AccueilFAQRechercherS'enregistrerMembresGroupesConnexion

Partagez | 
 

 MILK

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas 
Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Suivant
AuteurMessage
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Lun 18 Fév - 10:47

Bien d'autres reproches sont encore faits au lait de vache, parmi lesquels, bien sûr, sa surabondance d'acides gras saturés, d'acide lactique et d'oestrogènes, ainsi que sa pauvreté en lactose : surabondance d'acides gras Comparé au lait maternel qui contient essentiellement des acides gras poly-insaturés, le lait de vache fatigue fortement le foie du nourrisson –et de l'adulte- à cause de ses grosses molécules lipidiques et n'apporte pas non plus au cerveau la qualité de graisses permettant son développement, beaucoup plus rapide et important que chez les bovidés.
Présents dans le lait maternel, 2 acides gras, l'acide docosahenoïque (DHA) et l'acide arachidonique (AA) jouent un rôle critique dans le développement mental de l'enfant.
Une équipe de recherche de l'Université Rockefeller (New York) vient de quantifier cette implication.
Dans un essai clinique aléatoire et en double aveugle, les enfants de 18 mois, ayant reçu une formulation spéciale de ces 2 nutriments, très proche de la forme trouvée dans le lait maternel, montrent en moyenne une augmentation de 7 points de l'index de développement mental de l'échelle de Bayley par rapport aux enfants qui ne les ont pas eus.
Une preuve de plus de la richesse du lait maternel.
Les acides gras utilisés dans cette étude provenaient d'une source végétale. (Developmental Medecine and Child Neurology).
Excès d’acide lactique:
L'excès d'acide lactique, pour sa part, peut devenir rapidement toxique, et entrainer la prolifération des cellules tumorales. et d'oestrogenes
Quant aux substances oestrogéniques, on sait qu'elles favorisent la baisse de la fertilité masculine et les cancers des organes génitaux; mais il est vrai que le lait n'est pas le seul aliment à en contenir des taux excessifs.
Pauvreté en lactose :
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Lun 18 Fév - 10:48

Enfin, la pauvreté en lactose du lait de vache, comparé au lait humain, est très probablement responsable d'un déséquilibre de la flore intestinale et d'une chute importante de la protection contre les germes pathogènes, chez le bébé.
En fait les protéines du lactosérum humain contiennent de nombreux anticorps absolument indispensables au nourrisson, puisque celui-ci n'a encore développé aucune immunité au niveau intestinal.
Privé de lait maternel, l'enfant est donc déjà en grand danger; mais nourri au lait de vache il est de plus, exposé à la prolifération de toutes sortes de parasites. Néanmoins, le lait garde sa place dans l'armoire à pharmacie car il reste aussi un extraordinaire contrepoison, dont diverses études ont notamment montré qu'il pouvait efficacement lutter contre le saturnisme, cette intoxication au plomb si fréquente dans les villes polluées.
Consommation de lait et santé:
Le lait et les produits laitiers sont à l’origine de problèmes de santé très sérieux.
Ils constituent la principale cause d’allergies alimentaires. Malgré cela, l’industrie laitière qui grâce au lait bâtit des fortunes sur le dos des animaux continue de faire croire que le lait est une nourriture indispensable pour l’être humain.
Si tel était le cas, toutes les personnes qui se nourrissent uniquement d’aliments végétaux (végétaliens) devraient être depuis longtemps malades.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Lun 18 Fév - 10:51

