Milk is as pure as fresh fallen snow and as familiar as a mother’s warm touch. Common sense once led me to believe that if a single food, milk, could sustain a baby as the sole source of nutrients, then it must be “nature’s most perfect food”.
Milk builds strong bones – or so I’ve been told throughout my life – and since the hardest parts of my body are made mostly of calcium, this liquid must be essential for my strength and stability.
Milk is for life, because they tell me I never outgrow my need for milk. All these “facts” were the “truth” until I took the trouble to delve a little deeper. Allow me to share with you what I discovered.
Within the same species – like cow for calf, cat for kitten, mare for foal – mother’s milk can be the perfect food for the very young.
Not after weaning, for older offspring, and certainly, not the fully-grown.
All mammals nourish their developing young with this ready-to-eat liquid, synthesized by specialized sweat glands called the mammary glands.
This life-giving fluid contains the nutrients, anti-bodies and hormones that optimize the chances for growth and survival of the infant.
How essential is mother’s milk? Human infants deprived of the
advantages of human breast milk have:
*Two to four times the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (crib
*More than sixty times the risk of pneumonia in the first three
months of life,
*Ten times the risk of hospitalization during their first year,
*Reduced intelligence as measured by IQ score,
*Behavioral and speech difficulties,
*An increased chance of suffering from infections, asthma, eczema, Type I diabetes and cancer (lymphoma and leukemia) in early life,
*A greater risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, food allergies, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease later in life.
No one argues against the fact that human breast milk is nature’s most perfect food for human babies. There is also no satisfactory
substitute. Therefore, every effort should be made to have every infant breast-fed exclusively for six months, and then, with the addition of healthy solid food choices, breast-fed until the age of two.
The nutritional needs of very young animals are met by the unique qualities of the milk of that particular species.
The composition of this infant food has evolved over millions of years to be ideally suited for that animal. Let me explain this in terms of one essential nutrient: protein.
A Human has 1.2 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 180 days.
A Horse has 2.4 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 60 days.
A Cow has 3.3 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 47 days.
A Goat has 4.1 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 19 days.
A Dog has 7.1 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 8 days.
A Cat has 9.5 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 7 days.
A Rat has 11.8 g per 100 ml of protein with a growth rate of 4.5 days.
With regard to the grams per 100 ml, in terms of the % of calories, cow’s milk has four times more protein than human milk.
When you divide the growth rate into the protein you find the cow to be 21% vs. 5% for the human.
The growth rate relates to the amount of time it takes to double
the birth weight.
It’s not rocket science to notice that since the calf doubles its birth weight nearly four times faster than a human infant does, the concentration of protein and calcium are nearly four times greater. This is because rapid growth requires a much higher density of all kinds of nutrients.
The reason that vitamin and mineral supplements are so popular is because most people think of health problems in terms of deficiencies of nutrients. The reality is these diseases are usually due to excess – such as excess dietary fat (obesity), cholesterol (heart disease), and salt (hypertension).
Therefore, feeding overly concentrated foods such as cow’s milk to people (infants, children, and adults) promotes diseases of excess.
I’m sure some of you are still thinking that cow’s milk corrects calcium deficiency in people, preventing osteoporosis.
Unfortunately, that is far from the truth.
Replacing human breast milk with cow’s milk was once tried in the mid-1800s, in the United States, for emergency situations such as when a mother died in childbirth. The result was a quick death for most of the infants, because of the high protein content of the cow’s milk, which forced fluid losses from the infant’s kidneys, resulting in dehydration.
Once this problem was recognized, infant formulas were developed, which added sugar to the cow’s milk in order to reduce the protein concentration of the cow’s milk and make it resemble human milk.
Some of you may be old enough to remember drinking infant formula made from Carnation evaporated cow’s milk and Karo syrup (sugar). This made for a very unhealthy formula for
infants and never should be used.
Consider the purpose of cow’s milk: this is an ideal food to grow a calf from its 60-pound birth weight to a 600-pound young cow, ready to wean.
This is a “high-octane” fuel. One obvious consequence of people eating “calf food” is rapid weight gain.
And dairy products are one of the leading contributors to the epidemic of excess body fat affecting 25% of children
and 65% of adults in western populations. Matters are made even worse when cow’s milk is converted into even more concentrated products, like cheeses.
