Information for Transformation

This self-help alternative medicine site offers extensive educational information on the topics of natural healing, holistic and biological dentistry, herbal medicine, cleansing and detoxification, heavy metal detox, diet, nutrition, weight loss, and the finest, tried and tested health equipment and products available for the natural management of health.



Dairy Products







Few foods in our culture are held in such high esteem as the mammary secretions of cows. One dollar of every seven spent for food in the United States goes for the purchase of milk and milk products. Each person in the U.S. consumes, on the average, 375 pounds of dairy products each year. These items make up the second largest food expense, ranking behind only the combined expenses for meat, fish, poultry, and eggs. “There is no human requirement for milk from a cow,” says Suzanne Havala, R.D., author of the American Dietitic Association’s Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets and several books on nutrition. “The use of milk and its products in our country is strictly a cultural tradition,” she notes. “There are millions of people around the world who never consume cow’s milk and are none the worse for it.” Those who avoid dairy products may seem to be choosing an unusual diet by Western standards, but are actually choosing a typical diet by world standards. The belief that milk is essential in the diet is clearly incorrect.


Milk is a causative factor in most health problems plaguing Americans consuming the Basic American Diet. The drinking of cow milk has been linked to iron-deficiency anemia in infants and children; it has been named as the cause of multiple forms of allergies and plays a central role in the origins of atherosclerosis and heart attacks. Cow milk is linked with recurrent ear infections and bronchitis, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and simple dental decay. Milk is a carrier of radioactive substances. Dairy products are major contributors of saturated fat and cholesterol to the diet. According to cardiologist Dean Ornish, M.D., “Milk rates second only to beef as the largest source of saturated fat in the American diet.” One glass of 2% milk has as much saturated fat as three strips of bacon. Almost half the calories in whole milk come from fat. Humans are the only mammalian species that drinks milk after they’re weaned! Most animals are exclusively breast-fed until they have tripled their birth weight, which in human infants occurs around the age of one year. The earlier the human infant is exposed to milk from another species, the more likely he is to show signs of intolerance. In many other parts of the world, people regard cow milk as unfit for consumption by adult human beings.


There are eighteen million dairy cows in the U.S. The dairy industry is big business; one of every seven members of Congress receives support for re-election from it. Of the three areas in the world noted for the longevity of the local population–the Caucasus Mountains in Russia, the village of Vilcabamba in Ecuador and the land of the Hunza in northern India–all three, use whole milk products. The people of Hunza and Kashmir consume whole fermented goat milk products; inhabitants of Vilcabamba consume raw cows’ milk which they usually separate into cream cheese and whey; and the centenarians of the Caucasus Mountains eat whole milk yogurt and other dairy products. Milk products form the backbone of the Hindu diet, with clarified butter (ghee) and fermented curds eaten with every meal. The cows are our friends, they give food, they give strength, they likewise give a good complexion and happiness, said Gautama Buddha.


While the Japanese have the longest life span of the civilized world on a diet containing few milk products, the Swiss are a close second in the longevity stakes with a diet just loaded with rich milk products like butter cream and cheese. Tied for third and fourth are the Austrians and the Greeks. Both these populations consume whole milk products, especially cheese. Milk products are even found in some parts of the Orient, from water buffalo milk in Southeast Asia to cows’ milk in northern China. The longest living man in the West was Old Par, an English peasant who labored in the fields until his death at 152 years. His diet consisted almost entirely of raw goat milk productsmilk, cheese and whey.



The dairy industry advances the notion that their calcium-rich foods are veritable guarantors of unbreakable bones, however, there is scant support for this assertion in the medical literature. Nutritional anthropologists believe that our earliest ancestors–who got most of their calcium from wild plant foods–had higher calcium intake than their milk-drinking contemporaries. Throughout the world, people who consume the most calcium actually have the poorest bone health. Researchers have found that nations with the greatest calcium intake have the highest rates of osteoporosis and hip fracture, and that there are relatively few fractures among populations where calcium levels are not so high. The differences in fracture rates cannot be accounted for by differences in dietary intake of calcium but relate more to physical activity, which promotes strong bones.


The greatest instigators of calcium loss, it turns out, is a high-protein diet. Protein, and especially protein from animal sources, makes our urine acidic, a condition the body attempts to remedy by drawing calcium and other alkaline minerals from the teeth and bones. Eventually, this calcium is lost, flushed from the body in the urine–which creates the precipitation and formation of kidney stones. Vegan diets produce less acid than those including dairy products. By reducing animal protein in the diet, some people can cut urinary calcium losses in half. The composition of milk from mammalian species varies considerably in its composition of fat, protein, sugar and minerals. Each was designed to provide optimum nutrition to the young of the respective species. Each is different from human milk. Cow milk, like all milks, contains three basic ingredients–sugar, fat, and protein. These three substances are suspended in water that also contains a variety of minerals and vitamins. Each of the three basic ingredients of cow milk has now come under scrutiny as a cause of problems in human nutrition.


