There are two news stories that relate directly to recent discussion topics here.
The first, reported by USA Today, is that flu viruses are quickly becoming resistant to the seeming miracle drug Tamiflu. That’s creating all kinds of concerns in the medical community, since governments around the world have been stockpiling this drug to counter a worldwide flu outbreak. The doctors’ solution? More vaccination.
The second story, reported by a Maine newspaper, is that milk processors are canceling out dairies in that part of the world that switched to producing organic milk. Many of these dairies made the switch because the processors were paying premiums for organic milk. Now, major processors are opting out of contracts because consumers supposedly aren’t willing to spend extra on organic milk. Another dose of reality for farmers who fall for the sales pitches agribusiness.
As for the flu medication problem, I can’t help but think of miguel’s arguments that we are fighting a losing battle in trying to wipe out pathogens. People become lulled into thinking Big Pharma will take care of their problems, and don’t do enough to take care of themselves. Nowhere in the USA Today article is there any suggestion of approaches people might take to strengthen their immune systems so as to reduce the chances of becoming ill with the flu.
And on the organic dairy problem, there’s no mention of the fact that farmers who sell raw milk seem to be doing well. The farmer I often buy from can’t always meet the demand. And Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., reports, “Last week, our OPDC sales were the highest ever…When wealth is gone…health matters even at a higher price point.”
The winter farmers market I go to in Vermont has been mobbed all winter. The Northeast Organic Farming Association similarly reports in a flyer just sent out, “Farmers markets have expanded into winter venues and CSAs are reporting strong early subscriptions.”
Maybe buyers of organic milk, much of which is ultra high pasteurized because it travels so far, don’t see any value in the stuff. And maybe agriculture departments could make themselves useful by encouraging local dairies to produce unpasteurized milk and thereby avoid the commodity trap.
Sometimes I feel like the little boy that cried out when others in the crowd were blinded by the kings brainwashing and said…."look mom the emporer has no clothes". We in the raw milk movement have been saying this for years….no one seems to care or hear us or believe us as Romes Immune system is burning down. The emporer is fricken naked people….wake up.
Vaccinations and Tamuflu do not work because they are not "real time" and lag behind by years the immune crisis when it does hit. Bugs change….Tamaflu does not. Active living local foods that contain immune boosting and real biologic immune elements dirived from the real threat work very well. The answer is from the cows teat not the drug companies patented pill or shot.
People that buy raw milk would by organic milk if it still had the god given organic stuff still left in it. But Organic milk is all but organic…. ( in Rodale terms organic meaning alive with biodiversity and still whole )…it is homogenized, UHT, UP, HTST, standardized, and bactofugated….it is very very dead…and yes it is pesticide free, antibiotic and hormone free as well. But is still causes lactose intolerance and does not do anything for the immune system. Organic milk as it is sold in the stores is a partial food.
Raw milk is whole and is near perfect connection between the external ecosystem and our internal ecosystems. When these two ecosystems are in balance….you do not get sick!
I am speaking at the Norh East Pasture Consortium annual meeting in Morgantown West Virginia in the morning and this subject is very much on everyones minds.
The worse things get the clearer things become. The truth is exposed and people no longer can afford the health destroying BS.
Mark
One of its salient points is that the vaccinations for flu have been an abject failure both during that outbreak and since. And yet the answer for future outbreaks is more of the same failed approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir
Tamiflu has many questionable ingredients. Of the ingredients it used to be (I say used to be as I think they are using synthetic stuff now, I’m not sure) the shikimic acid is from star anise.
"According to Roche, the major bottleneck in oseltamivir production is the availability of shikimic acid, which cannot be synthesised economically and is only effectively isolated from Chinese star anise, an ancient cooking spice."
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/507 Or maybe if the sun shines tomorrow, I can go pluck some parsley and eat.
Where is the information about immune systems and ways to promote optimal function?
I gave 17 flu vaccs last fall, 9 got the flu so far.
Does this mean that if I tossed one of my star anise into the teakettle, I’d have the equivelent of Tamiflu without the other added garbage? Maybe toss in some rosehips and black elderberries for good measure.
Mark,
I think people are listening; maybe not as much as many feel they should be. It is a start, and it will only grow. Patience, and just keep on talking of what you believe. Just think of what things would be like if those who opposed slavery kept quiet and did nothing. Granted, many died trying to make changes. It was abolished after a long battle.
