Cow's Milk, Almond Milk, Rice Milk, Soy Milk?

Recently I was introduced to articles about the dangers of cow's milk. I was horrified to read about so many disadvantages of cow's milk. We have all been brought up drinking cow's milk and thinking how wholesome it is! Many people, despite knowing the truth, are still skeptical. They thought "We have all drank cow's milk when we were young and we are fine! So how wrong can it be?" My only advice is "don't let stubbornness rule your head" - Have a read. No harm finding out more.

Below article is full adapted from http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=984989

With recent news about the price of milk on the rise to unprecedented costs, I decided to post this "deadly poison" information about milk. Why pay even more than ever just to get sick?
Date: 9/28/2007 9:17:15 AM ( 3 y ) ... viewed 10731 times

When I grew up, milk was a staple. Everyone had it, even the family who ate health food and were eccentric. It is hard to believe that Curezonians would drink milk, as they are more informed than the general public. Now, Dr. Mercola of mercola.com, believes raw cow's milk or goat's milk is ok and actually healthy. I believe we can get those nutrients elsewhere and click here for raw milk info. Milk doesn't have hardly any vitamin D. It has to be added (fortified). Milk also is a poor source of calcium. But, high amounts calcium actually interferes with absorption of calcium anyway, which can actually cause osteoporosis. Furthermore, milk is protein and protein inhibits calcium absorption. Every baby who drinks milk, whether it be cow or human or other, their own mother produces the kind of milk they need. I am sure you have heard "cow's milk is for baby cows" by the milk opponents. Well, it is true and there is science behind it. Many doctors say cow's milk leads to lactose intolerance, while pointing out we are the only species to drink another species' milk and we are the only species to drink milk past babyhood.

But if that isn't enough to scare you, 60% of the cows in America have the Leukemia virus. 80% have paratuberculosis, which many scientists believe is the cause of Functional Dyspepsia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Crohn's Disease.

Dr. Robert M. Kradjian, Breast Surgery Chief of California's Seton Medical Center, thinks three glasses is too much. In fact, he thinks you shouldn't drink any milk at all. After systematically reviewing the archives of medical and scientific journals, his findings were "slightly less than horrifying."

No, don't drink soy milk, i'll post about it later. The beans are acid washed in aluminum vats and the funny taste you get in soy milk is from the retention of that aluminum. The only safe soy for humans to consume is fermented soy, because the anti-nutrient properties are mostly removed by the processing.

Years ago, when I found out about milk, I quit. I had heard about the book: Milk, the deadly poison. That was enough for me. At first I drank soy milk, but researched it and quickly disposed of it. Then, I discovered almond milk, and later, rice milk. I began using almond milk is all recipes just like it were milk. It works perfect. In some things you would want to use rice milk because almond milk has a distinct flavor and you can taste it in some recipes. Rice milk is a bit too sweet for me, so I use it less often. The only brand I buy is Pacific, in both almond and rice, because they taste best. Almond breeze tastes funny to me.

GOT MILK? You may wish you didn't:
THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave. Daly City, CA 94015 USA

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because itÂ's critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ's in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ' milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!
I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as Â"liquid meatÂ" and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don't look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guys"" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy.

LOW FAT
One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?"

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water!

"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest...rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. ....

SUMMARY
To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for".

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ't eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too.

It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?

(Article courtesy of Dr. Kradjian)
________________________________________
MILK: A DEADLY POISON According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 1994 the average American ate 586 pounds of milk and dairy products, 394 pounds of vegetables, 121 pounds of fresh fruit, 199 pounds of meat and 193 pounds of products containing flour and cereal. That totals to over four pounds of food per day per person and nearly forty percent of that is milk and dairy, one very lopsided food pyramid!

Each sip of milk provides you with:
Pituitary hormones (PRL, GH, TSH, FSH, LH ACTH Oxytocin)
Steroid hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, Progesterone, Testosterone,
17-Ketosteroids, Corticosterone, Vitamine D)
Hypothalamic hormones (TRH, LHRH, Somatostatin, PRL-inhibiting
factor, PRL-releasing factor, GnRH, GRH)
Thyroid and Parathyroid hormones (T3, T4, rT3, Calcitonin,
Parathormone, PTH peptide)
gastrointestinal peptides (Vasoactive intestinal peptide, Bombesin, Cholecystokinin, Gastrin, Gastrin inhibitory peptide, Pancreatic
peptide, Y peptide, Substance P and Neurotensin)
Growth Factors (IGF's (I and II), IGF binding proteins, Nerve growth
factor, Epidermal growth factor and TGF alpha, TGF beta, Growth
Inhibitors MDGI and MAF, and Platelet derived growth factor
Others... (PGE, PGF2 alpha, cAMP, cGMP, Delta sleep inducing
peptide, Transferrin, Lactoferrin, Casomorphin and Erythropoietin
In Short... Growth hormones, fat, cholesterol, allergenic proteins, blood, pus, antibiotics, bacteria, virus and more as it is sponsored, in part, by Monsanto, WestAgro, and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc..

