Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Got milk? Got B.S.

284 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts


Don't you Love those ads, the milk mustache ones , celebertys touting the modern marvels of Milk....How about the latest commercials "make sure to get a few glasses of low fat milk each day to stay fit.......How about the calcium claims???wow there are alot of them......

Interestingly these commercials that 'claim' the calcium from milk will seriously cut the risk of ostepphorsis ....Except the FDA says there is no such evidence


Anyone seen the ads that milk will lower high blood pressure???What an oxymoron there , animal that causes High Blood pressure , now lowers blood pressure???hmmmm

( I guess they think we'll belive anything)

Calcium from milk makes strong bones in women?????? Not according to the 12 years nurses study it seems that women who drank two glasses of milk actually had a risk of 1.45 times higher that those that didn't...How can this be?????

(dedicated to one who takes a low key approach to the meat issues of the day LOL private joke between hyper and myself ....)

Got Milk????? Or Got B.S.??????? Discuss

Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is the meat that raises blood pressure, not the milk, sorry Sherri but i like my milk :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is the meat that raises blood pressure, not the milk, sorry Sherri but i like my milk :)

Larry King was in a milk ad claiming that Milk will lower blood pressure...yet the FDA said there is no evidence of this...Did you see the commercial Rambo?????????

Rambo Dairy and meat are all from the same place an animal, these are contributing factors to High blood pressure.......You can drink all the milk you want till the cows come home but i was wondering what you thought?????? :D

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

milk is good with cholate chip cookies

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dairy and meat are all from the same place an animal

That is a strange piece of logic. Wheat and mud come from the same place, a field. It doesn't mean that they will have the same effect on you body if you eat them both.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

pot and poppy seeds come from the same thing too and have very diffrent effects on the body.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a strange piece of logic. Wheat and mud come from the same place, a field. It doesn't mean that they will have the same effect on you body if you eat them both.

Oh???Well fat from animal it seems no matter the source cause clogged arteries that lead to a variant of heart issues one being High blood pressure......

Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any links to back up your claims?

I've been drinking milk all my life, and I'm still living. *pokes self* :D I do drink fat free stuff (pink cap) cause I like it better.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is milk really harmful? Can I live healthily without milk?

Nutritionists hold that milk has two elements -- lactose which is broken down by the body's enzyme, lactase; and casein split by the enzyme, renin. Between the ages of three and four, both these enzymes vanish from our system. Which means that in nature's original prescription, after age four, we should be off milk. However, if we continue on the milky way, the unbroken casein, a coarse substance used in making wood-glues, gums up our delicate membranes with mucus.

Which is why we've not been able to conquer the common cold and are vulnerable to asthma, bronchitis, headaches and subsequently to diabetes, heart problems and cancer.

On the mineral front, , imbibing milk as a calcium source is like licking limestone! Being low in magnesium -- calcium's comrade --

milk grandly deposits the Big C in us and simultaneously hinders our bones from absorbing it! Whereas all foods grown in the ground suck the entire calcium-magnesium matrix from the soil, incorporates it in their infrastructure and...voila! present a mineral-rich meal on our plate!

Bones are as organically alive as muscles and respond to regular exercise. Brisk walking, jogging or bouncing combined with light-weight training alerts them where they seize and absorb the streaming calcium.

The second question is levelled at psychological responses to our emotions and beliefs. The scientific information given above can gradually bring about a shift in perception.


National Institute of Nutrition .....


Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
June,2005 publication in the journal Archives of Pediatrics

& Adolescent Medicine (2005;159:511).

The study of 12,829 American children determined that those

who consumed more than three servings of milk per day were

35 percent more likely to become overweight than those who

drank little or no milk.

Milk and Parkinson's Disease

The Notmilk letter has previously reported a link between

dairy consumption and Parkinson's Disease, citing these

two scientific links from peer-reviewed journals:

"These results suggest that lactotransferrin may

participate actively in the mechanism of neuronal

degeneration in Parkinson's disease."

Acta Neuropathology, 1996;91(6):566-72.

"According to these findings, disruption in the expression

of these proteins in the brain is probably one of the

important causes of the altered brain iron metabolism in

age-related neurodegenerative diseases, including

Parkinson's Disease..."

Brain Research Review, 1998 Aug;27(3):257-67.

Today's story, published in a Pakistani newspaper,

adds fuel to the hypothesis that dairy consumption

might be the cause of Parkinson's. I wonder why such

studies are rarely published in American newspapers.

Got dairy dollars for milk ad conflicts?


Drinking Milk May Raise Parkinson's Risk in Men

Friday April 07, 2006 (1340 PST)

ISLAMABAD: Middle-aged men who drink a glass or two of

milk each day may be increasing their risk of developing

Parkinson's disease later in life, new research suggests.

The ingredient or possible contaminant in milk responsible

for this effect is unclear, but the current findings suggest

it's not the calcium. The new findings, which appear in the

medical journal Neurology, support those of an earlier report

linking high consumption of dairy products with an elevated

risk of Parkinson's disease among men, but not women.

The current study involved 7504 men, who were enrolled in

the Honolulu Heart Program between 45 and 68 years of age

and followed for 30 years for the development of Parkinson's


Dietary intake for all subjects was recorded when the study

began in the late 1960s. A total of 128 participants developed

Parkinson's disease during follow-up, Dr. R. D. Abbott, from

the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville,

and colleagues note. The risk of Parkinson's disease increased

as the amount of milk consumed each day rose.

The final statistical analysis showed that heavy milk drinkers

were 2.3-times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease than

non-milk drinkers.

At Last...Scientific Proof!

Yesterday (April 1, 2006), we reported the story of

overweight dairy princesses. That was not an April

Fool's Day joke. See:


The latest dairy industry claim that drinking milk

helps one to lose weight has gone from the absurd

to the preposterous. Milk from each mammal was

uniquely designed for the young of that species

to gain weight, not lose weight. Insitinctively,

all Americans possessing a brain (this does not

apply to employees of FEMA or Pentagon Iraqi war

strategists) know that milk is about growth, not

weight loss. Still...we've been waiting for a bit

of real science to blow the dairy industry's big

fat wet lie out of Lake Eerie.

That not-so-surprising revelation appears in the

March, 2006 issue of the American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 83, No. 3).

Researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and

Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,

and the Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition at

Harvard School of Public Health have determined that

the dairy weight loss claim is not supported by real

data. The scientists conclude:

"Our data do not support the hypothesis that an

increase in calcium intake or dairy consumption is

associated with lower long-term weight gain in men."

The actual study abstract:


Got Crohn's Disease?

If your future includes a diagnosis of Crohn's

Disease, irritable bowel syndrome, or ulcerative

colitis, blame it on your dairy consumption.

There is an epidemic on American dairy farms, and

even 60 Minutes won't touch this story.

Dairy herds are infected with bacteria that

even pasteurization cannot kill. The bacterium

is known as mycobacterium paratuberculosis (MAP).

One hundred percent of people diagnosed with

Crohn's disease test positive for MAP. Cow's

milk and dairy product consumption is the cause.



