I wasn’t kidding when I said (previous article) that employers may not give nurses parking privileges. That was precisely the case at one hospital I worked at in Los Angeles. Every single employee was able to park in the garage, save for the nursing staff.

Now if this was New York, where driving is more of a hindrance than a convenience, I’d say, okay, you can get to work without the car. But in LA? Where owning a car is more important than having a place to live? Where walking is considered an extreme sport?

Evening and night shift nurses were allowed the privilege of parking their cars in the Bank of America lot across the street from the hospital. The lot had no security, and relatively no lighting once the sun set over the City of Angels. Cars were vandalized all the time, including mine.

Day shift nurses, who didn’t have this option (since the lot was reserved for customers during the daytime hours) were told to park on the street. Now there was street parking around the neighborhood. Of course, you only had to arrive at work about 30-45 minutes early, in order to nab a spot within half a mile of the hospital. There was alternate street parking on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so that narrowed choices even further. Day shift began at 7am, and you had to move your car by about 9:30. If you were busy, and couldn’t just drop your patient and run out to shuffle your car around the neighborhood, tough luck. You got a ticket. Think the hospital cared?

Secretaries got parking stickers, janitors got parking stickers, doctors got them, lab techs got them….everyone except nurses. Does that say something about the status of nurses? The president of the hospital, when once asked to comment on this travesty, stated that he was under the impression that “most of the nurses walked to work.” Now isn’t that cute. People in Los Angeles drive even if they’re just going across the street, and he thought that the nurses walked to work?

The situation only changed when a new wing opened, with a new and larger garage. Then nurses were permitted the privilege of having somewhere relatively safe and convenient to park their cars. Imagine that, a nurse thinking that she’s deserving of the same treatment showered upon a secretary or dishwasher.

I came across a rather sickening article just now, which claims to have found the “secret recipe” for curing the nursing shortage. Please, do tell.

The wonderful little ditty appeared on KFoxTV in El Paso/Las Cruces, where I imagine that nurses may be in short supply. To end the nursing shortage, a lightbulb went off inside of someone’s head that all we need to do is have a recruitment fair. And once people see what a great and marvelous career nursing is, our problems will be solved.

The article’s first words of wisdom are from a nursing student, who has given her pronouncement of the shortage.

Amber Carman, a nursing student at NMSU says she believes nurses are in short supply in part because of the high standards of colleges.

“For our class we had 48 come in but there was 80 that applied. It’s very competitive and you have to be on the ball because your GPA reflects whether you get into the program,” said Carman.

How do you like that grammar? “But there was 80…” doesn’t this outlet have a copywriter who is supposed to smooth that type of thing over, and make sources sound intelligent? Aside from the grammar, I would say that the “high standards” are the least of the problems, and in fact, this person doesn’t really say what high standards have to do with anything. They have 48 slots and 80 applied. So they filled the slots. And….what’s the rest of the story?

Perhaps what she meant to say, or what someone should have said, is that many students FAIL once they are in nursing programs, or they drop out. That’s the problem, not the standards for getting in. Trying to sell nursing as a semi-glamorous job, and yacking about the benefits rather than the job itself, has brought many ill-qualified people into nursing programs. They haven’t a clue what nursing is really about, and once they find out that they may get puked on, beat up by a violent patient, and be expected to change bed linens, they’re out the door.

Okay, let’s move on. Here’s another golden idea.

“I think we have to start recruiting at the school age level, making elementary kids aware of the careers and bringing more men into nursing,” said Eva Aguilar, a faculty member at NMSU.

Indoctrinate elementary school children? Are these people playing with a full deck or what? And what does “bring more men into nursing” actually mean? How do you “bring them in?” Capture unsuspecting men on their way home from work, lasso them as they fumble with their car keys and release them on the condition that they’ll become nurses? If men had any interest in nursing, they would enter the career in greater numbers. But the reality is–men are not willing to put up with a lot of the garbage that women do, and therefore, taking the abuse that is still so readily dished out in nursing doesn’t turn them on.

And now, for my favorite. This is precisely why we have a shortage, because of the idiotic beliefs expressed in the passage below.

For those already in the field, they say if you get into it for the right reasons, the rewards outweigh it all.

“Seeing that brand new baby if you are a labor and delivery nurse and the look on parents faces. Helping a woman through breast cancer and she’s now a survivor. Those are the things that make it worth it.” said Lynn Arnold, a nursing recruiter .

