Clowning around at raw milk symposium: from l, Michael Payne of UC Davis, Amanda Rose, yours truly, and Mary McGonigle-Martin doing the rabbit ear honors.There’s a temptation when people with opposing views on a divisive topic get together to think that the solution lies in compromise of some sort. I’ve certainly been guilty of that kind of thinking.
But after reflecting further on last Sunday’s raw milk symposium in Seattle sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association, I’m definitely not thinking that way. What I’m thinking is that some barriers were approached, and people who’ve seen each other as dire enemies got to see each other as real people. That has to be positive, even if political positions didn’t necessarily change. The fact that I am saying such things is a commentary on just how bitter the divisions are over my right to access the most basic of foods—raw milk.
As I said in my Monday post, there were some positive statements in several of the presentations. And after a number of audience members mocked Amanda Rose when she told them that raw milk drinkers value both the taste and good bacteria in raw milk, food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler scolded the mockers. “I’m appalled that people are laughing,” he said. “You don’t engage people by calling them stupid.”
But that assumes “engagement” was the intent of many speakers. It’s hard to know because, despite some signs of dialog, only two people I’m aware of have posted anything publicly about the symposium—Amanda Rose and myself, the two raw milk proponents to speak at the session. Not a word of observation, reaction, criticism, or encouragement from any of the eight or so other speakers, who generally spoke in terms of preserving or extending the status quo on raw milk limitations.
I’m also concerned about a term that was tossed around here and there: “education.” Now, to me, education is about enlightenment, and exposing people to different views on a topic. But I’ve come to realize from attending a few anti-raw-milk conferences that the focus on “education” from the government’s perspective is code for fear mongering. Kind of like the way the old Soviet Union and China used to use that term, as in “re-education” of citizens who had the temerity to differ with official positions on one subject or another.
So as you can tell, I find myself kind of going back and forth on the thing. Overall, I’d say the news was good for the simple reason that people were energized and even, dare I say, touched, by happenings, and that has to be a good thing.
The bad news is that most of the speakers and attendees wouldn’t, even if their lives depended on it, be able to relate to most of the wonderful comments following my previous post, like Miguel’s explanation about inflammation affecting cow’s milk, and Gwen Elderberry’s dualistic approach to milk, and Dave Milano’s nearly poetic explication of the “dairy industry.”
As refreshing as it was to have some sense of dialog, it’s important for those who believe in our right to consume the foods of our choice to not be deluded into thinking that anything fundamental changed. It’s so easy to lose rights, as we’ve seen with the steady encroachment on our rights to access nutrient-dense foods—and more restrictions likely upcoming via “food safety” legislation. And it’s very difficult, once rights are lost, to gain them back without a serious fight. Because the John Sheehans (FDA Milk Czar) of the world value control over rights.
Then again (more uncertainty), maybe the key is repetition, bring the parties together again, and again, and again. Let them butt heads and hear each other out. Today’s intransigence need not eliminate the possibilities for tomorrow’s flexibility. Remember, this is a political problem, not a health problem, and once participants decide to settle political problems, actions can come pretty quickly.
Before moving on from the symposium, a few odds and ends:
— This blog seems to be sort of read by public health types. Michael Payne of the University of California, Davis, Western Institute for For Food Safety and Security, highlighted a posting I did on his testimony before the California Senate in April 2008. While he didn’t seem to think my use of a photo of a ventriloquist to depict his testimony was all that funny (“Even my mother was upset”), he did allow, “I felt like a rapper.” Now, that’s the right spirit.
— Speaking of people with a sense of humor, there was Bill Keene, the Oregon public health official, who said this about the raw milk market: “The world is divided into two groups: those who drink raw milk and those who don’t care…Raw milk is a niche product for a few nut cases.” To which I’d say, I’m okay with being classified as “a nut case,” just let me go my own nutty way with milk.
