The Tough Civics Lesson for Americans in Michael Schmidt’s Jailing

It’s sometimes said that a picture is worth a thousand words. That is certainly the case with the photo of Michael Schmidt at left, taken after Schmidt stripped down as required upon entering an Ontario prison yesterday, where he is spending his second of 13 weekends.

Schmidt is doing jail time ostensibly for interfering with a regulator raid on his farm two years ago, for the purpose of confiscating/stealing food and equipment. But, bigger picture (not the picture here), Schmidt is in year 23 of legal assaults by Ontario and Canadian government agencies designed to prevent him from making raw dairy products available to the shareholders of his farm, and punish and humiliate him in the process. Yes, these assaults—raids, court hearings, trials, and now a prison sentence—have been going on for 23 years.

Yet seeing these shocking photos of protest by Schmidt raise a big question for me, a question that is especially relevant in the hysterical political climate engulfing the U.S. these days:

Why doesn’t America have a Michael Schmidt equal, a farmer who is a political prisoner? After all, raw milk availability has been just as contentious an issue in the U.S. as in Canada. There have been surprise raids, court suits, and trials. We have the same Big Dairy influences as Canada. And we have the farmer candidates—Alvin Schlangen, Vernon Hershberger, Amos Miller, Mark McAfee—who have been threatened with criminal charges.

Yet they are all walking around free and continuing to make their raw dairy products available, while Michael Schmidt continues to be hounded and even thrown in jail. 

The only way to explain it is through a very quick course in Civics 101. The main reason American farmers haven’t gone to jail is that the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution—the first ten amendments— has kept them out of jail.  Those amendments were tacked onto the Constitution after the actual body of the Constitution had been worked out in Philadelphia in 1787. The Bill of Rights was demanded by a number of politicians, led by James Madison, before they would ratify the Constitution, because of the bad memories people had of abuses by the British when America was a colony

These ten amendments provide for some of our best known freedoms— freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms,  and the prohibitions against self incrimination and search and seizure without a warrant. Those ten amendments also include several lesser known rights that have kept accused American farmers out of jail:

  1. Trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment provides that in criminal cases, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” It was jury trials that acquitted Alvin Schlangen in Minneapolis in 2012 and Vernon Hershberger in Baraboo, WI, in 2013.  In his 23 years as a target of various government accusations, Schmidt has never been able to get a jury trial. Why not? Because it’s not guaranteed under Canadian law, as it is in the U.S.
  2. Prohibition on double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from trying an accused individual twice for the same crime. In other words, once a judge or jury acquits you, that’s it. But that’s not the case in Canada. Schmidt was actually acquitted by a judge of a variety of charges in connection with the sale of raw milk back in 2009. But, alas, the government appealed the acquittal—something that would be impossible in the U.S.—and he was convicted by a court of appeals.
  3. Other requirements. The Fifth Amendment includes a requirement of “due process”, the Sixth Amendment includes the right to confront witnesses against you, and the Eighth Amendment includes a prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” Various of these protections have come into play in cases involving Mark McAfee and Amos Miller. In his Canadian court cases, Schmidt has come up against a government playing fast and loose with due process, like disappearing emails.

America has its rights because it fought for them via a bloody eight-year war of independence from 1775 to 1783. Canada remained tethered to the British empire, and while it gained pretty much the same rights that England has today, it doesn’t have the same foundation and commitment to rights of the U.S. 

The expansion of federal power has eroded some of Americans’ rights under the Bill of Rights, such as in the area of searches and seizures and the right against “cruel and unusual punishment.” But rarely have our rights been under as intensive an assault as with the new administration, with the President threatening to go after freedom of the press and seeming to infringe on freedom of religion with his legal attacks on Muslims and his embrace of white supremacists.

Next time some of you here get caught up in the hysteria of the official scapegoating that has been going on in the U.S.—and a number of food rights supporters, including even some of the acquitted farmers have been caught up—stop a minute and think about Michael Schmidt, and how precious our rights look to him locked up in an Ontario prison this weekend. And maybe honor Thanksgiving by appreciating those rights….while we still have them. As the car sales pitchman likes to say on TV: “When they’re gone, they’re gone.”

40 comments to The Tough Civics Lesson for Americans in Michael Schmidt’s Jailing

  • John Dutcher

    Seems we do have double jeopardy here in the US, kinda recall a few cases where a defendant was tried twice for the same crime.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      None of the Bill of Rights protections is perfect. Alvin Schlangen actually had a second jury trial in another county after his acquittal in Minneapolis, and his lawyer objected strenuously that it amounted to double jeopardy. Judge ruled against him, and he was convicted in the second trial. But both the prosecutor and judge didn’t have their hearts in it, and Schlangen was let off without any significant penalty.