I like that organic milk is free of hormones and pesticides, I don’t like that it tastes like plastic. I’m not paying $3 / half gallon to eat plastic. I think I’ll just drink home-made kombucha instead.
I don’t believe in the larger picture of protection behind the flu vaccine. However, this year is the first year as a healthcare worker that I agreed to the vaccine. What changed my mind was an article in "Nursing2007" magazine (the magazine, but not the article sponsored by drug companies of course), on the spread of influenza in hospitals to patients from healthcare workers. Studies done showed that significantly less patients became sick and died of the flu in hospitals with mandatory vaccination programs. I grudgingly had to admit that the underlying arguments in the article were true. I have seen sick coworkers come to work. I’ve seen patients (and coworkers) become ill as a result, increasing call-offs and detrimentally affecting patient health. I’ve counted the days when the sick coworker came in, to when the next person got sick, to privately calculate the incubation period, and counted to the next outbreak, accurately, on numerous occaisions. The hospital is often understaffed, and there is a choice between working short and providing shoddy care, and sick people coming in and risking passing on the flu to patients. Which is worse? People become more sick and die on both accounts, in my opinion, and I don’t think the statistics do justice to which situation might be worse. The article appealed strongly to my sense of personal responsibity though. So I thought I’d try it this year and see, and I got the flu shot for the very first time in my life. There are still MANY nurses who hold out.
That is against the backdrop that last year, the strain that became most prevalent and caused the most illness, was not included in last year’s vaccine at all. And the strains included DO become resistant, somewhat, by the end of the flu season. But then, the flu virus is always changing anyway, regardless of vaccines, isn’t it? And the more flu vaccines created that it comes resistant to, the more flu virus’ that are resistant exist.
So what do you do to change the system? We have a hospital full of patients who are ill; whose immune systems are ALREADY compromised. Educating the public isn’t going to save them as quickly as antibiotics and flu vaccines, in the immediate future.
The other side of the coin – a grisly fact that I find a lot of families are unwilling to comprehend – is that we are mortal. Usually by the time someone ill enough gets the flu, who is likely to die from it, they are somewhat close to that point to begin with. The medical community can only do a balancing act to a point. If it isn’t the flu, it is going to be heart failure, or kidney failure, or a blockage to a coronary, or something else. The question of when that very fuzzy line of trying everything should be crossed or NOT is a really huge fuzzy line. Is the flu vaccine somewhere on that line? Should it be done away with, and only probiotics and immune system builders be used, at the sacrifice of the not-quite-close-to-death-but-close-enough-to-matter elderly and young?
I didn’t get a single bad cold this year, so far. I think the scientific gamblers gambled a good guess this year, even if it is becoming resistant. I didn’t get a huge intestinal flu that went around a couple of times either, but then I don’t eat like my coworkers do. There are plenty of probiotics and substances like inulin in my diet. They all called it the "flu," and these are trained people. My hands could use more lotion, and I attribute handwashing at least in part to my health. I feel like refusing the flu vaccine as a healthcare worker is a sort of civil disobedience that I don’t want to necessarily be a part of, because I do see the consequences.
I don’t see our society deciding on an alternative to the flu vaccine in the near future. It would require an entirely different way of thinking. I have seen a huge change in attitudes in the 11 years I’ve been a nurse, however. Pediatricians have stopped prescribing antibiotics rountinely for ear infections. If that continues on its current course, in another 10-15 years there could be a major overhaul. There is a very long way to go however. There is going to be a problem in deciding how to deal with those near death, but not near enough to leave well enough alone, in particular.
Very interesting discussion. My wife is a hospital based RN and chooses not to get the flu shot. Yet…she has never gotten the flu. She has an immune system with DNA related to an Abrams Tank. When a nurse is well nourished and exposed to pathogens the odds are that the body will build immunity and not become ill. That has been our experience.
My suggestion is this….we must teach immune building and address it as a major campaign in America.
It must be taught as a whole life education from birth to death in schools. If people undertstood what the immune system is and how to build it strong it is my guess that most of our challenges in medicine would decrease by a shocking factor. We have seen this already in our Fresno Farmers Market targeted consumer assessments we have taken.
When my wife starts talking and showing her fellow nurses how to build immunity it goes in one ear and out the other. Few of the nurses she works with get it….most think that fortified diet coke is something close to organic whole food and prefer a gastric bypass to nutritional changes or excerise. There are a few exceptions in her hospital nursing friends but the norm is nutritional ignorance and take those pills.
