Even As Hostility Over Raw Milk and Food Rights Rises, the Real Stakes Become Clearer
You might think that after half a dozen years of intense debate and a procession of legal cases in the U.S. and Canada over raw milk and food rights, that there might be some softening, some moves to compromise and acceptance-- “live and let live,” as it were.
Nothing doing. Rather, even as more local organizing takes place pushing food rights legislative agendas from Wyoming to Virginia, positions seem to be hardening. Those hardening positions are translating into ever harsher enforcement. Much like Alabama became the capital of anti-civil-rights actions in the 1960s, Minnesota has become the anti-food-right capital of the new century (in tough competition with neighboring Wisconsin).
Maybe a little bored as they wait for the next trial of farmer Alvin Schlangen to begin in a few weeks, officials at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture pulled out raw dairy farmer Michael Hartmann for some more public tarring and feathering. Now they have gotten a prosecutor to file three new criminal charges against him for, what else, producing raw milk. I haven’t seen the complaint, and it’s hard to know for sure from this report--there have been so many charges against the guy-- but somehow it has to do with him supposedly violating a previous plea agreement and trying to supply his private customers, who are desperate for his milk.
The point here is that the hostility by public officials is nearly palpable. Sure, there is talk about “protecting” people, but that talk sounds ever more empty, since none of the farmers in the expanding dragnet are making people ill. (Hartmann was linked to illnesses back in 2010, nearly three years ago, so that rallying cry is becoming tired.)
All you have to do is read Michael Schmidt’s account of his recent six-day trial in British Columbia (during which he had to fly back to Ontario to gain permission from a judge in his sheep-napping case to extend his stay outside the province) to get a sense of the hostility (see part 1 and part 2). The prosecutor even mocked his slight German accent. (And you know Schmidt, ever polite, wasn’t being provocative.)
Gordon Watson, a co-defendant with Schmidt for helping organize the few hundred person herdshare the British Columbia government wants so badly to obliterate, similarly sensed the hostility. (He acted as his own lawyer in the case.) Susan Beach, the lawyer for British Columbia’s Fraser Health, he wrote me, was “harping-away like a buzz-saw about what bad guys Michael Schmidt and I were. ‘Contumacious contemnors !’ ... she called us! Having operated in the upper echelon of government, in the capital city (Victoria), she’s used to people deferring to her. What she didn’t realize ‘til it was too late, was the insolence of office which is her stock in trade, cut no ice with us ... a couple of blokes who simply don’t care about the prestige she’s gained in twenty years before the Bar.”
Now, there are even signs of infighting among the opponents of raw milk. It seems the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) had the gall to break with the American Farm Bureau Federation and declare itself in favor of pending Massachusetts legislation to allow delivery of raw milk from permitted farms, according to an article in Farm Progress magazine.
Its reason for breaking with the big shots? "At least 37 states allow some form of raw milk sales, including Massachusetts. We believe that properly-regulated raw milk sales are a marketing opportunity for family farms." The Farm Progress article added: “For many dairy producers, this could be key to their survival, in a state where land, labor and regulatory costs are among the highest in the nation...”
The key words are “marketing opportunity.” Could the worm finally be turning? Could dairy farmers finally be coming to the realization that raw milk offers an opportunity for economic survival, with the bonus of making customers happier and healthier...and that the farmers’ main enemies are the dairy processors fighting to hold onto market share?
And economics returns us to the hostility I lead off with. Sure, there is serious animosity by the rulers over the ruled. But at its heart, this is a struggle over economics, just as slavery was a struggle over economics, and economics can make people very hostile.
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.
I know the media is biased and doesn't always report fully or truthfully. I have only heard of a very small handful of farmers who are standing up against the system. If the farmers won't stand up and speak out, why would they expect people to? Again, most have no clue what adulterations are done to there foods or how farms are run, etc.
Tell me why your milk is better than the adulterated stuff, what you do differently than the store bought stuff, how you raise and feed, etc your animals/farm. Tell me the differences, show me the differences. Pictures speak volumes. Brief statements would suffice. That's what people need to know, facts.
If the dairy farmers can't see that selling raw milk directly to people is more profitable that being a slave to the current system, then perhaps they shouldn't be in business. (This is a generalized statement-cow shares, feed lot dairies,etc are different issues).
No farmer has the resources to fight big Ag on the raw milk issue. This is up to us, the consumer. In Wisconsin it is illegal for any raw milk producer to say anything about their product.
David,
I'm a bit confused with the allusion to tarring and feathering. While tarring and feathering was a communal practice carried out by a revolutionary "mob" against Tories, the prosecution of Mike Hartman is being done by a small group of people, in the top management of a government bureaucracy. Big difference there.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not fan of Mike Hartmann. I just fail to see how MDA's prosecution of Hartmann bears any resemble to the colonial-era "Tarring and Feathering."
Seems you are trying to invoke some sort of nationalism again. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, given the peculiar agrarian petit bourgeois characteristics of the raw milk movement.