Cow’s milk products have some important nutritional deficiencies.
They are completely devoid of fiber and contain insufficient amounts of vitamins, like C and niacin, and minerals, like iron, to meet the human body’s needs.
The dairy industry has spent billions of dollars convincing us that milk is healthy, all the while pumping deadly chemicals into cows and the milk itself.
To think or say that drinking milk is a hype, is cause for lynching.
Milk, it is said, is “the” source of calcium that helps kids grow up big and strong. Milk is alleged to contain vital nutrients and to help prevent osteoporosis.
The US Department of Agriculture, through its food dietary guidelines, says that everyone should get 2-3 servings of dairy every day.
Milk is advocated by various government agencies, hordes of physicians, and a $200 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry.
Can we ever forget the mustachioed faces of the countless numbers of celebrities decorating everything from newspaper ads to roadside billboards?
And yes, America has a love affair with milk. So much so that the average person consumes 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream (obesity epidemic anyone?)
In total, the US dairy farmers produce about 15.61 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year. It is “udderly” horrendous, if you’ll pardon the pun.
But what if the celebrities we love and trust were lying to us? What if milk doesn’t do a body good? What if milk is, instead, a major contributor to breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes and more? What if the US government and dairy industry are in bed together to hide the ill effects of dairy consumption? They wouldn’t do that, would they?
Well, according to Amy Lanou, PhD., the nutrition director of the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), besides the above, “milk has been linked to anemia, allergies, obesity, ovarian cancer, breast-cancer, and juvenile-onset diabetes.”
So why, then, is milk regarded as wholesome, especially with the US Department of Agriculture, according to its mission statement, charged of Agriculture, according to its mission statement, charged
with “enhancing the quality of life for the American people by supporting the production of agriculture?”
Created by the pro-business Lincoln administration in 1862, today’s USDA has the dual responsibility of assisting dairy farmers while promoting healthy dietary choices for Americans.
Would you think that this creates a conflict of interest that puts at risk the objectivity of the government farm policy and the health of the dairy-consuming public? Duh!!
Six of the eleven members assigned to the US Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee have financial ties to meat, dairy, and egg interests.
Prior to the PCRM winning a lawsuit against the USDA, (claiming that it “unfairly promoted the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid”), the USDA refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the public.
Historically, the USDA’s dietary guidelines have consistently reflected the industry’s push for greater consumption of both flesh and dairy as evidenced by their concocting the Four Food Groups with milk, meat, fruits and vegetables, and breads and cereals, as the “Big Four” and in that order.
Over the years, these dietary “guidelines” have consistently reflected the industry’s push for greater consumption of both meat and dairy, despite organizations criticizing the Food Pyramid as biased and unhealthy.
The USDA counters this by saying that the guidelines should be
“reality-based”, arguing that what people should really be eating is moot because it doesn’t fit with the American lifestyle. Whaaat?
What they are saying is that the USDA doesn’t even think it is reasonable to aspire to what constitutes a healthy diet.
Now (2011), the psychiatric industry has invented a disease called orthorexia nervosa, which is Latin for Healthy Eating
Disorder. It never ends!
May 13, 2002 marked the passage of the farm bill in which dairy
farmers and processors received, over 3 1/2 years, an additional $2 billion in subsidies, largely realized through price supports that inflate costs for consumers. Understand that dairy subsidies are a carryover from the Depression era when survival of small dairy farmers was considered essential maintaining a national food supply.
By the way, most of that $2 billion went to larger dairy farms in 12 northeastern states, hanging small farmers out to dry and actually encouraging the demise of family farms.
Another assertion of the suit brought by the PCRM against the USDA is that milk, as a staple in school lunch programs, unfairly discriminates against non-whites who have a high incidence of lactose intolerance.
There are about 50 million lactose intolerant adults in the U.S., including 70% of the white population, 95% of blacks, and 80 – 97% of Asian, Native Americans, and Jews of European descent.
These 50 million people suffer from a variety of digestive symptoms resulting from milk consumption and other dairy products, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and
Currently, the USDA requires that every public school in the country serve milk, with the push by some of our elected officials, who benefit greatly by campaign contributions from the dairy industry, to offer financial incentives to schools that installed milk vending machines.
