bone mass density. But it does not follow that higher bone mass density reduces the risk of osteoporosis. On the contrary, as shown in the book The Milk Imperative, a higher bone mass density caused by high impact exercise actually increases the risk of osteoporosis later in life.
The Pittsburgh study merely looked at the link between high impact exercise and bone mass density. It did not look at the effect this has on osteoporosis in later years, and therefore it would be false to draw any conclusions from the study in regard to osteoporosis.
The evidence that high impact exercise increases the risk of osteoporosis is overwhelming, as evidenced by peer reviewed research in mainstream medical journals. The key thing to remember is that exercise is necessary for general good health (not for the sake of your bones).
As explained in the book The Milk Imperative, no type of exercise reduces the risk of osteoporosis. You do exercise to maintain muscles and body suppleness, for stamina, for energy, for fighting many diseases, for good posture, and so on. But you don't do exercise to make bones more healthy or reduce the risk of osteoporosis – this is erroneous reasoning. This is so because doing more exercise increases bone turnover (the formation and break-down of bone). Bone turnover uses up bone-making cells and this is bad for bones. Why? Because our bodies only have a finite capacity for producing such cells. When this finite capacity is reached we are on the road to osteoporosis.
For the technically minded, bone-making cells are produced from osteoblast lineage, and this osteoblast lineage has a finite capacity for the production of osteoblasts. Hence, we get osteoporosis when we no longer produce enough osteoblasts (bone-making cells).
Exercise of any kind uses up precious bone-making cells. We therefore want to be sufficiently active or do enough exercise to keep the body fit and healthy for everyday living (no more, no less).
Exactly how we do this is simple: it is just a matter of doing exercise, such as walking, running, playing sports, etc. but in moderation. Doing any kind of prolonged vigorous below-waist high impact exercise increases bone density in the short term, but this comes at a terrible price – it brings nearer the day you may get osteoporosis. Clearly, leading a physically active life is essential for general good health, but some kinds of exercise actually promote osteoporosis.
“While we know that exercise is vital as we get older, this study finds that the kind of exercise we choose can be just as important,” said Vonda Wright, M.D., lead author and assistant professor in the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “The findings show that a key to maintaining strong, healthy bones as we age is to engage in impact sports,” added Dr. Wright, who is an orthopedic surgeon at the UPMC Center for Sports Medicine.
This comment by Dr. Wright is a classical non-sequitor. It is well known that high impact exercise leads to higher bone mass density. But it does not follow that higher bone mass density reduces the risk of osteoporosis. On the contrary, as shown in the book The Milk Imperative, a higher bone mass density caused by high impact exercise actually increases the risk of osteoporosis later in life.
The Pittsburgh study merely looked at the link between high impact exercise and bone mass density. It did not look at the effect this has on osteoporosis in later years, and therefore it would be false to draw any conclusions from the study in regard to osteoporosis.
The evidence that high impact exercise increases the risk of osteoporosis is overwhelming, as evidenced by peer reviewed research in mainstream medical journals. The key thing to remember is that exercise is necessary for general good health (not for the sake of your bones).
As explained in the book The Milk Imperative, no type of exercise reduces the risk of osteoporosis. You do exercise to maintain muscles and body suppleness, for stamina, for energy, for fighting many diseases, for good posture, and so on. But you don't do exercise to make bones more healthy or reduce the risk of osteoporosis – this is erroneous reasoning. This is so because doing more exercise increases bone turnover (the formation and break-down of bone). Bone turnover uses up bone-making cells and this is bad for bones. Why? Because our bodies only have a finite capacity for producing such cells. When this finite capacity is reached we are on the road to osteoporosis.
For the technically minded, bone-making cells are produced from osteoblast lineage, and this osteoblast lineage has a finite capacity for the production of osteoblasts. Hence, we get osteoporosis when we no longer produce enough osteoblasts (bone-making cells).
Exercise of any kind uses up precious bone-making cells. We therefore want to be sufficiently active or do enough exercise to keep the body fit and healthy for everyday living (no more, no less).
