Pain and Politics: What Do You Do If Rabies Is Found in a Cow That Produced Your Raw Milk? Thank MarlerClark and FDA

The very word “rabies” arouses strong feelings in most of us. I can remember as a child being told that if I got bitten by a squirrel or stray dog, I’d have to endure a series of painful shots. Otherwise, I’d risk an agonizing death that would have me foaming at the mouth.

Now raw milk drinkers in Vermont are having their fear memories jogged by the same sort of warnings. “Raw Milk Dairy In Vermont Has Cow With Rabies That Threatens 21 With Painful Shots” warns one of the blogs of food poisoning law firm MarlerClark, and its head, Bill Marler.

And a big part of the reason Vermont raw milk drinkers have to worry so much? According to MarlerClark, “Vermont’s Legislature…just loosened up regulation of raw milk sales in the state, lifting the 50 quart per day cap on how much can be sold. Groups like the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, and Rural Vermont guided passage of theFresh Milk Restoration Act of 2009.” Damn those liberal foodies, pushing all this permissive legislation. It’ll be the end of us all, I swear.

But wait. If you read through the MarlerClark item to the last sentence you get this little tidbit: “The Centers for Disease Control has no record of rabies being transmitted by drinking raw milk, but health officials say they cannot rule out the possibility.”

Well, in the interests of objectivity, I guess you have to give the MarlerClark people a teeny bit of credit for at least slightly tempering their fear mongering. (Although, as MarlerClark suggests, You never know. You just never know. And you can never ever be too safe. While we’re at it, let’s wash our hands an extra five times today and say “Thank our lucky stars, and thank the benevolent folks at MarlerClark.”)

But this sort of fear mongering has been going on for a good while. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in its, shall we say, rabid, anti-raw milk presentation of 2007, describes a case in Oklahoma involving raw milk supposedly contaminated by a cow’s rabies, under the heading “Rabies Scare.” “10,000 consumers potentially exposed,” the slide tells us breathlessly.

Then in the next slide it tells us, hands practically wringing out raw milk, that 186 consumers took those terribly painful rabies shots, at a cost of $186,000. Terrible. Awful. Let’s take those raw milkies out back and shoot them. They’re endangering adults and little children alike, and bleeding our treasury. I mean, how can we tolerate such permissiveness?

But wait, once again. Further down in the slide we learn, “No cases of human rabies reported.”

No matter. We dodged a bullet. Whew. Aren’t we fortunate to have people like FDA Dairy Czar John Sheehan and personal injury lawyer Bill Marler looking after our welfare. We need more public-spirited people like them, to save us from painful rabies shots and…just the terrible fear of it all. It’s enough to give us, and especially our children, awful nightmares. Except for one detail. There isn’t a single documented case of anyone contracting rabies from raw milk, ever. If anyone can find one, let us know.

Now, I understand that rabies is a potentially serious public health concern and that officials in our gotcha-oriented society need to issue their warnings. And perhaps farmers could be encouraged to be more diligent in vaccinating their cows against rabies that can spread from skunks and racoons. But do us all a favor, and tell us upfront that the danger to people is much more acute from direct bites by bats and skunks and racoons, and that you’re doing this rabies-in-raw-milk warning as a pro-forma exercise in case individuals want to be super cautious and not be the first case ever in the annals of human history. And don’t blame your desire to warn us on political legislation you happen to oppose.

Leave a Reply

52 Comments on "Pain and Politics: What Do You Do If Rabies Is Found in a Cow That Produced Your Raw Milk? Thank MarlerClark and FDA"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Sylvia Gibson
May 19, 2009 2:34 am

Rabies is transmitted from saliva into a wound, mucous membrane… Will the fear mongering ever stop? We must be vigilent and keep an eye on the boogy-man!

The people undergoing the rabies prophylactic, did they have all these recommended tests done first? Or are the undergoing the injections on someones recommendations? Did they have symptoms? Were they dibilitated?

The actual risk of rabies virus in the milk is small and so far, the sampling has not shown its presence, he said. OSDH officials report that human cases due to non-bite exposures to rabies are very rare. Scratches, abrasions, open wounds, and mucous membranes contaminated with saliva or other potentially infectious material (such as brain tissue) from a rabid animal constitute non-bite exposures. Inhalation of aerosolized rabies virus is also a potential non-bite route of exposure, but other than laboratory workers, most people are unlikely to encounter aerosolized rabies virus. There are no published studies that have demonstrated the presence of rabies virus in cows milk. Although transmission of rabies virus from consuming unpasteurized milk from an infected animal is theoretically possible, no human has ever been reported to develop rabies via this route" <~~ according to this site, rabies has been contracted from raw milk….