The path that transforms healthy milk products into allergens and carcinogens begins with modern feeding methods that substitute high protein, soy-based feeds for fresh green grass; and breeding methods to produce cows with abnormally large pituitary glands so that they produce three times more milk than the old fashioned scrub cow. These cows need antibiotics to keep them well. Their milk is then pasteurized so that all valuable enzymes are destroyed–lactase for the assimilation of lactose; galactase for the assimilation of galactose; phosphatase for the assimilation of calcium.


Literally dozens of precious enzymes are destroyed in the pasteurization process. Without them, milk is very difficult to digest. The human pancreas is not always able to produce these enzymes; overstress of the pancreas can lead to diabetes and other diseases. The butterfat of commercial milk is homogenized, subjecting it to rancidity or, even worse, removed altogether. Skim milk is sold as a health food but the truth is that butterfat is in milk for a reason. Without butterfat, the body cannot absorb and utilize the vitamins and minerals in the water fraction of the milk. Along with valuable trace minerals and short chain fatty acids, butterfat is America’s best source of pre-formed vitamin A. Synthetic vitamin D, known to be toxic to the liver, is added to replace the natural vitamin D complex in butterfat. Butterfat also contains re-arranged acids which have strong anti-carcinogenic properties.


Non-fat dried milk is added to 1% and 2% milk. Unlike the cholesterol in fresh milk, which plays a variety of health promoting roles, the rancid cholesterol in non-fat dried milk is oxidized and it promotes heart disease. Like all spray-dried products, non-fat dried milk has high nitrite content. Non-fat dried milk and sweetened condensed milk are the principal dairy products in third world countries; use of ultra-high-temperature pasteurized milk is widespread in Europe. Public health officials and the National Dairy Council have worked together in this country to make it very difficult to obtain wholesome fresh raw dairy products. Nevertheless, they can be found with a little effort. In some states you can buy raw milk directly from farmers.


Whole pasteurized non-homogenized milk from cows raised on organic feed is now available in many gourmet shops and health food stores. It can be cultured to restore enzyme content, at least partially. Cultured buttermilk is often more easily digested than regular milk; it is an excellent product to use in baking. Whole cream is merely pasteurized, not ultra-pastuerized like most commercial cream; diluted with water it is delicious on cereal and a good substitute for those allergic to milk. Traditionally made creme fraiche (European style sour cream) also has high enzyme content.


Fresh, organic yogurt, made from whole milk according to traditional methods, is also now available, as well as organic raw cheese. Many imported cheeses are raw (look for the words milk or fresh milk on the label) and are of very high quality. Actually, milk is one of the foods that is best avoided. On a daily basis, radioactive materials are emitted from nuclear plants and from incidents like the accident at Chernobyl. From the waste that has been used to cool the reactors, radioactive substances pass into nearby rivers, lakes or even the sea. They may contaminate water used for irrigating crops that are then fed to cows. Radioactive elements end up concentrated in food chains and cows are on the top of one food chain.


Milk and other dairy products are the main source of dietary strontium-90 in the U.S. Like other fatty foods, dairy products attract and concentrate contaminants. It took only eleven days for the radiation to reach the U.S. through the air. Dairy products from cow’s milk, whether pasteurized or raw, are the most mucoid forming of all foods. This includes milk, skim milk, butter, cheese, cottage cheese, cream, yogurt, kefir, ghee and whey. Cow’s milk contains an amino acid called casein, used to make wood glue-like Elmer’s glue, made by the Borden Co. and is very mucous forming in humans. Goat’s milk, however, is substantially less mucoid forming than cows’ milk. Excess mucus creates congestion in the bowels, lungs, bloodstream, lymph system and sinuses. Mucus also leads to the formation of acids in the tissues, diminishing our ability to ward off radiation.


Many parasites thrive on cows’ milk, especially tapeworms. In fact, milk is used to expel tapeworms–they go to the milk.




A glass of milk can contain a cocktail of up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones, scientists have shown. Using a highly sensitive test, they found a host of chemicals used to treat illnesses in animals and people in samples of cow, goat and human breast milk. The doses of drugs were far too small to have an effect on anyone drinking them, but the results highlight how man-made chemicals are now found throughout the food chain. The highest quantities of medicines were found in cow’s milk.


Researchers believe some of the drugs and growth promoters were given to the cattle, or got into milk through cattle feed or contamination on the farm. The Spanish-Moroccan team analysed 20 samples of cow’s milk bought in Spain and Morocco, along with samples of goat and breast milk. Their breakdown, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, revealed that cow’s milk contained traces of anti-inflammatory drugs niflumic acid, mefenamic acid and ketoprofen – commonly used as painkillers in animals and people.