Did you know that...
* Milk is the foundation of heart disease and the explanation for America's number one killer.

Milk is the reason that one out of six American women will develop cancer of the breast. Twenty-five million American women over the age of forty have been diagnosed with bone crippling arthritis and osteoporosis. These females have been drinking in excess of two pounds of milk per day for their entire adult lives. Why are their doctors blind to the fact that drinking milk does not prevent osteoporosis? Calcium in milk is not adequately absorbed and milk consumption is the probable cause of osteoporosis. Milk is responsible for allergies, colic, colitis, earaches, colds and congestion in young children. Research indicates that one bovine protein in milk destroys theinsulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, causing diabetes. Sixty Percent of America's dairy cows have leukemia virus. Is it wise to eat the flesh or drink body fluids from diseased animals? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used to allow a small amount of antibiotics in milk. FDA scientists recognized that consumers should not be drinking a fluid containing antibiotics. In 1990, the one part per hundred-million antibiotic residue in milk standardwas increased by one-hundred times to one part per million. As a result, new strains of bacteria developed, immune to the 52 different antibiotics found in milk. Antibiotics no longer work because Americans have been drinking milk and eating dairy productscontaining increased amounts of these powerful drugs and, in addition, new strains of emerging diseases. Beer bellies are indeed making a comeback in America. According to the Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures, 1996, Statistical Bulletin Number 928, published by the USDA, the average American consumed 24 gallons of beer in 1994. That works out to less than 8 1/2 ounces of beer per day. Total milk and dairy products consumed per capita in 1994 equaled 26 ounces per day, more than triple the amount of beer. One 12 ounce glass of beer contains 144 calories and no fat. On the other hand, a 12 ounce glass of milk contains 300 calories and 16 grams of fat. It seems that beer is taking a bad rap. Protruding stomachs on overweight people should be called milk bellies, not beer bellies.

When we drink milk we are taking in the most powerful growth hormone naturally produced in our own bodies. However, this growth hormone in milk is safeguarded by naturally occurring mechanisms unique to milk. That hormone is called Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and it is identical (70 amino acids, same gene sequence) in cows and humans

(Milk: The Deadly Poison by Robert Cohen 317 pages containing 336 references
ISBN 0-9659-196-0-9)

Echinacea for kids

Children have low immunity. They fall sick every now and then, especially after they started attending nurseries and preschools. This made concerned parents look for alternative medicines and supplements to boost their kids' immunity.

Herbal remedies and nutritional supplements are becoming increasingly popular among adults, and many parents are beginning to give them to their children as well. Echinacea is one of the most popular herbal preparations.

Also known as purple coneflower, Echinacea is a member of the sunflower/daisy family. The most commonly used preparation is made from the root of one type of Echinacea (E. purpura), although herbal preparations vary widely as to which plants and what components are used.

Echinacea is used to prevent and treat colds and other upper respiratory infections. It is thought to work by boosting the immune system. Studies of Echinacea in adults have found that it may be effective—some studies have shown that it is effective and others have not shown that it is effective.

There have been a couple of recent studies of Echinacea in children. One found that it was not effective in treating colds in children ages 2 to 11. It did not lessen the severity of their symptoms nor shorten the number of days they were sick. However, the study was criticised for using Enchinacea extracted from the flower of the plant, instead of using the root where potency is!

Another study tested a product called Chizukit, which includes Echinacea, propolis (a plant resin collected by bees) and vitamin C. Parents were assigned to give their 1- to 5-year-old children either Chizukit or a placebo (inactive or fake medicine) twice a day for 12 weeks. The study found that children taking the Chizukit had significantly fewer colds, a little more than half of those suffered by the other children. This study suggests that Echinacea combined with the other products may be effective in preventing colds in children.

