here’s been a huge controversy about the effects of dairy on our health for decades. In fact, I was a pioneer in this area. Dairy is a primary source of calcium. And I warned people more than 20 years ago that a high-calcium diet could lead to heart disease and arthritis in my first book, The Nutrition Detective. And when I was asked to write for this newsletter in 1993, my first article was “The Calcium Controversy.” Both received a great deal of attention and helped raise awareness of the need for less calcium and more magnesium in our diets and supplements.

But too much calcium isn’t the only problem with dairy. There’s an even more startling problem that’s received very little attention. No wonder. It challenges the entire dairy industry in this country. This new information explains how milk can be either beneficial or harmful depending on the genetics of various herds of dairy cows.

This may sound farfetched, but it’s not. And it’s more than a theory. It’s backed up by many dozens of scientific papers. If you include dairy products in your diet, this information will help you decide how much and which kinds to eat.

This story began in New Zealand where two university professors discovered, quite by accident, that some people who ate dairy products came down with serious illnesses while others didn’t. Their research had nothing to do with organic vs. non-organic dairy products. Or rGBH-free vs. dairy that contains traces of this hormone. Or even raw vs. pasteurized milk, yogurt, or cheese.

In fact, you probably haven’t heard about this subject before. It has to do with the type of proteins in milk.

All milk contains casein-based proteins, but not all of these proteins are the same. Some can contribute to disease. These professors from New Zealand uncovered an important difference in two milk proteins. They’re either A1 beta-casein or A2 beta-casein. A1 is the bad guy, and A2 is the good guy. Whether or not the milk you drink contains A1 or A2 is determined by the genetics of the various herds of dairy cows.

Here’s why the differences between A1 and A2 milk are important. As your body digests A1 milk, it forms a tiny protein fragment called beta-casomorphin-7, or BCM7. BCM7 is the culprit that makes A1 milk into a disease-promoting substance. This peptide, not found in A2 milk, is actually a narcotic. And this narcotic can cause various illnesses, including heart disease and type-1 diabetes.

Discovering A1 and A2 milk

Where did this correlation between milk and diseases begin, and how was it discovered? It began back in the early 1990s when Bob Elliott, a New Zealand professor of child health, found a connection between A1 and A2 milk and illness.

He was studying Samoan children who lived either in Samoa or New Zealand. Elliott noticed that the children who lived in New Zealand drank more milk than the children in Samoa — and the milk they drank contained the A1 protein. Samoan children drank milk containing the A2 protein. These children had 10 times less type-1 diabetes than the children in New Zealand.

Elliott looked further. He consulted with colleagues who were experts in cows and milk-protein biochemistry. That’s when he concluded that the amount of A1 milk drank multiplied by its A1 content determined a child’s risk for getting type-1 diabetes.

He wasn’t alone.

Another professor from New Zealand, Dr. Corran McLachlan, reviewed Elliott’s work and found a correlation between type-1 diabetes, heart disease, and A1 milk consumption. McLachlan noticed that countries with high amounts of heart disease in older people had a high incidence of type-1 diabetes in young people. The common factor was the consumption of A1 milk and exposure to its BCM7 peptide.

Later, a team of Australian scientists conducted a study where they gave rabbits a diet high in either A1 or A2 milk. Their results, which they published in the journal Atherosclerosis, concluded: “Beta-casein A1 is atherogenic compared with Beta-casein A2.” This means that A1 milk contributes to heart disease and A2 milk doesn’t.

Another factor that has been linked to A1 milk is intestinal permeability, or “leaky gut” syndrome. A2 dairy appears to be easier to digest than A1 milk, and thus safer. I’m not saying that A1 milk is solely responsible for intestinal permeability. But it looks like it’s a major factor in its development. If you have this condition, or irritable bowel or Crohn’s disease, you may want to avoid A1 dairy products and see if this simple dietary change helps. I suspect it will in many cases.

