Does A2 Milk Carry Less Autism Risk?

Does A2 Milk Carry Less Autism Risk?
4.84 (96.79%) 56 votes

The casomorphins in bovine milk appear to have opposite effects than that from human breast milk on infant development, but what about A2 cow’s milk?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“One of the main sources of [protein fragments with opiate-like activity] in the [diets of] autism patients are dairy products.” The main dairy protein, casein, breaks down into casomorphins, which have been “considered to be factors involved in the [cause] and exacerbation of symptoms in food allergy and [eczema], diabetes, schizophrenia, postpartum psychoses, [crib death],…and autism.”

“According to [this] opioid-excess [idea] the development of autism includes: [a] genetic predisposition, early exposure to [some kind of] environmental stressors [that affect the gut], which may cause more of these casomorphins to leak into the blood, and then the brain, where they may play a role in “the development of autism.” But, you don’t know, until you put it to the test.

First of all, do these bovine casomorphins form in the human digestive tract when we drink milk? Researchers decided to stick tubes down into people’s intestines to find out. And indeed, “[c]onsiderable amounts of…casomorphin…were found.” Okay, but do they get absorbed into the bloodstream? Yes, apparently so. But, this study was on infants, who naturally have leakier guts. Do fully intact casein-protein fragments make it into the bloodstream after infancy? Yes, even into adulthood, elevating levels in the blood for at least eight hours after consumption.

And, those with autism may have an especially leaky gut—at significantly higher risk for abnormally high intestinal permeability, which may explain why the vast majority of autistic children may have antibodies in their blood to wheat and dairy proteins, compared to a small minority of normal children. And, based on allergy studies, even if an infant is strictly breastfed, they may still be exposed to bits of bovine milk proteins if the mother drinks milk, as the bovine protein fragments can get into her blood, then her breast, then into her baby’s body. But, does it get into the baby’s brain?

Yeah, those with autism are more likely to suffer from leaky gut, but the so-called “opioid excess theory” depends on casomorphins not only getting into the bloodstream, but up into the central nervous system, the brain. And, there’s something called the blood-brain barrier that helps cordon off the brain. When you examine the brain tissues of those with autism, their blood-brain barrier seems leakier, too. And indeed, evidence for the presence of casomorphins within the brains of infants has since “been confirmed”—which, again, just makes sense. That’s the whole presumed point of casomorphin opioids—to affect the brains of babies, so they crave the milk, cry out for the milk, strengthening the mother-infant bond, the cow-calf bond. That’s what’s supposed to happen; it’s normal, natural. Okay, then, why are casomorphins associated with disease? Well, this is normal and natural. This? Not so much.

Human infants with evidence of higher baseline levels of bovine casomorphins in their blood seem more likely to be suffering from psychomotor delay, which is a measure of muscle, language, and mental function development. But the reverse was found for human infant exposure to human casomorphins—meaning human casomorphins appeared to be beneficial in humans. See, just like bovine casomorphin levels in the baby’s blood appear to rise after feeding cow’s milk formula, human casomorphin levels rise in the baby after breastfeeding, and that’s what’s supposed to happen. “The greatest [baseline human casomorphins] was revealed in breastfed infants with normal psychomotor development and muscle tone. In contrast, elevated [baseline bovine casomorphins] found in [cow’s milk-]formula-fed infants [was associated with] delay[ed] psychomotor development” and stiffened, more rigid, muscle tone.

“The explanation of [the] opposite effects of human [versus] bovine [casomorphins] on infant… development…probably [has to do with] species-specificity.” Cow’s milk is good for calves; breast milk is good for babies. “Indeed, the structure of bovine and human [casein is dramatically different],” and the bovine and human casomorphins themselves are different molecules, differing by two amino acids, which results in greatly different potencies. Compared to human casomorphin, bovine casomorphin “is highly potent and [more] similar to morphine in its effects.”

A two-amino acid difference doesn’t seem like a lot, but casomorphins are only seven amino acids long! This 30% or so difference “likely defines [the] difference in their biological properties. Both human and bovine [casomorphins]…interact with opioid and serotonin receptors, which are known to be of great importance for [brain] maturation.” But cow casomorphin binds tighter to these receptors and, so, has more of an effect. This can, therefore, help explain not only why breast is best, but the psychomotor delay linked with higher bovine casomorphin levels in the blood supports this concept that cow casomorphins may play a role in a disease such as autism.

This is why bovine casomorphins have been called “the devil in the milk.” But, are they formed from all cow’s milk? What about so-called “A2” milk? The “A2 [milk] Corporation” points out there are different “variants” of casein. Some cows produce milk with a kind of casein dubbed A1, and other cows produce milk with A2 casein, which differs from A1 casein “by a single amino acid”—but strategically located such that A1 casein breaks down into casomorphin, which acts like morphine, “and is implicated in digestive, immune, and brain development changes.” But, supposedly, A2 milk does not. Put A1 milk in a test tube with some digestive enzymes, and the A1 casein breaks down into casomorphin. But, because of that amino acid difference, the A2 casein breaks down at a different spot. And so, no casomorphin is formed.

But, this was using digestive enzymes from pigs, or cows, which are just cheaper and easier to buy for laboratory experiments. But human digestive juices are different. And so, what happens in a pig’s stomach or cow stomachs may not necessarily be what happens in the human digestive tract. But, the A1 versus A2 breakdown experiment had never been performed with human enzymes before, until…now. Human stomach and intestinal juices were collected, and the devil was in both. The opioid casomorphin was produced from both A1 and A2 milk. So, A2 milk may be better for this Babe, but not necessarily for this one.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Icons created by Mungang Kim, Nook Fulloption, Luis Prado, Pavel N., Alexandr Lavreniuk, and Gan Khoon Lay from The Noun Project.

Image credit: BlackCab (Self-taken) [CC BY-SA 3.0] via Wikimedia Commons. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“One of the main sources of [protein fragments with opiate-like activity] in the [diets of] autism patients are dairy products.” The main dairy protein, casein, breaks down into casomorphins, which have been “considered to be factors involved in the [cause] and exacerbation of symptoms in food allergy and [eczema], diabetes, schizophrenia, postpartum psychoses, [crib death],…and autism.”

“According to [this] opioid-excess [idea] the development of autism includes: [a] genetic predisposition, early exposure to [some kind of] environmental stressors [that affect the gut], which may cause more of these casomorphins to leak into the blood, and then the brain, where they may play a role in “the development of autism.” But, you don’t know, until you put it to the test.

First of all, do these bovine casomorphins form in the human digestive tract when we drink milk? Researchers decided to stick tubes down into people’s intestines to find out. And indeed, “[c]onsiderable amounts of…casomorphin…were found.” Okay, but do they get absorbed into the bloodstream? Yes, apparently so. But, this study was on infants, who naturally have leakier guts. Do fully intact casein-protein fragments make it into the bloodstream after infancy? Yes, even into adulthood, elevating levels in the blood for at least eight hours after consumption.

And, those with autism may have an especially leaky gut—at significantly higher risk for abnormally high intestinal permeability, which may explain why the vast majority of autistic children may have antibodies in their blood to wheat and dairy proteins, compared to a small minority of normal children. And, based on allergy studies, even if an infant is strictly breastfed, they may still be exposed to bits of bovine milk proteins if the mother drinks milk, as the bovine protein fragments can get into her blood, then her breast, then into her baby’s body. But, does it get into the baby’s brain?

Yeah, those with autism are more likely to suffer from leaky gut, but the so-called “opioid excess theory” depends on casomorphins not only getting into the bloodstream, but up into the central nervous system, the brain. And, there’s something called the blood-brain barrier that helps cordon off the brain. When you examine the brain tissues of those with autism, their blood-brain barrier seems leakier, too. And indeed, evidence for the presence of casomorphins within the brains of infants has since “been confirmed”—which, again, just makes sense. That’s the whole presumed point of casomorphin opioids—to affect the brains of babies, so they crave the milk, cry out for the milk, strengthening the mother-infant bond, the cow-calf bond. That’s what’s supposed to happen; it’s normal, natural. Okay, then, why are casomorphins associated with disease? Well, this is normal and natural. This? Not so much.

Human infants with evidence of higher baseline levels of bovine casomorphins in their blood seem more likely to be suffering from psychomotor delay, which is a measure of muscle, language, and mental function development. But the reverse was found for human infant exposure to human casomorphins—meaning human casomorphins appeared to be beneficial in humans. See, just like bovine casomorphin levels in the baby’s blood appear to rise after feeding cow’s milk formula, human casomorphin levels rise in the baby after breastfeeding, and that’s what’s supposed to happen. “The greatest [baseline human casomorphins] was revealed in breastfed infants with normal psychomotor development and muscle tone. In contrast, elevated [baseline bovine casomorphins] found in [cow’s milk-]formula-fed infants [was associated with] delay[ed] psychomotor development” and stiffened, more rigid, muscle tone.

“The explanation of [the] opposite effects of human [versus] bovine [casomorphins] on infant… development…probably [has to do with] species-specificity.” Cow’s milk is good for calves; breast milk is good for babies. “Indeed, the structure of bovine and human [casein is dramatically different],” and the bovine and human casomorphins themselves are different molecules, differing by two amino acids, which results in greatly different potencies. Compared to human casomorphin, bovine casomorphin “is highly potent and [more] similar to morphine in its effects.”

A two-amino acid difference doesn’t seem like a lot, but casomorphins are only seven amino acids long! This 30% or so difference “likely defines [the] difference in their biological properties. Both human and bovine [casomorphins]…interact with opioid and serotonin receptors, which are known to be of great importance for [brain] maturation.” But cow casomorphin binds tighter to these receptors and, so, has more of an effect. This can, therefore, help explain not only why breast is best, but the psychomotor delay linked with higher bovine casomorphin levels in the blood supports this concept that cow casomorphins may play a role in a disease such as autism.

This is why bovine casomorphins have been called “the devil in the milk.” But, are they formed from all cow’s milk? What about so-called “A2” milk? The “A2 [milk] Corporation” points out there are different “variants” of casein. Some cows produce milk with a kind of casein dubbed A1, and other cows produce milk with A2 casein, which differs from A1 casein “by a single amino acid”—but strategically located such that A1 casein breaks down into casomorphin, which acts like morphine, “and is implicated in digestive, immune, and brain development changes.” But, supposedly, A2 milk does not. Put A1 milk in a test tube with some digestive enzymes, and the A1 casein breaks down into casomorphin. But, because of that amino acid difference, the A2 casein breaks down at a different spot. And so, no casomorphin is formed.

But, this was using digestive enzymes from pigs, or cows, which are just cheaper and easier to buy for laboratory experiments. But human digestive juices are different. And so, what happens in a pig’s stomach or cow stomachs may not necessarily be what happens in the human digestive tract. But, the A1 versus A2 breakdown experiment had never been performed with human enzymes before, until…now. Human stomach and intestinal juices were collected, and the devil was in both. The opioid casomorphin was produced from both A1 and A2 milk. So, A2 milk may be better for this Babe, but not necessarily for this one.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Icons created by Mungang Kim, Nook Fulloption, Luis Prado, Pavel N., Alexandr Lavreniuk, and Gan Khoon Lay from The Noun Project.

Image credit: BlackCab (Self-taken) [CC BY-SA 3.0] via Wikimedia Commons. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

This is the second in a six-video series on the role of gluten- and dairy-free diets in the treatment of autism. If you missed the first one, watch it here: Autism & Casein from Cow’s Milk.

Stay tuned for:

I previously touched on A1 vs. A2 milk in Does Casein in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes? and Does Bovine Insulin in Milk Trigger Type 1 Diabetes? 

I will continue to have autism videos coming out through 2018. Catch all of the latest here.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

334 responses to “Does A2 Milk Carry Less Autism Risk?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Dr. Greger, what is the best plant-based infant formula? And won’t baby lack important things for his digestion, development and immune system if he never has breast milk? Will those benefits be preserved if you use frozen and then heated breast milk from another woman?

    1. @Anna: Breast milk from a whole foods plant-based mum ;-)

      If another mum’s milk cannot be a used, then probably a soy based infant formula would be the best plant based one. But maybe there’s some new plant based infant formulas out now??
      Luckily my wife breast fed my three weens.

    2. I would think that Brenda Davis, a plant based dietitian who has written a number of very comprehensive books on veganism and vegetarianism, probably addresses the issue of how to feed infants when you can’t breast feed, such as for adopted infants or when Mom can’t manage it for any of a number of reasons.

      How I wish there had been lactation specialists when I was struggling with breast feeding 50+ years ago.

    3. It appears from your very interesting video that perhaps cows/pigs milk breakdown products may be “competitive inhibitors” of normal human milk nutrients thereby blocking the nutritive effects of the latter leading to delayed neural development leading to many of the brain issues outlined in the first study you quoted.

    4. I heard Brenda Davis speak at Food Is Medicine, Midland Texas, in August (along with Dr. G.) She stated clearly that nut milks are not for babies – That breast is best – then graduate fortified soy milk – not nut milks in the first 2 years of life. And issued the reminder that nutritionally adequate foods and plenty of plain old water will grow up a healthy human being. I hope this is helpful.

      1. No nut milk, even for adults. Granted nuts are beneficial because it has the phytonutrients but nut does not have the protein, calcium and vitamins among a lot of things. Nut is a complimentary food and not a main food. And not counting the antinutrient (phytate) in nut.

        1. Jerry Lewis, You have been giving people incorrect advice in this comments section for a long time now and every time have been corrected by other people here who know much more about nutrition than you do. And you also continually contradict Dr Greger’s diligently reported scientific research studies. If the new people visiting this site look back at the comments on previous videos, they will observe what I am talking about. For their sake, I hope they don’t take you seriously and instead, use the search tool on this website to view the unbiased research themselves.

          All the people I know that eat a diet like you recommend, with saturated fat, meat, eggs, dairy products and a handful of supplements, they are all sick with various diseases including clogged arteries, type 2 diabetes, overweight, arthritis, and even declining mental issues. When they eliminate the saturated fat, meat, eggs and dairy and quit taking the supplements which throw their metabolism out of balance, they all get better and reverse their disease. Good luck in your unhealthy eating.

          1. I quit paying attention to his posts a while back. They seem very troll-like and some are borderline plain rude. I am doing very well on WFPB, some hiccups here and there, like having to figure out that I can’t do an estrogen patch and WFPB cause it makes my fibroid scream (I quit doing the patch), and a few other adjustments, but I have no arguments with a food plan that has allowed me to open a jar by myself for the first time by myself in months. Jerry is entitled to his opinion, however, just as I am entitled to ignore it.

            1. As somebody once quipped about another person, he is entitled to his own opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts. And that is the problem which Jerry represents.

              He presents his opinions as absolute facts and attempts to deceive casual visitors into thinking that they are scientifically established facts when the science clearly refutes his assertions (something which he never mentions)

              1. Yes, TG, and more recently Jerry Lewis stated “I used to be a fan of Dr. Greger but no longer.” He is clearly a troll and has a destructive personality and should never be believed on this site. We have all seen too much evidence that he has no scientific training or background (which he has mentioned himself) but tries to come across as some (know-it-all) expert. Which he is not.

                Thank you for your stand-up comments for scientific accuracy and truth. Which is what this site is about.

              2. Exactly. That’s actually the only reason I respond to his comments at this point, for onlookers. I know he’s just trolling but I don’t want people to be mislead by his baseless claims which is probably the same reason anyone responds to his comments anymore.

              3. PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS:

                Well there is nobody more (raw) vegan than this guy John from Okraw. This guy makes money mainly from selling vegetable juicer and so there is no incentive for him to talk against raw food. I bought 2 juicers from him for my kids – I got the first one for myself from Dr Mercola but this guy sells the same brand cheaper.

                Anyway, the following videos are not good to promote his business. But I have followed John for a long time on Youtube and I know that he is honest and say what is good for people.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-5Pg2aWZzg

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW6BgwqFw5w

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascUNsE2Hw4

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqte9ae3wy4

          2. Darwin,

            The latest scientific evidence on saturated fat:

            *Saturated Fat*

            1. *’Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions’*

            A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis found *no association* between saturated fat consumption and all-cause mortality, CHD, CHD mortality, ischaemic stroke or type 2 diabetes in healthy adults. It also found no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. It also noted that one study found that a greater intake of saturated fat was associated with *less progression of atherosclerosis* whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression

            *‘Coronary artery disease pathogenesis and treatment urgently requires a paradigm shift. Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong. A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.*

            http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285

            *2. Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies*

            *Conclusions** Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats.
            Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats.*

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/

            1. This is the usual crackpot argument espoused by a tiny minority of people including the notorious Aseem Malhotra, a UK based physician with financial ties to the food and pharmaceutical industries via his “National Obesity Forum”. His views are tainted and contrary to the scientific evidence.

              The meta analysis and systematic review of observational studies you cited did indeed find no association between staurated fat consumption and heart disease etc. It is no surprise that someone associated with the dairy industry – perhaps the major source of saturated fats in Western diets – should trumpet this.

              However, this is highly disingenuous. The review authors themselves stated that the likelihood that there was no association between saturated fat consumption and cardiiovascular disease was “very low”

              “The GRADE approach offers a methodological advance in evaluating the quality of the body of evidence in a transparent fashion, and thus a “non-combinable” estimate can still inform our judgment of the presence, strength, and direction of an effect. Therefore, because of this inconsistency, we document the inconsistency between this finding (positive) and that of the pooled prospective cohort studies (null), and rate the confidence we have in a true quantitative “null” association as “very low.”

              They also noted

              “Measurement error is often serious in epidemiologic studies of diet and disease, which can bias such associations towards the null.”

              “A Cochrane review of randomized trials of reduced saturated fats and cardiovascular events found a 17% reduced risk with lower saturated fat intake (risk ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96; 13 studies with 53 300 participants; moderate GRADE).8 Methodological advantages of randomized controlled trials over prospective cohort studies include the balancing of known and unknown confounders and better measurement and finer control of dietary fat levels.”

              “The analysis of data from the largest prospective study to examine carbohydrate quality, as measured by glycemic index, suggests that replacement of saturated fat with high glycemic index carbohydrate increased the risk of CVD, but replacement with low glycemic index carbohydrate (such as whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains) decreased risk.116”

              “In cohort studies that have directly modeled substitution effects, replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated fat (with a corresponding increase in polyunsaturated:saturated (P:S) ratio conferred the greatest reduction in risk of CVD111; though these studies did not distinguish between n-3 and n-6 fatty acids as the replacement choice. Several intervention studies that have replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats achieved relatively high P:S ratios (>1.0 to about 2.5) through replacement of saturated fat with predominantly soybean (n-6 linoleic) and marine oils (n-3 eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids from sardines). At these levels significant CHD benefits were seen,112 113 114 consistent with the finding that favorable effects of diets with reduced saturated fat on cardiovascular risk might depend on a significant reciprocal increase in polyunsaturated fat92 or high quality carbohydrate from whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains, which tend to have a lower glycaemic index.116 In a meta-analysis of cohort studies, replacement of 5% of energy from saturated fat with linoleic acid (n-6 PUFA) was associated with a 9% lower risk of CHD events (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.96; 13 studies with 310 602 participants) and a 13% lower risk of CHD deaths (0.87, 0.82 to 0.94).178”

              This study dies not exonerate staurated fat. It merely showed that “There was no association between saturated fats and health outcomes in studies where saturated fat generally replaced refined carbohydrates,”

              Saturated fat needs to be replaced with PUFAs or complex carbohydrates for a reduction in cardiovascular disease to be delivered. This is why the conclusion is – and you yourself quoted this – “Dietary guidelines for saturated and trans fatty acids must carefully consider the effect of replacement nutrients” Saturated fatty acids should be replaced in the diet but the replacement nutrients need to be specified (PUFAs, complex carbs).
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/

              It really is highly misleading to suggest that this study shows that saturated fat is harmless. It does not. The American Heart Association has restated the evidence on dietary fats and heart disease. This evidence includes not just the results of certain observational studies but also finding from experimental studies. It was designed to counter such highly misleading claims as these which are based on selective misinterpretation of observational studies.
              http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510

              People may also want to revisit an older video on this topic
              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/

              1. Here we go Peter, you will get a page long mouthful reply from TG with 50 year old links and as expected, he will dismiss all new findings as purely observational although some studies were done on several hundreds of thousand of people over a 20 year span. TG said a lot but about nothing.

              2. Thanks Tom for the detailed response.

                If you have the time I would be interested in your take on this one:

                ‘There was no consistent and significant association between total dairy intake and total or cause-specific mortality. However, compared with those with the lowest intake of full-fat dairy, participants with the highest intake (median intake 339 g/day) had reduced death due to CVD (HR: 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–0.79; P for trend = 0.04) after adjustment for calcium intake and other confounders. Intakes of low-fat dairy, specific dairy foods, calcium and vitamin D showed no consistent associations’.

                People who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least. Otherwise stated, people who mostly avoided dairy or consumed low-fat dairy had more than three times the risk of dying of coronary heart disease or stroke than people who ate the most full-fat diary. This result is an outlier, and also observational so difficult to interpret, but it certainly is difficult to reconcile with the idea that dairy fat is a significant contributor to cardiovascular disease.

                Contrary to popular belief, full-fat dairy, including milk, butter and cheese, has never been convincingly linked to cardiovascular disease. What *has* been linked to cardiovascular disease is milk fat’s replacement, margarine. In the Rotterdam study, high vitamin K2 intake was linked to a lower risk of fatal heart attack, aortic calcification and all-cause mortality. Most of the K2 came from full-fat cheese.

                From a 2005 literature review on milk and cardiovascular disease in the EJCN:

                In total, 10 studies were identified. Their results show a high degree of consistency in the reported risk for heart disease and stroke, all but one study suggesting a relative risk of less than one in subjects with the highest intakes of milk.

                …the studies, taken together, suggest that milk drinking may be associated with a small but worthwhile reduction in heart disease and stroke risk.

                …All the cohort studies in the present review had, however, been set up at times when reduced-fat milks were unavailable, or scarce.

                Stephan Guyenet PhD (BS in biochemistry, PhD in neurobiology, neuroscience and obesity researcher).

                http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/full-fat-dairy-for-cardiovascular.html

                1. Thank you Pete.

                  The Australian study basically found no association between dairy consumption and mortality. As the saturated fat meta analysis you quoted, observed “Measurement error is often serious in epidemiologic studies of diet and disease, which can bias such associations towards the null.” Further, the results of such analyses are often confounded by the choice of replacement nutrients. In other words, what did people eat in place of dairy? The study doesn’t say. If it was say refined carbohydrates or trans fats, as per the saturated fat analyses, then we would expect to find no effect or a beneficial effect from consuming dairy. The lowered mortality found with highest intake of full fat dairy compared with those eating the lowest intake, was not mirrored in the intermediate intake groups which suggests that other variables were involved. As the study authors noted

                  “we cannot rule out the possibility that the protective association between full-fat dairy intake and cardiovascular mortality was due to chance. Also, participants in the highest intake group of full-fat dairy may have been at generally lower risk of CVD: compared with participants in the lowest and medium-level intake groups of full-fat dairy, participants in the highest intake group were younger, had a lower BMI, were less likely to have any medical condition and were more likely to leave school at an older age”

                  The EJCN meta analysis was also a review of observational studies only. The analysis therefore necessarily ignores findings from experimental studies. I think that the same arguments (as those relating to the de Souza saturated fat meta analysis) would also largely apply here. Further, consumption of milk might simply be a marker for consumption of (breakfast) cereals or coffee for example.

                  Guyenet’s conclusion seems a bit of a stretch then when based on such slender evidence as this. It is also particularly noticeable that none of the studies (or Guyenet) effectively discuss findings from experimental studies – a much stronger form of evidence – which would almost certainly call their findings into serious question. The most famous I suppose are the Finnish mental hospital studies and the Lyon diet heart trial.

                  “The Finnish high-fat diet was compared to one with soy milk, unsaturated margarine, vegetable oils, and reduced meat and dairy fat, resulting in a marked decrease in saturated and increased unsaturated fatty acids and an eventual 51 mg/dl difference in serum cholesterol levels due to diet. This is among the largest decrease reported for diet trials……………
                  The approach demonstrated the feasibility of such institutional changes reducing serum and tissue concentrations of lipid, and at 6 years, the study found diminished clinical and electrocardiographic events and mortality in the experimental hospitals. (1) Conclusion of the trial after the 12 years and cross-over diets revealed the hypothesized lowering in risk factor levels and CHD events during the experimental diet periods. Coronary deaths were about half that in the control period.(2)”
                  http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/finnish-mental-hospital-trial/

                  in the Lyon diet heart study, butter and cream were replaced with PUFA and MUFA margarines and oils (among other things).
                  “Despite a similar coronary risk factor profile (plasma lipids and lipoproteins, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and smoking status), subjects following the Mediterranean-style diet had a 50% to 70% lower risk of recurrent heart disease, as measured by 3 different combinations of outcome measures including (1) cardiac death and nonfatal heart attacks; (2) the preceding plus unstable angina, stroke, heart failure, and pulmonary or peripheral embolism; and (3) all of these measures plus events that required hospitalization.’
                  http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/13/1823

                  Perhaps we have to excuse Guyenet. He seems to make his living now selling diet books and diet plans, and from speaking fees. Perhaps he needs a point of differentiation from his paleo and low carb competitors. That said, it seems that arguing that whole milk drinking is healthy or at least harmless is apparently based only on observational studies and is a weak argument. There is also the possibility that null findings could reflect publication bias

                  “The possibility of publication bias was found for all cause mortality and for stroke, indicating a gap in data that could have suggested a higher risk of these conditions with increased milk consumption.”
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5143456/

        2. Jerry, phytates are not “anti-nutrients” and in fact are highly beneficial. I suggest reading about them in “How Not to Die” or searching this site for more info on that. Nuts are one of the most nutritious foods on the planet credited for a plethora of beneficial effects. Nuts can be a eaten raw, cooked, or sprouted and are healthy either way.
          Nut milks are an excellent alternative or addition for adults and kids past infancy but homemade is best as opposed to pastuerized milks with additives (though there are more and more coming out with no harmful additives). However, the fortified nutmilks (dairy milk is fortified too) actually have more calcium than dairy milk. Personally I don’t like added calcium as it’s incredibly easy to get high amounts of calcium and other minerals from simply eating plant foods and I don’t like taking in unnaturally high levels of calcium that isn’t naturally occurring in the whole food. Also, I find it unnecessary, but it creates concern for mineral competition and the negative arterial impact calcium supplementation has and if you drink enough fortified milk of any kind, you could be getting as much as you’d get from taking a supplement at once.
          Anyways though, my point is that you don’t need ANY milk to get your minerals, unless you’re an infant still breastfeeding that is.

          1. You have no understanding about nutrition. Phytates is fine as long as you eat along with other foods, but for a baby, he/she has nothing else to eat other than what the parents feed to him/her. So if you feed just nut milk as main food that lacks protein, calcium and vitamin and it is full of phytates then the helpless baby will be malnourished. This kind of fanatic veganism when applied to a helpless baby will lead to malnourishment if not death. Like Lonie said, if you care about the human as much as you care about the animals then you will become another Mother Teresa.