One of the good choice to try is L'il Critters Gummy Immune C Plus Zinc & Echinacea, Dietary Supplement for Kids. Some parents have testified that it works. No harm trying and tell us if it works for you as well?


Sources:
Is Enchinacea safe for kids?
Echinacea: The True Lowdown On Echinacea

How Much Sleep Do Children Need?

The amount of sleep a child needs varies depending on the individual and certain factors, including the age of the child. Following are some general guidelines:

1-4 Weeks Old: 15 - 16 hours per day
Newborns typically sleep about 15 to 18 hours a day, but only in short periods of two to four hours. Premature babies may sleep longer and colicky ones shorter.

Since newborns do not yet have an internal biological clock, or circadian rhythm, their sleep patterns are not related to the daylight and nighttime cycles. In fact, they tend not to have much of a pattern at all.

1-4 Months Old: 14 - 15 hours per day
By 6 weeks of age your baby is beginning to settle down a bit, and you may notice more regular sleep patterns emerging. The longest periods of sleep run four to six hours and now tends to occur more regularly in the evening. Day-night confusion ends.

4-12 Months Old: 14 - 15 hours per day
While up to 15 hours is ideal, most infants up to 11 months old get only about 12 hours sleep. Establishing healthy sleep habits is a primary goal during this period, as your baby is now much more social, and his sleep patterns are more adult-like.

Babies typically have three naps and drop to two at around 6 months old, at which time (or earlier) they are physically capable of sleeping through the night. Establishing regular naps generally happens at the latter part of this time frame, as his biological rhythms mature. The midmorning nap usually starts at 9 a.m. and lasts about an hour. The early afternoon nap starts from 12 to 2 p.m. and lasts an hour or two. And the late afternoon nap may start from 3 to 5 p.m. and is variable in duration.

1-3 Years Old: 12 - 14 hours per day
As your child moves past the first year toward 18-21 months of age he will likely lose his morning nap and nap only once a day. While toddlers need up to 14 hours a day of sleep, they typically get only about 10.

Most children from about 21 to 36 months of age still need one nap a day, which may range from one to three and a half hours long. They typically go to bed between 7 and 9 p.m. and wake up between 6 and 8 a.m.

3-6 Years Old: 10 - 12 hours per day
Children at this age typically go to bed between 7 and 9 p.m. and wake up around 6 and 8 a.m., just as they did when they were younger. At 3, most children are still napping while at 5, most are not. Naps gradually become shorter as well. New sleep problems do not usually develop after 3 years of age.

7-12 Years Old: 10 - 11 hours per day
At these ages, with social, school, and family activities, bedtimes gradually become later and later, with most 12-years-olds going to bed at about 9 p.m. There is still a wide range of bedtimes, from 7:30 to 10 p.m., as well as total sleep times, from 9 to 12 hours, although the average is only about 9 hours.

12-18 Years Old: 8 - 9 hours per day
Sleep needs remain just as vital to health and well-being for teenagers as when they were younger. It turns out that many teenagers actually may need more sleep than in previous years. Now, however, social pressures conspire against getting the proper amount and quality of sleep.

Source:
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/sleep-children

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in children

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder. It is an illness that causes people to have unwanted thoughts (obsessions) and to repeat certain behaviors (compulsions) over and over again. We all have habits and routines in our daily lives, such as brushing our teeth before bed. However, for people with OCD, patterns of behavior get in the way of their daily lives. Most people with OCD know that their obsessions and compulsions make no sense, but they can't ignore or stop them. All kids have worries and doubts. But kids with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) often can't stop worrying, no matter how much they want to. And those worries frequently compel them to behave in certain ways over and over again.

What are obsessions?
Obsessions are ideas, images and impulses that run through the person's mind over and over again. A person with OCD doesn't want to have these thoughts and finds them disturbing, but he or she can't control them. Sometimes these thoughts just come once in a while and are only mildly annoying. Other times, a person who has OCD will have obsessive thoughts all the time.
Kids with OCD become preoccupied with whether something could be harmful, dangerous, wrong, or dirty — or with thoughts about bad stuff that might happen. With OCD, upsetting or scary thoughts or images, called obsessions, pop into a person's mind and are hard to shake. Kids with OCD may also worry about things being out of "order" or not "just right." They may worry about losing "useless" items, sometimes feeling the need to collect these items.

