And Now, The Rest of the Story of the Stanford Raw Milk, Lactose Intolerance Study

One of the things that always amazes me about the raw milk controversy is how public health and medical professionals come to definitive conclusions with little or no research basis. 

 

A classic example involves the recent flap over whether raw milk helps counter the bloating, gas, and other symptoms of lactose intolerance among those who consume pasteurized dairy products. 

 

A study out of Stanford University, published in the journal Annals of Family Medicine, concluded that its “data do not support the widespread claim that raw milk confers benefits in reducing the discomfort of lactose intolerance. Primary care physicians and gastroenterologists should be aware that the evidence supporting raw milk consumption remains anecdotal.” 

 

The "data"? A study of 16 individuals with lactose intolerance—hardly more than the “anecdotal” evidence suggesting raw milk helps counter lactose intolerance. 


(I actually reported the results of the Stanford study back in late 2010, when the results were first tabulated, in a Grist article.)

 

But before going further into the Stanford study, it is worthwhile to review some history about the association of raw milk with lactose intolerance, which is a problem in people who lack the enzyme necessary to metabolize lactose, a sugar found in milk. One theory about why pasteurized milk presents a problem for the lactose intolerant is that pasteurization destroys an enzyme present in the milk that helps in the digestion. 

 

There wasn’t any research that I am aware of on lactose intolerance as it relates to raw milk, prior to an effort by retired pathologist Ted Beals and lawyer Steve Bemis in Michigan in 2007 and 2008. I recounted their initial survey of Michigan and Illinois cowshare members in my book, The Raw Milk Revolution: “The survey inquired into how many household members consumed raw milk, whether they had ever been told by a physician that they suffered from lactose intolerance, and, if they had, whether or not raw milk provided relief. Some 731 households completed surveys—they represented a total of 2,503 people—and, not suprisingly, 89 percent of those individuals were regularly consuming raw milk.”

 

Here’s what they found in the responses: “Some 155 individuals, or 6 percent, of the 2,217 regular consumers of raw milk, said they had been ‘told by a health care professional they had lactose intolerance’…And, as the researchers suspected, raw milk had provided relief to many: Of the 155 with confirmed lactose intolerance, 127 exhibited no symptoms of lactose intolerance when they deank the fresh unprocessed milk. Yes, the sample size was small, but the results were clear…” (Beals provides an account of the survey in a 2008 article.)

 

In 2009, not long after the Beals-Bemis results began circulating, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration came out with its take on the raw-milk/lactose-intolerance connection. The head of its dairy division, John Sheehan, was quoted in an FDA newsletter:  “‘Raw milk advocates claim that pasteurized milk causes lactose intolerance,’ says John Sheehan, Director of FDA’s Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety. ‘This is simply not true. All milk, whether raw or pasteurized, contains lactose, and pasteurization does not change the concentration of lactose nor does it convert lactose from one form into another.’

“Raw milk advocates also claim that raw milk prevents or cures the symptoms of lactose intolerance. Arguing that raw milk contains Bifidobacteria, they claim these microorganisms are beneficial (probiotic) and create their own lactase, which helps people digest the milk.

“ ‘This is not true, either,’ says Sheehan. ‘Raw milk can contain Bifidobacteria, but when it does, the bacteria come from fecal matter (animal manure) and are not considered probiotic, but instead are regarded as contaminants.’

“Drinking raw milk will still cause uncomfortable symptoms in people who are correctly diagnosed as being lactose intolerant. But worse than this discomfort are the dangers of raw milk, which can harbor a host of disease-causing germs, says Sheehan. ‘These microorganisms can cause very serious, and sometimes even fatal conditions in humans.’“

 

Not surprisingly, Sheehan didn’t provide a source for his contention that raw milk causes lactose intolerance to the same extent as pasteurized milk. Nor did he provide a source for his quotation of “raw milk advocates” who make the bifidobacteria claim. 