Milk fat contains high concentrations of toxins, which accumulate from the pesticides, chemical fertilizers and antibiotics, tranquilizers and other drugs that are applied to the bushels of grains that the cattle are fed, and that are injected into them. These cause many and varied health problems. Among the many drug residues detected are: Chloramphenicol, Clorsulon, Ivermectin and Thiabendazole, Penicillin, Erythromycin, Streptomycin, Tetracycline and a class of sulfa drugs called sulfonamides. The Wall Street Journal published a front-page story detailing the results of two independent milk surveys. One survey sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), found drug residues in 38% of milk samples. The other survey, sponsored by the journal itself, found drug residues in 38% of milk samples purchased in 10 major cities. Both surveys found milk to contain residues of penicillin and various sulfa drugs. Penicillin, even the small amounts found in milk, can cause allergic reactions ranging from skin rashes to life-threatening respiratory problems.


The most disturbing drug found in the surveys was sulfa-methazine known to cause thyroid cancer in lab animals and is a suspected human carcinogen. Earlier surveys, conducted by independent researchers over the past few years, found that between 63 and 86% of milk samples were tainted with sulfa drugs, tetracyclines and other antibiotics. A skeptical FDA ran its own survey in March 1988 and got similar results.


The agency was particularly dismayed with the prevalence of sulfa-methazine in milk: 74% of the samples contained traces of this drug. The FDA has a policy of clinging to outdated drug-testing methods, which cannot detect small amounts of drugs such as sulfa-methazine. A 1988 staff memorandum from the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, listed 30 unapproved drugs believed to be used by milk producers. Sixteen of those drugs are being used extensively in dairy cows, on an extra-label basis. The FDA’s disk-assay method of testing is able to detect residues of only two of the 30 drugs in milk. The disk-assay is the official laboratory test used by the government to document drug residues in milk. It has been criticized as being outdated and insufficiently sensitive.


Some state milk-safety experts favor an official switch to a new test, Charm II. This test is very sensitive: It can detect 40 drugs down to the level of 5 parts per billion (ppb). The disk-assay test, in contrast, only can detect residues at levels of 20 ppb. Unlike disk assay, Charm II can identify many antibiotic contaminants at the same time. Charm II’s milk testing abilities have earned it the approval of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. However, that seal of approval apparently isn’t good enough for the FDA. The agency and dairy-industry leaders won’t switch to Charm II or a similarly sensitive test. The FDA is afraid of what such a test would reveal. Marvin Ratten, chief milk inspector for the Idaho Department of Agriculture, agrees. “They all know what the problem is,” Ratten told the Wall Street Journal. “They just don’t want the bad press.”


If you can’t remember seeing anything about these tests on the evening news, it’s because the results were reported in a scattershot way, mostly in publications geared to the farm business. After the March 1988 tests, the FDA took a step to counter the problem by prohibiting dairy farmers from giving sulfamethazine to milk cows. The discovery of drug residues in what was thought to be pure milk reveals the sorry state of the federal milk-inspection program.


The FDA, the agency responsible for regulating the drugs used in food animals and for supervising the nation’s milk-safety system, is said by some of its own employees to be too cozy with the drug and dairy industries. Alexander Apostolou, director of toxicology at the Center for Veterinary Medicine, supported this charge in an affidavit to the Office of Special Counsel (an independent investigatory agency of the executive branch of the government). In the affidavit, Apostoulou testified that drug-company lobbyists enjoy “almost unlimited access” from the FDA officials responsible for approving animal drugs. He also claimed that FDA officials steer some drug applications away from certain reviewers, so that companies can “avoid those staff members that are less cooperative.” The fact is, the dairy industry is already flooded with excess milk. As taxpayers, we pay billions of dollars in price supports due to this wasteful overproduction. Now agro-drug companies are pushing hormones that will increase overproduction even further, while harming animals and endangering the safety of our food supply.


Bovine Growth Hormone

The drug some farmers don’t want you to know they’re using is a Monsanto Laboratory version of bovine growth hormone, known as  rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), a genetically engineered, potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name POSILAC. Injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10%. Monsanto has stated that about one third of dairy cows are in herds where the hormone is used.


When the cow gets injected with extra BGH, the artificial hormone stimulates the production of another insulin-like hormone called IGF-1, that speeds up the cow’s metabolism, causing her to produce up to 30% more milk. But some scientists, like Dr. Samuel Epstein from the University of Illinois, are warning that what might be good for the farmer’s bottom line might be big trouble down the line for people drinking the milk from treated cows, as consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer.


Researchers at a breast cancer conference stated that up to one-third of breast cancers could be avoided by making different lifestyle choices, such as the foods you choose to eat. There is one food you may be surprised to learn, that is directly linked to breast cancer—and that is pasteurized dairy in the form of milk or milk products. The risk lies in consuming milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH, and unfortunately, this applies to about one third of the dairy cows in America. When you consume dairy products from these cows, every product made from their milk is contaminated with this dangerous hormone—be it cheese, ice cream, yogurt, butter—or just plain milk.


Cows are injected with rBGH to boost their milk production.


But science has proven this practice, although profitable to the industry, comes at a high price to you, as well as to dairy cows. RBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows' pituitary glands. Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and markets it under the brand name "Posilac." RBGH is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America. But it is banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union because of its dangers to human health. Many have tried to inform the public of the risks of using this hormone in dairy cows, but their attempts have been met with overwhelming opposition by the powerful dairy and pharmaceutical industries, and their government liaisons.