Etonnament, elles sont souvent en meilleure santé que celles qui consomment des produits animaux.
Le Professeur Dr. Claus Leitzmann, spécialiste des sciences de la nutrition à l’Université Justus-Lie-big à Giessen, a déclaré à ce sujet: «Des études sur la nutrition, menées dans de nombreux pays, mais également par nous, ont montré que les végétaliens sont généralement en meilleure santé que les autres.
Leurs valeurs concernant le poids, la pression artérielle, le taux de graisse
Effets constatés : Je ne suis pas médecin et il n'y a pas ici de diagnostique ou de prescription.Le lait animal et ses dérivés (l&d) n'ont pas leur place dans nos estomacs.
Ils contiennent des molécules qui perturbent notre métabolisme.
Liste des troubles qui peuvent être occasionnés ou accrus par le lait et ses dérivés (l&d):
(en tout ou en partie, directement ou indirectement)
Acnée, asthme, éczéma, points noirs, boutons, peau et cheveux gras, toux, glaires, nez bouché, nez qui coule, sinusites, otites, ostéoporose, jambes sans repos, mauvaises odeurs corporelles, douleurs aux articulations (Polyarthrite…), douleurs des règles, maladies cardiovasculaires, cancer du sein, cancer de la prostate, maladies auto-immunes (Liste non exhaustive)
Pour vérifier si ces troubles ont un lien avec le lait et dérivés (l&d), il suffit de les supprimer de notre alimentation pendant quelques semaines ou quelques mois, puis de les réintroduire pour vérifier le test de suppression.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Lun 18 Fév - 10:52

Un autre article sur le lait :
LE LAIT DE VACHE, UN ALIMENT NON SPECIFIQUE A L’ HOMME
La glorieuse réputation du lait de vache comme boisson fortifiante et reminéralisante par son calcium est-elle justifiée ?
De nombreuses recherches ont d'abord conduit médecins, hygiénistes et chercheurs à soupçonner sa nocivité pour, aujourd'hui, l'affirmer et considérer le lait de vache comme un aliment non spécifique à l'homme. Cette idée heurte nos croyances.
Pourtant, Anne Laroche-Walter, naturopathe, ne manque pas d'arguments.
Comment et pourquoi le lait de vache est-il nocif pour la santé de l'être humain ?
Et jusqu'où cette nocivité peut-elle conduire ?
Existe-t-il des solutions de substitution ?
Comme les alcools, le tabac, le sucre blanc, les graisses cuites, le lait de vache est un produit nocif.
Nous consommons et abusons de tous ces produits, ne voyant pas au-delà de la satisfaction immédiate de nos besoins. Ne pouvant nous dégager de nos habitudes alimentaires, il nous est difficile de repenser notre assiette.
Nous avons perdu cet instinct profond, garant de notre équilibre et de notre intérêt vital.
Ainsi, nous nous sommes habitués progressivement à une alimentation carencée et non spécifique.
Après avoir accumulé de nombreuses informations scientifiques relevant du domaine de la santé et de la nutrition, et au travers de ma pratique d'hygiéniste nutritionniste, j'ai constaté les changements très bénéfiques survenus chez mes consultants, suite à l’abandon total de la consommation des produits laitiers. Ces résultats sont, pour moi, des preuves irréfutables.
Cet article, bien évidemment, ne concerne pas les rares tribus d’Afrique ou d'Amérique (Hunzas, Equatoriens, Caucasiens) qui subsistent encore dans le monde et vivent d'une manière naturelle.
Contrairement à nous, ils ne consomment que très peu de laitages, se nourrissent légèrement avec des aliments sains, sans adjonction de produits chimiques ni additifs.
Ils respirent un air pur, boivent une eau non polluée, et enfin ont une activité physique quotidienne, loin du stress et de l'activisme.
Ils entretiennent donc une vitalité et une endurance les rendant souvent centenaires. Cet article s'adresse à nous, victimes d'une surabondance et surconsommation alimentaire, propre à notre société sédentaire. Vivre végétalien c'est penser à eux.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:19

Manger des produits laitiers tue les animaux
Nous ne pouvons nier l'évidence : TOUS les animaux de TOUS les élevages sont abattus. Dans le cas du lait, après 5 ans de traite intensive, la vache n'en pouvant plus devient moins productive. Elle finit en boucherie alors qu'elle pourrait vivre entre 15 et 20 années de plus.

Cette production nécessite plus de mort encore :
De même qu'une femme, une vache produit du lait, après accouchement, pour allaiter son petit. Désirant activer sa lactation, nous l'engrossons de force tous les ans. Elle a alors une chance sur deux de donner naissance à un mâle qui ne produisant pas de lait, ne sera pas utile : aussitôt gros, aussitôt abattu.