The March 15, 2006 issue of the Journal of Molecular

Probes reports a study (Clark, et. al.) in which

retail cheese samples were tested for MAP.

Five percent of the 98 samples tested positive.

If you wish not to get the permanent runs, run to

your refrigerator and dump the cheese, milk, and

every other food item that comes out of a cow's

udder. Yes, Virginia. You may eat the udder.

Attention Deficit, Milk, & Relativity

Albert Einstein is best known for his theory of

Relativity, E =MC2 (Energy = mass times the speed of

light, squared.) Many can recite the formula. Few

can explain it.

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) has no such formula, but

should. One out of four American school children are

diagnosed with ADD, and millions are on dangerous

drugs including Ritalin.

So, for today's column, we've developed a formula to

express that disorder of the late 20th and early 21st

centuries which plague kids and takes away their ability

to learn. Our Notmilk formula adds up to a pre-adult's

mid-child crisis.

ADD = M + I + D (Attention Deficit Disorder =

mood swings + irritability + depression)

Eighty percent of cow's milk protein is casein. It has been

documented that casein breaks down in the stomach to produce

a morphine-like substance called casomorphine, an opiate.

As early as 1979, Panksepp, et. al. observed that casomorphin

aggravated the symptoms of autism.(Trends in Neuroscience, 1979, 2)

In 1988, Gillberg, et. al. produced evidence of elevated levels

of endorphin-like substances in the cerebro-spinal fluid of

children with autism. (Aspects of Autism: Biological Research

Gaskell:London, pp. 31-37).

Dr. Kalle Reichelt, University of Oslo, Norway believes that

milk casomorphins cause learning disorders in 25 percent of

children. He writes:

"We therefore by and large treat with a strict diet free of

gluten and milk proteins with reasonably good results.

Note: diet must be strict and long term.

Florida researcher, Robert Cade, M.D., and his colleagues have

identified a milk casomorphin, as the probable cause of

attention deficit disorder and autism. They also found Beta-

casomorphin-7 in high concentrations in the blood and urine

of patients with either schizophrenia or autism.

(AUTISM, 1999, 3)

Search the Internet and you'll find many anecdotal stories from

parents blaming their children's autism on milk and dairy


In May of 1996, Julie Klotter, MD wrote in the Townsend

Medical Letter:

"In reality, cow's milk, especially processed cow's

milk, has been linked to a variety of health problems,

including: mucous production, hemoglobin loss,

childhood diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis,

arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression,

irritability, and allergies."

Dr. Klotter was primarily concerned with adult reactions

to milk opiates and milk proteins. Of her eleven symptoms,

take note of numbers eight, nine, and ten. Mood swings,

irritability, and depression. MID = attention deficit.

Cow's milk opiates are not for human kids, and they're

not for human adults. Unless you wish to display GAB

(Goofy Adult Behavior), just say no all dairy products.

Warning: addiction to opiates is not pretty. Neither is

withdrawal. Your child will be angry. Scream. Be moody.

Turn into a monster. Be strong. Milk drinkers are drug

addicts. It is no different for milk chocaholics.

Recognize that all dairy products, even organic ones,

naturally contain powerful morphine-like substances.

That Terrifying Milk Hormone

The healthiest organic milk from the most pampered

cow naturally contains powerful steroid and protein

grwoth hormones.

Cows and humans share one of those hormones, insulin-like

growth factor, or IGF-1. This powerful growth hormone

has been identified as a key factor in the growth of every

human breast cancer. Each sip of milk contains this growth

hormone that does not do a woman's body any good.

The February, 2006 issue of the journal Dairy Science

contains a study in which levels of IGF-I were measured

in stored dairy products. Researchers found:

1) In commercial manufacture of whole milk dry powder,

IGF-I concentration was not significantly changed as

a factor of storage.

2) IGF-I content in yogurt decreased significantly during storage.

3) After milk was homogenized, levels of IGF-I become significantly

higher compared with that of un-homogenized milk.

IGF-I facts:

"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and

bovine IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70

amino acids in the identical sequence."

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer.

SCIENCE, vol. 249. August 24, 1990.

"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant

growth of human breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.

"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in

breast cancer."

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998

"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk

drinkers, an increase of about 10% above baseline

but was unchanged in the control group."

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October 1999

The Problem with Protein

Many people refer to milk as liquid meat, for good reason.

Our children are taught in kindergarten that animal

protein consumption is essential for their good health.

Year after year that lie is reinforced with only one

side of the scientific story, and that is criminal.

Why do nations with the highest rates of bone

disease also have the highest milk consumption rates?

The highest rates of osteoporosis are to be found in

Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden.

The Key to Bone Disease

It's not how much calcium you eat. It's how much calcium

you prevent from leaving your bones. Real science has

taught that dietary calcium plays little or no role in

preventing bone loss. Bone density is genetically

determined, and no amount of calcium will you into

a winning race horse or circus elephant (both, very'

powerful vegans).

Why Does Calcium Leave Bones?

There are 28 amino acids in nature. The human body

can manufacture 19 of them. The other nine are

called "essential." We must get them from the foods

we eat.

One of those "essential" aminos is methionine.

One needs methionine for many human metabolic

functions including digestion, detoxification of heavy

metals, and muscle metabolism. However, an excess

of methionine can be toxic.

Methionine = C-5, H-11, NO, S

Methionine is a great source for sulfur. That's the problem.

Rotten egg smells come from the high sulfur content. Imagine

rotten egg smell infusing into every cell of your body.

Eat foods containing too much methionine, and your blood

will become acidic. The sulfur converts to sulfates and weak

forms of sulfuric acid. In order to neutralize the acid, in its

wisdom, the body leaches calcium from bones.

"Dietary protein increases production of acid in the blood

which can be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the

skeleton." {American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61,4}

Animal proteins contain more methionine than plant

proteins. Let's compare cow's milk to soymilk:

Methionine in 100 grams of soymilk: .040 grams

Methionine in 100 grams of whole milk: .083 grams

Methionine in 100 grams of skim milk: .099 grams

Now, let's compare 100 gram portions of tofu to meat:

(All of the meat products are lean and without skin)

Silken soft tofu: .074 grams

Hamburger: .282 grams

Hard boiled egg: .392 grams

Roast ham: .535 grams

Baked codfish: .679 grams

Swiss cheese .784 grams

Roast chicken: .801 grams

In 1988, N.A. Breslau and colleagues identified the relationship

between protein-rich diets and calcium metabolism, noting that

protein caused calcium loss. His work was published in the

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology (1988;66:140-6).

A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition (Remer T, Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:1356-61) found

that animal proteins cause calcium to be leached from the

bones and excreted in the urine.

Additional Supporting Evidence

"Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one

of the most important being too much dietary protein."

