Search
Login
Blogroll

« How I Erred on the Martin Tape, and the New Lessons I Learned | Main | Throw YouTube into the Mix, and the Case Involving OP and Sick Kids Gets Weirder and Weirder »
Tuesday
Aug262008

Behind the Sloppy Video Is a Larger Struggle—More from the WAPF on Marler’s Methods

You’ve probably noticed by now that things look a little different here. The blog hosting company upgraded its software, and in the process, forced its blogs to adopt a new look. I wasn’t unhappy with the old look, but if I wanted access to additional new features, I had to change over to a design that is part of the upgrade. More technical changes to come, hopefully of the beneficial kind.

Lots of people seem to be upset with me with my take of the Chris Martin YouTube tape. As if I’m somehow making light of that family’s suffering.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have long expressed sympathy with the Martin family. No parent can look at the video of Chris Martin and not be upset about what the family went through.

That being said, I am at odds with the use to which the video is now being put. The Martins understandably want to reduce the chances that other parents will have to go through what their son went through. The problem comes with the method they have chosen to accomplish that task.

They really had two obvious choices, if they wanted to use their misfortune to affect change. First, they could have tried to promote more understanding of what makes a few people get very sick in outbreaks from pathogens. If raw milk was at fault (not a given), why did six kids get sick, and 30,000 other people not suffer any illnesses? We can ask the same question with regard to illnesses from ground beef, spinach, lettuce, peppers, etc.

I actually had a good discussion with Bill Marler about this topic. He said there is some thinking in the medical community that certain kids have specialized receptors on their kidneys that make them especially susceptible to pathogens. But we don’t really know for sure. Why not promote more research in this area, where there’s such a dearth of data?

The second choice the Martins had was to seek retribution against Organic Pastures and push for laws and legislation that restrict access to raw milk. That is the path they chose. As part of that path, they decided to turn a sad and upsetting video of their son on life support into a piece of propaganda supporting a political agenda and a political machine. (As just one other example of that machine, every time there is any kind of suspected illness from raw milk, I immediately receive an email from Bill Marler, and I’m sure other media people receive the same email, as if to say, “See, what’d I tell ya!”). The Martins made that choice, I didn’t.

Once you make that choice, though, you enter a different realm. Your story of tragedy or accomplishment is now held up as evidence for a particular ideology. Those of you who can remember back to the Cold War will recall that there were high-profile citizens who sometimes left the Soviet Union for the U.S., or vice versa. Once they made that switch, they were held up by their new country as prime evidence that its ideology was superior.

The struggle over raw milk and the larger struggle it symbolizes over nutritional freedom may not be the Cold War, but it is evolving into a bitter and intense ideological struggle. I understand that video camera dates can get turned off or batteries go dead.

The problem comes when you are using powerful symbols like video of sick children, not to try to rectify the problem of foodborne illness, but rather to try to sabotage a vital and thriving farm business, and restrict the access of millions of people to a food of their choice. I think I am entitled in that situation to demand that the other side have its ducks in a row.

The California Department of Health Services did a sloppy report on the illnesses. It wasn’t clear exactly how many children became ill from E.coli 0157:H7 and whether a boy or girl got milk from a friend, and whether they all consumed raw milk, among various other problems. The Marler/Martin video of Chris is sloppily edited, suggesting that things happened on days when they likely didn’t happen.

Normally, these kinds of things would be minor. But when you’re trying to destroy people and take away people’s rights, I don’t think you are entitled to that kind of leeway.

Part of the problem is that our government and public health authorities have been able to get away with half-truths and propaganda and sloppy reports for a long time in this struggle. Judges in California, New York, and Pennsylvania have expressed their distaste for examining serious and precise evidence on the other side, preferring instead to simply accept the party line expressed by the regulators. So it’s no surprise that the regulators and their supporters like Marler are sloppy—no one makes any demands on them to do otherwise. And the authorities love images like Chris Martin, since it makes their jobs much easier.

Part of what is going on here is that the real victims in this war—owners of small dairies and people who want access to nutritionally dense foods of their choice--have begun turning things around. Instead of sitting back and accepting all the lies and half-truths and sloppy documentation, they are fighting back with the other side of the story.

A prime example is the Weston A. Price Foundation. It has just added to its web site two documents refuting Bill Marler’s examination of the scientific literature on raw milk. (Go to www.realmilk.org, and scroll down; there's no direct link to the documents.) These analyses do a thorough job of explaining how research on food-borne illness is accomplished, and why raw milk gets the blame more often than it should. They are clearly written and make for educational reading. These refutations follow up on the WAPF's excellent response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s slide show blasting raw milk.

