Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

- - DRINKING VIRUS-INFECTED BOVINE BODY FLUIDS

Expand Messages
  • notmilk2002
    DRINKING VIRUS-INFECTED BOVINE BODY FLUIDS I thought that I was beyond being shocked about the extent of sickness on America s dairy farms. Today s column
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      DRINKING VIRUS-INFECTED BOVINE BODY FLUIDS

      I thought that I was beyond being shocked
      about the extent of sickness on America's
      dairy farms. Today's column contains a
      most disgusting revelation, guaranteed to
      make you choke and gag on your next slurp
      of ice cream.

      The current issue of Hoard's Dairyman,
      (Volume 147, number 4), the self proclaimed
      "National Dairy Farm Magazine," contains
      information that surprised even me.

      Ads are supposed to promote products, and
      I suppose this one does. It advertises a test
      for one very serious cow disease. This ad
      most certainly does not promote the dairy
      industry's objective of trying to convince
      you that their product is wholesome.

      The editors of the February 25, 2002 issue
      must have been counting ad revenue and
      ignoring possible repercussions from the
      half-page advertisement which appears on page
      150. The ad shows cows in a field, and challenges
      the reader in a bold type statement:

      "You Can't Tell By Looking"

      The text of the ad reveals that "most dairy
      herds are affected by bovine leukemia virus."

      What? America drinks body fluids from cows
      with leukemia?

      I knew that bovine leukemia is a problem, but
      I had no idea of the extent of that problem.
      According to the ad, 89% of the dairy herds in
      the United States have cows infected with leukemia.

      Sally Fallon proposes that you drink raw milk.
      Her website is:

      http://www.realmilk.com

      Sally may realize how futile her mission is
      when she sees this advertisement.

      In my own neighborhood of northeast Bergen County,
      New Jersey, we have two major milk suppliers,
      Tuscan Farms and Farmland. Each of the two dairy processors
      buys and pools milk from an average of 600 New York,
      Pennsylvania, and New Jersey farms. On average, according
      to this ad, 534 of the 600 farms should have cows infected
      with leukemia.

      What happens if they incorrectly pasteurize the milk?
      What happens to those drinking raw milk? I shudder
      at the thought.

      Here is an excerpt from a letter written by breast
      cancer surgeon, Robert Kradjian, M.D., to his patients:

      "Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
      percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
      per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
      if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
      is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
      the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds.
      I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are
      carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds.
      (Science 1981; 213:1014).

      This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from
      Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility
      of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the
      rest of the milk. Several European countries, including
      Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the
      infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United
      States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic
      dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world
      with the former exception of Venezuela according to
      Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in
      Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public
      Health.

      As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
      pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
      like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area
      in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant
      an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurised
      milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
      killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
      question I would pose to the dairy industry people is
      this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk
      that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw,
      unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further,
      it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia
      cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are
      reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them
      mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle
      involving No. California.

      What happens to other species of mammals when they are
      exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
      and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
      exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes
      sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys
      and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes
      ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells p
      resent in milk. There are obviously no instances of
      transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the
      virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence
      of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus;
      this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus
      particles gain access to humans and become antigens?
      Was it as small, denatured particles?

      If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia,
      we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic
      herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia.

      Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case!
      Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin
      have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than
      the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas
      with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked
      with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that
      veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the
      general public. Dairy farmers have significantly
      elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows
      lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
      access to bodily tissues by passing directly through
      the intestinal wall.

      An optimistic note from the University of Illinois,
      Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows
      the importance of one's perspective. Since they are
      concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily
      the health aspects, they noted that the production
      of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine
      leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a
      persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased
      white blood cell count), the production fell off. They
      suggested "...a need to re-evaluate the economic impact
      of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy
      industry." Does this mean that leukemia is good for
      profits only if we can keep it under control? You can
      get the details on this business concern from Proc.
      Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis
      and am insulted that a university department feels that
      this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not
      expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the
      universities. The money stakes and the political pressures
      are too great. You're on you own.

      What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable
      of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that
      it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a
      related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

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

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

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

      4."Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?". Pediatrics; Suppl.
      Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

      In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a
      half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per
      day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic
      organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

      One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is
      from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York.
      Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184),
      his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein
      Consumption". Many people think of milk as "liquid meat"
      and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the
      beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for
      a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries. New
      Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that
      order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and
      France. The difference between the highest and lowest
      was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders
      versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference!
      (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling
      increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and
      their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming
      the lack of "genetic protection" seen in migration
      studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas
      in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)!

      Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
      between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
      in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
      article follow:

      The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
      excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
      consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
      causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
      Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption
      of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
      membrane.

      This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
      which these fragments gain access…Chronic immunological
      stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
      believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men. The
      gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
      to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
      antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
      lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
      generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
      profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
      estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are
      released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke
      production of all antibody classes [This may explain why
      pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can
      still cause disease.

      Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
      reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
      March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for
      11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no
      association between the tumour and milk ingestion.
      However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive
      association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or
      the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4
      times greater than in persons drinking less than one
      glass of developing a lymphoma."

      Doesn't every consumer have the right to know this
      information?

      Please share this column with a friend.

      Robert Cohen
      http://www.notmilk.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.