Tarring and feathering has always been used as a way to humiliate, punish, severely criticize, etc. David's use of tarring and feathering in conjunction with MDA and Michael Hartmann is so accurate and spot on right!! MDA's latest attack on Michael is nothing less than a public tarring and feathering action...their sole purpose is to publicly humiliate, punish, and criticize him. Even if it is not the actual physical act of tarring and feathering...the purpose and end result is the same! Bill, if you can't recognize that, then you are severely blind! And by the way, this is David's website...not your soapbox. You have shown so much contempt, disrespect, arrogance, lack of courtesy, and outright insult to David. David certainly has the patience of a saint to continue to allow your postings to this site!
Shall we begin a hagiographical profile of David Gumpert?
Careful, Bill, your fangs and claws are showing!
Hey, go for it, Bill. (I'll save others having to look up hagiographical, as I did--it means "excessively flattering.") Shouldn't take you too long.
Oh my goodness, David, silly me, here I was thinking that Bill was being very derogatory to you when in essence he was making you a saint!! Most definitely we will shower you with flattery, praises and sainthood. Perhaps that will make him happier, ya think?!! Lol!
Big words don't make big men.
Bill is a plant, I have no doubt.
Uh oh. Here come the conspiracy theories again. haha!
No, I'm not a "plant" D. Smith. Just a raw milk cheese maker who takes food safety very seriously. Like I said, I'd be happy to show you my lab reports. Just shoot me an email -- bill@cremedelacoulee.com
Also, here is a picture of my raw milk bloomy-rinded cheese:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=554099811281478&set=pb.510832278...
It is modelled after Chaource, which is made in the Champagne region of France. But most Americans are not familair with Chaource, so just think of this as being like Brie or Camembert, but with a slightly different shape.
IT's not a conspiracy theory, it's an opinion. My opinion.
The raw milk movement is a working class movement. Bill, you are the middle class. Working class families have little use for your cheese.
David, Did you know that tarring and feathering began as early as 1189 during the reign of Richard the Lionhearted, it was prescribed in the British navy. Nowadays, when someone says; "they should be tarred and feathered," basically infers a "brutal and humiliating punishment" for their actions. Which is what tptb are attempting to do to the farmers and in a sense to those who want to consume the raw dairy or other healthful foods. You aptly called that one.
http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/tarringandfeathering.htm
As I remember it from high school history, it was undesirables of one sort or another who were "tarred and feathered and run out of town." It sounded brutal and humiliating...and a hell of a mess to clean up.
If I was a betting person, I'd bet that David used the term tarring and feathering as a metaphorical phrase. It fits nicely into the slot.
Those who don't like, or aren't in favor of the raw milk movement are always free to leave, and/or make no more comments, and bury themselves under the "half freedom" blanket. People like Bill want some freedoms (like his freedom to make raw milk cheese) but still want gubment regulations and control by the lackeys at places like the fdUh and the uSDuh. He's a big fan of science FRICTION.
By demanding only some freedoms, we will continue to have what we have, and that is certainly not working any longer. We need to start leaving more of the responsibility for these things in the hands of each individual state and eliminate the dead wood we have now.
D. Smith, good bet, and good points.
Hi D. Smith. I'd wager that I'm more in favor of civil liberties than most of these "libertarians" around here.
To start with, I'm pro-choice. Many of these "libertarians", including Ron Paul, are against women's reproductive rights.
I'm opposed to ICE's campaigns against immigrant communities. Again... many raw milk "libertarians" are anti-immigrant, including Ron Paul. Never mind that the US Federal gov't has deported MILLIONS of immigrants in the last 4 years, destroying families and communities. In my opinion, the campaign against immigrant communities is a far more concerning abuse of government power than any of these raw milk cases (which, in many cases, were due to negligent food safety practices anyways).
Here's my policy prescription: Abolish the police, the military, and all prisons. (except prison for the war criminals who run our gubmnt, i.e. GWBush and his lackeys, and yes, Obama too). Also, abolish all private mercenary forces. Make the 1% fend for themselves, and let the workers run industry instead of capitalists.
The FDA, USDA, etc, will have to govern by the merit of what they say and do, not by force. Producers who follow best practices and keep their milk clean and their cheese factories free of listeria will thrive. Those who do not, well, I think that publicizing their listeria-ridden cheese to the public should suffice. I make a point of keeping my cheese free from listeria. I test every batch twice, and I'd be happy to show you my lab reports, if you are interested.
The FDA and the USDA need to be terminated entirely or our freedom call doesn't have a chance. If you want to continue to cater to them by pretending that only those entities are capable of providing "testing", you are stifling the state - who is just as capable of doing the testing and keeping it closer to home. The FDA routinely *loses* test results and then we get their yada yada yada excuses, and we don't have any idea what else they're up to under the cover of gubment protection. Well, we do, but that's another subject. It's a racket, Bill. Worse yet, a protected racket. We need to get rid of them. If someone at the state level can't handle a simple procedure like testing, we're all in big trouble.
