deadly dairy

8/6/2019 Deadly Dairy

1/68

DEADLY DAIRY

Edited by Energie et Harmonie , Paris - London

URL : http://www.energyharmony.org

Mail : energyharmony (at) sfr.fr / tel. +33(0)6 71 28 02 38

by Claude SIMON, PhD - Dipl. Nutr.


2/68

- 1 -


3/68

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Claude SIMON is a nutritionist trained both in the ancestral

oriental tradition and with modern scientific methods in

English and American universities. He teaches, advises and

guides patients to help them control the effects of stress andnutrition on their health. His holistic approach helps maintain

and reinforce immune defences, and reduce drastically the

risk of illness. He holds a nutrition diploma from Ashworth

University (Atlanta GA, USA). He is also a shiatsu practitioner

trained by Shizuko YAMAMOTO (New York NY, USA) and Dr

Michio KUSHI (Cambridge Mass., USA). He was awarded aPhD from the University of London (University College) in

psycholinguistics and child developement.

Dr SIMON possesses extensive international experience.

He spent over ten years teaching and doing research for

English and American Universities in the development of

communication skills. He then studied adult communicationbehaviour in business environment in the US and Europe. His

experience as change project manager made him aware of the

importance of the individual global balance for a harmonious

team operation. He is co-founder of a non-profit organisation

Energie & Harmonie , started in 2004 in Paris, France.

- 2 -


4/68

Energie & Harmonie aims at informing, training and coaching

all those who wish to understand and control the risks of

modern living and eating habits. The organisation encourages

and coaches individual and collective efforts to improve

physical and mental balance, especially through improving

eating behaviour and optimising stress management. By

looking at each person as a unique individual living in a specific

environment, unique solutions can be adapted to the needs

of each person. Standardised recipes and statistical diagnosis

cannot offer long-lasting solutions to anyone.

Energie & Harmonie organises practical healthy-cooking

workshops in elementary schools and social centres. The

association also runs small group workshops in private places,

organisations, homes, etc.

Dr Simon advises and guides each patient on the basis of

an energy and nutrition diagnosis, thus helping them takecharge of their own behaviour improvements. He offers them

concrete suggestions for diets, menus and recipes adapted to

each individual tastes and lifestyle. Dr Simon works in close

contact with GPs and specialists.

The organisation carries out research in the area of nutritional

behaviour and trains children and adults in schools and social

centres.

Contact : Dr C. Simon

Mail : energyharmony (at) sfr.fr / tel. +33(0)6 71 28 02 38

URL : http://www.energyharmony.org

Postal address : 1 - 3 rue Frdrick Lematre, 75020 Paris, France

- 3 -


5/68

- 4 -


6/68

DEADLY DAIRY

by Claude SIMON, PhD Dipl.Nutr.

Acknowledgements : I would like to thank Dr Robert M. Kradjian 1

and Dr Robert Cohen 2 for their valuable research on the subject.

This documentary research work was made possible with a grant

from the European Commission (European Social Fund).

FOREWORD

No animal, apart from the human species, drinks the milk of

another species. Why ?

No animal, apart from the human species, continues to drinkmilk after weaning their babies. Why ?

One in six women over 50 suffers from breast cancer in

Western Europe and in the USA (WHO, 2002). The figure is less

than one in 10 000 in China. Why ?

Most human beings (over 75%), from children to the elderly,are lactose intolerant and allergic to dairy. But often the

- 5 -


7/68

allergy symptoms are assimilated to colds, hay fever, sinusitis,

head aches or migraines, etc.

In China, some people in modern coastal cities started

consuming dairy products, and only in the past 20 years. Up tonow, dairy consumption was unknown and thought of as a very

strange habit. The increase of obesity rate in those cities is

now higher than the US average.

Industrialised countries, after the tremendous economic strain

of World War 2, found in dairy products an easy-access sourceof essentials nutrients like protein, fatty acids, calcium, B

vitamins, that had become so rare during the war years and

caused many deficiencies among children.

At that time, seventy years ago, pollution was much less severe

than today. Agriculture used less pesticides and chemical

fertilisers. Cattle were not injected with growth hormones toproduce more than 20 liters of milk per day or to become full

size adults in less than 6 months instead of over a year.

Today, air pollution falls on fields and pastures. Cattle graze

that grass. Pollutants become concentrated in their meat and

milk: pesticides, herbicides (dioxins, among others), and all

kinds of toxic chemicals from heavy metals to chlorine and

fluoride compounds.

Milk is naturally designed to further the rapid development

of the newborn baby. All milk contains a particular substance

that does just that : IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) in cow

milk. When human beings consume regularly dairy productsfrom other mammals, they will not only absorb large quantities

- 6 -


8/68

of toxic chemicals, but also oversupply their body with this

growth factor cells, protein, fats, etc. This excess will overly

stimulate human body cells, especially for adults, to multiply

and grow. It is one of the reasons for the increase in average

size of Europeans and Americans after the WW2. But cellsmay also react in unexpected and aberrant ways to IGF-1

stimulation. They may start to multiply without control in

body organs sensitive to hormonal influences (breast, prostate,

ovaries, etc.) and hence increase the risk of tumour growth.

The majority of adults is lactose intolerant. Lactose is the

sugar of milk. Its assimilation depends on the action oflactase, an enzyme produced only by young babies. This

intolerance among adults produces more or less severe

allergies and digestive disturbances that may, in the long run,

lead to serious pathologies.

All dairy products contain bad (LDL) cholesterol.Commercials vaunting anti-cholesterol virtues of such dairy

brand are plain lies. Moreover, its been shown beyond doubt

by several scientific studies that daily consumption of dairy

over a long period (over 10 years) increases the risk of unsound

calcium metabolism in the human body and the risk of bone

fracture by a factor of 5 to 10 among women over 50.

Finally, here are some official figures. The very respectable

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control explicitly

quotes dairy products as one of the main factors among the 12

most important mortality causes in the USA (figures may differ

but the hierarchy is about the same in Europe):

724 859 deaths due to cardiovascular diseases :determining factors are fat and cholesterol found in meat

- 7 -


9/68

and dairy products

541 532 deaths due to malignant tumours (cancer) :determining factors are toxins from alcohol and tobacco,refined sugars and oils, and dairy products

250 000 deaths due to the medical system : determiningfactors are abusive use or misuse of drugs because of error,ignorance or incompetence

158 448 deaths due to brain strokes and other vascularaccidents : determining factors are meat- and dairyheavydiets

112 584 deaths due to bronchitis, emphysema andasthma : determining factors are pollution, excessiveconsumption of refined industrial products (oil, flour andsugar) and dairy products

97 835 deaths due to car accidents : determining factorsare tiredness, alcohol, fainting and strokes

91 871 deaths due to influenza and pneumonia :determining factors are a weak immune system and mucoussecretion, both favoured by consumption of dairy products

64 751 deaths due to diabetes : determining factors aresweets, pastries and dairy products

40 000 deaths at least from murders (men, women, children)

30 575 deaths from suicides : determining factors are psychological

and social behaviour problems

26 182 deaths from nephritis (inflammation of the kidneys)

25 192 deaths from liver diseases: determining factors are

regular consumption of alcohol, other toxins (like drugs andmedicines), fatty products like meat and dairy

- 8 -


10/68

SO MANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS !

Milk The sheer sound of the word is comforting !

Would you like a cup of hot milk ? The last person who

asked you was surely taking good care of you, and you certainly

appreciated it.

All subjects concerning food and especially milk are surrounded

with intense cultural and emotional connotations. Milk was ourfirst food. The lucky ones drank their mothers milk: a strong

love link, given and received. When it wasnt mothers milk,

it was cow milk or soy milk, baby formula, but rarely goat,

mare or camel milk.

And now weve become heavy milk drinkers. Almost all of us.

Infants, children, teenagers, adults and the elderly. We eachdrink hundreds of mints of milk every year, to which must be

added dozen of pounds of dairy products like yogurts, all kinds

of butter, cheese, cakes, ice-creams and sundries.

