Government practices and the health of children.

This is a lecture I typed up that shows the practices of government agencies.
Contacted Sally Fallon and received permission to post this lecture.

Sally Fallon/Weston Price Foundation
Whole Unprocessed Milk/ Nature’s Perfect Food

From lecture given on benefits from real milk, milk that is from pasture fed animals , milk that has all the fat in it, milk that is not homogenized. A campaign for real milk as opposed to raw or processed milk.

We are up against a wall of propaganda. Government officials insist that there is no significant different between the nutritional value between pasteurized and un-pasteurized milk. These words have been chosen very carefully. The calcium is sustained in pasteurized milk, but how that calcium is used is very different. What is talked about is nutritional value but not nutritional effects. So, the USDA is very good at choosing their words. Another thing we hear over and over again is that pasteurized milk if one of the most important public health initiatives in history.

So, let ‘s see if these two statement are true. And we are going to go chronologically here with the information we have been able to find published in the literature. We go back to 1910 for the “milk cure”. This was carried out at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, which was actually set up to administer the milk cure. The milk cure was 4 to 5 quarts of milk daily, sipped
throughout the day. It was recognized that this milk was more beneficial if it came from the spring, from pasture fed cows, and this cure turned out to be extremely effective for all sorts of conditions: allergies, fatigue, cancer, weight loss, prostrate problems, skin problems. Now this milk cure only works with raw milk. You would make yourself very sick if you tried to do the milk cure with pasteurized milk.

Now we start with the published studies. The earliest study we find is a study published in 1926. People were really looking at whether raw milk was better than pasteurized milk as far as overall health. And this was done with orphans at the Boston Dispensary and there were four groups and they were fed either raw certified milk, grade A pasteurized milk, grade A pasteurized milk with cod liver oil, or the certified raw milk with cod liver oil and orange juice. The use of the raw milk, with or with out the use of the orange juice and the cod liver oil, was much better than the use of pasteurized milk. In the study they don’t say how it was better, probably in weight and lack of infection. Interesting, a larger use of certified raw milk in infant feeding should be encouraged by the medical profession – so there was a big part of the public health profession and the medical profession that was grateful to have this clean certified raw milk, especially for babies, especially for babies who were in trouble.

A study published in the Journal Of Biological Chemistry, published in 1928, investigators compared calcium and phosphorus utilization, from raw pasteurized evaporated and dry milks, and what they found was less favorable calcium balances in adults with the pasteurized milk than with the raw milk. So, even thought the calcium levels are the same in these two milks, it was used better in the body when the milk was raw. And they also noted whether the cows were on grass feed, they got better calcium balances.

In 1929, back at the Boston Dispensary, where they looked at two groups of babies, one on raw milk and one on pasteurized milk, There was better weight gain in the raw milk group, less rickets, less diarrhea and the mortality was less as well.

The next study was published in 1931, it was published in Scotland. This was a time of tremendous poverty in Scotland, and the health officials were wondering , what could they do that would not be expensive,would be simple to help these children, especially with growth. The diet was so poor that these children were stunted in their growth. It was a large study, which is why it is such a good one, done with 20,000 children from the school system in Scotland, divided into three groups. One group got 3/4 of a pint of raw milk per day, second group got 3/4 of a pint of pasteurized milk per day, and the third group got nothing. So they were the control group.

The original report ( this report was heavily financed by the milk pasteurization industry in Scotland) stated that there was no difference in growth between the pasteurized and raw milk group, both of them grew much better than the group that got no milk. They said that basically the growth was equal. But two scientists caught the bias in the reporting of the statistics so they published a critical evaluation of their conclusions a month later in the same journal. These two scientists said that growth, especially in boys, was actually better in those receiving raw milk, the pasteurized milk group was only 66% as effective in the case of boys and only 91% as effective in the case of girls in inducing increased weight. The raw milk was much more effective in inducing increased height. And this was with only 3/4 s of a pint of raw milk per day in an otherwise very poor diet.
Mattick and Golding, publishing in the Lancet in 1931, showed definitely, that some dietary factors are destroyed when milk is sterilized and to a definite or lesser degree when it is pasteurized, and that although fresh milk is capable of supporting sustained growth and reproduction in rats, heated milk is no longer capable of doing so. Here they are looking more at the long term reproductive effect of the pasteurized milk. And the pasteurized milk use was not effective for reproduction.

