As I’m sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one’s diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn’t. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.
Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I’m referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness. Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets — further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.
If we fast forward to the 1980′s, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products — the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It’s called Don’t Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don’t eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).
One might well ask “Where’s the truth in this picture”. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940′s can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited “anti-social” behavior — in short, they were like modern Americans.
Since the 40′s the “qualities” of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose.
Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines. All of these qualities are destroyed during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can’t be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can’t be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.
Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine — and even in the Mayo Clinic — for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin days to treat diabetes (I’ve tried it — it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk — such as the cortisone-like factor for allergies and eczema.
Another way we ruin milk is by feeding cows high protein feed made from soybeans and other inappropriate foodstuffs. Rarely is anyone truly allergic to grass-fed cow’s milk.
Fresh raw milk, from cows eating well-manured green grass is a living unprocessed whole food. Compare this to the supposedly “healthy” soy milk which has been washed in acids and alkalis, ultrapasteurized, then allowed to sit in a box for many months.
The Pottenger cat studies provide a simple but profound lesson for all Americans: Processed, dead foods don’t support life or a happy well-functioning society. We must return to eating pure, wholesome, unprocessed foods, including whole raw milk from pasture fed cows.
In my practice I ALWAYS start there — I encourage, insist, even beg people to eat real foods— no matter what the problem. Often with just this intervention the results are gratifying. SO, find a cow, find a farmer, make sure the cow (or goat, llama, or whatever) is healthy and start your return to good health!
Reprinted from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation Health Journal
Vol 21, No 2
(619) 574 7763
Thomas Cowan, MD is medical advisor to the Weston A. Price Foundation and a physician in private practice in San Francisco, California. He is the author of The Fourfold Path to Healing, which you can order from New Trends Publishing.Visit his website at http://www.fourfoldhealing.com.
You are a Doctor. You rely on your medical journal to guide you on what line to take on many important matters, for example, whether to tell your patients that it's good for them to have an annual flu jab. Your medical journal states that such and such a study proves the case. So you go with that, and repeat it to your patients, if asked. After reading the following BMJ article maybe you'll want to think deeply about the (biased) "evidence" you have probably unwittingly relied on in the past, and what steps you and your profession should in future take to avoid the present undue influence from your ultimate paymasters, the pharmaceutical industry?
Given the crucial role that prestigious medical journals play in educating doctors and scientists across the globe another research study - published in the BMJ - looking at 274 comparative studies (on flu vaccination) - found that only 18% of the studies were deemed to actually prove what the articles claimed to be their findings.
That means that over 80% of them were judged not to have "made the case" outlined in their conclusions.
"70% of the studies reported conclusions favourable to the vaccines, but only 18% showed complete concordance between data reported and study conclusions. Over half (56%) of studies were at high risk of bias, with only 4% being at low risk".
With an estimated 7,287 items relevant to primary care published in these prestigious Medical Journals every month (studies, letters, and editorials) and the fact that few healthcare workers have the time - or the skills - to carry out in depth critical appraisals of any of these published articles (1), most doctors in the field rely on a brief (two minute) scan of material (2) to bring them up-to-date with 'best practice' and how to treat their patients (3).
In most cases this means browsing the article's 'abstract' or its 'conclusions'.
And generally, the more prestigious the journal, the more trustworthy the findings have always been assumed to be. But given the proven unreliability of these published studies and in previous reviews (4) this is a major cause for concern for all healthcare workers.
Perhaps the most worrying effects of these often re-hashed published Research Studies in these prestigious journals is the fact they are the ones quoted and re-quoted in other scientific journals and at conference after conference, to "prove" the effectiveness of the medications, or, as in this case the treatments (flu vaccinations), being studied.
The authors of the study put it succinctly by stating (in relation to flu vaccination): "Studies partly or completely sponsored by industry, however, were published in more prestigious journals and are probably cited more, although their methodological quality and size were similar. Some of these findings might help to explain the continuation of a near global policy, despite growing doubts as to its scientific basis".
One of the key findings was that what decides whether scientific papers made it into prestigious medical journals wasn't related to the quality of the study, but more to who paid for it - and those papers funded by major companies, despite the methodology or conclusions, were more likely to be published.