Si c'est une femelle, comme elle produit du lait, elle a une chance de vivre le même cauchemar que sa mère. Mais si sa croissance n'est pas rapide, si elle est stérile, si elle n'est pas assez productive, ou simplement s'il y a déjà trop de femelles, elle deviendra viande plus vite que prévu.

Le mangeur de produits laitiers croyant ne pas participer à la tuerie des animaux se trompe, car certes, il n'avale pas de cadavres mais il se nourrit d'un circuit qui tue les femelles épuisées, les mâles improductifs et les femelles non rentables.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:22

Si je suis une vache laitière, on me mettra enceinte tous les ans et je verrai disparaître mes petits vite après l'accouchement, je serai souvent dans un box, reliée à une machine qui m'extorquera jusqu'à 6000 litres de lait par an au prix de douleurs épuisantes, on me droguera pour que je produise plus et on me droguera pour atténuer mon stress. Ma mort sera ma délivrance.

Le lait, qui semblent être un produit innocent pour les femelles, est pourtant synonyme de souffrance. La vie que l'on impose à ces animaux est pire que la mort qu'on leur donne. Car comme pour nous, mourir tourmente, mais ce qui est effroyable, c'est la douleur qui dure. Traire la vache ne la soulage pas. Les mastites sont fréquentes.

Inflammation de la glande mammaire (mastite)

Une mastite est une infection du sein qui peut se produire chez les femmes qui allaitent. Elle peut être causée par le blocage des canaux où circule le lait ou par des gerçures provoquées par la succion.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:29

On compte parmi les causes possibles:

Tout ce qui fait que vos seins restent pleins ou engorgés, comme sauter une tétée, ou allaiter moins longtemps ou de façon irrégulière.
La durée de la tétée est limitée; touchez vos seins pour voir s’ils sont mous après avoir allaité votre bébé.
Votre bébé s’endort; essayez de le garder éveillé plus longtemps en le déshabillant.
Votre bébé commence à faire ses nuits.
Donner un biberon et sauter une tétée; les seins peuvent alors s’engorger.
Les suces peuvent réduire la durée de la tétée.
Pendant les périodes où vous êtes plus occupée, comme à Noël, il se peut que vous sautiez une tétée ou que vous soyez très fatiguée.
Tout ce qui exerce une pression constante sur vos seins, comme un soutien-gorge ou un costume de bain serré, la bretelle d’un sac à main ou d’un sac à couches, un porte-bébé, ou le fait de dormir sur le ventre, d’appuyer le bébé sur vos seins ou de trop serrer vos seins en allaitant, ou encore le fait que le bébé appuie trop fort sur vos seins avec ses mains.
Le bébé ne prend pas bien le sein ou a du mal à téter.
Quelle est la différence entre le blocage d’un conduit et une inflammation?
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:29

En général, si vous avez une région ou une bosse sensible et douloureuse sur un de vos seins et que vous ne faites pas de fièvre, c’est qu’un conduit est bloqué.

Il peut s’agir d’un conduit bloqué:

si la sensibilité se développe graduellement.
si elle change de place.
si vos seins ne sont pas tièdes ou chauds à cet endroit.
si la douleur est peu importante et qu’elle persiste seulement dans la région où est la bosse.
si, à part ce problème, vous vous sentez bien.
si vous faites moins de 38,4 °C (101 °F) de fièvre
Il peut s’agir d’une inflammation:

si cette sensibilité se manifeste soudainement.
si elle demeure au même endroit.
si le sein devient rouge, chaud et enflé.
si la douleur est très importante à cet endroit.
si vous avez les symptômes d’une grippe.
si vous faites plus de 38,4 °C (101 °F) de fièvre.
Voici d’autres symptômes possibles d’une inflammation:
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:30

une crevasse sur votre mamelon, entourée de rougeurs et d’enflure.
du sang ou du pus dans votre lait.
des lignes rouges partent de la région douloureuse sur votre sein.
Traitement:

Utilisez souvent le sein sensible pour allaiter (au moins toutes les 2 heures) pour aider le lait à bien circuler et empêcher le sein de devenir trop plein.
Appliquez de la chaleur humide (une serviette chaude) sur la région affectée. Pendant que le sein est encore chaud, massez la région doucement, en faisant des cercles. Vous pouvez aussi laisser tremper votre sein dans l’eau tiède, dans le bain ou sous la douche, pendant 10 minutes, 3 fois par jour. Il peut aussi être utile d’appliquer de la chaleur entre les tétées. Allaiter ou tirer du lait pendant que les seins sont encore tièdes aide à débloquer le conduit en cause.
Ne portez pas de vêtements serrés. Si possible, ne portez pas de soutien-gorge pendant quelques jours ou portez-en un trop grand. Cela contribuera à diminuer la pression exercée sur votre sein.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:31

Il est important de vérifier la position de votre bébé et la façon dont il prend le sein. Tout le corps du bébé devrait être face à vous.
Le fait de changer la position du bébé (la position couchée, de côté ou traditionnelle) peut aider à soulager le conduit bloqué. Assurez-vous que le bébé prend bien le sein (qu’il tète bien).
Vous avez besoin de vous reposer. Une mastite est parfois le signe que vous en faites trop. Vous devriez demander de l’aide et ne faire que les choses que vous devez vraiment faire. Votre bébé et vous devez être la priorité.
Vous aurez besoin d’antibiotiques pour lutter contre les bactéries. Votre médecin vous en prescrira un qui vous permettra de continuer d’allaiter.
Vous pouvez prendre de l’acétaminophène ou de l’ibuprofène pour soulager votre fièvre ou la douleur (à moins que vous n’y soyez allergique). Prenez les comprimés selon les indications de l’emballage ou demandez à votre médecin ou à un pharmacien quelle dose il convient de prendre.
Rendez-vous au service des urgences ou chez votre médecin:

si vous ne vous sentez pas mieux 48 heures après avoir commencé à prendre vos antibiotiques.
si vous vous sentez plus mal.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:31

a


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:04, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:32

d


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:05, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 14:32

Z


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:06, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 20 Fév - 15:02

D


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:07, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mer 30 Avr - 6:38

a


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:09, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Jeu 5 Fév - 13:43

f


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:09, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:07

September 30, 2009

Got... pus?

Click here to see PETA's new Got Pus? billboard.

This cow’s udder is swollen and distended—a symptom of mastitis.
Have some … pus with your cookies? If you down a glass of cow’s milk, you will. It may be white, but researchers say that every cupful contains somatic cells, i.e., pus.

The dairy industry knows that there is a problem with pus in milk. Accordingly, it has developed a system known as the “somatic cell count” to measure the amount of pus in milk. The somatic cell count is the standard used to gauge milk quality. The higher the somatic cell count, the more pus in the milk.

Any milk with a somatic cell count of higher than 200 million per liter should not enter the human food supply, according to the dairy industry. Therefore, anyone living in a state where the somatic cell count is higher than 200 million shouldn’t be drinking milk. There’s only one problem—every state but Hawaii is producing milk with pus levels so high that it shouldn’t enter the human food supply! At the bottom of this page, you can see how high the pus levels in your state’s milk are. Even the national average, at 322 million, is well above the industry’s limit.

One culprit causing the hundreds of millions of pus cells in every liter of milk may be “bovine growth hormone,” the Monsanto chemical company’s growth hormone marketed as Posilac. Posilac is now widely used by dairy farmers to increase the amount of milk that their already overburdened cows produce. Because cows are not built to produce this much milk, they are prone to a painful udder infection called mastitis. When they are milked, pus and bacteria from the infection flow right along with the milk. The journal Nature reported that Posilac increases somatic cells—pus—in the milk by a whopping 19 percent! Researchers estimate that an ordinary glass of milk contains between one and seven drops of pus. This isn’t just disgusting—it can also be dangerous. Pus can contain paratuberculosis bacteria, which are believed to cause Crohn’s disease in human beings.

Dairy farmers try to control the rampant mastitis with large doses of antibiotics—but these antibiotics also wind up in the milk. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of too many antibiotics, which researchers believe can inhibit the development of the immune system.

Dairy farmers don’t tell consumers that every glass of milk is contaminated with pus, bacteria, and perhaps with paratuberculosis. The only way to avoid drinking pus is to avoid cow’s milk.

