Real Milk Cures Many Diseases

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/14/2005 11:05:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

crunky writes:

 

Milk is recognized in medical literature almost exclusively

as a useful food and is admitted to be a complete food.

 

 

I read this. And if I wanted to take the time, I'd prove every point

incorrect. But suffice it to say that #1 if the medical community says it

(above) it

is automatically in question. #2 if health is improved by improved

elimination, then milk is NOT the answer since it causes the body to produce

mass

amounts of mucous. #3 Milk is whole food if you're a calf. If you're a human,

then it will leave you deficient in much not the least of which is CALCIUM &

MAGNESIUM.

 

and on and on I could go.. but I won't.

 

 

 

 

 

*°º°*~Michelle~*°º°*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://realmilk.com/milkcure.html

 

by J. R. Crewe, MD

 

The following is an edited version of an article by Dr. J. R. Crewe, of

the Mayo Foundation, forerunner of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,

published in Certified Milk Magazine, January 1929. We are grateful to

Dr. Ron Schmid, ND of Middlebury, CT for unearthing this fascinating

piece. The " Milk Cure " was the subject of at least two books by other

authors, written subsequently to Dr. Crewe's work. *The milk used was,

in all cases, the only kind of milk available in those days—raw milk

from pasture-fed cows, rich in butterfat.* The treatment is a

combination of detoxifying fast and nutrient-dense feeding. Note that

Crewe quotes William Osler, author of a standard medical textbook of the

day. Thus, this protocol was an orthodox, accepted therapy in the early

1900s. Today the Mayo Clinic provides surgery and drug treatments, but

nothing as efficacious and elegant as the Milk Cure.

 

For fifteen years the writer has employed the certified milk treatment

in various diseases and during the past ten he had a small sanitarium

devoted principally to this treatment. The results obtained in various

types of disease have been so uniformly excellent that one's conception

of disease and its alleviation is necessarily changed. The method itself

is so simple that it does not greatly interest most doctors and the main

stimulus for its use is from the patients themselves.

 

To cure disease we should seek to improve elimination, to make better

blood and more blood, to build up the body resistance. The method used

tends to accomplish these things. Blood conditions rapidly improve and

the general condition and resistance is built up and recovery follows.

 

In several instances, Osler (Principles and Practices of Medicine, by

William Osler, MD eighth edition) speaks of milk as being nothing more

than white blood. Milk resembles blood closely and is a useful agent for

improving and making new and better blood. Blood is the chief agent of

metabolism. Milk is recognized in medical literature almost exclusively

as a useful food and is admitted to be a complete food.

 

The therapy is simple. The patients are put at rest in bed and are given

at half hour intervals small quantities of milk, totalling from five to

ten quarts of milk a day. Most patients are started on three or four

quarts of milk a day and this is usually increased by a pint a day.

Diaphoresis [copious perspiration] is stimulated by hot baths and hot

packs and heat in other forms. A daily enema is given.

 

The treatment is used in many chronic conditions but chiefly in

tuberculosis, diseases of the nervous system, cardiovascular and renal

conditions, hypertension, and in patients who are underweight, run-down,

etc. Striking results are seen in diseases of the heart and kidneys and

high blood pressure. In cases in which there is marked edema, the

results obtained are surprisingly marked. This is especially striking

because so-called dropsy has never been treated with large quantities of

fluid. With all medication withdrawn, one case lost twenty-six pounds in

six days, huge edema disappearing from the abdomen and legs, with great

relief to the patient. No cathartics or diuretics were given. This

property of milk in edema has been noted in both cardiac and renal cases.

 

Patients with cardiac disease respond splendidly without medication. In

patients who have been taking digitalis and other stimulants, the drugs

are withdrawn. High blood pressure patients respond splendidly and the

results in most instances are quite lasting. The treatment has been used

successfully in obesity without other alimentation. One patient reduced

from 325 pounds to 284 in two weeks, on four quarts of milk a day, while

her blood pressure was reduced from 220 to 170. Some extremely

satisfying results have been obtained in a few cases of diabetics.

 

When sick people are limited to a diet containing an excess of vitamins

and all the elements necessary to growth and maintenance, which are

available in milk, they recover rapidly without the use of drugs and

without bringing to bear all the complicated weapons of modern medicine.