— While raw milk isn’t a hot research topic in the U.S., a presenter from the University of California, Davis, Michele Jay-Russell, presented results of an interesting little experiment she said was done by other researchers at the university using California raw milk. They inoculated salmonella into fresh raw milk bought at a store in California, and then some of the milk was refrigerated, and some left at room temperature. The refrigerated milk showed neither growth nor death of the salmonella after seven days. At room temperature, the salmonella grew from hundreds of cells to hundreds of thousands of cells within two days. Her conclusion: “There was no competitive exclusion from those retail raw milk samples.”
–Finally, Sally Fallon, head of the Weston A. Price Foundation, contacted me after my previous post (which included criticisms of the realmilk.com web site) and said she wants not only symposium participants, but other readers of this blog to feel free to request changes in the organization’s reports. “We are constantly updating (our site) based on input from individuals and new information. If there is anything that is wrong or inaccurate on the site (and especially on the raw milk PowerPoint), people need only email us (info @westonaprice.org) and we will fix it.” I wonder if the people at Plant and Dairy at the FDA are willing to make a similar commitment.
Her experiment shows that she does not understand the concept of competitive exclusion.
"At room temperature, the salmonella grew from hundreds of cells to hundreds of thousands of cells within two days."
It is meaningless to single out one type of bacteria and to count it’s numbers as they increase over the two days.Suppose this raw milk had a bacteria count of 1000 cells/ml.If 500 cells of salmonella are added and two days later we find 500,000 cells/ml.what does that mean?Given ample food, how many could we expect the 500 salmonella to become in 48 hrs ?
Two days at room temperature is enough time for the lactic acid bacteria in the raw milk to clabber the milk.What do you suppose the bacteria count is in the clabbered milk?
If the population of salmonella has been restricted to 500,000 while the lactic acid bacteria population has grown enough to clabber the milk,which bacteria is winning the competition for the nutrients in the milk?
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4591499/description.html
"US Patent 4591499 – Method for treatment and prevention of mastitis"
"The exact mechanism by which the microorganisms in the composition utilized in the method of the present invention control mastitis is not entirely understood. It is known, however, that the pH of an infected gland will range from approximately7.2 to 8.0. A healthy uninfected gland will have a pH of about 6.4 to 6.8. It is believed that the lactic acid producing bacteria cause the pH to drop sufficiently so that the pathogens can no longer reproduce as the environment approaches acidic conditions. Also, the lactic acid reacts with the milk itself to produce the isoelectric point of casein which will cause the casein to clabber thus entrapping the pathogens that are present and serve as a vehicle to remove these when the animal is milked after approximately 12 hours. Some of the useful bacteria will remain in the mammary gland even after the contaminated milk is removed thus continuing to provide protection for the animal by helping to control the pH in the gland. The combination of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei is particularly useful in carrying out the present invention since both of these non-pathogenic lactic acid producing bacteria will grow over a relatively wide pH range. Also, both of these species are found naturally in bovine milk and are therefore clearly compatible with the milk."
Raw milk is regulated in Washington. Raw milk dairy farmers have to meet the 10 coliform limit and it can be sold on the farm and retail (point of sale signs required). Pathogen testing is conducted once a month by the state.
The majority of raw milk goat and cow dairy producers are small family operations; many new to dairy farming. WAPF has had a huge influence in this state. At the present time, there are around 26 licensed producers of raw milk. There was a huge raw milk black market prior to the state working with the unregulated raw dairy producers. Raw milk outbreaks spurred regulation. It was mentioned that a family new to producing raw milk could meet all regulation standards for as little as $3,000 dollars.
As for the AVMA conference, I thought it was stimulating to hear different perspectives. Dr. Amanda Roses survey results were the most thought provoking. In the future, I hope this type of dialog can continue. Producing raw milk as safe as humanly possible, along with correct information about raw milk safety needs to be the goal. Pathogens can happen. This can not be downplayed. I know people on this blog dont like to hear this, but children are at the greatest risk. How can we all work together to make this risk as slim as possible?
Im glad to hear that Sally Fallon is reading this blog. I hope she takes some of this information to heart and has the courage to talk realistically about the possibility of pathogens in raw milk.
The concept of competitive exclusion is complex and your illistration demonstrates how an experiment can be interpreted by the observers. Thanks for helping unspin the spin.