So the challenge is education of our medical providers.
This shows us just how far we need to go…..medical providers are supposed to be the trained experts and they are clueless.
Education about preventative nutrition must get on the agenda and media and the radar screens of health education at Universities…..it will not because of who funds universities. I spoke at Stanford Medical school on just this subject. The medical students want to do surgery and do boob jobs and want insurance to pay for it all. I did not hear students wanting to specialize in prevention and nutritional intervention or complimentary medicine. When I asked this question….there was a deer in the headlights look on their faces. It was a miracle of circumstance that I was invited to addess 80 medical students and their professors. To change or augment the medical training agenda is a dream and not in reality…..yet anyway.
For me this evolution is evidence based and starts with the raw roots. When moms are happy with their healthy kids and tell other moms thats the core that will grow. Moms know what works when they see it. Moms are teaching pediatricians by showing docs what happens when their kids drink raw milk. I hear this bassackwards educational story all the time. In Fresno we have some doctors that are getting it now and the education is just starting to flow in the right direction sometimes. I hear this at the Farmers Market when moms show up with a prescription that says get raw milk into your child or give child colostrum or kefir smoothies, get it at Farmers Market. Doctors say this because it works….they have seen it in their own practices.
Mark
"Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. has just been caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. The "mistake" (if you can call it that, see below…) was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?"
"
Or, put another way, Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter — which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world — getting away with saying, essentially, "Oops?"
But there’s a bigger question in all this: How could this company have accidentally mixed LIVE avian flu viruses (both H5N1 and H3N2, the human form) in this vaccine material?
Was the viral contamination intentional?
The shocking answer is that this couldn’t have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) – a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.
As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosaf…):
"Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features."
http://qwstnevrythg.com/archives/6795
http://cryptogon.com/?p=2136
In contrast, I currently work with a top-rated medical team on a busy floor. Most of the nurses are skinny, normal weight or only mildly overweight, and nearly all diet and excercise. One resident got an eye opener on this unit, when he went online to expose an alternative medicine practitioner who graduated with him, who went into something besides the traditional route of residency. The nurses crowded around around his computer, "Wow, where’s he at?" MANY doctors I’ve worked with PRESCRIBE yogurt and probiotics. And I work in a pocket in the U.S. where people still drink raw milk. The nurses want me to bring my homemade chevre to work, and I have to tell them I can’t. Even one of the ID (infectious disease) doctors admitted he had a family member who was a raw milk fan; but he is not. Ever hear the saying that "Nurses make the worst patients?"
The point I was making is that we are all going to die someday. Mark, when you are close to that point, but not quite there, and your immune system is THEN compromised – and granted you may be 102 years old – a nurse with a runny nose and cough may well be what kills you, no matter how many glasses of raw milk you’ve had. The argument I’m making is, at that point, are you going to give in to your mortality at that point, or to get around what should be for most a passing viral or bacterial infection, will you opt for a round of antibiotics, or the protection of a flu vaccine?
The hospital is full of these kinds of people. In this particular situation, it isn’t a matter of educating the public and changing the thinking. At 102, or even at 65 after a hip replacement, are you going to want a round of antibiotics to save your life one more time, provided that by then, they still work?
I’m entirely on board and agree with the ideas of changing the way people think. But there is a huge "in between" population that probiotics won’t make a difference on. Those are the already immune-compromised, for whatever reason. When you get old, it will eventually happen to you too. Some of them – one of the most persistant re-infection cases I ever saw – probably drink raw milk already.
In a way, I’m playing devil’s advocate, but it is also an unanswered question for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/business/06food.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
Some have said that the stimulus package contains provisions that force MDs to tow the lines set by Big Pharma making it very difficult or impossible to even try an alternative method of any type and also private medical records will be up for sale to researchers.
Perhaps, come what may our only answer is. "There is no turning back"
Gwen,
Excellent points – thought provoking. Perhaps that is why I am in favor of promoting a more balanced message rather than one size fits all. But, accepting the uncertainties makes things much more complicated for both sides, eh? Is there a road to a message in between "no one should ever drink raw milk" and "everyone will benefit from raw milk?" A major challenge is coming to an agreement (or somewhat agreeing) on how to address the risks and the benefits (and the food rights), especially given the vastly different cultures and values held by those on the extreme sides of the debate.
We don’t get the flu vaccine, being healthy, we feel it would probably do more harm (risks, side effects) than good.
