I know Mark McAfee has a pretty full legal plate, but I wonder if he might have cause for a libel action against the San Jose Mercury News for its article about how Organic Pastures Dairy Co. has been forced to suspend sales of raw cream.
As I recall it from my journalism school days, it’s very difficult for any kind of “public figure” to sue anyone for libel. If you are a politician or own a business, you are generally considered a public figure, and the media can say pretty much anything they want to about you…unless the statements can be shown to be false, and also intended primarily to be defamatory.
It’s tough to meet both these criteria, which helps explain how dozens of publications make attractive livings reporting half-truths about Britney Spears and other celebrities.
But the Mercury News seems to come pretty close to meeting these criteria. Consider this statement in the article: “Organic Pastures in particular has been beset by potentially harmful bacteria in its raw milk in recent years.”
From everything I know, and as Mark reaffirms in his comment on my previous posting, that is a false statement. Unless there’s something both OPDC and the state are hiding from us, Organic Pastures has never “been beset by potentially harmful bacteria in its raw milk…”
The paper uses that statement to then make the connection to two incidents in which people became ill. The fact that there is a lawsuit in one of the incidents gives the paper some latitude in reporting on "charges," but in the other, involving campylobacter, the only connection is that “state public health officials investigated reports of a campylobacter bacterial outbreak that sickened five people who drank Organic Pastures raw milk.”
Can you imagine if a newspaper stated that “state public health officials investigated reports of a campylobacter bacterial outbreak that sickened five people who drank Tropicana Orange Juice”? That just wouldn’t happen. Or at least it wouldn’t happen until a definitive connection had been made between the illnesses and the product. Just as nothing was said in the Massachusetts pasteurized-milk-illness situation until the case was airtight after three men died and a pregnant woman had a miscarriage.
So if the statements are false and misleading, the question becomes, why did the paper make them? Very likely, the reporter was ignorant about the issue and was led astray by state officials, but ignorance isn’t necessarily an excuse for defamation.
Defamation often happens just like this—by making an inaccurate statement and then coming up with all kinds of “evidence” to support it. It’s happening to Barak Obama, with email campaigns suggesting that he must be a secret Muslim because he has a Muslim-sounding name. It gains credence when the radio talk show hosts use it as the basis of discussion, and a supposedly responsible politician like Hillary Clinton says it’s not true, “as far as I know.”
Just like this statement from the Mercury News article: " ‘The link appears suspicious, but it’s just not something we can prove,’ said state epidemiologist Dr. Gil Chavez." Yeah, we’d love to haul Mark in and string him up, but damn it, we’re never able to quite prove anything.
If it’s not something you can prove, why print it to begin with? Only one reason I can think of.
I don’t really expect Mark to seek legal action against the Mercury News, given all he has going on. But I think he’s definitely going in the right direction by forcefully taking on the charges, point by point, again and again and again. He’s trying to undo the lie that’s been repeated so often it’s taken as the truth.
Steve, Lisa, Gary, Pete, or anybody associated with FTCLDF with a law firm letterheadwould you please preserve the legal rights and interests of the McAfee family and the Organic Pastures Dairy Company?
Please refer to my prior comment of January 3, 2008 (link below) for steps that must be taken to preserve Mr. McAfees legal right to pursue punitive monetary damages for actual malice against the above-named parties at a future date (within the 1-year statute of limitations):
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/1/3/in-ca-ab-1735-conflict-you-cant-tell-the-players-or-the-play.html#comment1200301
Next, here is a sample letter incorporating all the legal elements necessary to preserve Mr. McAfees rights under California law:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/23
Each of my prior public and private warnings, i.e., (1) that the states highly destructive defamatory attacks against Organic Pastures would become worse and worse until legal action was taken against the ongoing trade libel, and (2) what Bill Marlers intentions toward Mr. McAfee were, was abruptly rejectedto the detriment of the vital bodily health of those of us who are already being adversely affected by the actions now being carried out against our supply of healing-grade grass-fed raw milk.