{Science 1986;233, 4763}

"Even when eating 1,400 mg of calcium daily, one can lose

up to 4% of his or her bone mass each year while consuming

a high-protein diet." {American Journal of Clinical Nutrition


"Increasing one's protein intake by 100% may cause calcium

loss to double." {Journal of Nutrition, 1981; 111, 3}

"The average man in the US eats 175% more protein than the

recommended daily allowance and the average woman eats

144% more." {Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and

Health, 1988}

"Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years,

were associated with an increased risk of hip fractures...

metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary

excretion of calcium." {American Journal of Epidemiology


Can it get worse? Absolutely.

The Framingham Heart Study is the largest and most

exciting heart study in the history of mankind. Some

of the highlights of this exhaustive 50 year study:

In 1960, Cigarette smoking was found to increase the risk

of heart disease.

In 1970, high blood pressure was found to increase the risk

of stroke.

During the 1980's, high levels of HDL cholesterol were found

to reduce risk of death from heart disease.

In the 1990's, homocysteines were identified as key factors

in heart attack deaths.

Homocysteines are normal breakdown products of

Methionine and are believed to exert a number of

toxic effects in the body.

Dr. Castelli has suggested that an elevated homocysteine

level is a risk factor for heart disease. The first evidence

of this was published in the American Journal of

Cardiology (Glueck, 1995;75:132–6).

Two recent publications resulting from Framingham data

indicate a positive correlation between cardiovascular disease

mortality and blood serum levels of homocysteine.

Bostom AG, et. al, Nonfasting plasma total homocysteine

levels and all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in

elderly Framingham men and women. Arch Intern Med

1999; 159:1077-1080.

Bostom A.G., et. al, Nonfasting plasma total homocysteine

levels and stroke incidence in elderly persons: the

Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 131[5], 352-355, 1999.

Visit your local hospital and ask how many patients

occupy beds as a result of eating too little protein.

The answer will be zero. Then, if only you were able to

investigate each occupant, you would determine that his

or her stroke, heart attack, cancer, diabetes, etc, can

be traced back to a diet containing an overabundance of

dietary animal protein. America is the sickest, wealthiest

place to raise children, and we are doomed to invest

our assets in a ravenous health cars system that devours

dollars while continuously reinforcing pain.

Get Sick and Suffer

There is no food in America that routinely contains

animal feces with the exception of milk and dairy

products. As a matter of definition, feces is always

in milk, as it drips down the legs and undersides

of mycobacterium-infected filthy creatures during

the process of harvesting their diseased body fluids

for human "food." That these products are pasteurized

does not detract from the true essence of what consumers

naively put into their mouths and stomachs.

The state of California allows up to 75,000 coliform

bacteria per liter of milk (about one quart). I have no

way of saying this nicely, dear readers. Coliform bacteria

come from the colon, the same place bovine feces come

from. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and

I assure you, if ever there existed in nature the very

opposite of a rose, it is the sh** coming out of a cow's

colon directly into the milk consumer's drink.

Repeat after me. Coliform bacteria in apple juice is

an accident. Rats and mice happen. Coliform bacteria

in broccoli or bean sprouts is always an accident.

Human processors are sometimes disgustingly unsanitary.

The presence of Coliform bacterium in milk and yogurt and

cheese is the rule and not the exception. Got milk? Got

bovine excrement.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),

each day, 220,000 Americans get sick from

contaminated food and 25 die.

Are you a gambler? Next time you buy a carton

of milk, will you rely upon fate to decide your

family's health? Will the bacterial count in your

cheese or milk be high enough to add you to CDC's

list? Bacteria from the cow's udders are transferred

to that milk. Bacterial counts increase while the milk

sits in your refrigerator. In a week or so, you'll pour

sour milk down the drain. Is your faith strong

enough, or will you get ill?

What day of the week will you drink enough toxins

to cause you to become one of the 80 million

Americans who get food poisoning each year?

Are you a member of the average American family

of four? One of you will be stricken. Why increase

the odds by eating products that have been identified

as harboring dangerous germs?

Cases of contaminated milk and dairy products have

been well documented. Dairy represents forty percent

of what the average American eats. According

to USDA food consumption data, the average

American eats 5 ounces of meat and chicken each

day and 29.2 ounces of milk and dairy.

There have been thousands of recalls of dairy products

that were serious enough to make headline news.

One wonders how many incidents do not get into

the newspapers. Eighty million cases of food borne

illness should send a message to all consumers.

Drink body fluids from diseased animals, and

you too might end up with disease.

PMS and Dairy Consumption

No doctor or scientist can say with 100% confidence what causes

Pre-menstrual Syndrome, or PMS. All that is known for sure is that

nothing is known for sure. Symptoms of PMS include mood swings,

depression, irritability, anxiety, crying spells, often accompanied

by bouts of acne, diarrhea or constipation, joint pain, and cravings

for such food items as ice cream and cheese. The dairy link to each

of the above PMS-like symptoms has been supported by publications

in peer-reviewed scientific journals. See:


A Google search will confirm many links to sites that take a position

that the consumption of dairy either causes PMS or worsens the vast

array of symptoms. See:


I find it remarkable that the dairy industry, lacking evidence, has

now jumped on the PMS bandwagon claiming that dairy consumption is



Surges of estrogen and progesterone at the proper time naturally

regulate a woman's menstrual cycle. Estrogen defines a woman's

essence, just as testosterone define's a man's. In her entire

lifetime, a woman naturally manufactures the equivalent of just

one-half tablespoon of estrogen. Horse estrogen (pregnant mare

urine, or Premarin) is often prescribed for post-menopausal women

to prevent bone loss.

Milk and dairy products naturally contain estrogen and progesterone

and other very powerful female hormones. Cows are often milked

before they give birth, and hormones such as prolactin, PIF,

oxytocin, melatonin, follicle stimulating homorne, lutenizing

hormone and others are consumed by women who are not about to

birth calves.

The natural secretion of such vast and varied amounts of these

hormones would never naturally occur in these women. The

internal secretion of these powerful behavior modifiers could

very well confuse the heck out of end response organs. Got PMS?

Then get rid of milk and dairy, and you'll experience a

magnificent change for the better.

Mood swings, depression, and irritability? I've heard these things

before as they apply to dairy. In May of 1995, Dr. Julie Klotter

wrote the following article in the Townsend Medical Letter:

"In reality, cow's milk, especially processed cow's milk, has

been linked to a variety of health problems, including: mucous

production, hemoglobin loss, childhood diabetes, heart disease,

atherosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings,

depression, irritability, and allergies."

So, regarding your PMS, who is there to believe? The people on

Madison Avenue who bring cute and offensive PMS ads to the world,

making fun of PMS in such a way that makes grown male chauvinists

laugh, while placing those with PMS into deeper depressions, or

is it now time to listen carefully to the Notmilk guy who offers

you the real scientific connections to PMS?

How to start one's day? Place ten sugar pills in front of you.

Label the first: estrogen. The second: progesterone. The third:

prolactin. The fourth: oxytonin. Be sure and take your melatonin,

LH, FSH, IGF-1, GH too. Add about thirty gastrointestinal

peptides, one dozen or so hypothalmic hormones, and you've got

one heck of a hormonal breakfast. Or...have a bowl of

cereal with milk. Same thing. Oh, yes. Please try not to take

the dairy influcence out on your significant other and/or children.

