The California Department of Public Health has genetically matched E.coli 0157:H7 that sickened five children, ages one to five years old, with water and manure samples taken from a calf holding area at Organic Pastures Dairy Co.
The agency speculates that “contamination found in the calving area originated from maternal cows and subsequently passed to calves, either directly through feeding, indirectly through fecal-oral transmission, or by translocation through movement of personnel and equipment used on the farm.”
The CDPH revealed details of its analysis in a report letter to Mark McAfee, owner of OPDC (which he discussed in comments following my previous post). Among the details of the report letter:
* Out of “a significant number of samples” of manure, water, soil, and swabs of various contact surfaces, ten “from the calf area were positive for E.coli O157:H7 (1 swab, 3 soil, 1 water, and 5 fecal)…”
* Two of the samples–one manure and one water– “had a PFGE (pulse-field gel electrophoresis) pattern indistinguishable from the outbreak strain.”
* The CDPH doesn’t speculate about how the E.coli O157:H7 got into the milk from the calf area, except to say, “the fact that E.coli O157:H7 identifcal to the outbreak strain was recovered from OPDC environment supports the probability that the OPDC raw milk the case patients consumed was similarly contaminated leading to their illnesses.”
* The CDPH also “isolated shiga-toxin producing pathogens” from packaged OPDC colostrum collected at the dairy. “The pathogen is very rare and we were unable to serotype it at our laboratory. The isolate has been sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for further evaluation.” According to the CDC, E.coli O157 H:7 is the most common shiga toxin producing E.coli (STEC). Other such E.coli “are not nearly as well understood, partly because outbreaks due to them are rarely identified. As a whole, the non-O157 serogroup is less likely to cause severe illness than E. coli O157; however, some non-O157 STEC serogroups can cause the most severe manifestations of STEC illness.”
* The CDPH also said it found “sanitary deficiencies” in the OPDC milk bottling room, milk storage rooms, labeling room, kefir room, and common areas. These included chipping paint, mold-mildew, and rodent droppings.
In a letter of response, McAfee said OPDC has taken steps to isolate the calf area from the milk production and creamery operations. He added, “We now have a plan in place with employee training, segregation of personnel and dedication of equipment to reduce the risk or opportunity of the possible cross communication of bacteria from our calves to the rest of the operations.”
He also said the sanitation problems have been addressed via a reconstructed milk bottling room and upgrades to the milk storage rooms.
Controversy seems to be lurking in the supposed manner in which two of the children became ill from E.coli O157:H7 in OPDC milk. In a comment following my previous post, McAfee stated, “We do know that at least two of the most sickened children did not drink raw milk,….but drank OPDC after it had been ‘fermented and cultured with store bought Kefir cultures ‘ ” There is nothing in the CDPH report letter that details the circumstances of how the milk was consumed by the sickened children.
But in an email today to Stephen Beam, head of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s dairy division, McAfee requested that publicity coming out of that agency explain his understanding about how the milk was used by a customer. “In all fairness, it is crucial that your department and CDPH both include in your press releases, that two of the hospitalized and most sickened children, did not drink raw milk at all. They instead drank a homemade brew of cultured raw milk with added cultures in their own containers and the end product contained millions of bacteria per ml. They also ate cultured vegetables that were soaked in raw whey collected from this cultured Kefir.
“That is an entirely different story….than two sickened kids drinking fresh raw milk…I would be very disappointed in the accuracy of the report if it did not include that the two most sickened kids drank a home cultured kefir and not our fresh raw milk.”
In the aftermath of the outbreaks over two months in late summer and early fall, OPDC was shut down for four weeks, and then, after it re-opened, prohibited from selling colostrum. It’s not clear if the colostrum prohibition is related to the finding of the rare shiga-producing pathogen in the colostrum.