Today a film crew left OPDC after three days of shooting and interviewing raw milk drinkers at markets and Farmers Markets. The film documentary is planned for PBS and will cover American food rights freedoms. The name has not be released yet and is still under raps. The documentary even interviewed a local professor of medicine at a high profile Univ of CA medical School that practices pediatric medicine and uses raw milk extensively in his very successful practice. He described in great detail how the specialized proteins in raw milk stabilize MAST cells therefore preventing the histamine response and allergic reactions and inflamation associated with asthma and allergies.
Sorry guys we have the science and the doctors on the raw milk side.
Yes….I do agree that safety is essential and we have much to do and learn to perfect raw milk safety ( although we have come very far given the data we have now, we can do more ) . But…the FDA burying its head in the sand will not make this research happen faster and or easier. John Sheehan must show some leadership and call for meetings of all parties on the subject of raw milk and collect all the data. Then we can start making real progress.
A big hand to Bill Marler for playing referee to those that mocked Amanda.
Congrats to Amanda for her great job of sharing important information about raw milk.
Soon enough the data will be released from third party Univ studies being done right now and the NIH will study these issues. Just you watch it is happening already.
The sooner we can prevent 5500 asthma deaths per year and bone loss from asthma drugs the better. The sooner we can get farmers to be educated about good raw milk standards the faster we will stop IBS, Crohns, Ulcers, Ear infections, GERD and a host of other immune diseases. Raw milk is a big part of the sustainable medicine question and the answer is clean milk from sustainable dairies. Its is also an answer to the six suicides in 2009 committed by CA dairymen from low milk prices.
Raw milk is clean living milk.
Pastuerization is filthy dead milk, not clean dead milk.
"People are not lactose intolerant…they are pastuerization intolerant".
My dear friend Kimeli ( the pastuerization intolerant Maasai Warrior Stanford Masters in Biology graduate that was cured of Crohns by OPDC raw milk ) is meeting with Obama in the next weeks and he will tell his story of healing from Crohns using OPDC raw milk. This story will get out. It is getting out.
Action is what counts….blogging is blogging. There is soon to be a raw milk earth quake in CA. You heard it first at TCP.
Mark
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/110473.html
Economic Strife in Farming Communities Leads to Some Tragic Ends by Sharon Mack
Read the reader comments also quite interesting.
It doesn’t get much worse than this and where is MSM? Reporting from outside MJs Never Neverland?
What the experts know that you don’t is that a maximum of 10 coliform doesn’t assure milk is safe. Coliform is the name of a test for the gram negative enteric family of Enterobacteriaceae that ferment lactose in 24-48 hours when incubated at 97 deg F.
Members of that family include E. coli, Salmonella, shigella, etc. E. coli alone will double every 20 minutes. If the state told you it would allow 10 colonies of E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, etc in milk, would you want to drink it raw?
http://www.thewatchers.us
For some of the other bacteria that cause mastitis and don’t show up in the coliform test see the following study. http://www.isrvma.org/article/57_2_5.htm
At the end of CEU courses, there is usually a question that goes something like, "Will this course change the way you practice nursing?"
In regards to drinking raw milk and 10 ppm coliform counts influencing whether or not I drink raw milk, the answer is, "no."
1) Being a hospital employee, and seeing what I do, I do not trust that all employees in dairy plants follow all practices prescribed by the govt.and therefore do not believe pasteurized milk is any safer than raw milk, even when that raw milk comes from CAFO’s. I feel in fact, that it is less safe, just as it is less safe, infectious disease-wise, for a patient to be in the hospital than at home. You have a mixture of milk from possibly hundreds of farms, and so contamination by something bad is much more likely, even with extremely careful "sterilization." The trucks going from farm to farm may even assist in spreading diseases. Orthopedic surgeons I’ve worked with like to get patients OUT of the hospital ASAP to avoid wound infections. I would prefer my milk to not come from a processing plant.