I believe the highly relevant Abraham Lincoln quote Mr. Cox was searching for was this:
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."
To that end, a letter signed by Mr. McAfee and sent via certified mail demanding retractions and printed corrections reflecting the truthful facts from the above-named parties will be the first step toward setting the wrongs to right.
The very future of our food supply is on the line.
These are Marks words posted a few days ago on this blog. The children that became sick in 2006 all had consumed spinach and their illnesses had an onset at the very peak of the spinach crisis. Not all of the kids drank raw milk. Some had drank raw colostrum that was not even from OPDC. Not all of the children shared the same pathogen.
Here are the true facts: 5 children had an identical blueprint of Ecoli 0157:H7 (not the same as the spinach). Mark McAfee plays the same game with facts that the media does.
In the middle of a spinach outbreak, wouldnt the first question asked by doctors be, Did you eat spinach? The common food all the children consumed were products from Organic Pastures.
http://www.co.kern.ca.us/health/pressr/MilkRecall922.pdf
It appears that the issues of those 5 kids has been rehashed many times here. Whether they ate spinach or not really isn’t the issue. The issue is; did OP’s milk cause the E-Coli or not? To date, I haven’t seen any proof that OP’s dairy did cause the illnesses. Where is the evidence that any of these purported illnesses were caused by Organic Pastures raw milk?
5 children became sick, what about other members of those families? I find it very strange that only one person from 5 different families became ill. I have not heard of other family members becoming ill at that time. Were the family members tested too? Don’t you find that strange? I do.
California Department of Health Services memo CA-EPI 06-06 (Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infections in Children Associated with Raw Milk) claims that the strain of E. coli O157:H7 in the patient samples from the outbreak at issue here was different from the strain of E. coli O157:H7 isolated from a spinach sample analyzed in September 2006.
This does not mean that every leaf of spinach and lettuce harvested in California at that time was free of pathogenic shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) contamination. For example, see Stacey Shepards report in the online edition of The Californian for February 22, 2008: 2006 E .coli outbreak linked to local farm.
So, to put your case to rest once and for all, instead of simply calling Mark McAfee a liar, would you please lay out for all of us your entire collection of evidence that definitively proves that Organic Pastures products were contaminated with the same strain of E.coli O157:H7 that was isolated from the patient samples? Thank you.
Let’s say you are right…all five children DID have OP products. Well…all five also breathed air, and all five probably rode in a car during the infection period, and all five probably wore clothes during that same period. Would you suggest that because of those commonalities air, auto transportation, or lack of a nudism lifestyle by their parents should be blamed for the E. Coli? Perhaps we should blame it on sleeping…I’m sure all the kids slept during that period.
The bottom line is that test after test after test was done on OP products, and there was NO evidence of the suspect patogen…or any other pathogen for that matter. Not in the products themselves and not even in the feces of the animals involved.
Y’alls arguments simply don’t hold water, and show vindictiveness, not a search for truth.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
What entity has not distorted the truth? Told out-right lies? Alluded to or implied falsehoods?
The government and media lost all credibility with me years ago. Individuals have also. I will listen and do my own research to obtain my own conclusions.
That does not mean that each entity is always distorting facts. Each one has volumes of information, it is up to each of us individuals to decipher the meaning according to our own beliefs/knowledge. I didn’t agree with HRT nor do I agree with the HPV vacc. Many people think they are the next best thing to sliced bread.
I still have not found any information on why only one person in each family became ill. In my home, we all eat the same foods usually, and if foods were contaminated, especially milk, odds are that more than one of us would become ill.
If the OP dairy was contaminated during that period, then why only 5 kids becoming ill? If,I don’t remember the number of raw dairy consumers in CA, If say 50000 drink raw dairy, they why only 5 become ill? It just doesn’t add up.