Tom Jefferson, lead author said, "The study shows that one of the levers for accessing prestigious journals is the financial size of your sponsor. Pharmaceutical sponsors order many reprints of studies supporting their products, often with in-house translations into many languages. They will also purchase publicity space on the journal. Many publishers openly advertise these services on their website."
1. Alper BS, Hand JA, Elliott SG, Kinkade S, Hauan MJ, Onion DK, et al. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care? J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92:429-37.[ISI][Medline]
2. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ 1999;319:358-61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, Elmore JG, Welsh DE, Baker P, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:881-4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
4. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1202-[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Many point to the 'revolving door' between those in global companies, politicians and the public authorities as being one of the reasons why it is so difficult to change things in the world for the better - in medicine, in agriculture, in the energy business .... one could go on. A list of the favours (jobs) that people related to Monsanto have received from President Obama is at this URL.
The chickens on genetically modified (GM) food have been coming home to roost this week, though as happened with DDT, thalidomide and other toxic chemicals those involved will doubtless fight a rearguard action for years to come.
“a study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems.”
The research was considered so "hot" that the work was done under strict secrecy i.e. to prevent sabotage by vested commercial interests.
Rats only live a few years. Humans live around 80 years, so we will notice these effects in animals long before we see them in humans. The gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties. This is some of the strongest evidence to date that we need to exercise the precautionary principle ASAP and avoid these foods.”
In short we now know that where genetic engineering introduces genes into plants for insect resistance additional toxic proteins will subsequently accumulate in plant tissues consumed by animals and man. “These toxins are found in the blood and readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb”. In a Quebec study the Bt toxin was found in the blood system of 93% of women from non-farming communities. 80% of them passed that on to their babies i.e. the placental barrier is not a barrier to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like glyphosate.
We also know that a substance called glyphosate which is the ‘active ingredient’ in many modern herbicides eg Roundup used on GM corn, soybeans etc can have very unwelcome effects on humans.
Glyphosate doesn’t kill weeds or grass directly; it accumulates in the plant and ‘gives it a bad case of (the equivalent of) AIDS’ ...... so that the plant succumbs to local soil borne pathogens. Glyphosate in fact stops the weeds or grass absorbing the beneficial nutrients they need from the soil. In other words, it lowers their immune system and they die as a result.
“The problem stems from the way glyphosate persists in and alters (plants and) the soil, which has wide-ranging ramifications. As a potent organic phosphate chelator, glyphosate immobilizes micronutrients that are essential for normal physiological functions not only in soils, but also in growing plants and in those who eat the plants, namely animals and humans.
The nutritional efficiency of genetically engineered plants is profoundly compromised. Far from helping improve nutrition, micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in such plants! Glyphosate also decimates beneficial microorganisms essential for proper plant function and high quality nutrition, while promoting the proliferation of disease-causing pathogens.
"Glyphosate is a very powerful selective antibiotic that kills beneficial, but not pathogenic, microorganisms in the soil and intestine at very low residual levels in food," Dr. Huber writes. Residue levels permitted in food are 40 to 800 times the antibiotic threshold and concentrations shown in clinical studies to damage mammalian tissues.”
Both the toxic proteins produced by the foreign bacterial genes and the glyphosate chemical are now present in the feed and food produced for animal and human consumption.”
Even in the EU where GM foods have to be marked this is no protection for the end consumer who eats meat which has been reared on GM foodstuffs, which is currently permitted to be imported into the EU. So, at the moment the only way we can be reasonably sure that we are not ingesting ‘the nasties” mentioned above is by eating food from a trusted supplier which is labelled as organic.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer_screening. Even for the medical profession gone are the days when every doctor would advise men over a certain age to have regular socalled PSA screening to test for cancer of the prostate. A lot of money was wasted on that test. 'PSA levels can change for many reasons other than cancer. Two common causes of high PSA levels are enlargement of the prostate (benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH)) and infection in the prostate (prostatitis). It can also be raised for 24 hours after ejaculation and several days after catheterization.' If you have an uncomfortable 'pressing' feeling in the perineum area between the legs and above that area 'on the inside' so-to-speak, maybe like you are 'sitting on a ball', that may turn out to be caused by an enlarged prostate. Leave off bicycling while you have it checked out professionally! Absent any immediate life-threatening diagnosis from the experts, check out alternative treatments. If you just have a (benign) enlarged prostate, you may find that a few drops of Saw Palmetto tincture taken daily for a few months will remove the discomfort totally with little or no risk of side effects. There are also other homeopathic and herbal remedies which can often help your body to cure the problem: see your homeopath or herbalist. But remember that your own dietary e.g. excess alcohol, and other habits (bicycling?!), could be the cause of an enlarged prostate, and so you will have to be prepared to do detective work in that area as well. And when should you contemplate surgery? Well, the article extracted below is a reminder why surgery to remove an enlarged prostate is now thought to be probably normally not the way to go unless your specialist comes up with very convincing reasons for it - which you should check and doublecheck yourself.