I'm pro-choice, always have been. But that's MY choice. I don't support immigration by having people just slide across the border and onto our handout programs, because I'm not in favor of handout programs. But it requires more paperwork to adopt a dog from the pound than it does to come and live in this country. THAT is sad. I'm a huge Ron Paul fan, although I have no intention of discussing politics here on this forum. That's my choice and you have your choice and I'm tired of hearing about it. I'm sure everyone else is, too.
As everyone knows, Gary Cox and FTCLDF has been suing the FDA to force their compliance with the now 4 year old Citizens Petition regarding the change of CFR 1240.61 ie. the illegal interstate transport of raw milk.
Our court date is in March to see what the FDA has to say for itself. Well...the best they can do is ....just before the trial begins announce that they now will answer the Citizens Complaint, making the trial mute!!! I can not wait to see what the answer says.
If they are smart they will allow raw milk over state lines on their terms, what ver that might be. If they are as expected....they will use bent up CDC data and flat out deny the petition.
I really hope they do something really stupid and attempt to lie. They will be an obvious opportunity to dress them down in court and expose the lie. We will see.
I was just sent a video produced by he FDA that warns pregnant moms to not drink raw milk,,.it makes me nauseated. It quotes CDC data that does not exist. A FOIA request I did with he CDC three years ago exposed the truth....there have been zero deaths from raw milk listed in the CDC database.
The FDA video claims deaths from raw milk!!!!
I want to sue so badly...the truth must come out!!
Our market building efforts in CA are working extremely well. Sales are raging with records every month. That one fact must drive the FDA crazy in their sterilized frenzied cubicle livin reality. Consumers do not trust them and their pharmacy commercial reality. They trust OPDC instead.
This is real war and they re really showing their weaknesses. If you need to lie you have lost..
The dairy industry has already surrendered their fluid pasteurized milk markets. Now the FDA is trying to save what little is still surviving....but lingers near its inevitable market death.
An exciting development, Mark!
As I've mentioned to you before, I think our best bet to legally get a fluid raw milk product across state lines is with an acidified cultured product such as kefir or yogurt.
I love yogurt. I love kefir. But I also love and need fluid milk. You're suggestion, Bill, doesn't quite cover the entire spectrum of the issue. You do keep singing the same song though. Why do you keep talking about fluid milk "products" when most people are concerned about fluid milk? Fresh, raw milk to drink - that's what this fight is about. At least it is for me and mine.
Not only do I love fluid milk (as does my son), but have you ever tried to make a pudding out of yogurt, kefir or Bill's cheese? Yech!
And yogurt in coffee is not good, either...
Thanks for the compliment about my cheese, Mama. I'm glad I put in so much hard work to make my raw milk soft-ripened cheeses, only to experience never-ending assaults from you raw milk "libertarians."
btw... Last time I checked, puddings are cooked. So why does it matter if you use raw milk to make pudding if you plan on boiling the hell out of it anyways? Pasteurization only requires 161.5F for 15 seconds. Pudding takes a lot higher temperatures for a lot longer than that, doesn't it!
You don't boil a pudding, sir. If you do it will revert to a liquid state. But your FDA doesn't want me to buy raw milk, and the industrial milk isn't healthful, so I can only use yogurt, kefir, and I've no doubt your cheese is divine, but not in a pudding ;-)
Thanks mama. You'll have to teach me how to make a pudding sometime.
Most dairy producing regions have a few options for decent minimally-pasteurized milk from grassfed cows, for those who just need to make pudding. Maybe you don't live in a such a region. I understand.
I cook with raw milk. Yes, sometimes it's heated because I use it in cream of potato soup or cream of broccoli soup or cream of cauliflower soup or whatever. I make heated puddings and lots of other heated things, Bill. It's heated to make certain dishes and I'd still rather start with healthy raw milk, than pasteurized white water (with chalk and God knows what else added to it - I mean really - fake Vitamin D?). My end product is healthier for it, too. Warming something is one thing, boiling the hell out of it is quite another.
Your tipping your hand Bill. It's becoming obvious you don't care what people want as long as you can get them to buy your product.
kefir makes very fluffy all-buckwheat pancakes!
I'll have to try that letseatrealstuff.
I’ve been using yogurt with my cooking for the last 20 or more years. It is excellent in pancakes and is a great flavor and texture-enhancing ingredient in many recipes such as cakes, apple pie or crumble, stews, soup, etc.
A handful of fresh chopped up cranberries is also a tasty addition in pancakes.
Ken
Yogurt in apple pie sounds good to me!
The FDA is less likely to approve raw milk yogurt or kefir than fluid raw milk. Right now, California and possibly one other state (Maine?) allow sale of a cultured product. All other states with raw milk permit systems (like PA, MA, NY) prohibit raw yogurt or kefir for permitted dairies. FDA isn't about to set any new precedents beyond what states allow in our wildest dreams.
