Really Stupid Science (I mean, really)

by ProfKeith

Today I read what must be the most mind-numbingly stupid “scientific study”. Some are bad; this was awful.

To test whether polyphenols in red wine really had any benefit (why?), a young doctor from the Netherlands decided on the bright idea of adding synthetic polyphenol “extracts” to dairy drinks and giving them to patients, to see what happened to their blood pressure.

There are TWO stupid problems with this:

  1. The polyphenols are stripped of all their accompanying substances, enzymes, etc, found in the grape
  2. Milk is probably the number #1 cause of blood pressure I have found over the years. Put anything in milk and it will not work in lowering blood pressure.

The first problem is typical of medical “thinking” (if I can use so bold a word for it): the belief there is one magic bullet in natural food or plant substances and that “one thing” must be the reason the food or plant works therapeutically. They call it the active ingredient but it’s a scientific nonsense. The obsession with isolating a single compound comes, of course, from the desire to then mutilate it beyond Nature’s best and so patent it.

But nothing works out of context. There may be a million other substances in grapes which make the polyphenols work properly (so-called adjuvants). 

But to me the dumbest blunder of all is using milk as a vehicle. Milk is one of the most toxic foods known to man. It’s a major cause of blood pressure (and death by heart disease).

Back in the 1970s- 80s I discovered for myself that blood pressure is mainly a food allergy. If you have hypertension, put yourself on a good exclusion diet and your blood pressure will come tumbling down. Then it’s easy: take your blood pressure every day, while you re-introduce the foods, one at a time, and see which ones push your blood pressure back up.

Avoid those. No drugs. No problem. Ends.

[All this is in my book “Diet Wise”. By the way]

Thing is: milk is very often the major culprit. Using milk as a vehicle for this silly experiment means it could never work.

So scientists have concluded that polyphenols don’t work by lowering blood pressure. It’s not a valid conclusion.

There is the same problem with T. Colin Campbell’s daft book  “The China Study”. He got his facts all wrong. He purports to have proved that protein is dangerous and animal proteins cause cancer.

But he used milk as “protein” in his study! Presumably he didn’t know, or chose to totally ignore the fact, that milk contains lots of bad fats and heaps of sickly sugar + hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, arsenic and heavy metals.

All Campbell proved was that milk is bad for us. I knew that, I’ve been writing it for over 3 decades. I could have told him his “study” would come up with no valid conclusion.

But now we are stuck with the crappy conclusion: I can’t get to everyone who buys his book and tell them the truth about it.

Well, back to the new study. The author Ilse Botden, a graduate student at University Medical Center in Rotterdam, said the new findings “do not support” a lowering of blood pressure by polyphenols as the source of red wine’s benefits to the cardiovascular system.

That’s not the same as saying red wine is no good for the heart, they admit that at least. But her findings are going to be presented this week at the American Heart Association’s High Blood Pressure Research meeting in Orlando, Fla.

I find that curiously depressing.

Her “research” involved 61 people averaging about 61 years of age, all of whom had borderline high blood pressure. Participants were given dairy beverages that contained either the red wine polyphenols or a harmless placebo.

That’s two groups then:

  • Poison plus polyphenols
  • Poison without polyphenols

Not surprisingly, Botden’s team found no difference in blood pressure levels between the two groups after four weeks on the regimen. So they have concluded, perhaps wrongly, that lowering blood pressure isn’t the main heart-healthy mechanism of wine.

Well, it lowers mine—every time! Trouble is, you can’t present the findings of one person. It’s not science.

You may also like:


{ 18 comments }

John Hii October 15, 2011 at 10:37 pm

I am awe-struck by your words and over the top criticisms. You committed the same scientific crime of taking things out of context as you accused others of doing. eg using only polyphenols from grapes in that study. And you accused T Campbell of using milk as animal protein in the China Study. How wrong and biased you are! You took animal protein completely out of context. T Campbell in fact alluded to the other substances in today’s animal food (what you would vehemently called toxins). The findings from his China Study make perfect sense to me.
Your article revealed to me that you can stoop very low to express your opinion. I cannot find you credible anymore. You write like the other chalartans with the same incredulous message about a conspiracy. The conspiracy is you! Perpetuated by nonsense and an intense commercial desire to sell your product.

ProfKeith October 16, 2011 at 12:54 am

I suggest you remove yourself from my list John,
I get bored by bigots, anyway.
You don’t make any sense, since I don’t know what product you are talking about.
If I’m a real one-man conspiracy, I might start to feel I’m getting somewhere…
Prof.