I don’t think we’ve heard the end of this story quite yet. On the matter of fermenting the milk to make kefir or yogurt, lots of consumers do that. Is McAfee suggesting people shouldn’t do that, or that it should be done “at your own risk”? Just when you think you’ve heard the last of the issues surrounding raw milk safety, a new one rears its head.
David, I don't think Mark is suggesting that cultured milk products are inherantly bad. I have known that the harmful bacteria often survive in acidic environments (that is why stomach acids don't destroy them). That is why I choose to pasturize my cultured milks and soft cheeses.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958694604001220
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/1998/00000061/00000012/art00002
http://www.sproutnet.com/Research/competitive_exclusion_of_escheri.htm
(sprout growers use Lactococcus lactis too, to exlude E. Coli…)
Perhaps the problem was that this was homemade cultured products and not made in a controlled environment with a documented and measured drop in pH through acid titration or with a pH meter.
This also would be a good reason to begin evaluating how your raw milk clabbers under its own bacteria load (without any added culture), because this can be indicative of how it will ferment in homemade situations with questionable cultures and pH drop.
http://www.huffingtonpost (dot) com/2012/01/19/manganese-food-poisoning_n_1216775.html?ref=food
"The animals were injected daily, starting five days before they were exposed to the toxin. While untreated mice died within four days, the injected mice remained healthy. The manganese made the toxin vulnerable to being destroyed by cells."
This is where nutrition comes in and I am not referring to calorie counting or fat counting or even sugar counting,etc…. The vitamin content of foods has depleted over the last 50 or so years. There are numerous studies on the net. It is a well known fact that if you are depleted in a vitamins you are susceptible to disease/illness. For example; pellagra-niacin deficiency (B3). You also require the other B vitamins to absorb the B3 correctly. Same as with Vit D3 you need magnesium to absorb it correctly.
I wish someone would look at the health of those who get sick from raw milk and the possible reasons for illness. Since not everyone gets sick, there is more to that story. It is simply better immunity? Most folks who drink raw milk these days didn't grow up on a dairy farm. They are not all getting sick. There are many children drinking raw milk. Most don't get sick. Why the few that fall? Is it nutritional deficiencies? Is it an unhealthy gut due to exposure to inflammatory foods? There is so much more to understand. It is sad that all they do is throw the book at the dairy and do no further investigating. Again, a positive test tells you nothing more than that they found a pathogen.
Jennifer, I would suspect that it is all of the above and more. Some things more so than others.
I think the nutritional value of the foods/phoods available to the masses will continue to decline.
A system that is compromised to any degree will have a weak area somewhere that allows pathogens to take hold, or natural cells to mutate, etc.
"the fact that E.coli O157:H7 identifcal to the outbreak strain was recovered from OPDC environment supports the probability that the OPDC raw milk the case patients consumed was similarly contaminated leading to their illnesses."
bear in mind that that surmise is made by an institution which has relentlessly demonstrated its antipathy to REAL MILK being available, at all.
the science of "probability" is as understood by mathemeticians, rather than guys who have some of Jr. college degree in "communications" = which is who put out this propaganda. So far, you have a news story. That's all.
Conjecture all you like … Onus is on anyone who claims a given batch of bacteria travelled from a pen, carefully removed from the milk room at OPCD, into the bodies of those ANONYMOUS subjects of the story, to prove it.
I'm not going to take the word of a govt. stooge … rather, let's see some tests from genuinely independent labs where split sampling was done, and those samples kept properly cold. The Campaign for REAL MILK has legs in the media, because it engages a profound sense of unease in people who know the govt. is lying to them on so many fronts.
I spoke at length with the mom with the two most sickened children. They were both from the same family. She and I are working closely on a very constructive path for improved consumer education. She and I both felt better after our very open and exposed discussion. I learned a boat load from her. She had previously been a close WAP follower and believes in the value of whole food nutrition. I am dedicated to protecting her family from further injury or criticism….she will remain nameless. I am dedicated to her protection and want to help her family become whole again. I want more than anything….to know how in the hell bacteria from our calf area became connected with five kids….how??? With all bacteria samples being negative from every place and very product…how??