May 19, 2009 8:23 am

Keep in mind that the health department has an obligation to investigate rabies and inform people who may have been exposed; the decision to receive prophylactic treatment is between the individual and their health care provider. Regardless, rabies treatment must be given before symptoms start – once the rabies virus has reached the point of causing clinical illness (as described in Sylvia’s first link), it is too late. At that point (symptoms + diagnosis if the patient is still alive), the immediate goal is to reduce exposure to health care workers treating the patient, and make a decision about discontinuation of life support.

So, it is an interesting question. If one of you drank raw milk from a rabid cow, would you opt for the treatment? This one isn’t black and white like a bite from a rabid dog or wild animal. The risk of infection via raw milk appears to be totally theoretical – I suppose the virus would have to enter a cut in the mouth or through the mucous membrane (not its usual M.O.). In the past though, most people in the US that drank raw milk from a rabid cow have chosen – of their own free will – to undergo the treatment, which is a series of 6 shots spread over 1 month on precise days to be effective. No one will ever know if they would have developed rabies had they decided to pass on the shots.

There is an effective rabies vaccine for cattle. It is a business decision to use it in a herd situation. If I had cattle out on pasture interacting with wildlife, I would spend the money for that particular vaccine. Thing is, cattle are very curious and it is not uncommon for a rabid skunk or raccoon to wander aimlessly in a pasture before death. The ever curious cow will go inspect the situation and get a bite to the face. I don’t know the statistics on cows getting struck by lightening, and that may be more common than being bitten by a rabid wild animal, but unlike lightening, there is a prevention option for rabies to protect the herd, as well as the consumers.

Sylvia Gibson
May 19, 2009 9:19 am

"In the past though, most people in the US that drank raw milk from a rabid cow have chosen – of their own free will – to undergo the treatment"

Since it is not mentioned the outcomes of those who opted out of "treatment" , I would guess they survived and are ok. Otherwise, I have no doubt tptb would be singing loudly about the horrors of raw milk and rabies.

May 19, 2009 10:12 am


Would you get the treatment if you drank raw milk from a rabid cow?

Mark McAfee
May 19, 2009 11:18 am

According to a FDA DVM ( Dr of Vet Med ) sent to inspect and test OPDC cows for TB in 2003…he told me that…"cows always protect their young".

He explained to me in laymans terms… "that cows with infections rarely if ever pass that infection on to their young, instead they pass the "antibodies to the infection" to their young through their raw milk". To protect their babies!! This is what breasts and udders do….thats what makes them so wonderous and life giving.

I am sickened by how little biology and science gets passed on to the political powers in charge.

Instead… fear and ignorance is all the FDA can muster. This is exactly why no one has ever contracted rabies from a cow. The same goes for TB. If the TB tubercule is not in the udder all that gets passed to the raw milk consumer is the antibodies to TB.

This is the miracle of raw milk and it sure as hell shows the extreme ignorance of the FDA and other agencies that can not see past the slivver of extremely slight risk and then being blinded… clearly overreach into the realm of stupidy and idiocy.

When headlines still lead with "Swine Flu" scares with just six deaths and hudreds and even sometimes thousands are dying every month from the regular flu….the media, the FDA and CDC all have their colective heads up their backsides. It is so bad that any objective observer must dismiss their opinions as irrelavant, politically motivated and a disservice to our society. Kind of like yelling fire in a crowded concern hall when there is none. It is criminal!!

Why is there not a concern for weak immunity….not one word spoken yet about that huge elepant in the room…not one word. Thats why raw milk sales are on fire in CA and elsewhere

If an OPDC cow had rabies…..there are people in LA that would beg for that raw milk to obtain immunity from Rabies.

Do the FDA and CDC agency reps get issued ignorance tablets and ear plugs when they go to work for the government or what??? I am embarrassed for them. They are clueless about immunity and mammalian biology.

Maybe it is the Russian Roulette they play with our health and our lives for the profit of public companies. That is enough to kill off any humanity god ever gave them.


hugh betcha
May 19, 2009 11:30 am


would you accept the settlement cash from the state if the police shot and killed your child because they thought s/he looked suspicous and/or dangerous and/or your child was mistaken for a wanted criminal, or whatever they wanted to tell you was the reason?

there is risk in life. we’re not reducing it, only shifting it from one source to another. long ago thousands died from bad water or bad milk or (insert bad thing of your choice)

today thousands die in "accidental police shootings" 10’s of thousands die in car accidents. in both these groups many of the victims are children.

just so you know i would not get the rabies vaccine if i drank milk from my rabid cow.

i’ll accept life’s risks as they’re presented to me and do my best to deal with them as they arrive. however i will not stop living (i.e. taking risks) to live a good and meaningful life. i have a high chance of being dismembered by my own farm equipment. i need to be ever careful and alert and aware of my situation.

have you ever seen farm equipment like a haybine in operation? i find it hard to believe in this day and age of zero risk tollerance that i’m even allowed to buy one let alone use/operate it.

life is not fair/just or safe. never has been never will be. the more you focus on eliminating risk the less real living you can do. the goal needs to be managing risk by being aware via experience and common sense, both are sorely lacking in america today.

the issue isn’t rabies, or bugs or dangerous farm equipment either, it’s liberty and freedom to choose. you can choose rabies "treatments" i can choose to run dangerous equipment. see?