What are compulsions?
Obsessive thoughts make people who have OCD feel nervous and afraid. They try to get rid of these feelings by performing certain behaviors according to "rules" that they make up for themselves. These behaviors are called compulsions. (Compulsive behaviors are sometimes also called rituals.) For example, a person who has OCD may have obsessive thoughts about germs. Because of these thoughts, the person may wash his or her hands repeatedly after using a public toilet. Performing these behaviors usually only makes the nervous feelings go away for a short time. When the fear and nervousness return, the person who has OCD repeats the routine all over again. Similarly, a child with OCD feels strong urges to do certain things repeatedly — called rituals or compulsions — in order to banish the scary thoughts, ward off something dreaded, or make extra sure that things are safe or clean or right. Children may have a difficult time explaining a reason for their rituals and say they do them "just because." But in general, by doing a ritual, the child with OCD is trying to feel absolutely certain that something bad won't happen.

What are some common obsessions?
The following are some common obsessions:
Fear of dirt or germs
Disgust with bodily waste or fluids
Concern with order, symmetry (balance) and precision
Worry that a task has been done poorly, even when the person knows this is not true
Fear of thinking evil or sinful thoughts
Thinking about certain sounds, images, words or numbers all the time
Need for constant reassurance
Fear of harming a family member or friend

What are some common compulsions?
The following are some common compulsions:
Cleaning and grooming, such as washing hands, showering or brushing teeth over and over again
Checking drawers, door locks and appliances to be sure they are shut, locked or turned off
Repeating, such as going in and out of a door, sitting down and getting up from a chair, or touching certain objects several times
Ordering and arranging items in certain ways
Counting over and over to a certain number
Saving newspapers, mail or containers when they are no longer needed
Seeking constant reassurance and approval

What causes OCD?
No one has found a single, proven cause for OCD. Some research shows that it may have to do with chemicals in the brain that carry messages from one nerve cell to another. One of these chemicals, called serotonin (say "seer-oh-tone-in"), helps to keep people from repeating the same behaviors over and over again. A person who has OCD may not have enough serotonin. Many people who have OCD can function better when they take medicines that increase the amount of serotonin in their brain.

Evidence is also strong that OCD tends to run in families. Many people with OCD have one or more family members who also have it or other anxiety disorders influenced by the brain's serotonin levels. Because of this, scientists have come to believe that the tendency (or predisposition) for someone to develop the serotonin imbalance that causes OCD can be inherited through a person's genes.

Signs and Symptoms of OCD
OCD in kids is usually diagnosed between the ages of 7 and 12. Since these are the years when kids naturally feel concerned about fitting in with their friends, the discomfort and stress brought on by OCD can make them feel scared, out of control, and alone.

Recognizing OCD is often difficult because kids can become adept at hiding the behaviors. It's not uncommon for a child to engage in ritualistic behavior for months, or even years, before parents know about it. Also, a child may not engage in the ritual at school, so parents might think that it's just a phase.

When a child with OCD tries to contain these thoughts or behaviors, this creates anxiety. Kids who feel embarrassed or as if they're "going crazy" may try to blend the OCD into the normal daily routine until they can't control it anymore.

It's common for kids to ask a parent to join in the ritualistic behavior: First the child has to do something and then the parent has to do something else. If a child says, "I didn't touch something with germs, did I?" the parent might have to respond, "No, you're OK," and the ritual will begin again for a certain number of times. Initially, the parent might not notice what is happening. Tantrums, overt signs of worry, and difficult behaviors are common when parents fail to participate in their child's rituals. It is often this behavior, as much as the OCD itself, which brings families into treatment.

Parents can look for the following possible signs of OCD:
raw, chapped hands from constant washing
unusually high rate of soap or paper towel usage
high, unexplained utility bills
a sudden drop in test grades
unproductive hours spent doing homework
holes erased through test papers and homework
requests for family members to repeat strange phrases or keep answering the same question
a persistent fear of illness
a dramatic increase in laundry
an exceptionally long amount of time spent getting ready for bed
a continual fear that something terrible will happen to someone
constant checks of the health of family members
reluctance to leave the house at the same time as other family members
Environmental and stress factors can trigger the onset of OCD. These can include ordinary developmental transitions (such as starting school) as well as significant losses or changes (such as the death of a loved one or moving).