In the same year, Scott and Earth, at Ohio State University, compared two groups of rats, those on whole raw milk had good growth, sleek coats, clear eyes; they were nice friendly little rats, they enjoyed being picked up by the researchers. Those on pasteurized milk had rough coats, slow growth, their eyes lacked luster , they were anemic. ( We will come back to this, because one thing pasteurization destroyed was an enzyme called lactoferrin which you need to absorb the iron in the milk. ) So, those rats on pasteurized milk were anemic, they had loss of vitality and weight, but most interesting was that they were not very nice rats anymore, when the researchers picked them up they tended to bite. And this reminds me of the number one testimonial that we get from parents when they switch from pasteurized milk to raw milk is improvement of behavior of their children. Their children are less hyperactive, they do better in school, they don’t have tantrums, they sleep better at night. We have had parents tell us that they actually did not like their children very much until they switched them to raw milk.

The public health officials and the government officials who are trying to keep you and these parents and everyone else from giving raw milk to their children there is a definite lack of sympathy for what it is like to live in a family where the child is hyperactive and behaves poorly and has attention deficit disorder, which often affect the entire family and often leads to divorce. Here is this very simple solution to not only improved health of the child but the life of the family.

Studies of Mattick and Golding in 1935, echoing what we have seen so far, on rats on pasteurized milk had hair loss, those fed raw milk did not, there was lowered reproductive capacity in the rats fed sterilized milk. Two females that had received the sterilized milk for about eight months showed remarkable improvement after receiving the raw milk, so they were able to recover when given the raw milk.

Another study in Britain, an orphanage study ( people were really looking at this in the 20’s and 30’s it was an interesting study ) There were two groups, once again, fairly large groups, one group got pasteurized milk for five years, the other group got raw milk for five years. There were 14 cases of tuberculosis in the pasteurized milk group, only one in the raw milk group. One of the researchers commented, the child on raw milk is very fit, chilblains are practically eliminated ( this is something you can get in cold weather when you live in cold houses without central heating ), the teeth are less likely to decay, the resistance to tuberculosis and other infections is raised. So, in all the aspects they were looking at, the health was much better in the children on raw milk.

Randleigh Farm was an experimental farm in upstate New York, where they did a lot of research in the quality of feed and forage, but they also did some studies of raw verses pasteurized milk. Again, rats on the raw milk had good fur and were very robust, and rats on the pasteurized milk were less robust and had hairless patches due to B6 deficiency. One of the things destroyed in the milk is a carrier protein for vitamin B6. But the really interesting part of the Randleigh Farm study had to do with bone density. The rats fed pasteurized milk had slightly shorter bones and the bones were much less dense. 146 grams verses 206 grams in the raw milk rats.

So, when pasteurized milk is compared to raw milk for nutritional value, technically this is correct, there is the same amount of calcium in both milks, but what we see here in the raw milk is that calcium is utilized much more thoroughly, much more efficiently and at the Weston A. Price Foundation we talk a lot about bone density, and bone structure, and children get that bone structure during growth ( and you cant get that bone growth after maturity). Here is this wonderful food that ensures that the bones are going to be strong throughout life. In an autopsy there was poor integrity of the internal organs in the pasteurized milk fed rats, and there was good integrity in the raw milk fed rats. It is not only the hard tissues – like the bones, but also the soft tissues – like the organs were affected. Basically the soft tissue of the pasteurized milk fed rats were like mush. Mushy organs.

This study shows us where the calcium goes when it is not going to the bones. Two groups of rats, the raw whole milk fed rats had excellent growth and no abnormalities, those on whole pasteurized milk had poor growth, muscle stiffness, emaciation and weakness, and they died within a year. And then they did the autopsy, and what they found was calcium streaked in the soft tissues – in the heart, in the skin, in the joints ( a very painful place to have calcium ), possible in the arteries ( what is artherosclerosis), hardening of the arteries- what makes the arteries hard- calcium, not cholesterol . So, once again we have the same amount of calcium in the two types of milk but in the raw milk that calcium goes into the bones where it is supposed to go. In the pasteurized milk is goes to other places where it is not supposed to go.