But that’s not all. Researchers have found that the BCM7 peptide in A1 that we know contributes to health problems also contributes to autism. This research has come from studies done in the U.S., U.K., and Norway. Some parents of autistic children have seen their children’s condition improve when they stopped eating dairy.

This makes sense. When you can’t completely digest the proteins in dairy, your intestinal lining becomes more permeable. This allows proteins to pass through the intestines and get into the bloodstream causing inflammation and contributing to various illnesses.

How it all began

Elliott and McLachlan believe that all cows originally produced A2 milk. Then, possibly thousands of years ago, for unknown reasons, some cattle in parts of Europe mutated. Instead of producing A2 milk, their milk contained the A1 protein. Meanwhile, cows in other parts of the world like Africa, Asia, and parts of southern Europe, continued to produce A2 milk.

Now, many herds of dairy cows around the world contain both A1 and A2 proteins in their milk. And even a little A1 can be harmful. But some herds in Asia, Africa, and parts of southern Europe still produce A2 milk. If you’re traveling to any of these areas, the milk and dairy products are probably safe. Eventually, A2 products may be widely available here. Until then, I have some suggestions.

A simple solution

The A1/A2 subject is based on the digestibility of milk proteins. A1 milk and dairy products are more difficult to digest. They release a pro-inflammatory peptide that contributes to a number of illnesses, including type-1 diabetes, heart disease, autism, and schizophrenia. But what can you do if you want to avoid A1 dairy products?

It’s simple. Cow’s milk originating in this country contains the A1 protein – unless it specifically says it doesn’t. Goat milk products contain only the A2 protein. They’re safe. Some sheep’s milk products contain the A2 protein. When in doubt, do without. But sheep’s cheese is more likely to be safer to eat than cheese made from cow milk, especially if it comes from New Zealand or Australia.

You can find milk, yogurt, and both hard and soft cheeses from goat’s milk in gourmet groceries and health food stores. Goat milk products don’t have a strong goat taste or smell. One of my favorite brands is Redwood Hill Farm. They make a variety of goat milk yogurts, kefir, and cheeses that are certified grade A and delicious.

If you’ve had problems digesting dairy and it’s not due to lactose intolerance, some dairy products could be safer than you thought. Researchers are just beginning to explore this issue of casein digestion.

For more information on the dangers of A1 dairy, pick up a copy of Devil in the Milk by Keither Woodford (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007). You’ll get an in depth look at the politics of dairy and the science behind this discovery. In the meantime, try eliminating all sources of A1 dairy for a month or two and let me know how you feel.

Atherosclerosis, September 2003.

The Vitamin Debate Goes On ... And Both Sides Are Right

he attempt to discredit dietary supplements occurs every few years. It’s a matter of economics. The sale of supplements competes with the sale of drugs.

Billions of dollars are spent on multivitamins each year in this country alone. Pharmaceutical companies would love to capture more of this market. If they can discredit multivitamins, people would spend more of these dollars on drugs or on the low potency synthetic vitamins these companies make.

In February 2009, researchers published the results of an eight-year study in the Archives of Internal Medicine. They followed more than 160,000 postmenopausal women and concluded that multivitamins didn’t prevent heart disease or cancer in them. They were right. But the implication was that vitamins are a waste of money. They’re not.

A few months later, in April 2009, scientists from 15 European countries gathered in Madrid, Spain for the first European Nutritionals Press Workshop. The scientists specialize in micronutrient research. And they were all presenting the latest information on the benefits of nutritional supplements to members of the press from around the world. The scientists all agreed that supplements are essential to maintaining good health and well being — even if people eat a good diet. They were right, too.

Prevention vs. value

How can both this study and the European workshop be right when they seem at odds with one another? Here are a few explanations. First, when a single study finds that a multivitamin/mineral formula is not sufficient to prevent cancer and heart disease, it’s not a conclusive study. You have to take it within the context of all scientific evidence. And hundreds of good, sound studies have proven the value of nutrient therapy in supporting a healthy body and sharp mind.