The other thing that Bill is kinda missing here, is that people can make their own yogurt and kefir once they have the fresh raw milk to do it with. That's what I do, as well as drinking the milk by the glass several times daily. I make other things out of the milk, as well, but it all depends on the time of year and how much cream comes to the top. Since we are now having to deal with a dairy which uses holsteins rather than jerseys, the cream is pretty sparse. I've had to stop making my own butter until I can find someone locally to buy Jersey milk from. That is proving to be a challenge. I have to find the right string in the network, otherwise people refuse to talk, thanks to the shenanigans of the fda and the usda twerps.
You heat the milk yourself? I'm not clear on what "raw yogurt" would be, if it's always heated first. Or do some people not heat the milk first?
My friend and I just started making our own yogurt, and we also buy it at the same place we get milk, in NY. They sell kefir there too. But this isn't "raw" yogurt and kefir, because they home-"pasteurized" it first?
We're actually not clear on whether this seed yogurt for our own efforts has cultures (the label doesn't say so). Is there such a thing as yogurt without cultures?
I don't usually heat the milk when I make raw milk yogurt, but it's not like the stuff from the store either. It's runny and lumpy and who cares??!! I have tried about 20 different ways to make it but the basic yogurt without heat is made with either a culture powder (like stuff from Cultures for Health or many online suppliers) or you can just buy some plain, high-fat yogurt from the store and use a couple of tablespoons to get your first batch going and then you use some of your completed stuff to make the next batch. Sorta like a "starter" for sourdough breads, etc. But after a few times, then you need to make a new "mother" batch. I guess it's all in what you're looking for. When I want to make greek yogurt, I do heat the milk to about 110 degrees but no more than that, simply because it has to be a bit thicker in order to obtain the greek style. I strain mine through a muslin towel hanging from something and dripping into a bowl. WHen you're done you have a sort of whey product and in the towel is your yogurt. Actually, if you keep straining for a longer period, I do it inside the fridge, especially in the summer, and you'll end up with what's sorta like cream cheese or neufchatel.
Some people think the milk has to be heated to 185 or something to make yogurt. Not true. The less heat the better. Just do an online search, Russ, for "making yogurt from raw milk" or something like that plugged into your search engine and you'll eventually find information. The dairy counsel has made damn sure some of it is very well hidden, of course.
Thanks for the information, DSmith. I love making yogurt, and it's great to know there are many different ways to do it. It's so liberating to learn these minor yett valuable skills!
I think you are mistaken, David. I think that it would be easier to demonstrate the safety of acidified cultured products, especially when shipped over long distances, than it would be to demonstrate the safety of "sweet" fluid milk.
The fact that so few states have approved said products from raw milk is more an indicator of a lack of confidence in the sanitary conditions under which they are to be processed. Most dairy farmers are not familiar with food manufacturing GMPs and do not have the facilities to do said processing. Someone like Mark, though, who has a thorough food safety plan, a sanitary dairy processing facility, and dedicated creamery staff knowledgeable about GMPs, I think would be more likely to get FDA approval for a product such as yogurt.
Bill, you continue to believe there is a correlation between "safety" and FDA/state actions on raw dairy products. You can easily demonstrate the safety of cultured products--there have been about as many illnesses from those as from raw milk brie and camembert over the last 20-plus years (pretty close to zero). That doesn't mean the FDA and cohorts would consider them safe, though. You, like FDA, seem to enjoy blaming farmers for problems that are minimal at best, as if you are the only producer using effective safety practices.
David, your commentary on the FDA report suggests to me you do not understand food safety.
Let me ask you a question: when a finished ready-to-eat food tests positive for Listeria Monocytogenes, what should a responsible food producer do?
Why on earth would I need the FDA to tell me if something is safe? Oh yeah, they have a wonderful track record, I fergot!! Geeeeeeez.
I trust my own nose a lot more than the FDA. We really don't need them for anything and I think you'd find that out in short order if our government would ever find it's . . . well, just say if they would get off dead center and dismantle the FDA and about 50 other agencies we don't need. They aren't protecting anyone. If that were true, no one would have to worry about anything, would we?
In my area of the country we just had another spinach recall. Who dropped the ball? Food safety?? Oh puhleeeez.
You test your own cheese, right Bill? Twice, I believe you said. So, tell me, WHY do you need the FDA to do it? What do they do that you don't do?
No, Bill, it's you who doesn't understand. You're looking for someone else to be liable if something goes wrong. Thing is, the FDA doesn't have to take liability for much of anything they do. So that puts it all back into your lap.
"Why on earth would I need the FDA to tell me if something is safe? Oh yeah, they have a wonderful track record, I fergot!! Geeeeeeez. "
haha you made me laugh.
issue a press release.