 

In any event, based on the intriguing Beals-Bemis research (which wasn’t submitted for publication in an academic journal), and the FDA denial,  the Weston A. Price Foundation, which had helped underwrite the Beals-Bemis survey, decided to back the followup study carried out at Stanford University, to explore the raw-milk/lactose-intolerance connection more deeply. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and a few other raw milk advocates joined with WAPF in funding the Stanford study. 

 

Some 440 people responded to Stanford’s call for volunteers suffering from symptoms of lactose intolerance from pasteurized milk. But when all was said and done, and people were eliminated for various reasons (like having taken antibiotics recently) and the hydrogen test was administered, 95% of the volunteers were gone. 

 

Here is what McAfee concludes in a written assessment he did of the Stanford study: “It is clear that Stanford was able to clinically identify true lactose intolerance by the use of the HBT test. However, the study was not able to identify and provide reasons for the massive number of people that simply cannot drink pasteurized milk but thrive on raw milk. All of those candidates that would have exposed this data were excluded from the study. It is also true that the study showed and reported that even over a short eight days, trends to raw milk acclimatization began to appear, with HBT curves dropping. Unfortunately, the study was stopped at eight days…”

 

Ted Beals makes a similar observation (though not specifically commenting on the Stanford study), arguing that the problem is about difficulties people have digesting pasteurized milk, not with lactose intolerance, per se:  “The bottom line is not about the diagnosis of lactose intolerance, it is about the huge number of people who are NOT drinking commercial milk because it makes them sick.  And the confirmed observation that very large numbers of people who stopped drinking commercial milk because it makes them sick, have discovered on their own that drinking fresh unprocessed whole milk does not cause those objectionable symptoms and they can now resume drinking milk, as long as it is fresh.   Do not forget that we observed that most of those people had a return of their symptoms if they tried drinking commercial milk again.  The benefit is not about lactose intolerance, it is about more people enjoying drinking milk and having the benefits of fresh milk.   The term lactose intolerance is a convenient and useful phrase that people use to describe their condition.  Not unlike  ‘gluten intolerance’.”


What makes the entire improbable scenario, with the conflicting results and questionable research, all the more frustrating is that the media have run with the Stanford study as the last word about raw milk and lactose intolerance. When we don’t even know that lactose intolerance is really the problem after all. 


**

As long as I'm dwelling on conflicting research, I may as well throw in a couple more intriguing developments in the food-medicine arenas. First, there's new research indicating that all the fuss about encouraging people to reduce their saturated fat consumption was....well, misguided. All those low-fat and no-fat products that have become so popular? They were about as helpful as margarine was in an earlier day in reducing heart disease. 


And now an admission from the former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, that maybe, just possibly, there is a connection between vaccines and autism. After years of medical professional denials--absolutely, positively no connection--this highly credentialed medical person provides a new perspective, according to a report from CBS: "The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer." Where else have you seen such behavior? 


mark mcafee's picture

Nicely written David.

Long story short....lactose intolerance is the least of pasteurized milks problems. What Stanford discovered was 'Pasteurization Intolerance'. To quote Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride ' there is nothing more blind than the double blind'.

The HBT tells us little about why massive droves of consumers are abandoning fluid pasteurized milk and drinking raw milk or even almond milk!! The wrong test...provides the wrong direction. A truly enlightened observer would have seen the greater Stanford results...the screening methodology was the true unappreciated discovery. Lastly, market dollar voting provides the most accurate study. Consumers drink raw milk and report no digestive upset. Pasteurized milk makes consumers sick....lactose intolerance plus the yet to be clinically defined " pasteurization intolerance". Dollar voting beats Stanford studies all day long. How do I know this.... I helped to fund the Stanford study and now know the defects of its design.

