The Dairy King
Dr. Christopher's Newsletter 1-4
by Dr. John R. Christopher
One day a young man came to my office asking for help. He said that his bones would break with such ease that in his seventeen years he had broken bones eighteen times. Furthermore, these breaks were in every case in a different place. Here was a case of severe calcium deficiency, and yet this young man had grown up and worked on one of the largest dairy ranches in the northern part of our state. Milk, as he explained, had been a mainstay during all of his life and he had probably drunk enough of it to swim in. He had consumed enough of the substance to be crowned a veritable "Dairy King." In spite of all this he suffered continually from broken bones.

This case contrasted directly with much of the advertising generated by the powerful dairy associations to the effect that one need only drink "lots of milk" for a good supply of calcium. In another situation a woman brought in three young mothers whom she introduced to us as her daughters. This woman had heard of our lectures on the subject of milk a short time before. She wanted her grown daughters to personally hear our message as she had at the lecture. I began by explaining some of the reasons for avoiding the consumption of milk. I have always recommended that women do not use cow's milk when they wean their babies, and by doing so they will insure better health for their children. I noticed as I explained this point to them that two of the three young women were slightly blushing and seemed embarrassed. The third girl was smiling and she cast a mischievous "I-told-you-so" glance at her sisters. Their mother then told me an interesting story. "As these girls grew up, two of them always drank a glass of milk at mealtimes and often asked for more. The third sister would not drink her milk and would even throw up if she was forced to do so. I always told her that she might lose her teeth because she did not get the calcium from milk. I even told her that while she would have all kinds of tooth problems, her obedient sisters who drank their milk would have good teeth when they grew up! Now they are all grown and have children of their own. The two who faithfully drank their milk now wear false teeth. The rebellious sister who could not tolerate the milk has her own teeth and they are in good condition. I just wanted them to hear you tell why this could happen."

I then proceeded by repeating the information which the mother of the three daughters had heard at the lecture. A newborn baby must have milk to drink because milk is a perfect food for babies. We need to recall the saying, however, that "like begets like" and a human baby should have its own human mother's milk and not a substitute from some other type of mammal. The baby has no gastric juices and cannot digest protein and starches so the mother eats these necessary nutritional elements and they are eventually absorbed into her bloodstream. The baby will finally receive the nutrients through the breast-fed milk. This is an example of what I call a pure food-laden blood transfusion. Milk and pure blood are quite similar though the red corpuscles are no longer in the milk but are retained in the mother's body. The baby does have marrow in its bones which will produce abundant red corpuscles.

Actually breast feeding gives the body all the nourishment it needs if the mother has been eating properly herself. The mother's milk continues to sponsor the development of the baby's entire body including its bone, cartilage, muscles, flesh, brain, etc., just as the infant was fed through the umbilical cord while in the womb. This process is one of the best examples of good, natural nutrition and results in a healthy, happy baby who is utilizing the greater part of its food while only a small part of that food is discarded as fecal matter.

As soon as the baby's eye teeth and stomach teeth emerge at around eighteen months of age the gastric juices start to flow. It has been proposed that when the gastric juices mix with the milk a chemical reaction takes place. The gastric juices change the pH factor of the milk to the point that much less of the milk can be assimilated. The unassimilated balance accumulates, causing mucus, and changes the calcium to an inorganic that can be accepted by the body but not assimilated. It has, in other words, become an unnatural food.

It is because of this very situation that all animals (mammals) on the earth chase their young away at weaning time and will not allow them to suckle the mother's milk any longer. This instinctual reaction is depended upon by animals; and, since they cannot read or hear the constant propagandizing of dairy associations or be influenced by long-held erroneous ideas in schools, they continue, generation after generation, to put their young on a different program of feeding at the time of weaning. Those human beings who refuse to see the wisdom of such an approach to child nourishment become part of an exclusive but misguided sector of living creatures and pay heavily for not taking advantage of a principle clearly demonstrated in nature.

A strong drink is a beverage that gives one a craving and is habit-forming. We have believed for a long time now that "those who cannot be healed by faith use herbs and mild foods." It is true that some liquids are mild foods, but this does not include habit-forming strong drinks. We mention this because of the number of people, or patients, who have told us it was easier to give up coffee or liquor than it was to give up milk. Milk can be a habit-forming beverage, and a desire for it is often difficult to overcome.