There are massive questions remaining. How do 60,000 people not get sick for three weeks in a row and the then one gets sick and the three more weeks pass with no illness. Then a family with 2 kids sick ( the most ill ) had consumed fermented raw milk with an unknown culture in an unknown kitchen brew. Then the family also consumed raw whey fermented vegetables….was there salt in the whey mix???
The balance of the kids did not become hospitalized from what we have been told.
The water sample came from a calf feeder water trough.
I am sure that more information will come out as I am able to interview each of the other families.
Sadly….it appears that CDFA and CDPH investigators have submitted an incomplete and partial biased report. Don't you think that the fact that a mom fermented raw milk with added cultures and her own container for several days is important and relevant? Raw milk from OPDC is a very low bacteria count product. Home fermented raw Kefir is entirely different with 20 million bacteria per ml of unknown type. This sure is important to me and sure makes for a different story. Not telling this part of the investigation is a sham and is withholding of evidence.
Lastly…..none of this weakens me or OPDC, all of this makes us better and safer. We learn from challenges. We learn from compliments and we learn from criticisms. OPDC has emerged from this experience better and safer than ever.
What I want to know most is this….what happened….cause I want to prevent this from ever happening again.
The reason that colostrum is missing from CA stores is because Bill Marler Esq wrote a letter to Karen Ross our CA sec of state begging her to stop colostrum…..it is such a huge risk. 7 years and no reported illness. Super dangerous product.
Last time I was at Whole Foods….spinach, eggs, pasteurized milk and cantaloupes are still on the shelf. All of these foods have killed many people. Zero deaths from raw milk and a tremendous number of illnesses prevented and deaths averted by consumption of raw milk.
Was it the trough itself that contaminated the water or was the contamination from the actual water supply?
I can't imagine anyone criticizing the parents of the sickened kids.
The bottom-feeders of the world appear to be out for money only…..
See Dr. Mercolas interview of Professor Don Huber for more information about glyphosate.
Great question. The Water sample was water taken from the calf water feeder. It is a steel barrel type system that is about four feet long, and 16 inches wide and 10 inches deep with a float system that drops potable drinking water from a tested domestic well into it. The well water tested negative for pathogens. Wether it was from the edge or the water it's self….I do not know.
The more we look at this… the more it appears that we know very little. Even the state is guessing. Conspiracies are sounding better and better.
Calf bacteria being beamed sporadically around CA mysteriously. How do we connect these dots???
I think the aliens must have beamed calf manure all over the state because it sure wasn't your delivery truck!
No doubt that the chemicals we are subjected to have impaired our immune system along with the environment, et al.
Spelt appears to have the highest manganese content. Not to confuse it with Magnesium.
http://lpi.oregonstate (dot) edu/infocenter/minerals/manganese/
eating a variety of foods would work if we knew how much nutritional value the food actually has, or even a close approximation. I also think that if you get your nutrition from your foods, your chances of overdosing on any vitamins (from food) is extremely rare if not impossible. Vitamin A in pill form can be toxic.
You are right about Mn deficiency being caused by Roundup (glyphosate). It is being used by many governments as an airstrike deterrent to crops such as coca, and it has in itself caused human poisoning recently in Colombia.
High levels of Mn potentiate the abnormal configuration of proteins characteristic in prion diseases in animals. In Sylvia's link however, low levels of Mn seem to correspond with a higher susceptibility to food-borne toxins.
That is why Violet, Dave M., and miguel give such credence to animal husbandry and soil health issues. Balance is the thing.
Help me understand why making kefir out of the milk makes a damn bit of difference here? You dont get to talk out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. Kefir and yogurt both have the GOOD BACTERIA which is theorized should kill any pathogenic bacteria. Obvious this theory has a flaw.
