Here’s the latest from Gordon Watson, west-coast correspondent for The Bovine, and guardian angel of Home on the Range cowshare in Chilliwack, B.C.:
Dr. Johanna Budwig, Cancer researcher and 7-time Nobel prize nominee
“…We’re on to something really big here — fresh, whole, unadulterated raw milk from grass-fed cows as an anti-dote to cancer. This lady [see photo] has the science to back up that statement.
When I attended Simon Fraser University in the late 60s, Buckminster Fuller spoke to us. He explained that various disciplines have a lag between the leading edge of research, and when that understanding is generally applied. Nowhere is that more evident than with the cancer racket. In fact, there are cures, yes cures, for cancer. But they are being deliberately hindered.
Sixty years ago, Dr. Joanna Budwig was on to the concept that processing food de-natures the fats so badly that the stuff then causes cancer.
With this understanding, real milk is not just a gourmet item, a flavour of the month for epicures and health food faddists. It is vital for securing our existence, and the future for our children.” — Gordon S. Watson www.freewebs.com/bovinity
And now here are some brief excerpts from an introduction to Dr. Budwig’s work:
“Extract from Dr. Johanna Budwig’s book “Cancer – The Problem and The Solution”, published in autumn 2005. Lothar Hirneise, eminent holistic researcher into orthodox and non-conventional cancer therapies and author of “Chemotherapy Heals Cancer and the World is Flat”….”
“Eminent Natural Hygiene proponent Dr. Herbert M. Shelton devotes a large section of one of his books (Orthotrophy, freely available from soilandhealth.org) to the enormous difference in health value existing between pasteurized milk (not health- and in fact disease-promoting) and unheated raw milk.
Additionally, the value of raw milk is very different according to soil quality and the way in which the animals are kept. This is described in some detail by dentist Dr. Heard in his book “Man Versus Toothache” [which you can also download from soilandhealth.org]. He describes how RAW milk from cows that have grazed on grass rich in minerals and trace elements, constitutes an excellent source of all elements needed for maintaining and restoring dental (and likely other) health, while pasteurized milk has lost all tooth-building and -protective (as well as possibly all other health-giving) values.
These are the factors I would look out for (not isolated substances such as casein).
Generally, if one wants to have milk of the best health-promoting quality, I would look for raw Demeter (bio-dynamic) or at least organic milk from grass-fed happy (well-treated) cows.
In general, it seems to always be the natural, unprocessed food obtained (directly or indirectly) from mineral- and trace-element-rich and balanced soil that is the most health-promoting….”
Here’s a testamonial to Dr. Budwig’s protocol, from another story on the same site:
“Terminal colon cancer: when all hope seemed lost
I am a 42 year old male and was diagnosed with colon cancer in May 2004. I went the surgery, chemo and radiation route and almost said goodbye to everybody. There was no hope left by September 2004, I was very fatigued, by then bleeding constantly – not to mention the excruciating pain I felt due to the cancer having spread to my bones. In fact, I was busy getting my affairs in order. My son was 9 and my daughter only 2.
Enter Dr. Johanna Budwig, Cheryl – and my determination to heal
Then a friend told me about Cheryl. I had realized by then that the allopathic doctors I had been dealing with knew nothing about the healing of cancer. Wasting no time indulging in self-pity, I phoned Cheryl and after talking with her realised that I would have to do this myself. Cheryl immediately got me started on the Budwig protocol.
At first I never thought I would be able to do this protocol… but by October I could feel life returning to my body. I was able to walk normally again, most of the pain was gone and in November I went back to work. My oncologist reckons that I am a miracle – imagine that!! It was in fact simple work and dedication – I had to learn how to eat properly etc., but Cheryl trained my wife and myself and made it all easy and simple. We had to learn how to make kefir, our own bread and sprout our own seeds [see Explanatory notes re kefir and sprouting], .…not to mention the juicing, correct foods and of course the flaxseed oil and cottage cheese mix and sunlight (which I took in the nude to the extent possible) on a daily basis. I used the Eldi oil rubs we purchase from Germany as well as body brushing and a mini trampoline (rebounder)[to activate the lymphatic circulation] every day.”
Interesting to see that rebounding is part of the treatment recommended here. I’ve been exploring that [rebounding] recently and it’s amazing how a little gentle bouncing for a couple of minutes every hour or so can affect one’s sense of well-being. You’d think “Nah, what could that do?” but it cleared up my father’s swollen lower leg in two days, helped him move his bowels, and noticeably reduced his need for sleep. He’s over 90. Simply amazing!