            The fanatic veganism religion is so dangerous that people are harming their love one and themselves out of good intention.

            1. Jerry Are you people really so desperate to find an argument – any argument – against completely vegetarian diets that you are reduced to the stupidity of calling it a religion? That’s all you have I suppose. Even the USDA acknowledges that well-planned “vegan” diets are healthful.

              But not nuts on the internet, apparently, who have such blind faith in their saturated fat and cholesterol denialism or low carb or paleo diets that they eject all evidence to the contrary. And they accuse others who practise evidence based nutrition of following a religion! LOL.

              1. Everyday I know which button to push to get the guy from down under into a rage. It won’t take very long before he will get a nervous breakdown.

                1. LOL, Jerry.

                  I haven’t been angry for years. Since I went strictly vegetarian in fact. This is probably not unusual. People eating WFPB diets are apparently happier
                  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-diets-for-improved-mood-and-productivity/
                  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/foods-increase-happiness/

                  Unfortunately, people like you who eat significant amounts of saturated fat may have a problem. Not just with mood but cognition itself.
                  Certainly, it seems that cognitive impairment is a very real risk factor. I would even suggest that your posts are themselves evidence of actual cognitive impairment. if your memory is OK, you might remember a quote from a study on brain health I offered to you before. Here it is again in case you might have forgotten:

                  “diets that are high in saturated fat are becoming notorious for reducing molecular substrates that support cognitive processing and increasing the risk of neurological dysfunction in both humans3 and animals4”
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805706/

          2. *Phytic acid remains a nutritional concern among people whose diets are based primarily on unfermented whole grains and who eat little or no animal foods. This includes people from parts of India or Pakistan who rely heavily on unleavened whole wheat chappatis, as well as people following a vegan diet, particularly a macrobiotic vegan diet. This follows a general nutritional principle: the more restricted your diet, the more carefully you have to compose it to achieve adequate nutrition.*

            *Conclusion*

            *Phytic acid is a substantial nutritional concern in people with a high intake of whole grains and a low intake of animal foods, but it’s probably much less important in the context of a diverse, omnivorous diet. In countries like the US, most of us have more pressing things to worry about than how much phytic acid we’re eating, and in my opinion, focusing on whole foods is a higher priority. I now often eat regular rolled oats for breakfast, but I tend to eat it with plain yogurt to make up for its high content of phytic acid. I don’t worry about the phytic acid in beans and nuts.*

            Stephan Guyenet PhD (BS in biochemistry, PhD in neurobiology, neuroscience and obesity researcher).

            http://www.stephanguyenet.com/two-things-ive-changed-my-mind-about-part-ii-phytic-acid

            1. Why take the views of some blogger, even if he has a PhD, as Gospel?

              Opinion is cheap but where is his evidence? If he had any, I suspect he would quote it. Phytates may be a problems for poor people in Bangladesh with poor diets based on a small number of plant foods. However, the reference to animal foods is a 2+2=5 conclusion. Including foods rich in vitamin C and including leavened bread in the diet would probably do the job just as well and have added benefits (as opposed to adverse side effects that accompany eating animal foods)
              http://www.theveganrd.com/2014/03/dont-think-twice-about-going-vegan/

              1. Tom,

                ‘To date and to my knowledge, none of the major scientific points in The Hungry Brain have been credibly refuted. That said, I don’t present the contents of the book as Immutable Scientific Truth. True scientific beliefs are probabilistic, meaning that there is some probability they will turn out to be wrong. Beliefs can be wrong either through limitations of the evidence or limitations of the person interpreting it, and I understand that neither the evidence nor I are infallible. I made an effort to convey uncertainty in the book when I thought it was appropriate.

                In terms of scientific evidence having a degree of uncertainty rather than certainty is most admirable. From my reading, he is quite prepared to modify his view if the evidence suggests it. For instance, he is now somewhat less enthusiastic for saturated fat than previously. This is all we can hope for in scientists. That they dont steadfastly commit themselves to a point of view that has more objectively become redundant. Stephen has a website. He invites comments, and they are generally fascinating insights from some very bright people. I am sure they would be happy to engage if you have a contrary view you wish to test
                Incidentally, some of my responses are censored. So I am at somewhat of a disadvantage in replying to you in full. And then there are time constraints. They are the greatest censor of all.

                1. Pete

                  I do not think any of your comments are being censored. My posts frequently disappear as well.

                  As best I can figure out, the system (WordPress I think) just objects to certain links in posts and “loses” the entire post. It is infuriating.

                  The only solution is to compose posts offline (Wordpad etc), then copy paste them into the nutritionfacts comment system. If it then disappears, copy paste the original Wordpad text again but delete some or all of the links before posting. Your comments should then be visible.

                  As for Guyenet’s book, I don’t think anybody needs to refute it. There are dozens of sensational books on nutrition and health published every year based on selective use of evidence and selective interpretation of the evidence that is used. Guyenet is no different. You could waste several lifetimes refuting every sensational alternative health/diet book that is published.

                  I venture to suggest that you only like his stuff only because he is one of the few ‘popular’ book authors who defends full fat dairy consumption. Most conventional health authorities argue that if people eat diary, theyshould go for low fat dairy. However, the Finnish mental hospital studies and Lyon diet heart trials weren’t exactly ringing endorsements of dairy consumption. And even weaned cows don’t consume it either. So why bother at all – it offers no firmly established known benefits

                  I am aware that the US and Canadian industries have spent millions on ‘research@ over the years to position dairy in the best possible light. and dairy industries in other countries have followed suit. However, I can’t think of any good reason for consuming dairy in wealthy western societies like ours. Why would i want to consume eg bovine growth hormones, saturated fat and the like? Sure if i didn’t get enough total calories or had an otherwise, extremely limited diet and the only other source of calories and nutrients was dairy,, then yes. but it isn’t. and even scientists funded by the dairy industry acknowledge
                  “Epidemiologic studies have shown a lower risk of CVD with lower intakes of full-fat dairy products and fatty red meats and higher intakes of PUFAs from vegetable fats, which is consistent with strong evidence that replacing SFAs by PUFAs reduces the risk of CVD (38). The use of nonhydrogenated vegetable oils (including canola or olive oil rich in MUFAs) decreases the CVD risk compared with animal fats. Thus, although the evidence is stronger for PUFAs, indirect evidence suggests that SFAs could also be replaced with MUFAs as well as unrefined carbohydrates with a low glycemic index. A valuable way to communicate the message is to describe the broad dietary pattern that decreases CVD risk. Note that only a minority of different populations adhere to a healthy dietary pattern. A healthy dietary pattern is primarily plant-based and low in SFAs, but can include lean meats and low-fat dairy products in small-to-modest amounts.”
                  http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/4/684.full

                  Even there though, there appears to be a deliberate avoidance of acknowledging that red meat is probably carcinogenic and that IGF-1 etc in dairy is probably also carcinogenic.

                  I think that you have to work very hard deed to come up with some argument to defend dairy consumption and even there most authorities in countries where the meat and dairy industries are politically enormously powerful – like Australia – now emphasise low fat dairy. And even they state that calcium enriched soy could be substituted for dairy. Which is pretty telling.
                  https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf

  2. so all the speculation on Wednesday , that A2 was better can now be laid to rest . thank you Nutritionfacts.org and Dr . Greger
    i guess there is no good reason to cry over spilled milk

    1. Actually no. This does not at all address any possible difference in cardiovascular disease risk nor in possible cancer risk between the two forms.

      1. Geoffrey Levens
        i disagree , we know a lot about animal milks , just check out videos on this site . i don’t see how A2 would get the green light.

        1. I totally agree with Inatius and want to add a bit of simple common sense… If something needs to be genetically modified in order for us to theoretically safely consume it… umm, don’t you think that means we aren’t supposed to consume it in the first place? But hey, what is common sense in the face of big buisiness and addiction?

          Also, desperately trying to modify something so we can get away with consuming it is another example of humans’ continuous failure in thinking they can one up nature. Now think of all the good that could have been and could be done if all that brain power and money were spent elsewhere…

          1. My understanding is that the A2 form is the original bovine form and that the A1 variant is a relatively recent genetic mutation (about 10,000 years ago). Neither has anything to do with (artificial) genetic modification.

            1. TG, I wasn’t aware of that, this is actually the first time I’ve heard about A2/A1 forms of cows milk. I’m not sure why there are different forms naturally occurring then, not to sound too simple, but isn’t it all that which comes out of a mother cow? So what makes one A2 or A1 without human interference? Isn’t it human interference that somehow omits the 2 amino acids? That was the impression I got.

              1. Hi S

                No, it was a perfectly natural mutation thousands of years ago which came to dominate cattle in Europe (and subsequently America, Australia and NZ). However, most cattle in Africa and India still have the original A2 gene.

                I read the original devil is in the milk book may years ago but can’t remember all the details. However Wikipedia offers a basic introduction.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk

  3. And how about the scientific evidence on how casein causes and promotes the growth of cancer? T Colin Campbell has presented the scientific evidence many times. Here are the links:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEWAf6sOGv0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mguepudBoYA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BylKnJaOzE

    I assume the A1 and A2 types of casein wouldn’t make much difference in this respect.

    Cross-species mammary secretions just don’t make any logical sense to me, especially for adults. Getting people to think milk/dairy is great seems to be the perfect case of successful mass marketing!

    1. Maybe human dairies are next? We could control their diet making sure it was plant-based. Eventually we could clone female breasts and start major production. They could all be double Ds. Sure it’s a bit far-fetched…but let’s not get in the way of progress.

            1. @ Jerry Lewis

              Your reasoning is inconsistent and ludicrous.

              Yes, bees create honey only for themselves. But cows create milk for their calfs. Mothers create milk for their infants. Chicken create eggs for their offsprings. If one member of a species voluntarily gives milk for a member of another species it’s completely different from exploiting bees, cows or chickens or even consuming cows or chickens. Animals certainly don’t create meat or offspring for human consumption. And either insects nor monkeys create cale or bananas for their species.

            2. Bees seem to like the kale in my garden too, I’m guessing a monkey would as well. And I know bees like bananas, at least when they’re rotting on the ground. Sorry Jerry, but you’re wrong about that too, hehe.

            1. Do your cats chase cows to drink their milk because their instinct tells them that this is a natural way to thrive? Do they exploit them or cage them in, too? Is this a voluntary act from cows? Or do they profit from you doing these crimes or letting others do these crimes for you?

              1. Do your cats chase cows to drink their milk because their instinct tells them that this is a natural way to thrive? Do they exploit them or cage them in, too? Is this a voluntary act from cows? Or do they profit from you doing these crimes or letting others do these crimes for you?

                No, but they do not seek out fields of oats to consume either.

                I just recently discovered they will eat oats… I feed them chicken thighs and drumsticks for one meal and a big skillet of scrambled eggs dusted with Brewers Yeast, some magnesium powder, and a dollop of chopped garlic. This was getting expensive as they have big appetites, so I cooked up a skillet of 3 minute oats, again with the Brewers Yeast, but using chicken broth instead of water. They loved it! And I love the savings in time and treasure.

                Actually giving milk is a voluntary act from cows.

                You must be either very naive (read: young) or from the city to not know how milk is procured. Milking cows is a crime?… wow! did not know I was raised in a crime family.

                But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Dad putting a head from a dead cow in the bed of a neighbor whose cattle kept breaking down fences to get onto our property to graze. Dad made him an offer he couldn’t refuse and his cows never crossed property lines again… or maybe I just saw that in a movie and thought that really happened.

                Nowadays virtual, augmented, and mixed reality is just blurring the lines between real and imagined. ‘-)

                1. Holy **** Lonie, you did NOT just try to say that cows give their milk (apart from their calves) voluntarily?!? I knew you were mislead but I had no idea you were that ridiculous. That is one of the oldest and most idnorant, childish fairytale-like lies in the book. In fact, I believe that was the first of all the dairy industry propaganda that followed.

                  “Farmers” who try to discredit clearly educated individuals on the subject of this reality by calling them “city folk” is a sure sign of one who ia desperate to be dominant in an argument they could never win. I don’t know if you’re a farmer or grew up on a a farm, but these are usually the people who try to use that all too common “naive/from the city” attempt to rebut, in my experience (and I’m quite experienced in this).

                  Those of us who have actually educated ourselves on this and who have actually made ourselves witness the horror that goes with what is indeed a crime of stealing a mother and child’s milk, know that it is one of the cruelest, most sadistic practices that human beings do to date. And I’m solely referring to the act of taking her milk and her calf, not even approaching the horrors that go along with this.

                  Like other animals, cows produce milk for one reason alone: for their offspring. They must become pregnant to do this. The females and even the males are violated and raped to do this (the industry has even named one of its tools for this, a “rape rack”). So not only is the theft of her infant and milk a crime against them, so is the forced pregnancy to begin with.
                  But getting back on topic, females have been known to hide their babies from farmers and even escape off of trucks with them, but of course to no avail because people like you demand their milk.
                  It’s been said by many that there is no greater cry than that of a mother cow whose calf was taken from her. They bellow for weeks as do their calfs who are either sent to veal concentration camps or put in isolation away from their mothers so as to not drink the milk that was meant for them, and will soon suffer the same faut as their mothers when they’re of age.

                  The mothers are often hooked up to painful machines. Often given horomonesto produce painful amounts of milk. And of course, even if one claimed to warm their hands first and play Mozart for her, NO woman wants her body violated by some *word I will not use here* so he can take her milk.

                  Once she’s unable to produce enough for you, after many pregnancies, she’s sent to the slaughter house.

                  1. Shaylen, when reading your comment the first thing that popped into my mind was the line Dan Ackroyd said to Jane Curtin in a Saturday Night Live skit when he said “Jane, you ignorant slut.” ‘-)… it was Point/Counterpoint skit.

                    Of course I would never say that to you or use that line ever in a conversation.

                    But I do stand by my comment that cows give their milk up voluntarily.
                    Actually they trade it… for very nutritious feed.

                    And yes, I did grow up on a farm and live in the country now. I’ve been around animals all my life except for my time in the army, and even then I guess a few of the soldiers I served with could maybe qualify as animals.
                    ‘-)

                    I don’t know where you get your information about the treatment of milk cows but I’m hoping you are not influencing others who are vulnerable to believing the calumny you are saying.

                    But I think the problem here is that you are not thinking this through. But let’s just for a moment accept your premise that cows are being mistreated.

                    Of course if this is true we have to all forego any dairy, meaning the cows are no longer needed. And If they are no longer needed, what then?

                    The dairy farmer can no longer afford to feed the cows since he and/or she no longer makes money from them. They’ve probably lost their land since they have no income to pay taxes or pay back the loans that they will invariably have taken out from year to year for operating expenses or new milking machinery. So, do the cows get turned out on the road?

                    The banks don’t want them (after foreclosing) so they are most likely to become slaughter meat instead of dairy, meaning meat then becomes cheap because there’s more of it and more people can afford to eat it more often, causing many premature deaths among the people who once couldn’t afford so much meat.

                    All I can say is if you had as much compassion for humans as you do for animals, you could become the next Mother Teresa. ‘-)

                    1. Really Lonie, was that your not so subtle way of trying to call me an “ignorant slut” without technically calling me a name? No, of course you would never! You’d just indirectly throw in the line from a skit instead. I guess you could call that clever…?

                      And I too stand by my original comment… Holy ****. It’s not that I’m surprised because I haven’t heard such grotesque ignorance before, I have, I guess simply seeing it here was just unexpected as while like I said, I knew you were misinformed, I just didn’t realize you were a farmer promoting the typical lies used to make a sickening practice more palatable to the public. So that is what took me by surprise.

                      No, cows do not TRADE their milk voluntarily for food… Do you know how stupid that sounds? As if they’re given a choice. They’re enslaved, undergo what I’ve previously described and so much more, and they eat when they’re fed because they don’t really have a choice now do they…? Or would they have to starve in protest for you to maybe start thinking? Not that I think that would do the trick…

                      Lonie, if a 17th century slave owner said that he had been around slaves all his life to imply that he understands black people, what would that sound like to you?

                      Ok, it’s time to use real words now because we’re not children, so I’m just gonna say it… brace yourself, this might be hard for… there are no such things as “milk cows” just like there are no such things as milk cats or milk humans, there are just cows; they are just mothers who produce milk for their infants.

                      Where I get my information? How do I begin to answer that? Umm, ok, I could start a seemingly endless list for you if that helps… Countless documentaries, farmers, ex-farmers, farming documentaries even used to promote farming, renowned activists, journalists, undercover footage, non-undercover footage, common sense, science, ex-farmers who now run famous animal sanctuaries, animal sanctuaries and those who run them, my own personal witnessing, friends with experience, family with experience, etc, etc… That’s kind of like asking someone how they get the information that bears are native to wooded areas… It’s called the truth and while people like you desperately try to hide it, you’re in a losing battle. I mean really, shouldn’t you be like trying to figure out how to put a blanket over the moon or sun? Your efforts are lost.

                      Influencing others? Yeah, I KNOW you hope I’m not, because that would interfere with the industry you’ve just indirectly admitted to being a part of in some way. So whether it’s your investments at stake, your own livelihood, that of your family’s, or your personal indoctrination you’d feel more comfortable holding onto… you sure as hell don’t want people to see through the walls.
                      What’s funny is that I would never ask someone to take my word for it, unlike you and those like you. I’d tell them (and do tell them) to go and look for themselves in the same way that I did after I was told the truth and couldn’t believe it and didn’t want to.
                      So there you go people, let’s put on our thinking caps… Who is likelier the one telling the truth… The one asking you to take their word for it because they grew up on a farm somewhere, or the one pleading with you to look for yourselves and not take anyone’s word for it? Common sense is a beautiful thing.

                      It’s not a premise, it’s well documented, it’s within the walls of the slaughter house, the “family farms,” the factory “farms,” the “veal” concentration camps… Your words are feeble, all anyone has to do is LOOK.

                      No longer needed? Cows aren’t needed, not by us. We do not need to use them nor are they are not a part of the ecosystem. The problem isn’t that cows exist, the problem is that people like you BREED THEM and it is one of the biggest EPIDEMICS TO THE PLANET. You need to watch Cowspiracy among countless other educational sources on the subject. But I really just don’t think you’d care because all you really see and hear is a threat to your belief system and/or means of profit and a reason you need to work hard at deceiving the public. And hey, if you have to call a few girls an ignorant slut along the way, well…

                      But back to your rhetoric question that desperately needs to be answered in truth… What HAPPENS is the demand slows, as it has been. The breeding slows down and eventually stops. There’s already animal sanctuaries and so many more are being born. In fact, there are ex-farmers who have turned their farms into animal sanctuaries instead. I wish people would wake up and stop using all animals tomorrow… what would happen then? Well that’s unrealistic so it’s a pointless question to answer but if I must… yeah, some cows would have to be put down which would be sad as their entire lives are so sad and unfair, but it would be a mercy to them compared to the torture they’d otherwise go through for the sake of their flesh, their milk, their skin, and so on. And that would be the unfortunate reality we’d have to face because of people like you.
                      But realistically, as demand slows so does the real problem: excessive breeding for use in the firs place. It resolves itself.

                      I don’t care anymore about the dairy farmer’s livelihood than I would the livelihoods of SLAVE OWNERS, and in FACT, that was the same argument used to sustain human slavery!!! It’s uncanny.
                      But, as I’ve said, where there is a will, there is a way. Take Rowdy Girl Sanctuary. Her husband was a “cattle” rancher and she made the connection and they worked hard at saving the cows they had while ending their business and converting their land into an animal sanctuary for their animals and other animals, and currently now sits the successful and well known Rowdy Girl Sanctuary in Texas.

                      “Slaughter meat instead of dairy.” Except that all dairy-used cows ALREADY become “slaughter meat” when they’re done producing enough milk to make you a profit. At the average age of 4 they’re sent to the slaughterhouse. Their BABIES are persistently sent to the slaughterhouse after perpetual forced pregnancies of the mother so she’d keep producing ample amounts of milk for humans to steal. So that isn’t anything different, it’s just putting an end to it and killing them sooner as opposed to later and not killing more calves as a result. Now, that is still horrific, wrong and unfair, but that is the fact of the matter. However, putting them down would be a better alternative to sending them to a slaughterhouse and it would still be sad, but a mercy compared to the suffering they would otherwise undergo thanks to those farmers.

                      The fact that you would accuse me of not having compassion for some life (humans) because I have compassion for ALL life, is pathetic on your part and completely backwards.
                      It’s also ignorant to say the least. Of the two of us, who really doesn’t have compassion for humans? The one arguing that people should keep buying their lies and the product they’re selling despite it causing them and their children diabetes, autism, heart disease, etc; the one who maybe doesn’t know but possibly disregards the fact that animal agriculture is the leading cause for world hunger among humans along with the leading cause for water crisis and deforestation and still pushes it because a farmer somewhere might lose his land and profits? Or the one telling people they should stop for the sake of their health, the animals, the planet, and all life on it?
                      I’m pretty sure that I’m the only one actually giving a crap about humans here. And Einstein is on my side, so I feel good about that given his “nothing will benefit health or increase chances of survival on earth as the evolution to a vegetarian diet” statement (there was no term for vegan back then).

                      There’s no such thing as some compassion, you either have compassion or you don’t… it’s not selective of species, race, sex, etc. Same goes for justice.

                      Getting back to humans, let’s show our compassion to them shall we? And stop trying to hide the profound and life changing and life SAVING scientific findings, and instead spend your time helping people become aware so they have a CHOICE for their own health’s sake and that of their children and loved ones instead of being concerned about a freaking farmer’s land. Because not only is that aforementioned land not worth the lives of the animals whose exploitation and torment it’s built on, it’s also not worth the lives the paying and dying customers.

                    2. Shaylen, you’ve been watching too many Chik Filet commercials. Cows (Holsteins) do not really make signs saying Eat mor Chkn. ‘-) Mr. Ed, the talking horse could obviously think or else he couldn’t talk to Wilbur.
                      Cows only say mooooohh, and usually just when they want to be fed.

                      *because that would interfere with the industry you’ve just indirectly admitted to being a part of in some way. So whether it’s your investments at stake, your own livelihood, that of your family’s, or your personal indoctrination you’d feel more comfortable holding onto*

                      Maybe you know better than me because I have NEVER owned a cow, or any cattle for that matter, other than some cattle futures which are just on paper. Owned a pig once that I showed in 4-H… a few horses over the years, cats and dogs but they pwned me rather than the reverse.

                      Investments? My INVESTMENTS are non-biological motion picture cameras. A RED Weapon and RED Raven, and recently, a gaggle of RED Hydrogen Ones. I spent many years allowing my house to fall into disrepair, eating inexpensively and doing without heat in the winter (except for one room where I distill water for drinking and use the heat off the process to get the room temp up to 60 degrees in the winter on good days.) and no air conditioning other than a fan in a climate that hits 100 degrees outside for a stretch. I did this in order to save enough money to pay for the cameras that I cannot rent here in my area within hundreds of miles.

                      So no, I have no investments that are affected by animals. I do own some oil royalties that I’ve inherited that have become more valuable during the oil boom. Sold a large portion of them to pay off and upgrade to the camera models I mentioned. Will probably sell the rest next year for tax purposes and to fund a small project I have in mind. (self imposed NDA)

                      Oh, and I still don’t use the electricity needed to heat and cool my house even though I can now afford to… it’s about the carbon footprint thing.

                      *Lonie, if a 17th century slave owner said that he had been around slaves all his life to imply that he understands black people, what would that sound like to you?* I don’t think you meant anything derogatory equating cattle and slavery but some fool will seize upon that and claim you are either a racist or a denigrator of cattle, depending on their POV, so there being no safe answer to that, I just won’t go there.

                      *But, as I’ve said, where there is a will, there is a way. Take Rowdy Girl Sanctuary. Her husband was a “cattle” rancher and she made the connection and they worked hard at saving the cows they had while ending their business and converting their land into an animal sanctuary for their animals and other animals, and currently now sits the successful and well known Rowdy Girl Sanctuary in Texas. * Admirable of them, to be sure. And as long as they have an income source to sustain it, I’m sure they will prosper.

                      But that’s just small potatoes. The real power for change lies in media. I personally think I will do more to change peoples minds with some of my scripts. To be clear, I don’t write “save the world and all its animals”
                      stories… one of them includes a cattle drive west in a future post-apocalyptic scenario.

                      I write stories that appeal to everyone and that are timeless, since many of them occur in the future. ‘-) That way, you don’t alienate a part of an audience which immediately makes that part inaccessible to your subtle message… they turn you off. (You may have made that mistake here… you are heroine to many, but a Rottweiler to others. ‘-)

                      All the best to you Shaylen.

                    3. “I daresay some may think you a tad off-beat. But you have your own unique language and perspective.”

                      Offbeat, huh? Yeah, I’ll take that. ‘-)

                      And thanks for the encouragement… don’t get that very often that I recall and not something I seek, but thanks for giving it anyway.

                    4. Omg Lonie, your ignorance continues to astound but not surprise me.

                      Ok, so by your “logic” (I’ll just call it logic for sake of argument… and to be charitable to you), humans who do not speak the same language as you and speak one you cannot understand, don’t think because if they COULD, they’d speak in a language you’d understand…. Congratulations, you’ve managed to have the mentality that brought us human slavery AND the mentality that made human genocide so possible.
                      Further more, by your logic, you are insentient and unthinking if another decides so because they do not understand your form of communication and you look differently than they do. You know, that’s also the mentality that created and sustained cruel “freak shows,” caused discrimination against the deaf, etc.
                      And have you considered that to the cow, you may sound like you say “blahhhh?” Yet I’m sure they’re smart enough to be aware of your sentience despite the language barrier. Though cows are actually capable of understanding human ways and words as has been shown. You would also say the chicken goes “cluck” when in fact, they have different names for each other, different names for the different humans they interact with, and even communicate to the other chickens when that person is carrying an object… much more to all that but that is only a portion of one small example. But to the one who exploits them, they’re uninterested in learning about the animals and what they’re thinking, feeling, or trying to communicate. The objectification is due to the fact that you have no interest in them as a sentient being in the first place.

                      Lonie, I was pointing out that you have vested interest in animal “farming” as you had previously stated you come from a family of “farmers” having grown up on a “farm.”

                      So, you’ve realized you couldn’t win this argument therefore you’ve gone to trying to bore me to death? That is the only reason I can understand why you’d start telling me about your cameras. Well, that’s a better tactic than your original “mooo” attempt at rebuttal… should have went with that one first!
                      Lol, kidding… kidding.
                      But getting back to it, I said I suspected you had investments, not that you did in certainty, but that you were surely trying to hold onto your indoctrination which helps you justify all that your family has done and perhaps continues to do and all that you support and grew up on. Though that is actually an emotional investment. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if you have loved ones invested in the dairy industry and I still maintain that you very well could… not an accusation but I’m just being honest about my own thoughts.

                      CARBON FOOTPRINT?! You’re killin’ me Smalls… The greatest carbon footprint you could make is by supporting the animal agriculture industry. Cows are a bigger threat to the planet than your heating and cooling, by FAR. Even bigger than your driving. Please do watch Cowspiracy or read the Cowspiracy facts page.