Recognize what it is and eliminate the cause. Find the cure.


The Calcium Dairy Lie

The longer a lie is promoted, the more readily it is

received. Dairy lies have continued for generations.

Milk and dairy consumption does not prevent hip fractures.

Scientific studies prove that the opposite is true. If you

seek a recipe for your own future osteoporosis, drink

plenty of milk and become a Wisconsin cheesehead.

A publication in the February, 2003 issue of the American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 77, No. 2, 504-511)

clearly demonstrates that eighteen years of milk consumption

did not prevent hip fractures for post-menopausal women.

How many subjects participated in the study?

A mere 72,337. As part of Walter Willett's Harvard Nurses

Study, investigator Diane Feskanich performed statistical

tests of significance for 18 years of data including dietary

intake of calcium (dairy and supplements) to determine her


The conclusion reached from this observational analyses, is

that dietary calcium plays little or no role in preventing

bone loss. Drinking milk does not prevent osteoporosis. A

total of 603 hip fractures were analyzed. Scientists

determined that milk consumption was in no way associated

with hip fracture risk. The same conclusion was reached for

total calcium consumption.

The Harvard Nurses study previously determined that there is

no positive association between teenaged milk consumption

and the risk of adult fractures. (American Journal of Public

Health 1997;87). As a matter of fact, just the opposite was

found to be true. Women consuming greater amounts of calcium

from dairy foods suffered significantly increased risks of

hip fractures.

In light of these findings, the dairy industry milk mustache

campaign has been proven to be one enormous deception. Bones

break because women eating the wrong foods create an acid

condition in their own bloodstreams, which must be

neutralized by available calcium. The body achieves balance

by taking calcium out of its own bones. Ergo, people eating

the greatest amount of total animal protein are the ones

experiencing accelerated rates of bone loss. The same

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (1995; 61, 4) confirmed this


"Dietary protein increases production of acid in the blood

which can be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the


Eighteen years earlier, as the Harvard Nurses study was just

beginning, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

(1979;32,4) reported:

"Even when eating 1,400 mg of calcium daily, one can lose up

to 4% of his or her bone mass each year while consuming a

high-protein diet."

Why do you imagine that these same scientific studies have

not be publicized in magazines or reported on TV news,

or headlined in your local newspaper? Because truth lacks

one critical ingredient. Cash. For a story to be released,

it must often be accompanied by paid dairy industry advertising.

In this deceptively dangerous manner, most of us receive our

biased and compromised health information.

Milk? It does not do the body good.

this is a start.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
:tu: Merci beaucoup i admit I'm not the link queen .... :D:w00t::w00t:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

looked up the link, scrolled, randomly clicked and had to laugh...

Targeting Blacks With Extreme Prejudice

Blaming problems black people have on milk. :lol:

Milk - facts and fallacies

Milk is an excellent source of vitamins and minerals, particularly calcium. It has long been recognised for its important role in bone health. Nutritionists recommend that milk and other dairy products should be consumed daily as part of a balanced diet. There is some inaccurate information around in the general community about the health benefits of milk. Changing your milk intake on the basis of these fallacies may mean you are unnecessarily restricting this highly nutritious drink.

Milk contains many different nutrients

Milk and milk products contain a good balance of protein, fat and carbohydrate and are a very important source of essential nutrients including:




Vitamins A, D and B12

Pantothenic acid.

Milk products also contain 'high quality proteins' that are well suited to human needs. Milk proteins increase the value of poorer quality cereal and vegetable proteins in the diet by providing the amino acids these proteins lack.

Milk and health conditions

Australians tend to restrict dairy foods when they try to lose weight, believing them to be fattening. Dairy foods contain saturated fats, which have been associated with increased blood cholesterol levels. However, dairy foods are not a threat to good health if consumed in moderation as part of a nutritious diet. Some research findings include:

Osteoporosis - if milk and milk products are removed from the diet, it can lead to an inadequate intake of calcium. This is of particular concern for women, who have high calcium needs. Calcium deficiency may lead to disorders like osteoporosis (a disease characterised by bone loss).

Colon cancer - recent studies have found that people who regularly eat dairy products have a reduced risk of developing colon cancer.

Blood pressure - research in the US found that a high intake of fruits and vegetables, combined with low fat dairy foods, lowered blood pressure more than fruits and vegetables alone.

Type 2 diabetes - a 10-year study of 3,000 overweight adults found that consuming milk and other milk products instead of refined sugars and carbohydrates may protect overweight young adults from developing type 2 diabetes.

Flavoured milk

A recent US study reported that children who avoid milk tend to be fatter than children who drink milk. This may be because milk is being replaced by high energy drinks such as fruit juice or soft drinks.

As children move into adolescence, the time they need the most calcium, they tend to drink less milk and more sugary soft drinks. As milk is a healthier choice, it is worth encouraging children to drink flavoured milk rather than soft drinks.

Milk and tooth decay

Milk and milk products are thought to protect against tooth decay. Eating cheese and other dairy products:

Reduces oral acidity (which causes decay)

Stimulates saliva flow

Decreases plaque formation

Decreases the incidence of dental caries.

Modified milks explained

There are many types of modified milks on the market, including:

Full cream - full cream milk contains around four per cent fat and is a rich source of vitamins A and D. For children up to the age of two years, full cream milk is recommended.

Reduced fat - expect around half as much fat in reduced fat milk as full cream. Children over the age of two years can drink reduced fat milk.

Skim milk - contains less than one per cent fat. Children older than five years can safely consume skim milk. Both reduced fat and skim milk have vitamin A and D added to replace the naturally occurring vitamins that are reduced when the fat is removed.

Calcium enriched - generally, milks that are enriched with extra calcium are also fat reduced. A 250ml glass of milk contains 420-450mg of calcium.

Unpasteurised - pasteurisation kills bacteria and reduces the amount of some vitamins, such as vitamin C. However, unpasteurised milk is a health hazard because of the dangers of bacterial diseases.

Flavoured - these milks can either be full cream or reduced fat. However, most varieties contain a lot of sugar.

UHT (ultra-high temperature-treated) milk - allows milk to be stored for long periods.

Milk and mucous

Many people in Australia believe that nasal stuffiness is related, in part, to how much milk you drink. However, there is no scientific basis to this theory. Milk doesn't encourage extra mucous production.

Cow's milk versus goat's milk

Some people switch to goat's milk because of perceived sensitivities to cow's milk. If a person has an allergic sensitivity, it is usually due to one or more of the proteins in milk. The proteins in goat's milk are closely related to those in cow's milk so replacing one type of milk with the other usually doesn't make any difference. Milk allergies are more common in very young children and most tend to grow out of them or build up a tolerance to milk.

Lactose intolerance

Lactose is a type of carbohydrate or sugar that naturally occurs in milk from any mammal, including humans. Normally, an enzyme in the small intestine called lactase breaks down lactose so it can be absorbed into the bloodstream. Some people don't produce enough lactase so undigested lactose is broken up by the bacteria in the large intestine causing gas, bloating, pain and diarrhoea. This condition is called 'lactose intolerance'. You can be born lactose intolerant or develop it later in life. If you think you may be lactose intolerant, see your doctor.