Why doesn't the dairy industry tell people exactly how their milk is processed? Most people think it is just boiled (pasteurized) and maybe some of the fats removed, 1%,2%, 0%, skim, homogenized, etc. Why don't they explain how all the store milk tastes the same, how they have the exact amount of milk fat? The govt, et al, claims; "unproven health benefits", yet there are so many who claim to be better since consuming raw dairy, and there is the European study. Why are there so many people who were diagnosed by an MD with lactose intolerance and they can consume raw dairy with no problems. I know the cause of lactose intolerance is a lack of an enzyme in the gut. I know studies claim that those people were "misdiagnosed", if that is so, then perhaps the MDs licenses should be revoked? That is a lot of misdiagnoses. E.Coli and other pathogens in the meat/poultry industry are consistently high and it has yet to be fixed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEKLfOExBKE This is a 3 part.
@ Sylvia: Did you read the story yesterday on Yahoo about the 3 year old boy who cannot consume any solid foods and has been on a specialized "prescription" formula (oh, I'll bet that's yummy stuff) but now he's developing problems with the script formula? It's an interesting story, but in my opinion the parents need to look elsewhere for answers than to our inept medical system. I posted it (and some comments) at my forum. I think there are lots of things these people could try but they're so worried about their son they probably really can't think straight.
Thanks for posting the vid. And I agree with you about the misdiagnosis crisis in this country. That alone should tell us we're in trouble.
I skimmed over that story about the boy. If I recall, most out grow that "disease" around 2-3 yrs old. I can only imagine the crap in the "special" formula they feed him. I agree, they should be looking at all avenues, and they probably are overwhelmed and have blind faith in the medical community.
It reminded me of when I was weaning my son from breast, all the formulas made him have projectile vomiting before he got 4 oz in him. The pediatrician told me to just keep feeding it to him!! UGH we were in Germany at the time, and my German wasn't good enough to decipher the labels on the German formulas (back then I wouldn't have had a place to look up the ingredients) and at the time, in the 70s, there were issues with tuberculin cows there. So he went straight to the store bought whole milk from the commissary, which was supposed to have been imported from the US. He never had a problem with the whole cows milk.
My first thought while reading the story was to get breastmilk from a nursing Mom or try goat milk. Nowadays people in the "altie" communities talk donkey milk, camel milk, yak milk - I mean it's true that most people think of a cow when they think of milk, but it is not the ONLY source. Each type of milk would have to be tried separately (if they can get it) and see how he reacts, but again he may outgrow its properties and need something more/different. I'm thinking he may be having issues simply because he's getting older, doncha think? I mean, he probably needs more than what's in that script formula.
I wonder if they've thought of things like coconut milk or water? Or, after 3 years, have they even considered that he may have outgrown part of his initial problem and could now tolerate some veggie juices or fruit juices on a small scale, just to see what his body will do? I don't think these things occur to a doctor who probably has 50 other patients in the same hospital.
When my daughter was newborn, she developed just a titch of jaundice, so I placed her in the sunlight as much as possible and we "watered down" my overly rich breastmilk with some goat milk and she did just fine. We only had to do that for about three weeks, and then she was good to go with straight breastmilk. She was breech and inverted and we had a difficult time, both of us. In the 70's we were not drugged up into oblivion, so I knew what was going on all the time and the doctor consulted me on everything. I'll bet dollars to dumbbells that wouldn't happen today. Doctors barge their way around without asking question one of the Mom, as if she's some lamebrained doofus and act as if pregnancy is an illness or a disease. It's that overweening arrogance thing rearing its head again.
I wonder if they tried store bought juices or home made organic juice? I believe there is a big difference. Mom liked goat milk (not something I acquired a taste for). OMG you put your baby in the sun!! My son got a light sunburn at @ 3 months, We were at a picnic and I had him in the shade, yet he still got a light pink. You wouldn't believe the flak I got for that. And no, I did NOT slather suntan garbage on him. Idiots. The medical community is questionable to say the least. They can't make up their minds on what is good for a body and what isn't. Even something as mundane as laying your baby on their backs, belly, sides is open for debate. Or sleeping with your baby in your bed or even in your room....
I don't remember if the article stated HOW they found out this little guy couldn't tolerate anything but formula after he reached the age to actually try something else, so I don't know about the juice question. I mean, I don't know if the doctors simply tested or what happened or how they knew he couldn't tolerate anything else as he grew.
My daughter was born in mid-September, and it was already rather chilly, so most of the time she was in the sunlight through a window in our home. But on nice autumn days I would go outdoors with her, when I finally felt up to it but we were only in the direct sun for about 5-10 minutes or so. It was pretty amazing though because you could almost watch the yellowish skin disappearing and turning a nice pink. No more bili lights after that! I refused. No suntan lotion ever crossed the threshold in our home, not even back in the 70's. That stuff made me sneeze (so did those perfumy baby lotions) and I'm not really allergic to them I don't think, but my nose seemed to understand that something about them wasn't cool.
I switched my babies from belly to back to side or whatever they seemed to need/want. It wasn't a big, troublesome sounding deal like it is now. With good reason, no? ! Just another way to scare young parents into thinking they need a doctor for everything when in reality they should be exercising their own brains and maybe try to find out if they even have any common sense.