Diagnosing OCD
If your child shows signs of OCD, talk to your doctor. In screening for OCD, a doctor or mental health professional will ask about your child about obsessions and compulsions in language that kids will understand, such as:
Do you have worries, thoughts, images, feelings, or ideas that bother you?
Do you have to check things over and over again?
Do you have to wash your hands a lot, more than most kids?
Do you count to a certain number or do things a certain number of times?
Do you collect things that others might throw away (like hair or fingernail clippings)?
Do things have to be "just so"?
Are there things you have to do before you go to bed?

How is OCD treated?
The most successful treatments for kids with OCD are behavioral therapy and medication. Behavioral therapy, also known as cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT), helps kids learn to change thoughts and feelings by first changing behavior. It involves exposing kids to their fears, with the agreement that they will not perform rituals, to help them recognize that their anxiety will eventually decrease and that no disastrous outcome will occur.

For example, kids who are afraid of dirt might be exposed to something they consider dirty on numerous occasions. For exposure to be successful, it must be combined with response prevention, in which the child's rituals or avoidance behaviors are blocked. For example, a child who fears dirt must not only stay in contact with the dirty object, but also must not be allowed to wash repeatedly. Some treatment plans involve having the child "bossing back" the OCD, giving it a nasty nickname, and visualizing it as something the child can control. Over time, the anxiety provoked by dirt and the urge to perform washing rituals gradually disappear. The child also gains confidence that he or she can "fight" OCD.

OCD can sometimes worsen if it's not treated in a consistent, logical, and supportive manner. So it's important to find a therapist who has training and experience in treating OCD. Just talking about the rituals and fears have not been shown to help OCD, and may actually make it worse by reinforcing the fears and prompting extra rituals. Family support and cooperation also go a long way toward helping a child cope with OCD.

Many kids can do well with behavioral therapy alone while others will need a combination of behavioral therapy and medication. Therapy can help your child and family learn strategies to manage the ebb and flow of OCD symptoms, while medication, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often can reduce the impulse to perform rituals.

Helping Kids With OCD
It's important to understand that OCD is never a child's fault. Once a child is in treatment, it's important for parents to participate, to learn more about OCD, and to modify expectations and be supportive.

Kids with OCD get better at different rates, so try to avoid any day-to-day comparisons and recognize and praise any small improvements. Keep in mind that it's the OCD that is causing the problem, not the child. The more that personal criticism can be avoided, the better.
It can be helpful to keep family routines as normal as possible, and for all family members to learn strategies to help the child with OCD. It is also important to not let OCD be the "boss" of the house and regular family activities. Giving in to OCD worries does not make them go away.

Sources:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/OCD.html#
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/mentalhealth/anxiety/133.html

H1N1 in children

H1N1 flu is highly contagious. It spreads from person to person through droplets that form when an infected person coughs, sneezes, laughs, or talks. The virus can also live for hours on surfaces. A person can become infected by touching acontaminated surface then touching their eyes, nose, or mouth.

About half of the confirmed H1N1 flu cases in Singapore involve young people below the age of 20. At KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH), the average age of a patient is 10 years old, with the youngest being just 14 months.

Children are more susceptible to H1N1 because they have no underlying immunity to the virus, and also because children do not practise good hygiene most of the time. They may cough and sneeze and won’t even remember to cover their mouth and nose. Parents should always pay special attention to children under 5 years of age, because they are more likely to become seriously ill than older children.

H1N1 flu symptoms are about the same as regular flu symptoms. These include fever and chills, headache, body and muscle aches, dry cough, runny nose, and weakness. The child may also have sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting. Young children may have difficulty breathing and low activity, but few other symptoms. Children with Influenza A (H1N1) are likely to have a higher fever than adults.

If your child, particularly small children, exhibits any of the following warning signs, seek emergency medical care:

Trouble breathing, including rapid breathing.
Gray or bluish skin color
Not drinking enough fluids
Not waking up or not interacting
Being irritable and not wanting to be held
Not urinating or no tears when crying
The symptoms improve but then return with fever and worse cough

Parenting styles

There are three types of parenting styles: Authoritarian, Permissive, Democratic or authoritative. Research on children's development shows that the most positive outcomes for children occur when parents use democratic styles. Children with permissive parents tend to be aggressive and act out, while children with authoritarian parents tend to be compliant and submissive and have low self-esteem.

Authoritarian
Authoritarian parents always try to be in control and exert their control on the children. These parents set strict rules to try to keep order, and they usually do this without much expression of warmth and affection. They attempt to set strict standards of conduct and are usually very critical of children for not meeting those standards. They tell children what to do, they try to make them obey and they usually do not provide children with choices or options.