Most people can have small amounts of dairy products

Milk and milk products are highly nutritious, so people who suffer from lactose intolerance should not give them up entirely. You can still consume milk in moderate quantities. You can also buy lactose-free milk. Most people can tolerate the amount of lactose in:

Half a cup of milk

Three quarters of a cup of icecream

Three quarters of a cup of yoghurt

Half a cup of white sauce

Three quarters of a cup of unripened cheeses like cottage or ricotta.

Some dairy foods contain less lactose

Some dairy foods contain less lactose than others, and may be better for people who suffer from lactose intolerance. For example:

Fermented milk products including some yoghurts, mature cheeses (like cheddar cheese, fetta and mozzarella) and butter generally pose no tolerance problems.

Heated milk products, such as evaporated milk, seem to be better tolerated than unheated foods because the heating process breaks down some of the lactose.

Foods that contain lactose are better tolerated if eaten with other foods or spread out over the day, rather than being eaten in large amounts at once.

Hidden lactose

Foods that may contain hidden lactose include:

Biscuits and cakes

Processed breakfast cereals

Cheese sauce

Cream soups


Milk chocolate

Pancakes and pikelets

Scrambled eggs


Muesli bars

Some breads

Some margarines (containing milk).

If you are trying to avoid lactose, look for the following ingredients in lists on food labels:

Milk solids

Non-fat milk solids


Milk sugar.

Soy is also a good alternative

Soy foods are lactose free and a good substitute for milk or milk products if fortified with calcium. Soy milk, custard, yoghurt and cheese are now widely available in Australia.

Other sources of calcium

Although milk is an excellent source of calcium, it isn't the only one. Other good sources include:

Cheese, especially hard cheeses


Calcium-fortified soy products

Calcium-fortified cereals, orange juice

Fish with edible bones, like canned salmon and sardines

Some nuts (almonds, brazil nuts)

Sesame seeds (tahini)

Dried fruit (figs, apricots)

Dark green leafy vegetables (Asian greens like bok choy).

Daily calcium requirements

To meet the body's daily calcium requirement, it is recommended that you eat three serves of dairy products a day. One serve is equivalent to:

250ml of milk

35g (one matchbox-sized piece) of cheese

200g yoghurt

200g (four small scoops) of icecream.

Milk products that are poor calcium sources include cream, cottage cheese, ricotta cheese and cream cheese.

People who do not eat any dairy products may have difficulty meeting their daily calcium requirements. They will need to pay special attention to other dietary sources of calcium.

Where to get help

Your doctor

Gastroenterologist (your doctor can refer you)


Things to remember

Milk is an excellent source of calcium and other essential nutrients.

There are many modified milks available.

Lactose intolerance is caused by an inability to digest milk sugars.

Flavoured milks are preferable to soft drinks and fruit drinks, especially for children.


Another claim I saw on that site is milk is laced with hormones that they are blaming on children reaching puberty early.

There is no scientific evidence that drinking milk causes early puberty.

The latest hypothesis is that a high fat diet could be the culprit. On the other hand, milk is a very significant source of calcium and should not be eliminated during puberty. Pre-teen girls (9 and up) need 1300 mg of calcium a day since this is the "window of time" during late childhood and adolescence when calcium is deposited in bone.


Another one of their claims... Lactose Intolerance.

People with lactose intolerance can enjoy dairy foods, if eaten in small quantities with meals.

People with lactose intolerance have trouble digesting the natural sugar in milk and may experience bloating or stomach discomfort if they drink large quantities of milk. It is important to know that lactose intolerance is not the same thing as a milk allergy, which causes a reaction to the protein in the milk.

The good news is that recent research has shown that most people who are lactose intolerant can actually consume up to 2 cups of milk per day without symptoms if spread out over the day, e.g. one cup at breakfast and one at dinner. The recommended number of servings from the milk/dairy group can also be obtained by eating cheese and yogurt, which are generally better tolerated than milk.

Try some of the following tips to manage your lactose intolerance and learn what works best for you:

Drink milk and eat dairy foods with meals and snacks.

Drink and eat dairy products in smaller, more frequent servings.

Choose dairy foods that are more easily digested. These include whole and chocolate milk, aged or ripened cheeses like cheddar and Swiss, ice cream and ice milk.

Eat yogurt with active cultures. The bacterial cultures breakdown the milk sugar (lactose) in these products. The "good bacteria" found in yogurt also enhances your health.

Look for lactose-reduced products in your dairy case.

Take Lactaid® tablets or drops before consuming dairy products.


I found this one interesting as well...

Organic milk is identical in composition to regular milk.

All milk must comply with very stringent safety standards and is among the most highly regulated and safest foods on the shelf. While organic dairy farmers use only organic fertilizers and organic pesticides, and their cows are not given supplemental hormones, the milk itself is identical to the milk produced conventionally. Stringent government standards that include testing all types of milk for antibiotic and pesticide residues ensure that both organic milk and conventional milk are pure, safe and nutritious.


Again, I've been drinking milk all my life and I'm perfectly fine. I've never even had a broken bone. ;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as 'organic milk" is the mindset we have, i would not nor have i allowed my child to drink milk, It us finally be posted in the whole foods the dangers of milk...The latest being the chemical percholate it affects the thyroid and for an infant and growing child THAT is dangerous.......also childhood cancers are largely alluded to the consumption of milk and dairy......

IMO the dairy industry are monsters........Your nineteen???ever had a cold?? a runny nose??? a headache??? ever hear of prostate cancer????

It is no secret that milk is not good for you you drink it at your own risk......

Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as 'organic milk" is the mindset we have, i would not nor have i allowed my child to drink milk, It us finally be posted in the whole foods the dangers of milk...The latest being the chemical percholate it affects the thyroid and for an infant and growing child THAT is dangerous.......also childhood cancers are largely alluded to the consumption of milk and dairy......

IMO the dairy industry are monsters........

This is so bad? :


While the majority of dairy-weight management studies have been conducted with adults, researchers have found that dairy may play a role in promoting a healthy weight or preventing an unhealthy weight gain among children and adolescents. Some studies have shown that a higher intake of dairy foods is associated with a lower percentage of body fat among children and teenagers.

In adolescent Asian and Caucasian girls ages 9-14, total and dairy calcium intake, but not non-dairy calcium, was associated with lower body fat. One milk serving was associated with decreased body fat measured by skinfold thickness while soda intake was associated with greater body weight. Researchers concluded that decreasing soda and increasing dairy consumption among girls, particularly Asians, may help maintain body fat and weight during adolescence. Novotny R, Daida YG, Acharya S, Grove JS, Vogt TM. Dairy intake is associated with lower body fat and soda intake with greater weight in adolescent girls. Journal of Nutrition. 2004; 134(8):1905-1909.