When the cow gets injected with extra BGH, the artificial hormone stimulates the production of another insulin-like hormone called IGF-1, that speeds up the cow’s metabolism, causing her to produce up to 30% more milk. But some scientists, like Dr. Samuel Epstein from the University of Illinois, are warning that what might be good for the farmer’s bottom line might be big trouble down the line for people drinking the milk from treated cows, as consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer.


Monsanto, supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), insist that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk, and that it is safe for consumers. This is blatantly false:

· rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on its Posilac label.

· rBGH milk is contaminated by pus, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.

· rBGH milk is chemically, and nutritionally different than natural milk.

· Milk from cows injected with rBGH is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood.

· rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.

· Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

· IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers. rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. • rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any benefits, to consumers, especially in view of the current national surplus of milk.

 · Of still greater concern, based on 37 published scientific studies as detailed in the book, excess levels of IGF-1 in rBGH milk pose major risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers.


Studies have shown that injecting cows with synthetic BGH causes an increase in IGF-1 levels found in the cow’s milk. This is cause for concern because a growing body of evidence points to IGF-1 as a potential cancer promoter known to cause cell proliferaton and tumor growth, particularly in the human colon and breast. Dr. Epstein is a scientist at the University of Illinois school of Public Health. He’s earned three medical degrees, a professorship of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, written eight books and countless editorials appearing in some of America’s leading newspapers, and frequently advises Congress about things in our environment which may cause cancer.


Reporters have located and confirmed more than a dozen independent studies of the artificial hormone, published post-FDA approval. These raise legitimate concerns about the risk of cancer to adults and children who drink milk from cows injected with BGH. Monsanto, on the other hand, contends the latest research confirms the overall safety of its synthetic hormone. In fact, the research Monsanto most frequently refers to is a study of the synthetic hormone’s effects on BGH-treated cows monitored by Monsanto, not people who drink the cows’ milk. The University of Florida did much of the research on BGH and has received millions in gifts and grants from Monsanto. Monsanto received approval for rBGH (trade name–Posilac) on February 4, 1993 even though it had never been tested on a laboratory animal. Nor had it been tested on a cow.


The critics say that tests of BGH milk that could have answered concerns about long-term risk to humans were never done. Several tests have shown that levels of the suspected cancer link IGF-1 are significantly higher in milk from treated cows–up to 20 times higher, according to one study. Other studies confirm higher antibiotic levels in the milk, as farmers inject cows with more drugs to fight BGH-caused infections. BGH forces cows to produce milk in quantities unnatural and detrimental to their bodies. The result: hormone-injected cows suffer from increased susceptibility to infection and disease. As infection and disease increase in BGH injected cows, so does the need for additional antibiotics and other drugs which are passed on to consumers.


Dr. Epstein and others, like Dr. William von Meyer, point to what they say is a growing body of scientific evidence of a link between IGF-1 and human cancers, which might not show up for years to come. Dr. von Meyer has spent 30 years studying chemical products and testing their effects on humans. He’s supervised many such tests on thousands of animals at schools such as the University of London and UCLA. He’s headed agricultural, chemical and genetic research at some of America’s most prestigious companies. He said that a human drug requires two years of carcinogenic testing and extensive birth defect testing. BGH was tested for 90 days on 30 rats before it was approved. His concerns about BGH have sparked inquiries as to why BGH was ever approved for use in the U.S. while 17 countries, including a dozen European countries, Canada and New Zealand have all blocked the use of it there. Monsanto has invested a mountain of money into bovine growth hormone and has consistently rejected the concerns of scientists around the world, contending that “the cancer experts don’t see the health issue.” Monsanto’s sales tapes encourage farmers to use it as a tool to milk more profits out of every cow, stating ...“of course you’ll want to inject Posilac into every eleigible cow, as each cow not treated is a lost income opportunity.”


The FDA has repeatedly said since the day it approved BGH back in 1993: “The public can be confident that milk and meat from BGH-treated cows is safe to consume.” Nonetheless, influential food safety officials from around the world remain unconvinced. A number of critics, including at least one state agriculture commissioner, have called it “crack for cows” for the way it speeds up the cow’s milk production...but despite its promise of profit, some dairymen say the product doesn’t always lead to happy trails for the cows or for those who tend them. Many farmers say they’ve watched Posilac burn their cows out sooner, shortening their lives by maybe two years. Others say they’ve had to replace up to 75% of their herds due to hoof problems, where they became so crippled they couldn’t walk, and serious udder infections. Those are only two of more than 20 potential troubles listed right on the product warning label. In the summer of 2000, the members of an important United Nations committee, for the second time in two years, blocked efforts to give a virtual green light to selling the drug around the world; they decided synthetic BGH needs more study.