Oh my, does that stink of the nurse martyr syndrome. If you just get into it for the right reasons, then nothing else matters. Even though your employer doesn’t allow you to have any say in your work schedule; even though you don’t get paid for sick time; even though the hospital refuses to allocate parking to nurses; even though they refuse to pay you overtime; even though the hospital has fought you tooth and nail over a work related injury; even though the hospital fired you for reporting an incompetent doctor; even though the facility fired its housekeeping staff and expects you to clean the rooms; even though you are regularly assigned more patients than you can safely handle; even though it has been five years since you were able to take a lunch break; even though they laid you off one year before your retirement so you could lose most of your benefits; even though you were reprimanded for a medication error that the pharmacist made; even though you are forced to work mandatory overtime and you had no one to pick up your 8 year old child at school and the nursing supervisor said “So what?”….by golly, you saw the face of that newborn and it made it all worthwhile!

As long as you have the right attitude, the rewards will outweigh any of those “minor” pitfalls of the profession.

And after reading this, is it any wonder why this region is having a nursing shortage?

The subject of drinking milk is really making me queasy, but I just have to add one more thing. Just in case you’re confused by the National Dairy Council’s assertion that the comprehensive study which appeared in Pediatrics is an “opinion piece.”

You really have to hand it to them, as they clutch their bank books and try to figure out how to counteract this noxious revolt against decades of propaganda. So they immediately make it seem like this is an “animal rights” issue and not one pertaining to human health, and make a pathetic attempt to dismiss this extensive and exhaustive study as an “opinion piece.” Notice, rule #1. When the opponent has nothing to say to accurately counteract information, or can offer no solid evidence to the contrary, they immediately turn to attacking the person who said it. Way to go, Dairy Council. You guys are the best!

If there was ever a document worthy of being called an opinion piece, it is the garbled “statement” that the National Dairy Council issued in response to this. Read it and weep, or laugh, or throw spitballs.

My favorite line from it is “When conducting their review, PCRM authors chose to ignore decades of comprehensive research endorsing dairy’s role in bone health.”

Ummm, they did a scientific review of the published literature, so they dug through all of those “decades of comprehensive research.” How about you read the study before you make assinine comments like this one? I guess the NDC is pissed off because they included research that was not conducted with milk money, and dared to show milk is a less than sacred light.

Anyway, FYI, just to show how full of BS the NDC is, here is part of the abstract of the actual study, which is appearing in Pediatrics (a peer reviewed journal of high caliber). You can see for yourself if this reads like an op-ed, or a scientific study.

A Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) search was conducted for studies published on the relationship between milk, dairy products, or calcium intake and bone mineralization or fracture risk in children and young adults (1–25 years). This search yielded 58 studies: 22 cross-sectional studies; 13 retrospective studies; 10 longitudinal prospective studies; and 13 randomized, controlled trials.

Results. Eleven of the studies did not control for weight, pubertal status, and exercise and were excluded. Ten studies were randomized, controlled trials of supplemental calcium, 9 of which showed modest positive benefits on bone mineralization in children and adolescents. Of the remaining 37 studies of dairy or unsupplemented dietary calcium intake, 27 studies found no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health. In the remaining 9 reports, the effects on bone health are small and 3 were confounded by vitamin D intake from milk fortified with vitamin D. Therefore, in clinical, longitudinal, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies, neither increased consumption of dairy products, specifically, nor total dietary calcium consumption has shown even a modestly consistent benefit for child or young adult bone health.

I bet those models and celebs who pose with that goofy white mustache on their upper lip are laughing all the way to the bank. And I’m sure that the white “milk” mustache is chalk, make-up, paint, liquid white-out, Elmer’s glue, plaster of Paris–anything but milk.

Milk does not do a body good. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. And no, I don’t have any ties to the anti-milk industry, and don’t get a financial kick-back from milk haters anonymous. There is no monetary reward for believing that cows do not produce milk to feed humans. Nor is there any financial benefit for acknowledging that drinking the milk of another species past babyhood is not only not necessary, but can be quite detrimental.

The Milkies Go Into Frenzy Mode

An exhaustive scientific review, which is scheduled to appear in the March issue of the medical journal Pediatrics, topples the myth that human children somehow, must replace Mommie’s milk (or formula) with that of a cow.

Cornell-trained nutritionist Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D., and co-authors show that dairy products do not promote bone health in children and young adults. Physical activity does have a positive impact on bone health, while evidence linking bone health with dairy product consumption is weak, at best.

Under scientific scrutiny, the support for the milk myth crumbles. This analysis of 58 published studies shows that the evidence on which U.S. dairy intake recommendations are based is scant.

