Articles By Danie Maritz

Unapproved stem cell treatments can blind patients

Stem cell treatment for various debilitating eye diseases seems to be the answer now days. On the surface it also seems to be a safe procedure. However, it is not. Certainly it is not a procedure that should be done as a “backyard” job. While stem cell treatments do have the promise of good results, many procedures are still experimental or in their infancy. It should only be done once it has been well researched at a reputable Eye Clinic.

Unfortunately patients with these debilitating eye conditions are usually at their wits end and panicking that they are soon going to be blind. This often makes them gullible and targets of the unscrupulous and they can end up with much poorer vision, and usually at best much poorer financially.

Reports of these unfortunate patients are all too common. We all realize that these patients are often at their wits end, but, common sense, caution and patience should and must prevail and remain the main guidance and pacemaker.

On March17, 2017 there was an article in the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology of 3 patients that were blinded by such a stem cell procedure, done in Florida.( Unapproved stem cell treatment blinds 3 patients – American Academy of Ophthalmology )


Please follow and like us:

Milk allergy, really !! Think again …..

Milk allergy, really !! Think again …..

“Commercial milk” is  a synthetic “milk derivative” and not “real milk” at all.

You may mistakenly believe that you’re lactose intolerant when the effects could actually be a response to the casein A1 in the milk. In an ideal world, the best milk to drink is raw milk from organic, grass fed, casein A2-producing cows.

A2 milk

Guernsey Cow producing A2 milk

Many of the 1-in-4 people who exhibit symptoms of lactose intolerance might instead be unable to digest the A1 casein. 40% of people that are sensitive to dairy, are also sensitive to soy, so switching to soy is not the answer. While many people find that they need to go on a gluten-free, casein-free diet, it is worthwhile to consider the information that Dr. Woodford presented in his book, Devil in the Milk in 2007. The problem with milk may not be milk itself, but rather the type of milk we, are consuming.

Casein A2 is the normal protein in milk. It is present in milk from buffalo, goats, sheep and some breeds of cows. Unfortunately, most cows today produce casein A1, and not A2. The majority of store-bought milk is A1, even if it’s organic.

Although sheep and goat milk do not have the same benefits as cow milk and are often grain-fed, their milk is free of beta-casein A1. Truly fermented dairy (such as Amasi) can heal the gut, strengthen immune function, and cleanse the body of toxic materials.

A1 was never in the original composition of cows milk. A mutation occured many centuries ago and the proline at position 67 was replaced by histidine, the mutation subsequently spread widely throughout herds in the western world through breeding. Not only is the exogenous opioid peptide not supposed to be in milk, its also a BCM7 carrier, up to four times the amount we can handle. BCM7 may play a role in the aetiology of many human diseases, such a sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), autism, schizophrenia, type I diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders.  Fortunately people with healthy digestive tracts do not absorb as much BCM-7.

The percentage A1 and A2 beta-casein protein in milk varies between herds of cattle, and also between countries. Guernsey cows, ancient cattle breeds such as the African zebu cattle (Bos taurus indicus) and Asian cattle  produce milk with predominantly A2 protein. Holstein cow milk should be avoided because they produce mainly casein A1 and Ayrshires produce between 46 and 70 percent A1 milk. The A1 version of the protein is common among cattle in the western world of Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand.


Beta-casein is a long chain of amino acids – 229 to be exact. In ancient cattle breeds, an amino acid in this long chain of amino acids called proline is number 67  This protein found in ancient breeds of cattle is called beta-casein A2. Centuries ago, a mutation happened in this long chain of amino acids. When the mutation occurred, an amino acid called histidine replaced proline. This new protein is called beta-casein A1. In both beta-casein A1 and A2, there is a side chain amino acid that comes off amino acid 67. This side chain amino acid is called BCM7. BCM7 is a powerful opiate and responsible for much of the grief related to current milk consumption in the western world. This also includes minor irritations, such as BCM7’s ability to bind to mucous membranes in the nose and stimulate mucous secretions. BCM7 is less likely to be absorbed by those with a healthy gut. In older breeds of cattle that have the beta-casein A2 structure, the opiate is far less likely to become free in the body than with Beta-casein A1, which has a weak bond to this dangerous opiate called BCM7. Biochemically, histidine simply cannot hold on to BCM7 for very long and much of BCM7 gets into our bloodstream, especially in those who have a “leaky” gut. The absorption of BCM7 causes all sorts of changes in the immune system, the blood vessels, and in the brain.