The Paradigm Shift in Medicine and Science,
Taken from a talk presented at the National Vaccine Information Conference,
September, 2002
By Philip F. Incao, M.D.
-
February 10, 2003
"The word paradigm in present usage means the living model in our mind
which we use to understand and explain the world. Our paradigm incorporates all
of our basic assumptions about the nature of reality.It is our worldview,it is
the lens through which we look at the world and it colors everything we see. This
paradigm lens is itself created and formed from the primal feelings living at the
deepest levels of our heart and mind. Primal feelings are shared by all human
beings, each of us having our own particular mix depending on our individual
constitution and experience and on the culture in which we live. Most important in
this inner mix of primal, basic feelings toward life and the world is whether love or
fear rules. In ancient times the ruling paradigm was based on love for the world.
Today our ruling scientific paradigm is based on fear of the world. At a deep
unconscious level, but in medicine just below the surface, we live today in a fear
based paradigm. Because of this underlying fear, science and medicine assume
that we must control, master and change nature in order to survive. The new
paradigm now struggling to be born challenges us to develop the courage and
selflessness to master and change ourselves in order to survive. ...... "

http://philipincao.crestonecolorado.com/index_htm_files/The%20Paradigm%2...

Paradigm shifts have been anticipated by many, many times in the past, and yet the establishment has had the ability to rewind the clock, over and over again. Events in the 60s led many to think real change was coming, yet today we have more overpopulation, more big brother, more conformity than ever. I have a book from 1911, written about ancient Celtic beliefs, and the latest scientific research into psychology and the spirit realm, mental abilities, etc., showing that "folklore" and "mythology" are really establishment cover words for real facets of reality. Parts of this book would sound like they were written yesterday quoting scientific research... and yet, people today are more spaced out regarding these things than ever before.

For a real paradigm shift to happen on the macro level, it would help if people would open their eyes and see that we live in a sophisticated global slave prison, that has effective ways to tamper with people's minds, and suppress basic facts of reality. As long as people think the major media, govt, establishment science, establishment medicine, establishment religion, ... are legitimate things, they will continue to spin their wheels. When you know the system is deliberately trying to make you sickly, stupid, neurotic, cut off from Nature, ... you have a fighting chance. "God will work with you but not for you."

mark mcafee's picture

In the last few hours, RAWMI board member, Dr. Cat Berge DVM PhD delivered the good news to Edwin Shank. Ed and his Family Cow raw milk operations in Pennsylvania have been LISTED by RAWMI. They are #6 on the LISTING roster for RAWMI. Their profile will be posted at RAWMI in the coming weeks for all the world to see and appreciate. All of the hard work that Ed and his team has done is now open for the his consumers to see and appreciate and taste!

Ed has worked thoughtfully and tirelessly "to address and reduce risks from his entire Grass to Glass production of retail approved certified organic milk products". His RAMP food safety efforts are very much reflected in everything he has done and his RAMP plan reflects this deep understanding and concern. His dedication to his learning process, his spirit of positive team building with Penn State University experts and others is refreshing and mentoring. Ed has reached out and helped others to start on farm testing labs. Ed has been resilient and with every challenge, Edwid simply gets better and better....that is the spirit of RAWMI and the future of low risk clean safe raw milk.

Our warmest welcome to Ed and his family into the growing community of RAWMI LISTED raw milk producers. Congatulations!! You have earned it and you have taught us all so much already.

mark mcafee's picture

Is any body home???
What happened....I have never seen a loss for words here at TCP.
Did RAWMI LISTING of Edwin Shanks Family Cow Dairy leave everyone speechless?

David Gumpert's picture

I, for one, should be offering congratulations to Edwin. I've been in contact with him, and know how hard he has worked to make this happen....so I guess when it became official, I wasn't surprised. But one of the big messages in Edwin's accreditation by RAWMI is that getting accreditation isn't just a matter of a wink and a nod. It does require serious hard work. That is going to be an essential element going forward, to maintain RAWMI credibility. 