If the milk was contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 and it was left at room temperature to ferment, the E.coli 0157:H7 bacteria multiplied instead of being killed off the lactic acid bacteria. There is no big mystery here. Dont make this into something it is not.
Bottom line, your milk is responsible for these illnesses. Just man up to it.
And for all the speculation about why none of the milk samples from the family tested positive for pathogensyour own BSK study gives the answer. Over time, the pathogens die. It took a while before any of this milk was tested. Time killed the E.coli.
If anyone is interested in the exact procedure used in rapid pulse field gel electrophoresis, the procedure can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC230100/pdf/352977(dot)pdf
They grow up the isolated e. coli, digest it with enzymes, and run it through a charged gel from one end to the other. The gel acts as a size filter and separates the DNA by size. Those with the same banding patterns are considered the same strain. This is a different procedure than what I explained previously. There is no direct sequencing. Given the genetic variability of bacteria, how probable is a false positive? In Dr. Noella's work (aka the Cheese Nun), she found incredible genetic diversity in in the fungus she was studying (G. candidum) and that diversity was not clustered by location. Here is here paper:
http://web.uconn.edu/mcbstaff/benson/BensonHome/AEM01Marcellino(dot)pdf
Things to think about…
If anyone is interested in the exact procedure used in rapid pulse field gel electrophoresis, the procedure can be found here:
www (dot) ncbi.nlm (dot) nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC230100/pdf/352977 (dot) pdf
They grow up the isolated e. coli, digest it with enzymes, and run it through a charged gel from one end to the other. The gel acts as a size filter and separates the DNA by size. Those with the same banding patterns are considered the same strain. This is a different procedure than what I explained previously. There is no direct sequencing. Given the genetic variability of bacteria, how probable is a false positive? In Dr. Noella's work (aka the Cheese Nun), she found incredible genetic diversity in in the fungus she was studying (G. candidum) and that diversity was not clustered by location. Here is here paper:
http: //web (dot) uconn (dot) edu/mcbstaff/benson/BensonHome/AEM01Marcellino (dot) pdf
Things to think about…
Your negative energy is astounding. Calf bacteria does not mean dirty raw milk…it means calf manure somehow got connected to kids. Hundreds of tests do not lie. CDPH test results point to the calves. I agree…our tests point to the calves.
Your passionately negative commentary points to your personal vendetta against raw milk and your affiliations with Bill Marler and the FDA.
A constructive position would seek to figure out what happened so we can prevent it from happening again at OPDC or anywhere. OPDC has gone far beyond state law with at least 72 tests per month, a comprehensive food safety plan, intensive employee training….all new equipment, udder management and cleaning protocols etc….
Raw milk is here to stay. The question is why are you even here at this blog. This blog is all about constructive dialogue to help raw milk become the best and safest it can be. Raw milk brings incredible benefits to those that drink it. Raw milk is only going to get bigger and better. Yes….there are risks and we do not fully understand them yet. These risks are smaller and lower that most all other foods.
I invite you to come to OPDC and see it for yourself. If you are interested in just throwing rocks, then that is a completely different agenda. Please be civil and constructive. A sterilized food system will bring more death than than you can imagine.
Living foods bring life and save lives. Think about the 4000 kids that died from asthma last year….before you throw another rock at raw milk….a food that heals asthma.
Do you get that….4000 funerals….drop that rock from your hand and take a step back.
Sometimes you make sense and sometimes you write the craziest things. For example, would you suggest the state edit the report along these lines to make it less biased…
In conclusion, the outbreak illustrates the need for further research into distribution pathways that allow E. coli O157:H7 to be beamed from Dairy A to multiple customers spanning hundred of miles. Moreover, additional education (teach teach teach) is imperative to identify the customers that believe the secret, but should not have bought Dairy A raw milk and used the product in their home.
You give no warnings in your Share the Secret, and I agree with Kristen if not required, you wouldnt have the 4 point font warning label on the back of your products. Then you blame customers for mis-using the product when they follow the WAPF recipes for infants and children linked on your website. Hmm.