I plan to start a natural cures blog carnival on my blog soon, so I invite folks now to think about natural remedies to submit!
Kimberly
Hartkeisonline.com
a realfoodmedia.com blogger
I am having trouble seeing the middle ground between" adding things that kill bacteria to food is good because bacteria are bad " and" adding things that kill bacteria destroys our natural immune system". In his video,Food as Medicine,Jerry Brunetti gets it right.He says "Food is not neutral.It is either making you stronger or it is killing you".
I fear that most of our fellow Americans no longer know the true meaning of liberty, freedom and truth any more.
The seeds of lies and deception are sown in the soil of ignorance via our schools, the MSM and all the false fearmongering which has produced the nonsensical evil system of madness we are all forced to labor under.
Lies and deception are complicated and convoluted not so the truth, for the truth is simple and easy to understand once the smoke and mirrors are taken away. IMHO
The opposite is true. Since there will never be perfect certainty about anything on this earth, accepting uncertainty makes things very uncomplicated! It brings peace and contentment, and, not incidentally, satisfaction with all things natural. Ironically, accepting the natural not only makes us happier, but stronger and safer. (That ought to be obvious now that the evidences of our failure to improve the natural world have mounted so high.)
Our current regulate-every-detail mindset is based on the Utopian ideal that we can, of our own efforts, perfect the worldthat we can protect ourselves from illness, from poverty, from even the weather, by fighting AGAINST nature. We strive with manic obsession toward our invented world, then spit angrily and vengefully when our efforts fall short. Inevitably then we turn our anger outward (employing images of our failurethink pictures of a hospitalized Lauren Herzog) to blame not ourselves, but, crazily, whatever stands in the way of our continuing down the same failed, hurtful path. That’s how raw milk and our soils and even human rights have become actual victims, while the real devilsour own fear and pridehave grown in power and confidence.
Bringing our food production paradigm in line with the natural worldworking with, not against, naturewill not make us perfect, but it will get us closer to perfection than any USDA, poster-child-inspired regulatory plan to kill off each newly identified natural danger ever could.
I viewed the symbolism of picture of Lauren Herzog completely different from you. Lauren Herzog is the poster child for what can happen when you ingest E.coli 0157:H7. Our world is sick on every level. It is nave to think that raw milk can escape the negative influences of our sick world; that somehow feeding and treating a cow in a certain manner provides a protective bubble from the rest of the worlds sins.
Like it or not, E.coli 0157:H7 is a bacterium that is found the intestines of healthy, grass-fed cows. I think is irresponsible of the raw milk movement to profess that raw milk is safe to drink if the cows have been managed in a particular way. This is not reality. Its only hopeful thinking. Healthy grass-fed cows harbor and shed E.coli 0157:H7. This is a statement of fact and there were 3 E.coli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreaks in 2008 that prove this statement of fact.
I think this is the point Lykke is trying to make. We go around in circles on this topic. If people want to consume raw milkmore power to you. But present the facts correctly to others who are being encouraged to try raw milk and feed it to their children. The pro side of raw milk is overrepresented by the movement and the con side in underrepresented.
I wonder if Sally Fallon and Ted Beals have the courage to talk with families whose children have become seriously ill after consuming raw milknow this would be progress. Maybe this type of experience would influence them to modify the raw milk rhetoric.
cp
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but not much; in the discussion about "oversimplification" lies much of the arcane lore of the legal system (not to mention the lost time and the heartache, even for plaintiffs, as they put their lives on hold and become subject to being judged, even as they attempt to judge others). For example, you would be more likely to have liability if you knew your scare victim had heart trouble; perhaps less liability without the knowledge of heart trouble, but nevertheless still liable to some extent if the victim was obviously old and feeble; less still if the victim was an obviously healthy 30-year old; etc.
With raw milk, the attempt is made to hold it up to the bright light of perfection. Nothing is perfect. In fact, the attempt by raw milk advocates to argue that raw milk is perfect, no matter what, in fact holds it to a standard that nothing in the world can meet. On the other hand, demonizing raw milk as inherently dangerous with no redeeming virtues, while by implication comparing it to foods coming out of factories like those of PCA, with the inspection systems linked in my earlier post, is laughable.
Actually, it’s worse than laughable, because when it comes to litigation, the attempt is made to compare alleged deficiencies of raw milk due to its lack of a kill step, to other foods which come out of rigorously sanitized factories which nevertheless cannot hope to deliver food that is safe, never mind nutritious.