2) I regularly eat salami sandwiches which sat at room temperature for 24 hours, and moldy bread and cheese. I ate one such sandwich yesterday that I’d made the day before, took to work, brought back home and took back to work the next day, without ever refrigerating, and as usual, today I am fine.
3) I have a much lower incidence of gastrointestinal problems than my coworkers and friends who live a more sterile life, and so do not feel "clean" food has any benefit for my health. I am surrounded by ill people on a daily basis as part of my job. They don’t make me sick.
4) Media hype that inspires people to bleach their cutting boards has become a major turn-off, and inspires my button-clicking thumb to move.
Yesterday, one of my coworkers was disinfecting the employee fridge at work with wipes we have to wear gloves when using because they contain a potent carcinogen. I’ve decided to put freezer packs in my lunch from now on and keep my food in my locker. Cancer scares me more than gut bacteria.
I hope this answers your question about the 10ppm coliform count.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090017176
Here the problem with manufactured milk is clearly stated.
"milk powder is produced via processes such as concentration and drying, milk powder has been problematic so far in that the great freshness, smooth touch and aftertaste essential to raw milk are all poor in the case of milk powder. Although concentrated milk has no such unpleasant reconstituting odor as that of milk powder and has good flavor in comparison with milk powder, concentrated milk never has the good freshness, highly smooth touch and good aftertaste of fresh milk. Additionally, since the solid contents in concentrated milk and milk powder are high and ingredients influencing flavor are concentrated therein, the elevation of the ratio thereof to be used as a raw material for foods and beverages has been limited."
"In producing defatted concentrated milk and defatted milk powder, in particular, milk fat is eliminated from milk. Generally, in order to raise the separation efficiency between milk fat fractions and defatted milk fractions, milk is heated to increase the difference in specific gravity and passed through a step of a continuous centrifuge machine such as cream separator. In this case, it is known that phospholipid covering milk fat sphere is partially transferred to the side of defatted milk. The flavor of phospholipid is readily deteriorated via oxidation, which is one of the causes of the flavor deterioration of concentrated milk and milk powder"
" On the other hand, it is remarked that the change of milk flavor due to heating and sterilization is caused by the generation of sulfides and aldehydes on the basis of the heating oxidation of milk protein and fatty acid. In a case of concentrated milk and milk powder, steps of heating treatment such as concentration under heating and spray-drying in hot air are added. Therefore, it is expected that these products from oxidation under heating will increase. It is expected that, in the case of the concentrated milk and milk powder, there occurs further loss of the flavor such as good taste, freshness, great smooth touch and good aftertaste essential to fresh milk, in comparison with the case of sterilized milk. "
" DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION
[0018]Concerning the problem of conventional concentrated milk and milk powder that, although they are simply handled, they are not at a level sufficiently satisfactory in terms of flavor, it is an object of the invention to provide concentrated milk and milk powder not only with flavor such as good taste, freshness, great smooth touch and good aftertaste essential to fresh milk as a raw material but also with further improvement of the flavor, as well as a process of producing the same. Additionally, it is an object of the invention to provide concentrated milk and milk powder capable of improving the physico-chemical properties of a food when they are used as raw materials of the food, as well as a process of producing the same."
"[0019]The present inventors made intensive studies so as to solve the above problems. Consequently, the inventors have found that concentrated milk and milk powder obtainable by removing a part of ions, followed by heating treatment in a condition with low dissolved oxygen have good flavor, in comparison with usual milk powder and concentrated milk, and that they give the good taste, freshness, good smooth touch and good aftertaste essential to fresh milk when they were used as raw materials for beverages and the like. Further, the inventors have found that, when such concentrated milk and milk powder are used as raw materials for milk products and bread, not only the improvement of flavor but also the improvement of physico-chemical food properties such as fine texture and porosity can be exerted. "
The chloride to lactose ratio in milk can be the cause of bad flavor.Too much saltiness,not enough sweetness.Rancid flavor comes from oxidized fat,enzymes and protein.The solution is to remove some of the chloride ions and heat treat the milk under low Oxygen conditions.
A high chloride to lactose ratio is a result of milking cows that have inflammation in their udders.