Mike Berman October 16, 2011 at 2:05 am

I just cannot see the logic from this so called study why this doctor from the Netherlands first of all would use “synthetic” polyphenols rather than using a natural concentrated extract from the grape skins and as you correctly mentioned, positive results usually never occur or is as effective from a single compound rather than from a mixture of a natural set of components which work like more of an orchestra. Secondly, you are absolutely correct about the effects of dairy products and especially when a dairy product can have so many variables like hormones, antibiotics, roage like proteins that act like antigens and so on. This reminds me also about the so called really stupid “vitamin E” studies that have been done using synthetic E which I recall was the use of either a recemic mixture of alpha tocopherol which has been pretty much established to give negative results. They never considered to use the natural mixture of the eight “E” components that does show very positive results as an effective anti oxidant or redox mediator in the lipid phases and for it to be truly effective, it should work in concert with other vitamins such as vitamin C, alpha lipoic acid and so on. In my opinion, I think that these people can’t be that stupid to not know what I have mentioned but rather I believe that there is an agenda in mind such that there is a strong concerted effort most likely funded by many pharmaceutical companies to make natural supplements, herbs and any alternative to synthetic pharmaceuticals to just look really bad to the unknowing public. It appears to be a rather strange coincidence that the proposed Durbin bill in the US Senate regarding giving the FDA more inappropriate powers to control the availability of many valuable and healthful supplements and herbal products from the US market as if they were dangerous drugs and attempting to equate higher levels (justifyably so) of vitamin D3 or vitamin C and so on to “drugs”! This unpresidented move may become a reality in a couple of months and it appears to me that our government-industial-media complex is trying really hard to prepare the people with this so called assinine justification for these huge draconian measures. I wish there was something more that I can do than just trying to convince my congressmen and Senators to vote no for this draconian and Statist type bill.

Mary McDowell October 16, 2011 at 9:19 pm

I assume that when you say that this or that causes “blood pressure” that you mean it causes HIGH blood pressure. Reminds me of how annoyed my father, a surgeon, got when something referred to having “a temperature” when he/she meant having a fever.
But saying something causes “blood pressure” sounds rather stupid–sorry.

lee kramer October 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm

Hey Mary,

How about “hypertension” instead of “HIGH blood pressure”??

Denise October 16, 2011 at 11:49 pm

Store bought milk, yes – bad stuff.

I thrive on raw milk. It is my only food for months at a time. Blood pressure goes DOWN, pain goes away. You should make a distinction between the two.

ProfKeith October 17, 2011 at 12:03 am

Doesn’t happen with most people.
Dairy intolerance is common and makes no difference whether it’s raw or pasteurized.

Denise October 17, 2011 at 12:22 am

Happens with thousands of people. Pasteurized, homogenized milk promotes high BP and strokes. Raw milk does NOT. It was all people drank before heart disease was common. Respectfully, you are uninformed. Inform yourself.

http://www.realmilk.com/milkcure.html

Denise October 17, 2011 at 12:35 am

Back in the 20s, Americans could buy fresh raw whole milk, real clabber and buttermilk, luscious naturally yellow butter, fresh farm cheeses and cream in various colors and thicknesses. Today’s milk is accused of causing everything from allergies to heart disease to cancer, but when Americans could buy Real Milk, these diseases were rare. In fact, a supply of high-quality dairy products was considered vital to American security and the economic well being of the nation.
~From “A Campaign for Raw Milk”

ProfKeith October 17, 2011 at 2:09 am

Not very respectful Denise.
Also, you are venting your own propaganda, not fact.
I have over 30 years clinical experience and know that even organic milk makes a LOT of people ill.
You are just going along with the popular culture, propagated by Joe Mercola and others.
I know the value of farm milk in the old days, I wrote about it here in “How To Survive In A World Without Antibiotics” (Stolle milk, Google it).
I am not talking about the fats and heart disease story; you brought that up.
I’m talk about the allergy and intolerance reaction.
You might get better educated if you visit the site http://www.notmilk.com

ProfKeith October 17, 2011 at 2:18 am

Anyone reading who wants more FACTS, not propaganda, should visit this page at least:
http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html

Denise October 17, 2011 at 1:34 pm

It’s disrespectful to encourage someone to get informed? Please forgive me. And I am not talking about organic milk. Organic milk is ultra-pasteurized and homogenized. It is a dead food. There is no comparison.

Raw milk nourished the world – and still does most of the world – for thousands of years. All your clinical research experience can’t refute that. Book after book details thousands of people clearing up serious health problems after switching to raw milk. I just came off of six months on raw milk and kombucha tea. Lost 25 pounds, BP down to 130/80 from 160/110, pain gone, energy great. How can something that is so bad get those results?