A majority of the studies reviewed found no relationship between dairy or dietary calcium intake and measures of bone health. I bet that’s not what your mother told you. Mine certainly didn’t. When she found out that I’d been pouring my milk down the drain, she was shocked that I hadn’t died.

In the remaining studies, the researchers said that the evidence in support of dairy products was sketchy. In some, the effects on bone health were small, and in others, the results were confounded by vitamin D intake from milk fortified with vitamin D. They concluded, based on the studies, that building strong bones and good health, children need exercise, sunshine, and a diet rich in fruits and vegetables that helps them maintain a healthy body weight.

Their analysis also supports a growing number of doctors who question the value of children drinking milk after they’ve stopped breastfeeding. Others cite cow’s milk as a primary culprit behind some children’s allergies and other illnesses, and point out that it’s unnatural that humans are the only species who drink the milk of other mammals.

And as far as dairy products being the “only” source of calcium, or the “best” source, the absorbable calcium found in one cup of cow’s milk is equivalent to a cup of fortified orange juice, a cup of cooked kale, two packages of instant oats, two-thirds of a cup of tofu, or one to two thirds of a cup of broccoli, the report said.

Well as you can imagine, this sent the dairy industry into a frenzy, screaming and kicking, and frothing like a pack of rabid dogs in heat.

Bias is as Bias Does

So of course, National Dairy Council and the International Dairy Foods Association rushed to issue a statement, condemning this heinous act of subversion. Their statement is one of the most comical releases I have read in a while. It is a collection of pathetic and utterly idiotic sound-bytes, cobbled together in the desperate hope that no one will ask them to actually explain themselves.

They carefully ignore all of the blatant facts concerning milk consumption (like how human children evolved into calves), and of course, they also conveniently omit mentioning the multi-billion dollar industry at stake, which is their reason for being. So are we a little biased guys?

Just in case you were wondering, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) is the Washington, DC-based organization representing the nation’s dairy processing and manufacturing industries and their suppliers. Its 500+ members range from large multinational corporations to single-plant operations, and represent more than 85% of the total volume of milk, cultured products, cheese, and ice cream and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States – an estimated $70-billion a year industry.

Their friends, the National Dairy Council(r) (NDC) is managed by Dairy Management Inc., the nonprofit domestic and international marketing, planning and management organization for U.S.-produced dairy products on behalf of America’s dairy farmers.

So I repeat, does anyone smell a little bias here?

The Annotated Statement

Anyway, here is their statement in regards to the study which was released, that damned biased paper threatening to steal billions from the hands of the dairy industry.

The review paper by PCRM in the March issue of Pediatrics is an opinion piece by three representatives of an animal rights organization that has only a 5% physician membership. When conducting their review, PCRM authors chose to ignore decades of comprehensive research endorsing dairy’s role in bone health.

Are these people for real? Since when is a comprehensive review of scientific literature a “opinion piece?” And the PCRM authors have not ignored “decades of comprehensive research.” Hello guys, earth calling the dairy associations–this paper has just looked at the decades of comprehensive research and this is what they found. How about you coming up with a similar paper, showing all of the studies and reports that support your position? What, you can’t find any?

Consensus in the scientific and medical community is strong regarding the value of dairy foods in a healthy diet. The U.S. Surgeon General, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and many other reputable nutrition organizations confirm that milk and milk products are a good way for kids and teens to get the bone-building calcium they need.

In addition, the positive role of milk and milk products in the diet has been established through numerous clinical trials, which are considered the “gold standard” for evaluating cause-and-effect relationships.

Yes, consensus among mainstream groups does support milk, but only because that’s what we’ve all had drilled into our heads, thanks to the relentless tactics of dairy industry lobbiests. And the dairy industry is one of the wealthiest industries in the nation, and has heavily influenced “official” government literature, such as the food pyramids. Many of the scientists who come up with the “official” government literature have strong financial ties to the USDA and the dairy and meat industry. Money, contrary to popular thought, is not the same as real science.

But bias aside, not one agency actually says that milk is necessary to support human life past infancy. And also, there is no mention in your statement of the billions of people inhabiting this planet, from the beginning of the human race until present day, who have never seen a cow, let alone drank milk. Dairy products were virtually unknown in many cultures, such as in Asia, before contact with Europeans. And no one seemed to notice it was missing. Even to this day, dairy products are not common in many Asian nations, all of whom have a lower incidence of bone fractures and overall better bone health (more about that later).