Concerned Person
May 19, 2009 11:32 am

Mark, here are some links you probably need to read. It seems that people are being infected with TB from consuming raw dairy products.


May 19, 2009 12:10 pm

Hugh Betcha,

That was a semi-trick question about rabies treatment in a virtually impossible exposure situation. Curious to see what others would do if they are willing to answer. I very much respect your answer.

Mark – FYI – you are a bit confused about how antibodies work in milk for the calf, especially in the context of rabies or bovine tuberculosis. If I had time, would explain it (ever consider signing up for some immunology classes – there’s a new college in Merced)?

Hugh, also get your risk analysis. Indeed, if made In Charge tomorrow over all public health dollars, I would take at least half of those dollars, find the best and the brightest, and figure out how to make some dent in needless, ego-based road kill. I’m not talking about opossums or skunks.

Don Wittlinger
May 19, 2009 5:35 pm

Unlike you Lykke I will answer at least one of your questions NO NO and NO I would not get your rabbies shots! In fact the last shot or vaccine that was injected into my body was in 1960 thats 49 years ago HMMM I did survive but perhaps am a walking pathogen or a germ filled petri dish. Dont get to close to me!
I did survive the last 49 years being shot free but the damned SAD and the APPROVED industrial boiled dead milk from sick CAFO cows nearly took my life EARLY.
"Find the "best" and the "brightest"
The "best" and the "brightest" are "managing" our monetary system and you and I and all Americans are being LOOTED like no people in the history of the world and in plain site.
The "best and the "brightest" are the "scientist" that give us GMOs, cloned animals, soon factory grown meats, GE viruses, WMDs and on and on and on.
Maybe I am just confused about who the "best" and "brightest" are but IMHO they are the 8th grade "educated" farmers that provide me with my raw dairy and my free ranging grass fed meats. They do not intend to harm me in any way via the food they produce. But I am not so sure that I can say that about the so called "best" and the "brightest" you look to.
And my real name is Don Wittlinger and I am not hiding behind the curtain watch The Wizard of OZ an entertaining and enlightenig old movie.

Sylvia Gibson
May 19, 2009 8:03 pm


I have not been able to find any information of those who opted out of "treatment" . Why is that? What happened to those people? How can I make an informed choice if I am not given all the information? What are the odds?

Would I get the rabies series if I drank raw milk from a rabid cow? With what I know thus far-no I would not.

I knew one of those nurses in FL who got the smallpox vacc and died not too long ago. When the govt was pushing the fear mongering, I researched the best I could about the vacc. Too many things weren’t right about it. (I did have the vacc as a child). Hospitals were at first talking about making it mandatory. I would have walked away from the job. As much as I detest walmart, I’d have applied as a greeter.

May 19, 2009 9:20 pm

"If an OPDC cow had rabies…..there are people in LA that would beg for that raw milk to obtain immunity from Rabies."

You have GOT to be kidding me. Seeking out raw milk from a rabid cow? I can’t believe it. It sounds to me like there is not really enough info to say whether transmission can occur through the milk or not. Why risk it? It isn’t like rabies is a huge problem among the human population.

Trust me, Mark. If you ever have a cow with rabies, I want to know about it asap so I can STOP drinking the milk!

Jennifer B
May 19, 2009 10:51 pm

I think it might do everyone a bit of good to do some rabies research. No one has mentioned the new rabies virus that is mutating and spreading out of Arizona. And it’s being passed around species without having to get bitten.