Not everyone can tolerate milk. But MANY more people can thrive on raw milk that cannot drink store milk because it is so bad. I would encourage you to do your OWN research and not just rely on what you have read. Any scientist or doctor who pushes drugs and surgery can lay claim to many years of “experience.” But do they get results?

There is a reason Mercola has the #1 health site in the world. He gets results. A discussion like this on his site would have already brought in hundreds of responses. Another name you might want to note – Sally Fallon. A Campaign for Real Milk.

Denise October 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm

“A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk.”

This is a lie and many other statements in that article have been soundly refuted. They are simply not true, based on CDC records. Most illness from milk in the last 15-20 years has come from pasteurized homogenized milk.
This article is so full of flaws it is unbelievable.

The practical outworking is that CA, where raw milk is consumed in greater quantities than in any other state, cannot produce one incident where raw milk caused illness. Gumpert, in his book , had painstakingly traced the few incidents where it was suspected and found no proof.

Should we ban cantaloupes because of the people who have died recently? Deli meats and salad mixes have caused far more illnesses and death than many other foods. Why are they not villified and banned like raw milk is?

Bottom line, people who drink clean raw milk know that it is wonderful and it does not get them sick.

That article mentions – and yes, I did read it – the leukemia virus being found in 3 of 5 cows. Why is there not ONE documentation of a person getting that form of leukemia from raw milk. I couldn’t find one ANYWHERE!

At least admit there is a huge difference between clean raw milk and antibiotic and pus laden, pasteurized and homogenized, store bought milk.

I’m DONE!

Robin October 17, 2011 at 2:35 pm

I agree Denise, that raw milk is a totally different food than the store-bought, pasteurized/homogenized toxic swill that passes for milk.
However, I would like to point out one very important point regarding raw milk.
Beside knowing your source/farmer, the milk must come from cows raised on pasuture, and 100% grass-fed. Organic is secondary if the cows are 100% grass-fed.
I too have seen amazing results from using raw milk with my family.

My husband suffered from migraine headaches his entire life. He did eventually connect his migraines to milk-pasturized/homogenized. He stopped drinking milk, and his migraines stopped.

When I began buying 100% grass fed, raw milk, I suggested to him he might tolerate it. He tried it, and now can drink milk (grass-fed/raw) with no migraines.
However, the pasturized milk still causes him migraines, as he found out when he was eating a large amount of ice cream (right after he quit smoking).

My whole family loves the grass-fed, raw milk I purchase. I drive 2 hours every 2 weeks to purchase raw milk from an Amish farm (licensed raw milk supplier). The milk is pure, fresh, and I see the cows where my milk comes from as I drive onto the farm. I feel so very fortunate to have found this source. Not all are so lucky. So, if one cannot get 100% grass-fed, pasture raised raw milk from clean, family farms, then avoid the white liquid that passes for milk in our country.

Denise October 17, 2011 at 4:48 pm

Exactly! That is what we get too and I pay $9/gallon for it, because it’s illegal here. In PA I paid $2/gallon!

Also, in the article he posted, it referenced that animals stop drinking milk when weaned. The reason for that is that they are animals. They do not have the intelligence to milk an animal, churn butter, or make cheese. We do and the reason is God gave us the intelligence to do so!

Thank you, Robin!!!

Robin October 18, 2011 at 1:39 am

Interesting, even among the “alternative” set, emotions run high regarding milk.
I’ve found that raw, grass fed milk has provided wonderful benefits for my family.
Personally, I never drink the stuff-never have-even as a child. Ultimately, what supports your health and well-being is what you should adhere to. Everyone is different, and has different responses to everything in our physical realm. We each need to investigate on our own and make choices and decisions based upon that research.
I always have a trial period for anything new that seems to be beneficial. Sometimes my kids are my lab rats :-), as was the case with olive leaf extract (not to worry, the lab-rat child was actually over 18). Or my husband, as with the raw milk.
I do not take anyone’s word for things until I’ve tried it myself. Everyone has an agenda of some sort, so we need to take responsibility for ourselves, using our gifts of intelligence and reason.

Kai June 3, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Wow. People do get upset when they learn the truth, don’t they? I’m sorry that cow’s milk was meant for it’s young, not people! Might as well breast feed your child all their life instead of giving them that crap.

I completely agree with you Prof Keith. I can’t believe people are looking for the cold, straight facts and are bitching about it! They are the ones who searched it up; you didn’t force the information down their throats.

Everyone who reads this: He’s trying to prove a point and educate you. We were meant to drink cow’s milk; a baby calf was.

Kai June 3, 2012 at 4:35 pm

**We weren’t meant to drink cow’s milk; a baby calf was.

Sorry, forgot to check over my comment.

Comments on this entry are closed.