And who has actually “established” the positive role of milk in diet, other than the dairy industry and the “experts” on your payroll? Please tell us about the numerous clinical trials which have established “the role of milk” in the diet. Do you have the citations and data handy? Oh, and please include who sponsored them. And I do hate to keep repeating myself, but this paper reviewed 58 studies, probably some of the ones you’re referring to.

Kids are in a calcium crisis — they need more milk more often. During the teen years, half of all bone is formed and about 15 percent of adult height is added. This is a critical time for calcium, and by far the most common source for calcium is milk and dairy products.

Is this the great calcium crisis of 2005? And how is it that kids “need” milk? Because you say so? Have you found a glitch in the theory of evolution, and are getting ready to present your findings to the world–that cows and humans are evolving to the point where they will soon be indistinguishable, which is why kids need to go from Mommie’s breast to Bessie the cow’s udder?

And sorry, but the most common source of calcium is not milk and dairy. They only seem to be, because your industry has so much clout and are a powerful lobby. The dairy industry has bankrolled pro-dairy research and heavily influenced the government’s dietary recommendations. This does not equal good science, only that you have a lot of money to get your way.

And if there is a calcium crisis in this country, it is due to the dangerously growing intake of junk and fast foods. Especially among children. It has nothing to do with drinking milk, but everything to do with eating diets high in fat and sugar, and low in essential vitamins and minerals. And we are becoming a nation of couch potatoes, where instead of being outside and playing, children are draped over chairs and sofas, watching TV. One of the most essential factors in bone growth is exercise.

When it comes to nutrition, people should listen to health and nutrition experts, not animal rights activists.

This is my favorite line from the statement. Who should we listen to? Well, I do admit bias on the part of the researchers. They do have an agenda. However, their agenda is not a financial one. It is an ethical one. There is no mega-billion dollar animal rights groups paying them off, nor is there a multi-zillion dollar vegetarian lobby. The researchers are not the mouthpiece for a powerful lobby aggressively seeking out its own agenda.

Whereas, you guys are everything the PCRM is not. So should we listen to you, and the nutrition and health experts who are on your payroll? Your statement sounds (sob, sob) like you are so concerned for the bone health of children, while in reality, all you care about is the financial health of the dairy industry. So if it’s a choice of ethics or money, I will go with ethics, thank you.

What They Left Out

In their little tirade, the friends of the dairy industry left out some notable attractions. The unmentionables.

1) They failed to offer any type of explanation as to why humans need to drink milk after infancy, and from another species. Please explain the rationale for that, oh holy dairy industry. Please explain why on earth milk has become a “requirement” for human children.

2) Lactose intolerance. Ooops, forgot to mention it. Milk is so essential to humans, that 70% of people on the planet cannot digest it. The enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose, the sugar found in milk, begins to disappear at about the age of 8 in roughly 70-75% of the humans inhabiting the planet. This is because we don’t require milk in our diet. So can you guys over in dairyland please explain this phenomena.

3) You forgot to mention that drinking cow’s milk is associated with a huge cornucopia of health problems, which include allergies, ear infections, constipation, Crohn’s disease and type 1 diabetes. Some research has linked it to breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, acne, uterine and ovarian cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis, and anemia.

Is this all bogus? Can every researcher be wrong, and every person whose health problems cleared up once dairy was removed from their diet be mentally incompetent? Surely you can offer some explanation for this? Can milk really do a body bad?

4) The countries with the highest intake of dairy products also have the highest rates of bone fractures and overall, the poorest bone health. Surprised? But milk builds strong bones–the opposite should be true.

T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, did a series of nutritional studies that began in 1983 and are collectively known as the China Study. In these studies, Campbell found that Asians, who consume far less dietary calcium than Americans, have one-fifth the bone fracture rate of Americans.

Walter C. Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, one of the principal investigators of the Nurses’ Health Study, has looked at the diet and health of tens of thousands of nurses since 1980, and of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an all-male study underway since 1986.

Willett and his colleagues investigated the milk-drinking habits of 72,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study. To their surprise, they found that milk consumption was not associated with a lower risk of hip fracture, a measure of bone strength. In fact, women who drank milk twice a day were as likely to suffer a bone break as women who drank it once a week.

In the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, there was also no relationship between calcium intake and bone fractures in more than 43,000 men. And a 2003 Swedish study of more than 60,000 women, which was published in the journal Bone, found no association between dietary calcium intake and fracture risk.

So hey guys from dairyland, now I’ve shown you some pretty impressive studies that have absolutely nothing to do with animal rights. Cornell and Harvard University. We’re talking real credentials, as well as enormous study populations. So maybe you can explain why milk didn’t work its wonders with these people.