Authoritarian parents don't explain why they want their children to do things. If a child questions a rule or command, the parent might answer, "Because I said so." Parents tend to focus on bad behavior, rather than positive behavior, and children are scolded or punished, often harshly, for not following the rules.

Children with authoritarian parents usually do not learn to think for themselves and understand why the parent is requiring certain behaviors.

Permissive
Permissive parents give up most control to their children. Parents make few, if any, rules, and the rules that they make are usually not consistently enforced. They don't want to be tied down to routines. They want their children to feel free. They do not set clear boundaries or expectations for their children's behavior and tend to accept in a warm and loving way, however the child behaves.

Permissive parents give children as many choices as possible, even when the child is not capable of making good choices. They tend to accept a child's behavior, good or bad, and make no comment about whether it is beneficial or not. They may feel unable to change misbehavior, or they choose not to get involved.

Democratic Or Authoritative
Democratic parents help children learn to be responsible for themselves and to think about the consequences of their behavior. Parents do this by providing clear, reasonable expectations for their children and explanations for why they expect their children to behave in a particular manner. They monitor their children's behavior to make sure that they follow through on rules and expectations. They do this in a warm and loving manner. They often, "try to catch their children being good" and reinforcing the good behavior, rather than focusing on the bad.

For example, a child who leaves her toys on a staircase may be told not to do this because, "Someone could trip on them and get hurt and the toy might be damaged." As children mature, parents involve children in making rules and doing chores: "Who will mop the kitchen floor, and who will carry out the trash?"

Parents who have a democratic style give choices based on a child's ability. For a toddler, the choice may be "red shirt or striped shirt?" For an older child, the choice might be "apple, orange or banana?" Parents guide children's behavior by teaching, not punishing. "You threw your truck at Mindy. That hurt her. We're putting your truck away until you can play with it safely."

Source: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/infantparentingtips/a/04_pntg_styles.htm

Haircut for kids

Babies and kids tend to get scared and cries during their haircuts. It's perfectly normal for toddlers to feel anxious during haircut time, especially when they are being wrapped in a plastic cape, surrounded by unfamiliar sights and sounds, squirted with water, and attacked with a pair of sharp scissors or an electric shaver by a stranger! Thus a friendly and familiar environment is very important to them. Imagine, if you could take your child to a hair salon especialised for kids, which they can sit in an airplane/fire truck/race car and watch a DVD while getting their hair cut, isn't it wonderful?

Several hair salons have sprung up specially for children, complete with fun chairs and distractions like cartoons to watch and XBox 360 gaming consoles that will make the whole experience child's play and make them forget they are having their hair cut.

If your toddler has hair-cutting phobia, try bring them to these specialised kids salon:

Hua Xia
The salon's chairs come in the shape of toy car, airplane or truck, where kids can pick a DVD to watch while they have their hair cut. Its hairdressers also make home visits for babies too young to leave the house, charging the usual fee for a cut plus transport fees.

Price: S$16 per cut and the fifth cut is FREE!

Location:168 Punggol Field #02-09 Punggol Plaza

Website: http://www.babyswimming.com.sg/babies_and_kids.html


Junior League Children's Style Salon
Kids are pampered with candy, balloons, toys and stickers. Each chair even comes fitted with its own TV screen, playing popular cartoons like Dora The Explorer and Tom And Jerry. Its first outlet was opened at United Square, and has now grown to a chain of four. Its three other outlets are at Suntec City, Parkway Parade and inside VivoCity's Toys "R" Us.

Price: S$18 per cut

Location:
Forum Mall #03-03/25 (in Toys "R" Us)
Vivo City #02-183 (in Toys "R" Us)
Parkway Parade #02/52
Suntec City #03/K02
United Square #01-76A

Website: NIL


Curly & Spike
From the funky décor to the specially designed kids styling stations, everything is set up just for kids. Equipped with special dwarf-size seats, each comes with a 19-inch flat screen TV, a DVD player and XBox 360 with the latest games like Shrek and Superman to pacify the scissor-avoiding squirmer.

Price: $20 per cut

Location: 81 Clemenceau Avenue#02-14 UE Square

Website: http://www.curlynspike.com.sg


Other places:
Kitz Kid's Salon
80 Marine Parade Road
#02-52 Parkway Parade
Tel: 63465818

Cost: $16

Toddler recipes

Are you pulling at your hair because your toddler refuses to eat anything you serve? Have you exhausted all tricks to make him eat? Many parents are concerned that their finicky eater will go hungry or will not receive the proper nutrition necessary to grow big and strong. We know that forcing food on a child is not a good idea. It is always best to teach your children about the value of healthy eating and have them take part in the fun.