Exactly how we do this is simple: it is just a matter of doing exercise, such as walking, running, playing sports, etc. but in moderation. Doing any kind of prolonged vigorous below-waist high impact exercise increases bone density in the short term, but this comes at a terrible price – it brings nearer the day you may get osteoporosis. Clearly, leading a physically active life is essential for general good health, but some kinds of exercise actually promote osteoporosis.
Monday, January 22, 2007
India has world's worst rate of osteoporosis
By Russell Eaton
Author of The Milk Imperative
www.milkimperative.com
An extensive study published in Jan. 2006 revealed 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.
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!
The World Health organization reveals that one out of three adult females in India suffers from osteoporosis, making India one of the worst affected countries in the world. 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? 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 – 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.
Further proof of the link between milk consumption in India and osteoporosis comes from an alarming study conducted by TS Syamala and M Sivakami. The report, published by the Institute for Social and Economic Change in Bangalore in Jan. 07, shows that Indian women are now attaining menopause at an early age of 30. Premature menopause puts women at higher risk of being affected with osteoporosis, heart diseases, diabetes, hypertension and breast cancer.
According to the Study, early menopause results in decreased oestrogen levels and this in turn promotes an increased incidence of osteoporosis. The report, which was presented in the Indian Parliament, said that in India 3.1 per cent of women are already in menopause by the age of 30-34, and which rises to eight per cent for the age bracket of 35-39 with the incidence of menopause being quite rapid after the age of 40-41. The study goes on to say that ‘nutrition and premature menopause are strongly interlinked’.
In the book The Milk Imperative the link between dairy milk consumption and premature menopause is examined, together with the supporting evidence. The sequence of events goes something like this: milk consumption ► harmful calcification ► premature menopause ► lack of oestrogen ► onset of osteoporosis.
"An increase in calcium utilization is associated with the earliest physical signs of puberty. We conclude that longitudinal data demonstrates a change in bone mineral metabolism during early puberty associated with maturation of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis and physical changes of breast development. These changes lead to increases in multiple aspects of calcium metabolism during early puberty. " (Stevan A, et al, Calcium Absorption, Bone Mass Accumulation, and Kinetics Increase during Early Pubertal Development in Girls, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 5 1805-1809).
Author of The Milk Imperative
www.milkimperative.com
An extensive study published in Jan. 2006 revealed 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.
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!
The World Health organization reveals that one out of three adult females in India suffers from osteoporosis, making India one of the worst affected countries in the world. 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? 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 – 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.
Further proof of the link between milk consumption in India and osteoporosis comes from an alarming study conducted by TS Syamala and M Sivakami. The report, published by the Institute for Social and Economic Change in Bangalore in Jan. 07, shows that Indian women are now attaining menopause at an early age of 30. Premature menopause puts women at higher risk of being affected with osteoporosis, heart diseases, diabetes, hypertension and breast cancer.
According to the Study, early menopause results in decreased oestrogen levels and this in turn promotes an increased incidence of osteoporosis. The report, which was presented in the Indian Parliament, said that in India 3.1 per cent of women are already in menopause by the age of 30-34, and which rises to eight per cent for the age bracket of 35-39 with the incidence of menopause being quite rapid after the age of 40-41. The study goes on to say that ‘nutrition and premature menopause are strongly interlinked’.
In the book The Milk Imperative the link between dairy milk consumption and premature menopause is examined, together with the supporting evidence. The sequence of events goes something like this: milk consumption ► harmful calcification ► premature menopause ► lack of oestrogen ► onset of osteoporosis.
"An increase in calcium utilization is associated with the earliest physical signs of puberty. We conclude that longitudinal data demonstrates a change in bone mineral metabolism during early puberty associated with maturation of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis and physical changes of breast development. These changes lead to increases in multiple aspects of calcium metabolism during early puberty. " (Stevan A, et al, Calcium Absorption, Bone Mass Accumulation, and Kinetics Increase during Early Pubertal Development in Girls, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 5 1805-1809).