Congratulations to Edwin and Your Family Cow Dairy on becoming RAWMI listed.
From a happy Family Cow raw milk drinker.
J Heckman

ingvar's picture

Hi Mark,
The airing of the Stanford study details coupled with the RAWMI progress is heartening.
The unfettered flow of information is vital.
An example:
I recommend the link (see below) to the interview with Mark Manhart, D.D.S.
It may have been Gordon that put the link up at TCP a while ago. Thank you for the link!
It shows science, medicine (dentistry in this case), alert minds, and hard work in a very good light.
It brings possibly critically beneficial products to a wide marketplace.
Reading about the efforts to suppress progress may make your blood boil.

Have a nice day.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

A quote from the interview:
“. . . I said to him, “No wonder this thing has never gone anywhere!”
And he answered, “Yeah, it’s not going to go anywhere.” The biggest guru in dentistry, a periodontist in Pennsylvania, published in a national dental magazine, “We’re going to put Manhart and his calcium stuff on the shelf.” I think that was in 1983. . . . “
The interview:
http://the-moneychanger.com/articles/amazing_calcium_therapy
The websites:
http://www.calciumtherapy.com/
http://calciumskincare.com/order/

An aside, check this out (h/t Price Pottinger Nutrition Foundation ppnf.org):
http://www.walshinstitute.org/biochemical-individuality--nutrition.html

Look! another aside:
The NYT Sunday magazine had an article about slum clearance that had an element of business payback for election-time political support, razing the slums and building the projects in their place. But the slums, it turned out, always had some people of rectitude living there that didn’t have to live there but had stayed anyway. They were the moral anchors of their neighborhoods. As bad as it was, without them it would’ve been far worse. Of course everybody was out, out, out when the places were leveled to the ground. The moral anchors didn’t return when the choiceless filled up the new projects. And it was worse than it had been before, it is said. The moral anchors had been chased away. Generalizing: to weaken, to destroy the moral anchors of your society is like drilling holes in the hull of your boat. Result: drowning in watery darkness. Through the political process, we delegate our authority.
(the article was prob. published in the late ‘80s or early ‘90s.)

the end

Shawna Barr's picture

Well, you know I'm excited about it. Another transparent, mentor-farmer, committed to excellence and generously sharing his journey with data and experience for the world to see....Edwin is a peacemaker and a bridge builder, and that is great news for food freedom

But he's not as exciting as radiation poisoning, chemtrails, and GMOs....thus the radio silence I'm afraid.

Edwin Shank's picture

Thanks everyone, for the kind words. The Family Cow is humbled to now be an official player in RAWMI’s educational and raw milk safety mission. Our journey with raw milk has certainly been just that, a journey with a lot of talented, generous people coming along side to assist and mentor us in our progress. We now feel it as our obligation to pass that help on to others as often as we have opportunity. And RAWMI provides the perfect platform for that mentoring to take place.
Our family of 8 just spent all day Friday and Saturday last week at The Farm to Table Conference in Pittsburgh. It was so great. We taught, taught, taught raw milk, raw cheese, raw honey and raw milk kefir all day long. We introduced raw milk to an estimated 1000-2000 new people. Gave away about 500 pints plus sold a lot too. Countless people who cannot drink pasturized milk without gas and bloating circled back for seconds a few hours latter totally amazed at how their body accepted raw milk without a hitch.
On the afternoon of the last day we had an hour and a half long power point presentation entitled "Putting the Love into Food Safety" where we demonstrated our RAWMI raw milk safety plan to the crowd. I put a passionate special emphasis on our on farm raw milk laboratory and how testing every lot before it is sold basically eliminates even the perceived raw milk risk. Folks were literally blown away to know that raw milk farmers across the nation can be so proactive on raw milk safety. (We even had Pittsburgh hospital staff in the audience asking for brochures to distribute to their coworkers) Especially impressive to the crowd was the near 500 lab tests from the last two years which consistently show our raw milk to be 10-20 times cleaner than even what pasteurization standards would allow! ...smile!