Second, this was a poor study.

The negative eight-year study was an observational study, not the gold standard: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Observational studies depend completely on records kept by the participants who often remember and record data imperfectly. I’ve known many people over the years who participated in observational studies, and their record-keeping was far from detailed or
scientific.

Observational studies may indicate a trend, but they prove nothing. They’re not good scientific studies with diagnostic tests like blood tests taken before and after to measure any changes.

While this study found that multivitamins are useless in preventing cancer and heart disease, another study had the opposite results. It was a four-year double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study — the best kind. It found that taking calcium and vitamin D “substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women.” I’ll bet you never heard about this study. It was buried along with many other positive studies. Search the Internet and you’ll find hundreds of other scientifically sound studies that found nutrients lower the risk for a number of illnesses, including cancer and heart disease.

Third, this study didn’t evaluate supplement quality.

No one knows either the quality or quantity of the multivitamins taken in this huge study. I can make an educated guess based on past research. They were most likely the cheap, synthetic low-potency multis found in your neighborhood drugstore, which do little or nothing to improve your health.

Historically, the studies the drug companies use to show that nutrients are worthless use multivitamins containing quantities of nutrients that are too small to have any effect. And the nutrients are usually poorly absorbed. They’re basically cheap supplements designed to give people the feeling that they’re taking care of their health, even though they’re not.

According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, ordinary low potency multivitamins only increase nutrient adequacy by eight percentage points. This is hardly enough to prevent any disease.

Micronutrients needed

Still, the speakers at the European workshop pointed out that more than half the world’s population lack sufficient micronutrients. In fact, they found a greater lack of micronutrients in people in industrialized countries than was once thought. And they’re all in favor of having people take dietary supplements to make up any deficit in nutrient intake.

I’ll bet they’re talking about low potency, synthetic supplements. What makes me say this? Bayer HealthCare, the Swiss parent company that brings you Bayer aspirin, organized the workshop.

Bottom line: both quality and quantity

The best nutrients come straight from healthy foods. Marian Neuhouser, the lead author of the large observational study, agrees. She advises women to eat more whole foods. Whole foods contain a balance of nutrients that you can found only in nature. There’s no substitute for the vitamins and minerals in healthful whole foods. The problem is that it’s impossible to get high enough quantities of vitamins and minerals from foods to protect against many diseases, especially in people who have become nutrient-deficient. To get a therapeutic effect, you need to take therapeutic doses.

The world we live in is more toxic than ever. We need higher amounts of certain nutrients, such as pectin and iodine, to pull heavy metals out of our bodies. We’re exposed to more refined foods that play havoc with our insulin levels, resulting in heart disease and diabetes. Chromium, cinnamon, and other nutrients protect against insulin resistance. These are just a few of many reasons why you and I should take good quality, well-absorbed, high potency multivitamin/minerals as the foundation of our individualized nutrient program. Even though some (poor) studies say they’re worthless, they’re not.

If you’re looking for a well-absorbed high-potency multi, expect to take four to eight tablets or capsules a day. Nutrients take up a lot of space in tablets and capsules. You can find many of them in health food stores. I personally take Women’s Vitality by Advanced Bionutritionals (800-791-3395), a formula I helped design. It comes in individual packets to make it easy to throw into your purse or pocket so you don’t forget to take it.

Make sure that any multivitamin you take is high potency and good quality. It may not completely prevent any illness, but it will support good health by ensuring that you’re getting enough of the nutrients needed to help you get and stay healthy.

Lappe, J.M., et al. “Vitamin D and calcium reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial,” Amer Journ of Clinical Nutr, June 2007.

Murphy, S.P., et al. “Multivitamin-multimineral supplements’ effect on total nutrient intake,” Amer Journ of Clinical Nutr, January 2007.

Neuhouser, M.L., et al. “Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the Women’s Health Initiative cohorts,” Arch Intern Med, February 9, 2009.