"Already, Flagstaff has declared a 90-day pet quarantineall dogs on leashes and all cats indoorswhich began in April."
…where is the cattle and horses and pigs going? on leashes? ha!

hugh betcha
May 19, 2009 11:26 pm

from jennifers’ link above: "Local and state officials enacted vaccination programs in northern Arizona in 2001 and 2005 but discontinued each effort after two years without rabies reportsthe World Health Organization’s standard for declaring an area rabies-free. "

my question is can there be a relationship between this vaccination program and the new strain of rabies?

hugh betcha
May 19, 2009 11:39 pm


"If I had time, would explain it"

you would? then i would like to challenge you to find the time.

one truth i feel i do know is that a cows udder is an amazing thing and it can and does produce or pass on antibodies to anything the cow is exposed to.

if the cow can’t produce an antibody it is probable the cow gets sick and dies herself. if her immune system can fight off the infection she will pass on that antibody in (at least) her first milk if not all her milk from then on.

i’d ask mark to explain about first milk (collostrum) and the rest of her milking cycle milk

Don Wittlinger
May 20, 2009 12:18 am

Since we are talking about viruses watch the Becky McClain story as told by this brave woman you won’t believe it. Do not watch her story if you scare easily this can affect us all. She is a nuclear biologist.

Mark McAfee
May 20, 2009 2:43 am

CP and Lykke,

years ago the FDA raided and shut down a dairy that was producing Immune Milk. They claimed that the dairy was producing a "new drug" with out FDA approval.

Immune milk is raw milk taken from a cow that has been exposed to an infection from a pathogen or virus so that the cows immune system would react and produce anti-bodies to that infectous process and gift the immunity to the host that consumes the immune milk and its associated anti-bodies.

Lykke….please do your our study. The germans have been effectively doing this for years. It works very well. If the cow infected the raw milk consumer with her infection this process would not work. Again….the FDA vet was dead on…."the mother always protects her young".Some thing you and the FDA know nothing about.

This entire discussion is sickly distracting from the real issue….there are thousands of people dying every month secondary to immune depression, the regular flu and antibiodic resistant infections….CP and Lykke….please discuss this and try defending that issue. No one has died of rabid raw milk yet that we know of.

The target for discussion is:

"US Citizen Immune Depression" secondary to medical ignorance and FDA pandering to drug companies that exploit our weak immune systems. This is the bioterrorist killer in the room that you refuse to acknowledge. Instead you distact us all with statistically irrelevant nonsense.


Alyssa Pellicano
May 20, 2009 3:31 am

If anyone wants a relevant success story on Immune Milk just read about Jerry Brunetti, from Acres USA, 2004 Conference "Cancer, Immune System & Healing." This man brought himself back from stage 4 cancer and Immune Milk played a daily role in that recovery. That he could access this therapy is not unusual given his agri-background career, but it is truly a crime that this therapy cannot be accessed by those who may want it, expecially in a terminal situation. Alyssa

Don Wittlinger
May 20, 2009 4:46 am

MOO POWER? And a testimonial seems revelant to the present theme.
At the end of this month I start my 5th year consuming raw dairy and other pure REAL foods.
The change to real foods was the result of severe GI problems. Raw onions was one item I had not eaten in many years but today I harvested my first 3 spring onions YUM they were good and no digestive problem at all.
I had also suffered severe allergy problems all my life and almost hated spring and fall but the diet change did help about 25% but was still miserable. DW and I decide to redo all our flower beds so I would not need to spend much time gardening and suffer the resulting reactions. We began in late March nearly finished now plus planted a small veggie garden.
One day last week I made 9 quarts of Kombucha Tea then picked up 167 landscaping brick and placed them around the flower beds plus planted 5 pots of daylilies. Not to bad for a 72 3/4 year old. MOO POWER maybe? I think so.
However more importantly I have had not one allergy reaction worthy of note just a slight runny nose at times. I have no memory of ever enjoying a spring like this spring.
Why? Raw dairy, grass fed beef, kombuchca tea, real salt, free range chicken eggs, whole grains. fermented veggies, and no SAD and no drugs.
Yes its my story but its not just about me its the story of the marvelous design our human bodies that even after years of abuse they can recover even at an advanced age if the abuse stops and the required real pure nutrients are applied.

May 20, 2009 5:56 am

One of the reasons mammals have so successfully populated the earth is because milk plays an important part in their ability to transfer immunity to environmental infections to their offspring through the milk.

"According to Herbert Struss, PhD, former Senior Chemist, Food Chemistry Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services Division and also a scientist who was involved in much of the early clinical work testing this wondrously universal vaccine those interested in "immune milk" (as it is called) during the ’60s, made their astounding oral vaccine discoveries when they were trying to answer the question: "What’s the survival advantage to being a mammal? After all, beetles have developed a wide variety of survival mechanisms that take up the major share of environmental niches allotted to insects; birds developed wings to escape ground predators, and, of course, microorganisms have adapted and thrive in virtually every imaginable niche, from deep rock, inside the hottest springs, beneath arctic cold, throughout fleecy white clouds above us, in us, and on us, and so on.

But why did mammals survive? What’s the advantage to being a mammal?