 

Under the head of Treatment in Chronic Gastritis, Osler has said, " A

rigid milk diet should be tried " (Principles and Practices of Medicine,

by William Osler, M.D., eighth edition). And quoting from George Cheyne,

he wrote, " Milk and sweet sound blood differ in nothing but color: milk

is blood. " Under the heading of treatment in many diseases, it was true

that he had little to say about drugs but did say a good deal about diet

and particularly as in most every instance he recommended large

quantities of milk.

 

Under chronic Bright's disease (p 704) he says, " Milk or buttermilk

should constitute for a time, the chief article of food. " Under

treatment of cancer of stomach (p 505), he says many patients do best on

milk alone. Under treatment of rheumatic fever (p 378), he says, " Milk

is the most suitable diet. " With Olser as a background, one need not

hesitate to go a bit farther. In fact, practically all medical men are

agreed as to the value of milk as a food, and as an important part of

the diet in the treatment of many diseases. But as the chief remedy in

the treatment of disease, it is seldom used.

 

For more than 16 years I have conducted a small sanitarium where milk is

used almost exclusively in the treatment of various diseases. The

results have been so regularly satisfactory that I have naturally become

enthusiastic and interested in this method of treating disease. We used

good Guernsey milk, equal to 700 calories to the quart.

 

Interestingly, diseases that have no similarity respond equally to this

treatment. For instance, psoriasis clears up beautifully. The

improvement in tuberculosis or nephritis is equally interesting but

there is no similarity in these diseases. I once heard a very

distinguished medical man discussing a case of psoriasis. He said, " This

was the worst case of psoriasis I have ever seen. This boy was literally

covered from head to foot with scales. We put this boy on a milk diet

and in less than a month he had a skin like a baby's. " To me, this means

that there was evidently some nutritive substance or vitamin or

glandular secretion lacking, that was furnished by the milk.

 

It is well known that there is no time in the life of practically any

mammal, but especially of the human, when the body is so beautiful and

perfect as during the period when milk is the only food. It will be

admitted that there is no period in life when the body is so perfect as

in infancy, the infant being fed on milk from a healthy mother.

 

The Arabs are said (Encyclopedia Brittanica) to be the finest race,

physically, in the world. Their diet consists mostly of milk and milk

products with fruits and vegetables, and some meat.

 

You are all familiar with the writings of Colonel McCarrison, a medical

officer in the British Army. He tells us that for nine years he was

stationed in India in a district in the Himalayan Mountains. He said

that the natives were very fine physically, that they retained a

youthful appearance to advanced age and lived long and that they were

very fertile. During the nine years of his residence there he saw

practically no disease, no cases of malignancy or of abdominal disease.

The diet of these people was simple and consisted principally of

vegetables and fruits and milk and milk products.

 

Steffanson wrote most interestingly of the Eskimo, who, when

uncontaminated by civilized conditions were hardy and robust. Their diet

of course was almost entirely of meat and fish. He tells us, however,

that the habits of meat-eating people are similar to those of

carnivorous animals. The wolf first attacks the heart and gets the blood

and later eats the glandular organs and viscera, leaving the muscle

meats till the last. The Eskimo does the same thing.

 

During one expedition Mr. Steffanson and party started on a nine months'

trip over the Arctic ice with only one day's provisions. All previous

Arctic explorers had said that civilized men could not live in the

Arctic regions without bringing in their supplies. Mr. Steffanson and

his party, during the nine months, were almost never without an

abundance of food, and much of it was eaten frozen and raw. I wish to

show from Steffanson's experience, first, that it is possible for people

to be robust and maintain good health on various types of food of

limited variety. That the condition common to all types of diet is, that

much of the food is eaten raw. I wish to say here that our very

excellent results obtained in the treatment of disease were had with

uncooked food and raw milk.

 

The experience of seeing many cases of illness improve rapidly on a diet

of raw milk has suggested more and more the feeling that much of modern

disease is due to an increasing departure from simple methods of

preparing plain foods. The treatment of various diseases over a period

of 18 years with a practically exclusive milk diet has convinced me

personally that the most important single factor in the cause of disease

and in the resistance to disease is food. I have seen so many instances

of the rapid and marked response to this form of treatment that nothing

could make me believe this is not so.