In the fall of 1994, Canadian television quoted a Canadian health official as reporting Monsanto offered $1-2 million if her government committee would recommend BGH approval in Canada without further data or studies of the drug. Monsanto said the report alleging bribery was a “a blatant untruth,” that Canadian regulators just didn’t understand the offer of the money was for research. Monsanto demanded a retraction. The Canadian Broadcasting Company stands by its story. Monsanto was wrong years ago when it convinced the government PCBs were safe. Those were put inside electrical transformers for years...until researchers in Japan and Sweden showed serious hazards to human health and the environment. Also Monsanto convinced the government that Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T, the defoliant used in Vietnam, too, was safe. It was later proved to be extremely harmful to humans...and a government investigator found what she said was “a clear pattern of fraudulent content in Monsanto’s research” leading to approval.


Would you drink hormone-laced milk? Unfortunately, you may already have. Test milk from cows injected with genetically engineered BGH has been placed on the market and sold to unsuspecting consumers. It’s too soon to know all the effects of drinking hormone-laced milk. Like BGH, the hormone DES was originally promoted as “safe.” It took years for its carcinogenic side effects to be acknowledged, but for some, it came too late. Richard J. Burroughs, a former FDA veterinarian, was fired from the agency in November 1989 after a long dispute with his superiors over drug safety data provided by the manufacturers of bovine growth hormone (BGH). “I was told I was slowing down the approval process,” Burroughs told the New York Times after his firing. Burroughs was not just a lonely dissenting voice. Many others shared this concern over BGH, and the FDA knew it. In the summer of 1989, five supermarket chains barred sales of milk products from BGH-treated cows while safety studies were underway.


Several states, including Wisconsin, Vermont and Minnesota, are considering legislation that would either ban BGH or require separation and labeling of BGH-produced milk. Many small dairy farmers are protesting BGH, saying it will benefit only large milk producers and drive them out of business. The real problem is not how much drug residues are found in milk, but why cows are being given so many antibiotics in the first place. Most dairy cows today live not in barnyards and pastures, but in large “factory farms.” To maximize milk production, the cows are re-inseminated soon after each calving. (Male calves are immediately sold for veal.) After three to four years, a cow’s production tends to drop and she becomes hamburger meat. In fact, dairy cows comprise 15 percent of all beef consumed in the U.S. Milk producers want to churn out as much milk as possible, despite the nation’s milk glut. Today’s dairy cow is little more than a specially bred milk machine. Before strict breeding methods and intensive, chemical-assisted farming practices became common, a lactating cow produced about 2,000 lbs. of milk per year. In the United States today, according to USDA scientists, dairy cows produce an average of about 14,000 pounds of milk per year. Some elite herds produce an average of 25,000 pounds per cow per year, and some cows produce 50,000 lbs.


Today’s Pelican Brief

In the 2000 election, Monsanto donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in PAC money and soft money to political candidates. The man receiving the second highest total dollars from Monsanto was Larry Combest (R-TX). He got $2000. Combest is the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Who got the most from Monsanto? The winner of the Monsanto sweepstakes with $10,000 was John Ashcroft (R-MO), George Bush's Attorney General.


Follow the Monsanto connection to George Bush's presidency. This brief will be more convincing than Grisham's Pelican Brief.


First and Most Important

Monsanto's lawyer was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Bush, Sr. The deciding swing voter gave the election to George, Jr. That justice: Clarence Thomas, Esq.



Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, purchased by Monsanto.



Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceuticals, purchased by Monsanto.



Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health, was a supporter of Monsanto in Wisconsin. He received $50,000 from biotech firms is his election run, and used state funds to set up a a $317 million biotech zone in Wisconsin.



Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was the vice president of corporate strategy at Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company. Eli Lilly and Monsanto developed the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Lilly "owns" the European "franchise." Daniels' presence insures that the bovine growth hormone will one day be approved for use in Europe.



The House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman, Larry Combest (R-TX), named Richard Pombo to head Agriculture's dairy, livestock, and poultry sub-committee. Pombo will have enormous power in chairing this committee. In 1994, the Dairy Committee considered a bill that would label milk and milk products containing the genetically engineered hormone. The Dairy Committee stalled the proposed bill until the 1994 elections. When the 1994 session of Congress expired, the bill died. It was never even voted upon. A subsequent investigation of Pombo revealed that he accepted money directly from Monsanto while voting on a bill that impacted Monsanto's future, and the future of biotechnology.



Last, but not least. John Ashcroft, Attorney General. The one man out of 535 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate receiving the greatest amount of financial support from Monsanto. He received five times the amount of money as the congressman finishing second.


Where do Americans finish in this stranger than fiction real-life drama? Last.



These incredible yields come at a tremendous price for the cows. In these crowded, unnatural conditions, it’s a challenge for modern farm “operators” to keep diseases under control and milk production up, so they enlist an armament of pharmaceuticals, highly promoted by drug companies. Milk is tainted with so many drugs that it should be sold by prescription only. But drug residues pass into the cow’s milk, promoting cancer, allergic reactions and the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Because they’re bred to have a fast metabolism, they are often high-strung and vulnerable to stress. To produce such huge quantities of milk, they require more food than cows did years ago–so much food that they are more prone to disease from malnutrition, a situation worsened by the crowded conditions in which most dairy cows live. That’s why they are given so many drugs.