                      Lonie, my statement on slavery and “cattle” was spot on. My point was clear. You claimed to understand animals because you had been around the animals that your family had used for exploitation, your whole life. That is absolutely comparable and in fact equal to a slave owner saying that he understands the race of person he enslaves and exploits due to his or her being around them their whole life. Or in this case, at least equal to the child of the slave owner making said claim.
                      If you fail to see the clarity of that, you are blinded by your own speciesism. I am fully comfortable and confident in my statement and would have no problem explaining it to those who don’t understand for the same reason you don’t, which is speciesism and indoctrination.

                      As for Rowdy Girl, yes, very admirable. But they actually did NOT have an income at first, it took effort and hard work. But they did it because it was the right thing to do and unacceptable to continue exploiting and harming the animals.
                      A “hog farmer” who woke up and made the connection did something similar. He was a very poor man and had a family, too.

                      Lonie, the real power of change lies in the people. Without the people, the majority of the media is simply ruled by the industries.
                      Take for example the amazing work Dr. Greger does. Yes the industry has mounds of propaganda out there, but thanks to Dr. Greger, people have access to the real science and are becoming more and more aware and able to take control of their health and make fact-based choices.

                      I find your “post apocalyptic ‘cattle’” story especially amusing as “cattle” is one of the biggest threats to the planet, humans and all life on it. So if anything, that could help START an apocalypse but certainly not sustain a post-apocalyptic civilization lol.

                      Say what you want, but you clearly have a lot of interest in promoting the use of “cattle.” Therefore I do suspect you have investments and certainly emotional ones. And hey, I was right about you growing up on a farm, and I called Pete being part of the dairy industry.

                      Even your insults are speciesist. Rottweilers are amazing animals. Those “others” you’re referring to though, are people like you and Pete, who are dead set on promoting one of the cruelest and most destructive industries, and one of the deadliest products. So yes, I would imagine the one inconveniently stating the truth and calling you out on your agenda-ridden claims would be construed as a turn off to said party.

                    5. Shaylen, it pleases me very much to be the bringer of good tidings for you.
                      It seems your desire for an animal free food chain for us is going to happen, as pointed out in this link.

                      https://singularityhub.com/2017/11/24/5-wild-biotech-products-of-the-future/?utm_source=Singularity+Hub+Newsletter&utm_campaign=df918597bf-Hub_Daily_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f0cf60cdae-df918597bf-57443037

                      It truly is a brave new world and its probably happening sooner than any of us thought. Congratulations on being on the right side of the future.

                    6. And have you considered that to the cow, you may sound like you say “blahhhh?” Yet I’m sure they’re smart enough to be aware of your sentience despite the language barrier. Though cows are actually capable of understanding human ways and words as has been shown. You would also say the chicken goes “cluck” when in fact, they have different names for each other, different names for the different humans they interact with, and even communicate to the other chickens when that person is carrying an object… much more to all that but that is only a portion of one small example. But to the one who exploits them, they’re uninterested in learning about the animals and what they’re thinking, feeling, or trying to communicate. The objectification is due to the fact that you have no interest in them as a sentient being in the first place.

                      Shaylen, all I can say regarding the above is that you must have spent your youth in front of a TV on the Dizzy, I mean Disney, channel.

                      Talking animals? (But just in case you are right, one of my cats continually says meow, meow, meow… can you please translate for me?)

                      Lonie, I was pointing out that you have vested interest in animal “farming” as you had previously stated you come from a family of “farmers” having grown up on a “farm.”

                      We were cotton farmers… and yes, we would kill cotton so it would defoliate and we could get our machinery in the fields to strip the open cotton bolls (pronounced bowls) off the stalks to put in trailers… and later moved up to using module builders, to haul to the gin. I think I read somewhere that the Jaynesians would eventually not even kill a plant and so they would die, but reach enlightenment first. (an old memory, so may not be completely accurate) I will never reach enlightenment, but think someone so concerned with all life may succeed.

                      So, you’ve realized you couldn’t win this argument therefore you’ve gone to trying to bore me to death? That is the only reason I can understand why you’d start telling me about your cameras. Well, that’s a better tactic than your original “mooo” attempt at rebuttal… should have went with that one first!
                      Lol, kidding… kidding.

                      Heh, actually that was on the one hand a rebuttal to your “investments” accusation, and on the other hand an attempt to humanize myself and get you to think of me as an actual human rather than “a destroyer of worlds.”

                      The Lol, kidding… kidding suggests I may have succeeded, and in turn has changed my mental picture of your countenance from a permanent scowl to one that can occasionally, laugh. ‘-)

                      CARBON FOOTPRINT?! You’re killin’ me Smalls… The greatest carbon footprint you could make is by supporting the animal agriculture industry. Cows are a bigger threat to the planet than your heating and cooling, by FAR. Even bigger than your driving. Please do watch Cowspiracy or read the Cowspiracy facts page.

                      Well, at least you got it right that methane is more dangerous to our upper atmosphere than CO2. Problem is, where I live there aren’t many cattle but oil wells are abundant. There’s actually one right across the road from my house. I’m not concerned about my air except when the wind is out of the southeast.

                      My house isn’t air tight so even in the winter when closed up, I expect my air quality isn’t primo. And in the summer months I open my windows at night to hopefully get a cool breeze to cool down my house to fight off the afternoon heat.

                      Problem is, this is the time when we get more southeast wind direction and I can either close up the house and swelter, or open the windows and breathe the Volatile Organic Compounds probably escaping from the well bore.

                      Lonie, my statement on slavery and “cattle” was spot on. My point was clear. You claimed to understand animals because you had been around the animals that your family had used for exploitation, your whole life. That is absolutely comparable and in fact equal to a slave owner saying that he understands the race of person he enslaves and exploits due to his or her being around them their whole life. Or in this case, at least equal to the child of the slave owner making said claim.
                      If you fail to see the clarity of that, you are blinded by your own speciesism. I am fully comfortable and confident in my statement and would have no problem explaining it to those who don’t understand for the same reason you don’t, which is speciesism and indoctrination.

                      Still not falling for that bait.

                      As for Rowdy Girl, yes, very admirable. But they actually did NOT have an income at first, it took effort and hard work. But they did it because it was the right thing to do and unacceptable to continue exploiting and harming the animals.
                      A “hog farmer” who woke up and made the connection did something similar. He was a very poor man and had a family, too.

                      Well, they are getting money from somewhere… probably from people who feel guilty that they have so much so they try to buy their way into heaven. Doesn’t surprise me if they are on the dole from others when someone can get on “Go Fund Me” and say they need money for a vacation or whatever, and people actually pony up.

                      Lonie, the real power of change lies in the people. Without the people, the majority of the media is simply ruled by the industries.
                      Take for example the amazing work Dr. Greger does. Yes the industry has mounds of propaganda out there, but thanks to Dr. Greger, people have access to the real science and are becoming more and more aware and able to take control of their health and make fact-based choices.

                      When I read the first sentence of this part of your post, I thought “O.K. we can find common ground and agree on something.”

                      Then I read your second sentence and realized you don’t get it, and the rest of your paragraph went off on a tangent.

                      The common ground I thought we had was that media is democratized now. Big Hollywood Studios are reduced to making tentpole movies… that is, comic book fantasies that the young who like ‘splosions devour.

                      Case in point… a country boy like me living a thousand miles from Hollywood glitter owns the same camera as the ones (they used twelve of the Weapon 8k resolution cameras) that Guardians of the Galaxy, volume II was shot on. And with a $50 p/mo. subscription of Adobe Creative Cloud, I can cut my footage (6k at the present but soon to be upgraded to 8k vistaVision sensor) in my spare bedroom studio. When the time comes, I can hire crew and cast and make whatever story I want to make. And no longer do the big distribution companies have their boot on the content creator’s throat, because we can go around them and distribute through Netflix, Amazon, You Tube, Vimeo, and a ton of other outlets.

                      I find your “post apocalyptic ‘cattle’” story especially amusing as “cattle” is one of the biggest threats to the planet, humans and all life on it. So if anything, that could help START an apocalypse but certainly not sustain a post-apocalyptic civilization lol.

                      I’m doG on this story (pardon my lex Dis ia ‘-)… that is, I’LL decide the cause of the apocalypse and the resulting aftermath.

                      Say what you want, but you clearly have a lot of interest in promoting the use of “cattle.” Therefore I do suspect you have investments and certainly emotional ones. And hey, I was right about you growing up on a farm, and I called Pete being part of the dairy industry.

                      Did Shakespeare have an interest in promoting poison when he wrote and directed Romeo and Juliet? No, therefore it is a non sequitur that I promote cattle just because I am using them as a prop in a movie script. Oh, and Pete? He’s been farming software for the past many decades, as he stated in a post on another thread in answer to you. You gotta stop thinking everyone is lying.

                      But as an aside, thanks for the response. I was sitting drowsily at my computer, thinking about calling it a night after watching Bull on TV. Point/Counterpoint has been fun Jane, you ig…… …..

                    7. Confirmed Lonie. 4 decades in fact since I was last employed in the dairy industry – for two whole years.

                      Stereotyping – a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group:

                      PS. in that 40 years I daresay I have contributed a good deal more to animal welfare than Shaylen – without all the counterproductive hysteria.

                    8. Weapon 8k = $50,000 – $80,000?
                      Thats a lot of cotton bolls

                      And a lot of teeth chatters in the winter and a lot of sweat drenchings in the summer… oh, and a lot of beans eaten. ‘-)

                      But probably most of all, a lot of learning about oneself.

                    9. Shaylen is typical city person who shops at Whole Paycheck, I mean Whole Foods, and she thinks that kale just happens to grow from the earth without a single insect getting killed and bees getting tortured to pollinate, and farmlands are abundant without any deforestation, and bambis and bears will happily live in the forest without getting eaten by bigger animals, or caught in barbed wire or killed by human when they venture in the cities, and the warm clothes that she wears in the winter just come from the ground, and all civilizations around her just so happened while we survived on plant foods, etc. In another word, the world is all rosy around her.

                    10. Shaylen is typical city person who shops at Whole Paycheck, I mean Whole Foods, and she thinks that kale just happens to grow from the earth without a single insect getting killed and bees getting tortured to pollinate, and farmlands are abundant without any deforestation, and bambis and bears will happily live in the forest without getting eaten by bigger animals, or caught in barbed wire or killed by human when they venture in the cities, and the warm clothes that she wears in the winter just come from the ground, and all civilizations around her just so happened while we survived on plant foods, etc. In another word, the world is all rosy around her.

                      All I can say is, having held a reasonable facsimile of her views in a past iteration of my life, I understand her thinking and admire her passion.

                      I’ve evolved into a more realistic view on life, but I can see where her ilk may inherit the earth at some point in the future. The one thing I see that can stop that exponential view toward life in general is some sort of apocalyptic event that may send us scurrying back to what the newer generations probably see as the Modern Dark Ages.

                      We live in bountiful times and robots and AI and health and nutrition can someday allow us the freedom to “do the right thing.” In the meantime, we have to “our ownselves be true” to use a couple of time-worn phrases.

                      That said, I will still point out her failures in understanding what is Ditzy fantasy and life in the real world. ‘-)

              1. Good link. To be clear, I only fed my kittens/momma cat milk was when they were young and she was trying to wean them… and much of that time it was unsweetened yogurt.

                Since then I’ve begun feeding them cooked chicken parts, scrambled eggs, and just last night, oatmeal flavored with chicken broth.

                But I’ve stopped buying yogurt or other milk products, other than goat whey for myself, so I’ll not likely be feeding milk to the cats in future. That is, with the exception of goat milk if I should have some of that on hand.
                Wouldn’t be concerned with feeding them that.

              2. Shaylen,

                If we believe your nonsense, this dog would have been riddled with lactose-induced atherosclerosis and keeled over at age 10.

                ‘A kelpie thought to be the world’s oldest dog has died at home on a dairy farm in the Australian state of Victoria. Maggie, a black-and-tan kelpie, was thought to be 30 years old. *Woolsthorpe* dairy farmer Brian McLaren confirmed the death of his “great mate” on Wednesday morning.Apr 20, 2016’

                She wasn’t pampered but she was well looked after. She always had milk — not too much of it, but she loved her milk — and anything else she’d wanted,” Mr McLaren said.

                http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/goodbye-maggie-australian-kelpie-may-be-worlds-oldest-dog-dies/7341720

                1. Lol, Pete, it’s not MY “nonsense” you’re refuting, it’s that of veterinarians. So we should believe that because a DAIRY FARMER’S dog was old and drank milk, that veterinarians are wrong and we should give our grown fur babies the the milk from other animals? But of course you’d know that ridiculous story you’re stating like it should be some profound insight into dog and cat (two animals who are VASTLY different from one another in their biology, btw) biology which we should all look to, ignoring everything else.. I’m sure you know a lot more little stories like that, after all, it’s kind of part of your job isn’t it? You do have to promote the industry you work or worked for and are no doubt invested in in other ways.
                  Behold everyone, that is the kind of “science” these industries want us to listen to… tales of a dairy farmer and his dog. Who needs veterinary school?

        1. When our milk cow would have a calf, we would milk out some of the colostrum, let the calf suck some but not all (a milk cow gives too much milk… if the calf got it all he or she would get the scours.) After a few days she would begin giving regular milk. I wonder now if we didn’t waste the best milk (colostrum.)

          1. Lonie
            you are right , i don’t see any info here on this site about colostrum . it is sold by some companies as a supplement to boost immunity .
            it would be interesting to see what Dr Greger could find out about it .ideally you would get your colostrum from your mom when you are first born , but what about all the babies that never get that perfect start , and what about infants that get a little older and need a boost/
            good question

              1. Actually, my preferred outcome will be when actual meat can be produced in the lab. This could probably pass for vegan meat since we will be able to encode the ingredients to not produce the harmful things that meat contains. We can even encode the process to have human-like qualities that makes the meat compatible with our human requirements.

                This should satisfy the desire of many who are against global warming in part caused by methane release from cattle (or we could just feed them seaweed which cuts down on their methane emissions considerably.) It would also improve the health of those who eat meat, not for nourishment, but for pleasure (ala Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson in the movie Soylent Green.)

                As for impregnating more female humans (assuming you are addressing the overpopulation problem) that is something that technology will soon take care of.

                If you’ve been keeping up with the news you’ve seen all the stories shaming us guys for our past bad behaviour. This is going to make female lives better and it is also going to result in less spontaneous sex as guys are going to be less apt to be bold in fulfilling their natural desires.

                Virtual reality to the rescue… for guys and gals. And until science gets really creative, it will be hard to become actually pregnant in virtual reality, although one could be put through the process virtually with only a virtual result.

                    1. From my understanding, unfortunately lab grown meat still uses animals in the first steps. Therefore it would still not be vegan. That is particularly unfortunate to me because I think a truly cruelty free lab grown meat, that is safe and healthy for truly omnivorous animals (which humans clearly aren’t), would be extraordinary! It could help in rehabilitation centers for carnivorous wildlife, it could help with domesticated carnivores such as cats, and so on. That would be amazing. But even if this cruelty-free lab grown meat were a reality, it would not be something a vegan who is (or anyone who is) educated on human biology and concerned with health would consume for the reasons I’ve stated.
                      If a truly cruelty-free lab grown meat were created and it would help get those not so concerned about health to stop buying animal products, that would be awesome too.

          2. Babies do not need to be taken away from their mothers while nursing, that is typical industry propaganda. Female cows do not produce “too much milk” unless they are given hormones to do so. All industry propaganda/farmer propaganda to try to both sell/justify the practice. Much like hunters’ logic… very different from reality. I called it, you grew up on a farm and perhaps still farm or have family who does.

            No one should be interested in hearing what someone whose goal is or was to exploit an animal claims to have witnessed in the animal they’re using. Their perception is skewed to say the least, and often they just blatantly lie to others if not first to themselves. It’s those who truly care for animals and learn about these things through research, experience, volunteering, truly caring for them on sanctuaries, and so on… These are the people to learn from, those who actually pay attention to the animals’ needs and not just how to best use the animal for their personal gain. That is just common sense.

    2. And how about the fact alone, that animal protein in general both creates and spreads cancer by raising IGF-1 horomones. Add onto that, that there are even MORE aspects of animal products known to be carcinogenic.

      1. The IGF-1 can be used as an argument for feeding animal products to kids. It is a growth factor after all, and I’ve read research that children deprived of IGF-1 are shorter.

        Not that being shorter is such a bad thing as having less IGF-1 is protective of the short people from heart disease as well as cancer when they are older.

        I personally am only about 5′ 8″ and while I always wanted to be taller when I was young, I am grateful I’m not tall now as I expect that to add to my healthy longevity.

        1. I’ve been a vegetarian since the age of 9, I hated milk so I never drank it and wasn’t big on eggs. Granted I can’t say I didn’t get animal protein, but I got significantly less than my peers and I grew up to be significantly taller than most of my peers (the females, that is). I haven’t heard of this issue occurring in vegan kids nor have I personally observed it. But if IGF-1 increases the height of growing children, I’d say that it’s pretty irresponsible at best to be concerned about height when as you’ve mentioned, heart disease starts in childhood and cancer is such an epidemic not only in general, but among children. And therefore I would not say it could be used as an argument for feeding kids animal protein, or at least not a successful one.

            1. Lonie, you may be interested to know that glycine and proline regulate IGF-1.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04388

              And a few videos ago, you engage with me in some discussions regarding glycine suppressing methionine and you were concerned that it may suppress protein absorption. This is not quite true. Glycine to methionine is like Omega 3 to omega 6, you need one if you eat the other.

              And so people have health issues with eating meat and get grow factor and cancer and things like this, it’s because they eat the wrong meat parts, lean and muscle meat instead of joint and organ meat.

              The following articles are not meant to entice you or anyone to consume bone broth, but bone broth is loaded with glycine and proline, the anti IGF1 factor, and so the articles will explain how it works.

              https://blog.kettleandfire.com/bone-broth-balances-glycine-and-methionine/

              http://180degreehealth.com/glycine-methionine-balance-revisited-matter-timing/

              http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/6/1636S.full

              https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/beyond-good-and-evil/

              “Some authors have recently suggested that a vegan diet would lengthen lifespan because of its naturally low methionine content.9 If methionine restriction primarily increases lifespan by increasing the ratio of glycine to methionine, however, then this suggestion could not be more wrong, because vegetarians show signs of glycine deficiency.1 Vegan diets are low in total biologically available protein, not just methionine. Human studies suggest that low-protein diets waste glycine by using it simply as a source of much-needed nitrogen.10”

              1. In the 7th Day Adventist mortality study, male “vegans” had the lowest relative mortality risk of all subgroups.whatever Weston Price Foundation casuistry may seek to suggest about “vegan” mortality. Similarly, vegetarains had significantly lower mortality risk than meat eaters in that study.

                The Weston Price reasoning is based on “if …., then …” but ignores the actual mortality figures from the 7th Day Adventist study. And if the “if” ain’t so, then the whole argument falls over. We don’t need fanciful convoluted suggestions about how to manage methionine restriction since we know that restricting animal protein appears to reduce mortality.
                https://nutritionfacts.org/video/methionine-restriction-as-a-life-extension-strategy/

                Incidentally, have you any scientific evidence that bone broth is healthy or is the claim just based on the Weston Price type argument that it is a traditional food and therefore it must be healthy? And if it is healthy, here are some possible scientific explanations for that.

                That sounds like a castle built on sand to me especially given that it will still contain NeuG5c unless you are using chicken or fish bones fro your broth.
                https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-inflammatory-meat-molecule-neu5gc/

                1. I didn’t read all the comments, but a red flag went up when I saw someone claimed bone broth was healthy. In one of Dr. Greger’s more recent videos he explains that bone broth is known to contain significant amounts of lead, which only makes sense. I know it’s a trend now for women to eat it for the hyaluronic acid, but it’s ironic considering those consuming plant based diets are shown to have better skin. Unfortunately, many women and people in general are getting their “science” and “nutrition” advice from blogs and beauty columnists.

        2. We make our own IGF-1 so it’s really not necessary to consume dietary IGF-1.

          Consuming protein increases rates of IGF-1 production, however. That said, it isn’t necessarily an argument for feeding animal protein to kids. Soy protein and other beans etc would presumably work just as well although I have not seen any actual studies.

          1. Oh good point about soy! Eating enough soy could raise IGF-1 in the same way animal protein consumption would, but of course you’d have to have a lot of servings for that which is a good thing since we don’t want to raise our IGF-1 levels. There’s a good video on that here somewhere.

  4. I can’t help but notice that most of the studies you cite also looked at gluten free diets, but I don’t recall you addressing it in the videos. Can you comment on the results of these studies in relation to gluten? I’m curious.

    1. Stay tuned, Christy—videos on gluten and autism are up next. You can see what videos are still to come in a series if you look at the notes below the current video.

  5. Interesting. Maybe that is why, about 30 years ago when I used to get very severe, incapacitating sinus allergies (pollen mostly) if I drank a big smoothie made with presumably A1 milk (but apparently it does not matter), my burning sneezing sinuses would immediately calm way down and remain that way for hours. Almost as good as large dose of antihistamine but it didn’t make me stupid and sleepy. Used raw milk from the now defunct Steuve’s Dairy in SoCal

  6. Even before I watched the video, I already know the conclusion, the same old stuff.

    So the title of this video is “Does A2 Milk Carry Less Autism Risk?” which means that A2 milk is causing autism as A1 milk, and not making the condition of people with autism spectrum probably worse if they have a leaky gut/

    For one thing, A2 milk is exactly the same casein as Mother milk.

    And the statistics from the world data do not show any correlation whatsoever between consumption of milk and autism. Some countries that do not consume much milk have high autism rate while some countries that consume a lot of milk don’t. The data are all over the place and do not point to any direction.

    https://www.focusforhealth.org/autism-rates-across-the-developed-world/

    1. Some text from the linked article:
      If the world had a uniform way of diagnosing autism, and each country had the resources to do so, we could consider the global environmental factors that drive the epidemic. Without it, we are left wondering if Poland is doing something right that the rest of the world doesn’t know about, or if Poland needs more resources in order to report an accurate number.

      Check out the difference in rates of diagnosis between Hong Kong, China and Taiwan.
      Also, they note that this list only includes the countries that outperform the U.S. academically and have recent autism data available.
      SAAD = standard American academic disorder?

    2. Jerry, I didn’t read past “the same old stuff” on your comment, because it’s your comments that are truly “the same old stuff.” I did however laugh at the obscene irony… The same old stuff is the propaganda on how dairy is good for us, builds strong bones, etc. This is not only going against popular opinion, but it is quite literally the astoundingly DIFFERENT and NEW stuff (“stuff” being the mounting scientific evidence).
      The reason you may have known the answer is because you had observed previous overwhelming scientific results which have long concluded with their findings that humans are not meant to eat animals or their secretions. So I’m sure even you have learned by now that, at this point, it’s just a matter of piling on the reasons why those things are detrimental to us as opposed to concluding it as it no longer needs concluding.
      Dr. Greger is giving the information at hand and you proceed to throw tantrums because the findings aren’t to your liking. It’s odd more than anything maybe. I mean there’s obviously psychology behind it, but I still find it odd that you would spend this much time as if you will somehow defeat the truth in your efforts… What are you even thinking lol.

  7. The above video confirms one more time the subtle message which is to trash animal foods eating (albeit a tiny amount for optimal health) at any chance. It’s not about sciences or statistics but driven by an agenda.

    Where are all the things about “this book is not about veganism or any kind of -ism but it it about eating WFPB and possibly along with other animal foods” as Dr G said in his book? His actions do not match with his words. None.

    This is why I am so critical of Dr G lately. I used to be one of his die hard fans and I bought dozens of his book for Christmas present, but that’s probably the last time, because his so called research is now so cherry picked and biased.

    1. If you are that upset Gerry why do you bother to write and waste anymore of your time on this website.
      I am sure you can be more productive doing something you enjoy.

        1. Differing opinions are one thing – differing “facts” are quite another thing. All too often Jerry makes up his own “facts” like mercury being present in childhood vaccines. Why should people tolerate falsehoods and fabrications?

    2. That is so hypocritical of you Jerry.

      Your agenda has been so very clear from the start. You even told us yourself that you were here tom denigrate Dr G and promote your whacky dietary theories. I don’t know when you were supposedly a fan of Dr G but “Jerry Lewis” on this site has always spent his time attacking Dr G not praising him.

      As for cherry-picking and bias – prove it. You might just as well accuse him of being a 10-foot tall Martian cannibal for all the evidence offered. Without evidence your accusations are worthless. Never once have you tried to address the scientific studies cited in these videos and blogs. Instead all you do is make personal attacks on Dr Greger – “cherry picking”, “bias” and “disinform” – for which you never provide any supporting evidence. These are transparent attempts to deflect people’s attention away from evidence that you do not like.

    3. I sometimes disagree with some of the conclusions…but the science interpretation is usually spot-on. I tend to hedge my bets some…still indulge in some fish… gelatin…etc. But I eat my veggies like a good boy…cause the science says so.

      Do believe there is evidence that for those over 65…more protein is better. But it’s not my job to convince other people of this.

      For those young-uns under 65…just eat your veggies and behave. Or Santa’s going be be real upset.

      1. The “evidence” for those over 65 requiring more protein is purely observational I understand. How credible is it that, on our 65th birthday, a given level of protein consumption should suddenly change from being harmful to being protective?. I am still wary that high (animal) protein intake may increase cancer risk at any age

        It is like the claims, also based solely on observational studies, that being overweight and having high cholesterol are protective in older people. Confounding by illness, frailty, loss of appetite, increasing sedentarianism and other factors can skew results. For example, poverty in old age can also affect people’s food consumption levels and health.

        Dr Greger has a video on this particular topic of the protein requirements of people aged 65+

        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/increasing-protein-intake-age-65/

        1. Typical TG, he will twist everything to fit his agenda. 65 is obviously picked as an average age at which you need to slightly increase your protein intake, just like TC = 100 is what you call by “high cholesterol”. Why not 101 and why not 99?

          In the case of protein, you do need to increase your intake as you get older for 2 reasons: 1) you need to repair and rebuild your muscle, and 2) you absorp foods less efficiently.

          No wonder why you are so weak and low energy at 67 because of your low fat and low protein intake.

          1. Poor old Jerry. Still making up his own “facts”

            “No wonder why you are so weak and low energy at 67” am I? Thanks for letting me know. Without you I would have happily kept on thinking I was strong, energetic and happy. I’d better rush out and buy a Zimmer frame then. LOL.

            Well. at least you got my age right this time. One out of three ain’t bad for you. Don’t you feel any shame about just making stuff up?