There is some risk in this world in everything. If in a free society I choose to balance particular risks with benefits which I perceive to more than offset the risks, I should be able to do that. I agree with Lykke that extreme rhetoric on both sides should be calmed down; principally, this will help with the legal scene, since (returning to my example of yelling "boo"), if the compromised person enters the haunted house, they’ve assumed the risk of having someone yell "boo" behind their back.
The last example assumes, obviously, that the compromised person knows they have a heart condition and nevertheless assumes the risk of entering the haunted house. If someone entering the haunted house doesn’t know they have heart disease, and they die from fright, it would be an unlikely legal result for the haunted house to be liable for their death. After all, it’s obvious that their business is to be a haunted house. No secrets. It’s not the job of a haunted house to cure the nation’s epidemic of heart disease, nor to protect the occasional customer who enters with a fatal weakness. There’s a balancing which goes on; haunted houses (and individuals walking around who are mischievous and like to scare others all the time) are not inherently dangerous. They don’t kill scores of people with acts of extreme violence, and they offer fun and pleasure far more often than not.
Similarly, it should not be the burden of raw milk to cure the nation’s epidemic of heart disease (altho, its potential to do so is considerably north of the potential inherent in haunted houses or fun-loving individuals), nor to protect the occasional consumer who comes to it with a potentially fatal weakness in their immune system. The key is that the consumer should know raw milk, if contaminated, can have a risk. Although we on this blog seem to understand that this risk exists with all foods, and with raw milk only if the milk is improperly produced and handled, and this risk itself will be further mitigated if the milk is obtained from trustworthy local sources, nevertheless given the gross ignorance in the society generally concerning issues of gut and overall health, it exposes raw milk producers to unnecessary legal risk (and the gut-compromised consumer whom the unlucky bolt of lightning may strike) NOT to warn. Is this warning unfairly targeted at raw milk? I think so, given the PCA’s and Hallmarks of the food-processing world. But why not warn?
FDA’s policy-level statements about the universal, inherent danger of raw milk are clearly wrong. They reflect a large system’s attempt to deal with the complexity of the real world by fiat, to reduce complicated real world matters to simple yes/no formulae. They in effect say that all haunted houses should be banned, and thereby frustrate (never mind insult) an evolving move towards healthy local foods, something which the country desperately needs for any number of reasons. The effort is surely mounted in part out of the bureaucratic reality that there is no way FDA or any other agency can regulate and control local food systems. They should just relax, get off the playing field, and let people make their (informed) decisions about what to eat. At the risk of being seen as tiresome and self-promoting, I again suggest analyzing the issue in the light of my 11GT, most recently summarized in my comments on January 31: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2009/1/31/second-thoughts-on-private-lab-tests-and-the-meaning-of-sear.html?currentPage=2#comments.
Why is it that you seem to be ready to accept that proper fermentation of raw milk can make it safe to drink,but you continue to focus on the mere presence of one type of bacteria as the cause of illness?If a sample of raw milk ferments normally into safe clabbered milk,Why would it be unsafe to drink the same milk as fresh milk?Whatever makes it unsafe to drink cannot possibly have anything to do with the milk itself,because without some interference it would ferment in the same way as it was being digested.What could have caused the milk to ferment differently as it was being digested?Isn’t this a part of the problem?
"But present the facts correctly to others who are being encouraged to try raw milk and feed it to their children."
We should tell anyone who wants to try raw milk that it contains live lactic acid bacteria and the nutrients that will encourage that bacteria to proliferate rapidly(we test for this regularily).It also most likely contains bacteria that will cause illness if they are not held in check by these lactic acid bacteria.These bacteria which are referred to as "pathogens" cannot cause illness without the help of an agent that kills, or inhibits the growth of the ,lactic acid bacteria.If you want to safely benefit from the inclusion of this food in your diet ,please avoid taking antibiotics,drinking chlorinated water , eating food that contains chemicals that kill or inhibit lactic acid bacteria(chemical fertilizers,pesticides fungicides,preservatives,using or handling antibacterial agents,etc. The list goes on,do some research,make the decision you are comfortable with.
CP
And the regulators, fda/usda/dairy boards/etc are completely against raw milk. The con side is over represented and the pro side is under represented.
Why is that OK? There is really very little attempt to understand from the regulators etc.