 

We have often seen most satisfactory results in the treatment of anemia,

including pernicious anemia, on a milk diet. I have repeatedly seen a

marked reduction in the size of simple and toxic thyroid, with

improvement in the symptoms of the toxic one. In prostatic diseases and

associated conditions, this treatment will achieve rapid and marked

improvement in the infection and in the reduction of the gland and

lessening of obstruction. A professor of surgery in one of our state

universities once said to me, " Since I have used your method in

preparing prostate cases, I have had most excellent results and no

mortality. " I replied that if he had continued the treatment a little

longer, he would not need to operate. All infections of the urinary

tract are greatly improved by this treatment.

 

An old friend of mine, a woodworker, aged 74, had a marked heart lesion

and complete prostatic obstruction, so that it was necessary to use a

permanent catheter. He had been taking digitalis but this was

discontinued, and he received no medication of any kind. The prostate

was very large and the residual urine very foul. His recovery has been

rapid, and he has been able to work since that time and is now in very

good health at 77 years of age. Another local man was treated six years

ago for a severe chronic winter cough and prostatic disease, which

necessitated his getting up many times at night. He volunteered the

information a few days ago that he had no more trouble with any illness

since that time.

Indeed we had a number of patients who took the treatment for " beauty

treatment. " The tissues become firmer and the general appearance is

markedly improved.

 

One patient with very advanced cardiac and nephritic disease lost over

thirty pounds of edema in six weeks. One would expect the large

quantities of fluid would increase the edema but the above experience

has been repeated many times in lesser degrees.

 

Hypertension responds with equal gratification. The blood pressure

improves rapidly. I have never seen such rapid and lasting results by

any other method. One of the patients lived almost exclusively on milk

for more than three years.

 

About ten years ago a very sick man came to the Sanitarium suffering

from a severe cystitis and nephritis. He was a diabetic. As milk

contains about five percent milk sugar, it was feared that he could not

manage this amount of sugar. But he did manage it, and improved in every

way and in eight weeks was sugar free. My experience with milk diet in

diabetes has been limited, but very interesting. These few patients,

only seven or eight, have been much pleased with the results. Insulin

was used for a time in some of the cases. They all became sugar free, or

nearly so, after from four to ten weeks. From the fact that these

patients were able to use a much more liberal diet than diabetics

usually can take [after the treatment], it would seem to indicate that

at least a partial regeneration of the pancreas is not impossible.

 

Recently I received a letter from a soldier who was confined in a

government hospital in Arizona [for tuberculosis]. He said a former

patient of mine had induced him to try this method. He said that he had

done so well that a number of the men were also attempting it and he had

written for more definite instructions. He also said that the patients

had to buy their own milk and received no encouragement from the

hospital authorities.

 

There is a large class of patients who are ill but in whom no definite

organic lesion can be found. These patients are often underweight. They

may consume a fairly large amount of food but they do not gain in weight

or strength. These patients do respond admirably to our system of large

quantities of milk.

 

The chief fault of the treatment is that it is too simple. Patients

attempt to do it at home, but there are many pitfalls, and it does not

appeal to the modern medical man.

 

 

A Campaign for Real Milk is a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation

PMB 106-380, 4200 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington DC 20016

[Guest guest]

Please, take the time to really read the article. It is not from " the

medical community, " but from the early part of the last century by a

doctor who used RAW MILK FROM PASTURE-FED COWS.

 

The doctors at the time used The Milk Cure to help people suffering

diseases; this article is not a report of short-term studies based on

the consumption of regular pasteurized and homogenized milk, but

actual cures that they were in charge of for over 10 years. Today,

organic, RAW, pasture-fed milk would get similar health-boosting

results, depending on how healthy the cows are. Not only that, but it

is delicious!

 

However, I do have to agree, that regular, pasteurized and homogenized

milk from grain-fed, factory-farmed cows is POISON and causes many,

many health problems (as does eating the flesh of these same poor

animals).

 

 

Naomi

 

 

,

primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 5/14/2005 11:05:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> crunky@n... writes:

>

> Milk is recognized in medical literature almost exclusively

> as a useful food and is admitted to be a complete food.

