: Fwd: LA Times Article--U--need 2 read this

[Guest guest]

I simply do not

agree that the article was unbiased. You must look carefully, the writer was

pretty slick, but there is a great deal of evidence that bias was being set up

prior to the last couple paragraphs.

There were a number

of points where the article’s “lack of bias” is exposed IMO.

#1.

It was presented as a

“Can

This Cow Make You Sick?

After

children become ill from a virulent bacteria, a hunt is launched for the

culprit. The raw-milk revolution goes under the microscope.”

The

article then turned into a “ How Mark McAfee’s family history has

made an intractable rebel who want say “no” to raw milk just in

case it made kids sick”

The

VERY IMPORTANT fact that HUS is kicked in gear by injudicious antibiotic usage

is glossed over. Now, granted if the article promised the 2nd

headline one can understand that. But based upon the first, it is not answering

the questions claimed.

#2.

While the family history was interesting, most interesting to me was the

statement, in regards to the spinach issue “The farmers would not rest until

they personally had tracked down the pathogen's source and wiped it clean from

the Salinas Valley” The article does not

then explain that the source was never in actuality tracked down. He leaves the

presumption that THOSE farmers cared, and Mark only cares about his

“cause” and his profit. And then, Oh horror of horrors! Another E.

Coli outbreak after the spinach RAW MILK!!!. Now granted, there were hundreds

related to spinach and 5 to raw milk, but who cares about that. Drop the media

and the officials off the spinach and Sic Mark!

#3” Indeed, this

incarnation of E. coli had never been seen in the U.S” And where had it been seen before? Is

it new? What causes these “incarnations”? Burning questions

unanswered.

#4

His bias is evident in the Jordan Rubin's

" Back to the Bible " diet comment. I find it hard to believe

that he made a mistake here. Rather than stating “The Maker’s

Diet” he gave his own little twist…unnecessary and patronizing. And

rather than characterizing the WAPF properly he uses the phrase “philosophy of

unadulterated animal fats.” Rather than present WAPF as an “advocate

of nutrient dense foods” he purposefully uses buzz words

“philosophy” rather than advocate, science, dietary

recommendations, etc. In addition, by Google search, nowhere on the WAPF site

does the phrase “unadulterated animal fats” show up.

#5 “McAfee's pitch had the sound of an elixir

barker” Funny

that none of the medical professionals have that kind of description attributed

to them.

#6 The concluding paragraphs definitively leave

the impression that it not only WAS the milk (and not the inappropriate

antibiotic treatment) that caused the HUS, but that Mark is in it just for the

bucks, and that is a bad and naughty way to be!!.

Tony now wonders about the calculations of risk. He

watched Herzog leave Loma

Hospital

in early October after four weeks in intensive care. It would take another

month, eight weeks in all, for his son, arms and legs as thin as sprinkler

pipes, to follow her out the door. He faced an uncertain future. One third of

children with HUS continue to have kidney problems later in life. " Five

kids. The same batch of milk. The same symptoms. Four of them with an identical

pattern of O157:H7, " he said. " You ask if it's an open-and-shut case?

Let me put it to you this way. You could put a gun to my head and say, 'If you

don't give your son a glass of raw milk every day, you're a dead man,' I'd be a

dead man. "

A few days before Thanksgiving, standing over the bottling line, McAfee could

only marvel at the industrial flow. He was selling more raw milk than ever

before.

Again, rather than addressing

the HUS issue, they use faulty logic. Hmmm, Five kids. Same model of

Saturn. Four of the kids with same injuries. Surely it is the fault of the

Saturn not being sturdy enough and not the dudes that ran the red light.

And why is it any worse for

Mark to be selling raw milk for money than it is for the doctors (and btw the

parents who are both on the public payroll) to be pocketing money for their

efforts?

To continue my insensitivity,

read THIS from the article

“He went to

the toilet 19 times that day. His stools were runny and full of blood, and he

began to vomit. His parents rushed him to Kaiser Hospital”

Now, it sounds pretty rough

for the child. But having uncontrolled (19 times, were they counting?) stools, “full”

of blood (Hello, I have 8 children and full of blood would mean a phone call at

least) before rushing him (after 19 episodes, blood AND diarrhea) to the

hospital.

This was a weekday, after

all. Where was the family’s primary care physician?

You see, there is plenty of

actionable blame to go around. But where are we led to place the blame?

From

another source:

California

child home after battle with E. coli and HUS

Posted on November 27, 2006 by E. coli Attorney

The

Californian and North County Times ran a story

about the family of Murrieta,

California, whose son, was

hospitalized with an E. coli infection and hemolytic uremic syndrome after

eating spinach and raw milk. Although Chris' parents aren't sure what the

source of his infection was, they are believe that antibiotics administered

when they took their son to the hospital could have led to his developing HUS:

The couple said they believe their son would have recovered fairly

easily from the E. coli infection were it not for a dose of antibiotics he

should never have been given. This medical error, they said, pushed to

develop hemolytic uremic syndrome and ultimately kidney failure, they said.

An E.

coli infection can still lead to the syndrome without a dose of antibiotics,

but the odds are significantly increased if a patient is given antibiotics. In

Chris' case, his father said doctors did not wait for the results of a culture

to come back to confirm E. coli, that they thought it was colitis, an

inflammation of the colon.

In addition, here 2 links about the same family

which gives totally different perspectives. Check the end comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15899339/

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/26/news/californian/20_59_3711_25_06.txt

The

stress that the family went through I am sure was horrific. And the picture

painted by whatever media exposed them may or may not have been accurate, just

as the picture in entirety was not an accurate portrayal of the entire

situation.

www.majestyfarm.com

Sometimes I

wonder whether the world is being run by smart

people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.

From: RawDairy [mailto:RawDairy ] On Behalf Of Brit Montrella

Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006

10:45 AM

To: RawDairy

Subject: **Possible_Spam**

Re: Fwd: LA Times Article--U--need 2 read this

I have to agree. I thought it had wonderful momentum until

the last couple paragraphs. It seemed unbiased, presents the science rather

well, and appeared the paint the picture of the benefits of raw milk in a very

positive light. For some reason, the entire tone of the article changed towards

the end; even a friend of mine who understands the difference between real milk

and the killed stuff was left scratching her head and asking me questions. It

was unfortunate that such a good article was squashed at the end and ended up

appearing anti-real milk and anti-OP.

~Brit