Surely it cannot do us any harm. We often see on TV ads

beautiful healthy people drinking milk and telling us that

milk is good for our body. Our nutritionists tell us to eatdairy products with every meal or well suffer from calcium

deficiency. All school meals contain at least one dairy

product, as well as most hospital meals. And as if that wasnt

enough, nutritionists have been telling us for years that dairy

products are essential food. Dairy industry executives have

been claiming in their brightly coloured posters that milk isnecessary for good health, since they generously allowed all

- 9 -


11/68


12/68

we can look at scientific literature published on the subject of

milk and dairy.

Let us first of all look at scientific literature. From 1988 to

1993, more than 2700 articles on milk and dairy were reportedin medical archives. The focus of the work was milk itself for

1500 of them. One cannot say that we lack information on

the subject. If we discard work dealing only with other animal

species, with esoteric research or with non scientific methods,

we are still left with more than 500.

Now lets try and sum them up. The term frightening

would be a fair description of the overall effect. First of all,

none of the authors considers cow milk as healthy safe food

for humans, as the dairy industry would have us believe.

Pathologies most frequently described as a direct consequence

of dairy consumption are : colitis, intestinal irritations and

bleeding, anaemia, all sorts of allergic reactions among babiesand children, as well as serious infections like salmonellosis.

Still more alarming is the risk of viral infection by bovine

leukaemia virus, or by a virus similar to HIV, or the risk of

diabetes in children (type 1). Several studies also report milk

contamination by diseased cow blood and pus from unhealthy

udders, as well as a large variety of toxic chemicals and

insecticides.

Children frequently experience health problems like allergies,

ear infections, tonsillitis, incontinence, asthma, bleeding

stools, colitis, and diabetes. For adults, the most common

pathologies seem to be cardiovascular diseases, arthritis,

allergies and sinusitis, and also much more serious diseaseslike leukaemia, osteoporosis, lymphomas and cancers (breast

- 11 -


13/68


14/68

WHAT IS MILK ?

Milk is a maternal secretion designed to nourish newborn

babies during the first few months of life. No more, no less.

Invariably, any mammal mother will give her baby her milk for

a short period after birth (except for some rare cases). When

weaning comes, the little ones are introduced to solid food

adapted to its own species. Lets take a familiar example.

The mother bitch breastfeeds her puppies for a few weeks.

Then one day she pushes them away from her breasts to incitethem to start eating solid food. Breastfeeding is only for infant

mammals. It is of course absolutely impossible for any animal

living in a natural environment to continue to drink milk after

being weaned by its mother. And it is even more improbable to

see an animal sucking the female of another species.

- 13 -


15/68

ARE ALL MILKS IDENTICAL ?

Then comes the question : where does our milk come from?

We may have chosen the cow for its docile nature, its size

and its abundant milk production. In a way, the choice seems

normal, and in agreement with our culture and traditions.

But is it natural ? Is it wise to drink the milk of another

species ?

Let us take the thought further : would it be wise to feedsheep with cow milk ? or horses with sheep milk ? Could we

envisage drinking the milk from another mammal, say a rat, or

a whale ? Or would dog milk be more acceptable ? or horse

milk, or cat milk ? Of course, Im not suggesting this seriously,

but only to show that the milk of a human mother is designed

for a human baby, the milk of a bitch designed for a puppy,

the milk of a cow for a calf, the milk of a cat for a kitten, andso on. This is how nature works. We only need to use a little

common sense.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of any mammal species

is unique and specifically conceived for the needs of this

particular animal. For example : cow milk is much richer

in proteins than human milk, by a factor of 3 to 4. It also

contains 5 to 7 times more mineral salts. However it is

remarkably poor in essential fatty acids, particularly linolenic

acids (incidentally, low-fat cow milk contains no linolenic acid

at all ). It is simply unfit for human consumption.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. A healthygrowth requires not only sufficient food, but also food of

- 14 -


16/68

adequate composition. Biochemists and physiologists (but

rarely medical doctors) have begun to realise that specific

foods contain specific essential elements needed for a specific

species to develop its specific characteristics.

It is clear that distinctive characteristics of the human species

require very advanced neurological and neuromuscular

systems. We dont need, as much as the calf, a large bone

mass nor powerful muscles. There are enormous differences

between the muscular efforts required for a cows hoof and

for a mans hand. Newborn humans critically need nourishingelements for the rapid growth of their brain, their spinal cord

and their nerves.

Does a human mothers milk favour the development of

intelligence ? Apparently, it does. A remarkable study was

published in the Lancet in 1992 3. A team of British scientists

randomly separated premature infants into two groups. Onegroup was fed with a baby formula prepared with cow milk.

The other group was fed human milk. All babies were tube fed

directly into their stomach. These children were then followed

over a period of ten years. Children nourished on human milk

had consistently IQ scores 10 points higher than the other

group. Astonishing ? Not so much so : its always better to

give the brain adequate material needed for its development.

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982), Ralph

Holman describes a baby who showed symptoms of serious

neurological disease during intravenous feeding. Fluids

contained only one essential fatty acid (EFA), linolenic acid.

When other EFAs were added, the pathology disappeared injust a few days. Five years later, the same review reported

- 15 -


17/68

the work of Norwegian doctors (Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen)

who found exactly the same reaction among gastric-tube fed

adults.

It is now well established that cow milk is particularly poor in

EFAs compared to human milk.

- 16 -


18/68

OBESITY

A group of scientists studied buying and eating habits of

children with commercials they watched on TV 4. Childrens

eating behaviour is directly responsible for obesity, diabetes,

cancers, hypertension and cardiovascular diseases among

adults. Results of this work clearly show that TV commercials

determine food preferences for children. Children in the

study watched TV on average 121 minutes per day. During

this period, they were exposed to 35 minutes of commercials.For the whole study, 334 of the 775 ads (45%) dealt with food.

Over 90% of these were about sweets and sundries (bonbons,

chocolate, chewing-gum, etc.), chips, breakfast cereals, milk

and dairy products. Over 40% of children asked their parents

to buy products seen on TV commercials and 10% wanted

absolutely the brand seen on TV. The majority of products

contained milk, sugar and fat.

In another study 5 performed in 2003-2004, eating behaviour

analysis of 12 829 American children showed that those who

drank more than three glasses of milk per day faced a risk of

obesity 35% higher than those who drank little or no milk.

One of the claims of dairy industrials is that dairy products

help weight loss, which is both absurd and preposterous. The

argument was lately (2006-7) used by the Nestl Corporation

to promote its nutrition campaign. All mammal milks are

uniquely conceived to help babies grow fast and strong, not

to lose weight ! Instinctively, anyone who can use half a

brain (which does not seem to apply to many politicians andcivil servants) knows that milk makes you grow and put on

- 17 -


19/68

weight, and not lose weight. And yet the big liars from the

dairy industry keep claiming their absurdities under scientific

pretences. In order to verify these surprising claims, scientists

from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health of the

Albert Einstein Medical School, and those from the Department

of Nutrition and Public Health of Harvard University, undertook

an important research work over a period of ten years : they

did not find any result in agreement with he dairy industry

claims 6. On the contrary: they concluded that the results

obtained contradict the hypothesis that an increase of dairy

intake favours long-term weight loss among human beings. Inother words : milk and dairy make you fat. We should have

known

- 18 -


20/68

BUT AT LEAST, COW MILK IS PURE...

Really ? Sixty years ago, the average cow gave around 200

gallons of milk each year. Nowadays production records reach

5 500 gallons a year !

How is this possible ? By extreme selective breeding, constant

force-feeding of the animals, daily injections of drugs,

antibiotics and hormones : thats the reality.

One of the latest inventions to torture these poor cows

is the bovine growth hormone, or BGH. This genetically

engineered product is supposed to stimulate milk production

without affecting milk or meat quality. At least thats what

MONSANTO, the product manufacturer, claims. Three other

companies produce the same substance : UP JOHN, ELI LILLY

and AMERICAN CYANAMID Co. No one has ever studied thelong-term effects of this hormone on human beings who

consume that type of milk or dairy. Several countries have

already banned the use of BGH for reasons of health safety.

One of the well known problems is that active molecules

present in cattle feed are found later in their meat and their

milk.

Who on earth wishes to experiment on himself or herself the

effects of a synthetic bovine growth hormone ?