Elizabeth,
If you "couldn’t prosecute Taco Bell without sufficient evidence", then why are they suing OP without sufficient evidence? Or is this suit a waste of the courts time and peoples’ money?
I think the harassment of the raw dairies only brings forth free advertisment for them. I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it causes an increase in those shifting to less processed foods, thus increasing sales of raw dairy and organic produce.
But of course once the Health Department finds raw milk in the refrigerator, they simply stop looking for any other cause.
Where is the evidence of other foods tested?
Mark is already cleared regardless if all 5 children consumed spinach or not.
i started doing some math. 36 million people live in california. it is estimated that around 40 thousand people drink raw milk in California. thats about .001% of californias population.
did 5 children, who all drank op raw milk during the same time period also eat some other common food? Ive come to the conclusion that i think this would be impossible.
one of the moms on this blog suggested reading a book called the probiotic revolution. ive read it and decided that adding probiotics to my familys diet may be as beneficial as drinking raw milk. with this method, there is not a risk of pathogens.
besides, it looks like raw milk may soon be unavailable in california.
The fact that Mark is in a lawsuit right now does not tell me that he’s been CLEARED by any means.
Besides food freedom issues, I think one of the most dangerous things happening in this country is prosecutorial misconduct and over-prosecution of minor offences – and you can just add USDA and FDA harrasment of citizens to that list.
What if the state came in and took your kids or just accused you of mistreating them and you sued them because they damaged your reputation? How would you like it if your community just assumed "where there’s smoke there’s fire?"
That is a valid point but dont you think a bit extreme in comparison? One can over-analyze this to death. It still remains, people got sick, not matter how many and all evidence should be presented.
We all need continue our own and others education and fight for our rights to be able to CHOOSE what WE want to put into our bodies. Discussion, debate, action and activism. That’s how we will defend our rights.
Keep up the great work, David. Keep asking the questions everyone!
When I first started reading about this issue, I thought the parents were simply understandably upset parents. The more this drags out, in the face of Californias admitting they falsly accused OP of wrongdoing, the more I’m beginning to believe the parents simply are taking advantage of out litiguous society and are doing nothing but looking for a big check.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
HUS, Chris’s ultimate diagnosis, can be caused by things other than E. coli. 2% -7% of E. coli O157:H7 infections lead to HUS, particularly in children under 5 years of age and the elderly.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/ecoli/husbasics.html)
In many patients, though, there is no explanation for it.
http://moon.ouhsc.edu/jgeorge/TTPFAM.htm
E. Coli O157:H7 isn’t simply a food-borne pathogen — it lives in water, soil, septic systems, etc. It generally "blooms" in late summer and early fall, and, clearly, it was in full bloom in CA at that time.
Just sayin’
http://w3.ouhsc.edu/platelets/TTP/what%20causes%20ttp%20hus.html
The spinach was from a bin, not packaged. I would bet it wasnt tested, so no one knows if it was contaminated or not.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2007/4/2/memoir-of-a-raw-milk-illness-turned-medical-nightmare-part-2.html
Yes indeed, Kaiser strikes again. I would never have allowed my child to be returned to the first place that screwed up so badly.
I would have thought that whatever reporting laws there are, Kaiser should have notified the proper authorities and they in turn would have, or should have had the foods at the home tested, shame on the the chain of protection being broken in so many places..
Perhaps it is the substandard care recieved from kaiser and whomever is responsible for testing for pathogens during an outbreak that the finger should be pointed at.
Guilty until proven innocent!
People have been looking for the Loch Ness Monster for years saying that even though we haven’t found it, the monster can still exist!
Please let us know when you have found the Loch Ness Monster.
You make a good point. I have read in other forums that the children were from all different parts of the state yet shared the same blueprint.
Time to let go of a connection that has not been proven and does not exist.
"Blueprint" isn’t a relavent term.
Do we know for a FACT that ALL of the food in the refrigerators of the parents of the children, as well as the food of the households of friends, family, or restaurants that the children ate at, were tested for pathogens? (The girlfriend of the father of one of the children who was sickened has made comments on this blog, and stated that the girl ate at her house and ate at a restaurant during the time before the girl was sickened.)