Of course this is not to diminish the importance of raw milk in this particular therapeutic regime. I know that at least one of Michael Schmidt’s cowshare members has credited raw milk with helping her recover from cancer. Her testimony is included in Norman Lofts’ documentary “Michael Schmidt: Organic Hero or Bioterrorist”. CBC Newsworld broadcasted it again this year around the time of Michael’s trial in January.
There’s another documentary on Michael Schmidt now being put together by ichannel, and of course, Norman Lofts is working on a part 2 to the raw milk story as well.
The Bovine 
Hi
I have read a lot about the benefits of raw milk and won’t drink the pasteurised version but there are a few questions I have on the subject. It is concerning a diet exclusively of raw milk, trying to alleviate autism and one or two other health problems. Is there anyone who could advise on that?
Thank you. David
Pingback: PASTEURIZED VS. RAW MILK
Pingback: Pasteurized vs. Raw Milk: Which One Is Healthier for You & Your Family :: Gramen Farm
Howdy! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site? I’m getting tired of WordPress because I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at alternatives for another platform. I would be fantastic if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.
Pingback: Pasteurized vs. Raw Milk: Which One is Healthier for You & Your Family? | Natural Health & Organic Living Blog
HI. I am gving my daughter rwa milk form pastured cows with very good and exciting results! I give her both raw milk and milk kefir. I took me forever to find thid cow but now i won’t let go!
Sorry. I forgot to saw my daughter has autism. But ever since I started to give her the raw milk, her speech and eye contact have improved by leaps and bounds!
I have been drinking raw milk for five years. I had arthritis and osteonecrosis due to a car accident. All of my bone problems have been cured. I rarely get sick anymore and I sleep better at night. It’s unfortunate that there is so much misinformation regarding raw milk from people who have never even drank it.
Pingback: Milk – Does It Really Do A Body Good?
Pingback: Pasteurized vs. Raw Milk: Which One Is Healthier for You & Your Family? – Gramen Farm
Renin and lactase are enzymes necessary to break down and digest milk. They are all but gone by the age of 3 in most us. There is an element in all milk known as casein. There is 300 time more casein in cow’s milk than in human’s milk. That’s for the development of huge bones. Casein coagulates in the stomach and forms large, tough, dense, difficult-to-digest curds that are adapted to the four-stomach digestive apparatus of a cow. Once inside human digestive system, this thick mass of goo puts a tremendous burden on the body to somehow get rid of it. In other words, a huge amount of energy must be spent in dealing with it. Unfortunately some of this gooey substance hardens and adheres to the lining of the intestines and prevents the absorption of nutrients into the body. Also the by-products of milk digestion leave a great deal of toxic mucus in the body. It’s very acidic, and some of it is stored in the body until it can be dealt with at a later time. Dairy products cause more weight gain instead of weight loss. Casein, by the way, is the base of one of the strongest glues used in woodworking.
Proteins are delicate necklaces, composed of different colored beads called amino acids, which occupy assigned places in a string that is the protein. When digestive acids and enzymes break down proteins, the amino acids are used as building blocks for the body’s new proteins. When an intact protein is delivered from one part of the body to another, it conveys an unbroken and uninterrupted message. Milk from one mammalian species to its young is the perfectly designed mechanism that delivers lactoferrins and immunoglobulins to that happily receptive infant. Nature’s way is to produce many more proteins than are required. The wisdom of this mechanism takes into account mass destruction. Enough protein messengers survive to exert their intended effects.
In homogenized milk, an excess of proteins survive digestion. Simple proteins rarely survive digestion in a balanced world. When milk is homogenized, it passes through a fine filter at pressures equal to 4,000 psi, and in so doing, the fat globules (liposomes) are made smaller (micronized) by a factor of ten times or more. These fat molecules become evenly dispersed within the liquid milk.
Milk is a hormonal delivery system. With homogenization, milk becomes a very powerful and efficient way of bypassing normal digestive processes and delivering steroid and protein hormones to the human body (both the cow’s natural hormones and the ones they were injected with to produce more milk). Through homogenization, fat molecules in milk become smaller and become “capsules” for substances that bypass digestion. Proteins that would normally be digested in the stomach or gut are not broken down, and are absorbed into the bloodstream.
