Re: The Beat Goes On!

[Guest guest]

I love it.....

When I visited the Yoders on TH, the conversation ended with telling me that an Ohio Health Dept. official keeps a few cows and actually supplies his own office with his product!!!

How long do you think they'll insist all the bad Microbiology studies are true..... Till their paychecks run out.... lol.

--Terry

Today: April 03, 2004 at 10:15:57 PST Unpasteurized Milk Has Fans Despite RiskBy IRA DREYFUSSASSOCIATED PRESS HERNDON, Va. (AP) - Like most moms, Fairbairn makes sure her kids get lots of milk. Nine-year-old Corinne and 7-year-old love the stuff. It also is unpasteurized. Drinking this kind of milk appalls health officials. They credit pasteurization with preventing countless cases of sickness and death from diseases spread through bacteria in milk.

[Guest guest]

At 08:22 PM 4/3/04 -0000, you wrote:

> " We continue to see outbreaks of foodborne illnesses associated with

>the consumption of raw milk every year, " said Sheehan, director

>of the Food and Drug Administration's division of dairy and egg

>safety.

>

>

I have a question, and the above statement highlights it quite well.

It's more curiousity on my part than anything else. My first reaction to

the statement would be " sez who? Prove it! " Which leads me to memories

of all the cases I've heard of in " The Untold Story of Milk " and other

sources, where raw milk consumption was blamed for something, but it was

actually something else.

So here's the question - how did anyone ever find out or be able to

conclude that it was the " something else " ? Is there a posse out there I

should consider joining, that files one FOIA request with the FDA every 90

seconds to gather enough data to disprove what's just been said? And if

there is such a posse, is the pay any good?

No, really. I don't know if anyone on this list has been involved with or

has the answer to any specific case, I was just sort of wondering how it

came about if you did.

MFJ

In a world where nothing is truly reasonable, nothing can be truly mad.

~Ian Holm, The Advocate

[Guest guest]

"Bubbles"--

I elect you an official member of our insiders' Secret Agents Posse.

Now somebody please hook her up to a Civil Service job....... What state are you in?

--Terry> >"We continue to see outbreaks of foodborne illnesses associated with> >the consumption of raw milk every year,"> said Sheehan, director> >of the Food and Drug> Administration's division of dairy and egg> >safety.> >> >> > I have a question, and the above statement highlights it quite well.> It's> more curiosity on my part than anything else. My first reaction to> the statement would be "sex who? Prove it!" Which leads me to> memories> of all the cases> I've heard of in "The Untold Story of Milk" and other> sources, where raw milk consumption was blamed for something, but it was> actually something else.> > So here's> the question - how did anyone ever find out or be able to> conclude that it was the "something else"? Is there a posse out there I> should consider joining, that files one FOIA request with the FDA every> 90> seconds to gather enough data to disprove what's just been said? And if> there is such a posse, is the pay any good?

[Guest guest]

At 07:40 PM 4/3/04 -0500, you wrote:

> " Bubbles " --

>I elect you an official member of our insiders' Secret Agents Posse.

>Now somebody please hook her up to a Civil Service job....... What state

are you in?

>--Terry

>

>> I have a question, and the above statement highlights it quite well.

>> It's

>> more curiosity on my part than anything else. My first reaction to

>> the statement would be " sex who? Prove it! " Which leads me to

>> memories

*snip*

Okay, Teresita ...

I had an entirely different reply in mind until I reread what I'd written,

as posted in your reply. I almost fainted. " Did I say that? DID I? "

Then I started laughing. " Naw, I couldn't have. Could I? Naw, I

actually proofed that post before I sent it! " So I checked my original.

So tell me, Oh Keeper of The Insiders' Secret Agents Posse ... how exactly

did my " sez " get turned into ... ya know, that other thing? Nice email

software ya got there. Gotta get me some o' dat.

*totters off laughing, vowing to all TPTB to get back on topic - next time*

MFJ

These sprouts are still growing as they enter your mouth. ~ Anton

[Guest guest]

Okay..... My SpellCheck did it.....lol. --tls

And probably just for YOU!!!

> >"Bubbles"--> >I elect you an official member of our> insiders' Secret Agents Posse.> >Now somebody please hook her up to a Civil Service job....... What state> are you in?> >--Terry> >> >> I have a question, and the above statement highlights it quite well.> >> It's> >> more curiosity on my part than anything else. My first reaction to> >> the statement would be "sex who? Prove it!" Which leads me to> >> memories> > *snip*> > Okay, Teresita ...> > I had an entirely different reply in mind until I reread what> I'd written,> as posted in your reply. I almost fainted. "Did I say that? DID I?"> Then I started laughing. "Naw, I couldn't> have. Could I? Naw, I

[Guest guest]