I suspect that the state heard the words ‘raw milk’ and stopped all other testing, assuming that the link among the children was raw milk. If this happened, and I suspect that it did, the true travesty is that the INSPECTORS did not do their jobs properly.
Why wasn’t the children of the girlfriend sickened, or any other children/adults of the households affected?
Everyone keeps saying that the ONLY food the children had in common was the milk, but PROVE TO ME that the inspectors tested more than just the milk.
Besides, we live in a world were the food systems are highly consolodated. You can’t tell me that the person cutting up beef in the morning is not the same person using the same equipment on pork in the afternoon, which isn’t the same facility that processes spinach at the other end of the building.
We can keep pointing fingers at OP as being the most probable ‘suspect’, but unless someone can PROVE to me that the inspectors tested EVERY piece of food these children may have come into contact with, the arguments against OP mean NOTHING.
You are still ignoring the fact that the children all had the same matching genetic pattern of E-coli. It doesnt matter where else they ate. What matters is that they ate something exactly the same and its already been established that the only common item was OP milk. Again, this is called believing only what you want to believe.
To your point, why didnt anyone else at the restaurant get sick? Everyone responds differently to pathogens. As I recall, some of the children were new to raw milk. Aren’t they more at risk of getting sick.?
"…and its already been established that the only common item was OP milk."
Until you give me evidence that the inspectors tested more food items than just the OP milk, this is just speculation. Where did you get this information? Can you give me a listing of the food items tested from the various households/restaurants?
"…all had the same matching genetic pattern of E-coli."
I remember reading on this blog that the genetic pattern from Chris couldn’t be identified. Is this not true?
"As I recall, some of the children were new to raw milk. Aren’t they more at risk of getting sick.?"
Anyone who does not have sufficient gut flora established is at higher risk of getting food-borne illness. There had to be at least ONE adult who was relatively new to raw milk/had poor gut flora in this time period. Why didn’t they get sick?
All of your information is just speculation as well. Nothing has to be proven to YOU it has to be proven in a court of law. You have every right to read and choose to believe what you want. This is not a personal attack on YOU.
Where is the Proof that there were adults new to the milk? What exact PROOF do YOU have?
Im sure all of the evidence that YOU need for yourself will come out in the lawsuit. Keep reading, Im sure it will all be public someday.
Wow, you really are taking this personally. You must know someone involved in this…and I am assuming it is not one of the kids that got sick. You have a real will for it to be something else besides the milk. Its almost like you gave the kids the milk and feel personally responsible.
I would recommend sitting back, relaxing and just seeing where this case goes. Why not wait to see what evidence is presented and what the outcome will be.??
BUT it seems that no matter what evidence comes out, it wont satisfy your willingness for it to be something else.
I’d like you to see this from my point of view. I’m a raw milk farmer in Wisconsin. If someone who bought milk from me accused me of making them ill, but the state of Wisconsin, who, like the state of California, would like nothing more than to blame me for a major outbreak, could not find ONE shred of evidence to link me to the illness in my accuser, would go on blogs like this one, continually point the finger at me for wrongdoing I was cleared of (and yes, the state of California paid a settlement to OP, I think that constitutes being ‘cleared of’ any wrongdoing), and then try to SUE me, which would bankrupt me and put me out of business, then yes, I do take this personally, because this could be ME next time. And if the family involved in this lawsuit gets their way, there won’t BE a next time in the state of California – meaning, there won’t be an OP or Claravale producing raw milk.
And Stacey,
"Wow, you really are taking this personally. You must know someone involved in this…and I am assuming it is not one of the kids that got sick. You have a real will for it to be something else besides the milk. Its almost like you gave the kids the milk and feel personally responsible."
Those who have nothing valid to say resort to fingerpointing and personal attacks. Your comment above I held with the same regard.