"If you were diagnosed with an enlarged prostate about 10 years ago, then you may be one of many unlucky men. Especially if your blood tests revealed a higher than normal PSA. You would've probably gone under the knife straight away, because surgery, followed by radiation or chemo (or both!), was the common course of treatment back then.
Fortunately, there were a few good doctors back then (and more thankfully now) prepared to hold off on treatment and monitor your condition instead. In light of recent PSA research, hopefully more doctors will discontinue yearly PSA monitoring altogether.
All men should be so lucky. But far too many are not.
Changing the standard of care
A recent New England Journal of Medicine study enrolled more than 730 men with localized prostate cancer — meaning their cancer had not spread beyond the prostate. Their average age was about 66 years.
In half of the men, surgeons removed their prostates. Men in the other half were "observed." They weren't treated. Doctors screened their PSA levels.
After 10 years, there was very little difference in death rates between the two groups. The difference was so small that it landed within the possible margin of error.
Meanwhile, more than 20 percent in the surgery group suffered complications from their surgery, including one death.
Let's make this as simple as possible. Most men with localized prostate cancer should not be treated. And this is especially true for men in their 70s and beyond.
Men? Doctors? Are you getting all this? It could hardly be more important! Let's not wait years for the standard of care to change… nobody should take an aggressive course of action if it is not absolutely necessary.
"Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer" New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 367, No. 3, 7/19/12, nejm.org
"Prostate cancer surgery fails to cut deaths in study" Gene Emery, Reuters Health, 7/18/12, reuters.com"
In similar style to those in the UK whose aim is to stamp out homeopathy and other natural healthcare therapies and who subverted our own UK Advertising Standards Authority and got them to harass homeopaths for making truthful statements about the benefits of their treatments, the representatives across the pond in the USA of another Big Business - Nutrition - have geared up to try and push lay nutritionists into the ocean. Big Business privately just about always believes that organising things so that it has a MONOPOLY IS A GOOD THING, though it will pretend that it loves competition....the type of competition where the opposition has bows and arrows and you have attack helicopters and machineguns i.e. what the Yanks call a "turkey shoot".
If you have been a reader of this blog you will by now be able to guess their tactics. First, they will publicise how important it is that EVERYONE "Giving advice or even just information" on basic Nutrition to others SHOULD BE LICENSED. People - placemen essentially - in high places will start parroting all the spurious reasons why this is necessary now even though the public hasn't found it necessary for the last few centuries. Secondly, that THEY SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE LICENSING i.e. the fox in charge of the hen coop. Thirdly, that ANYONE NOT LICENSED BE FINED. Those inside the (monopolistic) organisation are then urged to lay complaints against those outside it and request "the authorities" to prosecute them.
The UK Medical profession did this just before World War II. They managed to get the Cancer Act 1939 passed, giving them a monopoly on the treatment of cancer. How many people have they killed since then with radiation and chemotherapy?
The American Dietetic Association (ADA), which refers to itself as "the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals," has launched a new attack on freedom of health speech that seeks to criminalize the giving of nutritional or counseling advice by individuals that are not officially licensed by the ADA or one of its state-level prototypes -- and the ADA is covertly attempting to accomplish this goal by quietly passing restrictive licensing laws in all 50 U.S. states.