      2. Marvin, I have seen some preliminary evidence that those over 65 could use a little more protein.The issues are not yet clear at this time. However, if that turns out to be accurate, there are plenty of ways to get more protein in a WFPB diet. Soy (tempeh, edamame, tofu) are very high in protein. Here is the link to its protein content of 30% complete protein:
        http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4409/2
        One can also increase their protein intake by eating seitan products (made from vital wheat gluten) which is about 80% protein:
        http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4409/2

        So one does not need to consume animals for any reason.
        Best – :-)

  8. “And, there’s something called the blood-brain barrier that helps cordon off the brain. When you examine the brain tissues of those with autism, their blood-brain barrier seems leakier, too. ”

    I found the fact that leakage in the blood brain-barrier apparently plays a necessary role in the development of autism of interest, as it ties into a comment I made on the potential dangers of microwaves from cell phones on this thread:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-cell-phone-radiation-cause-cancer/

    The excerpt: “As far as “the potential for more subtle, but potentially much more damaging health effects” goes I’d look to Salford’s replicated results, showing leakage in the blood-brain barrier of rats two weeks after only ONE 2 hour exposure to 915 MHz: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 (Incidentally, I calculated that an SAR of 0.12 mW/kg, where Salford began to detect leakage in the blood-brain barrier in rats, corresponds to about 15,000 microwatts/meter squared, well below the range of levels of exposure one would get in close proximity to most cell phones.) Rather than cancer, I would argue that it seems far more likely that microwave exposures may relate to increased cognitive dysfunctions, such as autism or early onset Alzheimers. With respect to Alzheimer’s, an article published online in Radiology using special MRI software demonstrated the presence of leaky BBB and its association with early Alzheimer’s Disease. (Link to full text and images:http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2016152244 )”

    It looks like cell phone exposures may play a part in the increased incidence of autism as well, through the same mechanism – increasing leakage in the blood brain barrier. And babies brains seem far more vulnerable to microwave exposure than adults.

    From: https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20140819/children-cell-phones

    “The authors reviewed the current literature showing that children face a higher health risk than adults. They looked at peer-reviewed cell phone exposure studies from 2009 to 2014, along with cell phone radiation data, government documents, manufacturers’ manuals, and similar publications.

    Children and unborn babies do face a greater risk for bodily damage that results from MWR given off by wireless devices, according to Morgan and colleagues.

    The rate of MWR absorption is higher in children than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner, and their relative size is smaller. Fetuses are particularly vulnerable, because MWR exposure can lead to degeneration of the protective sheath that surrounds brain neurons, they report.

    Multiple studies have shown that children absorb more MWR than adults. One found that that the brain tissue of children absorbed about two times more MWR than that of adults, and other studies have reported that the bone marrow of children absorbs 10 times more MWR than that of adults.”

    And I note as a point of interest that babies exposures to microwaves, like everyone else’s, has increased dramatically over the past few decades – but that children’s exposure to milk has not.

  9. Wonderful, articulate presentation. As always.

    I hated cow’s milk when I was a kid. My parents got tired of fighting with me, and I was allowed to take calcium pills in lieu. I have a “gut feeling” that many developmental processes went off the rails due to being bottle-fed cow’s milk and then given years of useless pills.

    I love you anyway, Mom.

    1. I hated cows milk as a kid, too. I remember being the only child in kindergarten who didn’t buy milk for snack, and I was often asked if I was allergic.

  10. wow alef1, what an interesting post. As you have studied these ideas, have you yourself come to some conclusions/decisions on a practical level for you and your family ?

    1. Hi Susan –

      First minimize your exposure. Unless you live near a microwave tower, most of your and your families exposure seems voluntary on your part, from the devices you choose to use and how you use them, and falls under your control. Some suggestions:

      If they seem available and if you can afford them, at least at home minimize or eliminate your use of wireless. Get a landline, hook your computer directly into your phone line or a fiber-optic cable.

      If you must use wireless, arrange things to minimize microwave exposure. Put your router as far away as you can from where you or your family members spend significant time, but where all of your devices still work. This can decrease exposure from the router by 95%. I had a friend who kept her router in her living room, near where her children played, that put out around 100,000 uW/m2. She relocated it to her garage, and the level dropped to well below 100 in her living room – and all of her wireless devices still worked as well as they did before. Do not keep microwave emitting devices in your bedroom, but if you do, put them at least 4- 6 feet from the bed. Use cell phones on speaker mode only, and do not keep it close to your body, as it will emit signals even when off.

      If you can afford it, I suggest you get a microwave detector. That way you can look for and find hot spots that would otherwise seem invisible – from your devices, or from your neighbors emitting through the walls. You can then use this information to minimize exposures. I guarantee it will open your eyes to an invisible world!

      As far as the potential dangers of microwaves goes, I find myself in a similar position to someone warning about the dangers of tobacco smoke in the 1950’s. Many people smoked several packs a day, and even though research had begun to come out about the dangers – after decades of effective suppression by the tobacco industry, but just about no one wants to hear about it, let alone take it seriously. Routinely exposing children to what we now recognize as toxic levels of second-hand smoke just seemed an accepted part of life.

      Decades from now, will we realize that the negative health effects from our continually increasing exposure to microwave sources proved just as damaging to health, though in different ways, that as tobacco has? Hard to say, as research like the NTP study has just begun to appear past the industry’s blockade. The industry argued that any microwave exposure that does not cause cooking seems harmless – and therefore any exposure below that level seems safe. Many research studies have disproved this, demonstrating effects at microwaves well below the level needed for heating, but the industry has stuck to this position and their lobbyists have made sure that out government policy makers have as well. This despite the recent U.S government National Toxicology Program study demonstrating that microwaves at cell phone frequencies at very low exposure levels CAN cause cancer. While with respect to cancer, I do not see this as an effect at all comparable to that of smoking or of eating the SAD, this DOES open the proverbial can of worms, with respect to all of the safety studies the microwave industry has NOT done for having an effect on other diseases, while exponentially increasing human exposure to microwaves at a wide variety of new and untested frequencies year after year.

      So a exercising a little restraint with respect to at least minimizing ones microwave exposures to me seems a wise course. Not that I expect many to follow this advice – as as best I can tell, wireless tech has become a lot more addictive and widespread than even tobacco in its heyday. An NPR Interview on this worth checking out: ‘Irresistible’ By Design: It’s No Accident You Can’t Stop Looking At The Screen

      http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/03/13/519977607/irresistible-by-design-its-no-accident-you-cant-stop-looking-at-the-screen

      1. alef1, this is a phenomenal response. Thank you for taking the time and trouble! I will certainly look at it closely and share it with friends !

  11. Professor Stewart Truswell wrote a detailed critique about A2 milk which is freely available. The paper details how the S2 hypothesis was created. Truswell’s conclusion is that A2 milk is no more than a NZ marketing exercise.

    Truswell, A. S. (2005) The A2 milk case: a critical review. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. [Online] 59 (5), 623–631.

    1. Very interesting but to be fair the NZ dairy industry especially Fonterra hated the A2 story since most of its milk contained A1. I am therefore very suspicious of the claim that the A2 story is merely a NZ dairy industry marketing claim.

      It is also worth noting that Trusswell has financial ties to Fonterra, which he did not disclose when his article was published.

      Trusswell’s claims should not be uncritically accepted.
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/174768/Milk-safety-debate-expert-paid-by-Fonterra

  12. Dr. Greger, is there also a plausible link with ADHD? The video mentioned an effect on serotonin and opioid receptors, which are also implicated in ADHD (at least their transmitters). And there seems to be some correlation between ADHD and autism, as well as food allergies, especially dairy. Apologies if I’m wrong on these “facts.”

    My child has significant ADHD as well as milk protein allergy. It just makes me go “hmm…”

    1. You might want to look into the link between magnesium and ADHD. See for example:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9368236

      The effects of magnesium physiological supplementation on hyperactivity in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Positive response to magnesium oral loading test. Magnesium Research [01 Jun 1997, 10(2):149-156]

      “It is reported that dietetic factors can play a significant role in the etiology of ADHD syndrome, and magnesium deficiency can help in revealing hyperactivity in children. The aim of our work was to assess the influence of magnesium supplementation on hyperactivity in patients with ADHD. The examination comprised 50 hyperactive children, aged 7-12 years, who fulfilled DSM IV criteria for ADHD syndrome, with recognized deficiency of magnesium in the blood (blood serum and red blood cells) and in hair using atomic absorption spectroscopy. In the period of 6 months those examined regularly took magnesium preparations in a dose of about 200 mg/day. 30 of those examined with ADHD showed coexisting disorders specific to developmental age, and 20 of them showed disruptive behaviour. The control group consisted of 25 children with ADHD and magnesium deficiency, who were treated in a standard way, without magnesium preparations. 15 members of this group showed coexisting disorders specific for developmental age, and 10 members showed disruptive behaviour. Hyperactivity was assessed with the aid of psychometric scales: the Conners Rating Scale for Parents and Teachers, Wender’s Scale of Behavior and the Quotient of Development to Freedom from Distractibility. In the group of children given 6 months of magnesium supplementation, independently of other mental disorders coexisting with hyperactivity, an increase in magnesium contents in hair and a significant decrease of hyperactivity of those examined has been achieved, compared to their clinical state before supplementation and compared to the control group which had not been treated with magnesium.”

      About 75% of Americans have deficiencies ( http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844214 ) might explain the children responded. The amount given – 200 mg, corresponds to a minimal supplemental dose, at the DV for a child.

      Also, a link with references discussing how magnesium deficiency can cause a host of neurological disorders:

      http://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/therapies/magnesium-an-essential-supplement-for-psychiatric-patients/article/362253/

      I have a friend who has a child diagnosed with ADHD – three years of therapy has not make a dent. About a month ago after seeing the research I posted above, she started giving her son a 1/2 tsp of magnesium citrate (a bioavailable form) a day. I noticed a huge difference in his behavior after about two weeks, and this persisted on subsequent visits – except on the day after Halloween when he had stuffed himself on candy. She told me that her son’s teacher at school had also commented on how much his behavior had improved in the last few weeks.

      Not sure if magnesium deficiency plays a role in autism, but if a child with autism also has a magnesium deficiency, I doubt very much it would help.

  13. Dr Greger,

    As always a superb production. But, your ‘nutrition facts’ continue to omit some inconvenient truths:

    1. European human existence has in considerable part been made possible by our belated ability to digest cows milk.
    2. The positives of bovine milk far outweigh their negatives.

    Bovine Milk
    Positives

    1. A crucial food for humans as a source not only of high quality protein, fat, minerals, and vitamins (Bell et al., 2006; Kamiński et al., 2007; Nagpal et al., 2011),

    2. Contains bioactive peptides linked to positive health effects on the cardiovascular, nervous, and gastrointestinal systems (Choi et al., 2012).

    3. Prevention of hypertension (Jauhiainen and Korpela, 2007), osteoporosis (Uenishi, 2006), obesity (Jaffiol, 2008), dental decay (Shimazaki et al., 2008) and cardiovascular disease (Elwood et al., 2004a, 2004b; Elwood, 2005; Elwood et al., 2005).

    Negatives

    1. Contains peptides with opioid properties (BCM7) that may increase risk of chronic disease (Cieślińska et al., 2007; Cieślińska et al., 2012).

    2. Epidemiologically, A1 β-casein strongly correlates with ischemic heart disease (McLachlan, 2001; Laugesen and Elliott, 2003) and type 1 diabetes (Elliott et al., 1999; McLachlan, 2001; Birgisdottir et al., 2006). This implies that BCM7 released from A1-β casein may be a significant contributor to the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 1 diabetes.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487594/

    Concentrating entirely on the less common negatives, and the expense of the more common positives is unscientific, and doing a great disservice to your readers.

    I completely respect anyone who is sensitive to animal welfare. But I cant believe your preferred solution (the virtual-elimination of a species) would be the preferred option of the species itself.

    Pete (on indefinite detention)

    1. Pete… Lol. I’m sorry but I have to laugh… Anyone who has done the most remote sense of research knows that the evidence that dairy is one of the most detrimental things to our health (and for that matter, physical appearance) is ridiculously overwhelming to the point that it is equally ridiculous as the tobacco industry’s desperate pleas in trying to claim smoking safe let alone healthy.

      You’re either a “farmer” or otherwise invested in the dairy industry, or, you’re desperate to justify an unhealthy addiction. At this point, with the overwhelming truth in our faces, the reasons people trying to still defend these things is completely transparent to the point where I am fully confident in calling you out on this. I wont await your response cause these kinds of conversations never end in the first party conceding to or acknowledging the facts in front of them.

      1. Nope, Mr. Granger is correct. The lactase-persistence gene would not have spread so rapidly through the European population if it didn’t have a strongly beneficial effect. That being said, this beneficial effect might very well be a beneficial effect at the population level but detrimental on an individual level. Merely because someone has a different understanding of things than you do, “S.” does not make him a shill for some industry that you dislike.

        1. Stephen, it’s not a matter of personal interpretation, it’s a matter of scientific data. First of all, I’m not going to delve into the THEORY you’re stating about dairy and the European population due to the fact that I haven’t researched that particular topic, however, from the research I have come across on the history of dairy consumption starting from the beginning of dairy being introduced to Europeans countries, I did learn that the consumption was actually quite rare compared to today’s consumption and many couldn’t afford it and there was also a period where it was considered junk. Its history is full of complexities and does not coincide with what many seem to believe or imagine based on the papers I’ve read. Regardless of the population theory, I do ask what on earth that has to do with the proven detrimental effects Dr. Greger is talking about in this video? That was rhetorical, it has nothing to do with it. Just a blanket attempt to defend dairy consumption in the face of profound scientific evidence. Further that with the fact that he made a blanket statement that bovine has more positive effects than negative and right there you have a guy who is pushing propaganda and COMPLETELY ignoring the masses of evidence that say otherwise. That isn’t a different perception, that is an obvious attempt to shout over the truth and sustain propaganda for some personal reason as there’s only ever a personal reason to do something like that. And I’m sorry if my lack of polite pretense offends you.

          I actually also want to add about Pete’s last line which was as offensive as it was ignorant, about sustaining a species who man bred and over bred and over breeds, simply to undergo horrific, demonic torture so some can get diseases and others can get rich… All the while destroying the planet. So basically all I want to say about what that species would prefer, is to stop being exploited, raped (or umm… “bred”) and perpetually tortured and perpetually killed, which is also what those of us “sensitive to animal welfare” prefer.

          Those working for the industry are always trying to come up with the most insane reasons to ignore the only plausible solution to a a problem they work tirelessly at having the public not see as a problem, and bringing up what would be best for a species when he nor anyone in that industry has one ounce of care for, is BEYOND sickening, that needs to be said. No limits and no shame to the desperate propaganda…

      2. A Pete Granger has defended pasture-fed dairy before on NutritionFacts.
        https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/01/31/why-is-milk-consumption-associated-with-more-bone-fractures/

        And I recall that, here in Australia, a state dairy industry organisation was established some years ago with one Peter Granger, recent science graduate, as its Marketing Manager. It’s probably a good bet that they are one and the same person. The failure to disclose such a conflict of interest is of course highly regrettable.if unsurprising.

      3. Shaylen,

        Understandably I suppose, vegans or vegetarians tend to read scientific or non-scientific literature which reinforces the often emotional decisions they have made. So, if you are looking for bias, perhaps look no further.
        There are definite advantages to a plant-based diet, but personally I dont think these advantages extend to the exclusion of dairy. So, being the ‘second’ party perhaps you will be kind enough to study the more objective scientific literature (see 9.) and ‘acknowledge the facts in front of you’.

        1. I have never been a farmer. I did graduate in Agricultural Science but (apart from two years) I never practiced. Two years out of 50 hardly counts. Before retiring 7 years ago, I ran a telecommunications software development firm I started 25 years earlier. Nothing to do with farming.
        Nowadays, I obviously have too much time on my hands to study scientific reports – as a hobby.

        2. I believe Dr Greger also graduated in Ag Sci. Did this make him biased in favour of farmers?

        3. Do I assume when it comes to nutritional science a vegetarian or vegan is *not* biased? Comparing our respective comments I respectfully suggest you are demonstrating more bias than myself

        4. Dismissing science on the basis of an intermediary’s supposed bias is a poor substitute for challenging the science itself – which I invite you to do.

        5. Europeans exist and have survived in large part because their ancestors developed a mutation which enabled them to digest cow’s milk. This mutation gave them an evolutionary advantage. This should give you the bigger picture in terms of bovine milk. You can argue if you wish evolution got it all wrong – scientifically speaking – and renounce this genetic advantage.
        But if you do, you are ignoring thousands of years of evolution which worked assiduously to improve your chances of survival. Far more effectively than any scientist or doctor.

        6. Beast milk is essential for infants. Thereafter, cows milk is of enormous nutritional benefit to the majority of humans that consume it. In many instances, life-saving. For a very small minority it may be harmful.
        Unfortunately, we mostly hear only the latter from Dr Greger.

        7. Plant-based milks may be delicious, but are simply junk food in comparison to cows milk. Substituting them for cows milk in young children is a very unwise, sometimes fatal practice.

        8. Dr Greger has the best presented nutritional website on the web. It is simply brilliant. I agree with most of his views on plant-based diets.
        However, I believe he is just plain wrong when it comes to dairy. He tends to cherry pick the small number of negatives, and repeatedly ignores the large number of positives. That is, he has an intentionally vegan/vegetarian bias. Which is perfectly OK except it skews the data.

        8. I completely understand those who choose not to consume milk on ethical grounds. But they should not attempt to bend the science to correspond with these ethical beliefs. Moreover, their solution is tantamount to the extinction of dairy cows as a species. I dont believe dairy cows would agree with this ‘solution’ if they had the choice. Case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

        9. The Evidence. I invite you to study and make your own assessment as to its veracity:

        *2016 Systematic Review*

        *’Moderate-quality evidence suggests:*

        ..favorable associations between:

        – intakes of total dairy, low-fat dairy, cheese, and fermented dairy and the risk of stroke; – intakes of low-fat dairy and milk and the risk of hypertension; – total dairy and milk consumption and the risk of metabolic syndrome – total dairy and cheese and the risk of T2Diabetes.

        *High- to moderate-quality evidence supports: *

        ..neutral associations between the consumption of:

        – total dairy, cheese, and yogurt and cardiovascular disease risk – any form of dairy, except for fermented, and coronary artery disease risk – regular- and high-fat dairy, milk, and yogurt and stroke risk – regular- and high-fat dairy, cheese, yogurt, and fermented dairy and hypertension risk – regular- and high-fat dairy, milk, and fermented dairy and T2 Diabetes risk.

        http://advances.nutrition.org/content/7/6/1026.abstract

        The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke.
        Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent.
        Finally, consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality. Calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have been included as an alternative to dairy products in the nutrition recommendations in several countries. However, nutritionally, cow’s milk and plant-based drinks are completely different foods, and an evidence-based conclusion on the health value of the plant-based drinks requires more studies in humans.
        Conclusion

        The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported.
        Authors: Tanja Kongerslev Thorning,1 Anne Raben,1 Tine Tholstrup,1 Sabita S.
        Soedamah-Muthu,2 Ian Givens,3 and Arne Astrup1,* 1Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 2Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands 3Centre for Food, Nutrition and Health, University of Reading, Reading, UK **Arne Astrup*, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of S

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/

        *Butter *- http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/24/butter-consumption.aspx *Alzheimer’s Disease *

        Meta-analysis:

        The highest level of milk consumption was significantly associated with a decreased risk of cognitive disorders, and the pooled OR (95% CI) was 0.72

        http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/12/824/pdf

        *Asthma *

        Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) – a constituent of milk from grass-fed cows is a naturally occurring fatty acid with metabolic, proliferative and immune processes. In this study, CLA CLA treatment was associated with improvements in AHR (airway hyperesponsiveness) and body mass index (BMI).
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03531.x/abstract

        *Atherosclerosis/Inflammation* See Also: Cardiovascular Disease

        These results suggest that milk-derived bioactive peptides work as anti-atherogenic agents through the inhibition of endothelial-dependent adhesive interactions with monocytes by inhibiting the NF-κB pathway through a PPAR-γ dependent mechanism.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25632270

        …atherosclerosis is the underlying cause of heart attack and strokes. It is a progressive dyslipidaemic and inflammatory disease where accumulation of oxidized lipids and inflammatory cells leads to the formation of an atherosclerotic plaque in the vessel wall. *Milk-derived bioactive peptides* can be released during gastrointestinal digestion, food processing or by enzymatic and bacterial fermentation and are considered to promote diverse beneficial effects such as lipid lowering, antihypertensive, immnomodulating, anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27151091 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26877644 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21773582

        *Autism – *trytophan (oats, bananas, dates, milk, cottage cheese, meat, fish, turkey, and peanuts) may improve autism symptoms – http://www.canberratimes.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/diet-and-disease-whats-the-link-20120923-26ehz.html

        *Calcium Absorption – *‘casein-whey protein complex plus phosphates in milk and milk products assist in calcium absorption.’

        *Cancer *

        It is currently estimated that the average adult consumes only one third to one half of the amount of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) that has been shown to reduce cancer in animal studies.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16183568

        *Colorectal Cancer* – ‘high dietary intake of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) from full-fat dairy foods has been associated with a reduction of colorectal cancer by up to 39% in women’ Consumerlab, https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Review_B_Vitamins_B-Complexes_Energy-Shots_Thiamin_Niacin_B-6_B-12_Biotin_and_Folic_Acid/bvitamins

        Women eating at least four servings of high fat dairy foods/day had a 41% lower risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer, than those who ate less than one portion of high-fat dairy a day. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (vol 82, no 4, pp894-900), http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/4/894.abstract

        *Cardiovascular Disease/Heart Attack – *Harvard University research. ‘A higher intake of dairy saturated fat was associated with lower CVD risk’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760560

        ‘Now evidence is emerging that suggests the link between dairy and heart disease is more complex than we realised. Instead of full-fat dairy increasing the risk of heart disease, some recent research suggests there is no link at all or, more radical still, full-fat dairy might protect us from it’ http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2012/10/18/3607861.htm#.UH_K7GeWTi8

        ‘Hannia Campos of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and her colleagues found in a study of 4000 people that those with the highest concentrations of CLAs – the top fifth among all participants – had a 36% lower risk of heart attack compared to those with the lowest concentrations.”Whole milk is not the villain.” (this only refers to pastured cows) http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/01/2915312.htm

        Research: *Dairy consumption and patterns of mortality of Australian adults* http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.html ‘There was no consistent and significant association between total dairy intake and total or cause-specific mortality. However, compared with those with the lowest intake of full-fat dairy, participants with the highest intake (median intake 339 g/day) had reduced death due to CVD (HR: 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–0.79; P for trend = 0.04) after adjustment for calcium intake and other confounders. Intakes of low-fat dairy, specific dairy foods, calcium and vitamin D showed no consistent associations’.

        People who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least. Otherwise stated, people who mostly avoided dairy or consumed low-fat dairy had more than three times the risk of dying of coronary heart disease or stroke than people who ate the most full-fat diary. This result is an outlier, and also observational so difficult to interpret, but it certainly is difficult to reconcile with the idea that dairy fat is a significant contributor to cardiovascular disease.

        Contrary to popular belief, full-fat dairy, including milk, butter and cheese, has never been convincingly linked to cardiovascular disease. What *has* been linked to cardiovascular disease is milk fat’s replacement, margarine. In the Rotterdam study, high vitamin K2 intake was linked to a lower risk of fatal heart attack, aortic calcification and all-cause mortality. Most of the K2 came from full-fat cheese.

        From a 2005 literature review on milk and cardiovascular disease in the EJCN:

        In total, 10 studies were identified. Their results show a high degree of consistency in the reported risk for heart disease and stroke, all but one study suggesting a relative risk of less than one in subjects with the highest intakes of milk.

        …the studies, taken together, suggest that milk drinking may be associated with a small but worthwhile reduction in heart disease and stroke risk.

        …All the cohort studies in the present review had, however, been set up at times when reduced-fat milks were unavailable, or scarce.

        Stephan Guyenet PhD (BS in biochemistry, PhD in neurobiology, neuroscience and obesity researcher).

        http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/full-fat-dairy-for-cardiovascular.html

        *Crohns Disease *– CLA (found naturally in milk from pastured cows) demonstrates an anti-inflammatory potential for Crohn’s patients http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/CLA-shows-anti-inflammatory-potential-for-Crohn-s-patients

        *Dental Protection *

        CPP–ACP is a component of milk which helps remineralization and prevents dental caries. It can also decrease the count of Strept. Mutans. The CPP are also thought to be responsible for the high bioavailability of calcium from milk and other dairy products. Interestingly, CPP is being studied as a possible topical alternative or enhancer of fluoride.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210815713000127

        *Detoxification* – Calcium detoxifies lead and cadmium’. – http://drlwilson.com/Articles/calcium.htm

        *Diabetes – *low-fat yoghurt reduces the risk of developing type-2 diabetes almost a third – Cambridge University study – http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/lowfat-yoghurt-may-reduce-diabetes-risk-20140206-3237t.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534409

        30% reduced risk of diabetes at the highest consumption level of dairy product https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571167

        ….a strong inverse association has been reported between dairy consumption and the insulin resistance syndrome among young obese adults…
        Hyon K. Choi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston

        Dairy intake was associated with a modestly lower risk of type 2 DM.
        Compared with men in the lowest quintile of dairy intake, the relative risk (RR) for type 2 DM in men in the top quintile of dairy intake was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 – 0.95; *P* for trend = .003), after adjustment for body mass index (BMI), physical activity, dietary factors, and other potential confounders.

        For each serving-per-day increase in total dairy intake, there was a 9% lower risk for type 2 DM (multivariate RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 – 0.97). The corresponding RR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 – 0.94) for low-fat dairy intake and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91 – 1.07) for high-fat dairy intake. BMI did not affect this association (/= 25 kg/m2; *P* for interaction, .57).

        “Dietary patterns characterized by higher dairy intake, especially low-fat dairy intake, may lower the risk of type 2 diabetes in men,” the authors write.

        In an accompanying editorial, Janet C. King, PhD, from Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California, calls this study “a further reminder of the potential importance of dairy intake and the continuing value of research in this area.” She notes that milk contains amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and additional bioactive components.

        “Many of these components protect individuals from exogenous stresses, toxins, and pathogens; encourage adaptation to the environment; and promote metabolic regulation, while other milk components cause negative effects in susceptible individuals,” Dr. King writes. “Research shows that the role of dairy foods in health is very complex and probably varies with the genotype and phenotype of the individual.”

        Dr. King reports no financial conflicts of interest.

        *Arch Intern Med*. 2005;165:975-976, 997-1003

        http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/504520

        ‘Some evidence supports milk fat as being protective against Type 2 diabetes. A study published in the December 2010 issue of *Annals of Internal Medicine* followed 3,736 men for 10 years and found that those who had the highest blood levels of a type of fatty acid from whole-fat (not nonfat) dairy foods had 60% less chance of developing Type 2 diabetes than men with the lowest levels.

        As one of the authors commented, “This is an extremely strong protective effect, stronger than other things we know can be beneficial against diabetes.”

        Several other studies have demonstrated that dairy consumption lowers risk for insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes. Researchers credit a fatty acid found in dairy products, trans-palmitoleic acid as the possible protective compound.