>

>

> I read this. And if I wanted to take the time, I'd prove every

point

> incorrect. But suffice it to say that #1 if the medical community

says it (above) it

> is automatically in question. #2 if health is improved by improved

> elimination, then milk is NOT the answer since it causes the body to

produce mass

> amounts of mucous. #3 Milk is whole food if you're a calf. If you're

a human,

> then it will leave you deficient in much not the least of which is

CALCIUM &

> MAGNESIUM.

>

> and on and on I could go.. but I won't.

>

>

>

>

>

> *°º°*~Michelle~*°º°*

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

>>#3 Milk is whole food if you're a calf.<<

 

Hence the saying, Human milk for human babies!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes.. I did " really read " the article. I realize it's not from the medical

community--I was simply responding to their comment which, in their opinion,

justifies their statements. I even went to the website and looked around as

well as the website of the foundation that runs it. I agree that homogenized

milk and such is unhealthy and that raw milk would be healthier than that---but

still unhealthy for humans. We were not meant to suckle on a cow's utter.

That milk is for THEIR babies--not us. I don't nurse my kittens. My dogs don't

nurse my babies. It's weird to think we'd drink the milk of another animal.

 

The make-up of milk simply does not accommodate the health of human beings.

Calcium and magnesium must occur in equal proportions for our bodies to

utilize the calcium. That does not occur by drinking cow's milk. In fact the

composition is so out of proportion for us that it causes calcium and magnesium

deficiencies. The body starts leaching from it's own bones to compensate for

what dairy does to it and we then suffer such things as osteoporosis. The fat

content clogs our arteries. The mucous factor increases our chances of low

immunity and becoming ill with colds/flu and retaining those viruses for longer

than usual amount sof time. I can see no justification to giving milk to

myself or my children. They've been much healthier since I eliminated it.

 

In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:22:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

crunky writes:

 

However, I do have to agree, that regular, pasteurized and homogenized

milk from grain-fed, factory-farmed cows is POISON and causes many,

many health problems (as does eating the flesh of these same poor

animals).

 

 

 

 

 

 

*°º°*~Michelle~*°º°*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is never a reason a baby can't breastfeed. That's first. If the mother

has some EXTREME reason for not breastfeeding.. like a serious health

condition which could be dangerous to the child.. then there are milk banks. The

only acceptable substitute to breastmilk.. is someone else's breastmilk.

 

Casein allergies aren't as rare as you think.. each mammal produce a single

protein that makes their milk their own.. and it's not good for any other

species to ingest it.

 

In a message dated 5/15/2005 4:54:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

crunky writes:

 

Yes, human breastmilk is the #1 food for babies; but for those that

can't breasteed, raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an

acceptable substitute, as long as there is no casein allergy (which is

rare).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You're absolutely right! I own a group where we have a lot of different

" primal " moms and we're all a tad different-some eat meat; some shun it; some

still do milk and sodas (and then ask " michelle the kids are sick again what

can

I do? " ) .. some don't.. I express my opinions, share the facts and move

right along

 

And what you said about casein.. I had the most horrific experience with my

kids and casein until I figured it out on my own. The ones who are not

" allergic " (which I believe all humans to be) don't drink it because they don't

want health problems; they feel badly for the mother and baby cows and they know

it's chock full of pus or what they term " the gross factor " LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/15/2005 5:23:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

kellymeerdink writes:

 

I have to say, that in this case I totally agree with Michelle. I also

think that everyone here is doing what they think is best for their health and

the health of their families and eventually we are bound to disagree on

something.

 

>>raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an acceptable substitute<<

 

....and some would argue that formula is too. What are ya gonna do? As my

husband would say, " Punt " I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, human breastmilk is the #1 food for babies; but for those that

can't breasteed, raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an

acceptable substitute, as long as there is no casein allergy (which is

rare).