To those who feel there are much bigger food and farm problems than the seemingly endless debate and discussion about the Martin illness, your points are very well taken. All I can say is that sometimes large political struggles are encapsulated by particularly emotional incidents and legal cases—witness the Dreyfus Affair in France and the Scopes Monkey trial in the U.S. It’s not a pleasant business. But the outcomes of these situations can have wide ripple effects.

Reader Comments (55)

It's easy to become emotional when it involves kids - and I am sure a video of my 2 month old hooked up to tubes as she recovered from e-coli would have been very heart wrenching . It is not easy to stay calm when your kid is fighting to live. My problem with this is there is no way to officially blame any particular item for this illness , and I would feel very foolish if it turned out to be something else . So I love my kid,and would certainly want answers, but without solid proof I could not place someone else's livelihood in jeopardy.
August 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterA real farmer
ARF,
Waiting for "solid proof" translates to watching people suffer and die while the debate continues. Check out the history of cholera, smoking/cancer, and similar public health controversies that went on way too long because there wasn't "solid proof." Sometimes action must be taken with suggestive, likely evidence. That doesn't have to mean the "end" of an industry, but denial will just take you down the river . How about working toward real solutions to allow access to raw milk, not including deceptive advertising, unreliable testing regimes to "prove" safety of the product, and worst of all, downplaying of risks. Otherwise, what choice is left: remove the "pump handle."
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterconcerned
Divide and conquer. Take down the little guys first. This is the way to gain control of the food supply and thus the people who consume the food.

With the disproportionate regulation of raw milk/ raw milk products they close small dairies.

With the disproportionate regulation of non-pasteurized cider and nuts, they close small orchards.

With the disproportionate enforcement of regulatory requirements they close small meat processing plants. (See "Big Problems? Blame the Little Guy" http://www.ethicurean.com )

With unequal and unconstitutional animal identification requirements (NAIS), they close small livestock operations.

Now they are touting irradiation of vegetables. so you can bet they will be strangling farmer's markets and CSAs soon. David is right on this one.

None of these products have been shown to pose a significant threat to public health. indeed, in many cases small-holdings are summarily closed without causing any illness at all. This is in stark contrast to industrially-run operations that sicken and kill hundreds of people, yet are allowed to remain in operation for months and even years. Regulation is so shoddy in many cases that their products can't even be identified to be recalled.

Meanwhile, agriculture workers who are forced to turn to the vertically integrated industrial/corporate system to sell their product are forced to accept meager wages in order to remain on their farms. Abattoir worker fare even worse.

Is it any wonder our food is unhealthy?
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterkirsten
While the new blog format is cleaner and more organized, I am dismayed at the horrible color choice. It's extremely difficult to read light letters on dark background... I keep having to rub my eyes in order to focus on the text. I even turned off the page style, but that was no help in reading as all text runs together.

Is it possible to at least select another, more traditional, color format?
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJenny @ Sagehill
So this is it, then, on the video? No apology to the Martin family after suggesting they were involved in a criminal act? No acknowledgment that you didn't check on what a ventilator was before making your accusations? Instead you continue to question the integrity of the Martins.

In other news, oxygen masks only work well as cell phones if the other person is real close by.

(I actually called an ICU and asked about their cell phone policy. I got a fascinating response and would report it here if I were a journalist.)
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Solid proof does not mean "watching people suffer and die" but rather providing more complete testing and medical histories compiled by doctors. The health industry itself has a one step at a time mentality which IMHO wastes precious time. My Dr. took the aggressive testing approach which seemed overboard by some - but I am so glad he did. Still , there was no hard evidence to link the e-coli to any one thing, so why would I sue anyone? It's not like we do nothing and wait. The technology is there and if the cost of doing the testing is an issue why should it be - after all lives are at stake. I am simply stating that to sue someone and destroy them on "suggestive " evidence will not stop a disease or cure one. It does not replace personal responsibility. If you feel testing is unreliable and advertising deceptive while risk is downplayed - insist on more complete case studies and moniter ALL suspected sources , don't just zero in on one and try to destroy it, and in the meantime find the most effective treatments. No one is in denial here, but there are so many factors to consider and we need to address them all and be able to raise questions , while protecting the security and availability of our food supply , and the rights of consumers to choose.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterA real farmer
"(I actually called an ICU and asked about their cell phone policy. I got a fascinating response and would report it here if I were a journalist.)"

There is nothing special about a "journalist" compared to anyone else, and I encourage you to share whatever information you are morally comfortable with sharing.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdamaged justice
Cell phone regulations differ from hospital to hospital. I've worked in a hospital that did not allow them; and I now work in a high tech telemetry unit that does. The difference is in the equipment the hospital chooses to use. So unless Amanda called the actual hospital ICU the child was in, her information is probably irrelevant.