It’s time for you to accept that there is no connection between the children’s illness and OP milk.
You can conjecture and guess all you want but no scientific test has made the connection. Therefore there is no connection.
"Yes, the state failed to test the food in the Martin home."
Exactly the point I was trying to make, and if correct – THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION!
It was the STATE that dropped the ball – big time – in this case. They heard the words Raw Milk and thought, hey, we have a slam dunk here! Gave themselves a few high fives and proceeded to give OP the once over. But…oops! They couldn’t find a link between the illnesses and OP, and by the time they figured this out, any and all other ‘evidence’ had long been eaten or thrown out.
Understand something here – accused murderers get more justice in this country than OP is getting on this blog. Accused murders go to trial with real, hard evidence against them; circumstantial evidence is completely dismissed.
Yet, here we are, trying to establish a link between the illnesses and OP with NO evidence, just circumstantial.
If the state never bothered to test any of the food in the Martin household, can I surmise that they didn’t test the food in any other household (or restaurant)?
The state had all of this (potential) evidence to work with, and they chose to ignore it, and instead to go with their bias (that raw milk was the cause). This is like racial profiling, but for food!
I don’t know where the e-coli came from, and I don’t pretend to know. Maybe it came from OP, maybe from somewhere else. But to make an assumption, based on the shoddy work of the state of California, to string up a man and his business when there’s no proof of wrongdoing, THAT’S the crime.
All of your information is just speculation as well. Nothing has to be proven to YOU it has to be proven in a court of law
This is exactly what the vast majority of people who follow this blog have been saying for the last eighteen months. How will the parents of the two children do this?
They have filed lawsuits against Organic Pastures, and the stores where they bought the milk, alleging that Organic Pastures sold products that were contaminated with pathogens that made their children ill. (I am assuming that they are not claiming that Organic Pastures sold pathogen-free product.)
Even allowing for the fact that the legal system in this country is, by and large, a sham, a scam and a fraud from Traffic Court all the way down to the Supreme Court, I think it is still necessary that accusers be able to prove their allegations. The parents must have proof that there were pathogenic contaminants in the Organic Pastures products otherwise they would not have filed suit. So, once again, what is their evidence?
All other discussions around this point are immaterial. Organic Pastures does not have to establish where the pathogens came from, why E. coli O157:H7 from 5 different children allegedly showed the same PFGE pattern, or who ate what. All they have to be able to do is refute the evidence which the plaintiffs claim proves a link between the childrens sickness and product contamination.
Does anyone know what their evidence is?
This is especially true when you have a haystack (raw milk) that can cover it’s own tracks and destroy pathogens before anyone gets a chance to test for them.
What do you mean? If raw milk destroys pathogens, then no one would have gotten sick in the first place. Although I guess this ties in with McAfees assertions that no pathogens have ever been found in all the thousands of product samples taken from his farm by the CDFA over the years.
It is also true when you have a needle (a pathogen) that can change itself (mutate) before you get a chance to find it.
What does it change (mutate) into? Why didnt the pathogen in the childrens stool samples change (mutate)? The state claims to have found the identical strain of E. coli O157:H7 intact in 5 different children. Or did the pathogens in the samples of the spinach analyzed by the California Department of Health Services change (mutate)?
Elizabeth McInerneys two quotes would require the following to be true:
1. It is possible for the government to isolate the source of spinach/lettuce contamination to a single field, at a single farm, in the State of California, which covers 155,959 square miles.
2. It is possible for the government to identify the exact strain of E.coli O157:H7 in the sick children.
3. But, meanwhile, it is not scientifically possible for the government to find one single pathogenic contaminant in Organic Pastures dairy products.
This doesnt make one ounce of logical scientific sense to me.
Whilst people on this blog can, and have, supposed all sorts of things, surely the standard of proof required to take this case to a court will be a little bit higher?
