> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DS" <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> > Great. Thank you.
> >   Does this also apply to Kefir?
> 
> I would have to check it out but I would imagine it is not as 
> problematic, digestion wise, as the proteins are broken down in the 
> fermentation process. The question is, "Is the betacellulin broken 
> down into a harmless metabolite?"  Good question you raise but I don't 
> know.  Oliva
> 

Cow betacellulin is a very stable hormone that is a natural part of raw
milk. I've never seen a claim that fermenting milk breaks down natural
hormones. Anyone else ever see that claim? 

One of the selling points of organic raw fermented milk (kefir) is that it
doesn't include the added bovine growth hormone that commercial farms inject
into their cows. If fermentation broke down all hormones, then the added
hormone would not be a problem and that would not be such a selling point of
organic fermented raw milk.

Humans also have betacellulin and the problem with cow's milk is that the
betacellulin it contains is close enough to human betacellulin that it "can
react with your own hormone receptors," triggering overproduction of EGF,
resulting in run-away cell growth and division (cancer). This cell growth
and division is good in fast-growing infants, but not so good in mature
adults. This is not a problem in nature, where animals stop consuming milk
upon weaning. It's only a problem in agrarian societies where people
continue to drink milk throughout their lives. Time and time again we find
that living outside the laws of nature has serious negative consequences.

> ginny wrote: ...
> It sounds to me as if they're saying there is a substance in milk
> which blocks, and thus encourages more formation, of epithelial cell  
> repair transmitters. They associate these receptors run wild with  
> cancerous overgrowth in various sites.
> 
> I'd like to see more on this, as it's the first I've heard of these
> receptors. Since all animals, including cows, suckle, but not all  
> have analogous salivary composition, I'd like to know how other  
> species produce EGF receptors.
> 
> Anybody?

I think you mean how other animals produce EGF, rather than EGF receptors,
since the receptors are the cells lining the epithelial layer in the
gastrointestinal tract and other organs. 

Most animals have EGF receptor cells. Even the fruit frly Drosophila has
them: "The Drosophila EGF receptor homolog, commonly called Torpedo or
DER..." (http://www.sdbonline.org/fly/torstoll/egf-r1.htm) A homolog is "A
gene related to a second gene by descent from a common ancestral DNA
sequence."

Most animals also have salivary glands: "Most animals have salivary glands
that resemble those in humans; however, in some animals these glands perform
other functions. For example, the salivary glands of many blood-sucking
species secrete a substance that prevents blood coagulation."
(http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-salivary.html) Birds and turtles
reportedly do not have salivary glands. I would guess they would therefore
also not have EGF receptor cells in their GI tracts, but I could be wrong. 

EGF receptor cells are found in the epithelial layers of many organs of the
body, including the gastrointestinal tract, skin, bladder, lungs, breast,
prostate, ovary, brain, kidney, etc. EGF receptors serve similar repair
functions in each organ, but obviously in a somewhat different manner (since
saliva does not exist in all these organs). For example, "EGFR may regulate
genes involved in growth, repair, and cell survival in the kidney."
(http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/12/3147) The kidney
produces its growth factor locally. 

Here is a good description of the EGF receptor cell:

"The epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor was discovered over 20 years ago
and has been studied extensively. EGF receptors poke through the surface of
cells like pins in a pincushion. The part of the EGF receptor facing outside
the cell (the head of the pin) recognizes and binds to growth signals. The
inside-facing part is the "business end" of the EGF receptor, which becomes
activated by these signals, setting off the cellular events that promote
cancer growth [the growth and division of cancer cells]. In normal cells, a
limited number of EGF receptors dot the cell surface. In many types of tumor
cells (including lung, breast, prostate, ovary, gastrointestinal tract, and
brain), around 100 times the normal number of EGF receptors are found on the
cell surface." - New Hope for Lung Cancer, By Maxine Fisher, PhD,
http://www.curetoday.com/backissues/v1n1/departments/newhope/index.html

>>
>> ANOTHER REASON NOT TO DRINK YOUR MILK: BETACELLULIN

> Tom Bri wrote:
<<... some African peoples who have developed a new form of genetic lactose
tolerance, different from the genes seen in Europeans, apparantly a separate
example of evolution towards adult milk drinking.

Now, what does that tell us? It is that those people who drank milk lived
longer and had more kids than those who could not drink milk.>>

When comparing individuals within a population group, it is likely that most
or all of the people in those pastoral African populations drank milk. I
think the relevant comparison is between those who drank milk and tolerated
it well vs. those who drank it and did not tolerate it as well. For example,
all the Masai people drink milk, despite less than half of them carrying
lactose tolerance into adulthood. Those who do well on milk survive to
reproductive age and have more children. Over time, more and more of the
people have the genes to carry lactose tolerance (produce lactase) into
adulthood. At least, this is the theory behind the development of lactose
tolerance in some African and European peoples that you mentioned.

When comparing different peoples, the consumers of modern foods like milk
and grains will always outpopulate the hunter-gatherers, because modern
foods can feed a greater density of people per square mile, promote settling
down (more than one infant per mother makes nomadic travel difficult),
shorten the time between pregnancy (from 3-4 years down to 1-2 years), etc.
This doesn't mean the modern foods like milk and grains are healthier, just
that they promote population growth.

<<So, in spite of this horrible betacellulin, milk drinkers were MORE fit,
that is lived and had more kids than non milk drinkers. 

I am not trying to convince anyone here to drink milk, I don't drink much
myself, but, I guess, to take this whole article with a big ol' grain of
salt.>>

Some peoples are believed to have developed a higher tolerance for grains
than others. For example, people in the Middle East and Mediterranean are
believed to be more tolerant of wheat and other grains than Northwest
Europeans. They became so by outproducing those within their group and
outside of it who were less tolerant of grains. By your logic, that would
mean that grains are a healthy food.

The problems with dairy are not limited to betacellulin and this latest
scientific report is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, that find
problems with dairy. That doesn't guarantee that these reports are right,
but the weight of the accumulating evidence is getting difficult to ignore.