It has also been established that regular use of the drug on

cows increases significantly the occurrence of mastitis by

50 to 70%. Sick cows must then be treated with antibioticsfound later on in their milk. Consumers are beginning

- 19 -


21/68

to worry : a recent survey has shown that 43% of people

interviewed think that growth-hormone treated milk is a

health hazard. MONSANTO is opposed to hormone information

on packaging labels, officially arguing that it is an irrelevant

differentiation .

Europe and the USA are already flooded with milk. We

produced much more milk than we can consume. No need to

charge consumers for storage expenses. The Department of

Agriculture is forced by law to by all surplus of powdered milk,

butter and cheese, at a price fixed by laws and decrees. In1991, the US Dept of Agriculture spent 757 millions of dollars

just to buy surplus butter, and another one billion to keep

prices down in the late 80s and early 90s 7.

All mammals during lactation period secrete toxins in their

milk, including antibiotics, pesticides, hormones and other

toxic chemicals present in their environment. Cow milkalso contain blood ! Vet inspectors only check that it is kept

under a certain level. You will be horrified to learn that the

government department allows the presence of 1,5 million

white blood cells par millilitre of milk (only one thousandth of

a litre). If you dont know it already, another word for white

blood cells found where they shouldnt be, is pus. So to be

precise, far from being pure, milk looks more like a cocktail of

chemical, biological and bacterial fluids.

So you still think that the Department of Agriculture is

protecting you ?

The American Office of Inspector General (OIG) admits clearlythat the FDA 8 and the federal states do not protect efficiently

- 20 -


22/68

American citizens from drug and toxic residues in milk. Only 7

of the 82 medicines given to cows have been appropriately

tested by federal authorities. Fresh milk samples were

tested in 1997 1998 among 131 cattle herds in Dakota and

Minnesota. Analyses results showed the presence of coli-form

bacteria in 62.3 % of samples, and presence of other bacteria

in 76.3 % samples of milk 9. Incidentally, the presence of coli-

form bacteria (especially E-coli) in water supply, for example,

can trigger a cholera epidemic. Given the size of the problem

and the enormous investment needed to maintain bacteria

density to a maximum of 75 per 100 ml, health authorities allover the world have chosen the preventive use of antibiotics.

But giving regularly preventive antibiotic treatment to cattle

creates a selective environment that favours the development

of resilient bacteria. Results of another recent study clearly

show that the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat

and milk generates serious health hazard 10.

As you may well imagine, dairy industry spokesman, Mr

Jerome Kozak, pretends that there is no risk : I have always

believed that milk is one of the healthiest food we can find.

Other observers, perhaps a little less partial, have found that

38% of milk samples in the largest 10 American cities were

contaminated by sulfonamides and other antibiotics11

. Asimilar study in Washington DC found a contamination rate

of 20% 12. And when the FDA used the same strict criteria

to control those results, they found that 51% of the samples

contained residues of drugs, medicines and chemicals.

Normally, tests carried out by the FDA are much less strict and

so rarely identify this type of problem. Why is it ?

The FDA uses a method, called disk-assay, that can only

- 21 -


23/68

detect 2 out of about 30 drugs contained in milk, and only at

fairly high concentrations. A more powerful method, called

Charm II test, can detect a drug down to 5 molecules per

billion.

A well known albeit unpleasant fact should be mentioned :

cows udders get constantly infected, which requires daily use

of creams and antibiotics. The INRA (French National Institute

for Agronomic Research) mentioned in several publications

that penicillin injected once to a caw will appear in its milk

of the following 4 to 7 milkings. Another study performed bythe University of Nevada in Reno showed that the milk of cows

with infected udders contained infected cells. A thorough

study of those cells using advanced technology gave clear-cut

results: when a cow suffers from mastitis, its milk contains

pus ! Sorry to put you off, if youre just about to eat, but

that is exactly what the obscure jargon of the study says :

macrophages containing numerous vacuoles and particlephagocytoses, etc.

- 22 -


24/68

IT GETS WORSE AND WORSE

At least, youll say, mothers milk is pure. Dont be so sure : it

all depends on the mothers diet !

Several studies carried out on thousands of breast-feeding

mothers have shown that their milk was, in most cases,

contaminated with pesticides. Moreover, it seems that the

main origins of this contamination are meat and guess what

dairy products. In fact, it is quite logical since pesticidesare most present on grass, and when cows eat grass, those

pesticides get concentrated in the animals fat mostly found in

its meat and its milk. Also interesting : the milk of vegetarian

mothers is 50% less contaminated than the average in the

study. Scientists have also noticed that breast cancer tumour

cells contain a much higher concentration of pesticides than

benign cyst cells 13.

A committee on nutrition organised by the American Academy

of Paediatrics published a report on the use of cow milk

for babies14. They could not find one single valid reason

supporting the use of cow milk for babies, and yet they

continue to recommend it ! Dr Frank Osli, of the Department

of Paediatrics at Upstate Medical Centre, discussing this

recommendation, mentioned numerous problems among

babies like bleeding gastroenteritis, iron deficiency, frequent

abdominal pains, infections and toxic contaminations from

milk. He then simply posed the question: Why feed anyone

with cow milk ?

In the face of such hazards and potential dangers from cow

- 23 -


25/68

milk, it would seem wise to stop drinking it until we find

answers to all those questions. Isnt it time to stop taking

human beings for suicidal guinea pigs ?

In the same issue of Paediatrics, Dr Oski continues : In myopinion, cow milk should not be given to babies before one

year, because of the risk of anaemia (milk contains so little

iron that the infant would have to drink at least 25 litres a day

to reach the recommended daily allowance of 15 mg), risk of

gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and various other symptoms of

food allergies.

Moreover, we now know that cow milk and dairy should not

be consumed by either children nor adults because of lactose

intolerance, because of its impact on early appearance of

atherosclerosis, and because of its highly probable links with

other pathologies. As early as 1952, Dr Benjamin Spock,

perhaps the most famous paediatrician and founder of modernpaediatrics, created a shock wave throughout the USA when

he advise parents to avoid giving cow milk to their children for

the first two years of life:

I would like to warn parents that cow milk found in shops

is unfit for most babies. Human milk is the only one human

babies tolerate. It would be important to study the frequency

of allergies and colitis in babies breast-fed by omnivorous

mothers, compared to babies fed by vegetarian mothers. I

have not found such a study, although it would be of great

importance and not very expensive to carry out. But it will

probably never be done: there is no academic nor economic

profit at stake.

- 24 -


26/68

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let us now turn to the problem of bacterial contamination.

Salmonella, E-coli and staphylococcus infections can be

associated with milk. When TB was a major public health

problem, one used to advise drinking raw milk. Some people

would like to go back to this practice under the pretext

that raw milk is natural. This is insane ! A study from

UCLA showed that over half salmonellosis cases in California

between 1980 and 1983 were caused by drinking raw milk.That would be the best way to resuscitate good old brucellosis

and leukaemia (see below). TheJournal of the American

Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported many

infections in several states caused by yersinia enterocolitica in

pasteurised milk, in spite of all hygiene and safety measures.

Most parents are aware of the risk of juvenile diabetes fortheir children. TheAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition

(March 1990) reports a significant positive correlation

between non fermented milk protein and insulin-dependent

diabetes found in medical data of several countries. Inversely,

the longer the breast feeding period, the smaller the risk of

diabetes.

Another study carried out in Finland noticed among diabetic

children high levels of cow milk antibodies 15 : we conclude

that either cow milk assimilation is modified in insulin

dependent diabetic children, or that their immune reaction

to cow milk proteins is increased, or that the permeability of

their intestinal wall to those proteins is higher than normal.

- 25 -


27/68

In its issue of April 18, 1992, the British Medical Journal reports

a very interesting study on the occurrence of insulin dependent

diabetes among Pakistani children who emigrated to England.

It is ten times higher than for children who live in Pakistan !

What can be the cause of this difference ? The authors claim

that their diet has not changed since they came to England.

Can we believe that ? Can we believe that it is as easy and

cheap to buy milk, refined oil and sugar in Pakistan as in

England ? Can we believe that English grocers offer the same

products as Pakistani grocers ? I dont believe it one second.