In reference to this, let me relate an experience had by my wife and myself while we were visiting friends in another city. During the night we were awakened by a peculiar noise coming from the kitchen downstairs. At the time I thought it sounded something like somebody sawing a board. Mrs. C. and myself went down to see what was happening. We were shocked to find our gentleman host sitting in the middle of the kitchen floor, a hacksaw and a broken padlock beside him, finishing off the second of two quarts of milk. The other empty bottle was lying beside him. It seems that a few days before he had put a padlock on the refrigerator door and had given the only key to his wife. He had begged her at that time never to open the refrigerator for him regardless of how much he begged her to do so. He was afflicted by a serious case of asthma and the family doctor had told him plainly, "no more milk." The disease was serious enough that the milk alone might have killed him. Thus the strange sight of the poor man sitting in the middle of the floor desperately gulping down two quarts of milk was explained. Unfortunately, the man paid heavily for the milk-drinking spree of that night, for the doctors were forced to spend some time the following day just keeping the man alive. The rapid mucus buildup which had occurred in the wake of the two quarts of milk had brought on a critical and dangerous situation.

Another personal experience relating to the subject of milk: for a time I was a member of the Deseret Gymnasium in Salt Lake City, Utah, where I went regularly to swim, exercise, and generally keep fit. The office manager there who admitted the guests into the facilities was constantly wiping his nose until it was reddened by the irritation. One day I asked him how long he had been suffering from this continual nasal drip, swollen eyes, and stopped-up head. He told me that the condition had been with him for as long as he could remember, ever since childhood. He also told me that he had been using a box of tissue each day for years and that he had been forced to give up linen handkerchiefs. They simply did not remain clean long enough!

I asked the man, first of all, whether or not he was a heavy milk drinker. He said that he was, and that he usually drank a quart or even two per day. I promised him that if he would discontinue drinking milk for a few weeks that he would see an improvement. I also explained to him that within a year his allergies would be gone if he would follow a general mucusless diet routine.
I was so occupied with business matters in the weeks that followed that three months had gone by before I was able to return to the Gymnasium. When I went to check in for re-admission to the facilities, I met my friend who was at his desk. He grinned from ear to ear, pulled out a folded linen handkerchief, and said, "I keep this in my pocket for days now and do not use it. No more tissues and no more running nose." He had become a happy man simply by following the advice to stop drinking milk. He had sworn up and down that he was hooked on that liquid and that he could not find the self-will to stop drinking it. He had succeeded, however, and found that his health had certainly improved. That incident took place nearly forty-five years ago; and since then we have advised many thousands of patients to follow the example of the animals of the lower kingdom who do not suckle their offspring after weaning. (Of course, there are the so-called "lucky pets" that are given milk, but these animals, usually cats and dogs, are being victimized by the lack of nutritional knowledge of their owners.)

Dr. N. W. Walker, in his book Raw Vegetable Juices (Norwalk Press Publishers), says about cow's milk, "Cow's milk is probably the most mucus-forming food used by human beings. The casein content of cow's milk is exceedingly high, being about 300% more than is contained in mother's milk. [Casein, by the way, is a milk byproduct and is considered to be one of the most tenacious adhesives used for gluing wood together.] This is one of the reasons for the mucus condition of children and adults brought up to drink quantities of such milk and for the resultant colds, running noses, tonsil, adenoid, and bronchial troubles--whereas carrot juice is one of the greatest aids in the elimination of mucus!

"This prodigious generation of mucus in the body as a result of drinking such quantities of cow's milk is not limited to youngsters, but is found just as much in adults, where the effects are likely to be far more disastrous because, as people grow older, their resiliency is correspondingly lower than in the younger generation." (Dr. Walker is still alive and busy writing books and gardening. The last time I talked to him, about a year or so ago, he was over one hundred years of age, mentally alert, and full of vitality.)