A study on calves carried out in 1941, in Scotland – they had two groups, eight calves in each group. One group was fed raw milk and the other group was fed pasteurized milk. There were no deaths in the raw milk group, there were three deaths in the pasteurized milk group but of those surviving in the pasteurized milk group they were in ill health at the end of the experiment, while all those in the raw milk group were in excellent health.

And then the last one in this series was published in 1943. Doctor Evelyn Sprawley ( sp.?), this was just an observation, she worked in the London Hospital, and she said in certain institutions children were brought up on raw milk, they had perfect teeth and no decay, the result was so striking and unusual that it will without a doubt be made the subject of further inquiry. But there was no further inquiry. The trail stops cold here in 1943.

No more studies comparing children, no more studies with the animals.
What happened?

In 1945 an article was published in Coronet Magazine, a seemingly factual article, about a town called Crossroads USA, where a third of the people died from undulant fever from drinking raw milk from cows infected with undulant fever. This article was published as a piece of journalism, except that it was entirely made up. There was no town of Crossroads, the was no outbreak of undulant fever, the entire thing was made up to promote the drive to mandatory pasteurization and that is when they started to use this phrase “ raw milk can kill you”. Up to this point raw milk and pasteurized milk had co-existed, there were milk banks that provided pasteurized milk but there was also the certified raw milk movement which provided clean raw milk to those who wanted it. There really was no conflict between the two, but the industry wanted to consolidate, they wanted to control the entire market and this is how they did it. Basically with a lie. The whole campaign started with a lie, and there has been nothing but lies about raw milk ever since. The article was repeated a year later in Reader’s Digest so this got out to the general population.

The Weston Price Foundation has pretty much looked at every study attributing illness to raw milk and shown the flaws and bias on raw milk on their site.
One of the big lies floating around has to do with the CDC report on raw milk outbreaks 1998-2007, you hear about this in articles where they try to give both sides of the story. And what they say about this summary is that during these years there were 831 illnesses, 66 hospitalizations, and one death from raw milk. So we asked for and we received the group of studies. We thought we were going to get studies that this was based on, and what we got was the most amazing collection of garbage you can imagine. It was newspaper reports, it was conjecture, things that were so sloppy they were never published in journals. And I said , “where is the death?”, and we looked through everyone of these reports and there was no death. But it was in their summary. Now they are saying up to 2007 there were two deaths. We did analyze them. In 94% of deaths attributable to raw milk there was no positive milk sample or no statistical evaluation. A couple of them were cited twice, two outbreaks were actually traced to pasteurized milk. So this is the kind of stuff that has been going on for a long, long time. And we have had some outbreaks recently, I just want to, please, warn you, your first reaction, when you hear about raw milk being blamed for illness should be skepticism because there is just so much funny business going on out there in the media and in all these various reports. There are many techniques used to blame raw milk for illness. One is to use cultures that promote pathogen multiplication in the milk, you can get a pathogen in anything you test this way and you can multiply pathogens that are there in extremely small numbers, much smaller than are needed to cause illness. Some of the Department of Agriculture use rapid testing techniques that get false positives and then issue a big press release. The type of sampling they use when there is an outbreak; we had an outbreak in Wisconsin a number of years ago where a lot of people got sick, a few of those people were raw milk drinkers. When they went to the hospital to report that they were sick, the first question they were asked, “Did you drink raw milk?” If they said yes they were admitted, if they said no, they were sent home. And so, you can always get a statistical association when you use these kinds of techniques. Testing raw milk in open containers in households where people are sick, this is not going to stand up in a court of law, if you find an organism, it has to be in a closed container. Ignore equally likely sources of infection, for example, people go to petting zoos, that is a typically source of infection, local water, just intestinal illness going around. If a few people drink this raw milk then of course it is blamed on the raw milk.

Then if you get these kind of phony associations then you release a big press release that is never retracted, it floats out there on the internet forever.