Gwen
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterelderberryjam
To take kirsten's comments a little further, the biggest problem with government regulations squeezing out the smaller producers and ignoring problems with largeer producers is the acceptance of those practices by society as a whole. No one has a problem crying fowl if Mark McAfee may have sickened some kids, but when these larger producers verifiably sicken hundreds of people society just shrugs it's collective shoulders as if that is just a part of life. Where are the videos of the folks suffering from poisoned tomatoes, peppers or whatever?

As far as the Martin family goes, I think they know they have created a piece of political propaganda but I'm sure they feel justified given their current situation. I don't think there is anything wrong about pointing that out, and doing so certainly doesn't warrant an apology.

My wife and two children (2 and 4) drink raw milk regularly with no problems. My youngest has had access to raw milk (mommy's or bovine) since birth, and is significantly healthier than my first from a wellness/immunity perspective. Personally, I enjoy the debate about whether raw milk is "good" or "bad". What is frustrating is that the folks who think it is "bad" would deny the choice to those who think it is "good" ... for the sake of the children.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrian
I am also having trouble reading the white text on black background.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney
Yes, those who would deny choice…and foist their belief system, opinions and views on others….are despicable…especially when they don’t deserve the moral high ground they twist the truth to occupy.

It’s pretty obvious from the video, and the timing of its release, and the remarks from the shyster, that raw milk is just the secondary target here…. Someone wants their pound of flesh.

Now every occurrence gives one a chance for personal growth…even the most grave (actually those are the biggest opportunities). The key here is there is always a choice…rise above, or grovel in the gutter…it’s always up to you. It’s sad to see the deterioration, the lowering of oneself, just for the sweet opiate of retribution. But one thing is for sure, when you jump in bed with a used prophylactic, chances are you’re going to get dirty.

For shame.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermilkfarmer
Wecome Brian??

"As far as the Martin family goes, I think they know they have created a piece of political propaganda but I'm sure they feel justified given their current situation. I don't think there is anything wrong about pointing that out, and doing so certainly doesn't warrant an apology"

What makes anyone so SURE of what this video was used for? Maybe the Martins just wanted to show what HUS looks like no matter how it is contracted.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDaily Reader
Jeremy and Elizabeth,

I couldn't easily read the format either. My solution is to copy the post and comments into a Word docucment, enlarge the font to 12 or 14, and change the font color to a light shade of pink. Try it.

To the rest of the readers,

It's good to see that the conversation has begun to touch on the importance of the germ's environment as a cause of disease.

Thank you, Miguel, for bringing us another little gem in yesterday's commdent.

"Not only does the germ theory remain unsubstantiated today, but Pasteur himself recanted it in his private journal, writing the famous words which were revealed many decades after his death:

“It is not the germ that causes disease but the terrain in which the germ is found.” "
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Kendall
After viewing the video - again- it is clear that this a jab at OP . Nice info on HUS , but my child looked the same way in the hospital without HUS.

I don't think any apology is necessary.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterA real farmer
Off topic maybe not because this helps to reveal the mindset of the USDA at the highest level.
Go to USDA web site read todays press release No. 021808
USDA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED RULE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISPOSITION OF DOWNER CATTLE
The Ag. Sec. gives the reason for the proposed banning of the slaughter of downer cattle
"TO MAINTAIN CONSUMER CONFINDENCE IN THE FOOD SUPPLY"
NOTHING SAID ABOUT FOOD SAFETY
Some of us have been stating for a long time the war on raw dairy is not about FOOD SAFETY doesnt this help to strengthen our point?
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon
NAIS is not about food safety; that statement is included in its various government documents.

I'm also not happy with the display's readability. Otherwise, a refreshing format.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
"...denial will just take you down the river."

You bet it will. And believing that we can sanitize ourselves into health is serious denial. No, it's worse than denial, because it makes the solution a problem. While industrial food and aggressive use of antibiotics are turning our immune systems into tissue paper, we're chasing down and killing the microbes that can save us. (And congratulating ourselves... all the way to the grave.)
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave Milano
If I had written David's original post, I would apologize for accusing the Martin's of being involved in fraud. I personally have no quibble with the word "propaganda."

On the cell phone, what I did not ask is whether they have any cell phones there that look like oxygen masks. I missed an opportunty. The probability of Mark's claim can be assessed by anyone who cares to call Loma Linda.
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
PS Dave...don't mind the white on grey....might help if the background was even darker!
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermilkfarmer
Light text on a dark background is hardest on the eyes. It won't bother everyone, but it tends be an issue. If this could change, it would be very helpful. Dark text on a light background is the best choice if you want to be easy on the eyes. Thank you:)
August 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterHollie
Member Account Required
Register or Log In to leave comments. Click the links here or in the upper right part of the page.