The General Accounting Office (GAO) has concluded that the FDA’s regulation of dairy drugs does not insure safety. According to John Harman, the GAO’s director of food and agricultural issues, “Of 64 drugs commonly used on cows, 35 are not approved for bovine use.” These include banned antibiotics and tranquilizers approved only for race horses but used on stressed-out cows. Very few milk samples are tested for drug residues, and the FDA’s tests can’t even detect the residues of most dairy drugs. The drug companies fund scientists to find ways to make cows produce more and more milk. They advise pushing up the energy and protein in cows’ feed, and they advocate strict breeding selection for the bloodlines of cattle that are the biggest milk producers. Dairy farmers are particularly worried about the effects of mastitis, an infection of the milk-producing organs. It’s the most prevalent disease among dairy cows. The National Research Council said 50% of dairy cows have mastitis. Because milk from cows with mastitis cannot be mixed with normal milk and sold, the dairy farmer wants to cure the infection as soon as possible and get the cow’s milk back into the collecting tank.


In this situation, antibiotics are the most powerful and cost-effective tool for keeping infection under control and milk sales high. If the drugs they’re using now are banned, they’ll likely try other drugs until they find ones they’re allowed to use. Drug residues in milk are ultimately the result of a farming system that makes cows sick. And drug residues are just one problem arising from assembly-line dairies, which turn cows into milk machines and flood the U.S. with 146 million gallons of milk a year.


Since more hemoglobin is needed to carry oxygen to cells enveloped with mucous, the amount of oxygen available to the brain decreases, and dairy food contributes to uneven thinking, dulled reactions and emotional dependency. For the first time ever, the FDA is launching a national program for testing of milk, but critics say it’s too little too late. Under pressure from consumer groups and Congress to step up its surveillance of the dairy industry, the FDA is now checking milk for veterinary drug residues. Though the FDA program is on the right track, it’s akin to “the boy who tried to stick his finger in the hole in the dike,” said Lisa Lefferts, staff scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group. “It’s not enough.” Currently, the FDA is testing only five milk samples a week. “That means each processing location in the FDA’s program will be visited only once a year,” said Rep. Ted Weiss (D-New York), who has spoken out vehemently against the lack of adequate testing of the nation’s milk.



Milk fat also contains an enzyme called xanthine oxidase (XO). Homogenization allows XO to pass into the bloodstream intact. When foreign XO enters the bloodstream it creates havoc by attacking specific targets within artery walls. The specific target within the arteries is called plasmalogen, a tissue making up 30 percent of human heart muscle and artery wall cells. Plasmologen’s presence is vital for the integrity of the outer cell membrane analogous to the way mortar holds bricks together in a wall. The direct attacks cause lesions within artery walls and the body’s protective mechanisms respond to the damage by scarring and laying down calcified plaques. The simple thickening and hardening of the arteries is known as arteriosclerosis, whereas atherosclerosis is characterized by the additional accumulation of cholesterol (not dietary) and fatty deposits laid down adjacent to scars and plaques. Gradually, the artery wall thickens, obstructing the flow of blood. Arteries lose their elasticity in later stages of the disease and additional calcium is deposited. Calcification can contribute to high blood pressure which is actually not a disease in itself. High blood pressure is merely a symptom. The process of XO damage actually starts in the mother’s womb, the researchers said. Homogenization causes the fat globules in whole milk to be fragmented into tiny molecules that will not regroup. Not only do these intense molecules of fat refuse to regroup, they also resist digestion and manage to enter the bloodstream unaltered—which is a reason why so many people are allergic to milk.



Milk is the most common cause of food allergy. A recent study found that one way to reduce the number of allergies in infants is for the breastfeeding mother to avoid consuming, or make very limited use of cow’s milk. More than 25% of the world’s population, over four years old, is allergic to cow’s milk and milk products due to an inherited lack or deficiency of the enzyme lactose, which is necessary to digest milk. Lactose is the sugar in milk. It is the only sugar, also termed carbohydrate, present in milk. Lactose is a disaccharide, meaning that it is made up of two simple sugars. Glucose and galactose are the two monosaccharides that, linked together, form the disaccharide lactose. Only the cells of the lactating mammary gland form this sugar; thus no other food except mammalian milk contains lactose. The only mammals that do not have lactose–or any other carbohydrate in their milk–are seals, sea lions, and walruses. Human milk contains about 75 grams of lactose per quart while cow milk contains close to 45 grams per quart. When consumed in milk, lactose, the disaccharide, must be broken down into its two monosaccharides before it can be absorbed from the intestinal tract into the bloodstream. Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down the lactose in milk and milk products. Lactase is present in the intestinal cells of the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract and it s highest concentration is in that portion of the small intestine called the jejunum.