Lets remember that were not talking about type-2 adult

diabetes about which all specialists agree that it is the

consequence of eating habits and perhaps some genetic

predispositions. This study contradicts all statements and

assumptions about the genetic origin of juvenile diabetes.

Indeed it has always been believed that type 1 diabetes had

genetic or viral causes. What of it now ? We have so manypreconceived ideas about the effect of food on our health

that the authors of this last study conclude that the colder

English climate must have produced a virus mutation hence

the increase in diabetic cases ! The previous study in Finland

also shows the same reluctance to admit the obvious impact of

food. For them, there could be a probable link between milkand the illness.

Finally, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine16, also quoted in the Los Angeles Times, describes a study

done at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, and another

one by Finnish scientists. In Finland, we find the worlds

highest dairy consumption per capita, and also the highestrate of insulin dependent diabetics. The illness concerns 40

- 26 -


28/68

children per 1000, compared to 7 per 1000 in the USA

Antibodies produced against milk protein during the first year

of life, according to the authors, attack and destroy pancreas

cells in what is called an autoimmune reaction, which results

in the emergence of diabetes among already vulnerable or

genetically inclined people Studying 142 new diabetic

Finnish children, scientists found 8 times more milk protein

antibodies than with healthy children, a clear evidence that

diabetic children suffered a serious autoimmune disorder.

And how did the American Diabetes Association respond ? Nowit becomes really interesting. Dr F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, president

of the association, declared : It does not mean that children

must stop drinking milk, or that parents of diabetic children

must stop giving them dairy products. These products are a

very rich source of good proteins. But those proteins are

precisely causing the problem !

Do you think that the American dairy industry could have

funded the American Diabetes Association in the past or in the

present ?

- 27 -


29/68

ALLERGIES

Cow milk is in fact one of the most common allergens. Lactose

intolerance provokes digestion, breathing and skin allergies.

Casein, the milk protein that is found in all dairy products, is

also the cause of numerous allergies : coughing, breathlessness

and stifling sensation, breathing difficulties, chronic colds,

asthma, frequent sneezing, etc. 17. Casein seems to be the

main allergy trigger. In a study carried out in the USA in

1997, 85% of patients who had allergy symptoms were testedpositive to all forms of casein 18. Chronic diarrhoea is the most

common gastrointestinal symptom of a childs intolerance

to cow milk. Cow milk can also be the cause of severe peri-

anal lesions, with sharp pain during excretion, and are often

followed by a state of permanent constipation. So with young

children, chronic constipation may also well be a symptom of

cow milk intolerance 19. Cow milk allergy is also very common

among babies and infants, who are still much more tolerant to

lactose than adults. It becomes urgent and necessary to find a

substitute to nourish those babies 20.

- 28 -


30/68

OSTEOPOROSIS

A study published in the American Review of Epidemiology 21

shows that regular dairy consumption, especially after 20

years of age, increases significantly the risk of osteoporosis

and hip fracture. Moreover, milk protein metabolism provokes

an increase of calcium in urine. These results are confirmed

by several other studies. Even with a supplement of 1400 mg

of calcium every day, patients can lose 4% of their bone mass

per year while eating a high-protein diet of meat and dairy22. Besides, countries with record levels of osteoporosis are

also the biggest consumers of dairy products, especially the

United States of America, the United Kingdom and Sweden23. Indeed, we know now that casein provokes an increase in

blood acidity neutralised with calcium borrowed from bones24. Another study carried out by Harvard University on 78 000

women over a period of 12 years clearly shows that women

who consume regularly dairy products run a very high risk of

hip fracture 25. Finally, all studies show, without any doubt,

that groups of population with daily intake of dairy products

have significantly higher risk of bone fractures than groups who

take none or much less (see also California Scientific Review,

specialised in the study of human tissues26

).

- 29 -


31/68

PARKINSONS DISEASE

Lactotransferrin, a glycoprotein, fixes and transports iron

to various organs of the body. It is found in lesions of many

neurodegenerative pathologies. It is also very likely to

transport other minerals like aluminium. Scientists are now

beginning to link dairy products with Parkinsons disease.

Results of several studies suggest that lactotransferrin plays

a very active part in neuronal degenerating process of

Parkinsons disease27

. Physiological dysfunctions producedby the protein expression in the brain are probably one of

the main causes of abnormal iron metabolism in old peoples

brain suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, particularly

Parkinsons 28.

Another important immuno-histochemical comparative study29 clearly shows that iron and aluminium play a major part inthe pathogenesis of many demential diseases. Results point

out a particular accumulation of lactotransferrin in cortical

lesions of patients suffering from Alzheimer, Down syndrome,

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, Picks

disease, Guam complex, etc.

Bovine lactotransferrin is much more loaded in iron (about

30%) than human lactotransferrin (5%), and this form of

iron is not easily available for digestive assimilation among

children and adults alike 30. This confirms the fact that iron

transported by lactoferrin is not normally assimilated by

human organisms 31. One of the most important studies ever

carried out involved 7500 men aged between 45 and 68 overa period of 30 years. It was part of a US state program, the

- 30 -


32/68

Cardiac Program of Honolulu 32, to study the development of

Parkinsons disease. Between the late 60s and the late 90s,

128 persons contracted the disease. It was found that the risk

was proportional to milk consumption : regular milk drinkers

face a risk 2.5 times higher than non milk drinkers.

- 31 -


33/68

CROHNS DISEASE

Official statistics tell us that one out of 500 Americans suffers

from Crohns disease. This means more than 500 000 people in

the USA, and the figure is approximately the same in Europe.

There is much clear evidence establishing direct links between

milk products and Crohns disease.

But the most serious bacterial infection for cattle is caused

by the paratuberculosis mycobacterium. It causes a diseasecalled Johnes disease. The animal suffers severe diarrhoea

with high bacterial concentrations in the stools. One also

finds high bacterial concentrations in the milk of infected

cows. These bacteria are not destroyed by pasteurisation.

Sometimes milk bacteria continue to develop in the human

organism that absorbed them. This results in chronic irritation

of the intestine : Crohns disease.

A study reported in theJournal of Clinical Microbiology33

concludes: it is reasonable to deduce that mycobacterial

paratuberculosis is probably responsible for the development

of Crohns disease. In fact, Johnes and Crohns diseases

show remarkably similar clinical and pathological symptoms34. It has been proved that paratuberculosis bacterium easily

crosses species barriers from cattle to infect human beings35. Mycobacterium was isolated from cells taken from patients

suffering from Crohns disease, and the bacterium is clearly

directly involved in the aetiology of the disease 36. Moreover,

it is quite capable to survive the pasteurisation process if there

are more than 10 per ml of raw milk 37. The gene of the samebacterium was identified in all patients suffering from Crohns

- 32 -


34/68

disease, but in none of the other patients38. Studies done by

Dr Chris Piromalli 39 also lead to the same conclusions.

- 33 -


35/68

BREAST CANCER

The chance of a mammal hormone being identical to that

of another mammal must be smaller than one in a billion

billion. And yet, the most powerful human growth hormone is

identical to the most powerful bovine growth hormone ! This

hormone is called Insulin-like Growth Factor-1, or IGF-1. It is

identical in man and in the cow, and in both cases is made up

of 70 amino-acids arranged in identical sequences. IGF-1 has

many times been identified as one of the main growth factorsfor all cancer tumours 40 41. The rate of sero IGF-1 increases

significantly (10%) among milk drinkers, but stays unchanged in

control groups (non milk drinkers) 42.

British scientist Professor Jane Plant showed in many papers

and books how she stopped eating dairy products and cured

herself from breast cancer deemed at the time terminal andincurable by the best specialists. In western countries, one

woman out of 7 suffers from breast cancer, whereas in China

only one in 10000. Jane Plant analysed many factors that

could have caused this discrepancy. She simply concluded

that the dominant factor was the lack of dairy products in

Chinese food. Her tumour had disappeared six weeks after shecompletely stopped all milk and dairy 43.

- 34 -


36/68

LEUKAEMIA ? LYMPHOME ? EXPECT

THE WORST !...