Three Reasons to Avoid This “Anti-Aging” Therapy

here’s a lot of pressure for us women to look younger than our years. “Anti-aging” is one of today’s most popular buzz words. It’s alright for us to get older, as long as we don’t look it. Celebrities (both men and women) seem to need to look 40 when they’re nearly twice that age.

In an effort to stay younger-looking longer, many women are resorting to Botox treatments. In fact, in some parts of the country and in some social circles, they’re all the rage. This is true even for women in their 20s. They may notice a tiny frown line or smile creases around their eyes and mouth, and they go berserk.

Botox has become the most common cosmetic procedure used in this country. Botox treatments consist of injecting tiny amounts of a neurotoxin, Clostridium botulinum, in facial muscles. It acts by paralyzing muscles that become more relaxed with age. The result is fewer wrinkles — and sometimes an unnaturally tight look. If you don’t know what I mean by this, just look at Joan Rivers’ face. Her engaging smile has been replaced with a frozen grimace. How sad.

If you’re curious about getting Botox injections, let me tell you why I think you should avoid it. Here are my top three reasons.

(1) It’s a poison. Botox is a neurotoxin made by a bacterium. It happens to be the most toxic protein known. Are these injections causing harm? No one knows. Every month I tell you about the consequences of various toxins. But Botox hasn’t been used long enough for us to know whether or not it’s completely safe and, if so, in what quantities.

We should all avoid putting toxic substances anywhere in our bodies. And, in fact, we should do everything possible to eliminate all toxins in our internal and external environments. Additionally, each Botox treatment is accompanied by risks like bruising, paralyzing the wrong muscles, headaches, and allergic reactions.

(2) It’s temporary and expensive. Botox treatments last from six weeks to eight months. Then you need to get another one. At a price of $300 to $750 or more, Botox can be pricey. That may not matter to Joan Rivers, but it does to many other women.

Doctors have found Botox treatments to be a huge cash cow. One doctor of integrative medicine I spoke with said he was going to offer Botox treatments to his patients because they were going to get them anyway and he wanted the extra income.

(3) It can cause you to be negative. That’s right! Botox can affect your emotions. A researcher at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, Judith Grob, was familiar with previous research that found people who suppress their emotions tend to be less healthy than those who showed their emotions. Then she found that suppressing the expression of disgust results in becoming more negative.

Grob took a group of people and asked them to suppress their disgust. Then she showed them pictures or videos of ... well, disgusting images. Afterward, without prompting, they began thinking of more disgusting things more often. They also felt more negative in general.

Then she had the same participants hold a pen between their lips. This is similar to the frozen look caused either by Botox or by deliberately suppressing emotions. It keeps the facial muscles used to express disgust from moving.
Grob found that not showing disgust or not being able to show disgust gave the same result: negativity. Allow yourself to express your emotions, even if it gives you a few wrinkles. Your life will be richer if you have a positive attitude.

Bottom line

So pass on the Botox injections. Join me in celebrating wrinkles — those soft lines that tell the world you’ve lived. Three of my best friends who are in their 80s have faces filled with wrinkles. They’re beautiful women with positive attitudes who have lived long, productive lives and continue to do so. I can’t imagine how they’d look without wrinkles.

University of Groningen (2009, March 18). “If You Don’t Show Your Disgust, Your Emotions May Stay Negative.” ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 19, 2009.

Wiley — Blackwell (2009, June 11). “Botox Injections Can Significantly Improve Quality of Life for People With Overactive Bladders.” ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 12, 2009.

NUTRITION DETECTIVE

Smallpox Vaccine Warning

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a non-profit educational organization started in 1982. It’s responsible for launching the vaccine safety movement in the 1980s. Their purpose is to gather information on vaccinations, inform the public, and allow each person to choose whether or not they want to participate in vaccination programs for themselves or their families.

