To Mary McGonigle-Martin, I am gratified that this blog has enabled you to re-live your experience with Chris in such a powerful, and I suspect, healthy way. (See her comment following my previous posting.) Post-traumatic stress syndrom is most commonly associated with soldiers in battle–once known as "battle fatigue"–but it can arise out of all kinds of battles. You battled a tough system, along with your own regrets and fears. I watched the toll this syndrome took in my family as a result of my aunt’s experiences during the Holocaust, and one thing that became clear to me is that the longer a victim waits, the worse the syndrome becomes for both the victim and family members.
I’m also glad you were able to make the spiritual connections you’ve made. Sometimes in a time of crisis, the spiritual side of life becomes clearer, or more likely, we become more attuned to it.
Finally, I’ll express my gratitude once again that you were made to feel comfortable enough in this community to share your experiences. That happened mainly because many individuals who responded to your story responded in sensitive and giving ways.
* * *
There has been some additional discussion on another site about the potential dangers of raw milk as compared with pasteurized milk that relates to the recent discussions here. Maryland’s legislature is in the process of considering legislation that would reduce restrictions on the sale of raw milk, so there’s been some discussion in the media about the pros and cons of such a change. Baltimore’s alternative paper, CityPaper, did a lengthy feature about the experiences of the writer, a pregnant woman, discovering the benefits of raw milk.
It’s interesting to read simply from the viewpoint of following her discoveries about the benefits of raw milk, and the shortcomings of pasteurized milk.
Pertinent to discussions here, she also observes, based on information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) “In fact, there is evidence to suggest that pasteurized milk may even be more likely to cause illness than the raw stuff.”
The article led to responses from readers questioning her statement and related analysis. One pointed out that because so much more pasteurized than raw milk is consumed, the pasteurized milk presents a lower risk than raw milk. So the author went through a mathematical analysis, concluding that “pasteurized milk drinkers ran a .0032 percent chance of becoming ill (based on averaged U.S. population of 230 million from 1973 to 1992). Over those same years, when the numbers are controlled for the tiny fraction of the population that drinks unpasteurized milk, raw milk drinkers ran a slightly higher risk of illness, or .0086 percent.” She concludes that raw milk drinkers have “an infinitesimally higher risk of infection” than consumers of pasteurized milk.
Her analysis in turn lead a reader to point out that .0086 is two-and-a-half times more than .0032.
Now I’m not a mathematical expert, but I do know that numbers can be manipulated in all kinds of ways. All I can say is that both numbers are pretty low. As the author points out, and as I’ve pointed out in other posts, much lower than the overall risks associated with getting sick from food contamination in general.
I am intrigued as I read through all this by the distinction between “reported” and “confirmed” cases. I suspect that reported cases of problems with raw milk are higher than for pasteurized milk because of the inclination of public health officials to end their investigations when they hear “raw milk,” and think nothing of pasteurized milk.
Recent Comments