Researchers at Creighton University evaluated the influence of diet on weight gain during 2 years of a study originally designed to investigate the effects of a calcium-rich diet on bone health. Participants were randomly assigned to a calcium-rich diet supplying at least 1,500 mg of calcium per day (primarily from dairy foods) or their usual diet. While the girls on the calcium-rich diet consumed about 150 more calories per day, they did not have greater increases in body weight, BMI or fat mass compared to girls consuming their usual diets at approximately 900 mg of calcium per day. Lappe JM, Rafferty KA, Davies KM, Lypaczewski G. Girls on a high-calcium diet gain weight at the same rate as girls on a normal diet: A pilot study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2004; 104:1361-1367.

Researchers followed 196 non-obese 8-12 year-old girls for 10 years. They found no evidence that dairy food or calcium consumption is associated with changes in BMI or body fat during adolescence. The researchers concluded that there is no scientific basis for teenagers who are concerned about weight gain or body fat levels to exclude the recommended amounts of dairy foods from their diets. Phillips SM, Bandini LG, Cyr H, Cloclough-Douglas S, Naumova E, Must A. Dairy food consumption and body weight and fatness studied longitudinally over the adolescent period. International Journal of Obesity. 2003; 27:1106-13.

A study in Italy evaluated the relationship between milk consumption and body mass in nearly 900 children ages 5-11 years. The researchers found an association between higher milk consumption and lower BMI z-scores, when controlling for sex, age, physical activity, birth weight, parental overweight and education. Barba G, Troiano E, Russo P, Venezia A, Siani A. Inverse association between body mass and frequency of milk consumption in children. British Journal of Nutrition. 2005; 93(1):15-19.

Researchers evaluated dairy intake in relation to changes in body fat in 99 children followed over 12 years from ages 2-3 to 12-13 in the Framingham Children's Study. Children who consumed the fewest dairy servings per day had statistically greater gains in BMI and body fat than those who consumed more dairy from childhood to early adolescence. The researchers concluded that low levels of dairy may be associated with a greater acquisition of body fat during childhood. Moore LL, Singer MR, Bradlee ML, Gao DI, Hood M, Ellison RC. Low intakes of dairy products in early childhood may increase body fat acquisition. Obesity Research 2003; 11(S): 130-OR.

Children who ate more dairy foods and had moderate intake of dietary fat gained less weight and fat than children who ate fewer dairy foods and had low or high intakes of dietary fat. Moore LL, Singer MR, Bradlee ML, Ellison RC. Dietary predictors of excess body fat acquisition during childhood. Circulation 2004; 109(7):5, No. 3.

In a sample of 603 children ages 4-12, those who consumed more ready-to-eat cereal with milk had lower BMIs and were at lower risk for being overweight than children who ate less ready-to eat cereal with milk. Calcium intakes were higher for the high cereal consumers who also had a more appropriate body weight. Furthermore, children who ate more ready-to-eat cereal with milk had better nutrient intake profiles including lower fat and cholesterol intake but greater intake of vitamins A, B-6, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folate, calcium, iron, and zinc. Albertson AM, et al. Ready-to-eat cereal consumption: its relationship with BMI and nutrient intake of children aged 4 to 12 years. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003; 103(12):1613-1619.

In children followed from age 2 to 8, a higher dietary calcium intake from calcium-rich foods like milk, cheese and yogurt was associated with a lower percentage of body fat. Skinner JD, Bonds W, Carruth BR, Ziegler P. Longitudinal calcium intake is negatively related to children's body fat indexes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003; 103(12):1626-1631.

By reviewing diet questionnaires of overweight and normal-weight 10- to 14- year-old students, Hungarian researchers found that the heaviest children had the lowest intake of calcium from dairy foods. Lelovics, Z and Tarnavolgyi, G. Relation between calcium intake and obesity. Presented at the 13th European Congress on Obesity. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 2004; Supplement 1(28): S169. Abstract.

Obese Greek adolescents 11, 13, and 15 years were found to skip breakfast more and eat less fruits and milk than normal weight Greek students. Tsakalou Z, et al. Prevalence of obesity/overweight and eating habits in Greek adolescents. Presented at the 13th European Congress on Obesity. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 2004; Supplement 1(28): S203. Abstract.

A study of 1701 children from 3rd to 7th grade in nine schools in Chile found a significant association between obesity and low intake of dairy products. While intake of energy-dense foods and TV watching time appeared as risk factors, only dairy consumption was associated with a significant inverse association with obesity. Olivares S, Kain J, Lera L, Pizarro F, Vio F, Moro'n C. Nutritional status, food consumption and physical activity among Chilean school children: A descriptive study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004. 58:1278-1285.

Researchers followed 12,829 children ages 9 to 14 from the Growing Up Today Study from 1996 to 1999. Using food frequency questionnaires and self-reported height and weight, they found that children who consumed more than 3 servings of milk per day gained significantly more in BMI than those who drank fewer servings. However, when the analysis was adjusted for energy, milk intake had no significant effect on increase in BMI and total energy was found to be the most important predictor of increase in BMI. The authors concluded that milk itself was not responsible for the weight gain in this cohort, but rather added calories. In a previous report of the Growing Up Today Study by the same researchers (Rockett HR, Berkey CS, Field AE, Colditz GA. Cross-sectional measurement of nutrient intake among adolescents in 1996. Preventive Medicine. 2001; 33:27-37), they reported that overweight participants consumed fewer dairy products than non-overweight youths. Berkey CS, Helain RS, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Milk, dairy fat, dietary calcium, and weight gain: A longitudinal study of adolescents. Archives of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine. 2005; 159:543-550.

For more information about the science supporting dairy and weight management, visit:






How Do You Know If You're Lactose Intolerant?

If you have frequent stomach pain, bloating, gas, or diarrhea, it's important to see your doctor. Do not diagnose yourself. Your symptoms could be signs of something more serious than lactose intolerance. Your doctor can recommend a simple test to determine if you are lactose intolerant.

If you have lactose intolerance, your body can't fully digest the amount of lactose (the major sugar found in milk) consumed. Most people who have trouble digesting lactose have low levels of an enzyme called lactase (i.e., lactose maldigesters).

Myths About Lactose Intolerance

Myth: If you are diagnosed with low levels of the enzyme lactase, you should avoid all milk and milk products.

Fact: Many lactose maldigesters (people with low lactase levels) can drink 1 cup of milk a day with a meal - or up to 2 cups; one with breakfast, the other with dinner - without developing symptoms. Others, however, are affected after eating much smaller amounts of lactose. Also, the type of milk or milk product and the conditions under which it is eaten can affect how well you handle lactose. See the "Rules to Live By" section for tips on how to reduce your chance of symptoms.

Myth: You will always get symptoms after eating foods with lactose if your body has low levels of lactase.

Fact: Many people with low lactase levels (i.e., lactose maldigesters) don't even know it. That's because lactose maldigesters can still digest some lactose and will only develop symptoms when they eat more lactose than their enzyme level can handle.

Myth: It is not important for you to consume milk or milk products if you're a lactose maldigester, or have been diagnosed as lactose intolerant (i.e., develop symptoms after a test dose of lactose).