      In real life, the protection against double jeopardy tends to have a chilling effect on prosecutors. After Vernon Hershberger was acquitted of most serious charges, the Wisconsin prosecutors not only left Hershberger alone, but effectively abandoned prosecution of raw milk cases, that’s how discouraged they were by the Hershberger acquittal.

      You may have the impression of double jeopardy when someone is re-tried after a mistrial because of a hung jury. That is legal, since no verdict resulted.

  • Vera

    David, I really really want to un-see that photo. Truly.

    Seriously though, what you call “double-jeopardy”, anyone in Canada would call the right to appeal to a higher level of court. Do you not have that right in the U.S.?

    The first trial was in front of a *justice of the peace*, NOT a judge. JP Paul Kowarski was NOT a judge. He was a lay-person, a JP. This is not judicial position – it is an administrative position, designed to make quick decisions in administrative law, to keep such minor cases out of full courts. The trial in front of Kowarski resulted in an acquital, but anyone at all on the losing side of a JP’s decision can take it up one level to be tried by *an actual judge*, such as the Honourable Justice Peter Tetley, who has a full law degree and many years practicing as a full lawyer.

    So, Judge Tetley convicted MS, and if you read the decision (R. v. Schmidt, 2011 ONCJ 482, ) you will see that given the evidence that ownership of the livestock had not been transferred to members, that the MS still held legal title to the animals, the evidence was thus clear that milk was being sold. Justice Tetley had no choice but to convict.

    Mr. Schmidt then had the right to appeal to a higher court, and he did, and then Ontario Court of Appeal heard the case in 2014 (R. v. Schmidt, 2014 ONCA 188, and Judges Weiler, Sharpe, and Blair agreed with Tetley. MS had the right to appeal to an even higher court, and he did, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined his appeal.

    So, all parties involved had the right to appeal to higher courts. Is this not your right in the U.S. as well?

    The laws in Ontario state clearly that it is illegal to sell or distribute raw milk. Until those laws are changed, or until herdshare agreements begin to contain the contract elements which the two latest legal decisions said were necessary in “legitimate herdshares,” convictions are still going to keep happening.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      No, the prosecution cannot appeal to a higher court once a defendant has been acquitted. That is a very important right accorded defendants in the U.S., missing in many other countries, including Canada. It prevents the kind of endless prosecution Michael Schmidt has endured. If the defendant is convicted he/she can appeal the verdict.


    Perhaps something a little more soothing to the heart, gut and mind. We can all be very grateful that raw milk is very healing. Its gifts are many.
    This is the first in a series of You Tube videos that are intended to be utilized by everyone in the raw milk movement. Generic and not commercial speech because no brands are promoted.

    Farmers over Pharmacies…..please share with anyone with gut issues. 2 million Americans have serious gut problems and need to see this video.

    Hang in their Michael. I hope the queen has a bit of indigestion when she realizes that you are spending time in jail for “obstructing corruption” in the pursuit of food justice. Someday….you will get yours. Until then….may love bathe you and warm your soul.

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

      That was an excellent video interview Mark…
      Being of German heritage and growing up on a dairy farm we grew up on sauerkraut and raw milk.

      I’m somewhat familiar with Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride’s work.

      Contrary to your final statement that you can’t blame doctors… I do blame them! They are the movers and shakers for compulsory vaccinations that violate the public’s freedom to informed consent. Indeed they follow in the footsteps of their fellow physicians at Nuremburg who were found guilty of crimes against humanity.

      Vaccinations are the primary reason for gut abnormalities, and immune malfunction that ultimately results in excessive antibiotic use that ultimately lead to autoimmune conditions such as crohn’s and colitis to name a few. In an interview with Dr. Mercola Dr. Campbell-McBride states, “the standard vaccination protocol is damaging to babies… What we also have to understand the pharmaceutical industry cannot patent natural viruses, natural bacteria or any microbe that nature has created. They have to genetically modify them before they can patent them. So these vaccines contain genetically modified viruses, genetically modified microbes. We still haven’t got enough data to know what exactly they’re doing to the human body and what exactly these genes are doing to our gut flora in these children. I see many children in my clinic who have been damaged by vaccinations. It doesn’t have to be MMR. Some children are damaged by MMR. Some children are damaged by DPTs. Some children are damaged by the first vaccines that they receive as soon as they are born”.