David Gumpert's picture

The Weston A. Price Foundation today issued a press release pointing out problems with the Stanford study on raw milk. The WAPF cites the study's design, controls, and sample size as responsible for "leading researchers to a false conclusion." 
http://www.westonaprice.org/press/stanford-study-on-raw-milk-digestibili...

 

Sylvia Gibson's picture

"study's design, controls, and sample size as responsible for "leading researchers to a false conclusion."

This appears to be the problem with many studies. It also makes it easier to manipulate the results you want.

mark mcafee's picture

David,

Thank you for writing about the Stanford study. There is an unwritten social political protocol that I am a bit intimidated to cross, but here is goes.

Sally and I plus two other people funded the Stanford study of raw milk verses Lactose Intolerance. I have several regrets about this whole affair. First of all....I did not engage my dear friend Dr. Cat Berge PHd in the design of this study. As a result we all got suckered into an ultra narrow LI definition and the sole use of Hydrogen Breath Test as the clinical definition of LI. This narrow definition was both a win and a loss. But that is me speaking. Dr. Gardner would not use any other screening method to determine why so many consumers suffer GI symptoms after drinking pasteurized milk. What was most saddening and quite maddening was what the Stanford investigators did with the results of the study. Instead of critical assessment of ALL the data....an extremely narrow assessment was made. There was No greater look at what it all meant.

Why were 96% of those that responded to the study ( that considered themselves lactose intolerant ) disqualified from the program? It was as if....Gardner only wanted to see what he wanted to see and refused to look at the greater findings. Is is the scientist in Gardener coming out? Gardener is a vegetarian and his family drinks soy. Is there a deeper bias? He has been funded to study soy in the past. There were soy posters all over his lab?

The reason that Gardner was approached was because a of my friend Stanford student Kimelli. Kimelli was a Maasai student that took a class from Dr. Gardner at Stanford. Kimelli had suffered Crohns ( also had LI ) until he drank OPDC raw milk for a year and his Crohns and LI went away. When we met with Gardner at the outset of the study, Gardner was open minded and interested. After the $57k check was written and study was done....It was as if Gardner had to defend his honor and not look at the real findings. The results were written in a fairly snooty arrogant form, with broad denial of raw milks digestibility. The study authors even brushed aside moderate acclimatization and reduction of HBT production after 8 days of raw milk. The study failed to acknowledge all the people excluded from the study that claimed they had LI.

Like I have said before....Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride said it best." There is nothing more blind than the double blind".

Perhaps it is institutional blindness or lack of desire to truly make this a real discovery. When I met with Dr. Gardner after the study, he was defensive and guarded when I pointed to the obvious findings of the study that went unmentioned. He simply refused to broaden the scope of inquiry. He was done and the results were fixed. Something in his PHD mental make up would not relent. That is where Dr. Cat Berge PHd and her epidemiologist training would have been truly powerful.

In the future, I will stick with funding RAWMI and building markets to serve families. That will be the study with real results that are un refutable regardless of the personalities or politics involved. I believe all the thousands of OPDC customers that report no digestive problems with raw milk...but sit for hours on the toilet when they attempt to drink pasteurized milk. That is a truth that this farmer will support 100%. Stanford with 96% exclusion methodologies.... not so much...

I am sure Dr. Gardner is a great human being....but this is not how great discoveries are made. Great investigations and discoveries are made by looking at the big picture and seeing how all the puzzle pieces fit together. Discoveries are never made by ignoring the huge gorilla sitting the middle of in the lab. By ignoring Kimelli and his experience and not wanting to find out why.

D. Smith's picture

The adage is true: “If medical statistics were compiled by statisticians who had no interest in the outcome, the drug industry would topple into the dust.” – Robert Catalano

Only in this instance you would interchange the word drug for soy.

It would seem as though he had a slight bias on the part of soy and it had trouble staying under wraps. The soy industry is huge and there is a glut of it, as well as corn, right now so it's being promoted like mad.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Soy is bad for you.