        In various studies, higher levels of trans-palmitoleic acid were associated with numerous desirable outcomes: lower body-mass index, smaller waist circumference, lower triglyceride levels, lower levels of C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), lower fasting insulin levels, and less insulin resistance.

        https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/is-milk-bad-for-you-diabetes-and-milk/

        *Heart Attacks* – Cambridge University – Meta-analysis: Saturated dairy fats don’t cause heart attacks – http://wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014-03_Annals_of_Int_Med_Chowdhury_et_al_Fat_and_CHD_+_responses.pdf

        *Height/Osteoporosis *- increased milk consumption in male teenagers increases subsequent adult height, but at the possible expense of an increased risk of adult osteoporosis. However, this increased risk does not occur in females (estrogen (optimal vitamin D and vitamin K levels may well diminish any increased risk in men).
        http://www.dairyreporter.com/R-D/Teenage-milk-consumption-may-not-reduce-later-hip-fracture-risk-Study

        *Hypertension *- University of Ulster researchers discovered that vitamin B2 – commonly found in dairy products – can significantly reduce high blood pressure (hypertension) – http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/3/766.full (*People eating a standard Western diet receive about one-quarter to one-third of their dietary vitamin B2 from milk and other dairy products – * *http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=93**)*

        *Insulin Resistance:*

        See: ‘Diabetes’, ‘Metabolic Syndrome’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534409

        *Longevity/Inflammation – *Danish researchers believe cheese consumption could be the key to a faster metabolism, reduced obesity, and increased longevity. Roquefort, Camembert and other moulded fermented cheeses may reduce damaging subclinical inflammation – http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf505878a

        *Metabolic Syndrome/Diabetes* See also ‘Diabetes’, ‘Obesity’’.
        An epidemiological study in France has found: Dairy products, cheese alone, and diet calcium density were associated with *lower incidence of metabolic syndrome*, a *lower nine-year diastolic blood pressure* and also *lower BMI gain over time*.

        Neither cheese or calcium density were associated with type 2 diabetes alone.

        Higher cheese intake and the calcium density of the diet were associated with* lower triglyceride levels* and a lower nine-year increase in waist circumference.

        The findings support a growing body of research suggesting a link between dairy intake and metabolic health.

        Another recent study, published this February in *British Journal of Nutrition *claims the nutrient combination of calcium and milk fat in dairy products can help to reduce fat absorption, maintain good cholesterol and minimise bad cholesterol.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064033/

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534409

        *Muscle Growth* – one of the best sources of high-quality protein is whole whey made from grass-fed cows. As discussed above, it’s also a marvellous source of leucine, which you need in abundance if you want to boost muscle growth. – http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/17/ori-hofmekler-on-nutrition.aspx

        *Obesity* – Harvard Uni. scientists suggest full cream chocolate milk may be superior to low-fat chocolate milk for children, and reduces the desire for other more calorific items, such as sugary biscuits – http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sn-whole-milk-jama-pediatrics-20130701,0,5929213.story

        ‘Recent evidence suggests an inverse relationship among calcium, vitamin D status, and dairy intake, specifically with the development of the insulin resistance syndrome and T2DM. It has been found that there is a decrease in dairy intake in the past three decades, which runs parallel with an increase in the incidence of obesity and diabetes (T2DM.’

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534409

        ‘Onakpoya and his co-workers noted that reports in the literature do support biological plausibility for calcium to aid body weight and fat loss: One such mechanism could involve a decrease in levels of 1,25-vitamin D – the active form of the vitamin – which in stimulates the breakdown of fat and inhibits the action of fat cells. There are also reports that indicate that a diet rich in calcium may promote the oxidation of fat, *“resulting in the removal of additional amounts of calories from the body”*.
        Source: *Nutrition Reviews, *Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages: 335-343, doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00397.x

        *Stroke*

        2016 meta-analysis. Milk and cheese consumption were inversely associated with stroke risk.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889169/

        *‘These results give no convincing evidence of an increased risk of vascular disease from milk drinking. Rather, the subjects who drank more than the median amount of milk had a reduced risk of an ischaemic stroke, and possibly a reduced risk of an ischaemic heart disease event. These conclusions are in agreement with the results of a previously reported overview of 10 large, long term cohort studies based on food frequency intake records’.*

        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Jun;59(6):502-5.

        *Milk consumption, stroke, and heart attack risk: evidence from the Caerphilly cohort of older men.*

        *Milk Alternatives: *

        *Almond Milk* – not recommended because of its high concentration of polyunsaturated fats (PUFA).
        http://www.nutritionbynature.com.au/1/post/2012/09/polyunsaturated-vegetable-oils-heart-healthy-or-toxic.html

        *Rice Milk*: ‘The court was told that Eliana Diskin was severely malnourished when she died at age five months after her loving parents fed her only on organically-grown brown rice milk with added vitamin supplements. – http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/13/1021002430788.html

        *Soy Milk* – soy will disrupt female sexual hormones, contributing to weight gain, bloating, gas, painful, heavy menstrual cycles and mood disruption – http://www.nutritionbynature.com.au/1/post/2012/02/listen-lads-soy-is-killing-your-sex-drive.html#sthash.UOI9ItFY.dpuf

  14. A2 milk company stock seems like a great short sell in light of this new study, considering the supposed lack of the BCM7 peptide was the only selling point of their product. Who knows how consumers will react though… I mean science and facts are clearly not the main drivers of consumer dietary decisions.

    1. That’s because people have been lied to so long and are now viciously addicted to all this crap so not only are they brainwashed but they’re in that place where they want to stay brainwashed. Time for science and other facts to overwhelm the propaganda and that’s where the mess starts to unravel. Unfortunately many have a lot to lose as they’ve been thriving off of these disease causing lies, so they fight back harder with more desperate lies, but it’s a losing battle… As the Buddhist saying goes, “three things cannot be long hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth.”

        1. Jerry, there have been SO many problems! Dairy is linked to virtually all of our biggest problems. In fact, this goes beyond the problems of health! It is also one of the worst things happening to the planet and for that matter, one of the cruelest industries on the face of the earth… funny how karma and science seem to align so well. So I suggest you do more research as well as deeper research into the history of dairy. In history, contrary to the claims of another poster, dairy consumption was not nearly as high as it is today and it wasn’t even affordable to the poor centuries ago.

          1. Shaylen,

            Europeans developed a mutation thousands of years ago which enabled them to digest milk. This gave them a genetic advantage over those who did not have this mutation. Ultimately, those with the mutation became dominant because of their improved nutrition – courtesy of cow’s milk. Its quite possible cow’s milk changed the course of human history, at least European history.
            None of this evolutionary stuff would have occurred if milk was harmful to us. The mutation would have died out. Instead, it prospered. This tells us something rather profound about milk – particularly in comparison to the alternative at the time (presumably, a principally plant-based diet). In large part its the nutritional density and great complexity of milk. Cows process plants in a way we humans cannot equal.
            I appreciate your concern for cows. They are beautiful, gentle animals.
            However, I dont believe you are doing them any great favours by not consuming milk. If the world stops doing so it stands to reason their population would be decimated. I know this is not the kind of world you want, but it is the reality. Moreover, the scientific evidence does not generally support doing so. With minor exceptions, it consistently suggests cows milk is beneficial. (Please read my previous post).

            1. None of this evolutionary stuff would have occurred if milk was harmful to us. The mutation would have died out. Instead, it prospered. This tells us something rather profound about milk – particularly in comparison to the alternative at the time (presumably, a principally plant-based diet). In large part its the nutritional density and great complexity of milk.

              I take issue with your statement that “if milk was harmful to us the mutation would have died out.”

              My point is the mutation may have prospered due to the fact that people seldom lived past their twenties.

              So maybe the mutation is beneficial in the short term (not saying that is so, but will work on that assumption) but now that we live longer, maybe the mutation is no longer viable.

              1. Lonie, equally, the mutation could have had the effect of increasing fertility and/or extending the age of reproduction.
                The mutation is there so long as we have the ability to consume milk, which we obviously can.
                We will know soon enough if we lose that ability. It will be very obvious.

                1. My point being that something that is tolerable during the reproductive years can be conserved.

                  The insult to continued health and well being may not show up until one passes the age of reproduction. In fact, that may be the purpose of the genetics… to weed out the unproductive members of our species.

                  To be on the safe side, I am going to avoid the genetically-approved Grim Milk Reaper.

              2. As of today, there are a lot of countries that consume a lot of milk and its population still live long, such as France, Belgium, Israel, Iceland, etc.

                I understand that for some people who don’t drink milk regularly, they don’t develop that mutation and may suffer indigestion and health problems when consuming milk. So milk is not for everybody but to say that it is harmful is wrong and misleading.

            2. Sorry Peter but you clearly do not understand evolution.

              Of course lactose tolerance provided an evolutionary advantage. In times and places where the greatest threat to existence was insufficient calories, a way of obtaining extra calories provides a survival advantage. So does sickle cell anaemia in appropriate circumstances

              However, something that provides a species with a survival advantage does not necessarily lead to healthy longevity in individual members of that species.

              Now, can you tell us what your relationship to the dairy industry is? Are you the Peter Granger of VDIA fame?

              1. Yes TG he was/is associated with the dairy industry, at least at one time. When NF still had disqus, Peter had mention of his position as consultant or something similar on his profile. I looked it up on the net then asked him directly . The conversation is buried somewhere within the comments on one of the older dairy videos from 2 to 3 yrs ago. Googling produces many comments by Peter in industry related magazines or conversations.

                  1. no jerry, he didn’t make full disclosure like an honest person would. He was found out and admitted it when pressed. And would you please knock off the insults and ignorant comments ?
                    NF, pleaseeeeee do something !

                    1. If the guy wants to hide his identity then he would change his ID instead of using his real name. And Susan may not be your real first name. And now you are calling for censorship. LOL. You should start with the 68 year old guy who started the insult.

                  2. Sheesh, Jerry

                    Do you have some deep-rooted psychological problem with factual accuracy? It is like facts, any facts, are deeply offensive to you. How many times have I told you that I am 67? And you still can’t even get that right.

                    Keeping on topic – what is your real name and what are you hiding behind the pseudonym “Jerry Lewis”?

                    1. be careful Nutritionfacts.org , TG has objected to be calling older than he really is by Jerry Lewis , who has repeatably been calling TG 68 or name calling like the old guy from down under . this is harassment and would not be tolerated in the real world . your do nothing moderators who think they are not making a decision are making decision by doing nothing .
                      shame on this website for your inaction on this matter

              2. Of course TG likes to twist things around to make his kind of (sick) argument. I am not trying to defend Peter Grange but it is clear that what he said is that a lot of people in the world, in particular Europeans who consume dairy frequently, does not have the lactose intolerance issue, while people who don’t consume frequently such as the Asians, Africans, do. So it means that nature evolves in a good way by mutating the gene to adapt. And people who consume dairy frequently still live a long and healthy life.

                On the other hand, people have been smoking for thousand of years and up until today, it is still harmful. And so nature had never evolved to “adapt” to smoking and it remains a bad thing.

                So a 5 year old can easily understand what Peter said except for a 68 year old.

                And by the way, the guy started releasing his attack dogs and profiling and stereotyping and twisting every words and sentences to suit his agenda, as he did every day the first thing in the morning when he wakes up before he brushes his teeth and he flies into a rage. And by the way using his tactics then we should wonder if a guy who used statin drug and fried his liver and pancrea and still praises the drug, is he a shill of Big Pharma?

                1. And this is not an argument to promote dairy consumption and I understand the ply of cows in CAFO farming. But we need to separate the sciences from the feelings because we need to understand what foods are harmful and which ones are not, and dairy products are not harmful in most cases and with both A1 and A2 casein but not in A2 for sure because it is the same as Mother milk. Because there are people who need to consume milk such as infants who cannot be breastfed or people who are sick. So we should not demonize milk for those special needs.

                  Now from my personal point of view, I already minimize dairy consumption, and when I consume it which is not frequent, it has to be organic, goat milk preferably, grass fed, and raised in a humane manner. And I mostly make yogurt with the (goat) milk which makes it 100 times more beneficial. And I don’t need to consume a lot. One cup of homemade yogurt is more than enough.

                2. Gosh Jerry, citing the evidence and applying rational thought to expose the false claims and lies that infest your posts makes me a shill of Big Pharma? I should just keep quiet when you make false claims, then?

                  Yet you are quite happy it seems to defend someone who works for Big Dairy (but doesn’t tell us that he is connected to the industry) as an OK guy. No hysterical accusations of “shill” there, eh?

                  Double standards? Jerry? Never …………

              3. TG put that argument to rest! (Though that doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying to make it.) By that same logic, you could argue the benefits of meat consumption because calories (even from disease causing sources) beats immediate death from starvation. It’s really quite simple and the population argumenent is irrelevant at best (not to mention off subject)- unless maybe there’s a zombie apocalypse and you come across a well preserved dairy product in the midst of famine.

            3. Pete, I’m not sure how you got my name on a username based comment board… maybe it’s something I’ve missed, but I noticed someone else who was likely affiliated with GMO’s did the same thing, you professionals like to do that it seems. Nonetheless, to say that something wouldn’t have occurred if milk were harmful to us is insane, or rather would be insane if you actually believed the pitch you’re trying to sell. First of all, you’re looking all of actual science in the face and discarding it for some historical/mildly scientific theory you’re really trying hard to hold onto and that just… well, do I even need to comment on that?

              Now to address more outlandish comments by you… Now you’re stating that cows process plants in some magical way that we humans cannot and therefore we must nurse off the breasts of cow mothers… Speaking of insanity. I’m pretty sure if we were meant to nurse off of cow mothers, evolution would have probably just developed that magical plant processing ability you state, in ourselves as opposed to cows. I’m also pretty sure the science wouldn’t show that dairy is detrimental to human health whereas a plant based diet is ideal.
              What you’re really hypothesizing is that dairy helped increase European population and that would be explained by calories vs. famine. Indeed, so has meat consumption helped civilizations survive periods of famine through harsh weather conditions, this does NOT mean that meat is good for us or even that it is not horrible for us. But calories, even from disease causing sources, beats an immediate death of starvation. It’s very simple.

              Pete, you do NOT appreciate my concern for cows or any animal, the environment, or actual human health. Do not perversely use that when you are affiliated with one of the most SICKENINGLY violent industries on the face of the planet and one of the most detrimental to the planet. Please spare me that as it further insults the animals you bank in on exploiting.
              Do you really think this is the appropriate audience for you to make the truly lacking-of-all-reason-and-logic claims that it is beneficial to cows to exploit them? I don’t know who IS that dumb, but people here generally are not.
              They are a domesticated species, they are not part of the ecosystem, their existence is one of those suffering a holocaust 24/7, sustaining that existence is as demonic as it is irresponsible to both the animal and the planet and all life on it. Time to search for a new spiel, guy.

              I’d say you need a science lesson, a history lesson, and a good look at what’s really going on in the world, but the truth is, we all know why you’re here and it is to just spread nonsensical, perverse propaganda in the face of logic, reason, etc… All of these things entirely lost on you because it is simply not a part of your agenda to learn or acknowledge what perhaps you’ve already learned, it is your agenda to maintain the blatant lies to sustain the system that momentarily sustains you.

              1. S,
                NF team might want to know about Pete illigitimately aquiring your name on here. Just send a note through the help center. This is not good.

                I enjoy reading your comments btw. Well done !

                1. Real names (or ones used to open email accounts) show up when you reply from your email client, as I’m doing now.

                  But Snarski? That has to be a *nom de guerre *for doing battle on NF. ‘-)

                  1. Wow, seriously Lonie, next are you gonna gather my social security numbers? I’m sorry but that is just rude to pull up someone’s last name on a user name based website, if I wanted to use my full name, I wouldn’t have a user name.

                    Pete, calm down… No one here ACCUSED you of anything. I think you need to go and reread my comment and you’ll see nothing you’re whining about now had been stated by me nor was it stated by Susan. We don’t see full names here and thought it was odd. Not that big of a deal, but I guess you need something to feel righteous about.

                    1. Social Security NUMBERS? So! You DO have multiple identities. Figured the name you used was phony. Nice way to try and hide that fact… that is, by diverting attention away from your real name by trying to get us to focus on your phony one.

                      Your leetle ploy deed naught weruk. Deed you haf un account weeth Ex periahn? Hmmm? I theenk I weel get on the Dahrk Net and buy your soceal numbehrs. Theen, all weel be rehveled.

                    2. So Shaylen Snarski or S or whatever name you want to use, why do you sign in as Shaylen Snarski and then use an ID as S. or whatever other IDs you may have, and then get upset when people call you as Shaylen Snarski? Why don’t you call yourself as “vegan religion” or “biased opinion” or … and people will never call you by Shaylen Snarski?

                2. Susan. I log onto this service in my own name and identity. You felt obliged to apologise to me once before. But it seems you never learn. Now you are accusing me of illigitimately (sic) aquiring (sic) Shaylene’s name.
                  I suggest you read the comment from Lonie, familiarise yourself with your own system, and withdraw the comment.

                  1. Now you are accusing me of illigitimately (sic) aquiring (sic) Shaylene’s name.

                    I’m accusing you of misspelling Shaylen’s name. ‘-)

                    Having known a guy named Shayler some years ago, I only know that Shaylen is a girl as she self identified as female in a response to one of my posts.

                    1. thankyou Lonie for the spelling correction. Spelling aside, I was wrongfully accused by Shaylen, and then Susan of illigitimately (sic) aquiring (sic) Shaylen’s name*. *Sounds awfully sinister (like all milk-drinkers I guess?) – but not possible when I simply referred to the name listed in Shaylen’s message header. Right now they will convincing themselves the accusation is true because they believe it is. Thats the definition of reality. I believe, therefore it is.

                    1. With respect Susan. As I recall, the posts I receive had Shaylen in the header as sender. I believe this is a system thing. If they have Shaylen as sender, then obviously I use that name when I reply. If I am instructed that Shaylen does not want her name in the reply, then I will comply. But obviously, I have to be firstly advised of this.
                      Now, I am asking for an explanation from you. What do you mean getting ‘Shaylens name illegitimately’, and what evidence do you have that I did this?

                    2. Susan. This is what I receive:

                      NutritionFacts.org

                      Lonie left a reply to a comment by Shaylen Snarski on Does A2 Milk Carry Less Autism Risk?
                      :

                      As you can see, Shaylen’s name is in the header.

                      i

        2. That is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Without health problems? Heart disease has evidence going back thousands of years to preserved mummies with atherosclerosis. As for the autism – “fears of an autism ‘epidemic.’ But experts say the bulk of the increase stems from a growing awareness of autism and changes to the condition’s diagnostic criteria.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/

  15. Dr. Gregor, thank you SO much for all you do!! i’d elaborate but I’d just end up going on and on and on. I’ve said this before but it’s worth repeating, Hippocrates would be proud.

  16. People often refer to themselves as human the hunter, or human the farmer, but from the perspective of drinking milk, how about human the parasite? Could it be a new definition of human?

      1. Yes but they have not been using the correct descriptive term. Using the term parasite to describe their actions is new but I haven’t looked. For example, when mother feeds her baby with the milk of another mammal, that is called parasitism, yet I don’t see any marketing being done around that. MAybe they should teach it in school.

        1. Parasite in my dictionary means an animal which depends on another animal for living. So are people who eat honey and kale (bees raised and tortured for honey and pollination).

          1. This is a real dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

            “something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return”

            If a mother needs the milk from the other mammal, in order to support the existence of her baby, but does not give anything in return to the mammal, then by definition, it an act of parasitism.

            1 The mother is biological (a human mammal)
            2 the mother depends on the other’s mammal milk to support her baby
            3 the mother does not compensate the other mammalian mother

            The cows have to be raped in order for the hormones to kick on and make milk. The cows are kept in controlled areas. A normal cow lives to 20 years old but a milking cow is killed at 4 after being wasted. How could a human mother compensate the cow?

            1. Re: How could a human mother compensate the cow?

              The same way that human compensate the bees to steal their honey and to torture them to pollinate their vegetables and fruits farms.

              1. Jerry, no one exploits bees for pollination. Bees pollinate on their own accord. I grow my food and the bees come to my garden and I enjoy watching them. Introducing bees to an area is different than exploiting them for their honey. In fact, the honey industry annually kills millions of bees for financial reasons. You can learn more about the honey industry and bees here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0N8UYgMGDQ

                1. https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-honey-not-vegan

                  Pollination
                  In many countries bees’ services are bought for pollination purposes resulting in the bees (and their hives) being transported hundreds or thousands of miles. The food industry is now looking to artificially managed honeybees to provide to pollinate crops because wild bees and other insects (who would naturally pollinate crops) have been and are being destroyed by housing development, industrial pollution, pesticide poisoning, intensive farming practices, destruction of hedgerows, etc. The use of honeybees for pollination is now big business especially in places like New Zealand and America. However, even in the UK commercial beekeepers move hives (to find sources of nectar for honey production, and for pollination). Pollination fees are a very important component of the commercial beekeepers income. Commercially reared bumblebee colonies are now also extensively used to pollinate some glasshouse crops, particularly tomatoes.

                  Bees Transported
                  Bees are bought and sold worldwide. Transportation means bees may suffer stress, suffocation, overheating or cold. Many die entombed in their packaged coffins. Exotic bees are transported to strange countries and causing problems in the natural environment by spreading disease. They are subsequently treated as feral and nests are destroyed by pouring petrol in hives or bees killed by spraying with liquid soap.

                  Bees Crushed
                  When beekeepers manipulate combs many bees are crushed and killed. Hives have smoke puffed into them to calm bees down and make them easier to handle. Special excluders or devices that violate the bees’ space are attached to hives to collect bee products from bees as they enter hives. Bees are separated from their hives by being shaken vigorously or jetted out with powerful streams of air. They may have their legs and wings clipped off. Clipping the wings of queen bees prevents them from swarming (flying off!).
                  Swarming is the natural way for reproduction, increase and survival of the species, at least in the wild. However, beekeepers are constantly trying to prevent this natural phenomenon and will use artificial pheromones, wing clipping and cage queens to keep their colony under control.

  17. Sorry, Dr Greger, but I’m calling you out on this one. I’m sure you know about the 2015 study IN HUMANS on the difference between A1 and A2 milk, the conclusion of which, in part, states that A1 milk “…worsens gastrointestinal symptoms, increases gastrointestinal transit time, increases serum inflammation markers, lowers total fecal SCFA content, slows cognitive processing speed and decreases processing accuracy compared with the baseline values…” whereas A2 milk did NOT have these effects. One study is not dispositive, and it was funded by the A2 milk industry, but clearly this is something that requires further study. And while you want everyone to ditch their milk for vegetable alternatives, this is not going to happen any time soon. Meanwhile, does it give you pleasure to see people suffering because they’re drinking bad milk from mutant cows that their ancestors didn’t herd?

        1. If that was above your head, then your IQ probably doesn’t run to three figures.

          Let me make the point simply then, It makes no logical sense to imply that presenting the findings of scientific studies about A1 and A2 milk is evidence that “it give you pleasure to see people suffering because they’re drinking bad milk from mutant cows that their ancestors didn’t herd”

          To pout it even more simply, your post was stupid and viciously unpleasant. Clear?

          1. TG has found a new person to fly his rage and insult. It’s now noon in Australia but he has not brushed his teeth yet let alone eat breakfast and lunch.

          2. “To pout it….” Now THERE’S a Freudian slip.

            I believe I was implying that all the evidence WASN’T being presented. Just as it wasn’t in a previous video about the “Nigerian Paradox” regarding unrefined palm oil (in which the fact was essentially edited out that the Nigerians ate a lot of palm oil, a major source of saturated fat, and had essentially no dementia [which may very well be due to the high tocotrienol content of unrefined palm oil]).

            I think my remark was fair, not stupid and vicious.

            But then again, I have a two-digit IQ, so what do I know?

            Yeah, who’s comment was stupid, vicious and also obviously a lie?

            1. Yes, Stephen, “pout” is a Freudian slip. Not a typo. Your reasoning is truly amazing.

              Your remark was a stupid 2+2=5 claim and deliberately offensive. Even you must recognise that..

    1. Oh there’s a surprise! Stephen who defended the other person defending dairy and “challenging” Dr. Greger (and the scientific results in this and other studies) is the doing so himself. Now, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. And wow Stephen, you’re really getting desperate. At least before from what I read you did a pretty good job and coming across sane, now you’re accusing Greger of enjoying people’s suffering because you don’t like what the science has to say? Now I KNOW you’re working for the industry, no one else would get THAT ridiculous lol.

      1. is doing* no “the” intended there. Btw, not that your statement deserves a response, but umm, I’m pretty sure Dr. Greger dedicates his life to helping others and making available the scientific evidence is because he DOESN’T want people to suffer.

        You know when someone is just throwing a tantrum when they start saying things like “that’s never gonna happen!” about people switching to plant foods over animal products.

        You guys might want to take on a less obvious style.

            1. Stephen, you’re embarrassing yourself! First of all, advocating a PLANT BASED diet because the science says it’s best is totally separate from advocating veganims. Veganism is not a diet nor is a it a religion, but the LOGICAL and practical belief and way of life that does not exclude others from basic consideration simply because they are of a different species. That same exclusion from justice, compassion, and overall consideration, is what causes racism, sexism, etc. So first get that straight.

              Secondly, Dr. Greger doesn’t even profit off of his website or books. Proceeds from his books not only partly go to charity, they entirely go to charity! He’s an amazing Dr. and always has been, you should read his book “How Not To Die.” There is no “big kale” conspiracy where people are banking in on recommending eating one’s vegetables. You sound as ridiculous as Jerry now.

              1. This site is a vegan site. Just admit it and move on. Don’t pretend and hide behind the cover of WFPB because all health conscious meat eaters already eat.

                1. Jerry, you are ridiculous, I’d abandon your user name and start trolling with another name because you were too obvious and readers are onto you. Please look up the profound difference of vegan and plant based, it’s extremely relevant. Veganism is not a diet, it’s about equality, justice, logic, and compassion. This website is about nutritional SCIENCE. The science just so happens to conclude and verify that humans are meant to eat plants and that a diet rich in plants can be life saving whereas consumption of animal products is dramatically linked to our leading causes of death. You don’t like the science or that it coincides with a compassionate, just, non-hypocritical lifestyle, and so you try to chalk up irrefutable science to merely being ideology. The problem with this desperate effort of yours is that you cannot try to make said claims without looking like a food because the facts are so abundant and thanks to people like Dr. Greger, readily available.

              2. Of course he profits from his website, as he should. He’s making a living. This doesn’t in any way denigrate the higher work he’s doing. But he IS pushing a particular point of view, which colors his videos. There ARE studies that show health benefits from animal products. Thousands of studies. Now, if you believe that eating animals is cruel, then that’s your opinion. But that doesn’t mean that eating animals is therefore unhealthy. Since it appears that every society everywhere at every time has eaten animal products, the burden of proof is on the vegans to show that there’s no redeeming value to eating animals. Dr Greger is working hard at that. He’s pretty convincing. But he’s not an impartial judge.

                And, in fact, it’s plants that are trying to kill ME. Wheat is doing it’s best to rip out my guts and generally make my life miserable. And fruits, too (FODMAP issues). So I’m coming at it from that perspective, too. Plants are not necessarily benign.

                Furthermore, are you certain that plants don’t have feelings? If they do, then vegans are mass murderers on a level not even approached by carnivores. For every one cow a carnivore kills, a vegan kills thousands of individual grasses and lettuces. So there’s a thought experiment for you.

              3. And I don’t exclude PLANTS from ethical considerations, either. Vegans kill a hell of a lot of plants. Plants are more different from humans than are other non-human animals, but are you absolutely certain they don’t have the same right to exist that you grant to animals? Most plants make their own food, but animals need to kill, kill, kill to survive. Some kill plants, some kill animals, most kill both. It’s how things are.