Jerseys & Holsteins give A1 milk

Zebu & Asian give A2 milk

In our modern world we have over worked, over drugged cows trying to keep up with supply & demand  It is not natural for cows to be in perpetual lactation with the help of hormones & drugs  A cow was never meant to produce 75 times the amount of milk that its naturally designed to make.

So, don’t be too quick too hasty to label yourself as lactose or gluten intolerant, or even allergic to milk. Look at where the milk comes from ……it must be A2 milk. Even if you are 100% healthy, stay away from A1 milk, get A2 and try to get “real”  milk from the correct breeds of grass fed cattle such as Guernsey cows.

Please follow and like us:

Melanoma prevented by Sunscreen: Is our “Protection from the Sun” Message Misleading?

suntan1Misleading and False information might be what the public has been fed over the years regarding sunscreens and skin cancer, especially malignant melanomas. Beginning with my heading above. There is no such thing as “Melanoma“. It is either a MALIGNANT melanoma or a BENIGN melanoma, the two have NOTHING in common. They don’t even have to be pigmented.

The general population is being confused by the pseudo scientific information presented to them by the companies marketing the various types of skin protection, from sunscreen creams to clothing, hats, motor vehicle window tints, etc.

There are now more people using sunscreen on a regular basis than ever before and in spite of that, the percentage of superficial skin cancers as well as malignant melanomas has been increasing. So, can it be possible that the sunscreen that you are using might place you at risk of developing cancer, rather than preventing it ?

The SPF factor displays the percentage of presumed protection against UVB (which is the “good” UV) and offers no protection against the “bad” UVA. There are some “broad spectrum” sunscreens on the market that protect against UVA as well as UVB, but, the percentage of protection against UVA is not stated. SPF only applies to UVB. There are also two kinds of sunscreens. One is the oily type on the skin surface and the other the “dry” type that absorbs into the skin. A new type of sunscreen has also been developed in Australia that claims that it blocks only UVA and allows the UVB to come through, so that vitamin D can be produced and not be blocked. It would then also allow the natural melanin in the skin to increase in a normal way, due to the stimulation by the UVB. The idea is good.

When you “tan” the superficial UVB naturally increases the melanin in your skin, which then in turn becomes darker and then offers a natural barrier against the “bad” UVA, which has a longer wave length and penetrates deeper. It seems that chronic low grade exposure to the sun increases the natural production of melanin in the skin which in turn protects the skin against the harmful UVA in a completely natural way.


What is more important than the type of sunscreen, is your type of skin. Certain types skin should never be exposed to sun. See the Fitzpatrick scale.



home_coverThere is evidence that UV  can increase the incidence of some superficial skin cancers. But they are generally more localized and do not metastasize.  There is NO evidence that sunlight can or does increase the incidence of malignant melanoma. Furthermore there is also a difference between benign and malignant melanomas. It is NOT the natural course for benign melanomas to change into malignant melanomas. Furthermore, malignant melanomas, basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas have NOTHING in common. The one cannot progress to the other. They are as different from each another as chalk and cheese.

The production of Vitamin D is also prevented by sunblock. Vitamin D is essential for our bone strength as well as preventing various kinds of systemic cancer such as breast, colon and others. Not only systemic, but, also in the skin. The natural production of Vitamin D by the skin also cannot be replaced by drinking supplements. It is possible that sunblock can cause vitamin D deficiency in a person.

There was an interesting article by Margaret B. Planta, in the recent JABFM of Nov / Dec 2016, regarding whether our message of sunscreen protection and melanomas is correct. Sunscreen and Melanoma: Is Our Prevention Message Correct?

Once again, a good example where we should probably not interfere with the natural functionality of our bodies. We were designed as pretty efficient functioning creatures.


Please follow and like us:

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Follow by Email