This is the question that any objective person would ask. And some people have tried to find the recorded documentation. I have tried. And my conclusion. There are two standards in the FDA/CDC quest for the "source" of foodborne illnesses. And I will put my personal spin on the categories: but I'm sure the FDA Director would disagree. 1) Manufactured food products. 2) Raw milk. If you look at the actual published texts of the FDA's reports of follow-up of reported foodborne illnesses, for Manufactured food products they use an absolute rigorous scientific criteria of "cause". If they can not unequivocally, scientifically determine that the cause could be traced to a specific manufactured product (at a specific manufacturing site, and at a specific time), the cause is not identified. 2) If in their research they find ANY HINT that SOME of the ill persons where at a dairy farm and might have consumed some unpasteurized milk, they do all of the rigorous scientific studies (isolate the pathogen, identify it's subtype as much as possible, test the herd, test the farm, test milk around, test others who have consumed the same product, get samples from the equipment, from the containers, on and on and on) but when it is all done, and their studies look like there might have been a link but the rigorous testing didn't show it, they invariably BLAME the RAW milk. The rigorous proof is not necessary. And why isn't it necessary? In most reports there is simply a leap of faith over the lack of direct proof, because everyone knows that "unless you pasteurize milk it is a public health risk". Why? Because everyone knows that. It is in every textbook, in every course in medical school, public health school, in every document published by Departments of Health......... Dogma. And in one of the official reports of a foodborne illness traced to consumption of raw milk, there was even an editorial comment added by the officials that explained that everyone knows that it is difficult to trace pathogens back to the milk, or cow, because time and time again it is not possible to culture that specific pathogen from the milk or cow, and yet we know that it must have been there. It is just extremely difficult to isolate pathogens from cow's milk.

This is why some groups have worked hard to publish reports that demonstrate that the REPORTs were in error. The ways to refute some of the REPORTS is to show that a whole lot of people had the same illness at the same time, and didn't drink raw milk, that the source of the pathogen was in some other food product consumed by the same group of ill folks, often it is found that some but not all of the people who drank the same milk didn't get sick, often the farm family drank the same identical milk and didn't get sick. Sometimes the isolated pathogen from the people who are sick, is not genetically identical to a pathogen isolated from the cows, or equipment. Often times the public health people become some focused on the raw milk that they don't even bother to look for other sources of illness. By the ways some of these examples have even been contained in messages on this list. Many of these follow-ups are report to the newspapers, or published on webpages, or get sent to the Public Health agencies, but I have never seen a modification/retraction of an official FDA/CDC report when follow-up showed their conclusions were wrong.

Does the fact that very few of the REPORTED cases of foodborne illness traced to raw milk actually are proven make any difference? Not to the reading public, not to the dairy processors who want this raw milk movement debunked, not to the FDA/CDC or the Ag Departments, or State Health Depts. But it does to those folks who watch care about false allegations of public health risk of raw milk.

And remember: There are in fact some cases of disease transmitted through raw milk to both immunologically compromised people, and in some cases people in general. It does happen. But if someone would spend the time running relative risk analysis, the risks are greater when the milk or milk product is sold in commercial establishments, and was manufactured conventionally, then when the milk was obtained directly from the dairy farmer in a unprocessed fresh state and consumed by someone that has been drinking milk routinely

Ted

Re: The Beat Goes On!

At 08:22 PM 4/3/04 -0000, you wrote:>"We continue to see outbreaks of foodborne illnesses associated with >the consumption of raw milk every year," said Sheehan, director >of the Food and Drug Administration's division of dairy and egg >safety. >>I have a question, and the above statement highlights it quite well.It's more curiousity on my part than anything else. My first reaction tothe statement would be "sez who? Prove it!" Which leads me to memoriesof all the cases I've heard of in "The Untold Story of Milk" and othersources, where raw milk consumption was blamed for something, but it wasactually something else.So here's the question - how did anyone ever find out or be able toconclude that it was the "something else"? Is there a posse out there Ishould consider joining, that files one FOIA request with the FDA every 90seconds to gather enough data to disprove what's just been said? And ifthere is such a posse, is the pay any good? ;)No, really. I don't know if anyone on this list has been involved with orhas the answer to any specific case, I was just sort of wondering how itcame about if you did.MFJIn a world where nothing is truly reasonable, nothing can be truly mad.~Ian Holm, The AdvocatePLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!Check out these links!Midvalleyvu Farms http://www.midvalleyvu.comThe Weston A. Price Foundation: http://www.westonaprice.orgThe Untold Story of Milk http://www.drrons.com/untoldstoryofmilk.htmlPlease visit our Raw Dairy files for a wealth of information:FILES: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/Database: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/databaseRecipes: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/database?method=reportRows & tbl=1Contact List: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/database?method=reportRows & tbl=2Photos: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/lst

[Guest guest]

At 09:51 PM 4/3/04 -0500, you wrote:

>Okay..... My SpellCheck did it.....lol. --tls

>And probably just for YOU!!!