We did have milk problem back in the 1800’s, this was a time when we had a lot of immigrants coming in and crowding into the inner cities, the dairies were in the inner cities, they were next to the breweries, the cows ate the swill from the breweries ( the death rate from children at that time was about 50% ). This was referred to as the milk problem, but they could have easily referred to it as the horse problem because these were cities that were drowning in manure. And public health officials were just throwing up their hands. What are we going to do with all this manure? You could have also called this the water problem, because there was no good sanitation at the time. Just to give you an example, the inlet for the water for Chicago was from the same part of the lake the sewage was dumped in. So, there were all sorts of factors that were contributing to this very high death rate, but it was called the milk problem. And this problem was solved long before mandatory pasteurization came along. It was solved by outlawing the dairies in inner cities, improved hygiene, the car replacing the horse, the certified raw milk movement and of course refridgeration . And so the milk problem – this huge death rate had declined over the years until it was not an issue anymore – long before mandatory pasteurization. During this time we see the decline in various infectious diseases. We have dyptheria , measles , scarlet fever, whooping cough, typhoid fever. This is when mandatory pasteurization came in, right here.

Chlorination of water , though we don’t believe in this, a lot of health officials believe that this was the cause of decline in typhoid fever. These diseases were virtually not a problem anymore when mandatory pasteurization came in.

Lactoferrin is a protein found in milk that is an enzyme that kills pathogens and also ensures that the child absorbs all of the iron found in milk. This is why children on raw milk do not get anemic. This is typical of a milk protein – these are not like meat proteins, which are very tough and fibrous and you can heat them and the heat does not hurt them. The milk proteins are three dimensional, elegant, fragile molecules, and when you pasteurize – which is a very rapid heat treatment technique – these molecules are warped and distorted and broken up and instead of recognizing these molecules your body thinks they are foreign and has to mount an immune response. And this is why we are getting this relentless fluid decline in milk consumption in this country because fewer and fewer people can actually consume this stuff. Milk consumption has declined about thirty percent in the last thirty years.

Raw milk can cure scurvy. Without doubt the infantile increase in scurvy during the latter part of the nineteenth century coincided with the advent of the use of heated milk. So an epidemic of childhood scurvy, and our health officials are calling this the greatest public health initiative in the world. An epidemic of childhood scurvy is pretty serious.

We see that the calcium is more utilized when the milk is raw, you get longer and denser bones. Folate, a critical nutrient, the carrier protein is inactivated during pasteurization. B12, another critical nutrient for the nervous system of the brain and the blood, it has a binding protein that helps the consumer absorb all the B12, this is inactivated by pasteurization. B6 – the same thing. Vitamins A and D, they are bound to beta lacto-globulins, which are also inactivated during pasteurization. All these things may be in the milk but they are very hard to absorb when the milk is pasteurized. Iron, lactoferrin, which helps with the iron assimilation, is destroyed during pasteurization. Wouldn’t be surprising to look into this and see if there is an epidemic of anemia coinciding with the heat treatment of milk. Iodine levels are lower in pasteurized milk and the minerals in pasteurized milk are bound to proteins that are inactive. All the components that are the nutrients in milk are destroyed in pasteurization.

Let us focus on the anemia in children. It leads to mental retardation, and there was a study published a few years ago that looked at the behavior of anemic children. Infants with chronic severe iron deficiency had been observed to display increased fearfulness, unhappiness, fatigue, low activity, weariness, solemnity, and proximity to the mother during free play, development testing and at home. Anemic infants that did not receive iron supplementation never smiled, never interacted socially and never showed social referencing. So, I am wondering if some of the behavior improvement we see in children when put on raw milk has something to do with iron status.

So, 1943, the trail goes cold. There are a couple of studies on human milk because in the 1980’s they were developing milk banks and they wanted to know should we should pasteurize the human milk. And so they did some comparisons. There are a couple of studies, one is that children on pasteurized human milk did not gain weight as quickly, compared to those on raw human milk. And in premature human babies there was more rapid weight gain on raw human milk, they seemed to be more protected against infection. It is interesting to note that on the CDC ( Center for Disease Control ) breast milk is the best protection to infants against salmonella and many other health problems. Of course because you have all these anti-microbial components. And yet we have the same agency warns against raw milk as a cause of salmonella.

Meanwhile what are we seeing in children drinking pasteurized milk? Increasing health problems; allergies, asthma, frequent ear infections, gastrointestinal problems, auto immune problems, attention deficit order, etc. So what we have seen since the second world war is this huge increase in problems in our children, huge increase in allergies and problems with the conventional milk and actually a decline in the consumption of conventional milk.