So they are trying to solve the flavor problem by further processing milk that wasn’t any good to start with.
Jim, please qualify which sub species of e. coli you are talking about, and stop isolating measurements to one population of bacteria. What is the big picture? There are many beneficial forms of e. coli – some that inhibit 0157:H7. pH, temperature, light, oxygen, diversity… There is so much to learn about bacteria, and what makes a healthy balance.
Miguel has been patiently presenting, in many creative ways for more than a year; explaining how a balance of diverse bacteria is essential, and how farming practices of the last 60 years have usurped this balance. Keep at it Miguel – you are doing an awesome job and I hope eventually the knowledge will "infect" our understanding.
10 cfu/ml is a stumbling block to truth.
-Blair
Michele Jay-Russell, University of California, Davis, reports that researchers at the university inoculated salmonella into fresh raw milk bought at a store in California, and then some of the milk was refrigerated, and some left at room temperature. The refrigerated milk showed neither growth nor death of the salmonella after seven days. At room temperature, the salmonella grew from hundreds of cells to hundreds of thousands of cells within two days.
This finding is at odds with a challenge test on campylobacter, described in slide 22 of our powerpoint, http://realmilk.com/ppt/index.html showing rapid decline in room temperature raw milk and slower decline in chilled raw milk (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1982;44(5):1154-58; Mikrobiyolji Bul,1987:21(3):200-5). Maybe salmonella acts differently, but I’d like for an unbiased researcher to repeat the test and have the results analyzed at an independent lab.
A very amusing attempt by public health investigators to capture campylobacter in raw milk can be found in a 1985 study published in the Journal of Hygiene, published in London (94:205-15). The investigators who published this report concluded that an outbreak in a British village wherein the whole village obtained unpasteurized milk from a single (and very clean farm) was due to campylobacters excreted directly into milk by cows with mastitis rather than fecal contamination of the milk. The report is full of biased statements, but they authors did make one very revealing admission about milk’s anti-microbial qualities: because milk filters obtained directly after evening milkings and mixed with enrichment medium within 30 minutes tested positive while those obtained after morning milkings and mixed with enrichment medium after three hours tested negative, they suggested that failure to dilute out the natural antibacterial effect of fresh milk quickly may have reduced survival of campylobacters in the morning samples. This is further supported by the aforementioned negative culture of previously positive retail milk samples and the failure of the organism in milk samples obtained directly from cows to survive long enough for serotyping.
In other words, "raw milk does not support the growth of pathogens." Of course milk’s wonderful antimicrobial system can be overwhelmed. We do NOT recommend consuming raw milk from confinement dairies, where cows are fed grains, bakery waste and other inappropriate feed, and where they are likely to have mastitis and other diseases that develop with this unnatural diet. And many of the anti-microbial components are in the fat of the milk. That is why we call our efforts "A Campaign for REAL Milk"–not simply raw milk but REAL milk–that is, milk from grass-fed cows (pasture, hay and silage), containing all the butterfat, unprocessed (unpasteurized, unhomogenized) and obviously produced in clean conditions. (For guidelines to raw milk production, see the Handbook on Raw Milk Production published by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_Glyphosate_Herbicides_Now.php
The chemical approaches listed in the articles above show the invasive extent to which the medical profession and industry are willing to go in their quest for control. Such approaches are based on and more akin to the age old practice of alchemy and aught not be confused with technology acquired and ethically applied via empirical scientific research.
Although there is indeed a considerable amount of analysis and research as well as time and money placed into the development of these chemical concoctions, there primary objective is to get them to market as quickly as possible with little consideration for side effects and overall consequences.
They lack the ability to manage their techniques safely.
They have little respect for lifes complex processes and their persistence in violating our right to choose is an indication of their arrogance and greed.
They have usurped authority of the food production and health care systems and have gone out of their way to harass and intimidate those who pose a threat to their power structure.
The problems we encounter with infections such as E-coli 0157:H7, including toxic conditions such as HUS stems from our desire to wrestle control of the natural process through intervention such as those referred to above.