Monday, January 08, 2007
Calcium and Vitamin D do not mix
The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) on Friday Jan. 5th announced its proposal to allow new health claims on foods and dietary supplements containing calcium and vitamin D to indicate that these nutrients have the potential to help reduce risk of osteoporosis.
The proposed rule allows food and beverage manufacturers to include new information on the label and in the meantime eliminate some other information which is no longer justified.
The claim on calcium for its preventative role in osteoporosis was authorized in 1993, according to the FDA. The new rule amends the existing health claim by allowing claims on both calcium and vitamin D for their potential preventative effect against osteoporosis.
This is a disastrous development. Getting enough vitamin D and calcium is vital to good health, but taking supplements that combine vitamin D and calcium has been shown to weaken bones and increase the risk of osteoporosis.
The FDA proposal is a response to a health claim petition submitted by the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness, the Coca-Cola Company. The FDA bases its decision on its review of the publicly available scientific evidence including the 2004 Surgeon General's report on Bone Health and Osteoporosis and the 2000 NIH Consensus Statement on Osteoporosis, Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy.
While calcium and vitamin D play an important role in maintaining bone health in adults, a few issues need to be addressed, said a scientist affiliated with foodconsumer.org. For instance, supplementation of calcium and vitamin D may not be as important in children as in adults. Healthy children who eat a healthy diet and follow a healthy lifestyle rarely need supplements of vitamin D and calcium although supplementation and fortification of calcium and vitamin D may help certain children, according to a review article.
Calcium and vitamin D supplements do not benefit all adults whether taken separately or formulated together. A study published in 2005 in the Lancet finds that supplementation of vitamin D, calcium, or both, does not lower the risk of secondary bone fracture from osteoporosis in the elderly who have had one incident of bone fracture.
Elderly people who are frail and at risk for bone fractures may be helped somewhat by giving them both vitamin D and calcium. But the benefits may be marginal and appear only to help those who live in nursing homes or other institutions, according to Alison Avenell, M.D., of the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and her colleagues who published their review of 38 randomized or quasi-randomized trials in the July 2005 issue of issue of The Cochrane Library.
Potential problems exist for uncontrolled intake of calcium and vitamin D. Too much calcium in the blood (hypercalcemia) has been associated with use of calcium supplementation. Mild hypercalcemia may not result in any symptom, or cause loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation and dry mouth, thirst and frequent urination. A severe condition could cause confusion, delirium, coma, and if not treated, death, according to the Linus Pauling Institute.
High levels of vitamin D in the blood (hypervitaminosis D) are also toxic as it induces abnormally high serum calcium levels (hypercalcemia). Virtually all research is showing that vitamin D supplementation in moderation is good for health provided it is not combined with calcium supplementation.
When vitamin D and calcium supplementation are taken together, this increases bone turnover, the rate at which calcium is pumped in and out of bone tissue. This in turn depletes the body’s finite reservoir of bone-making cells.
Every time calcium is processed into new bone a few bone-making cells die. When this happens on a regular basis, the erosion of bone-making cells reduces the body’s capacity to make new bone to replace old bone that is always melting away. The result is osteoporosis.
To protect bones it is best to get enough calcium from a healthy varied diet, and take vitamin D in moderation on its own, i.e. not combinecd with calcium. For the same reason, it is best to avoid dairy milk on days when vitamin D supplements are taken. Dairy milk, which is highly acidic, is also high in calcium and when combined with vitamin D supplementation it has the effect of eroding bone-making cells and increasing the risk of osteoporosis.
For the supporting evidence and latest research on this subject see the book The Milk Imperative.
The proposed rule allows food and beverage manufacturers to include new information on the label and in the meantime eliminate some other information which is no longer justified.
The claim on calcium for its preventative role in osteoporosis was authorized in 1993, according to the FDA. The new rule amends the existing health claim by allowing claims on both calcium and vitamin D for their potential preventative effect against osteoporosis.
This is a disastrous development. Getting enough vitamin D and calcium is vital to good health, but taking supplements that combine vitamin D and calcium has been shown to weaken bones and increase the risk of osteoporosis.