Dr. E. A. Sutherland, M.D., in introducing the book Abundant Health (Health and Character Education Institute, Georgia) by Julius Gilbert White, states that for eleven years Mr. White, the author of the book, was the head of the Lecture Bureau at Madison College in Tennessee. The purpose of the Bureau was the dissemination of knowledge concerning the principles of health and wholesome living. He states further that "Milk is a common source of allergy will be denied by none. There are large numbers of children who have an aversion to milk. Authorities in London reported that with children it caused nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, catarrh; others report abdominal pains, asthma, and eczema. Kellogg reported, 'Another point to which attention should be called in the interest of both infants and invalids is the fact that certain persons become sensitized to milk as well as to other forms of protein; and in a person who is sensitized, even the smallest amount of milk may give rise to dangerous or even fatal symptoms. Many infants die annually from this cause.'"

He goes on to say, "It is freely granted that pasteurized milk is much safer than is the raw milk of today, and nothing printed here is intended to lessen interest in requiring it to be done; but our interest goes far beyond pasteurization to a cleaner, safer, and more delightful way of living. To this end we introduce statements made by others about pasteurization, sterilization, and the non-use of dairy milk."

One state sends out a warning that the following diseases may be incurred from the milk: "Tuberculosis, undulant fever, scarlet fever, septic sore throat, staphylococcus, food poisoning, rabies, typhoid fever, bacillary dysentery, diphtheria, and infantile paralysis."
And then: "The final and most reliable safeguard against milk-borne disease is pasteurization."
Another state states the same about milk-borne diseases and then, "pasteurization will always protect if it is properly applied. And thus it is in every state. Pasteurization is one protection which is offered to us along with dirty and infected milk."

We are led to believe that though the cows may have had some deadly disease, their milk is "perfectly safe if pasteurized." And so we trust the pasteurization process to defend the lives of our babies, our children, and ourselves. When a bottle of milk is left at the door and it is labelled "pasteurized" we regard it as perfectly safe. But let us look into the bottle and see what is really there.

There is not a uniform standard over the country concerning the number of bacteria allowed in milk; and it is not fixed in any state and may be changed at any time. In Tennessee, milk may lawfully contain the following number of bacteria:

Raw milk, when delivered, per cc ...........................35,000
Milk before pasteurization, per cc .......................... 200,000
Pasteurized milk, when delivered, per cc ................ 50,000

A common eight-ounce glass contains 240 cc; therefore, a common glass of pasteurized milk may lawfully contain, when delivered at your door, 12,000,000 bacteria.

Not all milk contains the full number of bacteria allowed. As one example, a city in another state where the allowed count per cc is 30,000 reports that it took samples from 115 dairies. The average count found was 14,308. They also found faulty pasteurization in seven dairies and faulty sterilization in eighteen. This is not an annual report but a monthly one. So it goes on month after month like this.

The report from the same city for a later month is as follows:

Standard Pasteurized Milk

Number of inspections ....................................169
Number improperly pasteurized .......................2 
Number improperly sterilized ...........................22 
Number showing high counts ..........................36 
Average bacteria permitted in the milk per ........30,000 
Average bacteria found in the milk per ..............50,487

Using the above figures we can figure that an eight-ounce glass of pasteurized milk contains 12,116,880 bacteria in the month reported. However, this is not the entire story. During any period of time in which the milk stands unrefrigerated the bacteria multiply rapidly. They can triple in one hour.

If the milk which is represented and sold as having been pasteurized were all thoroughly and properly pasteurized, milk would be much safer than it now is. Even then it is not safe; it should be boiled.

DISEASE GERMS SOMETIMES SURVIVE PASTEURIZATION


"Up-to-date baby specialists have become conscious of the dangers from disease in milk so that almost all of them recommend heating it to a much higher temperature than is attained during pasteurization. It is quite common these days for them to advise that the modified milk for a day's feeding be brought to the boiling point and be kept there for twenty minutes."

Pasteurized milk has many of the most serious disease germs killed by this process. It is said that six kinds of bad germs which may be present are not killed by pasteurization. That is why doctors suggest boiling babies' milk three minutes, as it tends to make it more sterile and safer.

"Park and others have shown that milk of high bacterial content, even when pasteurized, is not a wholesome food for infant feeding. Without proper supervision, milk may contain the organisms of tuberculosis, undulant fever, septic sore throat, and numerous other serious transmissible diseases."