The homogenization process breaks up an enzyme in milk (xanthine oxidase), which in its altered (smaller) state can enter the bloodstream and react against arterial walls causing the body to protect the area with a layer of cholesterol. These micronized fat globules are much “sharper” than their larger forebearers, and serve to abrade arterial lumen (the innermost linings of these blood vessels). Such chronic irritation triggers a protective mechanism whereby the body plates out cholesterol onto the lumen to protect it from the constant irritation produced by the micronized fat globules. The end result is atherosclerotic plaquing.
Combined with two other phenomena of our culture – high level consumption of hydrogenized vegetable oils (another source of this intra-lumen plaque) plus the onslaught of refined sugars and flours (which trigger high level bursts of another potent intra-luminal irritant known as insulin) – this unavoidable side-effect of drinking homogenized milk produces the rapid acceleration of cardiovascular disease now routinely seen in young people.
In theory, proteins are easily broken down by digestive processes. In reality, homogenization insures their survival so that they enter the bloodstream and deliver their messages. Often, the body reacts to foreign proteins by producing histamines, then mucus. And since cow’s milk proteins can resemble a human protein, they can become triggers for autoimmune diseases. Diabetes and multiple sclerosis are two such examples. The rarest of nature’s quirks results after humans consume homogenized cow’s milk. Nature has the best sense of humor, and always finds a way to add exclamation marks to man’s best-punctuated sentences. One milk hormone, the most powerful growth factor in a cow’s body, is identical to the most powerful growth factor in the human body. Hormones make cells grow, and don’t differentiate between normal cells and cancerous cells. We’re not designed to intake hormones; we make all the ones we need.
Some doctors who believe that milk proteins cannot possibly survive digestion. They are wrong. The Connecticut cardiologists Oster & Ross discovered that Bovine Xanthene Oxidase (BXO) survived long enough to compromise every one of three hundred heart attack victims over a five-year period. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) had not been discovered when Oster and Ross made their magnificent observations and conclusions. Bovine Xanthene Oxidase did not set the scientific community on fire. Too many syllables for headline writers. Insulin-like growth factor presents the same problem. Cancer has just two syllables. IGF-I has been identified as the key factor in the growth of every human cancer.
Homogenized milk, with its added hormones, is rocket fuel for cancer. One day, hopefully, the world will recognize that cow’s milk was never intended for human consumption. We can get all the calcium we need from a healthy, balanced plant-based diet. What we don’t need is all the degenerative disease that dairy products contribute to.
And if you think that raw, un-pasteurized, un-homogenized milk is a wholesome food, think about this: Even raw un-pasturized cow milk was never a healthful food for humans. It’s only a proper food for baby cows, and even they quit drinking it when they mature. Humans are the only species that “sucks the teats” of other species. Humans’ best food for the first 2 to 4 years is human milk, and after that, even human milk is not proper human food. Plus, the calcium in milk is not well absorbed due to the lack of magnesium, and even when raw, it still contributes to osteoporosis. And even the naturally occurring hormones in milk from cow’s not treated with Bovine Growth Hormone still contribute to cancers.
Prostate cancer is the fourth most common malignancy among men worldwide and its incidence and mortality have been associated with milk and other dairy product consumption according to the international and interregional correlational studies. Also high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian cancer.
IGF-1 or insulin-like growth factor 1 is an important hormone that is produced in the liver and body tissues. It is a polypeptide and consists of 70 amino acids linked together. All mammals produce IGF-1 molecules very similar in structure and human and bovine IGF-1 are completely identical. IGF-1 acquired its name because it has insulin-like activity in fat (adipose) tissue and has a structure that is very similar to that of proinsulin. The body’s production of IGF-1 is regulated by the human growth hormone and peaks at puberty. IGF-1 production declines with age and is only about half the adult value at the age of 70 years. IGF-1 is a very powerful hormone that has profound effects even though its concentration in the blood serum is only about 200 ng/mL or 0.2 millionth of a gram per mL.
IGF-1 is known to stimulate the growth of both normal and cancerous cells. In 1990 researchers at Stanford University reported that IGF-1 promotes the growth of prostate cells. This was followed by the discovery that IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells. In 1995 researchers at the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays a central role in the progression of many childhood cancers and in the growth of tumours in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate. In September 1997 an international team of researchers reported the first epidemiological evidence that high IGF-1 concentrations are closely linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer. Other researchers provided evidence of IGF-1′s link to breast and colon cancers.