            2. Oh but Stephen, if there is some big money in veganism, please let me know, because I’ve been a vegan and promoting animal rights for years and I haven’t gotten my paycheck yet. So I’d really appreciate it, thanks ;)

              1. Every huge food company makes billions on selling plant products, from Coca-Cola to Whole Foods’ specifically vegan products. You are primarily interested in animal welfare. I’m primarily interested in nutrition. And listen, I understand your concern. If you’ve ever driven on I-5 in California past that gigantic feedlot, that’s just very disturbing. Or the dairies near Bakersfield….depressing. I’m all for the abolition of factory farming and the restoration of something with some semblance of concern for animal welfare. I think several dairies in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California approach this, where the cows graze on pasture for at least several months of the year. I think most meat eaters would like to see improvement (and California did pass a law limiting to some degree the atrocious conditions of hens). But this website is called “Nutritionfacts,” not “Veganfacts,” and I think there’s plenty of evidence that animal products are healthy when used sparingly and judiciously, and that this evidence is being ignored for political reasons rather than scientific reasons.

      2. I’m saying that Greger slanted his video by ignoring evidence that there is in fact a significant health advantage to drinking a2 milk versus a1 milk. And yes, the fact that he hides this, as he does any evidence that any animal products are healthy (or, in this case, at least healthier than another animal product), does imply that he is indifferent to the suffering caused by a1 milk, since there is a potential (but non-vegan) solution to it. From the perspective of a vegan activist, the issue of a1 versus a2 milk is of no importance, since both involve the exploitation of animals to the same degree. To the child who gets autism because he drank a1 milk instead of a2 milk, that difference IS important (and is something he had no control over, besides).

        And it’s Dr Greger, no I, who doesn’t like what the science has to say. There IS good evidence that a2 milk is superior to a1 milk.

        Any you DID notice, I’m sure, that the whole issue of GLUTEN being problematic in autism wasn’t pursued to any conclusion by the good doctor. Is this because it doesn’t fit his narrative of plants-good, animals-bad?

        1. You are right Stephen. Dr G talks as a vegan activist but not from a science point of view. Like you said, screw the kid with autism in the name of veganism. If this is a vegan site, let say it and there is nothing wrong with that ideal but don’t disguise it under the science umbrella because you will hurt some animal called human by making biased statements or mixing up things (such as A1 and A2 milk are equally bad).

        2. “Any you DID notice, I’m sure, that the whole issue of GLUTEN being problematic in autism wasn’t pursued to any conclusion by the good doctor. Is this because it doesn’t fit his narrative of plants-good, animals-bad?”

          And, pray, what is the next video about? Hint, look at the Doctor’s Note at the top of the page. You don’t mention this because it doesn’t fit your agenda of accusing Dr Greger of bias perhaps? Or perhaps you just didn’t notice that? In which case, I apologise for the sarcasm but ……

          it is amusing that the people here with the most frequent and shrill accusations of bias seem to be those who display the most bias in their own comments.

        3. Umm did you not WATCH the video Stephen?! A2 milk is linked to autism, too!
          Dr. Gregor is one of few who does NOT ignore the science! That is why he does not reccomend the consumption of the deadliest foods because of a mineral here or a vitamin there. Just like no responsible health care practitioner would reccomend kids consume mars bars instead of milky ways due to one possibly being slightly less harmful in some regard.
          But, A2, as is clearly explained in this video has you watched it through, is NO better for autism.

          I’m more than just a vegan and animal rights activist and conservationist. I’m also someone thoroughly interested in nutritional science and deeply concerned about the health of people who aren’t given this kind of vital information which they have every right to. Can’t thank Dr. Gregor enough for making this life saving info available to the public.

          As has already been pointed out to you, his latest video addresses gluten and autism.

          1. Oh, you mean the deadliest foods that the longest-lived people eat?

            The traditional Okinawa diet included plenty of pork.
            The Japanese diet includes lots of fish.
            The Swiss diet includes lots of dairy and beef.

            The diet of the bottom 20 countries in terms of longevity is essentially vegan.

            Those are facts, not opinions.

            1. No, they are not facts. This is stuff and nonsense collected from crank websites.

              It is always fascinating to see people who firmly believe that their prejudices, misrepresentations and opinions are “facts”…. and see absolutely no reason to substantiate their claims for the benefit mere mortals like the rest of us who do not have access to such “facts”.

              The traditional Okinawan diet did not contain lots of pork. The traditional Japanese diet did not contain lots of fish.
              .http://www.okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2007_1114_434s.pdf

              There are no “vegan” countries. However, there are very poor countries where people can’t afford to eat large amounts of animal foods. The people of poor countries like those usually have lower life expectancy. People in rich countries usually have longer life expectancy and can afford to eat more animal foods. However, explaining the difference in life expectancy between such countries in terms of animal food consumption doesn’t seem a like a particularly convincing argument, especially when you consider countries like Kuwait, the Bahamas etc (or the US) where they eat more meat than they do in Switzerland but still have lower life expectancy.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

  18. S,

    Seems you are going all Rottweiler in some of your characterizations.

    Maybe you would benefit from reading something the German govt. has put out in re: vegans.

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/bfif-vda111417.php

    It starts:

    “Deficiencies in nutrients like vitamin B12 or iron are possible in those who completely refrain from eating foods of animal origin, particularly in the case of pregnant women and children”, says BfR President Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel. “If we want information on potential risks to reach the target group, then it’s essential that we know about their attitudes.”

    The BfR is now publishing the findings of a research project on the individual and social influencing factors that motivate people to take up and maintain a vegan diet (in German). One of the things that became clear in the project was that effective risk communication needs to pick up on the existing convictions of vegans. The aim is to provide concrete tips for everyday life which can be combined with a vegan diet.

    1. Lonie

      That seems a very modest problem given that significant portions of the US meat eating population appear to have more nutritional deficiencies than this. See eg
      https://www.cdc.gov/nutritionreport/pdf/4page_%202nd%20nutrition%20report_508_032912.pdf

      Compare those figures to the estimates that a mere 0.5% of the US population is supposedly “vegan” and it becomes clear that this is a matter of omnivores like yourself focussing on the mote in the vegan’s eye while determinedly ignoring the beam in their own, Even the USDA accepts that well-planned vegan diets will be nutritionally complete
      https://www.vegetariantimes.com/uncategorized/vegetarianism-in-america
      https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-5/

      Returning to Europe, this apparent double standard is underlined by comparative analyses of the the quality of “vegan” and omnivore diets which suggest that “vegan” diets are nutritionally superior.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

      So, perhaps we can turn it around and suggest that you would benefit from reading something that the US Government has put out about vegans? That is the US Dietary Guidelines Appendix 5 cited above.

      As dear Jerry Lewis might say – but won’t – harping on about nutritional deficiencies in “vegan” diets while ignoring the actual observed nutritional deficiencies in many US meat eaters’ diets seems like “cherry picking’ and “bias”.

      1. So, perhaps we can turn it around and suggest that you would benefit from reading something that the US Government has put out about vegans?

        Tom, I’m more of a “Supplementarian” and have my own science to digest, so to speak. ‘-)

          1. When I posted that for S to consider, I was subtly suggesting she take note of the German entity realizing the need to understand anyone choosing vegan, and maybe realize the reverse may be applicable… understanding why some are not totally WFPB.

            That was before I learned that at least one of the posters here was tied to milk production without full disclosure.

            I agree that most who come to NF as WFPB practitioners are likely very aware of what good nutrition practices are.

    2. Lonie, not going “rottweiller,” though I think I’m gonna take that one as a compliment! Just speaking the truth and making calls where I see them. If I seem a little irritated in some of my replies, it’s because it’s a little irritating when people start going so far as accusing Dr. Greger of enjoying when people suffer simply because they don’t like the scientific findings he’s reciting.

      1. Oh, I also wanted to add in my reply to you (Lonie), that I’m not interested in reading a German publication of veganism and malnutrition. I’m already quite well read on the subject of a plant based diet and through both my education on the matter as well as experience and observations, I know that a plant based diet is our best bet for optimal health and a better and more plentiful source of nutrients than an omnivorous diet. B12 is an important supplement for anyone, especially those not consuming animals who have been supplemented with it, and I make sure I do so once a week. I agree that this is important knowledge for people to know, among other things, because it’s true that we’re starting from scratch in a sense, in learning how to eat properly as we’ve been lied to for generations. Luckily it’s simple and Dr. Greger helps make it clear.
        As for iron, iron is so abundant in plants I would imagine someone just isn’t eating balanced or enough to develop a deficiency unless they have some other disorder. When I measured my iron intake, I get well over the safe limit of iron without supplementing, but we know it’s all safe when it’s from plants.

  19. The proceeds of nutritionfacts.org products go to charity. Please check that the charities you donate to are low overhead. I mean some charities think that overhead should include company cars, first class accommodation and travel. Charities should be primarily about alms-giving right? It would be better to invest in projects that will deal with the number one obstacle to going completely plant based. Long chain omega-3 fatty acids. No supplement companies in Australia are making vegan epa-dha products. Overseas there are some but the excipients are questionable or the cost painful on the hip pocket. Maybe invest in making a vertically integrated scalable business model that can make algal epa-dha oil cheap and widely available. The product shouldn’t contain excipients that customers would rather avoid, even if they seem to be harmless. If the excipients aren’t harmful but the customer is unsure, they should provide information to inform the customer about the excipients’ safety and allay their fears. There’s also this, but it’s gmo so, some may not like it. Also b-12.

    Cyanocobalamin while cheap it’s not for everyone. There’s a genetic problem for some (mthfr gene mutation) that people aren’t even aware of and it would be hard to test for, for various reasons. I’m guessing the cost of the test would be high because it wouldn’t be subsidized and doctors would be reluctant to order the test. Cyanocobalamin is bad for people with kidney disease. Make a better cobalamin product (e.g. shelf-stable methylcobalamin) or improve gp education so that they can support vegans to find the best solution (e.g. injection) for their needs. The gp could test a patient’s kidney function and get a genetic test to determine whether cyano-b12 is suitable, and if not, prescribe a reliable alternative. My gp makes it kind of difficult to talk about b-12 supplementation. I feel like the doctor’s in a rush or thinks I’ll be eating meat (even if i say i want to go vegan) and getting it from there and so doesn’t think it’s important. Sorry for putting this much effort in a comment.

    1. Fanaticism leads to high levels of stress? Just use some quality fish oil and some methylcobalamin?

      Even strict non-GMO vegans have been tested to have high levels of toxics. You should try to avoid a lot of pollutants…but you are never going to avoid ALL the bad stuff. You CAN reduce some of it.

      At any rate you will be far ahead of the SAD people.

      1. Normally I wouldn’t care so much about being healthy but there’s a lot of sickness in my family lately. I guess it’s due to getting old. My father has dementia, type 2 diabetes and a AAA, my mother had an ischemic stroke and has lost some of her dexterity and become depressed (made worse by anti-depressants i think). My brother has been pushed into schizophrenia further thanks to anti-psychotics. I’ve got a tiny inguinal hernia (it doesn’t show but i can feel it hurt sometimes). We’re quite isolated and coping with these problems mostly on our own. That’s kind of why i want do what i can to help whoever I can in my family. Maybe i’m overdoing it, but i feel like i have to try.

        1. Thanks for sharing. I hope it works out and congratulations on deciding to fight for your family’s health.

          As a bonus, if you become healthier or at least halt or slow the progression of disease you should feel better emotionally also. This study suggests that vegetarians tend to experience fewer negative mood states than omnivores
          https://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-rearden/vegetarian-mental-health_b_1417756.html
          https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-26

        2. Arthur, doesn’t sound like you’re overdoing anything, sounds like you’re being really responsible, caring and proactive about your family’s health and that’s awesome! I highly suggest you read Dr. Greger’s book “How Not To Die.” So sorry to hear about your family’s ailments and I’m sure at the very least, things will improve for you guys as you start approaching things through nutrition. Best of luck to you guys.

          1. Thank you both for the support. If only my GPs weren’t so defeatist and made me aware of things i could have done before our health deteriorated to this state. If you know of a good algae omega-3 product let me know. I’ve narrowed it down to Deva nutrition and Dr Fuhrman. I haven’t bought the deva one because it’s got orange oil and i found on wikipedia it causes cancer in male rats, but not proven yet to cause cancer in humans. Dr Fuhrman’s product is expensive and would take many weeks to arrive. I’ve had bad experiences with international shipping and I fear i may not get it or worse receive it damaged. There’s no express delivery option for international deliveries when i try to buy it. Also the natural flavour may have limonene too.

            1. I presume you are in the UK? haven’t lived there for years but, living in Australia, I find that iherb in the US offers a good range at reasonable prices, with cheap postatge

              https://au.iherb.com/search?kw=vegan+dha

              Minami might be an option for you. They are based in Holland and you can probably get them locally (or via eg Amazon UK). They seem a good quality vegan DHA with minimal fillers etc compared to other brands.

              1. I live in Australia actually so I’ll look at iHerb more closely, see if i can find a suitable product. I’d appreciate any other help in finding suitable supplements. Long chain omega-3 fatty acids, modest calcium + vitamin d supplements, iodine, would cover most gaps i think.

            2. Arthur, I don’t personally supplement with DHA/EPA, I just consume 2 tbsp of ground flax daily as a rule. ALA is really important for heart health so I recommend that for everyone.
              As for algae supplements, the only one I found pure enough for me to consider was a dropper bottle of DHA/EPA by Nutru (I believe that’s the company name if memory serves). It was the ONLY one I could find without palm oil which is as cruel as the animal agriculture industries and as destructive (the “conflict-free” and “sustainable” palm oil claims are a marketing ploy… companies literally lie and/or are deceived by organizations like The RSPO which was actually created by the biggest buyers of palm oil in the first place and is where those claims were born). I’m hoping they come out with more ethical and purer forms of algae oil supplements in the future, not because I feel the need to supplement but because I know others could benefit.
              For me, I’m vegan to avoid cruelty and exploitation of animals so palm oil is a no-go – it’s actually unhealthy too. In the meantime, best of luck! If you decide you need a supplement for this and can only find one you’re able to use that contains palm oil/palm oil derived ingredients, I’m not shaming you so I hope I didn’t come across that way, but I do urge you to boycott palm oil in your other products and perhaps let the company know you’d prefer their product to be palm oil free.

              Also it sounds like you’d appreciate Dr. Greger’s book “How Not to Die” as there’s a lot in there which explains how you can help reverse existing diseases through diet.

              1. And no problem! Good luck to you and your family! You’re already ahead of most in that you’re aware of the major role nutrition plays in our health and are being proactive!

  20. Thank you for the very detailed post, Alef1.

    I have always been very concerned about the microwave radiation, especially as I have them mounted at the eye/head level, even though I tend to walk away once I turn it on.

    In fact, it so happened that I was looking around online for a remote operated microwave(haha, funny?)

    In that regard, your post is very, very timely.

    Various microwave detectors are available at Walmart for as low as 15-20 bucks. Not bad when I expected them to be in the thousands!

    https://www.walmart.com/ip/HT-M2-High-Precision-Digital-LCD-Display-Microwave-Leak-Detector-0-9-99mW-cm2/847456680?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=11232&adid=22222222228103540654&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=m&wl3=218632317290&wl4=pla-355576291635&wl5=9021506&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=117089434&wl11=online&wl12=847456680&wl13=&veh=sem

    https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Microwave-Oven-Leakage-Meter/dp/B0027AIL7A

    http://www.lessemf.com/mw-oven.html

    1. I haven’t used my microwave for some years now… ever since someone planted the idea in my head that microwaving food would cause it to lose nutritional value.

      And after reading alef1’s thread on microwaves, I’ve delayed setting up a powerful wi-fi access point to extend the range of my router. I’m good in my house for now but once I add on a sunroom/office, I’ll need the boost. Just trying to figure out where I can install it to do the least harm.

    2. These will probably not work, except for detecting gross leakage from a microwave oven.

      The MW detector model I have:

      https://www.amazon.com/Extech-480836-Strength-Meter-3-5GHz/dp/B001CNAPTU/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1503710820&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=microwave+detector+extech

      Extech 480836 3.5GHz RF EMF Strength Meter

      It has the necessary sensitivity – but only goes up to 3.5 GHz, and as many devices have frequencies that go up to 5.5 GHz, it will greatly underestimate exposures from short wavelengths, just as even the best infrared light detector will do a very poor job as detecting ultraviolet.

  21. What if I can’t breastfeed my newborn for a medical condition and donated breastmilk is not available at my place?
    What is the safest option ? soy milk ? amino acid formula?
    My daughter is 3 months old and has cow milk allergy.

    1. You have to find an enhanced, fortified plant-based milk that is made specially for babies whom mothers can not breastfeed. You might find it in a pharmacy.

        1. Soy in general is healthy, Dr. Greger has a bunch of videos on it. But for infants, I can’t comment on that as I don’t know. However, there were some comments on this topic way up at the top that talked about soy being a good option. I’d read the comments though, I’m going by memory and just reciting what I read the posters write.

          1. Oh there was also some other beneficial info too in those comments, talking about how infants shouldn’t have nut milks before a certain age. I’d definitely scroll to the top because I remember there being some good information there on this subject.

            1. Yes, for very young babies anyway, most fortified milks are based on grains and not nuts, like rice. There are different ones for different age ranges. Of course, we are speaking of fortified milks for babies found in pharmacy and not plant-based milks found in supermarkets.

  22. Besides autism risk, it seems to one that lactase persistence is the most widespread genetic disease known to mankind and the first cause of death, invalidity and morbidity in the world today.

    1. It’s not a diseases, its a genetic variation selected by evolution because it proved useful to survival to the groups that had it. These are the groups that created Western Civilization, which includes almost everything you use in your life today. If you bother to look at a list of the countries with the greatest longevity, you’ll see that most of them eat huge amounts of dairy. All of the bottom-tier countries are mostly vegan. Your statement is utterly ridiculous.

      1. Stephen

        “Your statement is utterly ridiculous.”

        Wealthy Western countries eat lost of dairy and wealthy countries tend to have high life expectancy. True. However, the top 3 countries by life expectancy according to the WHO are Japan, Switzerland, and Singapore. It is utterly ridiculous to imply that eating “huge amounts of dairy” promotes long life since that could be true only of Switzerland among those three.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

        Whether dairy products are particularly unhealthy is another matter. The 7th Day Adventist mortality study found that lacto ovo “vegetarians” have lower mortality than meat eaters, which suggests that meat eating may well be more unhealthy. On the other hand, strict vegetarians and pescatarians had lower mortality than lacto ovo vegetarians which might impliy some adverse effects from dairy consumption.

        1. Drinking lots of dairy has never been implicated with making people live long and healthy by itself. But on the other hand, it has not been proven to make people live shorter life and less healthy. And also on another hand, eating plant foods have been proven to extend people’s life. So this is all proven through billions of people and we don’t need to prove further with lab rats.

          And so the ideal diet is for eating mostly plant foods and in addition to certain amount of animal foods, albeit small amount and good dairy is one, for optimal health. This is what the top countries of the world in longevity have been eating for thousand of years and not what is described in a western novel called “The China Study” which was written in someone’s bedroom in the USA.

          Sciences have proven that you need sufficient essential and conditional amino acids, collagen, DHA/DHEA/EPA, protein, minerals, certain vitamins for optimal health. And so unless you spend all day long eating a variety of plant foods and you may still come short, then you don’t have enough nutrition for optimal health.

          Now the 7th Day Adventist kind of “study” was made to promote an ideology aka religion called veganism in which they used as cover, but any kind of “study” can be tailored to produce certain desirable results. Such as they may compare 7th day adventist who live a clean life eating plant foods with 7th day adventist who are meat eaters but eat no plant foods and are smokers / drug users, who know who they picked but of course we know that the clean 7th day adventist live longer. Not because you are a 7th adventist that you always live a clean and exemplary life but there are also smokers and drug users among them.

          And by the way, the 7th day adventist that the vegans like to promote as example, live on average about 85. OK it’s better than the national lifespan of mostly SAD eaters but nothing to write home about.

          There are already real life “studies” without spending a dime, of billions of people in the world of meat eaters who also eat a lot of plant foods plus herbs plus mushroom plus saturated fat who live very long healthy life like 95 or more than 100.

          Just buy a $1000 ticket and travel to those countries to see what they eat instead of listening to a guy writing a fantasy novel or the so called Okinawan diet which describe nothing close to reality. Or listening to the mad guy living down under.

          1. Or spend $50 to eat at a Chinese or Asian or French or Mediterranean restaurant in the U.S. to see what people eat. It’s almost exactly what they eat in their home country.

            1. Far better than listening to the weird and wonderful fantasies, fabrications and name calling by Jerry (he doesn’t like scientific evidence or reports – they keep on disagreeing with his opinions), would be to actually read major reports on nutrition and health by panels of expert scientists.

              For example, the WHO report on “Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases”
              http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/en/

              And the World Cancer Research Fund expert report on food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer
              http://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Second-Expert-Report.pdf

              Then there’s the scientific report of the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
              https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/pdfs/scientific-report-of-the-2015-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee.pdf

              Whatever you do, don’t believe Jerry’s counterfactual opinions about saturated fat. Doing so could could increase your risk of cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and certain cancers. Some useful scientific resources about dietary fat are here:

              http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequirements/fatsandfattyacids_humannutrition/en/
              http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510

              1. And your take on this?

                *Saturated Fat*

                1. *Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions*

                A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis found *no association* between saturated fat consumption and all-cause mortality, CHD, CHD mortality, ischaemic stroke or type 2 diabetes in healthy adults. It also found no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. It also noted that one study found that a greater intake of saturated fat was associated with *less progression of atherosclerosis* whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression

                *‘Coronary artery disease pathogenesis and treatment urgently requires a paradigm shift. Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong. A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.*

                http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285

                *2. Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies*

                *Conclusions** Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats.
                Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats.*

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/

                1. Pete

                  I think I replied to a similar post from you elsewhere.

                  Basically,

                  A) Malhotra’s opinions are consistent with the scientific consensus, and

                  B) The meta analysis (your second link) found that saturated fat needs to be replaced by PUFAs or complex carbohydrates for CVD mortality reductions to occur. No benefit was observed where saturated fat was replaced by refined carbohydrates.

                  1. Oh, for an “edit” button ………………………

                    I should have written …… “Malhotra’s opinions are NOT consistent with the scientific consensus”

              2. Funny, TG will believe the World Health organization or the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee when it is convenient and it fits his agenda. And do you know that for years, doctors said that smoking is harmless and the AHA was pushing for margarine and shortening and vegetable oil in U.S. households? All these anti fat propaganda is leading to the sugar addiction epidemic of today.

                No wonder that it comes from a guy who took statin drug and fried his liver and pancrea and still praises the drug.

                1. “All these anti fat propaganda is leading to the sugar addiction epidemic of today.”

                  Sure, Jerry. Americans are actually eating fewer carbs now than they were before WW1. But more fat and more cholesterol. Curious, eh? Facts – who needs ’em though? Let’s just believe con artists and crackpots instead. They make up nice, palatable facts – so much nicer than real ones.

                  And the “anti-fat propaganda’ is actually more correctly called scientific evidence. The evidence is that high levels of trans fat and saturated fat consumption are unhealthy. So is consuming refined carbohydrates But yes, let’s call it propaganda instead. That way we have an excuse to eat unhealthy foods and we can clap ourselves on the back for being so clever that we aren’t suckered by evidence that eating saturated fat is unhealthy.

              3. and whats your take on this Tom..?

                ‘A kelpie thought to be the world’s oldest dog has died at home on a dairy farm in the Australian state of Victoria. Maggie, a black-and-tan kelpie, was thought to be 30 years old. *Woolsthorpe* dairy farmer Brian McLaren confirmed the death of his “great mate” on Wednesday morning.Apr 20, 2016’

                She wasn’t pampered but she was well looked after. She always had milk — not too much of it, but she loved her milk — and anything else she’d wanted,” Mr McLaren said.

                http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/goodbye-maggie-australian-kelpie-may-be-worlds-oldest-dog-dies/7341720

                1. I am not sure what canine nutrition and health has to do with human nutrition and health. However, I would just say that Jeanne Calment smoked until she was well over 100. George Burns also smoked and lived to over 100. I don’t think those things prove that smoking is healthy any more than a dog drinking milk proves that dairy consumption is healthy.

                  In any case, I would have thought that carnivores like dogs are better adapted to eating animal foods than humans are so I would not have thought that your story was particularly relevant to human health. Dogs don’t normally get heart disease for example even if they have high blood cholesterol. Unlike humans.

              4. Tom, let me say upfront that you are one of the best at finding research…
                research that confirms your by-the-book personality advancing the narrowly devised studies conclusions.

                But a recent episode of “Bull” on CBS gave us a glimpse of how research is done. That is, research done on humans is often taken from a pool of people who do the research for a living. And while doing so they have to swear they underwent a 30 washout period from the last time they participated in a trial. In the TV program, these were the healthy controls.

                I think you and the people you warn against looking at anything other than the “facts” are depriving yourselves of potentially life-changing approaches to health simply because it hasn’t been given the blessing of the all-consuming grant-recipient community whose primary objective is receiving grant money to fund their salaried work.

                We’ve all seen how studies have reached different conclusions while studying the same thing. If science was absolute, this wouldn’t be happening.

                For me anyway, real science is holistically arrived at. That is, nutrition for instance is studied in groups of foods, herbs, spices rather than as individual things.

                I’ve got no real issue with the information that Dr. Greger provides us. It seems to be presented in a progression of the science and in some ways, seems more observational and having plasticity than a narrowly observed scientific paper offers in the way of useable conclusions.

                Just my two Bolivars

                (Better spend them in a hurry before they become worthless ‘-)

                1. Lonie

                  I don’t think that there is any real alternative to evidence. Reasoning alone can lead us astray, so can analogies, wishful thinking, vested interests, personal testimonials and intuition. If you think that the “facts” offered by people like Jerry Lewis et al are just as valid as actual evidence, I would disagree.

                  Science is not perfect but it is subject to self-correction unlike these alternative approaches.

                  in any case, the latest “thing” in nutritional science is ‘dietary patterns’ which I think is what your point about groups of foods is trying to say. See eg the latest US dietary guidelines etc. This is an attempt to get around problems that may emerge from not considering interactions between individual nutrients – like the French Paradox or the fact that high salt diets may stop weight gain
                  http://now.uiowa.edu/2015/06/french-fry-hypothesis-busted

                  However, I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. Both approaches are valuable.

                  Your approach unfortunately runs the risk of attributing equivalency to science and woo, and lending unwonted credibility to nuts and snake oil merchants. And industry propaganda for that matter.

                  1. I get what you are saying, and I’m sure you will find the link I’m about to post as falling into the snake oil category.

                    But what if the ketones as fuel really work? I suspect you and others here would deny, deny, deny, even if eventually their science proves it works.