The co-sleeping thing never seemed like the thing to do, to my DH and me, so the only time our children were in our bed is for middle of the night feedings, and then back to their own rooms. By age 3 months they were sleeping through the night (pretty much) and none of them were ever popping into our room at all hours as they grew. They were quite independent in that regard. Today anything goes, it seems, and almost nothing is frowned upon.
I personally have found co-sleeping wonderful, as I can nurse and sleep simultaneously. I was thrilled when I found out one can breastfeed lying down! I didn't learn that from a doctor, though :).
Our kids always seemed to signal when they were ready to sleep on their own (while still babies), and they never showed a desire to come into our room after that. Of course, it helps that they room with one another-it eases the possibility of night fears, or loneliness.
There really isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to these things. If we truly love our little ones while still respecting ourselves, it works out fine.
I'm very thankful that my kids never took co-sleeping or breast-feeding past babyhood. I think in our culture it can make our lives more exhausting.
I did the same Mama, co-sleeping while nursing. I think the only times the kids came into our room after that, was because they were frightened by a dream or noise.
SIDS and shaken baby are both vaccine reactions.
That's not correct, rawmilkmike, there have been many, many cases of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) with babies that have never had any vaccines at all and most of the cases are with newborns to only a few weeks old. And, 'shaken baby' is caused by child abuse where the infant is shaken back and forth causing severe brain damage. I'm not sure where you are getting some of your information, but it is totally incorrect.
Birth
* HBV: Hepatitis B vaccine; recommended to give the first dose at birth, but may be given at any age for those not previously immunized.
1-2 months
* HBV: Second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose.
2 months
* DTaP: Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine
* Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine
* IPV: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine
* PCV: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
* Rota: Rotavirus vaccine
4 months
* DTaP
* Hib
* IPV
* PCV
* Rota
6 months
* DTaP
* Hib
* PCV
* Rota: This third dose may be needed, depending on the brand of vaccine used in previous immunizations.
SIDS is most prevalent between 2 and 4 months
California Gov. Jerry Brown today commuted the sentence of Shirley Ree Smith, a 51-year-old woman whose 1997 conviction for shaking her infant grandson to death has drawn national attention...
The deeply divided opinions at the coroner’s office underscore the evolving scientific thinking regarding sudden infant fatalities. In recent years, forensic pathologists have become increasingly aware of ailments and conditions that can cause symptoms that mimic the signs of child abuse.
Last year, ProPublica, NPR and FRONTLINE analyzed nearly two dozen cases in the U.S. and Canada in which people were wrongly accused of killing infants and toddlers. The joint reporting effort found that faulty medical evidence played a central role in each of the cases.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the-child-cases...
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the third leading cause of infant death for 2009 and the first leading cause of death among infants ages 1–12 months.
http://www.sidscenter.org/Statistics.html
I think there are many reasons for SIDS, although vaccines are certainly high on my list of suspicions. These things are oftentimes dismissed by doctors and not reported to the VAERS, or are *misdiagnosed* as something else. Shaken baby is not always caused by child abuse, Deborah, and many people have been wrongfully accused and placed in prison over this misdiagnosis. Vaccines are sometimes responsible for the brain inflammation similarly seen in shaken babies and thus the medical industry has been (conveniently) looking at the wrong initiator - but it does tend to keep vaccines low on the list of suspected causes. Not in my book.
Babies, at birth, who are given the useless Hep B and Vitamin K shots can also succumb to SIDS. Few babies are without vaccinations anymore, even from a newborn state. From experience with it in my own family, even when the parents have signed papers and given them to the hospital staff that they do not wish to have their children receive the Hep B shot, it's usually given anyway, violating the wishes of the parents. Some young parents are now wising up and having a lawyer draw up the papers, which seems to carry a bit more weight but I can only surmise that even this tactic won't last too much longer.
This is a good example of labels being incorrectly used and examples of major misdiagnoses. The SIDS label has been conveniently misused for too many years & information available online is inaccurate & lacking. The percentage of true SIDS is very small & the percentage that is seen online is incorrect due to the majority of the cases being misdiagnosed. Same thing with the label 'shaken child' syndrome, again the percentage of true 'shaken child' syndrome is very small & is due to child abuse of physically shaking the child. Again many child death's that have been attributed to 'shaken child' syndrome has been because of misdiagnosis, improper investigations & 'eager beaver' prosecutors. You really can't depend on the information available online just because it is online, many information can be incorrect & is not based on true research & investigation. To really research & investigate, one must spend large amounts of research time outside of just the internet. I was involved in a large research project many years ago with regards to SIDS & it is truly much more complicated than one would think. At that time we realized that many of the diagnosis of SIDS was incorrect, some of our research showed a link between DNA genes & genetic malformations that appeared to interfere with electrical function of the heart and brain in newborns & infants. Many of the deaths we researched were indeed infants that never even had vaccinations yet while some of deaths of older infants had been started on some vaccinations. One thing that we did learn during our research is that true SIDS is much more complex, it is unpredictable, and it appears to be a total 'shutdown' electrically where electrical communication has been stifled. Because of the complexity of this syndrome, there still is a complete mystery surrounding true SIDS, but another thing that we did learn was that many of the so-called SIDS deaths were not due to true SIDS. I am a big believer in non-vaccinations anyways, especially in newborns & infants. I have encouraged my daughters to not fall into the vaccinations trap for their children & they have research vaccinations extensively on their own (and not just online) to be able to take a stand against them.