Thomas G. Hull states that certain of the bovine streptococci can withstand a temperature of 143F. for ninety minutes and some of them still live.

J. Gilbert White concludes this part of his discussion on milk with statements from Dr. Horace W. Soper, M.D., F.A.C.P., of St. Louis, Missouri, in Archives of Pediatrics. Dr. Soper summarized his paper thus: "I conclude the tremendous incrimination of milk as a dissemination of infection as follows:

1. All animals excepting the human cease the use of milk as a food after weaning...

2. As a result of his violation of a primary biological law, man has been severely penalized by the host of infectious diseases that are disseminated by milk.

3. The dairy cow, stimulated and bred to yield milk over a long period of time, develops hypertrophy of the mammary gland. She is frequently found to be infected with a low grade streptococcus mastitis. Efforts to disinfect the udder often cause a chronic eczema; crusts and scales fall into the milk.

4. Milk is such a good culture medium that it is frequently contaminated by infectious agents not originating in the cow. 'Bacterial Soup' is a good synonym for it.

5. Pasteurized milk as it reaches the consumer usually contains pathogenic bacteria and is not to be relied upon as a safe food."

Mr. White continues on with a statement or two from Dr. Marion T. Davidson, M.D., in Southern Medical Journal (Richmond, VA).

In my experience of twenty years in treating allergies, milk has always been one of the most frequent reactors on skin testing, only house dust exceeds it in frequency...

For two or three decades we in America have been under the pressure of an intensive drive for an ever increasing consumption of milk. This has been pushed to such a point that recently a congressman introduced a bill into the Congress of the United States to appropriate enough money to furnish every child under fourteen years of age a quart of milk daily. How much more intelligent would be a bill to furnish every child an adequate diet and to establish a commission to determine what such a diet should consist of!

Through my office in these twenty years have passed a continuous stream of wheezy, itchy persons, many with stopped-up noses, many with chronic, recurring headaches, and others with various gastrointestinal complaints. A very large percentage of these persons have spent from one to many years trying to improve their health and increase their resistance to disease by an ever increasing consumption of milk, only to find that milk is the chief, or one of the chief, causes of their ill health.

I am constantly impressed by the number of patients I see who date the onset of their allergic manifestations from the time or shortly after the beginning of a regime of intensive milk drinking, either for some stomach disorder or for the purpose of weight building. Then, too, I see many who have had little or no appetite over long periods of time and have fallen into the habit of drinking milk, alone or with an added egg, at mealtime instead of getting a regular meal.

Many persons with little or no appetite can easily drink enough milk to maintain moderate weight and satisfy the conscience that they are not neglecting their health.

Many of these milk drinkers sooner or later begin to have itchy, cracking, dry and red skin or stopped-up noses or wheezy chests and go to their physicians for advice. The first thing the doctor tells them is that they are run down and need to build up their health and resistance, and for that purpose, of course, need to drink more milk; more milk, more symptoms. The glaring coincidence of the increase of milk consumption and the increase of allergic manifestation cannot be overlooked.

Many of our dieticians are not really dieticians, but milk drinking enthusiasts. If milk were suddenly taken away from them, they would be entirely at a loss as to how to maintain weight alone, much less how to build it up. Many physicians as well as dieticians feel that milk has some occult quality which cannot be substituted.

In any allergic syndrome of perennial occurrence, there is a forty percent or better chance that milk plays a leading role in producing the symptoms.

Dr. Irving S. Cutler, editor of a health column which appears daily in the Chicago Tribune, has received many letters from parents who said that the growth of their children was retarded until cow's milk was eliminated from their diet. The most frequent disorder is constipation, which gradually increases. There is often less of an appetite, fatigue, nervousness, colic, abdominal pain and vomiting, especially among infants. Iron tonics do not help. Skin eruptions may occur. In an effort to find out, without elaborate tests, the foods to which a child was allergic, he was asked what he did not like to eat. He promptly mentioned milk. When milk was no longer used he became well. Dr. Cutler assures parents that cow's milk may be eliminated from a child's diet with safety. The minerals and vitamins it supplies may be obtained from other sources. (Editorial in Good Health, June, 1944)

"Natural Healing with Herbs for a Healthier You"