                    And no, I’m not going to rush out and buy this expensive product, but I won’t rule that out in future if it is proved safe and beneficial.

                    http://www.businessinsider.com/ketones-fuel-athletic-performance-sports-2017-11

                    1. The ketogenic diet is now being explored to treat several metabolic diseases and even cancer. But it was already known and used since 1920 to treat epilepsy and so there is nothing really new, but a lot of people are still in denial a century later because of this low obsolete and misleading low fat theory that should be put in museum a long time ago.

                      One thousand years from now, anthropologists will dig up old fossils and discover that the reason that people got so sick and civilization was almost wiped out, because of the so-called cholesterol and saturated fat theory. Somebody will be able to write a big research and win the Nobel prize for discovering the cause of the biggest disease in the 21st century that almost wipe out human civilization.

                    2. Lonie

                      Ketones may well boost athletic performance. So what? Lots of things boost athletic performance but don’t promote healthy longevity.

                      Yes, there are lots of people out there promoting ketogenic and low carb diets. These diets can also be of some therapeutic use in certain conditions like intractable paediatric epilepsy. Certain chemotherapy drugs and surgery are beneficial in certain conditions too but it doesn’t mean we should all rush out and get chemotherapy or surgery.

                      Even medically supervised ketogenic diets carry risks

                      “Results: The most common early-onset complication was dehydration, especially in patients who started the KD with initial fasting. Gastrointestinal disturbances, such as nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, also were frequently noted, sometimes associated with gastritis and fat intolerance. Other early-onset complications, in order of frequency, were hypertriglyceridemia, transient hyperuricemia, hypercholesterolemia, various infectious diseases, symptomatic hypoglycemia, hypoproteinemia, hypomagnesemia, repetitive hyponatremia, low concentrations of high-density lipoprotein, lipoid pneumonia due to aspiration, hepatitis, acute pancreatitis, and persistent metabolic acidosis. Late-onset complications also included osteopenia, renal stones, cardiomyopathy, secondary hypocarnitinemia, and iron-deficiency anemia. Most early- and late-onset complication”s were transient and successfully managed by careful follow-up and conservative strategies. However, 22 (17.1%) patients ceased the KD because of various kinds of serious complications, and 4 (3.1%) patients died during the KD, two of sepsis, one of cardiomyopathy, and one of lipoid pneumonia”
                      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-a2-milk-carry-less-autism-risk/#comment-433492

                      Not surprising then, that low carb diets tend to be associated with higher mortality. But people still promote them – often people with links to Atkins. caveat emptor.

                    3. Tom, I think we are talking two different, yet related, things here. The product I linked to is indeed a ketone product, but using it does not necessarily equate to being a proponent of a ketogenic diet.

                      It was my understanding that it is more like a temporary replacement for the ketogenic diet and one continues eating as one would normally do. The ketones wear off after something like 5 hours and during that period you are getting the benefit of more stamina, more strength… a higher level of focus (as reported by the reporters who tested and wrote about the product.)

                      And these things occurred without the test subjects even realizing they were getting these benefits. So that suggests no side effects, just results… results like the reporters skipping their three o’clock coffee without realizing they had done so.

                      In my science book, this is a perfect food. Not that I would want to utilize the product 24/7… for one that would be too expensive. But just yesterday I spent the whole day working outside on some occasionally labor intensive projects. It would have been nice to have started the afternoon, especially, with a boost in stamina and strength.

                      I know it sounds like I’m promoting the product. I’m not. I’m just defending the idea that burning ketones in a manner like this suggests, shouldn’t be lumped into the same category as a ketogenic diet for those who are scared stiff of anything with the ketone in it.

                    4. You may be right Lonie but the long term safety of such things has not been established. Don’t people also get this sort of benefit from chewing coca leaves and taking caffeine pills? Or chewing betel for that matter?

                      I’m always been a “it’s the second mouse that gets the cheese” sort of a bloke.

                    5. I think I remember the article saying the formula was developed at the behest of DARPA for the use by soldiers. And while the military in the past hasn’t had such a good record (agent orange use in Viet Nam) in the distant past, it may actually be getting its act together in funding useful research.

                      But like you say, let the Silicon Valley types and the military do the actual use testing for awhile, then decide. But what I’m reading so far makes this appear to be something to have in one’s nutritional toolkit.

        2. Well, that’s the top 3 countries. Of the top 30 countries, only 3 are not big dairy consumers. Most of the bottom countries are vegan or nearly so. I didn’t make up these statistics and I didn’t actually say or imply that eating huge amounts of dairy promotes long life. But obviously it doesn’t shorten life, either, which is what ab30 was saying.

          I think it’s very, very hard to extract out the data to definitively determine how healthy or harmful dairy products are, especially since fermented dairy products may be healthier than non-fermented, and because of the a1 v a2 issue (which I think is probably very real, and a problem).

          I don’t think most people visiting this web site are very open-minded. I think most of them have a political agenda that to them is more important than any health agenda, and to them milk is evil because it’s an animal product. I’m just saying that even a1 dairy be all THAT bad, if the biggest consumers of it are among the longest-lived in the world.

          1. Excellent post. If I can give you 10 thumbs up then I will.

            This site is a vegan site, just admit it. So don’t expect the videos, blogs and discussions to be scientific but only to push an agenda. It is a noble agenda though but just say that it is a vegan agenda and don’t pretend.

          2. Fair enough but that longest lived population and dairy consumption association is probably better explained by wealth and excellent health care systems rather than dairy consumption in and of itself. I mean Kazakhstan and Albania have very high milk consumption rates but aren’t famous for high life expectancy. Or wealth or excellent health care systems. Observational studies are notoriously vulnerable to confounding.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_milk_consumption_per_capita

            As for prejudice and agendas, your posts suggest that you have some pretty strong opinions and biases yourself. In any case, people often mix up health, ethical and environmental reasons for avoiding certain foods. So yes agendas …. but people in glass houses?

      2. Stephen, lactase persistence is not an advantageous feature selected by evolution, it is a genetic sickness cultivated by our occidental culture which emphasizes on the need of milk and dairy products in our diet whereas they are totally unnatural to us biologically…

        Lactase persistence is a man-made genetic disease which is related not only to autism, but to diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases and cancers affecting our reproductive organs (ovarian, prostate, etc).

        Dairy consumption allowed by this genetic trouble and cultivated by our industrial culture might be the first threat to our species nowadays.

        1. Lactase persistence is not a sickness. It’s an evolutionary response to the introduction of lactose, in the form of mammal milk, into the diet of some of our ancestors. It’s not limited to “occidental” people; many African herder populations also have it. The advantages of milk logically outweigh the disadvantages, or the lactase persistence alleles would not have rapidly spread throughout the European populations. These populations are very long-lived, and most chronic diseases they suffer are more likely from vegan foods such as sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated plant oils, and mutated wheat with high levels of prolamins. And non-vegan red meat. Many studies show that yogurt is a healthy food. Cheese, too. And the very concept of “natural” or “unnatural” is absolutely unscientific. EVERYTHING is natural. Drinking milk from a cow is no less “natural” than eating grass seeds that must be extensively processed and cooked to be edible. Beans don’t “want” to be eaten, which is why they produce nasty chemicals to sicken us. Vegans do have less cardiovascular disease than omnivores, but they have higher rates of various other diseases. There is nothing demonic about lactase persistence. It’s just a survival strategy, and a highly successful one.

          1. I am not an expert in evolution (as Tom once wisely observed), other than being its occasional beneficiary or victim. However, on this matter there is an obvious failure of logic by Dr G. – which is demonstrably unscientific. It is a shame as it brings into question his many positives.
            Methinks he is extremely clever, and has a superb instinct for his audience. Which is is the art of politics, performance and marketing. Successful. Yes. Scientific…not consistently. Ethical, well….best leave that for others to decide. It guarantees a committed audience of like-minded individuals, but will always limit the size of that audience whilst built on an obvious falsehood.

            The mutation enabling adults to consume cows milk gave European milk herders/drinkers a substantial evolutionary advantage over their fellow travelers, the hunter-gatherers. That is, increased, and more importantly *consistent *calories, an alternative to polluted water, electrolytes, vitamins, minerals, and milk proteins – the latter protecting against starvation during droughts and food shortages. By comparison, the hunter gatherers where expending more energy for less (and less consistent) calories and nutrients. Sadly, they could not compete. They were more prone to succumbing to starvation, famines and disease – which would have continued (despite its many flaws) on the development of agriculture. The result is that Europeans are principally descended from milk drinkers, rather than their contemporaries – tribes of hunter-gatherers. I daresay the latter had a better life balance, and were nicer people, but niceness is not an evolutionary imperative. We Europeans have adapted our genome to consume milk as a superior survival mechanism to hunter-gathering. This has had a host of consequences in terms of who we are – and not always in a positive way. For example, it perhaps allowed us to better engage and prevail in conflicts.

            Obviously our milk drinking ancestors achieved greater longevity than their fellow hunter-gatherers. But today, hunter-gatherer equivalents have a consistent food supply and are not competing for survival with a much better nourished competitor. In today’s terms milk does not necessarily provide a longevity advantage, but nor does it – as Dr G constantly promotes – diminish it. Indeed, if one abandons milk (and even meat for that matter) they must make other significant adjustments in their diet to compensate. Dr G. is best advised to confine himself to that part of the equation.

            In the bigger picture what it also tells us is that the vegan/vegetarian notion that cows milk has historically only ever been for calves, and never for cross-species nourishment, etc, is just a giant fantasy. Our adaptation has genetically wed us to milking cows. The unsentimental truth is that we have prevailed because we exploited animals, just as they exist in the numbers they do because we have need for them. Thats the deal. Ethically, one cannot condone it, but the alternative for our ancestors was rather bleak. For them, it was a matter of survival. There is a great deal of shameful animal cruelty in the world. Fortunately, vegans and vegetarians compel us to confront these ethical issues. Which is a mighty good thing.
            It helps draw the line, but it does not need to do so by fudging the science.

            1. i don’t think it does fudge the science.

              My understanding of Dr G’s arguments is that dairy consumption may carry some risks (hormones, mammalian protein, Neu5Gc etc) and it is not necessary to consume milk. Yes, we can consume milk (most of us anyway) but why bother when there are safer alternatives?

              I don’t think that there is any solid science that dairy is either necessary or on balance beneficial (at least in wealthy countries where people have adequate calories and a reasonably varied diet).

              1. Tom.
                I expect Dr G. and I would be in complete agreement on the excesses of dairy-farming , and in particular its (over) industrialisation. Milk is not worth touching if it is not derived from pasture-fed cows (organic milk is not necessarily derived from pastured cows). Over-crowded industrialised feedlots create an increased need for antibiotics – which is obviously a big negative. Feed lots also intentionally over-extend the genetic milking potential of cows – which correspondingly shortens their lives. China is rapidly heading down the path of industrialised dairy because of a shortage of suitable pasture, and as a superior means of government control.
                Best to source milk from family farms and countries that do not need to house their cattle, and have pasture all year round (e.g., Australia, NZ)

                  1. Stephen, the principal dairy states in Australia are high-rainfall Victoria and Tasmania. They are very big producers, but in slight decline because of the low price of milk. Both have year round rye/clover pasture, cold winter temperatures (well suited to dairy cows) but absence of snow – and thereby little or no need for winter housing. In particular Gippsland and the Western district. The south of Western Australia is also good dairying land. The coastal regions of the more northern states have more tropical or subtropical pastures and temperatures less suitable for dairying – except perhaps in elevated regions (eg Atherton Tablelands).

                1. Pete

                  I am sure that milk etc from pasture fed cows better than milk from non pasture fed cows. But that doesn’t prove that it is healthy. There are still naturally occurring hormones. proteins, saturated fat etc etc even in milk from pasture-fed, organically raised cows.

                  There is no real evidence that full fat products are on balance healthy. The evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. Even the reduced fat dairy products don’t seem to deliver any benefits to people on calorifically sufficient, nutritionally adequate diets. So why accept the risk of harm that accompanies their consumption?

          2. Stephen, lactase non persistence is the natural state of affairs in the human body. It is a genetic feature of the body acting as a signal for the baby that after some time, it needs to change his diet and stop drinking the milk of his mother.

            By drinking cow’s milk, most of the occidental population lost this natural ability which is genetically programmed within our body. Doing so, we expose ourselves to the many risks associated with milk consumption. If we have this signaling process working (lactase non persistence) then we do not consume millk and we do not expose ourselves to those risks.

            That’s why lactase persistence is not an evolutionary feature, it is a deficiency into the biological signaling processes of our organism, and as such it is a genetic malfunctioning at the origin of many of our diseases related to animal foods consumption.

            1. ab, Interesting (and original) theory, but nonetheless complete nonsense.

              The genetic mutation for lactose persistence causes a switch from low to high mRNA expression in humans. This results in an alteration from low to high lactase activity (lactase being the enzyme which breaks down milk lactose). In short, the mutation causes an increase in the production of lactase in adult humans. Very straightforward.

              Animals (including humans) do not genetically adapt in a manner which is harmful. They adapt in a manner which achieves a net benefit. 10,000 years ago that net benefit was higher, more consistent and less polluted calories and other nutrients as a result of milk consumption. Which was the difference between life and death. Nowadays we dont need dairy, but our adaption to it means we have to make adjustments to our diet if we dont consume it.

              Lactase non persistence altered about 10,000 years ago when some human races (mostly European, but also some from Africa and the Middle East) developed a genetic mutation which facilitated lactase persistence. That is, a small group of milk drinking individuals would have created a genetic mutation which allowed them to digest cows milk as adults. This mutation is dominant, and would have been so successful it would have prevailed on a far wider scale. To the point where most in their expanded circle would have had the mutation in their genome.

              So lactose non-persistence in terms of cows milk was the ‘natural state of affairs in the (European) human 10,000 years ago. However, as a result of this genetic mutation it is not the ‘natural state of affairs’ any more.
              You theorise this has exposed humans to the many risks associated with milk consumption. If this were true this adaption would have died out. Moreover, despite what Dr G, says there is no credible scientific evidence whatsoever that milk is generally harmful to human heath. On the contrary it is beneficial. I also previously provided about 40 references, including systematic revues and meta-analysis which confirm that milk is overwhelmingly health beneficial. Ceasing milk consumption on ethical grounds is entirely reasonable. Ceasing it on the grounds of harm to health is completely unwarranted, and it is scientifically unsound and mischievous to say otherwise.

              1. Pete

                I haven’t read all your references – life is short – but your claim that diary consumption is proven beneficial appears incorrect. Sure, industry has funded lots of carefully-designed, favourable studies. However, I doubt if most scientists fins them convincing.

                May I remind you of the industry sponsored scientific consensus statement that emerged from a meeting Denmark five years ago. I don’t think the science has changed since then

                “Epidemiologic studies have shown a lower risk of CVD with lower intakes of full-fat dairy products and fatty red meats and higher intakes of PUFAs from vegetable fats, which is consistent with strong evidence that replacing SFAs by PUFAs reduces the risk of CVD (38). The use of nonhydrogenated vegetable oils (including canola or olive oil rich in MUFAs) decreases the CVD risk compared with animal fats. Thus, although the evidence is stronger for PUFAs, indirect evidence suggests that SFAs could also be replaced with MUFAs as well as unrefined carbohydrates with a low glycemic index. A valuable way to communicate the message is to describe the broad dietary pattern that decreases CVD risk. Note that only a minority of different populations adhere to a healthy dietary pattern. A healthy dietary pattern is primarily plant-based and low in SFAs, but can include lean meats and low-fat dairy products in small-to-modest amounts.”
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138219/

                Coming from an industry funded meeting, this isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of dairy consumption nor is it consistent with your apparent view that dairy consumption has been proven beneficial.

              2. Pete Granger, milk is one of the most polluted calories one can absorb… Is it a benefit for mankind, is it an evolutionary advantage ? Obviously not.

                Don’t you notice that the rate of overweight people is far greater in the population who drink milk ?

                If lactase persistence has occured in groups drinking milks, it is not because drinking milk is a benefit, it is because the body adapted to the conditions imposed on it about drinking milk. That is quite different from a benefit. It is an adaptation to poor diet conditions.

                Overweightness is the current state of affairs actually, and is in part driven by genetic mutations too, is it an evolutionary feature ? I doubt very much that it is.

                1. The entire world is polluted. Including the plants and vegetables we consume. https://greentumble.com/effect-of-pollution-on-plants/

                  Most of us carry a cocktail of chemical pollutants. Derived from agricultural spraying, polluted water, polluted air, acid rain, and so on.
                  Not sure why you would be so selective about dairying. Except in industrialized dairy it is no better or worse than any agricultural produce.
                  If it really concerns you enough you can purchase organic. The choice is freely available.
                  Do you know what they do with oats and other grains we consume? Because the growing season is relatively short (at least in the US) they apply glyphosate to the crop close to maturation. To desiccate it, and bring forward harvesting time. Glyphosate traces end up in our body. I can guarantee dairy farmers dont spray glyphosate onto milk just prior to ‘harvest’.
                  Chemical pollution is an enormous problem which is not confined to dairying. Animal welfare proponents selectively attack dairy because they have a philosophical objection to the farming of animals.
                  The evolutionary advantage for milk drinkers is that they inherited the earth rather than their predecessors – the hunter-gatherers. If your ancestors had not consumed milk your chances (as the descendant of hunter-gatherers) would have been significantly diminished. Thats the evolutionary advantage you have inherited from your ancestors.

                  The Chinese survived without the benefit of dairy, but they had to make a lot of adjustments to survive. And often they did not survive. Physically, most are undeveloped and much smaller than Europeans. Many millions starved to death because they did not have access to milk protein. Which is why China is so determined that every child is provided access to milk on a daily basis.

                  “I have a dream,” Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China once said. But his dream wasn’t about civil rights for all or racial harmony. It was about a future where every Chinese child would have enough milk to drink — a half-liter a day for each child.

                  ‘I have a dream to provide every Chinese, especially children, sufficient milk each day’

                  Milk protein protects against starvation. This was known way back in 1n 1914:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600532164. In the past, and even today in the Third World it is a considerable evolutionary advantage to be able to digest cows milk:

                  *Kwashiorkor*, also called protein malnutrition, condition caused by severe protein deficiency.
                  Kwashiorkor is most often encountered in developing countries in which the diet is high in starch and low in proteins. It is common in young children weaned to a diet consisting chiefly of cereal grains, cassava , plantain, and sweet potato or similar starchy foods.

                  https://www.britannica.com/science/kwashiorkor

                  *Kwashiorkor* is a form of severe protein–energy malnutrition characterized by edema , irritability, ulcerating dermatoses, and an enlarged liver with fatty infiltrates.

                  * Sufficient calorie intake,* but with insufficient protein consumption, distinguishes it from marasmus .
                  Kwashiorkor cases occur in areas of famine or poor food supply.[1] Cases in the developed world are rare.[2]

                  ….’parents who fed their child cassava failed to recognize malnutrition because of the edema caused by the syndrome and insisted the child was well-nourished despite the lack of dietary protein’

                  ‘Protein should be supplied only for anabolic purposes. The catabolic needs should be satisfied with carbohydrate and fat . Protein catabolism involves the urea cycle , which is located in the liver and can easily overwhelm the capacity of an already damaged organ.
                  The resulting liver failure can be fatal. This means in patients suffering from kwashiorkor, protein must be introduced back into the diet gradually. Clinical solutions include weaning the affected wit*h milk products a*nd increasing the intake of proteinaceous material to daily recommended amounts’.
                  ‘During one week, the diet, hyperglucidic, is gradually enriched in protein as well as essential elements: sweet milk with mineral salts and vitamins.
                  The diet may include lactases – so that children who have developed lactose intolerance can ingest dairy products – and antibiotics – to compensate for immunodeficiency. After two to three weeks, the milk is replaced by boiled cereals fortified with minerals and vitamins until its mass is at least 80% of normal weight. Traditional food can then be reintroduced. The child is considered healed when his mass reaches 85% of normal.

                  * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor

                  Cows’ milk supplemented with human lactoferrin can help undo damage to the intestine caused by malnutrition, according to new research.

                  A substantial proportion of children in developing countries have some form of malnutrition. Affected children often struggle to catch-up because of their gut’s diminished capacity for absorbing nutrients.

                  https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/milk-could-aid-fight-against-malnutrition/9425.article

                  Obesity has many causes but principally lack of exercise and excessive carbs (particularly processed carbs such as flour and sugar) that have either been overly substituted for fat, or consumed in conjunction with excessive fat.

                  1. Pete Granger, milk is a substance made by each particular species for their own babies. Cow’s milk is not for cows, it is for the cow’s baby.

                    So why are we stealing the milk of the cow’s baby, sir ? Is it necessary for one to live and develop normally ? Is it that without milk one is going to be malnourished and die ? Obviously not.

                    If milk is good for the cow’s baby, it is not good for the cow nor for human beings.

                    The main protein in cow’s milk ‘casein’ has been demonstrated to have carcinogenic effects in the diet of mammals (rats), an not plant proteins. So milk has carcinogenic effects, and cancer development uses the same processes in all mammals.

                    Of course, the use of chemicals in agriculture is a source of pollution, but bear in mind that those chemical pollutants accumulates in animal products, not in plant products…

                    Today, we have fridges to preserve our plant harvests. So malnutrition and famine is neither a technological issue nor an issue with the lack of food at our disposal.

                    1. Ab,

                      With respect, you are remarkable for being wrong on just about every assertion you have made.

                      ‘it is quite clear to me that when human beings started to drink the milk of other animals, their species started to degenerate with the apparition of a lactase persistence mutation’.

                      1. Not sure what you mean by ‘degenerate’? Genetic adaptations do not occur if they do not provide a benefit. This does not require a great knowledge of evolution. Its is a case of pure logic. Moral degeneration is another thing. I would argue mass starvation is the ultimate moral degeneration.

                      2. Cows milk was originally intended for calves. However, humans then ‘stole’ milk because it provided them superior nutrition to their usual fare. After a period Europeans genetically adapted to cows milk consumption by making it digestible. This provided the Europeans a survival advantage over their contemporaries. Therefore, cows milk is obviously better for humans when compared to what preceded it (principally a greater dependency on a plant-based diet). You cannot just assume cows milk is bad for adult humans because it was originally intended for calves alone. Surely the fact that we genetically adapted to milk consumption tells you milk was providing a survival benefit . The original intention of fruit and vegetable is now irrelevant (fruit and vegetables were not originally created for the benefit of humans any more than cows milk was).

                      3. Cows milk is no longer essential, but one’s diet has to be adjusted if choosing not to consume it. You are perfectly free to avoid cows milk if that is your preference. You are not perfectly free to falsely argue that cows milk does nutritional harm when that fails to correspond with the majority of scientific studies.

                      4. Chemicals accumulate in plants just the same as in animals. Indeed most chemical pollutants in cow comes from the plants they consume.

                      5. It is a complete fabrication to argue milk causes cancer. But if you are an anti-vax vegan you are not going to believe me no matter how many times I repeat it. You will prefer to believe what you want to believe. But just in case you do want to study the science here are a few references for you.
                      I am happy enough to respond to you if you actually read the studies. If you choose not to, then we are just wasting each others time.

                      Note: ‘calcium, and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) are the magic components in milk from pasture-fed cows. CLA is a component of milk fat.
                      Which is why saturated fat in dairy is unlike any other saturated fat, and should not be avoided. Paradoxically, CLA is a trans-fat, but a particularly healthy one. The trend clearly indicates dairy reduces the risk of cancer, not increases it. There are many compounds in milk which may contribute to its beneficial effect, including dairy calcium and CLA:

                      *‘Other constituents of milk and milk products which may have anti-carcinogenic properties *include *vitamin D* (in fortified dairy), *lactoferrin* (a protein in cows’ milk), *menaquinones* (a class of *vitamin K* compounds of which cheese is an important dietary source) and *probiotic* bacteria in fermented products such as yogurt16-20. In addition, the fatty acids *conjugated linoleic acid* (CLA) and *butyric acid*, and components of the membrane which encloses the fat droplets in milk (milk fat globule membrane; MFGM) such as *sphingolipids* and particularly sphingomyelin, are thought to have anti-cancer effects16, 20-22. With respect to CLA, data from the Swedish Mammography Cohort found intakes of CLA could partly explain the relation between high-fat dairy food and lower colorectal cancer incidence observed in this study23. However, in relation to other cancers, including breast cancer, although promising from *in vitro* and animal work, the evidence for CLA from human studies is limited24. The mechanisms by which dairy constituents may reduce cancer risk are not mutually exclusive and there may be interaction within the dairy matrix to produce the beneficial effects.’

                      http://www.milknutritiousbynature.eu/milk-facts/health-effects/dairy-and-cancer/

                      CLA has been shown to reduce the risk of cancer, in both experimental and case control studies.

                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531702003937

                      CLA appears to work primarily by blocking the growth and metastatic spread of tumors, controlling the cell cycle, and by reducing inflammation.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976130

                      CLA is able to interrupt the omega-6 PUFA metabolic pathway for the synthesis of eicosanoids, preventing the inflammatory processes that promote cancer development. This may be one reason why dairy consumption has been shown to be inversely associated with certain cancers like breast and colorectal cancer.

                      https://chriskresser.com/can-some-trans-fats-be-healthy/

                      ‘Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is anticarcinogenic in experimental animal studies’.
                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11525591/

                      ‘It is currently estimated that the average adult consumes only one third to one half of the amount of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) that has been shown to reduce cancer in animal studies’.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16183568

                      ‘Incidence of rat mammary tumors …was decreased by CLA (c9, t11) in all studies and by t10, c12-CLA in just a few that included it. Those 2 isomers decreased the incidence of forestomach tumors induced by benzo (a) pyrene in mice. Both isomers reduced breast and forestomach tumorigenesis. The c9, t11-CLA isomer did not affect the development of spontaneous tumors of the intestine or mammary gland, whereas t10, c12-CLA increased development of genetically induced mammary and intestinal tumors. In vitro, t10, c12-CLA inhibited the growth of mammary, colon, colorectal, gastric, prostate, and hepatoma cell lines’.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18029471

                      ‘CLA has been shown to inhibit chemically-induced skin, stomach, mammary or colon tumours in mice and rats. The inhibition of mammary tumours in rats is effective regardless of type of carcinogen or type or amount of dietary fat. CLA has also been shown to inhibit cholesterol-induced atherosclerosis in rabbits. When young animals (mice, pigs) are placed on CLA-containing diets after weaning they accumulate more body protein and less fat. Since CLA is derived from the milk of ruminant animals and is found primarily in their meat and in products derived from their milk there is a concerted world-wide effort to increase CLA content of milk by dietary means.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10953669

                      ‘These data indicate that the growth-promoting effects of linoleic acid (LA) in the SW480 cell line (colon cancer) may be associated with enhanced conversion of AA to PGE2 but that the growth-suppressing effects of CLA isomers in both cell lines may be due to changes in AA distribution among cellular lipids and an altered prostaglandin profile’.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11768161

                      *——————————————————————-*

                      *Breast Cancer *

                      There was a significant inverse gradient between milk intake and incidence of breast cancer, the age-adjusted relative risk of breast cancer being 0.42 (95% confidence interval=0.24-0.74) between the highest and lowest tertiles of milk consumption. Based on these animal and human studies, CLA appears to play a role in cancer prevention.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2074353/

                      ‘In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that increased consumption of total dairy food, but not milk, may be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer.’