Ken Conrad
I would like to read it in print from you (representing your organization) that there is a possibility that pathogens can be found in raw milk no matter what the cows are fed or how careful the farmer is with sanitation. You owe this to people interested in consuming raw milk.
You and Mark McAfee have done a nice spin with the facts about my sons case. I wrote you a letter and sent you an email around two years ago asking you to remove the lies about my son from your website. Instead of removing these lies, they ended up in the 2009 version of the Untold Story of Milk. You are an English major so I will give you an A+ for creative writing.
Once again, Im asking both of you right now to please stop harassing my family with your lies about our case (Im referring to the comments both of you made on this website a month ago http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blog/gut/is-raw-milk-safe/
Here are some more facts about pathogens in raw milk: Town Farm Dairy located in Connecticut. 5 cases of E.coli 0157:H7 (matching blueprint) and the same matching blueprint was found in the milk. The milk was sold retail.
How are you going to spin your way of this outbreak?
Mary McGonigle-Martin
http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-2/
cp
If you have a problem with something Sally and Mark said on another website, post your complaint and explanation there.
Reading through the comments here and the Ethicurean post, it seems clear that the critiques of the WAPF website were expressed directly to Sally in the past The WAPF website content is the topic being discussed on this site, right now. In that context, your suggestion to take the conversation elsewhere seems out of place, especially on a blog renowned for openess to discussion among people with many different viewpoints.
I would think that someone who hires a high profile lawyer to intimidate someone, who has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing, via a civil lawsuit, and putting them in a position to cough up big time dough to spare the even larger expense of a fight in court, would be more likely the HARASSER….(it’s ironic that those that are guilty like to cast the same accusation on their opponent…kind of like Lykke, defender of the FDA, trying to cast raw milkers as liars….)
I’m of the opinion that the good will, compassion and emotional capital is drying up fast for this ‘victim’…..faster than a bullfrog in the desert….
Now I understand that there has been damage done, and lives have been changed, but one must really be a lowlife, to get satisfaction by extracting another pound of flesh.
Shit happens, and sometimes getting angry with the defecator prevents one from effectively cleaning up the mess.
The notion that one incident reflects on the entire whole is absolutely wrong. And while there have been incidences of sickness from raw milk, if you look at the whole picture, it’s just as safe as many other food sources. No food (except those irradiated, boiled or rendered totally lifeless) is 100% safe (and sometimes not even those)….and to expect this from raw milk producers is just not prudent (unless you have a alternative agenda)…we don’t expect this from other food manufacturers…
We don’t ask the beef industry to stop what they are doing when someone gets sick eating hamburger. We don’t ask the pasteurized milk folks from stopping when someone dies from drinking the dead stuff… we don’t ask cold cuts makers from discontinuing grinding it up and stuffing it when someone gets sick from a sandwich…. the justification for this double standard just isn’t there (unless of course there IS an alternative agenda).
Does the beef industry warn of 157 infection on their ‘promotional sites’…hardly. It’s just whats for dinner.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2004, p. 5502-5511, Vol. 42, No. 12
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5502-5511.2004
Copyright 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Exploration of Biases That Affect the Interpretation of Restriction Fragment Patterns Produced by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis
"Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) has been used extensively in epidemiological investigations of bacteria, especially during food-borne outbreaks or nosocomial infections. The relationship between similarities in PFGE patterns and true genetic relatedness is poorly understood."
"In practice, the use of PFGE as a DNA fingerprinting technique requires many subjective decisions to be made. This subjectivity increases the variability of the results among studies"
"The correlation of the true phylogeny and that predicted by PFGE depended on the choice of enzyme or enzymes and analytic method. Fidelity between the phylogeny predicted by PFGE and the true phylogeny improved with the use of multiple enzymes (Fig. 8). However, the use of multiple enzymes can be costly in terms of time and money. If a single enzyme were to be used with the 17 isolates in the outbreak population, the decision of which enzyme to use would have greatly affected the epidemiological inferences. "
"If these isolates were collected as part of a trace back during a food-borne outbreak, the choice of enzyme would have directly influenced our assessment of which isolates were part of the outbreak, and thus, the choice of enzyme could have serious repercussions regarding the identification of the source of the pathogen."