      By the way, what’s with the shovel? did they catch you digging fence postholes?

  • D. Smith D. Smith

    I wasn’t aware of the final decision in the Michael Schmidt case so this is a surprise. Where the hell is the Queen when they need her? After all, the Queen of England and her family drink raw milk, purportedly. Some people drink it just because they like it, not necessarily because it’s considered a superfood, and/or for health reasons. We know it’s good for us so we drink it and we like the taste better than the crap from the grocery store being passed off as “milk”.

    • Anyone

      @ Michael Schmidt
      The comment above is a classic case in point. He/she somehow has come to believe your incarceration is the final decision to your “milk trial” (obviously Smith doesn’t know the case at hand). And by referring to the Queen, Smith is failing to appreciate the principles of our form of government, or those of our judiciary. No doubt Smith is just trying to point out that the law is ‘ridiculous’. Smith then points out that he/she believes in the virtues of raw milk, and so what Smith is probably really saying is: I just want my raw milk. How I get it are details I really don’t care about – even if is by a dictator, such as a Monarch.

    • Gordon S Watson

      I was one of those who informed the Campaign for REAL MILK that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth { of Canada, mind you } drinks raw milk produced by her own herd. If necessary, I can introduce you to the man who told me so, who’s friends with the farmer at Windsor Castle. The story is : when her grandsons were at boarding school, she had the raw milk sent to them.
      as for “the principles of our form of government” … educate thyself = go read the Coronation Oath which that Gracious Lady took, the day she was crowned. The franchise for governing the Dominion of Canada continues directly from Samuel annointing Saul king over ancient Israel.

      Regardless of your opinion on the institution of the British Monarchy, the old gal does know a thing or 2 about agriculture, and good food. God Bless Her… and long may she reign over us.

  • JHeckman

    Follow up to previous blog post commentary:
    Any administration could have used existing law to regulate GMO but they choose not.
    See Steven Druker in his book Alter Genes Twisted Truth. Also see website:

  • Ken,

    The shovel is the Farmer part of my Farmers over Pharmacies shtick . The shovel is my farm-pasture grounding symbol.

    As far as your vaccination observations…..totally agree. Trying not to slam the narrow training of modern doctors as we try and expand their toolboxes with compelling stories as shared by real people. So few have reviewed the research at NIH and understand the relevance of genome.

    Three weeks ago I was very impressed to meet a young pediatric ER doc that prided himself on prescribing fewer antibiotics than other doctors. He was well trained and knew about MSRA and abuse of antibiotics in the face of mostly viral infections and dis biotic guts in kids.

    Maybe there is some hope.

  • William March

    Michael Schhmidt is not in jail because he sold raw milk .He is in jail because he obstructed justice .Schmidt and his followers tried to prevent investigators from leaving his farm .Actions like that can cause dangerous situations and harm could have come to either side .He is in jail on weekends so he got a brake from the judge who was apparently not too happy with Schmidt .I think the pictures of him with comments on his privates and ass make him look like a clown ,which he is .I don’t blame any farmer from selling raw milk it’s good business, more than twice the price a dairy would pay for the same product ,I guess it’s not only the medical people and big business that are interested in big profits $$$$.As for the FDA approving raw milk sales accross state lines this will never happen .Politicians like their jobs and they will not approve of raw milk ,if one child got sick or worse the people would turn on the agency that gave the ok .The benefit of raw milk if any is not worth the risk to a young child or any other person .There is now a case in the NY NJ area of person getting BRUCELLOSIS RB51 from drinking raw milk from an unlicensed traveling dairy operation and the agencies are trying to locate the supplier of the milk .RB51 is rare in the USA ,Canada ,and Europe ,but is common in parts of the world .MILK is a good food enjoy it raw or otherwise ,if you want miracles from food,Real food or so called processed food ,I would suggest you try LOURDES instead .THANK YOU

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      By this point, I think Michael rightfully views himself as a political prisoner–someone imprisoned for challenging some aspect of the existing system. For political prisoners, an important challenge is to make sure the public is aware of the political abuses going on. Michael has become extremely creative at getting his message out. The authorities usually come to regret treating sincere and committed people like Michael as criminals.

      Your suggestion that Michael is profiting from the sale of raw milk is laughable. His 23-year battle with Canadian authorities has been terribly costly to him personally, including the loss of much of the farmland he started with in order to battle the government. And your reference to illnesses has no application to Michael–no one has ever gotten sick from his milk.