The FDA proposal is a response to a health claim petition submitted by the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness, the Coca-Cola Company. The FDA bases its decision on its review of the publicly available scientific evidence including the 2004 Surgeon General's report on Bone Health and Osteoporosis and the 2000 NIH Consensus Statement on Osteoporosis, Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy.
While calcium and vitamin D play an important role in maintaining bone health in adults, a few issues need to be addressed, said a scientist affiliated with foodconsumer.org. For instance, supplementation of calcium and vitamin D may not be as important in children as in adults. Healthy children who eat a healthy diet and follow a healthy lifestyle rarely need supplements of vitamin D and calcium although supplementation and fortification of calcium and vitamin D may help certain children, according to a review article.
Calcium and vitamin D supplements do not benefit all adults whether taken separately or formulated together. A study published in 2005 in the Lancet finds that supplementation of vitamin D, calcium, or both, does not lower the risk of secondary bone fracture from osteoporosis in the elderly who have had one incident of bone fracture.
Elderly people who are frail and at risk for bone fractures may be helped somewhat by giving them both vitamin D and calcium. But the benefits may be marginal and appear only to help those who live in nursing homes or other institutions, according to Alison Avenell, M.D., of the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and her colleagues who published their review of 38 randomized or quasi-randomized trials in the July 2005 issue of issue of The Cochrane Library.
Potential problems exist for uncontrolled intake of calcium and vitamin D. Too much calcium in the blood (hypercalcemia) has been associated with use of calcium supplementation. Mild hypercalcemia may not result in any symptom, or cause loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation and dry mouth, thirst and frequent urination. A severe condition could cause confusion, delirium, coma, and if not treated, death, according to the Linus Pauling Institute.
High levels of vitamin D in the blood (hypervitaminosis D) are also toxic as it induces abnormally high serum calcium levels (hypercalcemia). Virtually all research is showing that vitamin D supplementation in moderation is good for health provided it is not combined with calcium supplementation.
When vitamin D and calcium supplementation are taken together, this increases bone turnover, the rate at which calcium is pumped in and out of bone tissue. This in turn depletes the body’s finite reservoir of bone-making cells.
Every time calcium is processed into new bone a few bone-making cells die. When this happens on a regular basis, the erosion of bone-making cells reduces the body’s capacity to make new bone to replace old bone that is always melting away. The result is osteoporosis.
To protect bones it is best to get enough calcium from a healthy varied diet, and take vitamin D in moderation on its own, i.e. not combinecd with calcium. For the same reason, it is best to avoid dairy milk on days when vitamin D supplements are taken. Dairy milk, which is highly acidic, is also high in calcium and when combined with vitamin D supplementation it has the effect of eroding bone-making cells and increasing the risk of osteoporosis.
For the supporting evidence and latest research on this subject see the book The Milk Imperative.
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.
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 www.milkimperative.com.
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 www.milkimperative.com.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
MILK - THE TRUTH AND THE LIES
The following article was released by Patrick Holford on 2 Nov. 06 (www.healthproductsforlife.com).
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 www.vegetarian.org.uk, 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.
XXXXXXXXXXX end of article XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
For the best collection of non-dairy milk recipes ever published, go to www.milkimperative.com. You can also download a free report on how milk causes osteoporosis.
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 www.vegetarian.org.uk, 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.
XXXXXXXXXXX end of article XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
For the best collection of non-dairy milk recipes ever published, go to www.milkimperative.com. 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 www.milkiperative.com.
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 www.milkiperative.com.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Why vitamin D in milk is no good
(Extract from comments made by Dr. Joseph Mercola, www.mercola.com)
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.
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 www.milkimperative.com.
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 www.milkimperative.com.
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 http://www.milkimperative.com/.
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 http://www.milkimperative.com/.
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 http://www.milkimperative.com/.
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 http://www.milkimperative.com/.
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' (www.milkimperative.com).
Russell Eaton
Author of 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 (www.milkimperative.com):
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
www.milkimperative.com
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 (www.milkimperative.com):
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
www.milkimperative.com
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 www.milkimperative.com and get the facts.
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 www.milkimperative.com and get the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)