>

Thereby proving my point that spell checkers are EVIL!!!!

The question of who it was for shall be left unanswered.

MFJ

In a world where nothing is truly reasonable, nothing can be truly mad.

~Ian Holm, The Advocate

[Guest guest]

At 12:37 PM 4/5/04 -0400, you wrote:

*snip*

>This is why some groups have worked hard to publish reports that

demonstrate that the REPORTs were in error. The ways to refute some of the

REPORTS is to show that a whole lot of people had the same illness at the

same time, and didn't drink raw milk, that the source of the pathogen was

in some other food product consumed by the same group of ill folks, often

it is found that some but not all of the people who drank the same milk

didn't get sick, often the farm family drank the same identical milk and

didn't get sick. Sometimes the isolated pathogen from the people who are

sick, is not genetically identical to a pathogen isolated from the cows, or

equipment. Often times the public health people become some focused on the

raw milk that they don't even bother to look for other sources of illness.

By the ways some of these examples have even been contained in messages on

this list. Many of these follow-ups are report to the newspapers, or

published on webpages, or get sent to the Public Health agencies, but I

have never seen a modification/retraction of an official FDA/CDC report

when follow-up showed their conclusions were wrong.

*snip*

>

>

Wow, Ted, thanks for that thorough reply, that was wonderful!

But how do you get the data to show that there were other things/foods

involved (as referenced in your quote above)? I can't imagine waiting for

something to be posted on a website, I figure, given my government

experience, that a website is the LAST place to be updated. Or am I

wrong on that? Is there a way to get regular consistent updates on

" investigations " (on the federal level).

MFJ

In a world where nothing is truly reasonable, nothing can be truly mad.

~Ian Holm, The Advocate

[Guest guest]

One possible place is this list. If local folks are willing to do the follow-up on reports from the FDA/CDC or their State Health Dept. We could accumulate some extremely important data. Then the trick is to figure out a way, that whenever, someone looks at the government reports via the internet, they get a follow-up message from here with the follow-up. Wouldn't that be something. The point is that none of the authorities are going to do the research to show their bias. The locals are the only ones with the access to find out what really happened. Once in a long while an investigative reporter will take the time, but it is difficult to get them interested enough to take the time. But if you are a farmer who is accused, or you are an organization that is supporting that farmer, then some of these cases can be documented correctly.

Ted

Re: The Beat Goes On!

At 12:37 PM 4/5/04 -0400, you wrote:*snip*>This is why some groups have worked hard to publish reports thatdemonstrate that the REPORTs were in error. The ways to refute some of theREPORTS is to show that a whole lot of people had the same illness at thesame time, and didn't drink raw milk, that the source of the pathogen wasin some other food product consumed by the same group of ill folks, oftenit is found that some but not all of the people who drank the same milkdidn't get sick, often the farm family drank the same identical milk anddidn't get sick. Sometimes the isolated pathogen from the people who aresick, is not genetically identical to a pathogen isolated from the cows, orequipment. Often times the public health people become some focused on theraw milk that they don't even bother to look for other sources of illness.By the ways some of these examples have even been contained in messages onthis list. Many of these follow-ups are report to the newspapers, orpublished on webpages, or get sent to the Public Health agencies, but Ihave never seen a modification/retraction of an official FDA/CDC reportwhen follow-up showed their conclusions were wrong.*snip*> >Wow, Ted, thanks for that thorough reply, that was wonderful!But how do you get the data to show that there were other things/foodsinvolved (as referenced in your quote above)? I can't imagine waiting forsomething to be posted on a website, I figure, given my governmentexperience, that a website is the LAST place to be updated. Or am Iwrong on that? Is there a way to get regular consistent updates on"investigations" (on the federal level).

[Guest guest]

So what you're saying Ted, is that a Grassroots Post-Reporting system would go a long way to getting the Ag Depts off the backs of our farmers?

The Young's Dairy fiasco here in Ohio might have turned out differently if enough people spoke out loudly enough... They did, but it wasn't organized. I never even found out about it until it was all over.

That was our only "legal" dairy allowed to actually sell RawMilk. The Salmonella was from processed Chicken in their restaurant, not the Milk.....sigh.

--Terry

On 4/11/2004 12:28:00 PM, rawdairy wrote:> > > One possible place is this list. If local folks are willing to do the> follow-up on reports from the FDA/CDC or their State Health Dept. We> could accumulate some extremely important data. Then the trick is to> figure out a way, that whenever, someone looks at the government reports> via the internet, they get a follow-up message from here with the follow-up.> Wouldn't that be something. The point is that none of the authorities are going to do the research to show their bias. The locals are the only ones with the access to find out what really happened. Once in a long while an investigative reporter will take the time, but it is difficult to get them interested enough to take the time. But if you are a farmer who is accused, or you are an organization that is supporting that farmer, then some of these cases can be documented correctly.