PETA is calling on the USDA to lower the legal limit of allowable pus cells in milk to the limit used by the rest of the industrialized world. Presently, our limit is nearly twice that. Seventeen states are producing milk that would be illegal to sell in Europe.

http://www.milksucks.com/pus.asp
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:08

September 27, 2009

Pus expose

YOUR STATE'S AVERAGE PUS COUNT

Your state may be in violation of a federal
ordinance by allowing too many pus cells in
milk sold at your supermarkets. One cup of
wholesome milk cannot contain more than 50
million pus cells. That's 200 million pus
cells per quart (liter). At the end of this
column you will find a chart comparing the
average number of pus cells in milk sold in
your state to other American states.

Pus in milk? A dairy cow filters ten-thousand
quarts of blood through her udder each day and
uses dead white blood cells (somatic cells) to
manufacture her milk. These dead cells are pus
cells. Dairy scientists are aware that when
one quart of milk is tainted with 400 million
or more pus cells, some 35% of the milking
cows in the herd are infected with mastitis.
Udders bleed, discharges, including bacteria
and blood drip into the milk.

The United States Department of Health and
Human Services, along with the Public Health
Service and Food and Drug Administration, has
established a 280 page set of protocols that
is collectively referred to as:

The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (P.M.O.)

The foreword of this all-inclusive set of
rules and regulations governing every quart
of milk sold in Ameirca says:

"Occasional milkborne outbreaks still occur,
emphasizing the need for continued vigilance
at every stage of production, processing,
pasteurization and distribution of milk and
milk products."

It is a breath of fresh air to read an occasional
governmental truism regarding milk:

"Milk has the potential to serve as a vehicle
of disease and has, in the past, been associated
with disease outbreaks of major proportions."

This document is more than a guideline for milk
producers. It's the law. In the preface, the purpose
of the P.M.O. is summarized:

"The Grade 'A' Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is
incorporated by reference in Federal specifications
for procurement of milk and milk products; is used
as the sanitary regulation for milk and milk products
served on interstate carriers; and is recognized
by the public health agencies, the milk industry,
and many others as a national standard for milk
sanitation."

Many dairy producers have challenged the laws contained
within the all-powerful P.M.O. Courts have clearly
maintained the integrity of these sets of laws when asked
to do so. On page vi of the preface, the P.M.O. states:

"The Ordinance has been widely adopted for many years
and has been upheld by court actions. One of the most
comprehensive decisions upholding the various
provisions of the Ordinance was that of the District
Court, Reno County, Kansas, in the case of Billings et
al v. City of Hutchinson et al., decided May 1, 1934.
In this action, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought
to enjoin the enforcement of the Hutchinson ordinance
on the grounds that it was unreasonable..."

The courts have repeatedly upheld the sanctity of this
set of laws.

The dairy industry continues to ignore the spirit of
the laws so enacted.

To date, no individual or group has challenged
national enforcement of these statutes. There is a
first time for all things.

The table of contents (page vii of the preface) lists the
standards for Grade A milk, and defines "Abnormal Milk"
on page 20.

The standards for Grade "A" raw milk for pasteurization
define abnormal milk this way:

"Lactating animals which show evidence of the
secretion of abnormal milk in one or more
quarters (the udder is divided into four quarters),
based upon bacteriological, chemical, or physical
examination, shall be milked last or with separate
equipment and the milk shall be discarded."

The above is further explained ("Public Health Reason"):

"The health of lactating animals is a very important
consideration because a number of diseases of
lactating animals, including salmonellosis,
staphloccal infection and streptococcal infection,
may be transmitted to man through the medium of
milk. The organisms of most of these diseases
may get into the milk either directly from the
udder or indirectly through infected body discharges
which may drop, splash, or be blown into the milk."

What is "abnormal milk?"

The April 25, 2002 issue of Hoard's Dairyman, the dairy
farmer's magazine, addresses that question. Veterinarian
Dave Linn testifies on page 341:

"According to the PMO, all milk from cows producing
'abnormal' milk should be dumped."

Linn compares "wholesome" milk to "abnormal" milk,
and reveals insider industry standards shared by
the National Mastitis Council, United States Department
of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration.
If cows are infected, milk is abnormal. This is a dirty
secret that government agencies conspire to keep from
the dairy-eating public. Dr. Linn writes:

"Research has shown that, with a herd cell count of
200,000, there may be as many as 15 percent of the
cows infected. In herds with a 300,000 count, this
figure may be as high as 25%."

