Last week, germ lawyer Bill Marler took two actions that were intriguing for their timing. As I mentioned in my previous post, he issued a press release calling on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto SB 201, the legislation that will do away with the coliform standard that is a threat to the ongoing production of raw milk in California.

Second, he posted a video of Chris Martin in the hospital on life support during September 2006, after allegedly becoming ill from consuming raw milk from Organic Pastures Dairy Co.

When I read the news release last Friday, I dismissed it as an opportunistic marketing effort by Marler. Now that Ive viewed the YouTube video he posted, and re-read the press release, I think I was wrong.

This two-pronged attack on SB 201 is a vivid example of how ever-more politicized the raw milk issue has become. Except to go along with all the other weirdnesses of this casethe timing that overlaps a national outbreak of E.coli 0157:H7 illnesses from raw spinach, the inaccuracies in the writeup by the California Department of Health Services, the lack of a smoking gunthere is now another. Ill call it the video synch problem.

Before I get into the specifics, I should preface this story with my reluctance to even discuss it, since it is as pure a piece of propaganda as you are ever likely to see. It takes a single tragic case, provides inflammatory and inaccurate narration (suggesting, for instance, that all six sick kids were on life suppport), and presents it not only as fact, but as if its indicative of a major health problem. I was sent a version of the video, without the narration, about nine months ago, by the Martin family, and asked to keep it private. I did done that. Now, though, as the raw milk situation becomes ever more political, the Martin family has apparently decided to hell with their privacy, theyre going to work with Marler to do everything they can to bring down SB 201 and Organic Pastures.

Theres at least one major credibility problem with the video. If you watch the video carefully, youll notice that at the end, Chris seems to get sicker and sicker as hes attached to a ventilator. In fact, you can hear him breathing laboriously.

Also near the end, youll see two dates, seemingly from the video camera, in the lower right cornerSept. 23, 2006, and then Sept. 24, 2006. Theres only one problem with those dates: Chris Martin wasnt on life support those days.

The reason those dates stood out to me was because Mark McAfee has told me on several occasions that he visited Chris and another patient, Lauren Herzog, at Loma Linda Medical Center on Sept. 23. Heres how Mark recalled the situation when I spoke with him last April: “I arrived at the hospital expecting these kids to be there with the priest by the bed. Instead, I’m told, ‘I don’t think the kids want to talk to you because they’re on their cell phones.”

I decided I should call Bill Marler, the lawyer for the Martins and Herzogs, and try to find out what was going on here. He told me it was the Martins’ idea to post the tape on YouTube. “Absolutely out of the blue, the Martins contacted us, saying, ‘Perhaps we should put this up so the governor knows.’ “

Marler said he has a technical assistant who edited ithe tape for length and added the narration–it all took about an hour. So it was all just coincidental, “fortuitous,” as Marler puts it, that the video came in just as Marler was issuing his press release.

And what about the discrepancy on the dates? He went back to check in his office, and then called me back about an hour later: “The dates on the video are not consistent” with actual events, he said. “I don’t have an explanation. It looks like it is off. There were two periods of time when Chris was on the ventilator. If Mark was there on September 23 or 24, it’s possible he (Chris) was not on the ventilator.”

He added, “I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to spin. It is what it is. I believe the explanation is there is something wrong with the date on the camera.”

I’m not sure if this might affect the court case. But clearly there is a major credibility problem, or rather, another credibility problem among a seemingly endless number. If something as fundamental as the dating is wrongso obvious that a non-lawyer like me picked it upthen you wonder what else is wrong in this sad and sorry case. After all, we all know how easily digital photos and videos can be adjusted and edited to make points particular parties want to make.

I think the problem here for Marler and the Martins may be that the political tide is showing some signs of shifting with the likely implementation of SB 201. If it is adopted with essentially no opposition, as seems possible, it takes much of the fire out of the Marler/Martin arguments about the dangers of coliforms, and the need to keep Organic Pastures and Claravale Dairy continually on the edge of collapse. Then it might serve as a reasonable model for other states. And an indication of a shifting of mindsets.