    • D. Smith D. Smith

      @ William March: Politicians also like their money from BigPHRMA and that doesn’t seem to be an issue with you, but raw milk is a problem? How many deaths from raw milk in the USA? How many deaths from the whole slew of conglomerative effects of Rx drugs, William? Get me stats. I want real stats not the ones you hear from the gubmint.

      And what does this mean? (A quote from your previous comment): “if you want miracles from food,Real food or so called processed food ,” . . . there is no comparison between real food and processed food, so I have no idea what you mean by that ridiculous statement. Please clarify. Foods can most certainly be healing.

  • Pete

    Another motivating factor here is that the US doesn’t have a quota system. There would be a whole lot more persecutions going on in the US if you were required to buy rights to produce milk and there were none for sale.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Interesting speculation. I suspect there wouldn’t be more prosecutions, simply because a single non-guilty verdict from a jury has a huge chilling effect on prosecutors. Since the acquittals of Alvin Schlangen in Minnesota in 2012 and of Vernon Hershberger in Wisconsin in 2013, there haven’t been any other criminal prosecutions of raw dairy farmers, either in those states or elsewhere around the country. Now, that doesn’t mean the authorities don’t find other ways to harass, but the absence of criminal prosecutions has made life a lot easier legally for most raw dairy producers in the U.S.

  • John Dutcher

    Unless the FDA is just regrouping for another round of harrassment with a new twist, never trust them.

  • John Dutcher

    Trust them with my raw milk, that is :>)

  • Anyone

    The failure of the masses, in general, when assessing outcomes of court proceedings is usually a failure to appreciate the matter at hand (independent of politics), and the governing principles. Most people end up seeing judicial outcomes through their biased perspective, and/or apply social political leanings. And so the internet is full of headlines like “Black Eye for Canada’s Justice System?”
    Most people see Michael’s incarceration as a reflection of Canadian law on raw milk. And for those that see public policy on raw milk as being “ridiculous”, they will paint it that way. However, that is fundamentally dishonest.
    There is generally no incarceration for speeding. But if in the process of getting pulled over by the police, a person is to obstruct an officer in doing his job, then one can/will be prosecuted for that, and go to jail. Would we then say that the person went to jail because he was speeding? No, we would recognize that the person went to jail because he/she obstructed the officer.
    The failure to appreciate the matter at hand, and to spin the matter in such a way as to favor a political position, ends up undermining the people’s confidence in the judiciary. As such, I find it irresponsible of the likes of Michael do so, and for others to carry it on as though the end justifies the means…
    But then, in the land of the free (and free speech), we are all welcome to say what we want, even if it is irresponsible and misleading.

  • Vera

    To read an analysis of the case, written by a professor of constitutional law, see

  • Jamie MacMaster

    The really sad thing is this: with very, very few exceptions, the vast majority of politicians in Canada, Liberal or Conservative, are quite content with Schmidt’s incarceration and the prohibition against adults buying raw milk products.

    And the great gullible, unthinking Canadian public is no different. Virtually no one sees this – or for that matter, any of the other many government restrictions against freedom of speech or property rights – as a matter of concern.

  • Karen Selick

    Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms only guarantees the right to a jury trial “where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.” It’s hard to say how that would be interpreted if a person were sentenced to 4 years, 364 days in jail plus a fine of $1,000. However, that’s not important here.

    What is most relevant to David’s argument is that under Ontario law, the sale of raw milk is an offence that is NOT punishable by imprisonment. It is punishable only by a fine. Michael is going to jail for the offence of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty, which is a completely separate Criminal Code (federal) offence that is not directly connected with the Ontario milk legislation. While I’m no authority on US law, I believe that in some states a conviction for selling raw milk might actually be punishable by imprisonment. Those are probably the states where people get jury trials. There might well be other states where it’s merely a regulatory offence, as in Ontario, and I’ll bet there’s no jury trials for those folks, either.

    Canada also has laws that prohibit police officers (and others) from destroying evidence. I’m sure that US officers don’t always obey the law, just as Canadian officers sometimes don’t.

    On the whole, I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk to suggest that US law is superior. If I had to choose between dealing with the IRS and Canada Revenue Agency, I’d take the CRA any day.

    • Anyone

      Thank you. Appreciated. Well said.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Karen, I’m not suggesting that “U.S. law is superior.” I am arguing that we have a few rights guaranteed by our Constitution that are extremely important in protecting against trumped-up charges, of the sort experienced by dairy farmers in both the U.S. and Canada….and currently experienced most profoundly by Michael Schmidt. Key among those rights are a trial by jury (guaranteed in all criminal cases), and protection against double jeopardy.

