There is lots not to like about the new web site about raw milk from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It is nearly totally one-sided in painting raw milk as dangerous. It is intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging large-scale journal-published research that demonstrates raw milk’s health benefits in reducing the incidence of asthma and allergies in children. It seems to have a connection with a product liability law firm that has been using its clients’ involvement in the site for its own promotion. On top of all that, it is taxpayer funded.
Ironically, when I watched the obvious site marquee–three videos of individuals who had been sickened, or had relatives sickened, by raw milk–I realized there could be something positive in the site, a teachable moment, as they say. The videos are difficult to watch because they are so sad and terrifying. And obviously, the CDC operatives want people to walk away from those videos feeling both teary-eyed and afraid, determined never ever to go anywhere near raw dairy products.
But what stood out to me about those videos is that each of the three individuals interviewed was new to raw milk when they or their relatives became ill. Other notable individuals who have become very sick from raw milk were similarly newbies–I’m thinking in particular about Lauren Herzog, the California girl who became sick at the same time as Mary McGonigle Martin’s son in 2006 (and chronicled a number of times on this site); and Mari Tardiff, the California woman who became paralyzed in 2008 after her first time drinking raw milk.
I’m not a scientist, but you don’t have to be a scientist to see the pattern. We certainly don’t have a large sampling to deal with, but then, we fortunately don’t have many individuals who become so ill from raw milk. Indeed, the ones I referred to above are probably the majority for the last five years. But just using the government’s own “data,” why not try to learn from these situations?
Statistically speaking, we know that raw milk isn’t a public health hazard– 50-150 reported illnesses each year isn’t a public health problem in a food system with 20,000 to 25,000 reported food-borne illnesses. Could raw milk producers do a better job in milk production so as to reduce the number? Absolutely, and I’ve chronicled here a movement to improve safety.
As part of an overall movement to improve safety, it would also would be worth investigating the health backgrounds of the individuals who became ill. It may also be that individuals new to raw milk should be encouraged to go at it gradually, perhaps beginning with raw kefir or yogurt, and then moving to raw milk in small quantities, and moving on from there. In other words, realistic exploration and education.
Clearly, we have more to learn about raw dairy, much as we do about the health benefits and dangers of many foods. But so long as the government officials in charge of such matters view raw dairy as inherently dangerous, and see their education campaigns as part of a war, there’s no way they could ever be open to the kinds of questions I am raising.
Lykke seems to suggest that portraying the dangers of raw milk on the CDC site is simply a matter of equal treatment, presumably a counterbalance to pro-raw-milk sites like that of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “Those who had a bad experience with raw milk should have the same rights to describe their experience as those who had a great experience with the product.”
I’m sorry, but the comparison has a big flaw. The CDC web site is a government web site, supposedly geared toward informing the populace about how to improve public health. It carries the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, and as such is financially supported by all of us, those in favor and those against raw milk. But it is being used as a propaganda tool by those against raw milk. There had to be expenses for the videos and the editing. There were no doubt travel expenses for the victims. And the salaries of the scientists who oversaw the whole thing.
The same funding could could be used as a tool for good, if those in charge simply removed their intellectual blinders, and moderated their personal antipathy and disgust for those of us who value nutritionally-dense foods as an important foundation of good health.
Science is supposed to be about open-minded investigation, and an appreciation that we do the investigation because we always have more to learn, and that the answers we discover don’t always fit out preconceptions. The scientists involved in putting together this web site are a shame to their profession. ?
People eat sprouts, hamburger, lettuce, etc for years and do not get sick – until there is cow shit in it.
Why don't you answer this question: How is it possible that only a few people became ill, while thousands of others had no problem during the same period of time, let alone nearly die?
Unless you have a better explanation, the only possible explanation is that those few people became ill because of poor immune systems.