John Sheehan is such a coward that he won’t show up for any meaningful discussion unless he sends a swat team in first to wipe out the enemy. At least the pro raw milk show up to open a dialogue. How about it John? Do you have the testicles to make some changes and understand what is going on? I think not.
Why aren’t you moaning about all the food poisoning from pateurized milk and deli meats?
How about peanuts?
And how many of the cases that you claim were ill from raw milk actually got the illness from raw milk?
You keep bringing up the same very few unfortunate cases that may have nothing to do with anything.
I was curious about your comment:
"I wonder if Sally Fallon and Ted Beals have the courage to talk with families whose children have become seriously ill after consuming raw milknow this would be progress."
The frustration expressed by David and others here regarding the regulators refusal to engage in open dialogue with raw milk farmers/consumers is justifiied IMHO. However, it would be equally bad if the leaders in the raw milk movement refused to talk to consumers who had problems with the product as they should have a voice in the discussion too.
It turns out that a lot of the 1918 flu deaths were unnecessarily caused by the treatments employed by conventional medicine. The homeopathic doctors on the other hand were quite successful at treating it.
Lykke,
I would be very comfortable with *Almost everyone will benefit from raw milk sooner or later*.
My thought is that they would benefit sooner in situations where they *know their milk farmer* but perhaps later if their health were presently seriously compromised, or they were lactose intolerant.
In either of these latter situations, I would think theyd like to increase their beneficial gut flora first Then later could become sooner.
Despite fear of alienating myself from everyone here – I will ask this…and you and others can disagree – I do not pretend to understand the whole issue. But, from a Regulator point of view, what if you could:
Get public health and ag off your back by addressing the kid issue:
1) Remove all testimonials about children from the web
2) Include children in the warnings on the labels/signs for raw milk
Children do not choose to drink raw milk or raw colostrum (unless chocolate is added, have to include a bit of sarcasm – really – does anyone drink raw colostrum unless it is mixed with chocolate?).
Adults can drink up. Total freedom – free market. And, those that choose to give it to their kids – like alcohol – go for it. But, like alcohol, do not ignore the risks. Educate, warn. The websites that suggest putting raw cow’s milk in infant bottles (vs. mom’s milk) might be seen as unacceptable by public health. And, promoting raw milk to parents of kids with difficult problems like ADD, autism…could seem like fraud (don’t shoot the messenger). Even if there were no pathogens in raw milk because the cows eat only grass hay – some in the government and science community might ask if the raw milk movement can make these claims with honor, and give hope to parents about their kids ails – or, is this snake oil?
Lykke, all children I know who have been raised on raw milk almost invariably refuse to drink (or else very reluctantly) commercial milk, because "Store milk tastes nasty." I know this because since I milk seasonally instead of year-round, the children are always very eager for fresh milk to start flowing again…. no chocolate milk needs to be added to "make" them drink raw milk. These children instinctively know that store milk is not healthy stuff.
As for colostrum (called "beestings" in olden days), it’s actually somewhat tasty: a thick malted-milk kind of taste, with nearly equal amounts of carbohydrate, fat and protein, and lots of vitamins, minerals and antibodies, all extremely crucial for weak or non-existent immune systems of most, if not all, species, including birds… I give it to day-old mail-order chicks and never have any die the way others do. Maybe if you understood more about colostrum, you wouldn’t despise it so much: http://www.colostrumcenter.org/
http://www.colostrumresearch.org/Research/research_studyPapers.html
I don’t consume colostrum much anymore because I sell it to a fawn rehab that feeds it to bolster weak and near-dying orphans. But one can find old recipes around for colostrum pudding, undoubtedly developed to use up the immense quantities of colostrum that cows create. Here’s a colostrum recipe from Iceland (apparently, they sell colostrum in the Reykjavk flea market!): http://icecook.blogspot.com/2006/08/colostrum-pudding-broddur-brystir.html
As for raw colostrum’s health benefits, over three years ago a vet said my 13-yo dog would die from lymphoma within a few months, and offered to put him down then and there; I took him home instead. Shortly thereafter I regretted it when he refused to eat anything, until a week later in desperation I offered him a little colostrum from a newly-kidded goat. He sniffed it once, then began lapping. From then on, colostrum was the only thing my cancer-ridden dog would consume, despite enticing foods like fresh liver. He would drink whatever colostrum I had available that day and consume only water until more was available.