To add insult to injury, students cannot get free or subsidized alternatives to milk, like juice or soy milk, or Rice Dream, without a doctor’s note.
So, for the 70% of the black kids and the 90% of the Asian kids in the public schools, a negative response to lactose intake is practically mandated by the US Government.
In essence, these huge dairy subsidies and broad-based promotion of milk by the government’s school lunch program is a form of economic racism that isolates minorities and encourages them to ingest something to which they are intolerant or allergic.
Girls in the United States are beginning to menstruate at younger and younger ages. According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, some girls are now experiencing the effects of puberty as young as three years of age.
Fifty years ago, the incidence of breast cancer risk among U.S. women was one in twenty. As of 2001, that percentage has grown to one in eight.
Why is that? Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH)! BGH is a naturally
occurring hormone produced by milk cows. Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating many
growth problems. And that’s not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones produced by milk cows.
Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating many
growth problems. And that’s not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones.
Enter Recombinant BGH (rBGH), an unnaturally occurring, genetically modified hormone, produced by Monsanto.
As you know, Monsanto has made other fine humanitarian and ecological contributions such as Agent Orange, PCB’s, and Roundup laced soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and soon with alfalfa, wheat and potatoes.
Through a series of research cover-ups and their network of
Conflicting interests with government policy makers (and we’ll get to that soon), Monsanto, in 1994, managed to get approval for Posilac.
This is Monsanto’s commercial form of rBGH and increases cow’s milk production by 15 to 25%.
According to Monsanto, over a quarter of U.S. milk cows are now in herds supplemented with Posilac. The majority of the country’s 1,500 dairy companies mix rBGH with non-rBGH milk during processing to such an extent that an estimated 80 to 90% of the U.S. dairy supply is contaminated.
What Monsanto does not tell consumers is that this supplementation of additional growth hormones is causing secondary sex characteristics to appear earlier in young children, especially girls.
Monsanto also does not tell consumers that rBGH injected cows produce extremely high levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer promoter that occurs naturally in the human bloodstream at levels that generally do not result in tumors.
Monsanto and the Fraud and Drug Administration refused the
knowledge research directly linking elevated levels of IGF-1 to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer.
To make matters worse, Monsanto and the FDA colluded in 1993 and 1994 to block labeling requirements for rBGH
Even today Monsanto, the FDA, and the paid-off politicians, block
the labeling of genetically modified food. So, the average dairy consumer has no idea that they are increasing their own risk of getting cancer.
Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world, except for the U.S., Canada, Japan, and the 15 nations of the European Union, has banned rBGH milk.
Yet, in the face of facts and the majority opinion of the global
political and scientific community, Monsanto and the U.S. continued to endorse rBGH milk for general consumption, at the same time trying to figure out why there is an increase in breast cancer deaths as well as the continually declining age of puberty for girls.
It’s amazing what the Almighty $$$ Sign can accomplish.
It is not rocket science to see that milk is bad for people and that money is more important than concern for the welfare of the people.
But what about the effect on the cows that produce that milk? The life expectancy of the average cow under natural conditions is about 25 to 30 years; on the typical factory farm where well over half of the U.S. cows live, they live only 4 to 5 years.
Think about how you would feel if your lifespan was
decreased by over 80% by people who are only interested in making money.
What happens, because of adding Monsanto’s Posilac to the cow’s feed, is that it causes them to suffer from mastitis (which is a bacterial infection of the udder), cystic ovaries and uteruses.
Aside from the harm to the cows, guess where the pus from the mastitis winds up?
Do you now see why drinking milk does not do a body good?
By keeping dairy cows constantly pregnant, which is the only way the cow can produce milk, it creates baby calves. Enter the veal industry.
Since the male calves are useless to the farmers and have no economic value, an economic value had to be created.
“Hey, let’s figure out a way to sell ‘em and make money.” As the true caring and compassionate farmers that they are, these male calves are taken away from their mothers, immobilized in small wooden crates to keep their flesh tender, and fed fake
food so people can “enjoy “their soft flesh after they are slaughtered.
In 2001, over 1 million veal calves were slaughtered in the United States.