I found it most interesting that the videos posted at the CDC had narrative associated with them that said that the unfortunate consumers had been searching for milk:
1. That they could digest and that they had heard that raw milk was better for them and easier to digest.
2. That ( by inference ) could not drink pasteurized dead milk becuase it caused them problems.
At least we see some weakening of the FDA and CDC chains of Raw Milk slavery and oppression. At least the CDC has used the words "Raw Milk". At other CDC, NIH and DHHS and FDA websites they use words like "Ancient Milks"….when they refer to the beneficial bacteria missing in the American diet and the origins of the rampant immune depression in Americans.
The NIH and DHHS are actually very supportive of raw milk ( what they call Ancient fermented milks in the time prior to pasteurized milk )….they just can not bear to say the words for fear that Deans Foods or members of the NCIMS will have their heads on a silver platter.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/probiotics/introduction.htm
Bill Marler,
Shit in OPDC Raw Milk….are you serious? Those are very strong statements do you really mean that??? Please say you are sorry for saying that. Those kinds of durogatory statements are hurtful and damaging.
You are a public figuer and your words carry power and influence.
Mark
This is not to say raw milk doesn't sicken people. It could also be that low level exposures from drinking milk over time leads to immunity.
In the mean time lawyers, corporations and bureaucrats all profit from the mass poisoning of Americans in so many ways, the suffering of whom dwarfs anything from supposed raw milk illnesses. This incessant focus on raw milk illnesses getting a bit repetitive. How about talking about the business of our health as it relates to all those other ways TPTB are eating out our substance.
The proof that there is merit to this hypothesis is the existence of "Montezuma's Revenge" or "Traveler's Diarrhea".
The fact that locals are not affected by the pathogens that make foreigner's sick is
THE SAME issue, different day.
We can accept the concept in the case of traveler's diarrhea but there is a big fat blind spot when it comes to raw milk.
Well I guess we got the answer from the CDC's Dr. Janell A. Routh MD. She amended the CDC Raw Milk wesbite alright. She put Mary Martin on it and failed to answer any of the questions that I raised with her about the accuracy of the data on that website. In her email to me on December 17th she said that there had been a death from Salmonella and raw milk in CA….yet she refused to give details of the death. I asked at least twice and gave her 6 weeks. She will not confirm the death. She also said that CA had more deaths and illnesses from raw milk than any other state.
What planet does she live on???
Thanks Dr. Routh, you have just done a disservice to humanity. Humaity that you claim to serve as a pediatric aids medic in Africa etc… FDA's John Sheehan, the NCIMS and the PMO are so very proud of you. I am sure that you are right on track for FOOD Inc promotion to big bucks in big ag. Name your price.
http://bayloraids.org/corps/bios2007.php
Mark
Prior to 1972, Campylobacter was considered travelers diarrhea and not a pathogen of high importance. Once you had it one time you were immunized for a long period of time. Now it is a reportable pathogen.
We are sure going in the right direction arn't we? Bring on the sterile bubble promised by our perfect system of sterile food and promises of perfect food safety and ever increasing immune depression and killer MRSA superbugs created by FDA endorsed antibiotic abuse .
It is the fools train to immune hell and an early funeral.
See this JAMA link for immunity from Campylobacter by drinking raw milk!
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/257/1/43.abstract?maxtoshow=%3f&HITS=10&hits=10…
Moral of the story…if you want to be safe from Campylobacter…better drink your raw milk.
Mark
Mark, I stand by the facts that California Department of Health and the CDC found your product responsible for the 2006 raw milk E. coli outbreak. Although, I understand why you refuse to admit it, I still am impressed by what you have done to go nearly five years without a similar event. I hope that what you are doing continues that. Mark, please tell me what you dispute in what I posted – http://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
Looking at the expert opinions on Bill Marler's link, I suspect milk farmer is correct in suggesting that the settlement was driven by business concerns. Perhaps it was seen as better to keep things uncertain than have a ruling by the courts…seems possible if that had gone to court, it would have ended-up much like Hartman's outcome.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/documents/news/2010/12/raw-milk-ruling.pdf
I wonder where OP would be now if there had been no settlement, but rather a ruling like the one in Minnesota (there are a lot of similarities in the cases). All that said, I agree with Bill Marler's statement: "I still am impressed by what you have done to go nearly five years without a similar event. I hope that what you are doing continues that." My mind is open to the possibility that just because this 2006 event keeps coming up, it doesn't mean there aren't good things with RAMP that could be applied in developing some kind of standards/guidelines for preventing cow shit from getting in raw milk sold to people with supposedly "inferior" immune systems.
And there are already studies indicating that colostrum may be an even better vaccine. The studies on kombucha and the like are mixed, so we really need more of those.
And because traveler's diarrhea is also caused by shigella, salmonella, e coli and others, and local populations have developed immunities to all of these, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that raw milk may have a vaccine effect on those pathogens, as well.
Bill Marler- David did not say it is definitive that only newbies get sick –
he was noting that it is an interesting trend. Perhaps it's not worthy of further study in your opinion. Heavens, you'd have to look to a different specialty if food borne illness becomes scarce, no? Just think, maybe you could even jump to the other side of the fence if you find out the victim could be blamed failing to "vaccinate" themselves.
Kind of an odd to twist to think that real science could potentially prove that parents who do not give raw milk or other living foods are "criminal". Or that they are strain on the health care system and costing society so much money.
When I submit a comment, I have x number of minutes in which the site allows me to make a change. IF I make a revision within that time , do others see multiples of my comment or just the corrected one?
I wondered because the system does not send me my own comments – but sometimes I get repeats of the messages of others.
Not that it matters that much, but we could put changes/edits in bold or something so folks could easily zero in on corrections?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/atg4wn38850a19ty/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC106124/
I can imagine a jury trial with all the pathos, tears, and a really cute kid to boot. Stack that against an unprecedented number of negative tests of the milk, a rampant E. coli epidemic in CA, and no positive test for E.coli in a patient with HUS. Bill Marler was right to settle – it's what he does. This couple took their money and were supposed to go home. Why they continue to slander Mark and his business defies all reason. This disgusting propaganda has it both ways: Mary has done her "homework", but failed to read the warning on the product label?
If five years impresses you then over fifty years without incident should be all the more impressive.
Ken Conrad
I think outside of this blog most people would agree that the spinach outbreak was unrelated: 1) none of the children ate Dole brand baby spinach, but all of them had exposure to OPDC products and 2) the E. coli O157:H7 DNA fingerprints were different.
Bill. The evidence collected in 2006 did not arise to the level of proof of causation. This matter is settled and you and Mary are both required to maintain peace. You are in serious breach of that Agreement. I have no further comment all I ask is that you honor all the expressed terms of the agreement. Please read it again.
I have never ever guaranteed perfection in food safety to any one. The idea that the CDC promises consumers a guarantee of safety with pasteurized milk is the biggest lie on the Internet. Tell the 1300 sickened in 2006 in CA from pasteurized milk and tell that to the relatives of three dead Americans in 2007 at Whittier Farms in MA.
It is the politically corrupt and non scientific non physician like thing I have ever heard out of a doctors mouth. Dr Janell Routh just became Dr untRouth.
Mark
He tells me that there is no record whatsoever in the whole official-dom of the province, of anyone being made sick from consuming raw milk
on its website, Claravale dairy in California advertises that in 80 years' operation, no-one has ever been made sick from its raw milk
with these kinds of evidences all over the world, you wonder what kind of scientific study will ever placate the opponents of REAL MILK.
On Tuesday, the largest AM radio station in BC spent an hour on the topic of raw milk. Every time the Chief Medical Officer opened his mouth, he came off appearing more foolish…. exposing that the Health authorities are just parroting the same tired refrain. Confronted with the cognitive dissonance of government outlawing raw milk, yet licencing and taking income from the sale of products proven to be harmful to the public health … they babble for a while, then just go silent.
Try 83 continous years. Yes. Claravale Dairy in CA has been pathogen free since it's start in 1927. That is not luck. That is because of conditions and care.
Raw milk is not settled science. It the biggest new frontier for all humanity. A new frontier for economics, agriculture, nutrition, politics, science, health and medicine …..for all who dare.
Mark
I wonder why Bill never defends those many CAFO-sickened people against pasteurized milk with the same outrage that he does for the same few who were supposedly sicked by raw milk. Seems to me he should be even more outraged since three DIED from pasteurized milk. Why doesn't he just argue against the consumption of ALL milk?
Is it because he never made any money off the many sickened and three KILLED by pasteurized milk? Or because his handlers won't let him?
What hypocrisy.
And the part of that initial sentence from the CDC website that bothers me the most is "not THOUGHT to be important" (emphasis mine). Because the war on bacteria/virusrs/pathogens has been waged and the forgone conclusion reached that raw milk is in no way safe ever, there is no inclination to even look at the issue. We talk back and forth all the time about evidence-based science, and yet the CDC chooses to use "thought"?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
If you haven't read this article from the Atlantic, I highly recommend that you do. The author states: "Maybe sometimes its the questions that are biased, not the answers". When we have formed a conclusion before we have objectively sorted through the data, we will inherently "find" the data that supports our conclusion. And this happens on both sides of the fence.
Bill
As you know, a settlement buys peace and secessation of damages and hostilities. That is why companies buy insurance policies. Please read the first and second pages one more time. Your malicious attacks and very public accusations that misstate facts completely violate our settlement, sadly I think you have drawn Mary into a place she not aware of. You have manipulated her and used her as a pon. As you well know. The state of CA did not say that OPDC was the cause. They reported epidemologic evidence which is not causation. Dr. Linda Harris told us this in testimony in Holister.
I ask one more time to comply with the terms of the agreement and stop maligning OPDC it is damaging.
Mark
http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/settlement-reached-in-listeria-death/
Mark, Mary and I have not breached any agreement with you and you know it. I stand by the CA and CDC investigation that linked your product to E. coli illnesses in 2006. Those children had no link to the spinach outbreak. Remember, I represented the vast majority of those people too. Why would I bring two claims against OP if I had the deep pockets of Dole to collect from? Good grief.
It is time to move on. Mark, it is time to admit the facts. Telling the truth is not maligning. You will feel better for it.
Okay, Mark. The "o" is not anywhere the "a" or "w" on my keyboard. Tell me about science again, oh Master of All Knowledge, Vanguard of Modern Intelligence, Savior of Humanity, Mr. Right-When-All-The-"DOCTORS"-And-"SCIENTISTS"-Are-Wrong.
"The "o" is not anywhere the "a" or "w" on my keyboard."
Hey, holier than thou… didn't you mean "The "o" is nowhere NEAR the…."
If you are so opinionated and so damned smart, identify yourself you measly, weasel/troll.
I am telling you right now, it is NOT science if it has an agenda and the doctors ARE wrong. We have obliterated too many bacteria from our systems and now doctors are literally injecting saline laced with SHIT to replace the bacteria we are missing. So, unless you come to us with a name and some FACTS, shut up or go be a troll somewhere else!
Back to meaningful banter, please.
Alice
The Raw Milk Controversy
http://www.farmstory.org/_webapp_3446332/The_Raw_Milk_Controversy
It was the 5th in a series of seminars on the subject of raw milk sponsored by Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.
http://njaes.rutgers.edu/news/release.asp?n=569
U.S. Approves Genetically Modified Alfalfa
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/business/28alfalfa.html
One of his points is that people who use roundup to kill alfalfa in crop rotation before planting beans or corn will have alfalfa as a non killable weed in those crops. He has many good points, but this one was the most interesting to me. We might be saved because conventional farmers who practice crop rotation will refuse to buy it.
Can farm milk consumption prevent allergic diseases?
C. Braun-Fahrlander1,2 and E. von Mutius3 1Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland, 2Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland and 3Dr. von Haunersche Childrens Hospital of Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03665.x/abstract
If you dismiss epidemiological evidence from raw milk investigations, then you must also dismiss epidemiological evidence related to allergies and links to pasteurized milk or other foods. I see a double standard on this blog where epidemiological evidence is "okay" if it supports raw milk, but not okay if it doesn't. Epidemiology doesn't prove causation, but serves an important purpose in providing insights. Credibility here is lost when you cherry pick the data and only embrace epidemiological results that fit your ideological and marketing goals.
MW
How can they coexist? The pollen from the gmo will contaminate normal crops.
From MW link: "Medical guidance strongly discourages consumption of raw milk because of the known health risk associated with pathogenic bacteria present in unpasteurized milk."
Appears biased from the start.
From MW post:"Although the epidemiological evidence consistently suggest a protective role of unprocessed cows milk consumption on the development of asthma, hay fever and atopic sensitization"
Imagine "epidemiological evidence CONSISTENTLY suggest a protective" (emphasis mine)
" the underlying mechanisms are not yet understood "
OK, they don't understand why "epidemiological evidence CONSISTENTLY suggest a protective role"
"and the consumption of raw milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure for allergic diseases."
Again the bias shows with this statement. MW where in your post is the double standard that you see?
Some here have suggested that European scientists embrace raw milk. The link shows that is not the case. The researchers acknowledge epidemiological evidence relating to allergies and pathogen risks. They make a conclusion you don't like, but would seem they hold the benefits and risks to the same standard, both based on epidemiology (circumstantial evidence in lay terms).
MW
on the other hand, if listeria comes into contact with a pasteurized milk cheese (post-pasteurization), you could have some pretty serious problems.
While there are those on both sides of the raw milk debate that like to 'cherry pick' the studies, conclusions and points they are trying to make, the CDC and other government agencies aren't supposed to be 'advocates'. It appears that the governmental agencies are working backwards….establishing their conclusions first, and finding items that support just their predetermined message. Ignoring the benefits that raw milk has, even it light of the risks involved, reduces their credibility to zero. Trying to equate them, a authority where people go for information, with an advocacy group, who is promoting a particular point, is wrong. The notion that it's OK for the CDC to do something, just because others are doing it too is a 'playground sandbox' mentality. When a governmental agency provides half the story, and ignores the reality of the other half, it renders them untrustworthy.
In general, and by in large, raw milk is produced safely in America, for a majority of consumers. If you'd believe the info that we are getting from the authorities….hundreds if not thousands of people should be stricken daily from raw milk. It aint happening…as a matter of fact, raw milk is improving the health and quality of lives for a significant group of people, daily.
Sure, they have a few high profile videos of some that have gotten stricken from raw milk. It would be easy to create similar videos from those sickened by other foods….but you don't see them coming out against cold cuts, uncooked vegetables or other 'high risk' foods. Wonder why? Gallon by gallon, the financial monopoly of the raw milk boilers will be broken, despite their purchasing of the authorities.
"Back to meaningful banter, please."
Yes, please. Back to the nonsense. Gumpert's fools over to the side for people who think they were born with scientific training and anything that contradicts them must be the work of corruption. And no changing your minds.. even if he leads you to ruin and you maim a child.
Oh, if I could only forget this site exists.
Perhaps we could approach her to see if she has any students who might consider studying the raw milk questions.
Ken Conrad
My peanut allergic son is now magically not allergic anymore. MY IBS is cured and all this has occurred without drugs (which I have tried) and since my family has made a steady diet of pure, raw, unadulterated, unpasteurized milk (and before you attack my words I am purposefully being redundant to emphasize my point, simpleton). I have, do and will continue to feed MY children raw milk on a daily basis and be damned proud of that decision.
Hey, chicken-shit — the one who refuses to leave his/her name — why don't you verbally attack the millions of Americans who maim and poison their kids daily with corn derivatives, HFCS (aka CORN SUGAR)? Why? I know why — it is because you are a troll. Now, get lost!