Clearly, Nina’s suckling at Bessie’s teat, drawing a blood-like liquid called "colostrum" from Bessie’s cistern was a possible answer to their question. The survival advantage was simply that an "acquired" or "adaptive" immunity could be transferred from mother to offspring and that this adaptive immunity would extend for some period of time, thus providing the offspring with a distinct survival advantage."

Ken Conrad
May 20, 2009 7:53 am

I live in Chisholm Township which is one of several townships that share a border with the north end of Algonquin Park in Northern Ontario. There is plenty of wildlife as well as mosquitoes and black flies.

Over the years I have been bitten by raccoons, groundhogs, squirrels, muskrats, bats, stray dogs and cats with no ill affects. Ive also probably donated several liters of blood to the local blackly and mosquito population.

Ive seen cattle with calves surround a porcupine and trample it into the ground. I had a heifer come up to the barn a few years ago with claw marks on her back chunks of flesh missing from her flank and over half a tail missing as a result of a bear attack.

As far as the rabies vaccine is concerned I wouldnt have it nor would I administer it to my livestock. Adverse reaction to the rabies vaccine include, autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites.

According to Medical Officer of Health Dr. Peter Cole from Mississauga, Ontario, Rabies is not as readily communicable to humans as most lay persons and doctors believe "In 20 years, there have been thousands of confirmed rabid animals. Hundreds of people have been exposed to bites, and not all of them have been able to get the vaccine. Yet no-one has got rabies. That should tell you something."

In an effort to eradicate disease (a grossly overused word and unrealistic expectation with respect to our ability to control the so called organisms deamed responsible) health authorities have adopted measures which can best be described as impractical, unrealistic and downright dangerous.

Despite concerns raised by scientists throughought the world the above authorities persist in their efforts to scatter (air drop) genetically modified rabies vaccine bait packets throughout rural communities.

According to an ISIS (Institute of Science in Society) article Genetic engineers are playing genetic Russian roulette with GM viruses and bacteria. The barrel of the gene gun is pointed at all of us: humans, domesticated plants and animals and wild life included.

Ken Conrad

Scott Freeman
May 20, 2009 8:07 am

Is there any information on what pasteurization does to the immunity passing quality of raw milk?

Sylvia Gibson
May 20, 2009 8:43 am

This is a lot of reading to catch up on. Playing with genetics is always scary. Frankenphoods along with Frankenstein come to mind. <~~ they still boil it. How does that affect the end product? <~~ this one promotes from out of country. Part 3 part 4

Mark McAfee
May 20, 2009 12:46 pm

Germans use raw immune milk and would never heat it. Heating changes the activity and effectiveness of proteins and antibodies.

When the FDA banned OPDC raw colostrum from being shipped across state lines last year…I tested six freeze dried powdered retail available colostrum products purchased at Wholefoods in CA.

These powdered New Zealand colostrums were rehydrated and tested for bacteria ( SPC ) and also Phosphatase levels at Sierra Labs in Tulare CA.

They all tested raw….with Phosphatase levels above 3300. Anything above 300 is considered not effectively pasteurized. SPCs were also quite active at 1000 or more.

So the FDA allows imported powdered raw colostrum but not liquid domestic grass fed organic raw colostrum ( even though it is legal and permited in CA under dietary supplement permit from CA DHS ). The lawyers for the FDA could care less about this hard evidence or lopsided unjustice. Just some more ammunition for our love affair with the FDA.


Paul Hubbard
May 20, 2009 7:29 pm


The problem with political prostitution is that everyone else looks morally defective. You asked: "Would you get the treatment if you drank raw milk from a rabid cow?" My answer is no. You can take that one to the bank because I have a name. And I have a life. And people can know me and can make judgments about what I say. And those that do know me know that I say what I mean.


Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula

Concerned Person
May 20, 2009 8:46 pm


Do you feel like a real "man" now? What a jerk! You are a perfect example of what happens on this blog when a person is at a loss for an intelligent relpy–resorting to personal attacks. Please control your rude remarks and stick to the topic at hand.


Steve Bemis
May 20, 2009 8:48 pm

I think ad hominem comments/challenges to Lykke or to any other poster who is being civil are counterproductive (those being uncivil should simply be ignored). I prefer as well that people identify themselves, but so long as civility is maintained, I respect various reasons which may exist for someone not to self-identify.

Amanda Rose
May 20, 2009 9:42 pm

If raw dairies have TB or rabies in their cows, consumers ought to know about it and ought to be given options such as they were given in this case. Sure, transmission of rabies in raw milk is "theoretical" but a big part of the "we don’t know" is "we don’t know."

I don’t know what I’d do in the Lykke scenario, but I do know I don’t want to drink raw milk from a rabid cow. I don’t want to drink it from a tubercular cow either.