D. Smith's picture

I try not to touch anything with soy in it, and I wouldn't drink what is referred to as "soy milk" if it were the only choice I had. Sometimes you wonder where people's brains are. Some of the most well-educated people I know can also be the dumbest, especially when it comes to health and nutrition. They are the true sheeple just like the dude who did the "study" talked about in David's article.

Too many animals are fed soy and soy by-products so, in turn, people are consuming that junk whether they know it or not. Ditto corn. Gluts of soy and corn, and how to get rid of the junk, are only small pieces/parts of what's wrong with industrialized agriculture. The other part of what's wrong with those huge seed production/chemical companies (read: Bayer et al) is that they also have a stronghold over the bigPHRma industry and several others. They aren't called BIGchem for nothing. Those BIGchem companies also own the "supplement" companies and that's a problem for people who use vitamin pills to stay "healthy".

The whole world is finally beginning to catch on, however.

Another interesting graphic went up over at Cornucopia a few days ago. http://www.cornucopia.org/seed-industry-structure-dr-phil-howard/ I clicked on the chart and then had to increase the size of the print to 200% to see the thing, but it's interesting and enlightening, as is their graphic displaying the BIG companies which now own what used to be small organic companies. I have a feeling the underpinnings of these take-overs, though, are beginning to crumble because it is simply unworkable. Possibly this is one area where they aren't too big to fail.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Mark, has it ever dawned on you that maybe you are all barking up the wrong tree with your fixation on lactose intolerance? Maybe many people who have self diagnosed with lactose intolerance actually have a IgG casein sensitivity http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-casein-sensitivity.htm

Studies have shown that when you pasteurize milk it changes the chemistry of the protein structure of the milk. Casein and whey are the proteins found in milk. Therefore, it would make sense that a person who can't drink pasteurized milk due to a casein sensitivity, can drink raw milk without digestive upset because the protein structure is different.

Has UHT pasteurization caused more people to be casein sensitive? UHT milk was introduced in the US in 1993.

rawmilkmike's picture

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Mary McGonigle. Yes Mary, that’s why the Mayo Clinic calls it milk protein intolerance. I'm sure Dr. Gardner knew this from the start. He knew exactly what he was doing. Isn't the soy industry bigger than the dairy industry?

David Gumpert's picture

Mark, the business of researcher biases is definitely a tricky business. Who can know what goes on in the minds of researchers who are committed to the scientific method and objectivity? I have always been amazed with the GABRIELA study, which investigated more than 8,000 European children drinking raw milk, and showed it provided a "protective effect" from asthma and allergies. What an exciting discovery--a natural unprocessed food could do something that dangerous medications couldn't do. Yet the authors concluded: "However, on the basis of current knowledge, raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens. Once the mechanisms underlying the pro tective farm milk effect are better understood, ways of processing and preserving a safe and preventive milk can be developed."

http://www.mnhlrp.org/images/RawMilkStudy.pdf

In other words, we have a potentially miraculous natural substance to combat a serious and growing public health problem, but we can't use it because it could contain pathogens, even though none of the more than 8,000 children who used it in our study had any problem with pathogens. Can you imagine that kind of recommendation for a new drug that helped prevent asthma and allergies, and had serious side effects that actually showed up in the study? I can't.

 

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture
D. Smith's picture

@ Mary: That link requires people to sign up for the natural news e-newsletter before you can read the article (at least it did for me). I have no intention of doing so. However, I think rather than "preventing asthma" with dogs, they are probably referring to what is called sensitization or desensitization, depending on which side of the coin you're on. Without having read the article, however, that's just a WAG on my part.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

That is weird. When I click on the link it takes me straight to the article.

I copied and pasted it.

Exposure to dogs may protect children from asthma
by PF Louis

(NaturalNews) Recent studies demonstrating higher immunity and protection against asthma may threaten the lucrative vaccination duties of pediatrics and the vaccine production of Big Pharma.

Two studies concluded that infants in homes with furry dogs or cats had better protection from viral infections that normally lead to bronchial problems, including asthma, which has been increasing on the young over the past few decades of increased childhood vaccination schedules.