Seriously, glad you're drilling down to the root cause. But, you may never find the absolute transmission pathway. Investigators didnt find the outbreak strain in cookie dough, but changes were implemented based on logical connections from the investigation. It would be irresponsible of public health and industry to ignore clues and take action just because they didn't have all the answers. Maybe well learn more and refine those changes. (Sylvia never demands hard data related to GMOs, which I find curious).
Not sure where this is going with raw milk other than back down the river of denial.
Jennifer and miguel,
No comment on the DNA fingerprinting, except to say foodborne pathogen monitoring protocols are well beyond the experimental stage. The advantages and limitations are very well described, including their utility in source tracking. DNA fingerprinting (gel- or sequence-based) does not stand alone, but they serve as one tool in the toolbox to try to figure out recommendations for risk reduction.
There is no zero risk, but it would be ashame to reject a tool like DNA fingerprinting that might prevent another soul from being hospitalized from our favorite foods including raw milk and kefir. Fortunately, death is rare with modern medicine in the United States.
MW
p.s. miguel – please spare the blog from re-posting unrelated and out-of-context abstracts to make your point. Ron Klein refuted all that (see Hartmann archives).
As yet unmentioned would be the "calves come from cows theory," highlighting the point that cows were critical in the production of said calves. As with human moms, the cows may have passed the bad bugs to their babies. With weaker immune systems, the calves may have shed the bugs for longer resulting in the positive finding during the state investigation among the calves. The bugs in the moms may have disappeared some weeks earlier — around the time a delivery truck headed to Contra Costa County.
The problem with Mary's theory and the "calves come from cows" theory is they are boring.
The problem with Mark's theory is that it doesn't account for the third HUS case and the two other children sick enough to have their stools tested for E.coli. Nor does it explain why OPDC sells kefir if it can wreak such havoc in its own raw milk.
I offer the "Frisby Theory." I won't even charge a $10/month membership to read it.
The Frisby Theory requires a bit of background.
I hope that you have all had the opportunity to read the classic "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh," a true story of a family of mice that went by the name "Frisby." They lived under a rock in a garden during the winter months and by a creek in the summer. The drama in the story centers around the poor mama Frisby needing to move her ailing son to their summer home before the plow destroyed their winter home and killed them. Through the adventures of the story, you realize that the Frisby children are descended from a mouse who had been a lab mouse whose DNA was changed in lab experiments and, as a result, he was highly intelligent, being able to read, write, and speak English. He had higher order cognitive skills as did his children.
A key point in the story was that the family of mice knew they needed to move before the plow killed them and, ultimately, they engaged the help of genetically improved rats to help them do so. We learn in the process that some groups of rats had moved to a nearby community and that these rodents were beginning a process of migrating into the larger world. But I digress.
We know from the state letter of the OPDC outbreak that a milk holding room had mouse droppings and Mark himself reported that he had long intended a remodel. The state report implies that the remodel is the result of the state's discovery of the dairy's unsanitary nature, but the Frisby Theory relies on Mark's truth in reporting that the remodel was long planned.
I suggest that a family of Frisby-descended mice had migrated all the way to Kerman, California and found a nice year-round home in the milk storage trailer in question (Milk Storage Room 2). They lived well on the raw milk that apparently spilled regularly in Milk Storage Room 1 as per the state report. When they needed fresh air, they could find more spilled milk under the storage trailers and unknown liquid in the container that held the colostrum buckets. The colostrum buckets tuned upside down and stored on the floor made an excellent play area for the younger Frisby set. However, much like their ancestors in the garden who moved to the creek in the summer, the Frisby mice heard talk of the upcoming remodel and they knew they needed to move before they were inadvertently tiled into the floor or plastered into cracks of the creamery. They took shelter under the little calf crates on the north end of the OPDC property.