If you are still at wits' end, maybe try out other interesting menus for toddlers from some recipes here:

Food for tots
http://food-4tots.blogspot.com/

Toddler dish
http://www.toddlerdish.com/recipes.html

Toddler recipes
http://www.recipezaar.com/recipes/toddlers

Use of antibiotics in children

Antibiotics are powerful drugs used for treating many serious and life-threatening infectious diseases. Antibiotics are only effective against bacterial infections, certain fungal infections and some kinds of parasites. Most infections result from either bacteria or viruses. Antibiotics can't help you if a virus is responsible for your child's illness.

Below are some bacterial and viral infections:

Bacterial infections cause:
Some ear infections
Severe sinus infections
Strep throat
Urinary tract infections
Many wound and skin infections
Most ear infections

Viral infections cause:
Colds Influenza (flu)
Most coughs
Most sore throats
Bronchitis
Stomach flu (viral gastroenteritis)


How antibiotic resistance develops
The misuse of antibiotics has caused problems. Their frequent use, often for conditions or infections that aren't caused by bacteria, has given rise to bacteria that are resistant to many commonly used antibiotics. Superbugs emerge when an antibiotic fails to kill all of the bacteria it targets, and the surviving bacteria become resistant to that particular drug and frequently other antibiotics as well. Doctors then prescribe a stronger antibiotic, but the bacteria quickly learn to withstand the more potent drug as well, perpetuating a cycle in which increasingly powerful drugs are required to treat infections.

Safeguard effective antibiotics
What you can doUsing antibiotics too often or incorrectly is a major cause of the increase in resistant bacteria. Here are some things you can do to promote proper use of antibiotics:

Understand when antibiotics should be used. Don't expect to take antibiotics every time your child is sick. Antibiotics are effective in treating most bacterial infections, but they're not useful against viral infections, such as colds, acute bronchitis, or the flu. And even some common bacterial ailments, such as mild ear infections, don't benefit much from antibiotics.

Don't pressure your doctor for antibiotics if your child has a viral illness. Instead, talk with your doctor about ways to relieve the symptoms of his/her viral illness — a saline nasal spray to clear a stuffy nose, for instance, or a mixture of warm water, lemon and honey to temporarily soothe a sore throat.

Take antibiotics exactly as prescribed. Follow the doctor's instructions when taking prescribed medication, including how many times a day and for how long. Never stop treatment a few days early if your child is starting to feel better — a complete course of antibiotics is needed to kill all of the harmful bacteria. A shortened course of antibiotics, on the other hand, often wipes out only the most vulnerable bacteria, while allowing relatively resistant bacteria to survive.

Usually, the length of antibiotic therapy will be a minimum of 5 days. In most cases, if your child has missed one dose of antibiotic, you should not double the next dose. Instead, you should continue to let him/her take his/her doses as normal.

Source:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics/FL00075

Constipation in infants

Constipation is an abnormal pattern of bowel movements in which stools are passed less frequently than usual and are often harder than usual. Everyone has a different normal pattern. For example, some children have bowel movements only once every 2-4 days. It is normal for breast-fed babies to have large, soft bowel movements without pain up to 7 days apart. Others have bowel movements 2-4 times daily. However, a child is constipated whenever his/her pattern slows down noticeably.

Causes
Very rarely, disease causes constipation. In this case the problem usually begins in the early weeks of life. In most children, there is no disease but once constipation begins, it tends to continue. Some of the factors that may contribute to the onset of constipation are:

1. Formula.
Babies who breastfeed exclusively are rarely constipated. If your baby is on formula, it's possible that something in her formula is making her constipated. Ask your baby's doctor about switching brands.

2. The introduction of solids.
Don't be surprised if your baby becomes mildly constipated as she steps up to solid food. That's often because rice cereal, usually the first food given during this transition period, is low in fiber.

3. Dehydration.
If your baby isn't getting enough fluid, she'll become dehydrated and her system will respond by absorbing more fluid from whatever she eats or drinks — and from the waste in her bowels, as well. The result is hard, dry bowel movements that are difficult to pass.