On the slumber party, I still have space. Just send in your RSVP.

The Complete Patient
May 20, 2009 9:47 pm

I want to comment on the use of pseudonyms on this blog. A number of readers have criticized others who often dissent from the majority view on this blog, and use pseudonyms–most notably, Lykke, Concerned Person, and Regulator. I understand that these individuals may want to protect their identities for any number of privacy-related reasons. Similarly, a number of individuals who tend to agree with the majority, like Miguel and Milk Farmer, also rely on pseudonyms. I presume these individuals similarly want to protect their privacy, and I respect that.

All the individuals using pseudonyms have helped foster healthy debate here, and that’s what I think we’re all looking for. But when the attacks turn personal, regardless of use of pseudonyms, that’s another matter, and I am less tolerant. In that vein, I just edited a comment by Paul Hubbard to remove information that seemed inappropriate on several levels. I don’t like to do that, and don’t do it often, but this seemed one of those instances where it was necessary.

David Gumpert

Paul Hubbard
May 20, 2009 10:55 pm


Well that explains that. I gladly yield to your protocol and editing. Not being a consistent poster, I’m not as familiar with the etiquette as I should be, remembering only other debates in other forums in which there were fewer rules about ad feminams.

I will watch my Ps and Qs


Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula

Don Wittlinger
May 20, 2009 11:28 pm

One of the problems that I see here is that we are not having just a normal political "debate" that causes emotions to run so high at least for some of us that are pro-raw milk.
The problem distills down to our ability to maintain our own personal health and personal choise.
If the anti-raw dairy folks remove my freedom to choise raw dairy that in my view is a death sentense for me.
I dont want any of us to live under a system that tells us what to eat at the point of a gun or what medical choises to make at the point of a gun but it would seem that is where we are headed in the so called land of the free.
In my view it all comes down to freedom or tyranny life and death and no subject is packed with more emotion.
Those who have not been sick and recovered via raw dairy and real food can not understand our position and they will not accept what we have to say because they know better.

Amanda Rose
May 21, 2009 12:16 am

Mark McAfee wrote:
"The devil and the truth is in the small details. Details that are conventient to overlook when on a mission of lies and raw milk distruction.

WAP reports that raw milk consumers in the early 1900s had a far better outcome from TB infection that those that did not consume raw milk."

I don’t recall Price ever researching raw milk. Can someone direct me to the reference?

Ken Conrad
May 21, 2009 1:03 am

The fact that individuals out of fear feel compelled to live under the shadow of a pseudonym in order to express a belief is an unfortunate reflection of our society.

A person forwarded this email to me a couple of days ago some of you may be familiar with it. This is really off topic however Ive included it in hopes of lightening the atmosphere.

A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the
airplane when the stranger turned to her and said,
‘Let’s talk. I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you
strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.’

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed
it slowly and said to the stranger, ‘what would you
like to talk about?’

‘Oh, I don’t know,’ said the stranger. ‘How about
nuclear power?’ and he smiles.

OK, ‘ she said. ‘That could be an interesting topic.
But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow,
and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass – . Yet a
deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a
flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried
grass. Why do you suppose that is?’

The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl’s
intelligence, thinks about it and says, ‘Hmmm, I have
no idea.’

To which the little girl replies, ‘Do you really feel
qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know

Just out of curiosity, how many you are willing to take a stab at the little girls question?

Ken Conrad

Alyssa Pellicano
May 21, 2009 2:49 am

I’m not a farmer, I live in the city limits, so I don’t know much about "shit" either, however I will tell you what I do know about bovine excrement.
If you feed the cow its mother-natured designed food -green grass-that grows on healthy soil, you will have nothing to fear even if you fell face first into a patty! Not so, with bovine excrement that has come from a cow fed ANY OTHER KIND of diet, and crowded together in a CAFO type environment. Not only are these animals unhealthy, and live only 1/2 as long as there healthier counterparts, their sad enviroment is the "petrie dish" of our now more dangerous pathogens.
As to the little girls quesiton, it has to be the differences in alimentary canal structure of each individual animal, and its digestive processes that makes the south end product look different. That’s my guess: one of our farmers will be able to answer more specifically.
BTW, I really appreciated your first post on rabies today. That was illuminating. Thank You. Alyssa

May 21, 2009 7:02 am

"On the slumber party, my vision is that the regulators will take turns reading passages from the book and drink if their name is mentioned." -Amanda

Whatever the offending post said above, Amanda’s invitation gave me an idea. Perhaps I will join the slumber party as myself (real name) and bring along a co-worker that I don’t like – tell them it will be lots of fun, and if they use the name Lykke or cp they will get a special greeting from a few special raw milk fans. Then watch my unfortunate co-worker get tarred and feathered, or whatever it is that the self-proclaimed righteous do these days to cleanse the [blog] world of indivudals who are not like them and/or resist conversion to their one and only belief system.