Fact: Giving up milk and milk products is unnecessary, nutritionally unwise, and not recommended. About 73% of the calcium in the American food supply comes from the Milk Group. In fact, it's hard to find a better source of readily available calcium! Plus, milk and milk products provide important nutrients your body needs, including calcium, protein, riboflavin, vitamins A, D (when fortified), and B12, phosphorus, magnesium, and potassium. Research shows that people who get ample amounts of calcium may reduce their risk of osteoporosis (weak bones that easily fracture), hypertension (high blood pressure), and some cancers.

Myth: If your body can't absorb lactose, it also can't absorb the calcium in milk.

Fact: Calcium is absorbed just as well whether or not you can digest lactose. But if you have lactose intolerance (symptoms) and cut back on milk (and therefore calcium), you may be putting yourself at greater risk of osteoporosis. Your health care provider can help you come up with strategies for including calcium-rich milk and milk-products in your diet.

Myth: Lactose is found only in milk and milk products.

Fact: Lactose is found in many foods you probably wouldn't suspect, including bread and other baked goods, processed breakfast cereals, and instant potato soups. A food contains lactose if the ingredient list mentions any of the following words: milk, whey, curds, milk by-products, dry milk solids, or nonfat dry milk powder. Lactose may also be present in small amounts in prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications. Ask your doctor or registered dietician if the medication you are taking contains lactose.

Did You Know?

Most adults need 1,000 mg of calcium a day. You can meet your needs by consuming at least 3 servings from the Milk Group each day.

Many individuals who have trouble digesting lactose can drink at least 1 cup of milk with a meal such as breakfast or dinner without any symptoms.

Six Rules To Live By

Easy Ways To Enjoy Milk And Milk Products If You're Lactose Intolerant

1. Pair the Milk. Drink milk in servings of 1 cup or less along with meals or snacks. If you still get symptoms, try even smaller amounts more often throughout the day.

2. Older is Wiser. Try natural aged or ripened cheeses such as Swiss and cheddar. Not only do these cheeses contain little, if any, lactose, but they are an important source of calcium and other essential nutrients.

3. Get a Little "Culture." Choose yogurts that carry the "live and active cultures" seal. These "friendly" cultures act like lactase since they "break down" the lactose in the digestive tract. If you're having sweet acidophilus milk, cultured buttermilk, or yogurt without active cultures, have small servings with meals or other foods.

4. Chill Out. Small (1/2 cup) servings of ice cream or frozen yogurt can cool you down - usually without causing symptoms.

5. Reduce It. You can buy lactose-reduced and lactose-free milk and milk products in many grocery stores. Feeling adventuresome? You can make your own lactose-reduced milk by treating it with a lactase enzyme available in many pharmacies. Or, take a lactase tablet just before eating a lactose-containing food.

6. Go to the Pros. Call your doctor, registered dietician, or other health care provider for help in finding ways to enjoy milk and milk products if you have difficulty digesting lactose.

On The Lookout For Lactose?

Product Lactose (grams)

Milk (all types), 1 cup 12-13

Yogurt, 1 cup 12-12

Ice Cream, 1/2 cup 3-3.5

Cottage Cheese, 1/2 cup 2-3

American Cheese, 1 1/2 oz 1.5-3

Swiss Cheese, 1 1/2 oz 1.5-3

Cheddar Cheese, 1 1/2 oz 1.5-3

Process Cheese, 2 oz 4-6

Sardines, 3 oz 0

Salmon w/ Bones (canned), 3 oz 0

Tofu (processed w/ calcium salts), 3 oz 0

Broccoli (cooked), 1/2 cup 0

Collard Greens (cooked), 1/2 cup 0

Source: National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse. Lactose Intolerance, 1994.


Last time I checked this was about the milk, health or not?, as well. No need to go off topic.

Not much beats warm chocolate chip cookies with a nice tall glass of cold milk. ^_^

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

by all means kratos, take the word of the milk boards. Of course they don't have an agenda now, do they? :rolleyes:

Lets see, milk is the perfect food for infants (within species). It is designed to provide everything necessary until the offspring can eat other foods. It is provides fats for rapid weight gain, it provides opiate-like drugs to stimulate consumption, it provides GROWTH HORMONES (cancerous cells thrive on growth hormones), it contains casien - what glue is made from. It FAILS to provide calcium in a format that can be absrbed by the body. It is an acid-forming food. It actually increases the acidity of the mouth (if you read non-biased research on this).


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Psuedo B.S. I am familair with the sources they are all the dairy industry.... is what that is clearly you can see for yourself ....You are aware of the obesity rate over the last 20 years or better???? You are buying the milk claims.....Its a really good story too....We like really good storys......Have you ever had a cold??? How about a runny nose?????Or a headache.......I guess people do beleive anything ....lol

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I've been drinking milk all my life and I'm perfectly fine. I've never even had a broken bone. ;)

Ugggh, I hate milk (I like Ice Cream, but I can't stand any other dairy product)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

by all means kratos, take the word of the milk boards. Of course they don't have an agenda now, do they? :rolleyes:

So you're telling me anti-milk people don't get donations and such from people going from their cause?

Are you even reading the notmilk.com source? They're actually blaming child rape on milk! Oh, you think I'm kidding, read: STATUTORY RAPE SELLS MILK

Psuedo B.S. I am familair with the sources they are all the dairy industry.... is what that is clearly you can see for yourself ....You are aware of the obesity rate over the last 20 years or better???? You are buying the milk claims.....Its a really good story too....We like really good storys......Have you ever had a cold??? How about a runny nose?????Or a headache.......I guess people do beleive anything ....lol

Oh, so just reject them because you don't like it? :huh: I know milk isn't perfect but it's still good for you and I.

A cold, runny nose and headache are all pretty common. Not to mention I already take enough supplements to help my health.

Ugggh, I hate milk (I like Ice Cream, but I can't stand any other dairy product)

Don't drink it then? I don't like squid so I don't eat it when I go to a chinese buffet. Simple as that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my 20's i fell from a truck doing 40 miles per hour onto a dirt road, i hit head first to i broke nothing, i was sore and bruised up ..... the doctors couldn't beleive it...i attribute it to NOT drinking milk like you AVin i found it to be disgusting...I haven't touched it since a kid (4) My grandmohter quit trying to make me drink it.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my 20's i fell from a truck doing 40 miles per hour onto a dirt road, i hit head first to i broke nothing, i was sore and bruised up ..... the doctors couldn't beleive it...i attribute it to NOT drinking milk like you AVin i found it to be disgusting...I haven't touched it since a kid (4) My grandmohter quit trying to make me drink it.....

At 14, I fell out of a moving van's side door going 30 mph, hit the concrete and into a mail box. Cut me up pretty bad and left some wicked bruises across my body. Didn't break a single bone. I guess I can thank milk for that. :tu:

If you don't like milk, don't drink it. Nobody is forcing you to. :blink:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me anti-milk people don't get donations and such from people going from their cause?