Prevention
1. Make sure that your child's diet contains adequate fluids and high-fibre foods that act as natural laxatives (Fruit juices, fruits, particularly prunes, vegetables and salads, cereals).

2. If over 2 months old, give diluted fruit juices, such as prune juice twice a day.

3. If over 4 months old, add strained foods with high fibre content, such as cereals, apricots, prunes, peaches, pears, plums, beans, peas, or spinach twice daily.

4. Decrease consumption of constipating foods, such as milk, ice cream, cheese and cooked carrots.

5. Do not give your baby an enema or suppository (medicine in the rectum) unless advised by your doctor.

6. When your child is old enough (about 2 to 3 years old) help him/her establish regular bowel habits. Have your child spend a few minutes on the toilet or the "potty" once or twice daily immediately after meals. The position should be comfortable with knees up. For a small child using the toilet a footrest will be necessary so the legs don't hang down and the knees are up in a crouched position. Such a position eases bowel movement.

Sources:
1. Baby Center
2. NUH Kids

Handling a fussy eater

Here are some tips from Baby Center:

It's perfectly normal for young children to suddenly decide they will only eat a few foods and refuse everything else - even foods they loved yesterday. They may eat these same few foods over and over again at every meal, while turning up their noses at anything new. Children like things to be familiar, whether it's their bedtime routine or their cheese sandwich, so many children won't try new foods until they've been exposed to them several times.

Picky eating can also be a child's way of exerting his independence ("You can't make me eat that") and may have less to do with the actual food than his need to push the limits of your authority and to assert some control over his life. This is why pressuring a child to eat often backfires. Finally, it may seem like your toddler cannot sit still long enough to eat very much at one sitting because of his short attention span. But children are generally good at getting what they need, even if it doesn't seem like much to you.

Here are some more specific tips on how to handle a picky eater:

• Provide a variety of good foods for your child to eat at each meal.
Keep in mind that it takes multiple exposures to a new food for a child to see it as familiar and OK to try. So, be patient. When you do offer a new food, simply place it on the dinner table with everything else, and don't make a big fuss about it. Eventually, after he's seen you eat the food a few times, he may feel more open to trying it himself.

• Limit the options at mealtimes.
"If you say, 'It's dinnertime. What do you want to eat?' your child will probably choose something familiar to him, and he'll seem like a picky eater," says Hudson. "However, if you say, 'Here's dinner,' he'll choose from among the foods you're offering." Of course, you can't offer an entire meal of unfamiliar foods because your child simply won't eat them. Instead, offer a meal that includes at least one thing you know your child likes.

• When introducing new foods, offer just one or two, and present them in small quantities.
If by some miracle your child is willing to try a new food, give him just a taste before putting a whole serving on his plate. This way he won't feel overwhelmed - and it won't seem like a waste of food to you.

• Some children's palates are more sensitive than others.
They simply won't like the texture, colour, or taste of some foods. This is why a child will often claim to dislike a food he has never even tried. Likewise, some children may have an aversion to a food because it reminds them of a time when they were sick or has some other negative association. If your child complains that a particular food will make him ill, stop offering that food for a while. You can always try again when your child is a little older.

• Whenever possible, let your child be involved in food decisions.
This includes shopping or making his lunch. This will give him a sense of control over his diet, and he'll be more likely to eat something that he's chosen for himself. (This works best if you let your child choose from a small selection of healthy foods you've already picked out!)
As your child's world expands and he begins attending playgroup or nursery, his taste in foods might broaden as well. When he sees his friends eating new and different kinds of food, it might inspire him to eat new things, too.

Your child has an innate sense of how much food his body needs to grow and be healthy, and it's his job to decide what he's going to eat. The best thing you can do is to provide a wide variety of healthy foods in a positive, relaxed environment so that mealtimes will be enjoyable for everyone involved.

Post-natal abdominal exercises (Part 2)

Single leg circle
1. Lie on your back, arms by side, palms down. Inhale.

2. As you exhale, pull your abs up and in toward your spine, bring your right knee to your chest, then raise your right leg in the air, keep it straight. Rotate your raised legs slightly so that your heels point toward your stable leg and your toes point away from the right side of your body.

3. Keep your body pressed to the floor, esp the back of your hips.

4. Breathe normally, making a small circle in the air with your right foot in a clockwise direction. Repeat for 5 more circles. Then do 6 circles in the opposite direction. Then bring your leg to the floor.

5. Repeat exercise 6 times with the left leg raised.