The bottom line is that it boils down to an all-too-familiar story: big business and the U.S. Government joining forces to dupe the American consumer.
The USDA tells us to drink more milk while subsidizing large
dairy farms and federally mandating dairy consumption and flesh eating for schoolchildren.
The government spends billions to buy unused milk and
dairy products, while the industry spends $200 million every year promoting dairy consumption.
Meanwhile, the FDA and Monsanto conspire to pollute
the already unhealthy dairy supply with a genetically modified hormone
banned virtually everywhere else in the world. Ain’t the road to profit-at-any- cost, grand?
So, where the American public can answer the absurd industry question, “Got Milk”? with a resounding, mustachioed, “YES,” the better question might be to ask whether people have gotten screwed in the process.
In 1990, the Monsanto Company commissioned scientists to inject
a bunch of laboratory rats with an early variant of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a.k.a. rBGH.
The 90-day study demonstrated that rBGH was linked to the development of prostate and thyroid cancer in rats.
Monsanto, our friend who gave us Agent Orange and spent forty years covering up the effects of PCB’s, was about to seek approval for Posilac, that company’s form of rBGH.
The study linking rBGH to cancer was submitted to the FDA, but somehow in 1994 Posilac was approved.
With fingers pointing in both directions, those with opinions argue about who had the bigger part in the cover-up – Monsanto or the Fraud and Drug Administration.
The results of this study, in fact, were not made available to the public until 1998, when a group of Canadian scientists obtained the full documentation and completed an independent analysis of the results.
Among other instances of neglect, the document showed that the FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto’s original studies on which the approval of Posilac had been based.
The FDA’s complicity continued; Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer for many years, left in 1976 to become a staff lawyer for the FDA (Taylor was recently appointed by President Obama as the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA).
While at the FDA, Taylor also wrote the policy exempting
rBGH and other biotech foods from special labeling, considered by most to be a major victory for Monsanto.
Ten days after Taylor’s policy was finalized, his old law firm, still representing Monsanto, filed suit against two dairy farms that had labeled their milk rBGH free.
As soon as the Government Accounting Office released the report covering all of this, Taylor was removed to work for the USDA, as the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a position he held from 1994 to 1996.
After holding positions at both the FDA and the USDA, Taylor went back to working for Monsanto, this time directly as the corporation’s Vice President of Public Policy.
Michael Taylor wasn’t the only government employee who had this conflict of interest. At the same time Taylor left Monsanto for the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller, once Monsanto’s top scientist, was also hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research conducted during her tenure at Monsanto.
This is so incredible it is worth repeating. A woman who
was once Monsanto’s top scientist was hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research while she was with Monsanto. So much for a “government of, for and by the people”.
In her role as FDA scientist, Miller made the official
decision to increase the amount of permissible antibiotic residues in milk by a hundred-fold, in part to counter the increase of mastitis in cows due to overuse of artificial growth hormones.
These incestuous relationships between industry and the U.S. Government are the norm rather than the exception. Decisions at the FDA are made primarily by advisory boards comprised of scientists and executives from the dairy and meat industries, with a few university academics thrown in for good measure.
In July of 2010, the “Terminator,” California’s Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, signed the bill that would essentially prohibit, starting in 2015, any egg from being sold in the state that comes from caged hens.
The bill became law twenty months after a majority of California
voters approved Proposition 2, making it clear that concern for the living conditions of livestock is no longer the province of animal rights activists alone.
Recognizing how widespread concern about the humane treatment of farm animals has become, the California Milk Advisory Board has recently ramped its ten-year “Happy Cow” advertising campaign with a new series of ads proclaiming that, “Great milk comes from Happy Cows. Happy Cows come from California.”
These ads are now being shown across the nation. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with the ads. For one, they
weren’t filmed in California at all. They were filmed in Auckland, New Zealand, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Current Milk Board ads claim that 99% of the state’s dairy farms are family owned. But, in order to arrive at this figure, they count as “dairy farms,” rural households with one or two cows.
Meanwhile, there are corporate-owned dairies in the San Joaquin Valley which have 15,000 or 20,000 cows. It is these far larger enterprises that produce the vast majority of California’s milk.
My concern, let me emphasize, is not with the small-scale farms. I have no problem with the many hard-working families who treat their cows well, take care of the land and try to bring a healthy product to market.