("Cell count" refers to the number of somatic cells,
dead white blood cells per milliter of milk).

So, if 25% of the cows in your state are sick and
producing abnormal milk which should be dumped,
and that milk is not dumped, something is seriously
wrong with the system. It is clear that some states
in violation of these rigorous milk standards.

Is your state in violation?

If the cell count is over 200,000 in your state,
please send a formal complaint to your Department
of Agriculture. Start with a phone call. The number
should be in your telephone book.

How do you learn the average cell count of milk sold in
your state? That's easy. The April 25, 2002 issue of
Hoard's Dairyman lists every state in America on page
342.

ADVICE: If the count is over 200,000 in your state,
the milk is unfit to drink (by THEIR standards!).
File a complaint today.

Average Cell Count Per State (48 continental) in 2001:

(The following list contains the number of pus cells
expressed per milliliter of milk... about the size of a
thimbleful. To obtain the number of pus cells per LITER of
milk [about one quart] please add three zeros to the
following numbers)

AL - 444,000
AZ - 360,000
AR - 486,000
CA - 298,000
CO - 312,000
CT - 310,000
DE - 386,000
FL - 548,000
GA - 407,000
ID - 320,000
IL - 322,000
IN - 343,000
IA - 333,000
KS - 476,000
KY - 413,000
LA - 479,000
ME - 290,000
MD - 351,000
MA - 308,000
MI - 287,000
MN - 420,000
MS - 442,000
MO - 437,000
MT - 248,000
NE - 443,000
NV - 330,000
NH - 299,000
NJ - 339,000
NM - 311,000
NY - 280,000
NC - 364,000
ND - 344,000
OH - 327,000
OK - 483,000
OR - 286,000
PA - 317,000
RI - 206,000
SC - 404,000
SD - 459,000
TN - 413,000
TX - 342,000
UT - 284,000
VT - 302,000
VA - 333,000
WA - 275,000
WV - 422,000
WI - 297,000
WY - 341,000


Robert Cohen author of: MILK A-Z
(201-871-5871)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.

Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and they will receive it (automatically)!
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:11

September 20, 2009

The milk letter: A message to my patients

Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA
Text Only

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
they simply repeating what their professors learned years
ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
composition that is critical for the very best in health and
growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
that's how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
think that milk is the safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because it’s critical to our
understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
forever getting infections around the udder that require
ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the
study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of
pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies
describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
infant in the first year of life because of its association
with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes
Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
greater in the English group compared to children remaining
in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
association says: "It does not mean that children should
stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of
Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are
exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
department feels that this is an economic and not a human
health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
These articles come from two of the country's leading
institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between
milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
drink cows' milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
egsted in England has been writing for years about the
geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
important such article appeared recently in the British
Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at
calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the
several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative
source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
Richard Havel of the University of California in San
Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
into the blood stream without first being broken down into
monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
milk from another group of mammals that the survival
advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources
were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant
calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to
humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high
degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned
people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely
blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.
Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are
midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and
abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake
in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.
The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A
lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of
$117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy
products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is
largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy
your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar
in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed
this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of
fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to
constipation and bowel disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding
in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from
its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the
intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with
articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and
vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a
double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency
of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of
childhood allergy.

LOW FAT

One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common
and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't
it?"

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low
fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the
public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to
weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%
water!

"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat
milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern
is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little
or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein
and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more
of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to
boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live
in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,
and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry
cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond
milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned
about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same
calcium concentration as milk.

SUMMARY

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk
or use milk products. That is just because we simply want
to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of
our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste
and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our
throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for
us and provided milk in our earliest training and
conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably
the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described
"to die for".

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious
vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his
diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting
one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice
cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration
for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -
and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good
health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had
a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and
helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several
years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation
unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight
of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body
good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's
nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully
without cows' milk. You can too.

It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since
childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."
I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health
and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?