I do not like to be the bearer of bad news, but the virus of

bovine leukaemia (BL) can be found in more than 60 % of

American cows. Which means that about 80 % of herds are

infected ! There are, to my knowledge, no available figure for

Europe And since all industrial processes collect milk from

different herds and farms, and mix it all together, between 90

and 95 % of commercial milk is contaminated. In theory thepasteurisation process destroys the virus providing it is done

correctly. As far as raw milk is concerned, analyses of random

samples showed that 2/3 contained BL virus 44.

This is a world-wide problem. Similar studies were made

in Germany and Switzerland. Germans regret the situation

and admit that they are unable to isolate healthy from

contaminated milk. Several European countries have tried to

separate infected cows from the rest of the herd. According

to Dr Virgil Hulse, an expert on milk and milk processing, MSc

in Public Health, the USA are the worst in the world (apart

from Venezuela) in fighting BL.

I wrote earlier that BL virus is neutralised in the pasteurisation

process. But Chernobyl-like accidents are always possible.

Thats what happened in Chicago in April 1985. In a large

modern dairy factory; there was an accidental connexion

between the raw circuit and the pasteurised circuit. The

result was a violent epidemic of salmonellosis that killed four

and made 150 000 people very sick indeed. So I ask dairyexecutives:

- 35 -


37/68


38/68

Recent research show that milk lymphocytes ingested by

baby mammals pass directly into the bloodstream through

the intestinal wall. A recent report from Illinois University

at Urbana, Department of Animal Sciences, clearly explains

what is at stake. Their interest lies more in the economic

dimensions of the dairy industry rather than in the sanitary

aspects. Scientists have noticed that BL infected cows

produce more milk than healthy cows. But when leukaemia

causes chronic lymphocytosis (a large number of white cells

in blood), then milk production goes down. So they suggest

re-evaluating the economic impact of BL infection on thedairy industry. Are we to understand that leukaemia is

actually good for business if it can be controlled ? Details of

this economic analysis are described in the Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences (February 1989) . I find

it plainly shocking that university scientists jeopardise public

health safety to the advantage of economic profit. But one

thing is clear : no help can be expected from universities nor

from the Department of Agriculture. Political pressure and

financial stakes are too enormous.

We now know for a fact that BL virus is capable of triggering

leukaemia in other mammals. It has also been shown that the

virus can favour the apparition of leukaemia and lymphomas (aform of cancer close to leukaemia) in humans 45.

In Norway, 1422 people were studied during 11.5 years. Those

who drank two or more glasses of milk every day incurred

a risk 3.5 times higher than the others to catch a cancer of

lymphatic organs 46.

One of the most knowledgeable authors on the subject is Dr

- 37 -


39/68

Allan S. Cunningham, from Cooperstown NY 47. Many people

consider milk as liquid meat, he argues. He studied meat

and dairy consumption habits over a whole year in 15 countries

(1955-56). Biggest consumers were then New Zealand, the

United States and Canada. At the other extreme he found

Japan, Yugoslavia and France. The difference between those

two groups was enormous : meat and dairy consumption was

30 times higher in New Zealand than in Japan ! Incidentally,

during the past 50 years, beef and dairy consumption has

dramatically increased in Japan and in France as have

most pathologies mentioned earlier, reinforcing the weakenedgenetic protection phenomenon noticed in migrant studies.

Before the 60s, increase in leukaemia and lymphoma cases

only appeared in Japanese who had emigrated to the USA.

Dr Cunningham also found a positive correlation between the

number of fatal lymphomas and beef / dairy consumption in

those 15 countries :

In many countries, the daily intake of protein is far higher

than the recommended daily allowance (RDA). Excessive

protein consumption is a serious risk factor for lymphoma.

Indeed, certain proteins weaken the intestinal wall which

becomes permeable to antigen fragments. They in turn will

start overstimulating chronically lymphoid tissues. We know

from laboratory experiments that chronic immunological

stimulation leads to the apparition of lymphomas in small

mammals, and all evidence leads to believe that similar

phenomena occur in human beings, resulting in lymphoid

cancers.

Gastrointestinal mucous membrane only acts as a partial

- 38 -


40/68

barrier to food antigens, and crossing by food protein antigens

is frequent, especially for powerful lymphoid stimulants. Cow

milk consumption can provoke generalised lymphadenitis,

hepatosplenomegaly, and acute adenoid hypertrophy. It is

estimated that at least 100 different types of antigens are

liberated during the digestion of cow milk. This could explain

why dead viruses of pasteurised milk could still be antigen

and trigger serious pathologies.

In another study carried out in Norway 47, 16 000 people

were followed over a period of 11.5 years. For most cancercases, no significant correlation was found between tumour

occurrence and milk consumption. Except for lymphoma

cases : a very significant positive correlation was established.

People who drink two glasses of milk per day or more (or the

equivalent in dairy products, for instance 40 g of cheese) run a

risk of developing lymphoma 3.5 times higher than those who

drink less than one glass a day on average.

There are two other serious diseases that could be transmitted

to man via dairy products : bovine spongiform encephalitis

(BSE) and bovine immunodeficient virus, or BIV, a virus close to

its human cousin HIV. BSE recently got a lot of media coverage

after the death of people from Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease

contracted through BSE infected meat and dairy. Apparently

the main cause was that cattle feed came from sick animal

scraps. Now lets be serious, and use our common sense :

- Are cows meat eaters ?

NO !

- 39 -


41/68

- So why do we give them meat to eat ?

- Simply for greater financial profit.

The result is that many herds all over the world have been andare being infected with BSE. Millions of animals have been

massacred and incinerated. Beef consumption decreased for

a while, and farmers swear they dont feed their cattle with

animal-based products any longer. But the epidemic is far

from being over. The media impact has lost its novelty, we are

almost used to BSE in cattle by now, but thousands of cattleare still being infected every day.

Many animals die in transit before reaching the slaughterhouse,

mostly from viral infections. These carcasses are sold for a

low price to manufacturers of animal feed. Officially, farmers

dont give it to their cattle. But it is used to feed small

carnivorous animals bred in captivity like ferrets, cats, dogs,even fish and poultry. For example, in the late 90s, dozens of

mink ranches in the Midwest (Wisconsin, Nebraska, Montana)

were totally destroyed by a fatal form of encephalopathy

after being contaminated by prion (BSE virus) infected food.

Many cats have also been fatally contaminated by BSE virus 49,

although it was believed that felines could not be infected by

the prion.

Medical scientists in many countries, especially in Europe

and Northern America, have officially admitted that products

derived from BSE-contaminated bovine meat have infected

human beings through the food chain since the early 80s.

But the incubation period can be over 30 years, we mustwait a few more years before we know the real extent of the

- 40 -


42/68

consequences.

Yet the immunodeficient virus (BIV) found in cattle practically

all over the world, and particularly in the USA, Europe and

Russia, is much more worrying. Its molecular structure isvery close to HIV, the AIDS virus. We do not know for sure

whether nor how man can be contaminated by BIV proteins.

The virus is already spreading all over most of North American

herds. But the US Federal Department of Agriculture refuses

to test and check officially meat and milk for antibodies and

retrovirus. No isolation precautionary measures are taken forinfected animals. As for HIV infection, there is no cure for

cattle BIV infection. We still consume BIV infected meat and

milk, and no one can assure us that it is not dangerous. But it

is definitely acknowledged that eating raw meat, like Tartare

steak, or Carpaccio, or rare cooked steaks, etc., is very

risky for health.

Canadian and Russian scientists 50 have described an alarming

phenomenon in 1992. They observed in human beings the

presence of BIV protein antibodies. Moreover, Russian

scientists have identified viral proteins similar to bovine

leukaemia virus in 5 women out of 89 suffering from breast

cancer 51. We have yet no clear idea of what this finding

implies, but it is a clear evidence that bovine virus can be

transmitted to all other mammals, including humans.

Among the 59 known hormones, one of them is a very powerful

growth hormone called Insuin-like Growth Factor One (IGF-

1). By pure chance, nature has made this hormone identical in

cows and in human beings. This hormone can be looked at assuper fuel for cell growth, including tumours. Many medical

- 41 -


43/68

studies clearly show that IGF-1 is a key factor in the growth

and multiplication of breast cancer, prostate cancer and colon

cancer cells. In fact it is probably the major growth factor for

ALL cancer cells.