". Electrophoresis of these fragments allows the visualization of a restriction fragment pattern (RFP) that comprises a series of bands, with each band representing a sized piece of DNA. The relationship between bacterial isolates is inferred by the similarities of the RFPs."
"The key point of RFPs in general and PFGE specifically is that while the data infer genetic relationships between isolates, they do not necessarily represent true genetic relationships (6). Differences in RFPs indicate that isolates are genetically different, but the true degree of the genetic distance separating these isolates cannot be determined from RFPs. In contrast, similarities in RFPs do not necessarily mean that isolates are genetically similar. As the number of REs included in PFGE increases, the correlation between RFP similarity and true genetic similarity is likely to increase (6). However, the conclusions drawn from any molecular study must be put in the context of the other information associated with the isolates. The strength of isolate identity is greatest when epidemiologic data support point source or common elements of dissemination. Because of the high degree of subjectivity involved with the interpretation of RFPs, the user must carefully and thoughtfully select the conditions and techniques for performing, analyzing, and using PFGE fingerprints."
Mary Martin,
The idea that "matching blueprints" are enough evidence to be sure about a connection between two samples of bacteria is false. " The relationship between similarities in PFGE patterns and true genetic relatedness is poorly understood".Many times we see these "fingerprints" used as proof of identification of a serotype of bacteria.They are not even evidence that the bacteria are genetically related.
The first assumption that has to be made is that there is a single point source for this "pathogen".Once you have determined what caused the illness, PFGE might be helpful as a double check just to make sure you haven’t accused the wrong suspect.Then ,again, I doubt that this technology is understood well enough to be of any use.
I agree that there are many nuances with genetic relatedness among bacterial strains. But, the techiques used in forensic epidemiology like PFGE (PulseNet) are not meant to study genetics. They were develped for source attribution. It is clear, using a forensic approach, that the DNA fingerprints from the 2006 outbreak implicated a single raw dairy as the source.
You commented that my comment to "take the conversation elsewhere" seems out of place. It’s apparent you didn’t read Mary McGonigle-Martins’ comment well enough to know what I was responding to.
My response had absolutely nothing to do with critique’s of the WAPF website. I was responding to this part of Mary’s post:
"Once again, I’m asking both of you right now to please stop harassing my family with your lies about our case (I’m referring to the comments both of you made on this website a month ago http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blog/gut/is-raw-milk-safe/"
The reference "this website" is not the TCP website but instead the listen2yourgut website. If you had followed Mary’s link, you would have seen a discussion of OPDC and the E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak in 2006. In the comment section, Sally wrote this:
"Marlers story about the OP case is very different from Mark McAfees. Whom to believe? When Marler took this case, he posted a video on utube showing one of the children, Chris Martin, sick in a hospital bed and hooked up to a ventilator. The date on the video was close to the date when Mark McAfee visited the childthe child was sitting up in bed, not on a ventilator and eating normal food. . . . after Mark notified Marler that the dates and the dialogue information on his video were incorrect, he took it down. Looks like Marlers staff made a phony video and took advantage of a child for his own aggrandisement."
Bill Marler commented, then Mark wrote this: "Bill is incorrectthere was no link to OPDC.yet the state officials said it was the mostly source. This statement was not supported by evidence. A signed settlement and payment was given to OPDC for the damaging and unsubstantiated recall. Any pathogens that were found in our young heifers manure were different in their genetic finger print than those found in the one child. Even Bill will say this is true. There were no pathogens found in any raw milk at OPDC."
If Mary was upset about those comments, she could have made a comment herself at the listen2yourgut website. If she thought Sally and Mark were making inaccurate comments, she should have responded to them and explained her side of the story there. But she didn’t. So I don’t think she had any basis to come to this blog and complain about what happened on another blog. And as for her characterization as being harassed by Sally and Mark’s comments above, we’ll let each reader decide for him or herself.
And so, Lykke, would you agree now that your comments were an inappropriate response?