(Article courtesty of Dr. Kradjian and http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM)
Email This Page to Someone you care about.

http://www.notmilk.com/
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:12

September 23, 2009

Anti-Dairyman George Plimpton


Anti-Dairyman George Plimpton, Dead at 76

A few years ago, I launched the NotMilk anti-dairy movement
with a stunning press conference in New York City. The
entire event was taped by New York television's major
networks, and broadcast live to thousands of media
representatives throughout the world via a telephone
conference call.

On that day, we were joined by celebrities, doctors,
activists, and many members of the media. I had asked George
Plimpton, a friend, to play the role of moderator.

Plimpton was a distinguished man, possessing great warmth,
wit, wisdom, and dignity. His reputation and efforts helped
to get out the word that cow's milk does not do the body any
good, and his marketing skills helped to get our anti-dairy
story in Time Magazine, the New York Times, and on hundreds
of television stations and in many more newspapers, from
coast to coast.

Plimpton was a gentle man, but he was also a tough man. When
word got out that he was one of our spokesmen, pressure was
exerted to have him withdraw. George Plimpton was not a man
to be threatened or intimidated.

As a fighter, Plimpton once had his face bloodied by the
great light-heavyweight boxer, Archie Moore. Moore is the
only man to have fought both Rocky Marciano and Muhammad
Ali. He knocked out more fighters than any boxer in history,
141, but could not knock out George. As a second-string
quarterback, Plimpton once ran a play for the Detroit Lions,
resulting in his autobiographical book, Paper Lion.

Plimpton was a Renaissance man for the twentieth and twenty-
first centuries. Athlete, poet, editor of the acclaimed
literary magazine, Paris Review. Activist. Statesman.

He was a friend of the Kennedys, and I cherish the stories
we shared in his New York City apartment. He was also a dear
friend of my colleague, Charles Attwood, M.D. Charles
originally suggested that George Plimpton be the moderator
for the Anti-Dairy Coalition press conference. Taking his
advice turned out to be a blessing. (Charles also appeared
on the podium with me, although he was dying of brain cancer
at the time. He asked that I keep that secret, which I did,
while admiring his own commitment to make the anti-dairy
press conference a success. This was Attwood's his last
public appearance. Charles died a short time after the
event.)

Plimpton played professional hockey, was a circus performer,
professional golfer, pro tennis player, and even slammed
some of the best contract bridge players. He won second
prize at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem one memorable amateur
night for his skills on the piano.

He was called the "prince of cameos," for having appeared in
numerous movies and television shows. I remember him as Dr.
John Carter's multi-millionaire grandfather on E.R. I cannot
place him in the epic movie, Lawrence of Arabia, but
Plimpton told me that he appeared briefly as a Bedouin
warrior. George was shot dead by John Wayne in Rio Lobo, and
cried real tears after his ring experience with Archie
Moore.

I will best remember George for his magnificent work in
which he helped fire the first cannon on Fort Dairy. We
started this war together. George Plimpton lit the fuse and
carried the banner. Thanks, George. We'll miss you.


Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z
(201-871-5871)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.

Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and they will receive it (automatically)

http://www.notmilk.com/plimpton.html
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:13

September 25, 2009

Will this be the next GOT MILK ad?
{Michaelangelo's creation of Adam as painted on the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican in Rome}
Will this be the next GOT MILK ad?



Milkstache Ads

Milkstache ads. They've become a part of our culture.
Pus on lips. The formula is sour cream and vanilla
ice cream. It's thick. It's phleghmy. It makes you
beautiful. Now, for your reading pleasure, my take
on four dozen of my all-time favorite inappropriate
dairy industry blunders:

The Notmilkman's Top Ten

Rugrats
Nixon
Cast of Scrubbs
Superbowl
3 Stooges
Flo Jo
Joe Torre
Joshua Jackson
Kermit the Fraud
Andie MacDowell

The 10 Runner-ups:

Incredible Hulk
Angelina Jolie
Larry King
Spike Lee
Jason Kidd
Austin Powers
Elton John
Mark McGwire
Noah Wyle
Johnny Bench

28 Also-rans

LeAnn Rimes
Aaron Burr
Aerosmith
Alfred E. Newman
Bill Clinton
Brittney Speers
Calcium Ripken
Conan O'Brien
Daisy Fuentes
Dave Matthews
David Copperfield
Donna Shalala
Bob Dole
Hall of Shame
Jen Love Hewitt
Kristi Yamaguchi
Mia Hamm
Naomi Campbell
Rebecca Stamos
Patrick Ewing
Pau Gasol
Sarah Michelle Geller
Septuplets
Smits and Franz
Tyra Banks
Venus & Serena
Shang Siyi
Survivors


Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z
(201-871-5871)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.

Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and they will receive it (automatically)

http://www.notmilk.com/nextgotmilk.html
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Ven 16 Avr - 8:16

Milk

Arthritis Cure

How To Cure Arthritis

A new study published in the February, 2003 issue of Annals
of Rheumatic Diseases confirms that those people eating a
diet high in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and certain oils
also known as the "Mediterranean diet" helps ease symptoms
in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

This study was performed on non-vegetarians living in
Sweden. The authors obtained dramatic results by placing 26
subjects on a dairy-free diet for three months, while 25
people continued to eat a typical Swedish smorgasbord of
meat and dairy products. According to Dr. Lars Skoldstam:

"The current results suggest that patients with rheumatoid
arthritis can obtain better physical function and increase
their vitality from eating a Mediterranean diet for three
months."

The results of this current study come as no surprise.

In 1985, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
(volume 78) reported the case of an eight-year-old girl with
severe rheumatoid arthritis:

"...juvenile rheumatoid arthritis was a milk allergy. After
avoiding dairy products, all pain was gone in three weeks."

In 1991, the British journal Lancet (Volume 338) published
the results of a study in which the subjects ate a
vegetarian diet:

"Controlled trial of fasting and a one-year vegetarian diet
eased symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis."

The British Journal of Rheumatology (36;1, 1997) reported:

"...43 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, those assigned to
a vegan diet...had improvement in rheumatoid arthritis
symptoms."

Rheumatoid arthritis is a painful condition, and it is
tragic that many physicians let their patients know that
there is no cure. Ignorance is the most horrible of
diseases, and keeps arthritis sufferers from the simple
relief of their pain: a NotMilk diet.

Email This Page to Someone you care about!

Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z
(201-871-5871)
Executive Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com)
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

http://www.notmilk.com/arthritiscure.html
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Sam 8 Jan - 5:52

January 5, 2011

Stop Construction of the UK's Largest Mega-Dairy


signatures: 9,100
deadline: ongoing
signature goal: 10,000
post to facebookget the widgettweet thisemail your friends.
overviewletterTarget: Nick Feltham, Planning Officer, North Kesteven District Council
Sponsored by: Care2.com
Factory dairy farms subject their animals to all kinds of cruelty. The cows are fed growth hormones to increase milk production. Their tails are cut off without anesthesia so they won't contact auto-milking machines. The poor animals are artificially inseminated continuously. To top it if, they endure all of this in small, filthy disease-ridden stalls.

Now, the UK's Nocton Dairy wants to create the largest factory dairy in that country -- at least 4,000 cows. Shockingly this is only half the number of cows Nocton would like to house.

Public outcry forced the dairy to shrink its original plans, but even this is unacceptable.

We only have until January 11 to tell the North Kesteven District Council to stop this large-scale cruelty. Add your voice -- urge the Planning Director to reject permits for Nocton's super dairy.

SIGN PETITION : http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/158/433/475/
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mar 15 Mar - 17:01

f


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:10, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19969
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Mar 5 Avr - 10:52

d


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Sam 18 Aoû - 9:11, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
Contenu sponsorisé




MessageSujet: Re: MILK    Aujourd'hui à 21:01

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
MILK
Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut 
Page 6 sur 8Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Suivant
 Sujets similaires
-
» 83 - MILK SHAKE x GOLDEN 15 mois ...... SCP
» shampooing doux milk shake de rose inspiré de Lavera
» Milk-Shake joue au Mâle >.
» Brique de lait Milk
» Astilbe chinensis Milk and Honey

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
 :: Divers :: Les infos de Végétalienne-
Sauter vers: