I Expect WI Prosecutors in Hershberger Case to Fear Monger About Raw Milk, But Mother Jones?
The principle of private food should get a test in front of a jury of ordinary citizens when raw dairy farmer Vernon Hershbeger goes on trial in Wisconsin on Jan. 7.
I should say the principle should get a test, because initial indications are that the state will work like the dickens to sidestep that issue in favor of a ton of fear mongering designed to scare the jury that raw milk is too dangerous to distribute publicly, privately, or any which way, and thus seek to justify both the state's ban on raw milk sales and its relentless prosecution of Hershberger, a farmer who provides raw milk and other food to more than 100 members of a private food club around his town of Loganville.
The court has scheduled five days for the proceedings. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection has already presented the defense with a list of 30 witnesses it plans to call in the trial, including the state veterinarian and a number of public health experts.
That list of witnesses, many with no direct knowledge of Hershberger's food club or the issue of food rights, suggests strongly that the state will be seeking to turn the trial into a case against raw milk, and argue that raw milk distribution can't be allowed by anyone, including Hershberger.
But Hershberger has no doubt given pause to the state by engaging an experienced Wisconsin lawyer, Elizabeth Rich, through the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (of which she is vice president). The state would much rather have faced off against just Hershberger as he went through the proceedings thus far, representing himself, despite the fits he gave them in successfully defying their efforts to claim he had violated his bail terms and in forcing the videotaping of all proceedings.
Hershberger has been charged with operating a retail food establishment without a license, operating a dairy farm as a milk producer without a license and violating a holding order issued by DATCP. The holding order prohibited anyone from removing food products from coolers that had been taped in Hershberger’s farm store. He pronounced himself back in business serving his food club back in early 2010, following a DATCP raid on his farm. If convicted, he could be sent to jail for a year or more.
The Hershberger case has opened up serious divisions within the Wisconsin business and legal communities. To get a taste, take a look at the video of Wisconsin businessman Brendan Connelly speaking in Virginia earlier this year to a food group. It turns out Connelly is not only a member of Hershberger's food club, but of the Wisconsin Free Masons.
Connelly doesn't like what the state is doing to his food club, by possibly endangering his supply of nutrient-dense food. In the talk, he points out that one of the Wisconsin prosecutors, Phillip Ferris of the state's Department of Justice, is also a Free Mason, and thus a "brother". Note Connelly's remarks beginning at about the seven-minute mark, where he states, "A brother in my mason lodge is one of the prosecuting attorneys...I called him." Connelly says he has been trying to contact the Wisconsin attorney general about the craziness of the Hershberger case as well. A principle of Masonry, he states, "is to be a good guy, honest, ethical. How this jibes with that, I just want them to answer this. I do not know."
The odds against Hershberger are long, even with the advantage of the first jury trial in a raw milk-related food rights case, and the divisions in the Wisconsin ruling class. The defense has already been prohibited by the judge from mentioning jury nullification, which allows the jury to refuse to back laws it regards as unjust. And the judge can be counted on not to restrict fear mongering by the prosecution. Because the prosecution is coming in all guns blazing, this will be an expensive case to defend, requiring all the financial support possible to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund to provide a full defense.
**
One of the last places I would have expected to see a regurgitation of government-based fear mongering over raw milk was Mother Jones.
The magazine positions itself as a purveyor of "smart, fearless journalism... journalism not funded by or beholden to corporations. ..you can count on us to take no prisoners, cleave to no dogma, and tell it like it is."
But its foray into the world of raw milk ("Got E-Coli? Raw Milk May Taste Great, But Pasteurization Was Invented for a Reason") in the September-October issue comes off as just the opposite. It might as well have been crafted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control--it even uses one of its poster moms against raw milk, Mary McGonigle-Martin, whose six-year-old story is featured on the CDC anti-raw-milk web site.
Actually, the Mother Jones article is more cleverly constructed than anything the CDC has done, because it is more subtly suggestive in its anti-raw-milk language than CDC (or FDA), which just hit you over the head with their views. If I was going to stick a label on it, I'd call the piece disingenuous--the writer, Kiera Butler, certainly knows more about the deep rights and political implications of this subject than she lets on in the article. I can't link to the article, since it isn't online, but here is a taste of some of its many low points.
* It trivializes the decision to consume raw milk. For most people, the decision to serve to their families raw milk, and other nutrient-dense foods, comes after much reading and consideration. The Mother Jones author presents herself as someone who has been drinking raw milk for a year, and suddenly gets religion.
"But I'd also heard it could make you sick, so after catching a news program about an E. coli outbreak in California, I decided to do some digging. What I learned was not terribly appetizing: Milk that hasn't undergone pasteurization-a heating process that kills pathogens-can harbor bacteria such
as Campylobacter, listeria, and E. coli-all of which can cause severe illness and even death. That's why selling raw milk is illegal in 18 states."
Sorry, but as they say in Texas, that dog won't hunt. No one who has been drinking raw milk for a year is so naïve about the food safety aspects as to decide from a news program to investigate. It gets worse from there.
* It trivializes the European research on raw milk. Its reporting about the PARSIFAL and the GABRIELA studies indicating that raw milk helps reduce allergies and asthma, is off base when it says that "the existing studies hinge on surveys of farm families, whose exposure to a diverse range of bacteria and allergens makes the cause of the benefit tricky to pinpoint."
Those weren't small-scale studies, as suggested, but large-scale studies. One was of 8,000 children and the other nearly 15,000. The studies screened for a number of "farm" factors (like dirt, animals, etc.), so there was little doubt it was the milk making the difference.
* It trivializes the people who drink raw milk by alluding to the "near-religious fervor" with which they defend raw milk. In other words, they are a bunch of nut cases. Lots of people I know don't defend it that way. They drink it because they feel it is healthier than pasteurized milk. They are reasonable, rational people concerned about their health, and about the dangers of factory-produced food.
* It trivializes the food rights issue by failing to stand up for our rights to make our own choices, by noting very positively that many states have banned raw milk, as if others should do the same. Food club managers are being thrown in jail and dairy farmers and cheese makers are having their livelihoods ruined over this issue, and all Mother Jones can suggest is that more states should ban raw milk?
I'm a long-time admirer of Mother Jones, and its willingness to carry out the noble mission it ascribes to itself, which is why I made the effort to critique the raw milk article. If it had appeared in a metropolitan daily, or a major consumer magazine, I wouldn't have bothered, since it would have been predictable. Unfortunately, this article is essentially a piece of government and Big Ag propaganda, and as such is a sad exception to the Mother Jones mission.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
30 witnesses? OMG they must be really scared. I'm glad Mr. Hershbeger has a lawyer. I'm rooting for him and saying lots of prayers.
Well, MoJo took a nose dive into the toilet, did someone buy it out? How disappointing.
A hit-piece by Mother Jones, huh? Certain people will say and do anything for financial and personal gain, won't they? Just like certain judges and prosecutors will say or do anything for financial and personal gain? I have found out by personal experience that the only one I could count on100% in times of tribulation is my savior Jesus Christ. That is also why I started by my own blog, my own YouTube Channel, and filmed my own investigations of local corruption. It is also why I reached out to Alvin Schlangen and asked him to do a video about his case. People are going about this all wrong, aren't they? Supporters of raw milk want to talk about a scary, foreign concept (Raw milk? What is that?) instead of talking about something that directly affects Joe Six-Pack (You can't come into my home without a warrant!), don't they? And what doesn't the media want to talk about? How the government breaks into Schlenagen's van without a warrant, right? The media wants the message they put out to be that you can trust "the system," right? Well, the courts are part of that "system," aren't they? So to win, the victims of these malicious prosecutions need to say that they don't trust the courts, right? If people think that they are going to get justice from the politicians in the black robe, then they are sadly mistaken, aren't they? The counterattack needs to be focused on discrediting the political courts in the court of public opinion, doesn't it? By the way, one of the jobs of the prosecutor is to make sure that the courts are not discredited or made to look foolish in the eyes of the public.
David,
I blogged two weeks ago about the completely lazy job that MOJO did on their piece about raw milk. It is hard to believe that MOJO did not sell out, especially after I provided reims of data on raw milk safety and the deaths caused by Pastuerized milk...even properly pasteurized milk that has caused the deaths of 8 kids ( milk allergy deaths ) since 1998. Not one mention of any of this,....not one mention. That defines a sell out and extremly unethical journalism. Unbalanced and corrupt....really sick.
It is worse than that....it is a disservice to everyone.
Two days ago, I attended the local California Milk Advisory Board committee meeting and dinner. It was held at a local restaurant conference room and was attended by about 30 local dairymen. A presentation was given by the state CMAB representative sent down to report the market situation for dairy products.
I thought long and hard about my attendance at this meeting, but decided to attend. When ever I attend this meetings I always learn something...this time gave me my greatest lesson. In the past...I always felt unwanted and shunned. Not this time!!
Wow....I am in shock. I was treated with great respect. I was treated with humanity and the few words I did share at the meeting where listened too with great interest. Wow...not what I expected.
The mood was somber and there were no happy faces and or smiles. The dairyman in CA along with his family has been tortured by the choices that the processors have made on their behalf.
Some of the facts were shocking as well. Last year the CMAB spent about $1 dollar for each California citizen ( $35 million ) to try and increase fluid milk consumption....the result....a loss of fluid milk market and a drop in consumption. This year....no more funds will be assigned to try and increase fluid milk consumption. It is a loosing advertizement campaign. Generic dairy product promotion will still go forward for all CA Dairy products...but fluid milk promotion has stopped. It does not work and the marketing experts do not know exactly why ( at least they do not share the reasons publically ).
At the meeting I shared exactly why they had experienced their market loss and the committee absorbed the data and just sat there. They were all numb from the economic realities of their practices and products. They resigned themselve to just work harder to become an ingredient in more kellogs products or McDonalds Smoothies. Driving Fluid pasteurized milk sales is no longer a vision or a goal for the dairy industry. Wow....this was a huge learning piece for me. Huge.
OPDC is experiencing 29% annual increases in sales and is trying its best to get other farmers to join in the market and is trying its best just to keep raw milk on its trucks....and to hear this news from the pasteurized markets blew my mind and was nearly surreal. It confirmed everything I knew in my heart. It confirmed everything that dollar voting data suggests. The truth is the truth...
The entire committee agreed that minimally processed probiotic yogurts and their wonderful GUT friendly traits were the way to go ( this is the EU model and it works ),....but as producers they could not convince the processors to produce and promote more of these products. They said..."we produce and they process....we have no control over them".
My take away was this. I feel for the CA dairy and their families that are structurally stuck in a paradigm that is non-responsive to the consumers and sticks the dairyman with the results of this non responsiveness. The disconnect between the farmer and the consumer could not be more evident or clear.
A processor loves his through-put...be it soy milk, branded water, almond milk or hemp milk...it is something to fill the brand and fill the trucks. They do not appear to care what shape this through put takes. They do not appear to care about anything but their bottle dollar. That is it.
It is all Crystal clear to me now....
OPDC toured nearly 1700 people through our pastures and facilities so far year to date since February. We have connected to hundreds more in our Share the Secret programs through out CA and Oregon. When the farmer connects to his consumer....he gets market direction and he is oriented...he makes the right products and he is happy right along with his cows and his consumers.
I will never miss another CA Dairy CMAB meeting again. In order to teach...it is essential to sit in the enemies camp to learn. I also learned...that these are not enemies.....they are struggling hard working families that are confused by the directions that they are given by the FDA an their processors.
Bless them all. My heart hurts for them as they struggle and attempt to survive in the midst of this intentional market confusion that benefits the processors only. There was real pain on their faces....real distress that was palpable. When every truck load that leaves your dairy takes some dairy equity with it...it is just a matter of time before the farm VISA card is maxed and you are done.
This is a tragedy...a real tragedy.
Mark
""we produce and they process....we have no control over them". " I have heard the same thing from county commissioners who were trying to cover up the crimes of their county attorney, didn't I? This is the sound of someone who knows that they have control over other people but refuse to use that control. They would rather go along to get along, wouldn't they? If they were really serious about changing things, then they would find out how to change things, wouldn't they? That's what I did, didn't I? What isn't the public relations people not telling you? Probably that Coke and Pepsi are outspending you 50 to 1 in the war of soda pop vs. milk, huh? This proves my point, doesn't it? They have declared war in milk in the eye of the public and in the courts, haven't they? The focus needs to be how the government use criminal tactics to win their war on farmer who produce milk, doesn't it? Americans hate cheaters and corrupt politicians, don't they?
Congrats to Vernon, his fight is our fight. It sounds like he could use some witnesses that can show and prove that raw milk is a normalized market product that can be produced safely. After all Cantaloupes killed 34 last year and continue to kill this year. Pasteurized milk has killed many.... even perfectly pasteurized milk is a killer with dairy allergies killing 8 kids since 1998.
I would be glad to be a witness for Vernon....those crazy Wisconsin Land O Snakes corrupted market protectors would fill their diapers with the kind of data we have here in CA about raw milk.
Go Vernon...great job on having FTCLDF to join your cause. Well done!!
"I would be glad to be a witness for Vernon....those crazy Wisconsin Land O Snakes corrupted market protectors would fill their diapers with the kind of data we have here in CA about raw milk." So facts about raw milk are the trump card, are they? If that was so, then why is the FDA not paying attention to the those facts? The reality that you refuse to face is that the facts don't matter, isn't it? If they are using propaganda against milk, then they are not relying on facts, are they? They are relying on half truths, limited truths, and truth out of context to shove their agenda your throat, aren't they? Decent people call those lies of omission, don't they? Those same half truths, limited truths, and truth out of context are going to be spoon fed to the jury, aren't they? So will Hershberger have a "fair" trial? Only If you considered a rigged court fair.
@ Mark: I'm glad Vernon made that decision, as well. I hated to see him going it alone! Wasn't it Cardinal Richelieu (sp?) or someone like him who said something similar to "give me 6 lines, just 6 lines written by any man and I will arrange to have him tried as a criminal". Those probably aren't exact words, but maybe close. This is in the same vein as the power we give to the States to make us feel like criminals, or even act like one. That's how weak and very vulnerable we can be before the courts without representation. That's, I assume, why we were given the Bill of Rights, no? If we are prone to giving up these rights, even to protect the innocent it won't be long before the innocent become the downtrodden, right?
Good luck to all involved in this food rights issue.
"That's how weak and very vulnerable we can be before the courts without representation." You can have the most expensive lawyer in the world and you can still get convicted in a kangaroo court, can't you? Does having a lawyer guarantee that you will win? No. Does it guarantee that you will have your rights protected? No. Does it guarantee that the lawyer will represent you to the best of their ability? No. Does it guarantee that the lawyer will fight harder and longer than you will? No. Does it guarantee that the lawyer will stand up to the judge? No. Does it guarantee that the lawyer knows the case better than you do? No. Does it guarantee that you won't get to speak in court? Yes!
Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. Luke 21:14-15 (King James Version)
and when's the last time you put that bit of Scripture to the test, Terry Dean Nemmers? I mean in a real courtroom? Please post the case file number / the town + state where the Court Registry is and the style of Cause. A precis of the action would help, too. I met a lot of guys who sound like you, in the DeTax thing ... who had a lot to say in criticism, but not all that much to show of what they'd accomplished in the objective reality in which the rest of us live and move and have our being.
30 years' experience in Her Majesty Courts in British Columbia, through some heavy weather - speaking for myself, then being led out of the courtroom in shackles - convinced me how unspeakably corrupt the whole racket is. Yes = some individuals are called to walk through the exercise in personam. Still ... In that theatre of war, mercenaries have their place.
Gordon, do you think that I would make unsubstantiated assertions? Do you think that I am some hypocrite that doesn't practice what he preaches? Do you think that I am some untested fool? Do you think that I have not had people try to smear my good name through appeals to ridicule? Your questions are all answered on my blog: http://lionnews00.blogspot.com/ and on my YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/user/ArrestAJudgeKit, aren't they? Ironic, since I have met many people like you (and their victims) also. I do believe the loud exclamation I made for the public record was that certain so-called professionals were as beneficial as the pigmented projection on the surface of the chest in the male Sus scrofa domesticus. You see Gordon, I have learned through personal experience to know the answer to the question before asking the question, haven't I? Maybe you will come better prepared next time you want to sling appeals to ridicule in the form of questions?
Why is it hard to believe that the journalist considered the "facts" presented by both sides and made a conclusion different from the majority on this blog? When The New Yorker came out with a very biased article downplaying risks from raw milk, no one here complained. This journalist's words do not suggest a pay off or conspiracy - believe it or not, it appears she simply has a different opinion than David, Mark, et al.
"I finally kicked my habit after reading of a woman about my age who was paralyzed after drinking raw milk tainted with campylobacter. Much as I'll miss that creamy goodness, I'll just say no next time someone offers the illicit nectar. And, not to get all Nancy Reagan on you, but given the evidence, I'd never give it to a child."
"I finally kicked my habit after reading of a woman about my age who was paralyzed after drinking raw milk tainted with campylobacter." Well most people make their "informed decisions" based on fear mongering, don't they? Fear mongering based on half-truths, limited truths, truths out of context and bald-faced lies, don't they? When I went to college I had a statistics class. The very first day the instructor said: "The best way to lie is to use statistics!" So what percentage of the world's population die from drinking milk? Do the people in the third world countries drop like flies from drinking milk? Again people blindly believe what an authority figure tells them, don't they? A scientist said it? Then that must be like a (false) god spoke, right? No scientist would lie, would they? It is a documented fact that people in authority lie, isn't it? In fact, the very definition of a politician is: POLITI'CIAN, a. Cunning; using artifice. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, isn't it? People in authority are not just liars - they're professional liars, aren't they? So it is understandable why the vast majority of "informed" people would be carried away with an irrational fear of that scary, foreign phrase "raw milk," isn't it?
Milky Way,
I'm fine with anyone, even a journalist, deciding that raw milk isn't for them, and writing about their reasons. After all, isn't that what food rights is about, each of us deciding which foods we want to ingest, and which we would rather avoid...without government interference? In the case of the Mother Jones article, I just want the writer to challenge me some more. Maybe she saw the farmer at the dairy where she obtains her milk putting his hand into the bulk tank and pulling out a handful of flies. Maybe he let bottles of milk sit in the hot sun for a few hours. Maybe she had a neighbor die from eating cantaloupe, and decided she weren't going to eat cantaloupe, ground beef, raw milk, or anything else susceptible to E.coli O157:H7. Heck, maybe she read John Sheehan's (FDA) quote about Russian roulette when she began drinking raw milk, and you've been obsessing on it ever since, and finally decided she didn't want to tempt fate. But to suggest she started drinking raw milk a year ago without doing any research, and then one day out of the blue, while watching TV, she decided to investigate....Literary license is one thing, but this is more like literary anarchy.
Just one other thing: the quote you use from the article referring to the paralyzed woman is no doubt a reference to Mari Tardiff, the California woman who got sick more than four years ago, and was written up any number of times by lawyer Bill Marler. Even a cursory search at the time the author began drinking raw milk would have turned it up.
http://www.billmarler.com/key_case/mari-tardiff-the-alexandre-ecodairy-f...
" to suggest she started drinking raw milk a year ago without doing any research, and then one day out of the blue, while watching TV, she decided to investigate.."
Sheer stupidity is what that would be. Not discounting the farmers, aren't most raw milk consumers fairly well educated? The MoJo story made the writer look foolish.
David, I thought pathogens didn't grow in raw milk so why did you make the comment in regards to Mother Jones journalist “Maybe he let bottles of milk sit in the hot sun for a few hours.”? I did heard that ultraviolet light destroys the vitamin D in pasteurized milk is the same true of raw milk.
Pathogens can grow most anywhere.
But Sylvia, I thought there were a couple studies showing some pathogens were killed by raw milk and that the rest refused to grow in it.
rawmilkmike
Studies are like statistics, you can manipulate them to get the results you want. Studies are usually done in a controlled environment. A good study will also have more questions in their results/conclusion. I believe I've heard of the studies you mentioned, I've not read them so I will not comment on them. Pathogens can grow in or on just about anything, even in boiled (pasteurized) milk. If you keep pasteurized milk long enough, pathogens grow in it, same as raw milk.
An empty raw milk bottle left out does smell bad after a couple days but a half full bottle seems to stay fresh indefinitely. There has to be a deference between a fish tank teaming with lively fish and a mass grave full of bodies.
"Studies are like statistics, you can manipulate them to get the results you want." The same thing can happen in police complaints. What needs to be highlighted in the Hershberger case all the incidents of 1. Incompetence 2. Misconduct and 3. Abuse, right? Those need to be the talking points of the Hershberger case, don't they? That type of information should be made available in the smallest words possible (not confusing legalese) so the people of Sauk county and the rest of the world can understand what the government is really doing, right? "Omissions, lies and deception in reports and testimony – when carefully mixed with the truth – become the weapons of choice in the war on crime." Walking With the Devil: The Police Code of Silence by Michael W. Quinn [Mpls Police Sgt (ret)], page 7.
Milky Way there's no why anyone could “consider the "facts" presented by both sides” and conclude pasteurization of food is OK. Drinking raw milk is not a habit. People don't drink raw milk for the taste they do it for their health. That's why doctors hate it. Raw milk is seasonal so sometimes pasteurized milk tastes better. This journalist was clearly never a raw milk drinker.
I have no problem with people that disagree with me,...All I ask is that they use rational arguments and tell the whole story adn show both sides of the debate. That is all.
When MOJO did not mention that pasteurized milk is lethal and has caused many deaths....that was intentional bias. MOJO excluded tons of data that was presented to them. They CHOSE to publish their story with their twisted agenda. No balance...no concern for telling the whole story. No mention of all the kids that no longer have asthma.
They did not give credit to the two massive PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED studies ( 23000 kids studied ) that proved raw milks medical values. In fact MOJO discounted the studies entirely. Anytime that PEER reviewed internationally published research is thrown out...the editors have an agenda.
In fact....it pisses me off to no end. You are right...the facts do not matter. except for one place. To a jury facts will matter.
In the Vernon case...the jury could very well swing to support Vernon based on facts....undenial facts. especially when the people are the ones getting screwed over and it is about time that a jury hands the FDA a crippling blow.
You watch the Vernon case...I will bet that he will be offered a settlement of his case prior to the jury going out to consider the merits. Certainty is worth so much...the other side could set a precedent that could cripple their agenda forever. A jury could turn arround and hang the hangman.
"I have no problem with people that disagree with me,...All I ask is that they use rational arguments and tell the whole story adn show both sides of the debate. That is all." Then you must have a real problem with cops, prosecutors and government agencies, don't you? 'Use of Arrest reports in Criminal Cases. Arrest reports are almost always one-sided. They recite only what the police claim took place, and may include only witness statements that support police theory. ... Does this mean that the prosecutor just rubber-stamps the arresting officer's assessment of the suspect's probable guilt? Not always, but many times yes.' The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System by Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman, page 142. Why wouldn't Vernon be offered a plea deal? 95% of all cases are settled by plea agreements, aren't they? (Sorry can't find the exact quote at the spur of the moment from Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogations and Confessions by Fred E. Inbau, et. al.) "In the Vernon case...the jury could very well swing to support Vernon based on facts....undenial facts." Of course, '80 to 90 percent of all jurors come to a decision during or immediately after the opening statements.' (Winning at Trial, by D. Shane Reed, page 65), don't they? And the prosecutor is going to be fear-mongering during the opening statement, isn't he? People are easily carried away by shame, fear, and guilt, aren't they? Fear trumps reason, doesn't it? And the prosecutor will paint Vernon as a scary monster, won't he? In fact, isn't it a well known fact that people vote against their own best interests? The courts have a 95% conviction rate, don't they? So the card are stacked (card-stacking is a propaganda strategy, isn't it?) against Vernon, aren't they? So, short of divine intervention, conviction is almost guaranteed, isn't it?
Mark,
That was a short article and you were given significant print to make your case relative to everyone else quoted.
David,
Regarding the time to research raw milk risks and benefits, I'm not surprised at all that someone didn't find comprehensive information for a year or more. The Internet is dominated by pro-raw milk websites and people marketing their raw milk products. It is well known that consumers seek out information that supports their beliefs and shy away from other sources, at least initially in researching a topic. I've seen a number of people here say that they won't visit websites that disagree with their beliefs, so they've probably never read other viewpoints or watched Mary Martin's video. Certainly Mark doesn't include a balanced description of risks when he "shares the secret." Indeed, why would he? It's a marketing gig. And, I don't even fault him - just recognize it is what it is.
You've probably seen those commercials for the wonder drug that cures "X" but it has a list of side effects a mile long that will include cancer, stroke or death, haven't you? You would think that anyone with more than 2 brain cells would never buy that product, wouldn't you? Yet, they buy it by the carload, don't they? A product that could kill them would be against one's self interests wouldn't you think? Do you know why they buy it? The pretty picture that is painted prior to the warnings keeps them distracted from paying any attention to those deadly side-effects, doesn't it? Oh the other hand, did farmers, say 50, 100 or 150 years ago have to explain what the benefits and side-effects of milk? Lies have to be taught, don't they? (That is why we have public relation firms, isn't it?) The truth is spontaneous, isn't it? The problem these days is that people love the (the system's) lie, don't they?
I have never understood why people DO consume those advertized drugs when they state, either vocally or in tiny print the awful side effects. Perhaps they are lacking some brain cells. You make valid points. Most people are visual and will retain what they see longer than what they hear.
I had a patient who became legally blind after using viagra...he felt he should sue the drug company, I did suggested he consult a lawyer and to listen closely when the ads come on TV about the side effects. To my knowledge, he hasn't sued.
The brains cells quip is just using the absurd to grab attention to make a point. People are taught not to think, but to react. That is the basic mechanism of propaganda. Did you know that one of the tactics to get you to prefer one brand over another is based on idol worship? Although this is clearly found in the Scriptures, you will find it in public relations books on branding, won't you? In fact, Bill Moyers mentions the idol worship in one video in his 4 part series - Bill Moyers: The Public Mind. Consuming Images (Bill Moyers documentary from 1990 about the public mind and the media culture) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rso4QX_VEI&feature=channel&list=U . The video clip 'Illusions of New's partially explains how people pay attention to the visuals and not to the announcer voice-over. (Illusions of News - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSNDEX3mqwI ) This is what I was saying about the commercials. The supposed logical people are too distracted by the pretty moving pictures to listen to the dire warnings. They react - not think. With a little research you would find that public relations has its origins in military propaganda. I think your patient would find out real fast that with the drug companies have very deep pockets and the courts cater to the rich and powerful. So one of the few ways people can force the system to give them justice is to expose the crooked system. Which brings me back to Hershberger's trial. To win you must show that the court is a corrupt, rigged joke!
The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms. Vernon's judge did a Pontius Pilate when he said he was treating Vernon like anyone else. I read another judge did a Pontius Pilate when he said his hands were tied. These three judges were literally apologizing for doing what they knew to be wrong. Are these the kind of things Vernon should bring up in court, Terry.
"These three judges were literally apologizing for doing what they knew to be wrong. Are these the kind of things Vernon should bring up in court," You have the right idea but the wrong location. Vernon will not be allowed to bring this up in court since it has noting to do with the specifics of the case. These are all things that you would want to make sure everyone in Vernon's county knows about. And going from a low paying job as judge to a high paid lawyer/lobbyist at Monsanto is not an apology. It is a promotion/payoff, isn't it?
When I decided to feed my family raw milk over ten years ago, plenty of cautionary websites existed. Not least the FDA and CDC sites. When I buy something, I read both the positive and the negative reviews, no matter how much I think I want the item in question. It's a matter of having a clear idea of what I'm getting into. I don't think I would have fed raw milk to a chronically ill child based on what was presented back then.
"When I buy something, I read both the positive and the negative reviews, no matter how much I think I want the item in question." The vast majority don't look at both sides, do they? They engage in impulse buying, correct? One child got sick, right? That is an old propaganda trick, isn't it? It's lying with statistics, isn't it? Focus on the few and ignore the vast majority, right? Fear-mongering 101.
Milky Way,
Do you recognize for what they are any big ag, big pharma, big medical "marketing gigs?" And what might be the relative effect of those gigs compared to, say, small businesses and individual marketing?
This is a central question in the food rights (and medical rights and commerce rights) issue. Some folks feel they have a lock on knowledge. Some folks feel they have a lock on knowledge who have the power to make their ideas law.
Law has now defined what food is (manufactured crap is allowed) and what healthcare is (defined by the CPT code book, owned and managed by an unholy alliance between government and the AMA, with no allowance for alternatives). No matter. It's all scientifically proven to be right, true, and effective.
"Law has now defined what food is (manufactured crap is allowed) and what healthcare is (defined by the CPT code book, owned and managed by an unholy alliance between government and the AMA, with no allowance for alternatives). No matter. It's all scientifically proven to be right, true, and effective." The people who work "the system" knows that the crooked cop goes shopping for the crooked judge who will give him the warrant he has no evidence, don't they? Just like you can go shopping for the crooked scientist or doctor to prostitute himself to write whatever fiction you want in a report. And unless you can show that it is a crooked, rigged system who is going to care how many times you have it "scientifically proven to be right, true, and effective"? They will focus on shame, fear and guilt to win every single time, won't they? Americans hate cheaters and corrupt officials. Don't play by their game plan - play by your own game plan and expose corrupt officials.
Dave,
"Do you recognize for what they are any big ag, big pharma, big medical "marketing gigs?" And what might be the relative effect of those gigs compared to, say, small businesses and individual marketing?"
Of course, but I was commenting on this post which wasn't about big ag, big pharma. The marketing gig was raw milk and I didn't even mention that the company markets the "beverage" as a drug. So, why shouldn't they be required to list potential adverse outcomes so the "patients" are fully informed (big or small ag/pharma)?
Are patients fully informed about drugs? No they are not. Are consumers fully informed about potential side effects about things they purchase? Again they are not.
"Are patients fully informed about drugs? No they are not. Are consumers fully informed about potential side effects about things they purchase? Again they are not." How did people survive for thousands and thousands of years prior to all these food warning labels? Must have been just "luck," huh? You can see how people can get carried away by this fear-mongering, can't you? Now you throw this strange info to 12 people who have no idea what raw milk is? Doesn't look good, does it? This needs to be won before it goes to court!
Could you read me the warning label that is posted on your car, cellphone, pencil, your left shoe, and that glass of water you are drinking from your tap? But i guess if you have bought into the fear monger mentality then you need all those constant reminders that every thing is "safe," huh? Don't all the food labels on all recalled food say that the contents are inspected and safe to consume?
@ Milky Way: ". . . and I didn't even mention that the company markets the "beverage" as a drug."
Hardly. Pasteurized milk does this far more than raw milk. Remember "Got Milk?" . . . yeah.
All foods contain nutrition, so all foods are considered drugs in the eyes of someone looking to make it seem that way? Shouldn't we then include the cantoloupe from Indiana which recently made lots of people sick and killed 2? I mean cantaloupe has nutritive value, as well as tasting good, right? Should they be required to list adverse outcomes so the "patients" are fully informed of the dangers, especially since this is the second outbreak involving cantaloupe now?
Weak argument.
But the bigphakephood people don't want the consumer to know if they're buying those GMO frankenApples - unlabeled as a possible hazard to health.
"All foods contain nutrition, so all foods are considered drugs in the eyes of someone looking to make it seem that way? " Actually, a drug is a substance that has an effect on the body. Water and food both have an effect on the body. So water and food are drugs.
I saw the CDC video and it didn't make any sense to me. How could Mary simultaneously be the"mom who did her homework" AND the victim of Mark's deceit? The info on pathogens in raw milk was certainly out there if you bothered to look.
"I saw the CDC video and it didn't make any sense to me. How could Mary simultaneously be the"mom who did her homework" AND the victim of Mark's deceit?" How? Through propaganda. It is no different then a country saying that they want peace and then attack the country bordering them. Propaganda uses logical fallacies and big lies to deceive people. No different than a con man. It is a proven fact that even the most ridiculous justifications/excuses are believed over no justifications/excuses. The key is to believe in the con man or false witness or government agent. It is perfectly legal for government agents to lie right to your face. It is also perfectly legal for them to falsely accuse you and to manufacture fake evidence to get you to confess. Plus, it is also a well known fact that the U.S. government frames innocent people.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/01/us_wont...
US won’t appeal verdict in case of four framed by FBI - Plaintiffs to get damage judgment of $101.7 million By Jonathan Saltzman Globe Staff / May 1, 2010
@ Milky Way: Whenever I try to look up something about raw milk, all I ever find is articles (usually of the dot gov nature) fearing people into thinking it's all-out poison. I rarely see anything pro raw milk.
Nevertheless, as far as the MoJo article was concerned, it was a leaner, in my opinion.
The antinutritionists convict themselves with their own words. I have found just as much pro raw milk information on the anti raw milk sites as on the pro raw milk sites. Six years ago I discovered raw milk by typing in psoriasis. Last week I tried the same search with no luck. Yes if you know to type in raw milk you will find a lot of pro raw milk stuff. But the average sick person will never know that their salvation is only a click away. Are you saying that the anti raw milk stuff isn't advertising?
Maybe some of the people here need to watch this Frontline show that was created way back in 2004 on the so-called justice system. The title of the program is: The Plea
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/
"Nearly 95% of all cases resulting in felony convictions never reach a jury. They are settled through plea bargains in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. But what are the implications of a system that relies on pleas to expedite justice?" People blindly put their faith in a system that they have watched on TV, but does not exist in the real world, don't they?
Milky Way,
Your suggestion that I was given plenty of print to make my case...is very curious.
I did not write the article. They did....I provided information and MOJO decided what to put in.
When MOJO refused to look at internationally peer reviewed research...that was bias.
When MOJO refused to look at CDC data...that was bias.
When MOJO refused to look at the deaths caused by Pasteurized milk....that was extreme bias.
MOJO sucks!! Bottom line.
Next week I am having lunch with a UC Davis PhD researcher at the Milk genome project. She has pled with the University to study OPDC raw milk in her lab. The UC system refused and so did the funding sources that abck the UC research. She told me....when I proposed studies of your raw milk....they said no...unless it is pasteurized, we do not even want to see the draft pre-proposal.
I am meeting with her and we will discover a way to find the science behind the truth of all the medical values found in raw milk.
"Next week I am having lunch with a UC Davis PhD researcher at the Milk genome project. She has pled with the University to study OPDC raw milk in her lab. The UC system refused and so did the funding sources that abck the UC research. She told me....when I proposed studies of your raw milk....they said no...unless it is pasteurized, we do not even want to see the draft pre-proposal." The researcher is a cog in the corporate machine, isn't she? If the cog upsets the University's money making machine, then she will be replaced, won't she? Like the cops say: "Follow the money" and you will see that corporate donors dictate what will be researched and what the results will be. Science won't be the "silver bullet," will it? Why? Facts don't matter, do they? Fear trumps facts, don't they?
Quotes below taken from this link - - - - - -> http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2012/08/30/center-for-food-safety-law...
[QUOTE}:
"The Center for Food Safety (“The Center”) today filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their failure to implement several critical food safety regulations, as required by the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA). Signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, the Act has been unlawfully delayed for more than a year and a half, leaving vital prevention remedies to substandard U.S. food safety rules unenforceable, and the nation’s public health in jeopardy."
[END QUOTE]
[MINE]: Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. ;->
[QUOTE]
"More than eighteen months after the law’s passage, and untold numbers of food safety illness episodes later – including last week’s salmonella outbreak from Indiana-based cantaloupe farms resulting in two deaths and 178 sickened people in 21 states – FDA has yet to enact any implementing of FSMA’s food safety regulations.
“Parents having to worry if feeding melon to their child will lead to hospitalization or even death is unconscionable,” said Michele Simon, policy consultant for the Center. “Congress and the President hammered out this law with the clear intent of protecting the nation’s food supply and preventing more outbreaks. Every day the Administration delays mean another day Americans are at risk.”
[END QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
"The lawsuit seeks a court order that requires FDA to enact the FSMA regulations by a court-imposed deadline and prevents OMB from delaying FDA’s compliance with that deadline.
“This unreasonable and dangerous political foot-dragging on FSMA has to stop now,” said Charles Margulis, Food Program Director at Center for Environmental Health, co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. “While illness outbreaks continue and Americans question the health and safety of their food supply, FDA issues excuses instead of new regulations. The time is now for modernizing our federal food safety laws.”
[END QUOTE]
[MINE]: Most of this is happening because the FDUh is high-centered on REGULATING raw milk. Raw milk has become the patsy for this whole food safety thing, which I don't really understand in any context, because raw milk has a much higher level of safety and a much smaller degree of illness per capita than any pasteurized, sterilized, crap-food from bigPHakePHood.
My husband calls raw milk *food cum laude* (food with honor) and when that fact is recognized it will be self-explanatory even to the dolts in WADC. But they can't LET that fact be recognized because their incomes would downsize considerably - and this IS all about money, never forget that solid point. I recently received a letter from John Thune's (R-SD) WA office regarding the raw milk issue and food safety and he gave some lame excuse as to why he couldn't support the thing. In the letter he stated that I had contacted him about this issue - I have never done any such thing because I can't stand John Thune in any way. His opinion means even less to me than this writer from MoJo and her ilk. When we were calling Senators earlier this year about farm policies, I did contact his office about that issue, but I never gave them my name or address or anything, and yet I'm contacted as though I approached him recently. This food safety thing is a big thorn in their side up on the hill, and rather than deal with it they've chosen to continue to put it off, at the behest of the intertwined bigphood/bigchemical doods, so guys like Thune come up with totally baseless *reasoning*. Do you honestly think they even care about food safety? Hardly. They don't care about food rights either, and they continually try to lump them both into the same title/category, much like the Marler people do, even though they are two distinctly different aspects of the whole issue.
But, as I said earlier, raw milk is the patsy being used in this food fight. Probably because it's the most nutritious and most useable.
Today I am ashamed to be an American. I thought that my president would at least prosecute the CIA agency agents that had committed torture for the last 12 years. Today we hear that the 100 prisoners that were tortured to death in US custody were murdered by the CIA and these cases will be closed with no charges being filed.
I am disgusted. I am shocked and I am pissed. This is not the America that I was born in....this is the America that my father taught me about and the America he taught me to not trust and the America that needs changing from the top down and bottom up. Obama is a castrated coward and Romni is not the answer.
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/justice-department-closes-book-ci...
"This is not the America that I was born in...." Actually, it is, isn't it? The reality is you are just hearing more about the the real injustices that the the government engages in, isn't it? The age of information is a double edged sword, isn't it? The lies taught to us about how perfect the government is now countered by the stark reality of how corrupt the government is through alternative media and the main stream media's desire to have news 24/7. The real problem is that people have a hard time overcoming the indoctrination, isn't it? Again this proves my point - there are two separate sets of laws - one for the the people with money and power and a second set for everyone else. So which set of laws applies to Hershberger? Hershberger doesn't have money or power, does he? So the conviction is almost guaranteed, isn't it? Which is why my option is the only viable solution on the table, isn't it?
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/outbreak-tables
Here is a list of all the raw milk illnesses disaggregated different ways. The outbreak reports are listed at the bottom. For all the children who have developed HUS, the parent’s story behind the choice is similar to mine. Over the years I have had the opportunity to directly speak to multiple parents of children who have developed HUS after drinking raw milk. Not one parent I spoke to really knew HUS could ever be a risk factor.
Just recently Bill Marler posted statistics about shiga producing E.coli and HUS. I don’t have the source to site right at this minute, but around 250 people (mostly children) develop HUS every year. When you take the small % of people drinking raw milk in the country and factor in how many children are developing HUS, it should be something every raw milk drinker should be concerned about. Instead, it appears to be trivialized.
As for Chris’ story being 6 years old, how I wish we could have all the newer illnesses highlighted. The CDC just can’t call up a raw milk victim or victim’s parents. All information is confidential.
As I type this on the 6 year anniversary of purchasing the contaminated raw milk for my son, I would appreciate prayers for a two year old little girl and her family. This little warrior princess that to go back into the hospital for colon repair. She developed HUS in April after drinking contaminated raw milk from a heard share. The parents thought they did all the right things—they knew the farmer and observed his safety protocols when milking. They thought
everything was safe. It wasn’t.
The two year old developed a severe case of HUS. She coded and was brought back to life as well as having a stroke that left her paralyzed and unable to speak. Even after months of physical therapy she has not regained the use of her arms and is not able to swallow or speak.
If you all want to promote the benefits of raw milk and consume this product, it certainly is your choice, but don’t downplay the severe illnesses that have resulted from drinking contaminated raw milk and don’t demonize me for being the voice for the other side of the raw milk story.
"When you take the small % of people drinking raw milk in the country and factor in how many children are developing HUS, it should be something every raw milk drinker should be concerned about. Instead, it appears to be trivialized." As my Statistics instructor said, statistics are the favorite weapon of the deceivers, aren't they? Trivialized? Even water has inherent risks, doesn't it? Too much or too little can be fatal, can't it? Are you going to be a zealot to outlaw water next? Do you think that the bottled water companies are looking for a spokesperson to spearhead their campaign to gain a monopoly over water?
When someone is a victim of a tragedy that is one thing, isn't it? But when someone becomes the spokesperson for a campaign to create a monopoly over a natural product, that is something worthy of rebuke and exposure, isn't it? And you can see people's resentment when you try to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater,' can't you? You say "but don’t downplay the severe illnesses that have resulted from drinking contaminated raw milk and don’t demonize me for being the voice for the other side of the raw milk story." You say that you are against "contaminated raw milk," don't you? What sane, rational person, wouldn't be against "contaminated raw milk"? But when you attack non-contaminated raw milk that is irrational or agenda-driven, isn't it? So you have reaped what you have sown, haven't you?
"Raw milk has not been pasteurized, or heated to kill bacteria. A recent CDC study says raw milk products accounted for 36 percent of individuals sickened in milk-related disease outbreaks between 1993 and 2006. That’s a large percentage considering that only an estimated 1 percent of milk drinkers consume raw milk." http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-news/story/san-jose-mercury-new... 36%, huh? Sounds scary, doesn't it? Oh wait - how did they get the 36%? Oh, I see the deception, don't I? They had to extend the sampling range out from 1993 to 2006, didn't they? That's a whopping 13 years, isn't it? What is the percentage for each individual year in the sample range? The government purposely withheld that information, didn't they? Does that mean that certain in years of the sample range the number could be zero or near zero? We don't know, do we? Lies of omission, right?
"In all, 4,413 people were sickened in dairy-borne outbreaks—although that is just a small fraction of the 48 million people the CDC estimates are sickened by food each year." Okay, let's divide 4,413 by 13, shall we? That comes to about 339.5/year, doesn't it? Doesn't sounds so scary now, does it? Can't hardly start a fear mongering campaign with such a small number, can you? Don't worry the irrational and the agenda-driven can start with even smaller numbers, can't they?
"That’s a large percentage considering that only an estimated 1 percent of milk drinkers consume raw milk." Estimated 1%, huh? So they really have no idea how many people drink raw milk, do they? It could be a larger percentage or a smaller percentage, couldn't it? Or maybe they do know and just don't want to tell you? Maybe if they would have said how may people drink milk, then we would have gotten a better picture of the scale of the matter, right? This report lacks context, doesn't it? And taking things out of context is a strategy used by people who engage in lies of omission, isn't it?
Mary,
You state,
Not one parent I spoke to really knew HUS could ever be a risk factor.
But how many parents think cantaloupe are a risk factor (until the past six months..)? How many know you can get HUS from spinach?
How many know they can get HUS from a hamburger? How many people even know what HUS is, honestly? I bet if I asked 30 people, maybe 2 would know what it is, what causes it, and what foods are a risk for it.
It is an empty argument and point, like so many raised against raw milk or real food.
Exactly. But the irrational people only want you to focus on the big emotional drama that they are creating instead of the facts. right? The agenda-driven want you to follow specials rules that they have no intention of following, correct? It is no different than the medical professionals redefining/rebranding pregnancy as a disease so they can con more money out of the unsuspecting pregnant women, correct? "What if?" is the seed of destruction they plant in people's minds to make them doubt a naturally occurring process, isn't it? People need to start exposing the con, don't they? The public secret is: many so-called professionals rely on the con, don't they?
John, even when you write this, you miss the point. Raw milk is a high risk food for pathogen contamination. Look at the charts I posted. Anyone making the choice to feed their children raw milk needs to know about the HUS risk. The same goes for anyone feeding their children hamburger. You better own a thermometer and cook it to at least 160 degrees. This is the temp needed to kill E.coli. If you would like a free magnet for your refrigerator that lists all the cooking temps for food, contact Bill Marler. I’m sure he would be glad to send you one. As for spinach and lettuce, the outbreaks involve prepackaged products. It is less of a safety risk if you purchase it by the bunch and wash it yourself.
John, even when you write this, you miss the point. Raw milk is a high risk food for pathogen contamination." Sounds like the talking points of a fear monger, doesn't it? Any food can get contaminated if it is not handled properly, can't it? When you pick up a pack of meat does this thought go through your mind: "Was the government inspector talking a nap or a taking a bribe when this meat was packaged?" Do you plan on purchasing your own x-ray machine to make sure all your food is "safe?"
Mary if you look up HUS you will see it is caused by antibiotics not raw milk and if you look at all the data you will see that raw milk has the lowest risk. Keep in mind that the 3% figure is for states where raw milk is prohibited. We have no idea how many people drink raw milk in states where it's legal.
A child that dies from HUS dies from medical malpractice not from the food that may have given them diarrhea, look up HUS you'll see what I mean.
Oh please rawmilkmike, are you really going to try and educate me about HUS?
When my son was in the pediatric intensive care unit, the pediatric nephrologist printed out these two journal articles for use to read on September 16th, 2006.; the day my son was placed on a ventilator due to congestive heart failure.
From a specialist who does this for a living and has unfortunately seen too many young children suffer from HUS, he told us the research is conflicting on antibiotic use.
FYI, there were two children who developed HUS from the raw milk outbreak my son was involved in. One received antibiotics and the other did not. The one who did not receive antibiotics has permanent kidney damage the one who received the antibiotics recovered full kidney function. Sometimes there isn’t rhyme or reason to medical outcomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10874060 Not listed in the abstract—4 of the children received kidney dialysis. 2 received antibiotics and 2 didn’t.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195225
Mary, here's the problem; I would never knowing bring up this subject in front of someone in your position, but what can I do here in this situation? I'm practically forced to continue my argument no matter how heartless it makes me look.
I thought you where going to deny the antibiotic connection with HUS instead you post; “From a specialist who does this for a living and has unfortunately seen too many young children suffer from HUS, he told us the research is conflicting on antibiotic use.”, then you say; “FYI, there were two children who developed HUS from the raw milk outbreak my son was involved in.”.
You say your doctor “ has unfortunately seen too many young children suffer from HUS”. What caused all the other cases?
Mary, if you get T boned at an intersection, you can't ask the other driver if he had a green light. Your doctor is blaming a competitors product for causing your sons diarrhea and then denies causing his condition.
On an average day we have 3 million people in this country with diarrhea. During a major outbreak you could have close to half the people in your immediate area sick with diarrhea, so if a cow share with 400 people has 10 people with diarrhea do you say raw milk caused 10 cases or do you say it prevented 190.
Sorry for being an ass, I have four children of my own.
Rawmilkmike, If you go back and look at the link Sylvia posted about HUS, you will see the list of high risk foods and activities that are vulnerable to Ecoli 0157:H7 contamination and therefore causes an E.coli 0157:H7 infection in humans. Do you actually believe I think raw milk is the only food source that can be contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7? As for diarrhea, when someone has an E.coli 0157:H7 infection it is not the type of diarrhea we think of when someone says, "I had diarrhea". It is non stop (every 15 to 30 minutes) extremely painful, explosive diarrhea that lasts 5 to 7 days along with vomiting. Adult women who have endured this experience say the pain is worse than giving birth to a child.
I forgot to include bloody diarrhea. First clue that something is terribly wrong.
“Do you actually believe I think raw milk is the only food source that can be contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7?”
Yes. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to ban my families' most important food.
“As for diarrhea, when someone has an E.coli 0157:H7 infection it is not the type of diarrhea we think of when someone says, "I had diarrhea".”
I know, some people have no symptoms at all.
It seems to me diarrhea is a disease of malnutrition and it's severity is directly related to the severity of the malnutrition. That's why not everyone who consumes E.coli gets sick. That is also why diarrhea is so common in this country. Starvation is not the only form of malnutrition. Processed food is not food. Man does not live by bread alone, literally. Processed food is better than nothing but not by much.
And now I'm going to repeat this one more time. The average American gets diarrhea 2 to 3 times a year. That's one in a hundred. So if you do a study to see how much salmonella it takes to give a person diarrhea and you use 100 people one person is going to get diarrhea whether you give them salmonella or not. If you use 10 people and run the test for 10 days you have the same problem. So
One in a hundred also means, on an average day a raw milk cow share of 100 families should have 4 cases of diarrhea per day to be at the national average. If they have less than that the raw milk is preventing HUS not causing it. Isn't it just that simple?
End with a question right?
" diarrhea is a disease of malnutrition and it's severity is directly related to the severity of the malnutrition. "
https://labtestsonline.org/understanding/conditions/malnutrition/start/1 <~~lists the many symptoms of malnutrition, diarrhea would not be the only one.
Diarrhea is usually caused by the body's attempt to discharge something that it disagrees with or a disease.
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/diarrhea-10/causes-diarrhea <~~~ This site is not one I would recommend. It states: "The average adult has diarrhea four times a year. American children typically have seven to 15 cases of diarrhea by the time they reach age five." If this is average, then the medical community should be getting off their butts and investigating the causes as this in NOT normal.
Yep just like I said.
Signs and Symptoms
General malnutrition often develops slowly, over months or years. As the body’s store of nutrients is depleted, changes begin to happen at the cellular level, affecting biochemical processes and decreasing the body’s ability to fight infections. Over time, a variety of symptoms may begin to emerge, including:
7. Chronic diarrhea
Specific nutrient deficiencies may cause characteristic symptoms. For instance, vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to tingling, numbness, and burning in the hands and feet. The severity of symptoms depends on the intensity and duration of the deficiency.
Thanks Sylvia.
I'm going to repeat this just for you Mary. I would like to comment on the discussion of underling causes. Everyone in the discussion assumed that the raw milk actually caused the diarrhea when in fact all it did was fail to prevent it. I think the CDC's data actually shows that the raw milk is preventing diarrhea. If my figures are correct, a raw milk cow share of 100 families should have 4 cases of diarrhea per day to be at the national average. If they have less than that the raw milk is preventing HUS not causing it. How far off am I?