IGF-1 is a natural element of milk. Babies, whether human

or bovine, are supposed to grow rapidly. But why on earth do

fat Europeans, Australians and Americans believe they have to

grow even bigger ? In fact, they simply do not think about it :

they are not even aware of the problem as, in fact, most of

our doctors !

- 42 -


44/68

OTHER CANCERS

And theres worse ...

Doctors at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo NY

have clearly shown the link between cancer of the ovaries, a

particularly virulent tumour, and dairy consumption. Women

drinking one glass of milk or more a day (or its dairy

equivalent) face a risk more than three times higher than

those who dont drink any. They suggest that if women stillwant to continue drinking milk, they should prefer dairy with

0% fat. Many scientists came to the same suggestion, although

no direct evidence supports the hypothesis that non fat dairy is

risk free for human beings, quite the opposite.

Another important study corroborates these results. Doctors

from the prestigious Harvard Medical School have analysed

data from 27 countries in the 70s. They also found a strong

positive correlation between cancer of the ovaries and dairy

consumption. They think, however, that the main factor

responsible for the pathology is lactose, and not fat. Indeed,

practically all adults do not assimilate lactose because their

organism does not produce any more lactase, the necessaryenzyme for lactose assimilation 52. These studies came out of

respectable research institutions, not from trash magazines or

scandalous newspapers stories.

Some scientists even associate dairy consumption with lung

cancer 53. Still at Roswell Park Memorial Institute, drinking

habits of 569 lung cancer patients were compared with thoseof 569 healthy people. People who drink three or more glasses

- 43 -


45/68

of milk, or equivalent, are twice as likely to get lung cancer as

people who dont drink any.

For a long time, doctors have wondered why Japanese men,

who smoke a lot more than American or European men,suffer much mess from lung cancer. Now experts believe that

the determining factor lies in the difference in animal fat

absorbed.

There arent many studies associating prostate cancer with

dairy products. One of the most convincing came againfrom the Roswell Park Memorial Institute 54. The diets of 371

patients with prostate cancer were compared to diets of 371

healthy people. Men who drink three or more glasses of milk

(or equivalent) per day run a cancer risk almost 3 times higher

than those who claim not to drink any. Here again, it seems

that regular consumption of animal fat increases prostate

cancer risk. Prostate cancer is now the most common form ofcancer among American and European men, and the second

mortality level among cancers.

- 44 -


46/68

WHATS IN IT, THEN ?

Is there one single health reason to tell adults to drink cowmilk or eat dairy ?

Although it is hard to find a scientifically valid reason, apart

from taste preference, it seems the best two would be :

1. milk is a source of calcium2. milk is a source of amino acids (proteins)

Let us look first at the calcium argument. Why are we so

concerned about calcium ? Obviously, we try to maintain

healthy bones and protect ourselves from osteoporosis. And no

doubt milk is full of calcium. But is it really a good source of

calcium for human beings ? Not so sure, and here are some of

the reasons why. First of all, a large regular consumption ofdairy products inhibits proper assimilation of calcium. Then

the excess protein assimilated with dairy encourages in fact

the development of osteoporosis. Another study 55 has clearly

shown a significant decalcification increase in menopaused

women who took 3 glasses of milk per day (or equivalent).

Other very important factors are hormones, weight and the

amount of protein in food. It is also very interesting to notethat in countries that do not consume dairy products, people

have no calcium deficiency.

In order to understand the osteoporosis phenomenon, it is

more useful to look at protein than at calcium. Eskimos have

a very high protein diet, about 25 % of their caloric intake.

They also consume a large quantity of calcium, on average

2 500 mg per day. Their osteoporosis incidence is one of the- 45 -


47/68

highest on earth. South African Bantus get their protein mostly

from plants. Protein represents 12 % of their total calories,

and they only consume 200 to 350 mg of calcium a day, about

half the consumption of western women. Yet Bantu women,

in spite of their six to ten pregnancies in their life and long

breastfeeding periods, hardly ever get osteoporosis ! But

African women who emigrated to the United States or to

Europe are more and more prone to osteoporosis, although less

so than white or Asian women. Therefore, they clearly became

more vulnerable from a change in their diet.

So the next obvious question is : Where am I going to find my

calcium ?

And the answer is just as obvious : Just where cows find

theirs : in plants.

Especially in leaves and grains. After all, elephants,rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses grow enormous bones, after

theyre weaned, from eating only grains and green leaves, just

like horses and cows. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand,

can easily do without grains and leaves. Who would think of

feeding their cat with lettuce, spinach and rice ? All mammals,

and all living beings, live in harmony with their own genetic

programming. They have no problem feeding themselves with

natural products. Only opulent human societies know chronic

osteoporosis problems.

If youre still not convinced by the argument, just think of

those billions of people who never consumed dairy in their life

nor in their whole history, like most Chinese people. You wouldthink that many suffer from osteoporosis. Thats what could

- 46 -


48/68

be implied by the dairy industry slogans. But the opposite

is true : societies who consume little or no dairy products at

all very rarely suffer from osteoporosis, whereas the disease

is very common among people who consume them regularly.

Several other studies have also shown that osteoporosis is

encouraged by an excess of protein and by the lack of physical

exercise involving long bones, these two factors acting over

several decades. Hormones also play a significant part in the

process.

- 47 -


49/68

THE MYTH OF PROTEINS

Remember, when you were a child, adults often told you toeat a lot of proteins. Proteins are always the basis of a

good diet. And milk is naturally a good source. True, milk

is rich in proteins, to the point that its often been called

liquid meat. But its not necessarily what we need, quite

the opposite. Proteins can create problems : the majority of

European and American people eat far too much protein.

Lets take one of the most reliable nutrition sources published

by the American Food and Nutrition Board: Dietary

Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,

Fat, Fatty acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids

(Macronutrients), 2005. These recommendations in terms

of daily nutrient intake are now used by WHO (the World

Health Organisation of the United Nations Organisation) and by

many national nutritional guidelines in Europe and elsewhere.

Present recommendations for proteins are 0,8 g at the most

per day per kilo of weight for an adult (except for pregnant

and breastfeeding women). The WHO declares that most

adults do not need more than 0,6 g of protein per day per

kilo of body weight, which represents about 40 g of proteinper day for a 140 lb adult. And of course, for the majority of

us who work sitting down most of the day, we can very well

function with 25 to 30 g per day !

30 g of protein is not a lot : its what you get in a small 140

g steak or in a 300 g plate of lentils (without meat). A good

size T-bone steak weighs on average 220 to 250 g. Indeed

proteins do not necessarily come only from animal sources

- 48 -


50/68

(from animal corpses, as a friend of mine would say ). Amino

acids, the basic constituents of proteins, are identical in plant

proteins and in animal proteins. They are just not combined

in the same way. Moreover, plant proteins contain much

less saturated fats, and never any cholesterol. Just about

all Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Australians and other

inhabitants of developed industrialised countries live in a

permanent state of protein overdose. We know now that if

this state is maintained over long period, it can lead to serious

health problems like osteoporosis, atherosclerosis, kidney

malfunctions, colon and rectum cancers. Professor BarryBrenner, head of the Kidney Diseases Department at Brigham

Hospital in Boston (USA), was one of the first to point out the

danger of excessive protein consumption for kidney functions.

Finally, it is worth remembering that human milk contains

only 9 % proteins, which is the lowest rate of all mammals.

- 49 -


51/68

AND ITS NOT OVER !

You certainly remember lactose. It is the most important sugarfound in milk. Nature has equipped newborn babies with the

ability to produce the necessary enzymes to assimilate lactose.

But they lose this ability around the age of 5.

What happens then ? It seems that disaccharide lactose

molecules are too big to be directly absorbed into the blood:

they must first of all be broken into monosaccharidemolecules of galactose and glucose. This can only be done

with a specific enzyme, lactase, as well as other enzymes that

transform galactose into glucose.

Let us think for a minute: nature gives us the ability to

metabolise lactose during the first few years of our life, then

turns off the mechanism. Our mother nature sends us a

clear message: all baby mammals must drink milk, but older

children and adults do not need milk any more, so cannot

metabolise lactose any longer. Three quarters of human adults

are lactose intolerant. Only recently in human evolution,

farming and cattle breeding enabled humans to borrow

milk from another species. Then it appeared advantageousfor adults to be able to assimilate lactose. But what benefit

is there in being able to drink cow milk ? And why have white

men been able to preserve this ability more than men with

pigmented skin ?