"the majority of the cases being misdiagnosed. Same thing with the label 'shaken child' syndrome, again the percentage of true 'shaken child' syndrome is very small " and "I am a big believer in non-vaccinations anyways, especially in newborns & infants." Sounds a lot like what I just said Deb.
And not "totally incorrect."
But I do obviously see where your coming from.
Statistics are often changed be relabelling. Isn't that how we cured polio?
It sure is, rawmilkmike. History was totally re-written regarding polio. Go to youtube and plug in the term Dr. Maurice Hilleman and you'll see how the whole thing really came down. Cure? Ha, hardly. Salk and Sabin were in the right place at the right time, that's all, don't you agree mike?
D, when I entered "Dr. Maurice Hilleman" the first thing that popped up was that polio vaccine caused AIDS. Well, that was one of my first Internet searches. That's when I became an aids denialist. Have you heard that aids doesn't exist?
Mike, I've posted in this forum more than once, the book Inventing the Aids Virus, by Peter Duesberg Phd, foreward written by Kary Mullis. Dr Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction technique PCR, used by hospitals to detect the presence of viruses. He agrees in the foreward to Duesberg's book, that it is impossible for hiv to be the cause of "AIDS".
The whole thing was yet another establishment medical stunt, they outdid themselves with this one, even surpassing their "Syphillis" stunt, "the great masquerader". Yet people keep lining up to believe in weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, incubators that don't exist, Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, and on and on and on.
tommculhane, do you believe that AIDS exists?
Raw Mike, here's a quick rundown of what they pulled.
The original "Aids" victims were young male homosexuals who were all using large amounts of a new type of nitrate drug, "poppers", used almost exclusively by gays. These drugs have been shown to be extremely toxic, and were the obvious cause of the strange diseases these young guys were getting. The govt ignored this little detail and declared surely they must be getting sick from having sex. Only problem is, as Duesberg points out, sex, being 3 billion years old on this planet, is hardly the likely cause of a new disease.
So then the govt claimt to have found the culprit for these unusual diseases, they say it's hiv. Their original tests used were later found to be fraudulent and the scientist sited for "scientific misconduct", but anyways. ... so then the govt comes out with a "treatment" for "AIDS", AZT. See Duesberg's chapter on this in his book, "With medicines like this, who needs disease?"
AZT is a dna chain terminator, it stops the body from being able to produce new cells, ie it turns you into a skeletion ie it CREATES Aids. So the govt starts testing and "treating" all these alledged hiv victims with AZT, such as tennis player Arthur Ashe, who, predictable, turned into a skeleton and died. And then the scam goes from there.
What they've done is create a paper epidemic for "Aids" by renaming all these older diseases. So, for example, today there are a lot of sick people in Africa, but 60 years ago there were also a lot of sick people in Africa. But 60 years ago they called their conditions "malnutrition', "slim disease", and other things. Today, a person with the exact symptoms, if they can find any "hiv" in their blood, they rename the disease as "AIDS", and surely hiv must be causing their problems. Funny thing is these "aids" cases often miraculously clear up when the patient is given a certain substance, called food.
Hiv itself is a harmless thing. See the book reviews on amazon, espeicially one called something like, "Does Science Err? Yes and sometimes with Tragic Consequences." It's written by an academia type, he's clueless of the bigger picture, how the estab really operates, but he does give you a decent introduction into how ridiculous the hiv aids story really is.
Well, mike, if you didn't actually watch the little 10 minute video then you won't understand the stance he takes. It's about the science and the corruption.
Yes, I've heard that AIDS doesn't exist the way we understand it.
Next they suggest that vaccines cause cancer. Well, I'm sure that's possible but I've come to believe that cancer is an immune deficiency. What do you think about cancer, D?
I don't think about cancer, mike. It's like a lot of other diseases - it can have various and sundry beginnings. But when a guy from the Merck division of vaccine production talks about how much crap goes into these vaccines, and what has gone into them for many years, I hafta believe he knows. If he says it can cause certain types of cancer, it probably can.
"Most cases reported prior to July 1, 1958, as non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or asceptic meningitis".
The condition’s official name now is ‘Acute Flaccid Paralysis’ but it was once known as ‘infantile paralysis’/ ‘poliomyelitis’ (polio for short).
In 1977, Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified along with other scientists that most (87%) of the polio cases which have occurred in the U.S. since the early 1970's probably were the by-product of the polio vaccine itself.
Almost every Polio case in the US in the last 30 years has been associated with the vaccine itself.
We have a post-birth video of one of my hospital-born babes, and when I watch the nurses, I ask myself "What's that stuff they just smeared inside her mouth?", etc.