 

See:

 

" Feeding Babies "

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/feeding.html

 

" Recipes for Homemade Baby Formula "

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/recipes.html

 

" Is Raw Milk Safe for Babies? "

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html

 

 

Naomi

 

 

, " Kelly Meerdink "

<kellymeerdink@e...> wrote:

> >>#3 Milk is whole food if you're a calf.<<

>

> Hence the saying, Human milk for human babies!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>as long as there is no casein allergy (which is rare). <<

 

Well, it can't be that rare since both of my children are sensitive to it and I

know of two other children from different families that are as well. That

doesn't take into account all those that don't realize it either. The last time

I had raw milk, well, I am not going to go into details, but I had some not so

good reactions that I later found to be a confirmed allergy as well.

 

I think the main argument about milk is that is seems while some know that

breastmilk should come first in line, that is not how things are marketed to the

general public. I think everyone, if they look hard enough, can always find a

web link to back up their " cause " . When it really comes down to it, people are

only going to believe what they want to, links or not. I personally do not feel

that it is necessary for my children to be drinking milk on a daily basis, or

really at all for that matter. Occasionally, we have goat milk and cheese, but

not that often.

 

I have to say, that in this case I totally agree with Michelle. I also think

that everyone here is doing what they think is best for their health and the

health of their families and eventually we are bound to disagree on something.

 

>>raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an acceptable substitute<<

 

....and some would argue that formula is too. What are ya gonna do? As my

husband would say, " Punt " I guess.

 

Kelly

 

 

 

-

Naomi Giuliano

 

5/15/2005 3:52:45 PM

Re: Real Milk Cures Many Diseases

 

 

Yes, human breastmilk is the #1 food for babies; but for those that

can't breasteed, raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an

acceptable substitute, as long as there is no casein allergy (which is

rare).

 

See:

 

" Feeding Babies "

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/feeding.html

 

" Recipes for Homemade Baby Formula "

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/recipes.html

 

" Is Raw Milk Safe for Babies? "

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html

 

 

Naomi

 

 

, " Kelly Meerdink "

<kellymeerdink@e...> wrote:

> >>#3 Milk is whole food if you're a calf.<<

>

> Hence the saying, Human milk for human babies!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>There is never a reason a baby can't breastfeed. That's first. If the mother

has some EXTREME reason for not breastfeeding.. like a serious health

condition which could be dangerous to the child.. then there are milk banks. The

only acceptable substitute to breastmilk.. is someone else's breastmilk.<<

 

I totally agree. Too many people get bad advice from docs and the rest of the

world that tell them the shouldn't breastfeed. As soon as someone supplements,

the whole thing goes down the crapper. There are hardly any medications that

aren't filtered out before passing through the breastmilk. I won't even get

started on the whole " I don't make enough " baloney.

 

Kelly

 

 

[Guest guest]

>>I had the most horrific experience with my

kids and casein until I figured it out on my own.<<

 

I did too. Both kids in totally different ways, one had to go into Children's

Hospital even. It sucked.

 

Kelly

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/16/2005 1:06:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

crunky writes:

 

organic milk is far

more nutritious than packaged, pasteurized, fortified soy, rice and other

FAKE milks that

probably contain MSG (in " natural flavors, " one of many ingredients the FDA

allows it to be

hidden in. Last time I checked, practically every fake milk replacement

product has it).

>

 

 

 

 

The human body stops producing lactase upon weaning from the mother. (Yes

that includes babies given formula from birth).. and therefore is indicative

that milk is not needed post-nursing. As with any mammal. So the argument is

moot as I do not endorse " milk alternatives " either. And even if I did.. I'd

have to say GO NATURAL.. which would mean boil your own soy beans if ya wanna

go the " soy milk " way. Processed foods are out of the question in my world.

 

 

In a message dated 5/16/2005 1:06:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

crunky writes:

 

So what you're saying is that no matter what is written, or what proof that

is offered that it

is indeed beneficial to humans, as Price had found

 

 

 

Every medical professional/nutritionist understands and states that calcium

and magnesium MUST be consumed in equal proportion in order for the human

body to utilize the calcium. It's a known fact. Nothing can dispute it.

I am finished with this subject :-)

 

*************************************

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

>

> Yes.. I did " really read " the article. I realize it's not from the medical

> community--I was simply responding to their comment which, in their opinion,

> justifies their statements.

 

" comments, which, in their opinion, justifies their statements. "

 

What does this mean? They were using milk to CURE diseases and other chronic

conditions. Is this hard to understand? People in the U.S. at the turn of the

last century and

through the 50s ate tons of raw dairy products: eggs, whole milk, heavy cream,

yet did not

have any problems that studies are finding with pasteurized milk.