Bovine growth hormone was first synthesized in the early 1980s using genetic engineering techniques (recombinant DNA biotechnology). Small-scale industry-sponsored trials showed that it was effective in increasing milk yields by an average of 14 per cent if injected into cows every two weeks. In 1985 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States approved the sale of milk from cows treated with rBGH (also known as BST) in large-scale veterinary trials and in 1993 approved commercial sale of milk from rBGH-injected cows. At the same time the FDA prohibited the special labeling of the milk so as to make it impossible for the consumer to decide whether or not to purchase it.
Concerns about the safety of milk from BST-treated cows were raised as early as 1988 by scientists in both England and the United States. One of the main concerns is the high levels of IGF-1 found in milk from treated cows; estimates vary from twice as high to 10 times higher than in normal cow’s milk. There is also concern that the IGF-1 found in treated milk is much more potent than that found in regular milk because it seems to be bound less firmly to its accompanying proteins. Consultants paid by Monsanto, the major manufacturer of rBGH, vigorously attacked the concerns. In an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 1990 the consultants claimed that BST-milk was entirely safe for human consumption. They pointed out that BST-milk contains no more IGF-1 than does human breast milk – a somewhat curious argument as very few grown-ups continue to drink mother’s milk throughout their adult life. They also claimed that IGF-1 would be completely broken down by digestive enzymes and therefore would have no biological activity in humans. Other researchers disagree with this claim and have warned that IGF-1 may not be totally digested and that some of it could indeed make its way into the colon and cross the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. This is of special concern in the case of very young infants and people who lack digestive enzymes or suffer from protein-related allergies.
Researchers at the FDA reported in 1990 that IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization and that pasteurization actually increases its concentration in BST-milk. They also confirmed that undigested protein could indeed cross the intestinal wall in humans and cited tests which showed that oral ingestion of IGF-1 produced a significant increase in the growth of a group of male rats – a finding dismissed earlier by the Monsanto scientists. The most important aspect of these experiments is that they show that IGF-1 can indeed enter the blood stream from the intestines – at least in rats.
Unfortunately, essentially all the scientific data used by the FDA in the approval process was provided by the manufacturers of rBGH and much of it has since been questioned by independent scientists. The effect of IGF-1 in rBGH-milk on human health has never actually been tested and in March 1991 researchers at the National Institutes of Health admitted that it was not known whether IGF-1 in milk from treated cows could have a local effect on the esophagus, stomach or intestines.
Whether IGF-1 in milk is digested and broken down into its constituent amino acids or whether it enters the intestine intact is a crucial factor. No human studies have been done on this, but recent research has shown that a very similar hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor, is protected against digestion when ingested in the presence of casein, a main component of milk. Thus there is a distinct possibility that IGF-1 in milk could also avoid digestion and make its way into the intestine where it could promote colon cancer. It is also conceivable that it could cross the intestinal wall in sufficient amounts to increase the blood level of IGF-1 significantly and thereby increase the risk of breast and prostate cancers.
Despite assurances from the FDA and industry-paid consultants there are now just too many serious questions surrounding the use of milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone to allow its continued sale. Bovine growth hormone is banned in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The European Union has maintained its moratorium on the use of rBGH and milk products from BST-treated cows are not sold in countries within the Union. Canada has also so far resisted pressure from the United States and the biotechnology lobby to approve the use of rBGH commercially. In light of the serious concerns about the safety of human consumption of milk from BST-treated cows consumers must maintain their vigilance to ensure that European and Canadian governments continue to resist the pressure to approve rBGH and that the FDA in the United States moves immediately to ban rBGH-milk or at least allow its labeling so that consumers can protect themselves against the very real cancer risks posed by IGF-1.
A new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.
Milk from modern dairy farms is identified as the culprit , since large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from Mongolia and rural China, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.
Evaluating data from all over the world, a clear link is identified between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. Contrary to what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.
Dear Sir/Madam
I am a bit confused as to the above article. It describes negative effects of casein on the human body (I assume raw milk is included in this) and then lists many drawbacks of homogenised milk. The former seems to be contradictory to the stance of the Bovine on raw milk, the latter consistent with it’s stance. Could you tell me why this article has been sent in “The Bovine”? Is it because “The Bovine” wishes to be even handed in publishing people’s views?” What is the Bovine’s response to this critism of milk/raw milk? I, by the way, am very positive about raw milk.
Sincerely, David
Pingback: Gardening For Beginners Infowars Health
Pingback: Gardening For Beginners Infowars Store
Pingback: Gardening For Beginners Infowars Tv