My problem is with the much larger agribusiness enterprises, the factory farms to whom the animals in their care are nothing but sources of revenue.
Thanks to the practices they employ, the amount of milk produced
yearly by the average California cow is nearly 3000 pounds more than the national average.
This increased production may seem like a good thing,
but is achieved at great cost to the animals. The cows are routinely confined in extremely unnatural conditions, injected with hormones, fed antibiotics, and generally treated with all the compassion of four-legged milk pumps.
Roughly one-third of California’s cows suffer from painful udder infections, and more than half suffer from other infections and illnesses.
Although genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is banned in many countries including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and much of the European Union, it is widely used in California’s largest dairy operations to increase milk production. Unfortunately, it also increases udder infections and lameness in the cows, markedly raises the amount of pus found in milk, and may increase the risk of cancer in consumers.
The natural lifespan of a dairy cow is about twenty-five years, but one fourth of California’s dairy cows are slaughtered each year (typically at four or five years old), because they’ve become crippled from painful infections or calcium depletion, or simply because they can no longer produce the unnaturally high amounts of milk required of them.
The Milk Board ads present the California dairy industry as a bucolic enterprise that operates in lush, grassy pastures. Some of the ads employ the slogan, “So much grass, so
Here, the cows are typically kept in overcrowded dirt feedlots.
Some never see a blade of grass in their entire lives.
The ads show calves in meadows talking happily to their mothers. But the calves born to California dairy cows typically spend only twenty-four hours with their mothers, and some do not even get that much.
The ads propagate the image that California dairy cows live in natural conditions and the practices of the dairy industry are in harmony with the environment.
But the amount of excrement (doo doo) produced each
year by the dairy cows in the fifty-square mile area of California’s Chino Basin would make a pile of doo doo equaling the dimensions of a football field and as tall as the Empire State building.
When it rains heavily, dairy manure in the Chino Basin is washed straight into the Santa Ana River and some makes its way into the aquifer that supplies half of Orange County’s drinking water.
The large-scale factory dairies in California’s Central Valley produce more excrement then the entire human population of Texas.
About twenty million Californians (65% of the state’s population) rely on drinking water that is threatened by contamination from nitrates and other poisons stemming from the dairy manure. Nitrates have been linked to cancer and birth defects.
The Milk Board defends the ads by saying they are entertaining, and “are not intended to be taken seriously.”
But the Milk Board is not in the entertainment business. It has not spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this ad campaign to amuse the public, but to increase the sales of California dairy products. Besides, does misleading the public become legitimate just
because it is done in an entertaining way?
The Milk Board knows that showing calves being taken away from
their bellowing mothers and being confined in tiny veal crates will not sell their product. Neither will showing emaciated, lame animals, who have collapsed from a lifetime of hardship and over-milking, being taken to slaughterhouses and having their throats slit.
But this is the reality for animals in the large-scale factory farms that produced most of the state’s milk.
Covering up his misery with fantasy ads of happy cows who are
actually in New Zealand is not amusing. It is perpetrating a sham on the public.
This is why the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) in a lawsuit challenges the Milk Board’s ads as unlawfully deceptive.
Thus far, the Milk Board has prevailed in court,
even though it is obvious that the ads lied to the public.
Why? Because the California Milk Advisory Board is the marketing arm of the California Department of Agriculture, a government agency.
And in California, in a truly Orwellian twist, Government agencies are exempt from laws prohibiting false advertising.
Should we hold our advertisers, even if they are government agencies, accountable to reality? Should we require that what they tell us has some resemblance to the truth?
Recently, PETA has erected billboards throughout the state that read, “California Cheese Comes From Miserable Cows”. PETA, of course, is an animal rights group, but this issue is increasingly being recognized as one that concerns not only vegetarians or vegans or animal advocates.
Consumers who want the animal products they buy to be from humanely raised animals can be found in every segment of the society.
Consideration for the plight of animals is a central part of the American character. It is an essential part of who we are as a people.
The “Happy Cow” ads are an insult to the legitimate humanitarian concerns of millions of people. As consumers, do we want to reward this sort of behavior with our hard-earned dollars?
Abraham Lincoln was speaking not only for vegetarians or vegans or animal rights advocates when he said, “I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog or cat are not the better for it.”