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21442197

                      ‘The odds ratio for breast cancer in the highest quintile vs. the lowest was 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-0.9]for CLA, 0.3 (95% CI = 0.1-0.7) for myristic acid, and 0.3 (95% CI = 0.1-0.7) for trans-vaccenic acid in serum. The odds ratios remained similar after adjustment for known risk factors of breast cancer. A diet composed of CLA-rich foods, particularly cheese, may protect against breast cancer in postmenopausal women’

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11525591

                      ….a protective effect of CLA dietary intake or CLA content in breast tissue on breast cancer incidence, metastasis and death, one of them showed an inverse association after adjusting for age. Also, among case-control studies a weak inverse association between breast cancer risk and CLA dietary intake and serum levels among post-menopausal women was reported.
                      Besides, a clinical trial showed that some indicator of breast tumor decreased after CLA administration among women with breast adenocarcinoma.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512684

        1. This video didn’t confirm anything. This video isn’t science, and it didn’t comprehensively review what little a1/a2 literature exists.

          The very fact that autism is a relatively new “disease” is a strong argument that it has nothing to do with milk.

          Your very tone of anger and self-righteousness proves YOUR unscientific irrationalism. You seem to think that you have the answers and that everyone else is a fool. Have you even looked into the literature at all to see for yourself whether or not Dr Greger is cherry-picking the data?

          1. it is not a video about A1 vs A2, it is a video about autism and the possible roles of A1 and A2. You are criticising it for not being something that it does not claim to be.

            Your arguments here and elsewhere seem as biased and as irrational as Jerry’s – everything is twisted into an unreasonable personal attack on Dr G.

        1. I know that pastured cow, steer or bull actually kills very few plants. Grazing in fact is beneficial for grasses. Feedlots and factory dairies are cruel and unusual punishment, for both the cattle and the people who eat them.

          1. If dairying ceased the land would be used for beef – which is probably more profitable anyhow. In our region some of the dairying land is being used for snow peas, but it is a niche market.
            The only way dairying will cease if there is a consistently more profitable form of replacement agriculture

          2. That’s arguable Stephen.

            It’s not just grazing (and eg Amazonian lands cleared to produce new grazing land) but the crops grown to provide feed for livestock in winter or as part of cattle fattening practices, that need to be included. Plus the native wildlife and plants killed or displaced to find room to sow introduced grasses, and to graze cattle and other livestock.

  23. What powerful research information, Dr. Greger- thank you. I sure hope this video gets sent around to millions of would be and current mothers to help to protect our children from the harm of B-Casein.

    Of course the dairy industry and those actually addicted to the casomorphines will scoff at this but sensible people will pay attention. We have a type of “dairy rehab” for this addictive and deadly fake food- it’s called a WFPBD.

    A healthy and proud monthly supporter of Nutritionfacts.org

  24. It makes sense that there would be a lot of desperate attempts to ignore the actual topic of this video and the evidence of how harmful dairy is to us (not to mention the pure common sense as the calf/human baby nursing switch drawing wonderfully illustrates). It makes sense because dairy being linked to autism is a pretty big find. This is a great thing because it can help parents and children, but not such a great thing for those invested in the industry. The more profound the science, the louder the propaganda – I’d call that the rule by now.

  25. Pete

    This is the usual argument espoused by a tiny minority of people including the notorious Aseem Malhotra, a UK based physician with financial ties to the food and pharmaceutical industries via his “National Obesity Forum”. His views are tainted and contrary to the scientific evidence. Like all those who maintain that high saturated fat diets are harmless or even healthy. I can understand why you find them attractive though. The dairy industry is a or the major source of saturated fat in Western diets.

    The meta analysis and systematic review of observational studies you cited did indeed find no association between saturated fat consumption and heart disease etc. It is no surprise that someone associated with the dairy industry should focus on this aspect. However it is important to read the entire article and think about why the conclusion is “Dietary guidelines for saturated and trans fatty acids must carefully consider the effect of replacement nutrients” – in other words, saturated and trans fatty acids both need to be replaced in the diet. The conclusion is not that saturated fatty acids are harmless but that replacing them with refined carbohydrates will not lead to health improvments.

    The review authors themselves stated that the likelihood that there was no association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease was “very low”

    “The GRADE approach offers a methodological advance in evaluating the quality of the body of evidence in a transparent fashion, and thus a “non-combinable” estimate can still inform our judgment of the presence, strength, and direction of an effect. Therefore, because of this inconsistency, we document the inconsistency between this finding (positive) and that of the pooled prospective cohort studies (null), and rate the confidence we have in a true quantitative “null” association as “very low.”

    They also noted

    “Measurement error is often serious in epidemiologic studies of diet and disease, which can bias such associations towards the null.”

    “A Cochrane review of randomized trials of reduced saturated fats and cardiovascular events found a 17% reduced risk with lower saturated fat intake (risk ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96; 13 studies with 53 300 participants; moderate GRADE).8 Methodological advantages of randomized controlled trials over prospective cohort studies include the balancing of known and unknown confounders and better measurement and finer control of dietary fat levels.”

    “The analysis of data from the largest prospective study to examine carbohydrate quality, as measured by glycemic index, suggests that replacement of saturated fat with high glycemic index carbohydrate increased the risk of CVD, but replacement with low glycemic index carbohydrate (such as whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains) decreased risk.116”

    “In cohort studies that have directly modeled substitution effects, replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated fat (with a corresponding increase in polyunsaturated:saturated (P:S) ratio conferred the greatest reduction in risk of CVD111; though these studies did not distinguish between n-3 and n-6 fatty acids as the replacement choice. Several intervention studies that have replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats achieved relatively high P:S ratios (>1.0 to about 2.5) through replacement of saturated fat with predominantly soybean (n-6 linoleic) and marine oils (n-3 eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids from sardines). At these levels significant CHD benefits were seen,112 113 114 consistent with the finding that favorable effects of diets with reduced saturated fat on cardiovascular risk might depend on a significant reciprocal increase in polyunsaturated fat92 or high quality carbohydrate from whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains, which tend to have a lower glycaemic index.116 In a meta-analysis of cohort studies, replacement of 5% of energy from saturated fat with linoleic acid (n-6 PUFA) was associated with a 9% lower risk of CHD events (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.96; 13 studies with 310 602 participants) and a 13% lower risk of CHD deaths (0.87, 0.82 to 0.94).178”

    This study therefore does not exonerate saturated fat. It merely showed that “There was no association between saturated fats and health outcomes in studies where saturated fat generally replaced refined carbohydrates,”

    Saturated fat needs to be replaced with PUFAs or complex carbohydrates for a reduction in cardiovascular disease to be delivered. To repeat, this is why the conclusion is – and you yourself quoted this – “Dietary guidelines for saturated and trans fatty acids must carefully consider the effect of replacement nutrients” Saturated fatty acids should be replaced in the diet but the replacement nutrients need to be specified (PUFAs, complex carbs).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/

    It really is highly misleading to suggest that this study shows that saturated fat is harmless. It does not. The American Heart Association has restated the evidence on dietary fats and heart disease. This evidence includes not just the results of certain observational studies but also finding from experimental studies. It was designed to counter such highly misleading claims as these which are based on selective misinterpretation of observational studies.
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510

    People may also want to revisit an older video on this topic
    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/

    1. I also suspect that the data is confusing because it probably makes a difference whether or not the saturated fat is burned for fuel or stored as fat. If very few carbohydrates are consumed, saturated fat is burned and probably causes no metabolic harm. If, however, many carbohydrates are consumed, the carbohydrates are preferentially burned and the saturated fat is stored in cells, where it may cause harm by virtue of its rigidifying effect on membranes, etc.

      The a1/a2 issue, however, is about dairy proteins and not fats.

    2. Tom.

      I wont be following the advice of either Dr Maholtra or Dr Greger. I will stick to regular light exercise and the Mediterranean peasant diet. Fruit, vegetables, legumes, ‘healthy fats’ such as olive oil, nuts, oily fish, and dairy (milk and fermented products such as cheese and yoghurt). All things in moderation.

      1. Interesting and consistent with mainstream nutritional advice. My understanding is that the foundations of the Mediterranean diet are vegetables, fruit and cereals – ie largely WFPB although perhaps lots of goat dairy in Sardinia. Dr G’s take on this is interesting

        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mediterranean-diet-or-a-whole-food-plant-based-diet/
        https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/01/03/whats-the-mediterranean-diets-secret/
        https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/mediterranean-diet/

        Actually, he has some interesting things to say on ‘all things in moderation’ too ………………

        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-even-heart-disease/

        Good luck to you

  26. I am grateful for nutritionfacts website by Dr. Greger.
    As a person of Indian origin, I can say that Indian cow’s milk is looked upon positively in India where vegetarian diet is a well established tradition. It is said of the Indian cow, the “Bos Indicus” – it is holy – that there is something different, special, about it, and that its milk does not have the kind of problem reported elsewhere. There are now special farms for raising Bos Indicus cows in India, as awareness, and movement, is spreading. (Earlier, over the years, however, there has been quite a bit of cross breeding with the American Jersey cow, in order to increase milk production).
    The Ayurveda speaks of the Indian cow in glowing terms for its nutritious milk, and the ghee derived from it. (The Ayurveda also speaks highly of the cow urine and the cow dung, which are the basis for several recent patents and drug formulation that use cow urine distillate).

    I am hoping that Dr. Greger would bring to us more research news on the A2 milk of Bos Indicus.

    1. This is the pointy end where theory head-butts practice. If India were to adhere to Dr G’s advice, 1.7 billion sub-continentals would scrap their holy (dairy) cows and 8,000 years (commencing in the neolithic stone age) of tradition and practice ….for the sake of their health. Problem is, it would also function as a very effective (human) population control measure.
      Starvation tends not to be a nutritionally healthy state. And most starvation in the world would be eliminated if these poor individuals had access to the magical properties of milk protein. Correct me if wrong, but India is already home to the largest undernourished population in the world. So, eliminating milking cows is at the impossible end of maybe’s.
      Least of all because cattle cannot simply be disposed of (slaughtered).
      They instead have to die of natural causes. [old age or starvation].
      Ominously, the latter falls under the category of ‘natural causes’. Cows and humans involve mutual exploitation, which is sometimes lost on this audience. I wont detail the algorithm. But to be completely fair to the purists there is a vast difference between the treatment of Bos indicus in the subcontinent and the most intensive dairying practices employed in developed nations. The latter (involving over-maximising genetic milking potential of dairy cows) is unnatural, and a form of animal cruelty in itself. Not to mention the adverse effect it has on milk quality.
      Finally Pradip, the Ayurveda is absolutely correct. Dairy is wonderfully complementary to a vegetarian diet. The Mediterranean’s also figured that out long ago. Nutritionally, they should be mutually inclusive, not mutually exclusive.

      1. Nice stories guys but where is your evidence? Sure, if the big problem is a shortage of calories and your only source of additional calories is dairy, go for it. You could say the same thing of Soylent Green also I suppose. But how much dairy is too much? And what if the growing middle class has access to healthier alternative foodstuffs?

        Frankly, those posts just read like wishful thinking. Heart disease and diabetes are growing problems in India and dairy might be a key part of that problem
        “There are differences between an Indian vegetarian and a Western vegetarian because there are three errors in the Indian vegetarian diet – high in fat (excessive consumption of dairy products); fried food (even vegetables are fried) and rich in sweets ( Indian sweets are high in sugar and soaked in syrup). This is compounded by the fact that only rice or roti is considered food in India while vegetables and fruits are always taken ‘on the side’..”
        http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/being-a-vegetarian-does-not-reduce-risk-of-heart-disease/article4441411.ece

        1. Pes, Male Longevity in Sardinia, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2015:

          “The identification of a hot spot of exceptional longevity, the Longevity Blue Zone (LBZ), in the mountain population of Sardinia has aroused considerable interest toward its traditional food as one of the potential causal factors….Up to a short time ago, the LBZ population depended mostly upon livestock rearing, and consumption of animal-derived foods was relatively higher than in the rest of the island…..”

          Doesn’t sound WFPBD to a moron like me, but maybe there’s something here I ain’t understandin’. Of course, do-gooders came in and got them to “moderate” their meat intake and start eating more vegetables and fruits, but the thing is, why would you want to mess around with a LBZ?

          1. Well, a moron like me thinks that as far as Blue Zone diets go “The classic Sardinian diet consists of whole-grain bread, beans, garden vegetables, fruits, and, in some parts of the island, mastic oil. ” is in fact a WFPB diet.
            https://bluezones.com/exploration/sardinia-italy/

            That said, they are reputed to also have a particular genetic mutation that promotes healthy longevity also.

            1. Re: Well, a moron like me thinks that as far as Blue Zone diets go “The classic Sardinian diet consists of whole-grain bread, beans, garden vegetables, fruits, and, in some parts of the island, mastic oil. ” is in fact a WFPB diet.

              I agree with you for the first part, yes you are a moron.

              For the second part, I also happen to agree with you because it is exactly what I eat, a WFPB diet. But I also eat a small amount of animal foods to complete my nutrition. I am not alone to promote this kind of diet. All healthy people that I know eat mostly WFPB and a small amount of animal foods. And so are Dr Mercola, DrAxe, Sears, etc. all the people that you insult on a daily basis for your pleasure.

              And yesterday, you admitted for a dozen of times that you eat fish and chicken. What a hypocrite and an used car salesman. And moron too.

              Now are you still angry?

              1. i have never been angry Jerry. I have been very sad that someone can make such obviously factually incorrect claims in furtherance of an obsessive dislike of Dr Greger and this site. And use such irrational arguments. Why Jerry? Were you previously banned from the site when you used a different name, and did this spark your resentment?

                An example of your disordered thinking is your repeated claim that I eat chicken and fish. I do not eat chicken and fish. In fact, i have told you before – three times now? – that I do not eat chicken and fish but you still repeat your false claim. But then you repeat all your false claims over and over again. To be honest Jerry, and I say this not to insult you, I sincerely think that you may have mental health problems. Your posts give the impression of obsessiveness and your complete disregard (even outright rejection) of facts and your belief in absurd conspiracy theories is truly worrying. Again, I urge you to get yourself checked out.

                All the people you quote so approvingly by the way make money by promoting unscientific claims about diet, nutrition and health. Talking about unscientific claims, you also forgot to mention another successful internet marketer – Dr Hyman. Amazingly you seem to think that these snake oil merchants are more credible than the panels of genuine scientific experts convened by the likes of the WHO, WCRF and the US dietary guidelines process. I have quoted from Atul Gawande’s article before but might as well do so again. Perhaps sooner or later it might encourage you to take off those blinkers of yours

                “Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.”
                https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mistrust-of-science

          2. Stephen

            Pes also made this comment:

            “By computing the Extreme Longevity Index (the proportion of newborns in a given municipality who reach age 100) the island’s territory was divided in two areas with relatively higher and lower level of population longevity. Most nutritional variables do not show any significant difference between these two areas whereas a significant difference was found with respect to pastoralism (P = 0.0001), physical activity estimated by the average slope of the territory in each municipality (P = 0.0001), and average daily distance required by the active population to reach the usual workplace (P = 0.0001).
            CONCLUSION:
            Overall, these findings suggest that factors affecting the average energy expenditure of male population such as occupational activity and geographic characteristics of the area where the population mainly resides, are important in explaining the spatial variation of Sardinian extreme longevity.”

        2. TG, thank you for your comments.
          You are quite right as to the bad eating habits that have come into the Indian vegetarian diet scene, and the consequent health problems you point to. It is a truism that most people do not eat right for variety of reasons, lack of right awareness being the main one.
          However, in this Information Age that picture luckily seems to be changing for the better.
          It is going to be a slow process, as a lot of ex-vegetarians in India have taken to meat-diet in recent years.

      2. Pete, thank you for your post. You raise many points, all interesting.

        It may surprise you that India is the largest milk producing country in the world (and uses a very interesting business model for its milk industry). However, most of its milk comes not from the cows, but from the buffaloes. The native, pure Bos Indicus cows – the one with a hump – are now a small minority of cow population in India. Most cows today are a product of decades of cross breeding from imported Jersey cattle or artificial insemination.

        Only recently a new interest has started gathering momentum in Bos Indicus (BI) in India because of the desirability of its milk in view of the expositions in the Ayurveda. There is, of course, a lot of trust there in the Ayurveda – specially when yoga, meditation, vegetarianism, herbal medicine etc have gained worldwide acceptance – which probably has spurred this interest. New BI farms have started to spring up in India. The Bos Indicus A2 milk needs more research as to its health benefits, hopefully without the side effects we hear about other milks. It would be nice to have comprehensive modern research to see if it is in sync with the old wisdom and practice. It could really revolutionise the modern living if it can support it objectively. I hope Dr. Greger could be a valuable part of it.
        I hear that Texas A&M University has cloned the BI. Also, i have read that Madagascar might be about the only place that has pure BI cattle.

        1. Thanks Pradip for those most interesting comments. I am very interested in the Indian dairy industry. One can only wonder where India would be without its very long association with milking cows.
          Good luck if you can convince Dr G on the merits of dairy for the Ayurveda.
          I suppose it depends somewhat if India goes down the industrialised-dairy path or not. Lets hope they do it in moderation.
          I believe Lassi is very big in India, is this correct? Like many vegetables, milk is even better when fermented. What are popular flavors of Lassi. Do they combine it with fruit? Is its high salt content a health risk?

          1. A glass of cold Lassi is great on a hot summer day. Keep the salt to minimum. I prefer lemonade or iced tea to Lassi in summer though. I have been eschewing dairy so far, and has not bothered me. What I really do miss is dairy milk as a creamer to my hot tea. For a vegan, soy milk seems to be the best alternative available to dairy milk, but it does not nearly do the job for me. I like to have hot chai a few times a day. Therefore, if for no other reason, I would like a research based unbiased opinion on B.I. A2 milk. Dr. G, please help – quick.

            1. I understand that using soy milk in tea may block the benefits of tea consumption just as bovine milk does. I doubt if A2 milk would be any better than A1 milk in blocking the benefits of tea consumption but I am not aware of any studies on this specific point.

              http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(09)00096-3/fulltext
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17213230

              I usually drink my tea straight but if I do add milk, it is oat milk. However, whether oat milk also inhibits tea’s benefits has not been studied.to my knowledge.,

              1. Tom,

                This study is (at best) only half of the equation. The good stuff in green tea are the flavanols – such as EGCG. Being in-vitro, the study does not allow for the possible reversal of this binding effect once milk/tea is processed by the gut. Interestingly, cows milk appears to increase (not decrease) the bioavailability of these valuable flavanols once processed:

                *Milk protein, most notably S-CSN, significantly decreased (p < 0.05) bioaccessibility of flavan-3-ols relative to JK buffer controls (10 relative to 32%). Interestingly, the presence of milk minerals significantly increased (p < 0.05) flavan-3-ol bioaccessibility compared to that of controls (32 relative to 18%). These data combined with SDS-PAGE and fluorometric analyses suggest that both milk proteins and minerals may alter flavan-3-ol bioaccessibility, but normal GI digestion appears to minimize the impact of specific protein interactions.*

                http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996914006188

                Dont know of any similar research on oat or soy milks.

                Incidentally, does oat milk have a high level of beta glucans – compared to say standard porridge?
                An oat milk with a particularly high level of beta glucans could be a winner.

                1. Pete

                  I do not know of anyone who drinks green tea with milk. Milk is usually taken with black tea in Australia, the UK etc. So, i am not convinced that this paper is necessarily relevant.

                  Also, I am not sure that I entirely follow your argument. the abstract notes that “Milk protein, most notably S-CSN, significantly decreased (p < 0.05) bioaccessibility of flavan-3-ols" while bioavailability increased it. That sounds like a bit of a wash but the key point is that this wasn;t milk = it was a milk protein solution. And the abstract also talks about milk minerals not actual milk. Further, the abstract does not appear to mention the results for the non-fat dried milk which was also tested. That is odd. The full paper is behind a pay-wall so it's difficult to fully assess the findings. However, I'd suggest that it is not necessarily a good guide to the effects of actual milk in black tea and is a very slender thread on which to hang an argument that bovine milk does not impair the benefits of black tea drinking.

                  And the study I linked to before was not solely about in vitro experiments – it showed the effects of adding actual milk to black tea and measuring vascular flow mediated dilation (FMD) in human test subjects:

                  "Black tea significantly improved FMD in humans compared with water, whereas addition of milk completely blunted the effects of tea"
                  https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/28/2/219/2887513

                  So even were there no effect on black tea flavanol bioavailability (something which that abstract does not appear to demonstrate), there is still a demonstrated adverse effect on vascular FMD from adding milk to black tea.

                  As for oat milk and beta glucans, yes it contains beta glucans. About 1.3 gr per 250ml in the brand I use (Vitasoy oat milk). Whether you consider it a lot or a little would probably depend on whether you consider the beta glucan content as a proportion of total weight, volume or calories I suppose.
                  http://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/eating-oat-beta-glucan-regularly-helps-maintain-normal-blood-cholesterol

                  1. Thanks, Tom and Pete.
                    If I could change the subject a little, do you think Macha is a better choice than green tea?
                    (I like Macha).
                    Thanks.

                  2. Tom,

                    For some time researchers had argued that tea (black, green, or white) should not have added milk because milk binds (makes unavailable) the tea polyphenols. I believe you were alluding to this in the study you referenced. Unfortunately, that was an in-vitro study involving direct contact between milk/polyphenols and cells. That is, prior to that combination having the opportunity to be digested in the human gut. This makes that study more or less irrelevant. The other research I referenced indicates that (pre-consumption) 1. milk minerals immediately increase tea flavanol bioaccessibility, 2. by binding to tea flavanols milk protein (casein) immediately reduces tea flavanol bioaccessibility, and 3.
                    post-digestion the aforementioned protein binding is reversed. Indeed, it appears the addition of milk to tea produces a net increase in the bioavailability of tea polyphenols. This study will be of most interest to those who consume black tea. I would not choose to consume green tea with milk, but some do. Some on the fringes even promote green tea and milk diets, but I doubt there is too much science involved. But if that is their choice, this study suggests they do not have to fear losing the beneficial effect of polyphenols by adding milk.

                    Likewise, I will not be going behind the paywall in the study I referenced.
                    Milk proteins (casein) have long been deemed responsible for the initial binding effect (complexing) of tea flavanols. Moreover, the researchers make this very point (‘milk proteins and minerals may alter flavan-3-ol bioaccessibility’). Milk proteins and minerals alter flavanol bioacceassibility, therefore the researchers test milk proteins and minerals with polyphenols. What is the objection to this? Are you arguing the scientist’s principle premise (milk proteins and minerals are responsible for binding tea flavanols) is wrong? Or that milk is more than milk proteins and minerals, and therefore the whole experiment is flawed.
                    Or they should not have isolated the milk components already established as being responsible for binding tea flavanols? I think by any objective measure the study and its findings are unambiguously clear. Obviously, they isolated milk proteins and milk minerals to establish if one or both were affecting bioaccessibility, and how. Indeed, they discovered they had very different effects. Milk minerals immediately increased bioaccessibility of flavanols when added to black tea, whereas milk proteins (casein) immediately decreased their bioaccessibility. Thereafter, digestion reversed the effect of milk proteins, with a net increase in bioaccessibility following digestion. If they had tested whole milk they would have no idea which milk component was responsible for which effect.Now we know.

                    *FMD*

                    Catechins in black tea appear to be improve FMD. However, flavan-3-ols include not only catechin, but also epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin, epigallocatechin gallate, proanthocyanidins, theaflavins and thearubigins.
                    The bioavailability of most if not all of these flavanols are improved with the addition of milk to black tea.

                    The increase in FMD is only 3.5% with black tea. Similar increases in FMD follow consumption of a high-flavanol cocoa drink, oral ingestion of epicatechin, consumption of dark chocolate, and drinking of white and red wine. Subsequent to your quoted study the authors conceded it is probable the catechins in black tea that are bound to milk proteins (casein) subsequently break down in the gut to amino acids and peptides. At which point they may also have a positive effect on FMD. Unfortunately, this was not tested. Moreover:

                    ‘We are also aware of the study by van het Hof *et al.*,6 who did not observe a difference in plasma catechin concentrations after consumption of black tea with or without milk’.

                    https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/28/10/1266/2887455

                    If catechins are consistent with all their fellow tea flavanols, their effect on FMD will also occur post-digestion.

                    In total, these self-confessed shortcomings makes this study next to worthless.

                    1. Came back to this months old video comments and realized that you, Pete, are the most rational poster I’ve encountered at Nutrition Facts dot org.

                      Thanks for your contributions to the discussions.

                    2. Well thank ‘yo kindly Lonie. I dont expect its a unanimous decision. Dairy is very unfashionable at present. But, the majority of scientific evidence still points to it being a nutritionally superior product. Whilst that remains the case I will keep pushing it, even if I have to rattle a few myths.

                    3. I understand your position, and while I don’t do milk personally, you make good arguments that it is a stop gap for those populations that aren’t as careful as NF.o denizens about their dietary choices.

                      Personally I think healthy living is more than just about diet, but more about nutrition… that is, supplementation to achieve a state of complete nutrition.

                      But anyway, just wanted to recognize your abilities to apply logic to the discussion.

    1. Then you would think there would be more Indian-American Bull riders, or if they are sacred to Indian Americans, more rodeo protests. ‘-)

      Although the bull usually wins so that may explain the lack of protest. ‘-)

  27. Hi,

    I would love somebody’s take on this study discussing A1 vs A2 milk – https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-017-0275-0

    I currently avoid all animal milk and stick to Soy/Almond milk but I would like to know people’s thoughts on this study. It claims that their A2 milk is fine and it’s A1 that is the problem… from this company – https://a2milk.co.uk/health-professionals/the-evidence/three-cities-study/

    Thanks in advance!

  28. Why does Dr. Greger cite a study, claiming the similar effects of A1 vs. A2 milk, that was performed ex vivo (i.e. outside of humans) while ignoring a study, claiming the benefits of A2 milk opposed to A1 milk, that was performed in humans? Wouldn’t the study (which was randomized and double blind) that was performed in humans be more reliable than the study that was performed outside of humans?

    I am troubled by Dr. Greger’s omission of all of the facts on this topic, particularly since I have a child who is affected by this. In a perfect world, would it be ideal for me, as a parent (who happens to be vegan), to say to a child, don’t consume any dairy, whatsoever? Yes. However, practically speaking, autistic children are known to be rather picky eaters, so the fewer number of food items that are excluded from their diet, the easier, and more practical, it is to find food choices that they will like and agree to eat. Furthermore, the less restrictive a child’s diet is, the less stigmatized they become around their friends. By allowing A2 dairy products, a child with autism or leaky gut syndrome can, for example, eat chevre, feta, bocconcini (from 100% buffalo milk) as goats, sheep, and water buffalo all carry the A2 gene and produce A2 milk. This is less restrictive than not eating any dairy, whatsoever.

    The study ignored by Dr. Greger:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4818854/

    The study cited by Dr. Greger:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315926972_Identification_of_bioactive_peptides_and_quantification_of_b-casomorphin-7_from_bovine_b-casein_A1_A2_and_I_after_ex_vivo_gastrointestinal_digestion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This