We do have studies on children drinking farm/raw milk. Asthma is an extremely serious problem today. Causes 14 million missed days of school, it is a life threatening problem, you can die from asthma. What if there were a simple solution to this asthma problem? In a study done on 15,000 children they found that the consumption of raw milk as farm milk was the strongest factor in reducing the reaction of allergies and asthma, whether the children lived on the farm or not. The benefits were greatest when the consumption of raw milk began during the first year of life.

We have the big problem of lactose intolerance, The Weston A. Price Foundation carried out a survey on lactose intolerance and we found with the people we surveyed who had been diagnosed as lactose intolerant, 82% could tolerate raw milk without any problems. That means that almost 24 million Americans could benefit from raw milk for just this one reason.

What about casein intolerance, that is actually the true allergy forming protein. Lactobacillus lactis and other lactic acid forming material indigenous to raw milk produce enzymes that break down the casein molecule. And so these are also destroyed by pasteurization.

We really want to emphasize the protective components in the milk fats and one of the problems in conventional milk is that first of all it is lower in milk fat then what you would get straight from the farm and that fat has been homogenized, it has gone through an horrendous pressure treatment, it breaks up the fat globule membranes, and these effects we are only beginning to realized. I cannot stress enough, that if you are selling milk, please only sell whole milk. Please emphasize to your customers that they should only be drinking whole milk, and same if you are a consumer, a customer. Whole milk is what you want to drink because there are numerous protective factors in the fat, the short and medium chain fatty acids. Glucospiongholipids, which prevent the absorption of toxins; arachidonic acid, which is in butter builds a strong gut wall; fat soluble vitamins strengthen the immune system. In a study where they were looking at pasteurized milk they found drinking reduced fat milk led to three to five times more diarrhea in children and the elderly. People who have been on low fat diets tend to have a weakened immune system. I think it is a big mistake to be selling skimmed raw milk.

Other components include enzymes and what they call complement lysozyme , these destroy bad bacteria but they also help build a good strong gut wall, hormones and gut factors – once again help build the gut wall. Musin, lysozyme, special peptides, we keep discovering all these amazing components in milk that not only facilitate the absorption of nutrients but help build the intestinal tract. And what are we beginning to appreciate today, that if you do not have a good intestinal tract you are in big trouble all your life which is destroyed or compromised by pasteurization.

Milk also contains all the components of blood except for red blood cells. It is very accurately described as white blood. It helps build your blood and a strong immune system and once again these benefits are destroyed by pasteurization.

So we have this tremendous system in raw milk that has a five fold effect. It destroys pathogens in the milk, it stimulates your own immune system, it builds a healthy immune system, it build a healthy gut wall, it prevents the absorption of pathogens and toxins in the gut, and ensures the assimilation of all the nutrients.

One of the wonderful things about raw milk is that it digests itself. Once it reaches a specific PH of the intestinal tract these enzymes are activated and your body does not have to produce a single enzyme or do any work to digest raw milk. This is why it is such a wonderful food for people who are really sick, for people who have compromised immune systems because it build your body and allows it to rest at the same time. It is like a fast and a “build-up” diet.

So in summary, going back to our list in the beginning, research has shown that there is a very significant difference in nutritional value in pasteurized verses unpasteurized milk especially significant in growing children who need the very high nutrition during this period of growth. I would say that the pasteurization of milk is one of the greatest disasters in the history. It has taken away the most important food in western culture for growing children and that is really what is at stake, the health of millions of children world wide.

Raw milk for children can mean the difference between a miserable life and a healthy productive life. And I do think we need to keep our eyes on what is at stake here. We talk a lot about healthy farms, prosperous farms, constitutional rights, being in the face of regulators, but what really is at stake here is the health of our children and we really need to keep our eyes on this when the attacks come. And we have had a lot of them in the last few months.

The health of our children determine our future. Let us press forward with our campaign for real milk. Thank You.


About rebeccakarlendalmas

Desteni I Process Equal Life Foundation
This entry was posted in Uncategorized, World/Money System Discovery. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Government practices and the health of children.

  1. Pingback: War is a game of profit as is our present industry of Pharmaceutical Drugs, Health, Electricity | Rebeccakarlendalmas Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s