The studies concluded that non-vaccinated children's immune systems were stronger among those whose homes were occupied by at least one furry animal than those who were vaccinated in homes without animals.

These studies expand the notion that immunity is developed naturally by being exposed to some microbes in the environment rather than bypassing the immune system with toxic vaccinations that overburden the immune system.

This notion has already been demonstrated statistically with increased autoimmune diseases, infectious disease from the vaccinations themselves, and deaths since the dramatically increased vaccination schedule for young children. (http://www.naturalnews.com/031469_vaccine_brain_seizures.html)

These recent studies may be kept from public awareness to give Big Pharma a chance to propagandize owning pets as unhealthy until children are fully grown.

The California study
Apparently, this study was funded in part to gather information for more vaccines. So adding more vaccinations and banning pets is not merely an expression of cynicism.

This study was conducted by a group of California biologists after they discovered the microbiome in homes with pets was different than the that of homes without pets. According to the National Library of Medicine, microbiomes are: "The full collection of microbes (bacteria, fungi, virus, etc.) that naturally exist within an organism as identified by their genomes..."

This definition includes probiotic gut bacteria, which accounts for well over half of our immune systems, 60 to 80 percent according to most expert estimates.

The California team used microbes and mice to get an idea of the dynamics involved. Three different groups of mice were used. One group of mice was exposed with dust from homes with pets then to the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that is associated with increasing a risk of childhood asthma.

Another group of mice was exposed to only the RSV without dust from households with pets, and the third group was exposed to neither the dust nor RSV.

A research team member, Kei Fujimura, reported: "Mice fed dust did not exhibit symptoms associated with RSV-mediated infection, ...They also possessed a distinct gastrointestinal bacterial composition compared to animals not fed dust."

Hint - hint, maybe their intestinal flora was distinctively improved to enhance overall immunity? So if you're expecting a child, it would be wise to have a friendly pup around as part of the family and hold the vaccinations. At least before these guys get around to using this data to make yet another vaccine.

The Finnish epidemiological survey
A Finnish epidemiological survey supports the California research findings, which had not undergone peer review as of early July 2012. However, the Finnish study was reported in an 2012 Spring issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The study involved 397 children born in Finland from birth through one year of age between 2002 and 2005. Here's the verbatim conclusion of that study:

"These results suggest that dog contacts may have a protective effect on respiratory tract infections during the first year of life. Our findings support the theory that during the first year of life, animal contacts are important, possibly leading to better resistance to infectious respiratory illnesses during childhood."

Maybe child bearing families should take a hint and act on these findings while ignoring vaccination orders.

Sources for this article include:

The California report http://www.wired.com

The Finnish report http://gaia-health.com

The Journal report http://pediatrics.aappublications.org

D. Smith's picture

Thanks for doing that Mary. I tried a couple more times and still kept getting the page to sign up.

I agree with the idea of being around animals as we grow up. We weren't allowed to have house pets when I was growing up but we got plenty of exposure in the barn. Horses, cows, dogs, cats, pigeons, rabbits, rats and mice - you name it. All in all I'm healthy for my age, with a slight allergy/sensitivity to cats (as well as an aversion!) but nothing life-threatening. They make me itch all over and make my eyes water and burn. My solution for the most part is to just avoid them.

David Gumpert's picture

Mary, there have been a number of studies suggesting that pets help improve children's immune systems. However, the GABRIELA study directly compared raw milk to pasteurized milk. It eliminated other factors, like the protective effect of being with animals.  "Reported raw milk consumption was inversely associated to asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74), atopy (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90), and hay fever (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.69) independent of other farm exposures. Boiled farm milk did not show a protective effect." As I said, raw milk opponents have their biases, and will dance and fiddle and divert to avoid what this study came up with. 