I’m not sure when it is appropriate to take down someone’s comment on a blog like this, but I appreciate knowing that David is willing to draw a line.

May 21, 2009 7:42 am

The greatest irony in all this discussion (that created the high emotions as Don pointed out): I too would say "no" to treatment if the exposure was drinking raw milk from a rabid cow. As a caveat, if I was going to drink raw milk from cows, I’d probably look for a farmer that vaccinates livestock on pasture potentially interacting with wild animals. Although I think the human risk is negligible from a food safety perspective, I still wouldn’t want to buy raw milk from a rabid cow, and there are costs to society and individual in dealing with rabies in livestock, even if rare.

That’s my own risk assessment. I wouldn’t fault someone who came to a different conclusion and decided to get rabies shots after drinking raw milk from a rabid cow. Nor do I believe farmers should be forced (regulated) to require rabies vaccination – it is a business decision and as such, they have to deal with it if the very unlikely, but not impossible Bad Thing happens.

"The fact that individuals out of fear feel compelled to live under the shadow of a pseudonym in order to express a belief is an unfortunate reflection of our society." – Ken

Ken – I’m not sure if fear is the right word. I can’t speak for others that use pseudonyms like cp, Regulator, miguel, Milk Farmer, that were mentioned as examples above, but having had great discussions here with all of them, as well as those that use real names, I think they all show bravery by spending time sharing thoughts, information, and opinions. Personally, I could care less what people’s real names are on a blog, whichever "side" of the debate they lean toward.

May 21, 2009 8:21 am

p.s. if/when we go head to head, horn to horn, in front of the legislature, for example, then we can all use our real names. Amanda – have David and Bill Marler sent RSVPs for the slumber party at your place? I’d love to see them debating in pajamas (and will you provide natural feather pillows or is it BYOP)?

Dave Milano
May 21, 2009 9:13 am

Lykke, you speak as if there is no risk at all to drinking milk from a vaccinated cow. Vaccinations, however, have negative effects on the animal, which could theoretically affect the milk. You are very willing to accept a theoretical risk of rabies transmission through milk–a vector unseen and undocumented–but speak about the other as if it is impossible (even though negative vaccination effects are often seen). Again, we have a paradigmatical divide. (And more evidence of the infamous medical aphorism that a malady unsuspected does not exist.)

May 21, 2009 9:58 am


"…but speak about the other as if it is impossible (even though negative vaccination effects are often seen).."

You may have misunderstood my opinion about biology: nothing is impossible. Its just that I have examined the data and decided (based on what is available, to date) that vaccinating cattle against rabies is less risky than not vaccinating when they are on pasture. Others may look at the same data and make a different conclusion. For example, cancers in small animals have been documented (especially cats), but they occur rarely. Despite the rarity, there are new protocols relating to anatomic location for injection and frequency of vaccination of small animals. My vet follows these protocols (based on best available science) for our cats since we know they will invariably play with a downed rabid bat if it comes their way. In contrast, milking cows have a much shorter lifespan than cats (cancer from rabies vaccine is as totally theoretical for cows as raw milk transmission to humans). Cows are also different because in the US we eat dairy products, but not cat products.

May 21, 2009 12:09 pm

Lykke says… In contrast, milking cows have a much shorter lifespan than cats …..

Industrial confinement dairy cows do have a rather short lifespan, but family cows or cows on pasture can live much longer. We have a Milking Shorthorn who is doing quite well at age 15. She spent her early years (up to age 9) in a small dairy where pasture was available. My grandparents had a Jersey family cow who lived to be in her 20s and gave them 18 calves. There are many similar examples.

Don Wittlinger
May 21, 2009 5:34 pm
Biotechnology is becoming a more valuable ingredient in food production
by Cynthia Challener
Biotechnology thru "encapsulation" has improved "stability" and "extended
shelf life" of probiotics. Plus now you can get your probiotics from your "drinking straw"!!!! HMMM cows are now obsolete and cow pies no longer need to be feared.
Probiotics in a drinking straw that ought to be a real money maker why didn’t I think of that perhaps may have received a big bonus. The company that I had worked for invented the drinking straw in about 1875 and no I was not employed by them at that time.
A little bit of humor among the madness perhaps?