One evolution theory argues that 20 or 30 000 years ago human

tribes in their northward migrations had to face colder anddarker weather. People had to protect themselves with fleece

- 50 -


52/68

and cloth. Light skins are more light-sensitive than dark skins,

hence are able to synthesise D-vitamin more easily. D-vitamin

is essential to calcium metabolism and bone density. But when

the body is covered and only face and hands are exposed to

sunlight, D-vitamin synthesis becomes scarce. Then plentiful

calcium in cow milk offers a better chance of survival to those

who can assimilate it. This is one of the plausible explanations

of the better lactose tolerance of white people than that of

dark-skin people.

Most scientists agree that lactose intolerance among adults ofdifferent ethnic groups is roughly as follows:

90 % of black people and American Indians

70 % of Asian people

50 % of Caucasian (white) people

Hence, when these people consume frequently and regularly

dairy products, they often suffer from diarrhoea, bloating,

flatulence, abdominal pains and many other intestinal

problems. Even the dairy industry itself admits that 50

millions Americans suffer from lactose intolerance which

opens up markets for new products specifically treated for

easier assimilation by adults. Hence one of the latest TV adsfrom the Danone group You see daddy, now you can drink

milk again !

Dr J. Seignalet 56 has studied extensively many clinical

symptoms of food hypersensitivity (intolerance). Modern

industrial food seems to be the major cause of many

mysterious ailments. It is impacting mostly upon a key organ(the small intestine) in three different ways:

- 51 -


53/68

1) some foods are not properly digested because our

digestive enzymes are not adapted to their structure,

hence an excess of nutrient macromolecules

2) our intestinal flora is modified and becomes one ofputrefaction, with proliferation of dangerous bacteria.

Specific metabolisms, death or destruction of these germs

by our own immune defences will produce an excess of

bacterial macromolecules

3) this abnormal intestinal content is very aggressive

to our intestine: its mucous membrane is very fragile

because of its large surface (about 100 m) and extreme

thinness (1/1000 inch). The intestinal barrier becomes

then too permeable.

Stress increases this effect by encouraging secretion of gamma

interferon. This mediator acts on the intestinal mucous

membrane cells by pushing them apart. Then all thesebacterial and nutrient macromolecules will flow straight into

the blood stream. The exact composition of those molecules

varies from one person to another because it depends on

the intestinal flora, on what we eat, and on the amount of

enzymes acting on nutrients at various stages of digestion.

Depending on their structure, these molecules will have

specific affinity for specific types of cells or tissues. They may

generate three types of pathologies:

1) peptides will couple with HLA molecules and then turn

towards T-lymphocytes which are alone unable to identify

undesirable intruders (bacteria, virus or protein). Their

small receptors can only recognise peptides, and thenonly if theyre coupled to HLA molecules. Once a T-

- 52 -


54/68

lymphocyte is activated, it can send an immune response

against those peptide-labelled cells. The consequence

will often be an autoimmune disease : rheumatoid

polyarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Graves-Basedow

disease, celiac disease, etc.

2) non-peptide molecules include among other bacterial

DNA, bacterial lipopolysaccharides, by-products from

Maillard reaction, protein isomers, sugars and lipids.

These substances are little or not at all recognised by

lymphocytes, and do not trigger any immune response.

But they may clutter the extra-cellular environment,block the membrane receptors and accumulate in the

cell cytoplasm and nucleus. This soiling and choking

process results commonly in type 2 diabetes (choking

of endocrine pancreas, muscles and adipose tissue),

primitive fibromyalgia (soiling and choking of muscles,

tendons and brain cells), arthritis (soiling of cartilagecells), some cancers, etc.

3) the organism tries to get rid of harmful waste.

Enzyme-resistant macromolecules are transported

whole by macrophages and granulocytes surrounded

by lymphocytes, from the blood to the outside through

an emunctory. This emunctory will then experience a

chronic inflammation resulting in various pathologies

like acne and psoriasis for the skin, colitis and Crohns

disease for the colon, asthma and chronic bronchitis for

the lungs, frequent ear, nose and throat infections, hay

fevers, Behet disease, etc.

Fortunately, all is not lost for dairy lovers. It seems that mostlactose is destroyed in fermentation process (bacteria digest

- 53 -


55/68

it). Gourmets may then eat fermented cheese and yogurts

with moderation : even if there is less lactose, you still have

all the other substances.

Dairy products have no fibre at all.

Since their rich nutrients require intense digestivework, their regular consumption, even fermented,favours constipation and other digestive problems.

Since they contain little iron, and tend to irritateintestinal tissues, they frequently provokeanaemia and intestinal bleeding in infants, as wellas colitis, diarrhoea and vomiting.

Dairy products are also the cause among childrenof many allergies which often persist and worsenthrough adolescence and adulthood.

- 54 -


56/68

- 55 -

LIGHT ?...

One can also sincerely wonder whether light dairy products,2% fat milk for example, are good to take regularly. Indeed

this 2% figure is misleading. It refers in fact to the global

mass. As milk is over 90% water, these 2% mean in fact 20%

of the solid milk mass. Then obviously, one should drink 0%

skimmed milk. True, this milk hardly contains any fat, but

you still have lactose and casein. But then youll say you find

lactose-free milk. True again : but if you take away from milkall its milk characteristics, you might as well drink vegetable

milk (soy, rice, almond, ), or no milk at all !


57/68

- 56 -

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST : DIOXINS

IN MILK

What are dioxins ? They are the most lethal substances ever

invented by man. They are used to manufacture herbicides.

They are 170 000 times more toxic than cyanide 57.

So dioxins are very toxic things indeed. They are also by-

products of many industrial chemical processes. Most

dioxins in our environment come in fact from chloride

product industry waste (chlorophenols), from household and

township incinerators, and of course from herbicide product

manufacturing. They penetrate all our environment through

air, water and soil. They invade the whole food chain.

Human beings are exposed to dioxins mostly (90%) throughtheir consumption of animal products (meat, fish and dairy)

which all contain dioxins to a greater or lesser extent. The

lyophilised nature of dioxin favours its important concentration

in fish and animal fat, which explains why it is found in

relatively large quantities in fat dairy 58. The main source

of dioxins (or PCDDs), of PSDF (dibenzofurane) and of PCBs

for most people, is their daily food, especially meat, fish anddairy products 59.

The more we consume products from organisms high up in

the food chain, the more we consume toxins concentrated in

animal tissue. When we eat carrots, beans or broccolis, we

ingest small quantities of toxins (pesticides, dioxins, etc.) even

if theyre not spread by the farmer, simply from air pollution.

They are present practically in just about every area of our


58/68

planet. Every time we eat dairy or meat, it comes from an

animal that has eaten thousands of plant parts, we ingest

thousands of small poisonous toxin doses. Regular consumption

of these products results in accumulation of toxins in our body

tissues and organs, at rates far higher than safe.

For example : the amount of dioxins contained in one

double cone of vanilla ice-cream (brand tested: Ben & Jerrys

Worlds Best) is 200 times higher than the safe daily

intake as defined by the US Agency for the Protection of the

Environment60

. The analysis showing the presence of highlevels of dioxin in ice-cream samples was exposed in an article

that only one regional newspaper accepted to publish (Detroit

Free Press, Nov.8, 1999).

In 1998, a study carried out by the FDA itself, on milk samples

sold in hundreds of shops of 10 of the largest American cities,

showed that 73% of samples analysed contained pesticideresidues 61.

In India, public opinion was deeply shaken by the news of

pesticides in milk found in all 12 Indian states tested. Over

half the population of India is vegetarian, and milk represents

an important part of peoples diet. Dr G.S. Totefa summed

up the results in those words : among 2 205 milk samples

analysed, 85% contained levels of HCH isomers far higher

than the legal limit. Such pesticide levels in milk cannot

be tolerated and are a danger to public health. However

government authorities did nothing to change the situation,

especially in terms of financing research projects to find

alternative solutions to dangerous pesticides62

.