 

rawmilkmike's picture

Wow, now Mary is a vaccine denialist! Next thing you know she'll be drinking raw milk.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Mike, it was an article talking about how animals help build the immune system and prevent allergies. That was my point. Sorry to disappoint you, although I do believe our current vaccination schedule is way too much on a baby's immune system. I like the advice of Dr. Stephanie Cave. I followed it for the vaccinations Chris was given when he was 5(didn't know about it when he was born) . I had every thing separated out. The doctor wasn't happy about it, tried to talk us out of it, but in the end had to accept that this was our choice.http://www.loving-attachment-parenting.com/alternative-vaccination-sched...

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

How to treat asthma naturally--fruits, vegetables, fish oil and probiotics.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038777_asthma_children_probiotics.html

re-reading "Enzyme Nutrition" by Howell, I'm impressed all over again that he = one of the people who discovered "enzymes" = had it right. The presence of lipase in REAL MILK is why we see miraculous results in people who start consuming it. That particular enzyme makes all the difference in the world, as to digestibility. The fact that it's cooked out of the stuff on retail shelves -[ mislabelled "homo milk" ] IS the 800 pound gorilla lumbering-around the halls of academia ... studiously ignored by overeducated idiots with tenure, as they chase-down the theory de jour, supposedly researching heart disease / arteriosclerosis / diabetes ... and on and on down the list of maladies afflicting boobus Americanus.
... a good study comparing cholesterol levels of various control groups versus new drinkers of REAL MILK and long-time drinkers of artisanal raw milk, will provide more than enough hard EVIDENCE to put the boots to those who are dug-in, denying the nutritional value of REAL MILK. If we play the grant-man-ship game, we'll wait forever. And we'll get the same insult to our intelligence as Dr Gardner put out.
... The Stanford LI study is a classic example of how the medical mafia positions itself to surround a controversial concept with its own in-house study, tricked-up to get the result it wants, then disseminated as received wisdom. Not one in a thousand will go behind that headline to find out that the Gardner study is science-falsely-called. Any real scientist who examines that study will laugh it out of the park.
... So it falls to us to find someone who will design a study which will be acceptable as expert evidence. then put together the $ to have it done.

D. Smith's picture

Here's an excellent article on enzymes, probiotics, drug malnutrition and nutrient depletion - all of these things get confused by the general public most of the time. People think enzymes and pre-probiotics are the same thing, and they think drug malnutrition doesn't REALLY exist. It sure does. It will benefit most people who think they know a lot about nutrition to read this.

http://truhealth.com/2013/02/19/the-difference-between-enzymes-vs-probio...

I and several others that I know wanted to participate in the Stanford study on raw milk. We were all disqualified from the study after we completed the pre-screening questionnaire. Only those with mild symptoms of digestive upset from conventional milk made it past the first screening. Persons with moderate to severe reactions were disqualified.

I have to wonder how the results would vary if they had included participants with moderate to severe symptoms of lactose intolerance.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Did they give any reasons why they only took mild symptoms?

I don't see how they can claim "16 participants" as a study. http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2014/march/milk.html

The study wasn't a good one IMHO.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

http://annfammed.org/content/12/2/134.full

"Participants received $150 for completing all 3 milk phases. "

Don't you just love it when money crosses palms? Pay many people and they will tell you what they "think" you want to hear.

Sylvia, the pre-screening questionnaire did not specify only milk symptoms, it was just our observation that those of us who checked the box to indicate moderate to severe symptoms were disqualified immediately upon submission of the questionnaire. Those who checked mild symptoms made it to the next level of screening but were still disqualified in the end.

that was supposed to read "mild" symptoms. :)

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Seems the "study" ended up not being much of a "study". I would think a good study would include the various levels of symptoms if you wanted to fine true results.

rawmilkmike's picture

It's because they knew they were looking for lactose malabsorbers. Lactose malabsorbers are generally not lactose intolerant.

about half way through his presentation at UVic, Mark McAffee explained in detail, why that study came to such a perverse conclusion : URL at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y34nZrMEbRw&feature=youtu.be