A word of good advice to adhere to: If a product originally had a face or a mother or if man made it and you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it!
We live in a world governed by greed, dishonesty and lack of compassion. To survive, we must rely on our innate intelligence and do what our bodies tell us. We must shake ourselves free from the pharmaceutical-medical insurance cartel and put the control of our health back into our hands.
We, in order to achieve good health and a good quality of life, must transcend the endless messages we are bombarded with through the various media outlets and be sensible. To get on the road to recovery, we must eliminate those causes from touching our lips.
Flesh foods, found in anything that walks, runs, flies, crawls or swims, and dairy products, are loaded with artery clogging saturated fat.
Processed foods, refined grains (white, in this case, is not right), sugary foods like sodas, cookies, cakes, doughnuts, and
eggs, have to go.
The yolks of the eggs are high in cholesterol and the whites, because of their hardening affect, are used as a base in aircraft paint because they can withstand the effects of extreme weather conditions.
If you don’t believe me and you still eat eggs, the next time you do so, don’t wash your dish for a day or two and see what happens.
And after you have to scrape it off your plate with a chisel or a screwdriver you might want to think about whether or not you want to continue putting this into your body.
Take time to prepare your own meals, slow down, try to relax, and
engage in a meditation practice. There are so many avenues of education available to you. Life is too short to not make the most of it and only you can make you truly well. You are your own best investment.
Let today be the day you take your first step in the marathon of life.
Reference: My book, “A Sane Diet For An Insane World””.
I have been doing a radio show in Honolulu since 1981 called “Health Talk”. To listen to the show please go to www.kwai1080am.com on your computer at 8am Hawaii time. FYI, 8am Hawaii time is 11am on the West coast and 2pm on the East coast. To call in, the number is (808) 524-1080.
Starting August 2nd, American Voice Radio will be picking up my streamed show and playing it all week until the next one takes place. See you on the radio!
In 2007, I was “forced” to get a masters degree in Nutrition to stop all the doctors from calling in asking what my credentials were. Besides that, they never liked it when I asked them what their credentials were that would enable them to treat an illness without drugs or surgery.
If you go to www.healthtalkhawaii.com and click on Podcasts, there are years of shows there as well as hundreds of health related articles.
I am an activist. I am vehemently opposed to GMOs, vaccines, processed foods, MSG, aspartame, fluoridation, and everything else that the “pimps” (big pHarma, Monsanto, and the large food companies), and the “hookers” (the doctors, the government agencies, the Public Health officials, and the mainstream media) thrust upon us, the “tricks”.
At 75, I am in 3 softball leagues, racewalk, do stand-up paddling, hike, swim, do weights and cardio, and teach women’s self-defense classes based upon 20 years of Wing Chun training. I have been a vegetarian since 1975 and a vegan since 1990, have no illnesses and take no meds.
After being vaccinated with the DTP vaccine as a child, I developed asthma, which plagued me until 2008 when I learned about and started taking the organic sulfur crystals. My asthma was reversed in 3 days and has not come back.
So far, 22 cases of autism that we know about have been reversed, as has cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, asthma, osteoarthritis, joint pain, gingivitis, and erectile dysfunction. The sulfur has increased sexual activity, eliminated toxins, heavy metals, radiation, and parasites. It speeds up athletic recovery time, increases blood circulation, reduces inflammation, increases resistance to the “flu”, reduces wrinkles, allergies, PMS, monthly period pain, migraines, nausea, and way more, because the oxygen that the sulfur releases floods and heals the cells in the body.
The sulfur, as proven by the University of Southampton in England, enables the body to produce vitamin B12 and the essential amino acids.
You can find out more about this on my website under Products.
My book, “A Sane Diet For An Insane World”, which has been published, can be viewed and purchased at www.asanediet.com. The book clearly explains why what you eat, for the most part, is designed to keep you in a state of declining health.
I have recently discovered an amazing super food – Zeal – that contains 42 amazing probiotics, anti-oxidents and more, all designed to build and strengthen the immune system. For more info about this please email me.
Hesh Goldstein, MSNutri
“Health Talk” Moderator, K-108 Radio
POB 240783, Honolulu, Hi 96824