You make the logical mistake of stating that:
that some evidence, no matter how slim it might be, no matter how tainted it might be by state maneuvering, points to OP, and no evidence points anywhere else
There is NO evidence that points to OP. You cannot make that assumption and claim that there is evidence when there is none. That is wishful thinking.
"Did multiple ill children, with matching ecoli blueprints, consume OP products immediatly prior to becoming ill?"
Yes, BUT the authorities tested no other foods, at least in the Martin household? Then this information is just circumstantial.
"If you were a public health official, charged with finding the cause of these connected illnesses, and you found that they all consumed the same brand of ketchup, or ate at the same resturant, what would you call that information."
CIRCUMSTANTIAL – until real, hardcore proof linked the illnesse to the food product suspected, in this case, OP raw milk.
We need to stop putting the blame on OP, when there is not one shred linking OP to those illnesses! Put the blame where it belongs – on the public health authorities, who, by their own personal and professional biases, DID NOT TEST any other foods. A responsible public health authority would assume NOTHING, and test EVERYTHING, and let the evidence speak for itself.
Elizabeth, maybe it should be put to you this way…
What would you think if you owned a business, was accused of something, was cleared of any wrongdoing, then was accused, over and over again, of wrongdoing by the court of public opinion?
I get the gist that you don’t like Mark’s personal style. Is that enough to string him up and hang him with NO evidence? What if that were YOU?
Was any e. coli found in amy OP product or on the OP farm at any time?
Answer: No
Therefore there is no connection.
Any hypothetical you may pose (question 2) is irrelevant to the facts at hand.
Maybe we should look at this another way. Something a psychology professor taught me:
"Correlation is not causation."
These two instances – the illness and OP milk – APPEAR to be linked (correlation), but that does not necessarily mean that one caused the other (that OP milk caused the illnesses).
The correlation – that is the circumstantial evidence.
The causation? Has not yet been determined, and with the evidence provided, is not OP.
Another way of looking at is using the term "risk factor"
I have seen it written that raw milk is a risk factor for certain illnesses.
Risk factor is not the same as a cause and the two terms are exchanged erroneously all the time.
"I would call that a cost of doing business. Especially a cost of doing raw milk business, unfortunatly."
Well, I’ll tell you something. If you were one of my raw milk customers (and if you remember from one of my previous posts, I do own a raw milk dairy in WI), and I heard you saying, "Well, I know that there’s no real evidence linking Cheryl’s milk to those illnesses, but I think there may still be a link, she’s still the prime suspect, and I think that she should be honest and come out publicly and say that she’s still a suspect…"
Well, you wouldn’t be a customer of mine anymore. Just the cost of doing business, especially raw milk business, I guess.
This guy Marler likes to settle OUT of court. The parents in the Tennessee Cargill case dropped their case and settled. Their case seemed much more airtight than the one we are currently discussing. E. coli was found both in the meat consumed and in the children that got ill. In the current case, E. coli was found in only one of the two children and not in the food product – even after exhaustive testing.
OP’s warnings are on the milk jug. At least it was last time I checked and that was a long time ago.
Thanks very much for your insight into the state of the American justice system, though it makes me very discouraged,
On the jury side, it’s nice that Americans are so sympathetic to a sad story, but sympathy in combination with lack of regard for the real facts has lead many people seriously astray.
On the plaintiff side it means that a party that feels injured for any reason can cast about for a moneyed interest and morph those facts as best they can for monetary gain. It doesn’t change the past at all, and as you point out, can lead to a lot of fairly unnecessary stress.
On the defense side, fear of mainly monetary loss prevents the search for the real truth. I can’t see how a defendant or a society will keep either wealth or truth for very long unless they’re willing to fight for it
I would think that OP had the "warning" on the bottles in 2006. It may be required just like that statement the daries who do not use that hormone are required to stipulate. I can’t remember the exact wording. Montasano doesn’t want the public to think thier hormone is unhealthy. Just as the powers that be, don’t want to encourage raw dairy.