Responding to:
“If you all want to promote the benefits of raw milk and consume this product, it certainly is your choice, but don’t downplay the severe illnesses that have resulted from drinking contaminated raw milk and don’t demonize me for being the voice for the other side of the raw milk story.”
Mary you use the word promote. Mary you are the promoter. I assume you are in the medical industry. Vernon on the other hand represents consumers struggling to provide healthy food for their children. We wish it were our choice but it isn't. It's your choice. You are the one with the power of the state behind you. Mary, the average American gets diarrhea once every four months. So any one of the raw milk drinkers on this website that has been drinking raw milk for a year or more already knows raw milk prevents diarrhea which means it prevents HUS. We are not speculating we know. The only people complaining about raw milk are it's competitors. The people protesting outside the courthouse are it's consumers, people like I said, who already know it's benefits people with know agenda other than their own health. Mary you demonize yourself when you take the demons side.
Milky Way,
Again (and again and again and again) what exactly are the risks?
Recently Mark commented to Mary that Chris became ill not from raw milk but from a “set of conditions.” I thought he nailed it there. Illness, especially infectious illness, is not the result of exposure to an organism, but the result of a series of interactions including exposure to an organism. This is clearly true. Not everyone who is exposed gets ill. If mere exposure was the problem, we would not survive as a species---we would be ill all the time with something, overlapping somethings, and soon dead.
Your version of labeling suggests the opposite. It is a view clouded by the microscope, and by the paradigm so well sustained by big ag, big pharma, and big med. I do not find it humane or fair. It promotes dead food, low-nutrient food, soil destruction, under-development of immune systems, overuse of fuels, over reliance on medicines, disease management over disease prevention---it promotes illness.
Here's an idea for milk labeling: If it's natural, label it “milk” or “unadulterated milk.” If it's the typical grocery-store variety, label it “milk denatured by contact with biocides, pasteurization, homogenization, and fractioning.”
MW, I was educated into the medical system. I know the power of its paradigm. Importantly, I also know that the people in it do not desire suffering. But we can be so narrow minded! It is understandable after investing so much time, effort, and money into becoming something that that something would tend to stick, but that just makes the tragedy of the mess more profound, the effect more deeply felt, and the urgency of out-of-the-box thinking more acute. It is far past the time to recognize that we cannot sustain a weak biologic system with technology.
Do you believe that the picture you identify yourself with on this blog accurately represents what goes on in my gut?
"label it “milk denatured by contact with biocides, pasteurization, homogenization, and fractioning.”
Indeed that would be truth in labeling. We all know, that wouldn't be done because if people saw that, then most wouldn't purchase it.
With the power of a euphemism people drink and eat food irradiated with x-rays, don't they? Now that it is called "safe light" the unsuspecting public has that false sense of security, don't they? Words are weapons in this age of information, aren't they? The age of information really means that the general public must not be given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To maintain control the general public must be fed half-truths, limited truths and truths out of context (and of course bald-faced lies).
euphemism noun
1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”
Dave (and Ken),
It's amazing the repetition on this blog. I try not to write too much these days and only respond to new topics. David's blog is unique in allowing differnt views (other blogs and social media places like Facebook delete our comments and keep the discussion only in line with the WAPF perspective). The Mother Jones article seemed interesting to comment on since it wasn't as cookie cutter as 99% of the media that cover this "debate." I should let it go, but because you (and Ken) ask questions and are kind and sincere in trying to understand each other...I'll rehash my point of view.
Regarding risk, I look at it from two perspectives: 1) individual risk and 2) public health resources
For the former (individual risk), it only makes sense to consider raw milk in the context of choosing a dairy type product. For example, you go to the dairy case at the co-op, and the cold case has a bunch of choices ranging from pasteurized (ultra to vat; homogenized, non-homogenized; conventional, organic, etc.) and maybe raw if legal in that state. Across the isle are the non-dairy choices of almond, rice, soy "milk," etc. Or maybe a more dedicated consumer is considering choices beyond the store and going to the farm.
Either way, lets use the example of a parent picking a "dairy" product for their family. They are looking for something to pour in a glass or on a bowl of cereal, or maybe even make yogurt or kefir from. From that parent's perspective, the risk from cantaloupe or ground beef is not relevant. The risk they need to consider relates to which dairy product to choose. I stand pretty adament on that point - don't compare other foods or drugs or car crashes to an individual's decision about buying a milk product.
That said, raw milk is riskier for children. Among dairy related cases, raw milk causes significantly more illness in children compared with pasteurized milk. And, these illnesses result in more hospitalizations due to E. coli O157 and HUS. Interestingly, we haven't seen HUS from pasteurized milk in the US. If concerned about Listeria, then it's a different risk analysis. For dairy products, soft cheeses are risky for the elderly and pregnant women whether pasteurized or raw.
For the latter (public health resources):
I really don't know if the amount of resources put into raw milk related regulations/enforcement make sense relative to the number of outbreaks and other food safety and public health priorities. A cost:benefit analysis by an unbiased economist would be interesting. While I have no doubt raw milk is a risky choice for a child since there is no way to predict if the child has an "inferior" immune system, I'm less sure how much these decisions need to be policed. My current thought is that the industry should be honest and educate consumers about the risk since they are unable to "screen" buyers' guts.
Lastly, the photo shows campylobacter growing on selective agar. It doesn't represent a gut :) But, when it colonizes the "right" gut, it can and will produce certain toxins and express genes that may cause a human to become paralyzed (the phenomenon is called molecular mimicry). This is very rare, but it happens as depicted in one of the video links.
Can a raw milk, chicken, or any other food producer, buyer club runner, or retailer look a customer in the eye and know if their gut can handle this strain of campylobacter? Can they know if a parent has a child that can fight off E. coli O157 even if the health care system gives antibiotics? The farmer/producer has no control over these things. As Mary pointed out, not all HUS is associated with antibiotics (though I very much agree the medical community needs education and do put energy there). As it stands now, the raw milk industry markets to children and immune compromised people, and the only barrier between a pathogen and a catastrophy in these vulnerable customers is the farmer - doing best practices to keep risky pathogens out of their food. The fact most raw milk websites dismiss pathogens and "blame the victim" after severe illness might be why so much energy is put into a problem that is likely limited at this time to relatively few incidences. The dismissal of risk is a red flag that raw milk may become a larger problem as its popularity increases.
One perspective...that might shift in the next hour or millennium :)
MW, Thank you!
Milky Way, I believe there's been a big shift in attitudes toward risk among advocates of raw milk. You single out the Weston A. Price Foundation, yet its head, Sally Fallon, has taken major steps to anticipate risk at her own farm, and is speaking out publicly about her efforts.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/article/2012/july/8/if-they-could-see-...
Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures has organized the Raw Milk Institute, which is pushing farmers hard to anticipate risk. Your lumping everyone in the "raw milk industry" as "blaming the victim" is glib, as is the Mother Jones article.
Really? WAPF website and Hartke blog hasn't changed any messages related to raw milk in over 6 years. There have been no retractions related to their misinformation or their Ron Schmid's book that is full of citations that are fake - look them up - his citations do not back his claims.
MW,
In re. to "Ron Schmid's book that is full of citations that are fake - look them up - his citations do not back his claims.": would you recite one example of this fakery please? Thanks.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Has any govt entities changed any of their messages related to raw milk in over 6 years? There are no retractions related to their misinformation, their citations do not back up their claims.
"There are no retractions related to their misinformation, their citations do not back up their claims." When you are dealing with propaganda they just keep repeating THE BIG LIE over and over and over again, don't they? The people who are carried away by passions and who blindly believe everything professional liars tell them get sucked into the big lie - hook, line and sinker!
Not sure why Mark has organized RAWMI if he tells the farmers the milk is not what causes people to become ill, it is children's immune systems. Why bother to have safety measures if contaminated raw milk doesn't make people ill? RAMP is a lot of work for what?
Mark has yet to mention all the pathogens that can be found in raw mik and the diseases they can cause on the RAWMI website. I see what you mean about the big changes in information about risk.
Mary
My two eldest children following their birth were breast fed as well as being fed a formula. Following their two-month immunizations the children began to develop recurrent ear infections for which they were administered antibiotics etc., and in Patrick’s case diarrhea. They were repeatedly hospitalized for these illnesses and when Patrick developed a particular severe and persistent case of diarrhea was placed on IV and allowed to drink only apple juice. Following his return home from the hospital he was only allowed to drink apple juice, no milk. The putrid, loose green stools continued.
After a lengthy discussion with his mother she agreed to try feeding him raw milk. Almost overnight his loose green stools disappeared. The next challenge was attempting to convince her to discontinue having the children vaccinated. Fate being what it is however; she passed away due a massive brain hemorrhage following the twin’s birth. My decision not to follow through with further vaccinations was frowned upon by our family physician and numerous family members.
