Featured Post

Nutrition and Hormonal Balance

  Good Morning,  Nutrition and Hormonal Balance As an acupuncturist in the area of fertility, I realize tha...

Subscribe Updates via email

Subscribe Updates via email

Enter your email address:

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Re: [AlternativeAnswers] WAPF Response to CDC Raw Milk Report


A bit of research I have done - just to add
Does Milk Cause Acne
No, milk does not cause acne. Acne is caused by
hormonal changes in the body. Can milk exacerbate hormonal changes in the body?
Absolutely, Yes!
Studies carried out on this subject have proved
conclusively that processed milk affects the testosterone levels in our bodies
which cause acne. Milk from pregnant cows contains high levels of progesterone.
Progesterone breaks down into androgens which produce sebum. Sebum is the
substance secreted by the sebaceous glands. An overproduction of sebum causes
blocked pores and subsequently acne. We are not designed to consume
progesterone in our teenage and adult years. Females will require extra
progesterone in later life after menopause.
The New York Times ran an article in which they quoted
Professor T Colin Campbell, a nutritional biochemist at Cornell University. He
believes that cow's milk is intended for calves and not for human consumption.
The same as nursing mothers produce colostrums for the first few feeds after a
baby is born, the same applies to cows. Colostrum contains the highest levels
of immunological and active proteins to maintain nature's perfect balance.
Do we as humans need bovine colostrum? In years gone
by it was known as a natural healer and antibiotic. In those days the
composition of milk was very different. Today cows are manipulated to
continuously be pregnant and are injected with growth hormones to increase
their milk production.
Dairy products do contain large amounts of butterfat
and milk sugar which aggravate acne. A diet can be adjusted to decrease hormone
consumption. Drinking skim milk can help as hormones are found mainly in milk
fat. Green leafy vegetables and nuts can be substituted for calcium
requirements.  Organic milk has fewer
bovine hormones but can be more expensive.
Danby and Dr Walter Willett conducted studies on over
47 000 women to demonstrate that foods like chocolate and fried foods do not cause
acne. They did find a link between those women who drank a lot of milk and acne.
A study undertaken in the 70's linked bovine hormones
with DHT testosterone associated with acne and baldness. Even though it is
generally believed that acne and hair loss can be genetic it showed that a high
level of DHT testosterone was responsible for hair loss and acne.
Going slightly off the subject of acne, hair is lost
because of an excess of DHT which kills the hair follicle. DHT first causes
acne in the hair follicle, then hair loss and later may even lead to prostate
cancer and heart disease. As with everything in life, moderation is best. We
all need testosterone in our bodies to function normally but interfering with
nature and altering hormone levels is dangerous. By the way eunuchs who had
their testes removed and could not produce testosterone, kept their hair even
though baldness was prevalent in their families.
Do a bit of research for yourself. Ask anyone who is
now aged 50 to 60 if the majority of girls at 16 and 17 years of age had B and
C cup breasts. Guaranteed these girls were in the minority. Today every young
girl develops full breasts much earlier. It has to be because of the way foods
are produced and altered today. The same applies to boys, who ever saw a guy of
18 or 19 going bald. It just didn't happen but is common today.
We need to ask ourselves questions before we go ahead
and take any manufactured oral or topical medications for acne. Do we really
know all the side effects and as healthy as our diets are, is it good enough.
This is not to say we should never drink milk again – just not for the calcium
benefits which can be achieved with nuts and leafy green veggies.
Bev Klein

From: kimberlyh <kimberly@hartkeonline.com>
To: AlternativeAnswers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012, 21:30
Subject: [AlternativeAnswers] WAPF Response to CDC Raw Milk Report


Setting the record straight. Please help us spread the word, the CDC report is biased and our response details why:


Agency ignores data that shows dangers of pasteurized milk

WASHINGTON, DC, February 22, 2012. In a press release issued yesterday, authors affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control claim that the rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk." The authors based this conclusion on an analysis of reports submitted to the CDC from 1993 to 2006.

According the Weston A. Price Foundation, the CDC has manipulated and cherry picked this data to make raw milk look dangerous and to dismiss the same dangers associated with pasteurized milk.

"What consumers need to realize, first of all," said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, "is that the incidence of foodborne illnesses from dairy products, whether pasteurized or not, is extremely low. For the 14-year period that the authors examined, there was an average of 315 illnesses a year from all dairy products for which the pasteurization status was known. Of those, there was an average of 112 illnesses each year attributed to all raw dairy products and 203 associated with pasteurized dairy products.

"In comparison, there are almost 24,000 foodborne illnesses reported each year on average. Whether pasteurized or not, dairy products are simply not a high risk product."