- 57 -


59/68

- 58 -

In 1987, a multidisciplinary dairy research project was launched

at Mahoning County Farm in Ohio. During the first year of the

study, analyses clearly showed that DDT residues in the soil were a

prime source of cattle contamination by pesticides, grass and hay

becoming toxin transmitters from earth to cows 63.

Insecticides chlordane and heptachlor provoke cancers, destroy

the immune system and most certainly play an important part as

endocrine disruptors. Their great resistance and longevity allows

them to stay active for dozens of years. Many cattle herds in

Oahu (Hawa) were accidentally fed heptachlor-treated pineapple

leaves. As a consequence, all milk and dairy from the area werecontaminated for years. Between 1981 and 1984, authorised

levels of heptachlor residues in food (0.3 ppm) were exceeded

by a factor of ten in dairy products. Further research showed

that maternal milk from women who had consumed dairy from the

area was also heptachlor contaminated at levels averaging 200

ppm and sometimes reaching over 400 ppm, 1000 times the legallevel ! The study also showed that breast cancer levels among

women of Japanese origin rose by 42 % between 1970 and 1985 64.

In fact, animal products (dairy, meat, poultry and fish) are the

main sources of human contamination by chloride insecticides.

Atrazine is primarily used as a weed-killer for corn. Most corn

production is used for cattle feed. This extremely toxic herbicideis directly linked to the development of many cancers : breast,

ovaries, uterus, testicles, leukaemia and lymphomas, as well

as many sexual aberrations and modifications. Many European

countries have banned it, like Germany, Italy, Austria and

Holland. According to the Vermont Department of Agriculture in

the USA, milk farmers who supply those Ben & Jerry ice-creams

manufacturers still use today tons of carcinogenic atrazine every

year 65.


60/68

- 59 -

IN BRIEF

In my opinion, there is only one valid reason to consume milkor dairy products : because we like them. Because they are

part of our culture. Because we are used to their flavours and

their textures. Because we like the feelings we get from them.

Because we were conditioned by our parents since we were

children to like milk and dairy. And one of the best reasons is ice-

cream. Some people would die for an ice-cream !

Now once you know the facts, it is impossible to forgive criminal

acts and malevolent intentions of dairy industries all over the

world, whether American, European, Australian, Chinese or other.

Scientists and executives paid by the dairy industry are fully aware

of these acts and intentions and of their consequences. They

spend enormous amounts of money to invent medical evidence

and publish phoney studies in order to confuse consumers.

Spreading false statistics and lies are a most important part in the

tragic endeavour of collective poisoning.

One last comment about many of scientific theories on nutrition,

and on health in general. Most studies designed to support such

theories, or the benefits (or ill effects) of such substance orsuch product, are carried out on small laboratory animals. Yet

whatever our beliefs, there is little doubt for anyone that the

human species is at the top of biological evolution scale. This

include many of our organs, like the brain with its cortex, our

blood system with our four-cavity heart, and our digestive system

with a gastric PH of 1.8 quite sufficient to digest food made for

us. Other mammals also have species-specific organs designed to

digest and assimilate food made for them. For example, other


61/68

- 60 -

mammals cannot digest many phytonutrients, hence they cannot

benefit from their marvellous properties. Take the laboratory rat

as an example. Many studies have warned us about the dangers

of consuming broccoli, soy beans or tomatoes, but they never

revealed what all those unscrupulous scientists know very well.

Rats do not have a gall bladder. Rats do not produce the same

digestive juices as humans. It is absurd to believe that rats could

be a model for human nutrition, or cats, or dogs or chimpanzees.

So heres just one last piece of advice. Dont take dairy products

to be in good health. Scientific evidence is undeniable. Theywont do you any good, quite the opposite. If billions of people

have lived very healthy for thousands of years without eating

dairy, you can too. True, its hard to change our habits, especially

when it comes to eating. But I can assure you that it is completely

safe, and that your health will improve, and that it wont cost you

a penny.

What have you got to lose ?

Paris, May 2007


62/68

- 61 -

REFERENCES

1. Director of Mammal Surgery Dept, Seton Teaching Hospital#302, 1800 Sullivan Ave., Daly City, CA 94015 USA

2. Web site editor (www.notmilk.com) and passionate defenderof non-milk drinkers, author of MILK A-Z, also Director of Dairy Education Board (USA)

3. The Lancet, 1992, vol. 339, p. 261-4

4. Aktas Arnas, et. al., International Journal of Pediatrics, April

2006

5. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (2005;159:511)

6. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2006, (Vol. 83,n3)

7. Consumer Reports, May 1992, p. 330-32

8. FDA = Food and Drug Administration

9. Journal of Dairy Science (USA), December 1999, 82 :12

10. Journal of Food Protein (USA), June 1999, 62 :6

11. Centre for Science in the Public Interest and Wall StreetJournal, 29 December 1989

12. Nutrition Action Health Letter, April 1990

13. see Cows Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-FedInfants, Lancet 2 (1978): 437 ; Dietary Protein-InducedColitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906; TheQuestion of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in WomensMilk, J. Immunology 19 (1980): 15

14. Pediatrics 1983: 72-253

15. Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988


63/68

- 62 -

16. New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992)

17. Annals of Allergy (USA), 1951 (9)

18. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology (USA),

March 1998 (115 :3)

19. New England Journal of Medicine (USA), October 1998(339 :16 ; 1100-4)

20. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (USA), June1999 (103 :6)

21. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1994, 13922. Journal of Clinical Nutrition (USA), 1979, 32 (4)

23. Nutrition Action Health Letter (USA), June 1993

24. Journal of Clinical Nutrition (USA), 1995, 61 (4)

25. American Journal of Public Health (USA), 1997 (87)

26. California Tissue International (USA), 1992 (50)

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

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

29. Leveugle B, Spik G, Perl DP, Bouras C, Fillit HM, Hof PR,Brain Research, July 4, 1994; 650(1):20-31

30. Spik, G., Brunet, B., Mazurier-Dehaine, C., Fontaine, G.& Montreuil, J.1982. Characterization and properties ofthe human and bovine lactotransferrins extracted from thefaeces of newborn infants. Acta Paediatr Scand., 7 1: 979-985

31. Characterization and properties of the human and bovine

lactotransferrins extracted from the faeces of newborninfants. Acta Paediatr Scand., 7 1: 979-985


64/68

- 63 -

32. Dr. R. D. Abbott, from the University of Virginia HealthSystem in Charlottesville, VA

33. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1992;30(12):3070-3073

34. Hoards Dairyman, January 24, 1995

35. J Hermon-Taylor, British Medical Journal, Feb 1998.315

36. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 1993, May 31(5)

37. N.Sung, Applied and Environmental Microbiology: 64(3),March 1998

38. D. Mishina, Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA:93: September, 1996

39. Chris Piromalli - Crohns Research Coordinator (http://www.shafran.net/crohns/Introduction.htm)

40. M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3;Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998

41. Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, SCIENCE, vol. 249.August 24, 1990

42. Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American DieteticAssociation, vol. 99, no. 10. October 1999

43. Jane Plant, Your Life in Your Hands , Virgin Editor

44. Science 1981; 213:1014

45. Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population andHuman Leukaemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology112 (1980):80 ; Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains aLeukaemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 ; Bewareof the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4, Is Bovine Milk

A Health Hazard ?, Paediatrics Suppl. Feeding the NormalInfant. 75:182-186; 1985


65/68

- 64 -

46. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990

47. A.S. Cunningham, Lymphomas and Animal-ProteinConsumption, The Lancet, November 27, 1976 (p. 1184)

48. British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990

49. British Medical Journal, vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30

50. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992,Vol. 56 pp.353-359

51. Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26

52. American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov.1989

53. International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989

54. Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989

55. Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985

56. Dr Jean Seignalet, Lalimentation ou la troisimemdecine, Ed. de Guibert (5th edition) 2004

57. United Press International, 11 March 1983

58. Journal of Animal Science, January 1998, 76 :1

59. Chemosphere, October 1998, 37 :9

60. Steve Milloy, author of Junkscience.com

61. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 1991, n 47

62. Pesticide News, October 1994

63. OARDC Research Bulletin n1190, 1987


66/68


67/68

- 66 -


68/68

deadly dairy

Documents