 

I even went to the website and looked around as

> well as the website of the foundation that runs it. I agree that homogenized

> milk and such is unhealthy and that raw milk would be healthier than

that---but

> still unhealthy for humans. We were not meant to suckle on a cow's utter.

> That milk is for THEIR babies--not us. I don't nurse my kittens. My dogs

don't

> nurse my babies. It's weird to think we'd drink the milk of another animal.

 

That tired argument is bandied about, but it doesn't convince me; if I or anyone

else has

no problems with milk, I see no problem in drinking milk (although I have to

admit I

mostly drink it cultured, and don't take it every day). Certainly, raw organic

milk is far

more nutritious than packaged, pasteurized, fortified soy, rice and other FAKE

milks that

probably contain MSG (in " natural flavors, " one of many ingredients the FDA

allows it to be

hidden in. Last time I checked, practically every fake milk replacement product

has it).

>

> The make-up of milk simply does not accommodate the health of human beings.

> Calcium and magnesium must occur in equal proportions for our bodies to

> utilize the calcium. That does not occur by drinking cow's milk. In fact the

> composition is so out of proportion for us that it causes calcium and

magnesium

> deficiencies. The body starts leaching from it's own bones to compensate for

> what dairy does to it and we then suffer such things as osteoporosis. The fat

> content clogs our arteries. The mucous factor increases our chances of low

> immunity and becoming ill with colds/flu and retaining those viruses for

longer

> than usual amount sof time.

 

 

So what you're saying is that no matter what is written, or what proof that is

offered that it

is indeed beneficial to humans, as Price had found (among the many groups he'd

studied,

the Swiss living in the Loetschental Valley, and the African Masai tribe THRIVED

on raw

milk with none of the problems you mention), you won't believe what you see.

 

 

Naomi

[Guest guest]

Naomi,

 

How about if we just agree that you don't like the fact that someone may not

agree with something you do? We are all generally on the same page, but don't

need to be beaten into submission should their be somethings we don't see eye to

eye on. Perhaps you didn't actually read the messages that stated that myself,

my children and Michelle's CANNOT HANDLE DAIRY PRODUCTS. Are you suggesting

that these reactions aren't real? I know plenty of others that can drink raw

milk, but that doesn't mean it's ok for my family. No one said you shouldn't,

by all means, drink up! :-)

 

As for the folks that ate and drank all of that through the '50's, they were

generally more healthy, but nearly everyone of them now has cancer or has

already passed from cancer. Am I saying it's from dairy? No. Can anyone say

it's not? No. " They " don't know.

 

Kelly

 

 

-

Naomi Giuliano

 

5/16/2005 12:06:24 AM

Re: Real Milk Cures Many Diseases

 

 

 

What does this mean? They were using milk to CURE diseases and other chronic

conditions. Is this hard to understand? People in the U.S. at the turn of the

last century and

through the 50s ate tons of raw dairy products: eggs, whole milk, heavy cream,

yet did not

have any problems that studies are finding with pasteurized milk.

 

 

That tired argument is bandied about, but it doesn't convince me; if I or anyone

else has

no problems with milk, I see no problem in drinking milk (although I have to

admit I

mostly drink it cultured, and don't take it every day). Certainly, raw organic

milk is far

more nutritious than packaged, pasteurized, fortified soy, rice and other FAKE

milks that

probably contain MSG (in " natural flavors, " one of many ingredients the FDA

allows it to be

hidden in. Last time I checked, practically every fake milk replacement product

has it).

 

So what you're saying is that no matter what is written, or what proof that is

offered that it

is indeed beneficial to humans, as Price had found (among the many groups he'd

studied,

the Swiss living in the Loetschental Valley, and the African Masai tribe THRIVED

on raw

milk with none of the problems you mention), you won't believe what you see.

 

 

Naomi

 

 

[Guest guest]

Not all humans stop producing lactase. And even for those who do, it

is still present in raw milk, or it can be broken down to be

assimilable in yogurt or kefir. If anything, people who can drink milk

have a genetic advantage to those who can't, since that's one more

food that they can get nutrients from.