Are you even reading the notmilk.com source? They're actually blaming child rape on milk! Oh, you think I'm kidding, read: STATUTORY RAPE SELLS MILK

Oh, so just reject them because you don't like it? :huh: I know milk isn't perfect but it's still good for you and I.

A cold, runny nose and headache are all pretty common. Not to mention I already take enough supplements to help my health.

Don't drink it then? I don't like squid so I don't eat it when I go to a chinese buffet. Simple as that.

NO they aren't unless you are a milk and dairy consumer...Why are you taking supplements, i take no supplements I'm a vegan.....

That makes no sense what would the cause be kratos???they aren't selling anything....Milk is so far from perfect its not even funny.....Look Drink milk but to say its great and does all these things for you is out right lies..FDA thinks so too..the rate of osteophorosus is extremely high in the US and we are also a huge consumer of dairy and milk according to them we shouldn't have it but its BS ...do you drink soda kratos???????? How about coffee?????

Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cows' milk, diabetes connection bolstered

By N. Seppa

Many studies have linked cows' milk consumed by babies to subsequent diabetes, but some researchers still doubt that it causes the disease. The association is based on animal experiments, they note, or indirect evidence (SN: 10/19/96, p. 249), such as studies in which parents of diabetic children try to recollect when their babies first started drinking milk-based formula.

Now, Finnish researchers have avoided the vagaries of poor recall by studying children from birth. In so doing, they have added to the case against cows' milk.

By monitoring babies in diabetes-prone families, the scientists find that infants getting formula that includes cows' milk are more likely later to develop the immune reactions associated with juvenile-onset, or type I, diabetes than are babies getting a substitute. The scientists reported the findings this week in San Diego at the 59th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The researchers tracked, until age 8 months, 173 newborns in Finland who had a close relative with type I diabetes. To augment their mothers' milk, half of these babies received milk-based formula and the rest got a formula in which the cows' milk proteins had been broken into fragments called peptides. The two formulas taste and smell the same, so parents and researchers didn't know which one a baby was drinking.

Babies' immune systems largely ignore cows' milk proteins that have been chopped up. However, contact with one intact protein in cows' milk, bovine insulin, may set off a destructive process, suggest immunologist Outi Vaarala and her colleagues at the University of Helsinki. The immune system would attack pancreas islet cells that make human insulin, which resembles bovine insulin, and would produce antibodies.

At 2 years of age, 10 of 89 children getting cows' milk formula had formed antibodies associated with type I diabetes. However, only 3 of 84 babies receiving the treated milk showed these antibodies, says Hans K. Akerblom, a pediatrician at the University of Helsinki.

These autoimmune antibodies, or autoantibodies, are made by immune B cells and appear to dispose of damaged pancreatic islet cells, says Hans-Michael Dosch, an immunologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. The antibodies indicate that bovine insulin might be spurring an immune system T-cell reaction against the child's own islet cells, he says. Insulin regulates sugar metabolism in the body.

Research had already determined that having one type of autoantibody to insulin indicates that a baby has roughly a 4 in 10 chance of contracting type I diabetes within the next decade, says study coauthor Suvi M. Virtanen, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Tampere in Finland. Having more types of these autoantibodies is a sign of greater risk; having three imparts an 80 to 90 percent likelihood of getting type I diabetes. In this study, 3 of the 10 children in the cows' milk group who had diabetes-related autoantibodies showed one type of such antibody, and the rest had two or more.

The precise cause of diabetes remains unclear. The children in the study were genetically predisposed to it, but most will never get the disease. Something in the environment or diet may trigger it.

Some researchers suggest that changing a predisposed child's diet might derail the disease. However, the proteins and calcium in cows' milk impart great benefits, Akerblom says. "None of this [research] is strong enough ... to start changing habits about how mothers raise children," he warns.

Dosch agrees but notes that the evidence against cows' milk is piling up. As an example, he cites research from Puerto Rico. There, fewer than 5 percent of mothers breast-feed their children. Instead, nearly all use formula made from cows' milk. Meanwhile, type I diabetes incidence in Puerto Rico is roughly 10 times the rate seen in Cuba, where breast-feeding is nearly universal.

Such findings suggest that the problem may be cows' milk ingested in the first few months of life. After all, Dosch says, "we are the only species that drinks another species' milk. It's a weird thing. We have not evolved to be exposed to [bovine insulin] protein."


by Robert M. Kradjian, MD


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. 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 thousand 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 4o 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:

"Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437

"Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906

"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 occult 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), occult 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 till 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 pasteurised 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 No. 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:

"Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa". Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980): 80

"Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus". Science 213 (1981): 1014

"Beware of the Cow". (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30

"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. Hegsted 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 plant 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 fibre 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


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 died 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?

Robert M. Kradjian, MD

Breast Surgery Chief

Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre

#302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave.

Daly City, CA, USA



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO they aren't unless you are a milk and dairy consumer...Why are you taking supplements, i take no supplements I'm a vegan.....

That makes sense what would the cause be kratos???they aren't selling anything....Milk is so far from perfect its not even funny.....Look Drink milk but to say its great and does all these things for you is out right lies..FDA thinks so too..the rate of osteophorosus is extremely high in the US and we are also a huge consumer of dairy and milk according to them we shouldn't have it but its BS ...do you drink soda kratos???????? How about coffee?????

So my runny nose on chilly day is to blame on milk? :blink: Yeah... :rolleyes:

I take them cause I'm lazy. :P I don't have to take them, just an extra boost. I only started this last month and I was fine and healthy before then, just figure they can't kill me. :lol:

Humans have been drinking milk for a very, very long time. We've lasted this long as a spieces, I think we'll last a bit longer.

Yes, I drink soda and coffee. (ha! I even have milk in my coffee! :lol: ) And I'm still doing fine. It's all in moderation. Cept the coffee on some day. :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A central point of the Got milk ad campaigns is we need to drink milk to get calcium, the dairy council states its very difficult to get enough calcium without milk due to bio-availability...sounds convincing eh????

so what is the rate of calcium absortion from veges vrs milk??????

brussel sprouts 63.8percent absortion, mustard greens. 59 %, Broccolli 52.6%, Turnip grens 51.6 % Kale 50 % and finally cow's milk 32 %...

Kratos no offence but you need to research and question claims....

Now according to the dairy industry to get 300 mg of bio-available calcium ( 1 cup of milk) they say you have to eat 11 cups of kidney beans, 8 cups cooked spinach, 2 cups sesame seeds, 2 large cups calcium processed tofu or 2 cups of broccolli......Again sounds connvincing but the truth is according to (bowes and churches food values of portioins commonly used) its NOT EVEN CLOSE TO TRUE......you see one cup of milk contains 300mg of calcium but only 32 percent (96mg) is bio-available you can get that from 1.5 cups of broccolli 1/2 cup of firm tofu.....

Cofee and Soda deplete calcium FYI........

Edited by Sheri berri

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is silly.

If milk was bad for you, infants wouldn't be drinking it.

And I am always drinking milk, I drink around 1.5L a day, and I break people's bones when I accidentlky kick them...? It's good, but bad.

Around 5 broken bones in this school alone.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.