Alice
News flash, Alice. Magic doesn't exist. It's a cold, hard world and all the wishing doesn't change the fact that Mark's arguments don't hold. See Humboldt County.
And now everyone cry corruption because that's all you've got when the weight of the evidence comes down on the other side. You're the ones that can't seem stand up to a real scientific review.
The End.
http://hartkeisonline.com/
Asking Gordon Watson again from a previous thread: If we do not own ourselves, then who does?
As for "magic versus science", I have no problem believing that some people believe in magic. But speaking only for myself, it wasn't magical thinking that led me down a real foods path, it was seeing the bad science, handwaving, misrepresentation, distortions and outright lies perpetuated by the purveyors of dead poisons and their apologists. Over and over again, it's the same old story:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
My deepest respect goes to those individuals like Denise Minger who are practicing real science — not scientage, scientody, or simple self-fulfilling propaganda.
http://agriculturesociety.com/politics-and-food/whole-foods-et-al-grant-blessing-of-gmo-alfalfa-to-monsanto/
So much for corporate "organics"
Who owns ourselves?" Simple : the One who made you. And you sure did not make yourself. I related the anecdote about Buckminster Fuller deciding not to commit suicide by reasoning that since he had not created himself, he did not own himself. And, second, that he'd been created for some worthwhile purpose, so it was incumbent on him to continue. That was at about age 26. After which, Fuller helped make some of the major advances in western civilization. For the rest of his life, he went to sleep every night, meditating on the Lord's prayer
you cannot take another breath, unless the Life Giver sustains you. It is given unto men, once, to die, then the crisis = judgment. You'll be giving an account to the One who made you.
you say you want science? … then educate yourself by reading the Affidavit of Dr Beals at
http://www.foodrightsalliance.ca/alice_pdfs/Affidavit%20of%20Theodore%20Beals.pdf
his expert testimony won the day for Michael Schmidt in Ontario, and it is the trump card in the constitutional question here in BC.
In Court one day I heard Judge Edmond Cronin say "the nature of evidence is that it can be tested. If it can't be tested, it's not evidence". So let's see evidence in the form of actuarial tables, comparing risk of harm from REAL MILK to all the other things that are sold, legally. Until then, you come off as just another ignoramus, parrotting the central party line.
I hope you aren't referring to me.
If anyone wants to present a claim of ownership on me, they're welcome to do so. In the absence of such, I'll continue to live my irreplaceable life. It's the only one I will ever have, and it's too short to waste it being an unhappy slave.
a word to the wise is sufficient …, Mr D Justice. Be very careful what you ask for, 'cause the One who owns the cattle on a 1000 hills, to Whom the gold and silver belong, and Who's the biggest landLord of All, also owns your soul. sooner or later, He will come calling for it
Like I said before " you've got to serve some body" sang Bob Dylan
We choose who we serve and own ourselves (and if we make mistakes we own up to them) . . . . we are not slaves to anyone . . . . . Only God knows our souls.
Peace,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
When did I ask for anything? I only asked questions. Nobody is obligated to provide answers. If I don't get answers, I'll just continue to live my life. As for assumptions, please remove your Mister.
The Lord helps those who help themselves. If I wait for G-d to save me, I'll be a dead slave.
The RAMP device is about as big as a scanner, and uses swabs taken from the field to test a couple of hundred various suspected materials, starting with anthrax. Results in 15 minutes. Price about $15,000. When I tried to purchase one, I was denied … told you must be cleared by the US Dept of Defence.
Bacillus Thuringensis Kurstaki is used in war games as a simulant becaase – ostensibly – it's harmless.
so here we had a city of a million or so people, doused from on-high with a mist which includes live bacteria which their own material sheet admits makes some people ill, NOT TO MENTION E. COLI!! … – without the consent of those people …but that's OK …. It's the very remote possibility of harm from REAL MILK that the Health Authority is concerned with!!