 

The Masai, who are very healthy, lean, and whose diet consists of

large quantities of raw milk and meat, are mostly lactose-intolerant,

but they still are fine on it (they sure look better than the average

American).

 

See:

 

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/4/779

 

" Data are presented in this paper that show that 1) the Masai

regularly drink considerable quantities of milk without apparent

symptoms, 2) milk is an important constituent of the Masai diet, and

3) 62% of 21 Masai examined were malabsorbers of lactose as measured

by the lactose tolerance test. This finding of lactose malabsorption

in a nomadic cattle raising and milk drinking people is interesting

and is contrary to the views often expressed by anthropologists and

others. "

 

Naomi

 

,

primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

>

 

> The human body stops producing lactase upon weaning from the

mother. (Yes

> that includes babies given formula from birth).. and therefore is

indicative

> that milk is not needed post-nursing. As with any mammal

[Guest guest]

,

primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

>

> There is never a reason a baby can't breastfeed. That's first. If

the mother

> has some EXTREME reason for not breastfeeding.. like a serious health

> condition which could be dangerous to the child.. then there are

milk banks. The

> only acceptable substitute to breastmilk.. is someone else's

breastmilk.

 

And what about those who don't have access to milk banks? It's true

that babies can always be taught to nurse if there's problems, but

there's a lot of mothers who can't due to psychological reasons. As a

La Leche League member and nursing mother of a 2 1/2 year old, I've

met a lot of people who say they " can't, " and if they think that's so,

it doesn't matter if intellectually they know they should.

 

 

>

> Casein allergies aren't as rare as you think.. each mammal produce

a single

> protein that makes their milk their own.. and it's not good for any

other

> species to ingest it.

 

If it's not good, then why are there groups of people thriving on it

throughout the world?

 

Naomi

 

 

>

> In a message dated 5/15/2005 4:54:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> crunky@n... writes:

>

> Yes, human breastmilk is the #1 food for babies; but for those that

> can't breasteed, raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an

> acceptable substitute, as long as there is no casein allergy (which is

> rare).

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

>>there's a lot of mothers who can't due to psychological reasons.<<

 

My, that's a new one to me, but not surprising, considering the excuses I have

heard. The words " can't " and " don't want to " have certainly becoming quite

interchangeable.

 

>>And what about those who don't have access to milk banks?<<

 

It's a whole lot more accessible than most people seem to think.

 

>> If it's not good, then why are there groups of people thriving on it

throughout the world? <<

 

You just continue to IGNORE the part about people becoming seriously ill when

consuming milk. Your implied statement doesn't hold water. The reason is

because their are plenty of people who are/have been raised on pasturized milk

without ill effects. That doesn't make it this miracle food for everyone, does

it? I don't expect you to answer that though, since you haven't answered any of

the other questions I already asked you.

 

You can dump all the web links you want to about the miracles of raw milk and I

could find just as many in return about not eating dairy at all. The ultimate

goal is good health here, not who has the better/most links.

 

 

[Guest guest]

,

primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

>

> There is never a reason a baby can't breastfeed. That's first. If

the mother

> has some EXTREME reason for not breastfeeding.. like a serious health

> condition which could be dangerous to the child.. then there are

milk banks. The

> only acceptable substitute to breastmilk.. is someone else's

breastmilk.

 

And what about those who don't have access to milk banks? It's true

that babies can always be taught to nurse if there's problems, but

there's a lot of mothers who can't due to psychological reasons. As a

La Leche League member and nursing mother of a 2 1/2 year old, I've

met a lot of people who say they " can't, " and if they think that's so,

it doesn't matter if intellectually they know they should.

 

 

>

> Casein allergies aren't as rare as you think.. each mammal produce

a single

> protein that makes their milk their own.. and it's not good for any

other

> species to ingest it.

 

If it's not good, then why are there groups of people thriving on it

throughout the world?

 

Naomi

 

 

>

> In a message dated 5/15/2005 4:54:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> crunky@n... writes:

>

> Yes, human breastmilk is the #1 food for babies; but for those that

> can't breasteed, raw milk and kefir made from organic raw milk is an

> acceptable substitute, as long as there is no casein allergy (which is

> rare).