When I brought the twins (Angela and Jacob) home following their birth I fed them a raw milk formula recommended by Dr. William Campbell Douglass. They were premature and between 4-5 lbs. at that time. To date they have not seen a doctor since their birth and are now 25 years of age.
This much I can tell you, there are thousands of individuals including children and the elderly who drink raw milk, (pathogens included) with no ill effects.
Please accept my apologies for the repetition.
Ken
MW
Growth in the field of autoimmunity has resulted in more and more frequent diagnosis of autoimmune diseases.
The ability for an individual to discriminate between self and non-self is a result of a sweeping, antagonistic, invasive, and unnatural toxic manipulation of numerous life forms especially microscopic organisms.
Your suggestion that “the only barrier between a pathogen and a catastrophe in these vulnerable customers is the farmer” is indicative of your narrow approach to this problem of disease and related autoimmunity. It is little more then a deflection of blame.
It wasn’t the farmer that developed the drugs, antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, chemical pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today.
Industry and the scientists they employed developed those products with government bureaucrats being the ones who regulated them and at times forcefully demanded their use with threat of fines.
I will do whatever I can to produce a healthy food product. However hell will freeze over before I consider adopting the government regulator/industry adulterated dead food protocol.
Ken
We are talking about diarrhea. Diarrhea is the most common illness in the world and is not dangerous in and of itself. Diarrhea is only dangerous if it is treated by a medical doctor or if the person is deprived of food and water. Raw milk is the healthiest and safest America food and DATCP's data does not show otherwise. Pasteurized dairy causes cancer and heart disease an everyone knows it.
Diarrhea is a disease of malnutrition. Starving people all over the world die of it everyday. The average American gets it two to three times a year and diabetes, cancer and heart disease are rampant. Everyone knows that diet is the main cause of illness. Clearly food safety is not a priority in this country.
"Can a raw milk, chicken, or any other food producer, buyer club runner, or retailer look a customer in the eye and know if their gut can handle this strain of campylobacter? "
Of course not, just as the doctor cannot look the patient or parent in the eye and know the vaccine and/or medication is NOT going to have an adverse effect. Nor can the doc tor know that the surgery outcome is going to be positive. Nor can the car salesman look the potential buyer in the eye and know they aren't going to wreck the car and potential kill someone or themselves. There are no guarantees.
" dismissal of risk is a red flag that raw milk may become a larger problem as its popularity increases."
Just as the lies and mis-statements from the govt are a larger problem as the healthy foods movement continues to grow.
Sylvia are you saying there is a safer or healthier food in America than raw grass feed milk.
Rawmilkmike
I was responding to MW's silly statement/question: "Can a raw milk, chicken, or any other food producer, buyer club runner, or retailer look a customer in the eye and know if their gut can handle this strain of campylobacter? "
He posts the same biased drivel as the govt. Life has no guarantees and for him to infer that there is or should be is ludicrous, foolish on his part.
Also MW statement: " dismissal of risk is a red flag that raw milk may become a larger problem as its popularity increases."
He neglects to state about the govts lies and mis-statements.
Sorry Sylvia, missed the quotation marks.
I would like to comment on the discussion of underling causes. Everyone in the discussion assumed that the raw milk actually caused the diarrhea when in fact all it did was fail to prevent it. I think the CDC's data actually shows that the raw milk is preventing diarrhea. If my figures are correct, a raw milk cow share of 100 families should have 4 cases of diarrhea per day to be at the national average. If they have less than that the raw milk is preventing HUS not causing it. How far off am I?
rawmilkmike
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2006/0915/p991.html <~~~This site explains HUS from a medical view. It is from 2006, so some information may have changed.
Even back then, the recommendations were the following for treatment: "Antibiotics and antimotility agents are not recommended as treatments for hemolytic uremic syndrome during the diarrheal stage of the disease. Studies of antibiotic usage in children with E. coli O157:H7 infections show an increased risk of complications from hemolytic uremic syndrome. One study reported that using antibiotics to treat children testing positive forE. coli O157:H7 increased their risk of developing hemolytic uremic syndrome. Additionally, some children who were diagnosed with Shigella dysenteriae type 1 and treated with ampicillin developed hemolytic uremic syndrome."
Also, narcotic pain medications (and other medications) will slow and/or stop GI motility and are something that I would guess should not be given with active diarrhea as it would keep the toxin in the GI tract and allow the toxin to multiply worsening the problem.
IN the USA, the Shiga Toxin–Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is the most common cause of HUS. As the above web site states, it can be picked up in numerous places or from numerous foods. The medical community, to my knowledge, doesn't know why some people get HUS and some don't. I believe gut health is a factor, as I am sure there are many contributing factors, as with most things, it isn't just one factor affecting the body. When they have a diagnoses of STEC, and E-coli from a potential source, they do a DNA test to see if they are from the same strain.
For example; if several people go to the ER with bloody diarrhea and the stool comes back positive for a bad e-coli, and the patients ate ground beef or spinach, (usually several people have to have this diagnosis before the govt investigates) the govt supposedly searches for the source of the bacteria, ie ground beef or spinach. If they find it in the ground beef, they test it's DNA against the DNA from the strain in the patients stools. If they have a match, then that is probably where the patient contracted the bacteria. They do not know why it has an adverse affect on some people and not others. Like vaccines, some people are damaged from them and others appear not to be.
Someone else will have to address your statement about the CDC data, I don't like statistics or numbers.
How to Lie with Statistics [Paperback] Darrell Huff (Author), Irving Geis (Illustrator) "Darrell Huff runs the gamut of every popularly used type of statistic, probes such things as the sample study, the tabulation method, the interview technique, or the way results are derived from the figures, and points up the countless number of dodges which are used to fool rather than to inform." Book Description from Amazon.com. Numbers don't lie - the people who 'crunch' the numbers can be or could be the liars - It's not guaranteed that they are liars. The sword of justice in the hands of a crooked judge is a weapon of injustice, isn't it? "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2
Sylvia, most Americans eat a bad diet and most Americans are under stress so most Americans will be sick most of the time. At any given time we have millions of people with diarrhea. During a major outbreak you could have close to half the people in your immediate area sick with diarrhea so if a cow share with 400 people has 10 people with diarrhea do you say raw milk caused 10 cases or do you say it prevented 190. Most of those stool samples could test positive for the same pathogen with the same DNA but what would that prove?
I do agree that most American eat a poor diet and that stress levels are high for many. I've not read that "At any given time we have millions of people with diarrhea."
When most people have diarrhea it is self-limiting and usually cleared with 24-72 hours.
" half the people in your immediate area sick with diarrhea so if a cow share with 400 people has 10 people with diarrhea do you say raw milk caused 10 cases or do you say it prevented 190. "
I could not answer that without tests results to find the causing factor. Is it viral? Bacterial? Is there a predisposing condition, like colitis, crohn's or any other disease? Is there an allergy to something they ate/came in contact with? Was something that ate/drank contaminated? Or was the cow ill? Did someone not clean the equipment well? Was the milk not stored safely? Many answers are required for a conclusion.
Hopefully the causes are found and corrected.
Whittier Farms pasteurized milk had a listeria outbreak in 2007, The same strain of listeria was found in the milk that was found in the people, so it was most likely caused by the contaminated milk. This happens with raw milk and any other type of food. That does not explain why not everyone who drank the milk did not become sick. I can only surmise that they had other factors that allowed the listeria to take hold in their systems.
Sylvia, you said;
“That does not explain why not everyone who drank the milk did not become sick. I can only surmise that they had other factors that allowed the listeria to take hold in their systems.”
Yes, the inference is that some people are healthier but I think it's what I said earlier. During a major outbreak you could have close to half the people in your immediate area sick with diarrhea so if a cow share with 400 people has 10 people with diarrhea do you say raw milk caused 10 cases or do you say it prevented 190.
You say “I could not answer that without tests results” but I've never seen test results that prove the causes of these outbreaks. Even with that big norovirus thing that swept the country, was that this year, I forget, I never found an article saying they knew for sure what it was.
During an outbreak most people are not even tested. So all we really know is we have a lot of people with diarrhea. I think all we need to know is that both happened at the same time. If a near by school or business has half their people off sick and the local cow share has only a few sick the only thing we know for sure is that it wasn't the raw milk.
The “millions of people with diarrhea” comes from a statement that the average American gets diarrhea 2 to 3 times a year. That's one in a hundred. So if you do a study to see how much salmonella it takes to give a person diarrhea and you use 100 people one person is going to get diarrhea whether you give them salmonella or not. If you use 10 people and run the test for10 days you have the same problem.
Pages