Lactase activity first appears in the intestinal tract of infants during the last third of pregnancy and is at its height shortly after birth. If the amount of lactose in the diet exceeds that capacity of the lactase in the intestine to break it down, then the lactose is undigested and proceeds to the large intestine. When the undigested lactose reaches the colon, or large intestine, two things happen. First, the bacteria that normally inhabit the colon act upon the lactose. They ferment the lactose and convert it to a gas, carbon dioxide, and to an acid, lactic acid. The lactose molecules also cause water to be drawn into the intestinal tract by a process of osmosis. As a result, more gas and water are present in the colon. This combination produces a sense of bloating and also results in belching, the passage of gas from the rectum, cramps, and may induce a watery diarrhea. Sometime between the age of one and a half and four years most individuals gradually lose the lactase activity in their small intestine. This appears to be a normal process that accompanies maturation. It occurs in most mammals shortly after they are weaned; humans included...


Allergy to cow milk is far more common than is generally appreciated. Gastrointestinal disturbance is just one of the many ways that the allergy may make itself known. The most common form is chronic diarrhea. Mucus is frequent and some stools contain obvious traces of bright red blood. Infants with this form of milk sensitivity may lose 1 to 5 milliliters of blood per day in their stool. Eventually they become anemic from the steady hemorrhage. The volumes of blood lost each day are too small for detection by simple visual examination, and can only be detected by chemical tests.



Over-reliance on milk in children can lead to anemia, as milk is very low in iron, and drinking large quantities of it can crowd iron-rich foods from the diet. The consumption of cow milk by infants, produces iron deficiency anemia in two ways–it provides very little dietary iron and at the same time produces iron loss by inducing gastrointestinal bleeding. In young infants, protein from cow’s milk can cause intestinal bleeding,a nother possible cause of anemia.


This anemia makes the child irritable, apathetic, and inattentive. The infant cries a great deal, the mother gives a bottle of milk to soothe him, and the condition continues to get worse. An infant of one year of age would have to drink twenty-four quarts of milk per day to meet his iron requirements! Cow milk contains less than 1 milligram of iron per quart. Very little of this iron is absorbed from the intestinal tract because other constituents of the milk bind the iron and make it difficult for it to be taken up from the bowel into the blood. It is estimated that half the iron-deficiency anemia in the U.S. is primarily a result of this form of cow milk induced gastrointestinal bleeding. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of all children under the age of two in this country suffer from iron-deficiency anemia. The symptoms usually begin shortly after a child begins to take whole cow milk but may also be observed in children who drink commercial formulas that include cows-milk protein. Those with mild symptoms grow well, but those with severe diarrhea have retarded weight gain. The diarrhea impairs the infant’s ability to retain nutrients from his feedings.


The changes produced in the gastrointestinal tract by the allergic reaction result in seepage of the child’s own blood into the gut. This loss of plasma and red cells leads to a lowering of the infant’s blood protein level and to the development of anemia. The lowering of serum proteins, if profound, results in swelling of the abdomen, hands, and feet. Most infants with this condition respond promptly to the elimination of cow milk from the diet. Supplying the child with raw, carrot, greens, and beet juice will supply the missing iron, in a biologically available form to correct the anemia. All symptoms may disappear in two days.


There is a condition found in children ten to thirteen years old who had a troublesome form of persistent kidney disease known as nephrosis. Nephrosis is a disorder in which excess amounts of protein are lost from a damaged kidney. This continued loss of protein into the urine produces a lowering of the blood-protein level; and eventually results in pronounced fluid accumulation in the child. Children may have swollen hands and feet as well as fluid in their abdomen. Some children may go on to permanent renal disease and die. When milk is removed from the diet, these children promptly stop losing protein in their urine and show signs of marked improvement. When milk is added to the diets, within one to three days the urinary excretion of protein markedly increases. Parents frequently are incredulous that milk could cause the symptoms their infant is exhibiting. The prevailing attitude is that cow’s milk is not only a desirable food, but the ideal food and an essential element of the child’s diet.



Sensitivity to cow’s milk can cause colic, a digestive ailment ininfants. Colic can cause problems even in infants who aren’t drinking cow’s milk but whose mothers are.


Respiratory Dysfunction

Conscious holistic pediatricians consistently find that there is a demonstrable relationship between the consumption of cow milk and several respiratory and gastrointestinal disorders, and the musculoskeletal pain in children, especially the so-called ‘growing pains.” Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus bacteria will not establish an infection in a child kept on an absolutely no-milk-protein dietary regimen. Streptococcal pharyngitis, or pyoderma shows up within five days after the consumption of milk protein.


Mother’s milk contains about 4.4% fats, of which an average of 8% is the essential fatty acids linoleic acid (LA) and gamma-linolenic acid (LNA) and traces of dihomogammalinolenic acid (DGLA)the last two being intermediates in the production of the different members of the prostaglandin (tissue hormones) family. Mother’s milk, by ensuring the newborn of a plentiful supply of prostaglandins, gives the baby a healthy cardiovascular start into its new world. The cholesterol content of dairy products, combined with the sticky fatty acids, creates a burden for the body that has to be carried by the fat-dispersing essential fatty acids which must come from another source. Human milk, although it also contains cholesterol, also contains the dispersing essential fatty acids, which help to keep cholesterol from settling in the walls of our arteries. Galactose is derived from lactose (milk sugar), and is an essential constituent of the cerebrosides of the central nervous system. Cerebrosides, abundant in the myelin sheath (around nerves), are generally designated as an acid amide of a fatty acid.