Because the incidence of illness from dairy products is so low, the authors' choice of the time period for the study affected the results significantly, yet their decision to stop the analysis with the year 2006 was not explained. The CDC's data shows that there were significant outbreaks of foodborne illness linked to pasteurized dairy products the very next year, in 2007: 135 people became ill from pasteurized cheese contaminated with e. coli, and three people died from pasteurized milk contaminated with listeria (wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/Default.aspx).

Outbreaks from pasteurized dairy were also a significant problem in the 1980s. In 1985, there were over 16,000 confirmed cases of Salmonella infection that were traced back to pasteurized milk from a single dairy. Surveys estimated that the actual number of people who became ill in that outbreak were over 168,000, "making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States" at that time, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

According to Fallon Morell "In the context of the very low numbers of illnesses attributed to dairy in general, the authors' decision to cut the time frame short, as compared to the available CDC data, is troubling and adds to questions about the bias in this publication."

According to Fallon Morell, the CDC's authors continue to obscure their study by failing to document the actual information they are using. They rely on reports, many of which are preliminary. Of the references related to dairy outbreaks, five are from outbreaks in other countries, several did not involve any illness, seven are about cheese-related incidents, and of the forty-six outbreaks they count, only five describe any investigations.

Perhaps most troubling is the authors' decision to focus on outbreaks rather than illnesses. An "outbreak" of foodborne illness can consist of two people with minor stomachaches to thousands of people with bloody diarrhea. In addressing the risk posed for individuals who consume a food, the logical data to examine is the number of illnesses, not the number of outbreaks.

"The authors acknowledge that the number of foodborne illnesses from raw dairy products (as opposed to outbreaks) were not significantly different in states where raw milk is legal to sell compared with states where it is illegal to sell," notes Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. "In other words, had the authors looked at actual risk of illness, instead of the artificially defined "outbreaks," there would have been no significant results to report."

This does not end the list of flaws with the study, however. The link between the outbreaks and the legal status of raw dairy mixed an entire category of diverse products. Illnesses from suitcase style raw cheese or queso fresco were lumped together with illnesses attributed to fluid raw milk, a much less risky product. In the majority of states where the sale of raw fluid milk is allowed, the sale of queso fresco is still illegal. The authors had all of the data on which products were legal and which products allegedly caused the illnesses, yet chose not to use that data.

Similarly, to create the claimed numbers for how much riskier raw dairy products are, the authors relied on old data on raw milk consumption rates, rather than using the CDC's own food survey from 2006-2007. The newer data showed that about 3 percent of the population consumes raw milk—over nine million people--yet the authors chose instead to make conclusions based on the assumption that only 1 percent of the dairy products in the country are consumed raw.

The authors also ignored relevant data on the populations of each state. For example, the three most populous states in the country (California, Texas, and New York) all allow for legal sales of raw milk; the larger number of people in these states would logically lead to larger numbers of illnesses than in low-population states such as Montana and Wyoming and has nothing to do with the fact that raw milk is illegal in those states.

"It would hardly be surprising to see some sort of increase in foodborne illnesses related to a food where that food is legal," said McGeary. "If we banned ground beef, we'd see fewer illnesses related to ground beef products. Yet this new study fails to prove even that common-sense proposition, even as it claims to prove a great deal more. What the data really shows is that raw dairy products cause very few illnesses each year, even though the CDC data indicates that over 9 million people consume it."

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a 501C3 nutrition education foundation with the mission of disseminating accurate, science-based information on diet and health. Named after nutrition pioneer Weston A. Price, DDS, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the Washington, DC-based Foundation publishes a quarterly journal for its 13,000 members, supports 500 local chapters worldwide and hosts a yearly conference. The Foundation headquarters phone number is (202) 363-4394, www.westonaprice.org, info@westonaprice.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Contact: Kimberly Hartke, Publicist, The Weston A. Price Foundation
press@westonaprice.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
703-860-2711, 703-675-5557


Share this in your newsletters, by email to your sphere, and on social media. Add your comments, and let your influence add to the opposition to the U.S. government campaign against this nutritious and healing food.

Kimberly Hartke, WAPF Publicist
The Campaign for Real Milk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Recent Activity:
Peacefulmind.com Sponsors Alternative Answers-

HEALING NATURALLY- Learn preventative and curative measure to take for many ailments at:


-To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy and paste this address in an email to them:


To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative Answers please Go to:


Community email addresses:
  Post message: AlternativeAnswers@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    AlternativeAnswers-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  AlternativeAnswers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  List owner:   AlternativeAnswers-owner@yahoogroups.com
Shortcut URL to this page:

Post a Comment