Nothing screams hygiene like a latex hospital glove inside the mouth of a newborn.
God bless my wonderful homebirth midwife...and may these talented women multiply!
Shaken baby syndrome diagnoses is controversial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06baby-t.html?pagewanted=all&...
I could not find reliable information on SIDS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome
My now 4-month-old daughter was breech, and I think, also inverted, but my midwife gave me exercises to do, and she turned the right way. BTW, I had an AWESOME homebirth with a fantastic midwife. There's another realm where personal choice and responsibility are at war with the system. I wish I'd had a homebirth with my other 4. AND it was less expensive.
Sorry, I wandered off the topic. My apologies :).
I've been there for the births of my 4 children and I know what you mean. I believe the child birth scandal is second only to the pasteurised dairy scandal. War, healthcare, and fiscal cliffs pale by comparison.
Did you guys do homebirth, Mike? Or were you at hospital births?
The hospital even tried to bill us for baby's "room and board", after they kept us quarentined for MRSA. That was easy to shoot down! (Ironically, I never wanted my sweeties in the nursery anyway. The first few days were always the easiest!)
Doctors are not trained nutritionists these parents would be better off asking the pool man for advice.
Better off asking the pool man for advice . . .
;-)
No farmer has the resources to fight big Ag on the raw milk issue. This is up to us, the consumer.
I just heard another Wisconsin dairy farmer say that the state told him to change the law. Remember when I said I thought Wisconsin had the best raw milk law. What if that's true? Yes, the state says it's illegal to sell raw milk in Wisconsin but what if that's a lie? Wisconsin has a exemption for incidental sales. What if these raw milk bills that are purported to legalize raw milk are only meant to make it more deficient to get?
I, along with a few others, made this same assertion a few years ago when the first raw milk bill came up for review. It's true, Wisconsin does have an incidental sales clause, and DATCP does not have the authority to interpret, let alone reinterpret, the statute. According to Black's Law Dictionary "incidental" means "secondary", as in, not the primary business. Review of the original 1957 statute mandating pasteurization also supports the notion that the statute was never meant to outlaw raw milk sales, rather to relegated them to on-farm (secondary to sales to processors) only. When we made the case for this, we were met with everything from disbelief to outright hostility, as it was not the opinion favored by FTCLDF and WAPF.
This is so depressing Lola. Isn't there some way to get a lawyer working for us?
No. The law only works for those with money. Welcome to Capitalism.
Come on Bill, there are many lawyers that do pro bono work. My friend who is an attorney does pro bono work all the time.
Do you really believe that the lawyers doing probono work have the clout, connections, influence, etc... to undo the entire military-industrial complex?
I mean, seriously people. We like to complain about all of the chemical additives in modern food & agriculture. We reveal our petit-bourgeois privileges when we make these consumeristic complaints. Have you ever bothered to research where these chemicals actually came from, and how many people died in those wars?
I know what you mean now when you say "petit-bourgeois privileges" Bill. The middle class do often have the mistaken notion that we live in a democracy or at least that injustices is only for the working man. The problem I see is that no one in Wisconsin has hired a lawyer of any kind to challenge the guy that says it's illegal to sell raw milk directly to consumers at the farm where the milk is produced. The exemption is very clear. It shouldn't be that hard.
You hit the nail on the head, Mike. The middle class seems believes in these nationalist myths of American "democracy" or (in the cause of the Ron-Paul-ites) "republic", as it were, when all we've ever had was an empire based on exploitation and genocide. The middle class fears the power of the ruling class, but wants to protect their privileges from the lower working classes. Its a story almost as old as civilization itself... the story of class struggle.
You don't need a lawyer, you need to exercise the rights you already have. The reason the farmshares got into trouble with the state a few years ago is because we all had milk producers' licenses, and milk producers' licenses are contracts with the state. Under the terms of the contract, you agree to abide by all the regulations put forth by the state and DATCP, thus establishing their jurisdiction over you. DATCP does not have the authority to interpret or reinterpret a statute (they "changed their minds" about what the incidental sales clause meant several times), but FTCLDF would not challenge this, preferring to introduce new legislation instead. The problem with the raw milk bill(s) is this: if you are an unlicensed (do not have a milk producers' license) milk producer you can already legally sell raw milk, incidental sales clause or not. The statute does not apply to you if you do not have a contract with the state. Any new legislation would turn this RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE. Many, many unlicensed milk producers were very upset about the raw milk bill when first introduced a few years ago, but their concern went unheeded by the folks behind the WI Raw Milk Association, who are licensed dairy farms with a considerable amount of infrastructure and who have a lot to lose financially if their legislation doesn't pass. Don't be fooled: they have been told they should challenge the legitimacy of DATCP's flip-flopping over the incidental sales clause, but will not listen as this is not the opinion favored by FTCLDF.
Find an unlicensed dairy farmer to sell raw milk to you, and as long as he doesn't enter into commerce (advertise, etc.) he should be left alone by the state.
Pages