Pasteurized dairy is produced in the dirtiest milk factories imaginable, where blood, pus, e.coli and other truly dangerous pathogens are routinely bottled into milk containers and fed to consumers. That's the whole point of pasteurization, you see: To kill everything that might be alive in their ultra-dirty milk. The real purpose of pasteurization is not to simply "make milk safe" as is claimed by the CDC, but rather to allow the dairy industry to operate DIRTY. It's so much easier to just cook the crap out of the milk (yes, there's fecal matter in it) than to clean up their operations.


Thanks to pasteurization, conventional (non-organic, non-raw) dairy operators have no need to thoroughly wash their milking machines, no need to sterilize any milk containers, no need to wash their hands, and no need to maintain a clean milking environment whatsoever. It's just total filth with festering diseased animals dying on the floor and being physically abused by the corporate dairy operators.


Dairy cows are routinely abused and left to suffer in total filth

Want to know how conventional (pasteurized) dairy cows are really treated? Here's something the CDC won't show you.

Watch this highly disturbing video of dairy cows being kicked, tortured, abused and injured by conventional dairy workers. This was filmed with an undercover spy cam (WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGERY):





When you buy pasteurized milk at the grocery store, you are supporting an industry that tortures cows and produces a dirty, filthy product! Of course, the dairy industry would much rather force everybody to pasteurize their milk and outlaw clean raw dairy than to clean up their own act. That's the whole point of the CDC going after raw dairy: To destroy the raw dairy industry and force everyone to drink dirty, contaminated pasteurized milk that's extracted from tortured cows.


Cooking of food or pasteurization of milk definitely alters the biochemical quality by denaturing protein constituents. Also, heating foods to temperatures in excess of 105° destroys or impairs enzyme activity. Pasteurization—a time/temperature combination—technically occurs at 161° F for 30 seconds or 142° F for 30 minutes. Milk is approximately 101.5° F when it leaves the cow or goat. When it is treated above this natural temperature, vitamins and enzymes are destroyed and calcium and protein are adulterated. Pasteurization of milk impairs lactose assimilation. In turn, inadequate lactose means insufficient galactose. Galactose deficiency results in a change in the composition of myelin, which can set the stage for demyelinization (multiple sclerosis). The artificial feeding of infants results in a deficiency of galactose. Although cow’s milk contains six times as much calcium as human milk, cow’s milk contains much less lactose than human milk. In fact, cow milk formulae supply about one-third the galactose of human milk. The incidence of Multiple Sclerosis correlates with the decline of baby breast-feeding and with the onset of pasteurization. In addition to destroying enzymes, the heat from pasteurization causes the free, ionized calcium in milk to chelate (bond) to the protein, which becomes denatured making calcium less available to the consumer.


This can contribute to a calcium deficiency which, even in the presence of tryptophane, can cause unrestful sleep. In spite of all the attractive ads on television promoting the use of milk as a healthful food, there is no reason to let ourselves be drawn into the use of a food that was made by nature for infants.


Ice Cream

In the old days of whole eggs, raw milk and raw sugar or syrup, and laboriously cranked in the old home freezer, a serving of ice cream was an occasional family treat, and didn’t do much harm. Today, in this mass-producing, synthetic age, it is quite another matter entirely.


Ice cream manufacturers are not required by law to list the additives used in the making of ice cream. Consequently, today the majority of ice creams are synthetic from start to finish. Laboratory analyses have shown the following:

1 Diethyl Glucol: A cheap chemical that is used as an emulsifier instead of eggs. It is identically the same chemical used in anti-freeze and in paint removers.

2 Piperonal: Used as a substitute for vanilla. This is a chemical, used to kill lice.

3 Aldehyde C17: Used to flavor cherry ice cream. It is an inflammable liquid, which is used in aniline dyes, plastic and rubber.

4 Ethyl Acetate: Used to give ice cream a pineapple flavor. It is used as cleaner for leather and textiles, and its vapors have been known to cause chronic lung, liver and heart damage.

5 Butyraldehyde: Used in nut-flavored ice cream. It is one of the more common ingredients of rubber cement.

6 Amyl Acetate: Used for its banana flavor. It is used as an oil paint solvent.

7 Benzyl Acetate: Used for its strawberry flavor. It is a nitrate solvent.


The next time you are tempted by a luscious-looking sundae or banana split or ice cream soda, think of it as a mixture of anti-freeze, oil paint, paint remover, nitrate solvent, leather cleaner and lice killer, and you may not find it so appetizing.

Home Site Map Natural Healing


Search this site

Free Catalog Contact Us Dictionary About Us Natural Healing