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

And what about all the groups that have traditionally consumed dairy

throughout the world and thrived on it? I don't know how many times I

have to say that raw dairy is different from pasteurized, but I guess

I'll have to repeat it yet again. Also, NONE OF THE STUDIES OUT ON

DAIRY HAVE BEEN DONE ON MILK FROM RAW, ORGANIC, PASTURE-FED COWS.

Naomi

 

 

, " Kelly Meerdink "

<kellymeerdink@e...> wrote:

 

<snip>

 

> As for the folks that ate and drank all of that through the '50's,

they were generally more healthy, but nearly everyone of them now has

cancer or has already passed from cancer. Am I saying it's from

dairy? No. Can anyone say it's not? No. " They " don't know.

>

> Kelly

>

>

> -

> Naomi Giuliano

>

> 5/16/2005 12:06:24 AM

> Re: Real Milk Cures Many Diseases

>

>

>

> What does this mean? They were using milk to CURE diseases and

other chronic

> conditions. Is this hard to understand? People in the U.S. at the

turn of the last century and

> through the 50s ate tons of raw dairy products: eggs, whole milk,

heavy cream, yet did not

> have any problems that studies are finding with pasteurized milk.

>

>

> That tired argument is bandied about, but it doesn't convince me; if

I or anyone else has

> no problems with milk, I see no problem in drinking milk (although I

have to admit I

> mostly drink it cultured, and don't take it every day). Certainly,

raw organic milk is far

> more nutritious than packaged, pasteurized, fortified soy, rice and

other FAKE milks that

> probably contain MSG (in " natural flavors, " one of many ingredients

the FDA allows it to be

> hidden in. Last time I checked, practically every fake milk

replacement product has it).

>

> So what you're saying is that no matter what is written, or what

proof that is offered that it

> is indeed beneficial to humans, as Price had found (among the many

groups he'd studied,

> the Swiss living in the Loetschental Valley, and the African Masai

tribe THRIVED on raw

> milk with none of the problems you mention), you won't believe what

you see.

>

>

> Naomi

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Kelly Meerdink "

<kellymeerdink@e...> wrote:

> >>there's a lot of mothers who can't due to psychological reasons.<<

>

> My, that's a new one to me, but not surprising, considering the

> excuses I have heard. The words " can't " and " don't want to " have

> certainly becoming quite interchangeable.

 

Excuse or not, societal pressures are real and not to be discounted.

All the snide and judgmental comments sure aren't going to convince

women that they should breastfeed. And if women are going to stop

nursing, I'd rather they fed their babies a live food than turn to

formula. Wouldn't you?

 

 

>

> >>And what about those who don't have access to milk banks?<<

>

> It's a whole lot more accessible than most people seem to think.

 

Really? On the Human Milk Banking Association of North America site,

there's just 11 locations in North America. It's about $3 an OUNCE.

That can get pretty expensive.

 

http://www.hmbana.org/index.htm

 

 

>

> >> If it's not good, then why are there groups of people thriving

on it

> throughout the world? <<

>

> You just continue to IGNORE the part about people becoming seriously

> ill when consuming milk. Your implied statement doesn't hold water.

> The reason is because their are plenty of people who are/have been

> raised on pasturized milk without ill effects. That doesn't make it

> this miracle food for everyone, does it?

 

For those who don't have casein problems ORGANIC RAW milk may very

well be a miracle food, as it has been used to treat a lot of

conditions throughout history.

 

>I don't expect you to answer that though, since you haven't answered

>any of the other questions I already asked you.

 

What other questions would that be? Since I'm on digest, I have to

actually go on the site to answer these posts (I haven't even gotten

some of these other messages yet). AFAIK, I answered most everything

that was pertinent. It does get tiring having to keep repeating myself

endlessly.

 

 

>

> You can dump all the web links you want to about the miracles of raw

milk and I could find just as many in return about not eating dairy at

all. The ultimate goal is good health here, not who has the

better/most links.

 

Since there's so many posts being dumped against dairy, which are all

based on PASTEURIZED & HOMOGENIZED MILK FROM GRAIN-FED COWS, I just

wanted to post positive articles about it.

 

Naomi

 

 

 

 

>