Clearly on a downward spiral into total nutritional irrelevancy, the ADA as an organization is being slowly overtaken by competition from unlicensed nutritionists, holistic practitioners, and even ordinary bloggers with a powerful story to tell, all of which are now being taken far more seriously by those looking for legitimate nutrition advice than are many ADA-certified dietitians. So to artificially preserve its very existence, the ADA is now trying to legislate its way to a total nutritional monopoly.
Remember a while back when Vit E's undoubted benefits were slagged off by some bogus research doubtless funded by Big Pharma? Well they are at it again. The article is posted at http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-remedies/vitamins/vitamin-e-prostate-cancer-cure-99332.html.
"Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men." That's the shocking conclusion of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association... and what's more it was a gold standard placebo-controlled study, which involved many men over many years.
It drives me up the wall!
When time, money and resources are completely squandered on medical research that sets out to discredit alternative medicine yet again... and allows the media to go on yet another rampage about how ineffective and bad vitamins and supplements are...
I'm talking about this headline: "Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men."
That's the shocking conclusion of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association... and what's more it was a gold standard placebo-controlled study, which involved many men over many years.
Here the mainstream had a golden opportunity to provide an important breakthrough in our understanding of vitamin E... but they squandered it... and to add to that, it was also a very expensive blunder.
Much as the researchers got everything right, they made a massive critical error... They used a synthetic form of vitamin E... and there's no way around it: synthetic vitamin E is junk!
As we've explained many times before, this form of E supplement should only be used EXTERNALLY, because it's a molecule shape that the body is not designed to handle.
Now, if the researchers had wanted to put vitamin E to a GENUINE test, they would have used d-alpha. Or even better — the full spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols.
The only lingering question is whether these researchers squandered this golden oppertunity on purpose.
It's no secret that vitamin E has different forms. So anyone with enough experience to conduct a massive vitamin E study would surely be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different forms.
So, just for fun, let's check the study's Conflict of Interest Disclosures...
• Merck appears three times
• Pfizer twice
• Novartis twice
• AstraZeneca twice
• Sanofi-aventis, Abbott, Janssen, and Amgen all appear once
• One researcher helped develop educational presentations for a prostate cancer drug
• Another researcher is co-founder of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals
High doses of Vit D can clearly help some people:-
Joanne Rawlings · Perth, Western Australia
"have ms and have taken vit d for 2 years 4000mg, I feel awesome, no fatigue, lost weight, and my multiple sclerosis is getting better yahoo! it has been the best thing I have done :-)"
This can be found as one of the comments at
which I got to through the latest Natural News email - see http://www.naturalnews.com/036303_vitamin_D_outlawed_nutrition.html
The latter article is also worth a read to keep you on your toes as to the rubbish reports and consequent media headlines which spread disinformation around.
It's good to keep abreast of the evidence which the scientific community itself produces to knock down the reasons orthodox medicine trumpets for following its mainstream practices, otherwise as sure as eggs are eggs it will be 'buried' if it is inconvenient. One such snippet in relation to the role of antibodies is the subject of the article below in Natural News at http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html. It has long been an inconvenient truth, but not generally known by the lay public, that if antibodies to a disease are found in the blood after administration of a vaccine, this is no guarantee of immunity from the disease. And that persons with no antibodies but a strong immune system may be more resistant than those who have been vaccinated since complementary practitioners have often observed that vaccination appears to reduce the overall health of the immune system. Nor do the public generally know that there are many examples in medical literature of heavily vaccinated communities, i.e. those possessing such antibodies, falling victim to precisely the disease they were vaccinated against. The corollary of course, as this blog has pointed out before, is that the idea that the 'herd (has) immunity' by a mass vaccination programme is a myth propagated by the vaccine salesmen and their masters. The sooner it is consigned to the dustbin by the scientific community itself the better.
"(NaturalNews) While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body's natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.
The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.
But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.
"Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity," said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. "It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."
As explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, vaccines not only do not work as advertised, but they actually damage the body's innate immunity. Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system's ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.
So once again, the myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose has been deconstructed by breakthrough science. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream medical community wants to admit it, pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience.
I am pro choice, free speech, and the right to require full information in all matters to do with personal health. Our government should be made to pass laws - regardless of what the EU may dictate - to protect every citizen's right to obtain without restriction the natural herbs, homeopathics and supplements,and to consult the natural health practitioners, they may desire.