After a month of 100% colostrum, an ugly weeping cancerous sore, growing to silver dollar size despite treatment over three years, began to close up and new fur grew towards the center as it shrank; and various tumors began to shrink as well, including a large one under his elbow that made walking painful for him.
Two months later, even before the colostrum ran out, he began eating again, raw meaty bones and goat milk. He lived another two years, far more active and pain-free than his previous three years. He died peacefully last spring.
I know this is just my experience, with only one dog, and because of this maybe I can’t convince anyone else…but NO one will ever convince ME that ruminant colostrum has no benefits for other species.
Interesting story – I can appreciate that raw milk/colostrum tastes better and makes better cheeses, but then I weigh this with the risk of pathogen contamination. As far as having an animal with end-stage disease that won’t eat – you feed them whatever works – I had not heard of colostrum for this purpose, but it makes sense.
First, if colostrum is so dangerously pathogenic, why don’t all my kids/calves die after drinking it, or my day-old mail order chicks, guinea keets and turkey poults (especially keets and poults which are notorious for dying due to all the handling and shipping stresses)? Their brand-new immune systems have nothing at all in the "memory banks" so to speak, so dangerous pathogens would surely infect and kill, or at least make them dangerously ill, especially mail-order poultry babies which in no way evolved to consume colostrum at hatching.
But these calves, kids and chicks don’t die, or even sicken. On the contrary, without colostrum the kids and calves sicken and die very quickly, as do all mammal babies. And with colostrum and raw milk, all my day-old chicks thrive, with no mortalities, when before I always lost 1-3 from every shipment, a big problem especially with turkeys.
Secondly, WHY did my dog choose to consume only fresh colostrum–colostrum possibly infected with dangerous pathogens that would surely attack his weakened immune system (!!)? Why would he prefer to fast, even for several days, if no colostrum was available?
Why wouldn’t he eat fresh organic liver, which presumably would be health-restorative to a carnivorous animal? Why colostrum, which, strictly speaking, as a dog he was NOT evolutionarily-adapted to drink, especially after weaning??
My dog ONLY consumed colostrum for over a month, improving in health during that time, and continued improving even when the colostrum ran out. Why did he choose ONLY colostrum for nearly six weeks?
Could it be… maybe…. colostrum really is health-restorative?
Animals have much better life-preserving instincts than humans do.
"1) Remove all testimonials about children from the web."
Are you suggesting that the web should be censored,so that only people with the approved credentials can state their opinion on the web?Are you really in favor of State-Industry control of information on the web?
Would this get public health and ag off our backs or give them total control over the information available to those who are searching for alternatives to the poisons that the Industry is offering for treatment of disease? I am shocked by your proposal.
You are right, this disagreement is about children.We want our children to be healthy.We need information from all sources to make good decisions.Why is the information about raw milk so threatening to those in power?Why do so many parents distrust the medical,pharmaceutical and food processing industries?Who do these children belong to?
On that post I was speaking more on behalf of what I hear from the anti-raw milk side (not necessarily personal opinion). It is hard to say though – if those things were done (labels, reduced marketing to kids) – would raw milk laws be changed? Maybe not, since it is a "sacred cow."
On the colostrum in chicks, etc. It could be there were no pathogens (or rather, no organisms pathogenic to the particular animals you were feeding) in the colostrum. The only time colostrum has been linked to human illness in recent years was when there was a question about outsourcing, and the product was being pooled from many cows – larger scale production possibly means more chance for introduction of a pathogen if something goes wrong with sanitation, cooling, and/or storage.
I too feed my chicks colostrums, raw milk or clabbered milk depending on whats available along with some oat chop and a bit of duck starter. I use duck starter rather then chick starter because its the only feed I can get that is un-medicated. I have not ever lost a chick and they grow very well.
During the winter months although confined to a coop the hens continue to have 24 hour access to the outdoors. Any attempt to feed them water at this time is futile since they prefer to eat snow. By feeding the laying hens clabbered milk rather then fresh milk I can easily maintain egg production despite the cold weather and short day lengths. I choose clabbered milk over raw milk because the latter has a tendency to give the eggs a rubbery texture when cooked.
Ken Conrad
Maybe it is more true to say that the statutes making unpasteurized milk illegal and therefore unavailable to many are more of a "cash cow" than a "sacred cow".Making something illegal and then extracting payment from those who violate these corporate rules is a great way to make money especially if the thing that is illegal is valuable to many people.