Don Wittlinger
May 21, 2009 9:55 pm

A real target for the ant-raw dairy do gooders?
Genetically Modified Foods
The anti-raw dairy mob does not have to consume raw dairy but like it or not they are consuming some of this "stuff" just as we all are and will also suffer the same adverse results. "GM animal studies show among many other adverse affects significant immune disregulation also altered structure and function of the LIVER.
Perhaps the anti-raw dairy warriors should turn their cannons around and fire at their own real enemy not us we [pro-raw dairy] are not forcing raw dairy down their throats. But TPTB intend for GM corps to be a universial food supply that is forced down everyones throats.

Don Wittlinger
May 21, 2009 10:35 pm
Is the New Strain of Rabies Virus Genetically Engineered?

Mark McAfee
May 21, 2009 11:25 pm


The mention of Raw Milk consumers having less TB ( in the 1930’s ) than their non raw milk consuming counterparts was shown in a WAP Power Point that was circulated two years ago. It is still probably at the WAP Website.


milk farmer
May 22, 2009 12:18 am

Here’s another one for you Don
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

And those in power that pretend to serve agriculture wonder why there is no trust……

Paul….Lykkes’ little game playing isn’t really worth engaging in….although it is tempting to take pot shots…..

hugh betcha
May 22, 2009 2:51 am

milk farmer, now i’m worried. why would you post a lnk to such information? i just had my jersey dairy cow genetically modified by splicing her dna to cocoa bean dna so i could have fresh chocolate milk. but what wories me more is that while she was in the gm clinic (they’re springing up all over the place) i had her spliced with fly repellent (raid) so she’d be more comfortable in the summer without flies, which is great, the flies drop dead just by getting close to her!

oh well, i guess i better reconsider injecting her with rabies and making up a batch of immune milk… to bad too, i was planning to sell rabies immune fly repellent chocolate milk at the farmers market for $6 a gallon. i’d have been rich!

so now i’m gonna have to have her un-spliced to be safe(er) as soon as science figures out how to do that… i have a 30 day warrenty on the work so no worries… science is moving fast these days.

Amanda Rose
May 22, 2009 3:52 am

Mark — You left off the "F." WAPF and Weston A Price are two different sources/authors.

Gwen elderberry
May 22, 2009 4:24 am

No, I absolutely would not have a vaccination after consuming milk from a cow (or goat) testing positive for rabies.

A little over 3 years ago, I cut my finger badly on a rusty, manure covered peice of barbed wire, helping my husband try to catch an goat just outside our barn. My last tetanus vaccine was 13-plus years prior.

Nobody would give me a tetanus shot, without a doctor’s statement that it was okay, and without my signing a special form accepting the risks. One doctor outright refused to.

I was pregnant.

That changed everything. See, the statistics showed that the dangers of the vaccine were more risky to my unborn child, than the chance of my getting tetanus.

Now, this was an interesting situation for me. I have an uncle who is a farmer who nearly died of lockjaw once. I have also watched animals die on my farm from what appeared to be very much like tetanus. I was scared to death that I was going to get tetanus. And yet the local health department was telling me that the shot was likely more of a risk!

Vaccine-selling has become similar to the unregulated medicine doctors of the 1800’s. I find the practice irresponsible, and that is putting it very nicely. Prior to the non-tetanus shot experience, my view of vaccines vs. risk has changed immensely.

What is the population of Kenya? How many have had rabies? There is a LONG list above rabies, statistically speaking, of things for me to be worried about preparing my son for, and when I get down to rabies, if I still have any resources, or a farm left, then I’ll worry about a $250 rabies shot.

A vaccine for me if I’d consumed milk from a cow with it, and no documented human cases? No, no and NO again!

milk farmer
May 22, 2009 4:37 am

Hugh…. had me going there for a dozen or so words (but then again, I don’t read who wrote the words before I finish the post…usually pretty easy to figure….) Good one!

Sad part is, most people don’t realize that the food they are feeding their animals is GMO…if it contains soy or corn. So many people I have open the eyes of…we avoid both here like the plague. Even the ‘organic’ stuff could have been grown a mile or two downwind from the petri dish stuff….can you really test every kernel?

It’s a different world the next generation of farmers will inherit…hopefully there will be at least a few worthy crops left that aren’t spewing spliced and diced pollen into the air.

Don Wittlinger
May 22, 2009 5:20 am

I nominate Huge Betcha for TCP poet of the year no maybe decade. What do you say David? Thanks HB that was the best laugh I had in a long time really needed it also. Awaiting your next creation.

Mark McAfee
May 22, 2009 6:43 am

I second Dons nomination for Hughs political poetry and humor.

Loved it….

Today CREMA ( ) and its president Christine Chessen spent hours giving out samples of raw milk to visitors to the State Capitol at a health fair. The response was tremendous.

Even employees from CDFA joined into the tasting and the comments were….wow this stuff is for real…it is delicious and no lactose intolerance.

Christine called me exstatic.