      American prosecutors are just as clever as Canadian prosecutors. They don’t necessarily accuse farmers of “selling raw milk,” but rather of violating a variety of licensing and distribution laws (failure to have a retail license, for example), as well as obstruction (in Vernon Hershberger’s case, of violating a holding order). The key is when the Americans prosecutors seek criminal charges, which are almost always potentially punishable with imprisonment (of any amount of time), they then must confront the reality of facing a jury of ordinary citizens.

      I would like to see Americans, especially a number of those who regularly visit this blog, begin to take those rights more seriously than they do. Too many are prepared to trust in an authoritarian in the image of a Putin to somehow rid us of corruption, as if farmers will magically come out on top. In their naivete, these people don’t stop to consider that Putin would not only not bother with jury trials, but not bother with anything resembling due process.

      • Anyone

        I would suggest to you that it doesn’t matter if it be a democracy, or a dictatorship. The question is: Whoever is in power, do they respect your rights? The picture you (and many others) paint about the American legal state of affairs suggests that the American form of government does not necessarily respect your rights… A democracy does not mean respect for your rights or due process, despite the frequently repeated mantra that suggest that it is.

  • Michael

    ANYONE, Your comment is as misleading as you accuse me of being. If you have not the full picture you certainly can miss crucial evidence and facts which might correct or deflate your opinion.
    I will respond to some of the concerns and opinions on this blog in a written form. This applies as well to Vera. Usually I do not respond to anonymous commentators but for the sake of many open and honest commentators
    I will do my best. Thanks Michael

  • John Dutcher

    Hang in the Mr Schmidt.Hope you do not have too hard of a time of it.
    John Dutcher

  • Anyone

    Hi Michael,
    It seems evident by your past comments and conduct that you really do wish to be incarcerated for selling raw milk. Surely that would elevate the “ridiculousness” of the milk laws. That there is no provision for incarceration for selling raw milk is thus perhaps a bit of a hindrance. So being able to suggest an incarceration for obstruction of an officer to being “because of milk” is conducive to the martyr resume.
    I get it… When throwing legal mud against the wall doesn’t stick, political spin becomes a necessity.
    I don’t believe you need worry about a few anonymous commentators, because at the end of the day, people simply want their raw milk, regardless of honesty, morality or modus operandi. Such are completely secondary to the goal at hand.
    I get that you still feel the need to defend your integrity. But one only need look at the political landscape to see how prevalent spin is, and how irrelevant it is to their supporters (i.e. Trump comes to mind). Some free advice, in case you haven’t noticed: integrity is irrelevant in the political arena because to supporters of a cause, the goal is the only thing that matters. People are not governed by principles, but by self serving interests.
    I await your spin… er, I mean, your reply…

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    The legislation of the milk marketing system in Ontario and Canada resulted in the government/corporate-based takeover and manipulation of the dairy industry. As such, laws were put in place in order to protect that fascist scenario. As David pointed out above, “Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and sells you the milk”. Now, although farmers in Ontario may ”legally” own the cows, they have been formally stripped of the right to sell and yes, even give away raw milk to the consumer. Farmers have to sell their milk via the milk marketing board to the processors; a state sanctioned and legislated institution that handles all transactions between farmers a processor, along with applicable fees of course. The board also handles the distribution of quota that in essence belongs to the board not the farmer, despite the farmer having to pay up to 30,000 dollars per cow for it, and which can be taken away at a moments notice by the board without restitution if the farmer fails to fulfill his contract. The notion that they have control over the price they get for their milk is a stretch of the truth! Those farmers that are elected by their fellow producers to sit on the milk board are little more then pawns.

    Anyone such as Michael that finds himself at odds with the above laws and chooses to defy them will inevitably be compelled to violate court orders and driven to obstruct authorities as they attempt to seize private property, a.k.a. obstruction of so-called justice. Indeed, an ongoing age-old scenario that occurs when individuals and/or groups attempt to assert their human rights.

    Judges are not supposed to be mere legalistic puppets or figureheads and one would think that they would be compelled to use common sense and reason when it comes to enforcing a law as did Justice of the peace Paul Kowarsky in Ontario when he ruled in favor of Michael Schmidt and dismissed all 19 charges previous to this current ruling. Certainly, judges aught to have the wherewithal and discretion to suggest that politicians reexamine their laws when they find them to be outrageous, unreasonable, impractical, foolish, unjust and if applicable, unconstitutional?

    Charles de Montesquieu whose principal work, “The Spirit of Laws”, was a major contribution to political theory wisely stated, “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice”. And as Caroline Kennedy stated, “The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing”.

  • Leon Moyer

    “Perhaps a differently organized cow-share, designed to respond to the Court’s concerns ― identifying the specific cow a member owns, making the number of shares correspond to the number of cows, supplying the member with his or her own cow’s milk, etc., ― might still escape the application of the statute.” Copied from the link Vera posted above from the legal professor who commented on the Schmidt ruling. In other words, comply with the laws to a greater degree than simply pretending that the right to “share a cow” is of constitutional dimension by oral contract.

  • When speaking with our friends in BC Canada, it appears that rules are different in each province.

    Fundamentally the most important question is this: do we want to fight or do you want to win?!

    These are two completely different pathways. My humble opinion says, if every dairymen in Canada cn drink raw milk from his on cow, then there is a legal pathway to consumer access.

    Buy the cow or part of a cow and hire an Agister! With all the legal docs required to reflect complete rightful ownership of that cow.

    Fighting is a waste of time and life. We want wins!!

  • Gordon S Watson

    3 years ago, Mark McAffee visited THE most successful raw milk dairy in Canada. The Agister was certified with RAWMI, but did not advertise so as to stay “off the radar’. A year and a half ago, the group was served with a Cease and Desist Order by the local Health Authority, which is one of the alphabet agencies created to obfuscate / insulate the bureaucrats from accountability. Nevertheless, the Inspector was not un-sympathetic. The group of owners of the herd used the provincial regulatory process in the pertinent Statute, and submitted a “Request for Reconsideration”. Not a peep from the Authorities, since. So the situation is ; a standoff.

    We believe that as long as no-one gets sick, or some covetous busybody makes a complaint, nothing will happen. Every day that goes by without the govt. acting, adds to the weight of the argument for “bureaucratic indifference”

    the beauty of all that, is : the Request for Reconsideration – of an Order made under the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of BC – can be taken to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review. At which stage, both the propriety of the way the regulation was brought in, as well as, the rationale for creating it, can be scrutinized. I think that’s what really worries the Health officials = such a genuinely fair examination of the issues. The smaller issue, being : actual risk of harm to the public health. The larger issue, of course, being : that the communist dairy supply racket is utterly UN-constitutional. And that’s not just me sounding off … in the Legislature, as an MLA, Garde Gardom said the same thing, the day the communists introduced the quota system to British Columbia. Not all that much later, he was Lieutenant Governor.

    • John Dutcher

      I read through both of those links. I noticed there was a contradiction between the two articles in regards to RB51. In the food safety news article RB51 was portrayed as super serious and stated that raw milk was the only place you can get it.The Food Poison Journal states: RB51 is a weakened strain of Brucella abortus bacteria used to vaccinate young female cattle. Intensive vaccination campaigns have nearly eradicated B. abortus, which can cause abortions in cattle. The bovine vaccine reduces the risk of people contracting brucellosis from infected cows. However, in rare cases, vaccinated cows can shed RB51 in their milk. The only way to avoid this potential exposure to RB51 is to drink pasteurized milk. The heat of pasteurization kills RB51, other types of Brucella, and a variety of other disease-causing bacteria.

      Human brucellosis cases in the United States have fallen from about 3,000 per year in the 1950s to 100-150 –per year in recent years. Most cases of brucellosis in the U.S. are caused by strains other than B. abortus and occur in people who traveled to countries where Brucella is more common and drank contaminated milk or had contact with infected animals. Among cases who acquired brucellosis in the U.S., infections occur from contact with feral swine or, more rarely, dogs, or because of accidental exposures among lab workers testing samples from ill people.

      As you can see, even feral swine,dogs and even lab workers can transmit it. Maybe they should not vaccinate the cattle with the brucella vaccine. We have drank raw milk from unvaccinated cows and goats for the last 34 years. We do very few vaccinations anymore, none on our livestock and onlt the ones required by law. for our dogs. So, if these cows had not been vaccinated, most likely those two folks would Not have gotten brucellosis!!

  • David Gumpert David Gumpert

    Looks like Michael’s jailhouse weekends are over, for now. He’s been granted bail, pending appeal of his conviction on obstruction. Wonder if the authorities perhaps tired of this particular political prisoner for now.

  • John Dutcher

    Well that is at least somewhat good news!! Wish they would just drop all charges and move on to something important, jeesh!!

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>