But freedom of choice may not be an option for you. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is considering a program that would give mandatory smallpox vaccines to everyone if they believe we’re going to experience bioterrorist attacks. This includes people who are at risk for side effects, such as those with cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other immuno-suppressed illnesses; those on steroids, with central nervous system disorders; and even individuals with eczema.

The NVIC is not against smallpox vaccines per se. But they are worried that there’s not enough scientific evidence showing they are both safe and effective against the strain of smallpox used. For instance, smallpox could be genetically modified to be resistant to our old smallpox vaccines.

Researchers have never tested the old live smallpox vaccine for safety or effectiveness. It’s important that they do this testing, as the vaccine may have caused more side effects and deaths than any other vaccine ever used. What’s most disturbing to me is that people who are vaccinated then carry the smallpox virus and can transmit it to others.

What can you do? Stay informed. You can contact the NVIC through their website at www.909shot.com or the CDC at www.cdc.gov. Your local library has computers and someone there will help you find these websites if you’re not computer-literate. You can also contact NVIC at 421-E Church Street, Vietta, VA 22180, or 800-909-SHOT. NVIC is not opposed to vaccinations. But they, and I, believe we should have better information and be allowed to make our own choices.

If you’re not concerned about the smallpox vaccine, what about the swine flu vaccine ... or the yearly flu vaccine? There’s talk that the government may make these and other vaccines mandatory. I’ll keep you informed about the latest vaccine controversies.

LETTERS

Q:: I have been using an NSAID for my arthritis pain. It helps, but not much. My doctor wants me to take it along with acetaminophen, but that drug is toxic to the liver. Are there any effective natural pain products that won't harm me? — H.M.F., e-mail

A: Unfortunately, acetaminophen and NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have become more popular with doctors recently. Each, as well as the combination, can have side effects. The good news is that there are several herbal formulas on the market that are both safer than NSAIDS and effective in reducing the pain from inflammation. You can find them in most health food stores and some pharmacies.

The strongest and safest formula I know of is a new product called Reduloxin. In fact, it's one that I asked my supplement formulators to design to meet my specific recommendations. Reduloxin contains strong extracts from nine herbs, including turmeric, holy basil, and celery seed. We selected each of these for their ability to reduce the cause of inflammation. You may have heard of some of the herbs in this formula, but not all of them, and not in this combination.

Try a strong anti-inflammatory herbal formula like Reduloxin for three to six months according to the instructions on the label. Then reduce the amount by half for an equal amount of time. After that, you may find that you don't need to take it at all. Or you could find you feel best by continuing to take it either constantly or periodically.

Inflammation is at the core of most chronic illnesses. That's why I have been giving most of my patients heavy-duty anti-inflammatory supplements. They help control their symptoms and stop their pain cycle when they have arthritis, tendonitis, and other painful inflammatory conditions. The quality of the herbal extracts, their specific combination, and their quantity, are three reasons why Reduloxin out-performs other products I've used in the past. You can order it by calling 800-791-3395.

Q: Medicare has declined my treatment for prolotherapy three times, yet in your Healing Secrets book you say it is covered. Can you tell me where I can get more information? — B.N., e-mail

A: Prolotherapy is a therapy that tightens loose ligaments by injecting sugar water or vitamin C into the affected area. The injection causes a low-grade inflammation, which repairs damaged ligaments and leaves you with stronger ligaments.

When I wrote my Health Secrets book four years ago, Medicare was reimbursing doctors for this therapy. But as you may have noticed, Medicare is cutting back, and it’s more difficult — if even possible — for doctors to get reimbursed for this excellent procedure.

We’ve seen other cutbacks from Medicare, like not reimbursing for a simple, inexpensive vitamin D blood test. I’m not happy about the changes. And, unfortunately, I expect things will get worse.

The bad news is that Medicare won’t pay for your prolotherapy treatments. The good news is that you have received treatments. Since prolotherapy leaves the patient with ligaments that are stronger than before — and the results are permanent — you’re in better shape than you were before prolotherapy.