From early November, the Frisby family lived under a calf crate contaminating the water and soil in that area. They frequented the feed area contaminating the calves and the resulting calf stool samples.
As it turns out, it was the Frisby droppings before their move that contaminated the milk cartons which made it to the home of those five sickened children. The question of "Why didn't all 60,000 OPDC customers get sick?" is conveniently answered by the the Frisby use of the area under the trailer as a periodic bathroom, the smallness of the Frisby clan itself, and the periodic constipation of the older generation of Frisbys (despite their raw milk consumption). There were rodent droppings in the milk storage room, but not nearly enough for 60,000 raw milk drinkers.
The question of "Why was the pathogen not discovered in the milk room?" is conveniently answered by the move of the Frisby family itself. They had moved and a new (and less fortunate) group of mice took their place and left their droppings as evidence.
In fact, I am sure that this theory can answer any questions at all that might be looming.
For investigators seeking to test the Frisby Theory, keep in mind that the new dairy safety protocols may have caused the Frisby family to move once again making it impossible to interview them for the state report despite their fluency in English.
However, as investigators with the CDPH and CDFA work on the state report, they are free to quote this theory as evidence that the milk itself was never contaminated. Not even Mark McAfee's theory makes that claim.
Amanda
"Although tests for E. coli in the milk in the familes' homes after the children's illnesses were confirmed turned up negative"
Too bad the report doesn't state when they tested the milk from the kids homes. If it was not in the milk and the same probable DNA strains in the kids and found on OP property, it was transmitted someway. Too bad they didn't test the outside of the jugs.
If it was on the outside of the jugs, why only 5 that became ill? What is different about them that they became ill? It doesn't make sense that illness struck over an extended period to only 4 houses and not everyone in the houses became ill. OP milk has a large distribution, it is strange that only 5 became ill.
http://articles.latimes (dot) com/2011/dec/09/news/la-heb-cookie-dough-e-coli-20111209
Apparently the govt thinks it was flour that contaminated the cookie dough….
"(Sylvia never demands hard data related to GMOs, which I find curious). "
Can you be more specific on what you are referring to and what you mean?
"Fortunately, death is rare with modern medicine in the United States."
Wow, talk about misleading and out right lies. You have done poor research with that statement.
http://drugtopics.modernmedicine (dot) com/drugtopics/Clinical+News/US-deaths-from-Rx-overdoses-outnumber-deaths-from-/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/754807
http://www.goodsamiam (dot) com/modern_medicines_secret.htm
Modern medicine will kill you if you aren't vigilant and your own advocate. David's blog is a good example, had he not done his research and had the funds initially, his outcome may have been drastically different. Unfortunately most don't question nor do their research.
Also, I think it is important to understand the tests used if you want to have a debate. A positive was found. I want to know how. I think we should ask these questions. That's why I posted it. Not many know of the number of places in a laboratory where a particular test can go wrong. Or right. Or current technology and why it is seen as so infallible.
Mark, while I see the benefits of raw milk, I know many who take exception to your constant statements about the lives saved by raw milk. I think it is better stated that a healthy real food diet goes very far to healing the health problems in this nation. Raw milk is but a part. David highlights the benefits of nutrient dense foods. Not just milk. I personally take exception to the WAPF's recommendations for culturing raw milk. Given the environment we live in (where superbugs abound), I don't feel comfortable in following those guidelines. I am an educated consumer. If 0157:H7 is a result of the acidification of a cow's ruhmen and this (and similar) bacteria can survive the acidic environment, we need to be aware of this and treat our milk appropriately. I would be interested in a test of fermented milk inoculated with 0157:H7 to see how it fares. I also would be interested in a test where 0157:H7 inoculated fresh raw milk were looked at over time to see how it fares. Not just from one dairy, but from multiple dairies with different management and huspbandry practices. This type of work could go far in helping us understand the sporadic nature of raw milk out breaks.
Hire an independent microbiologist, do your OWN testing, report results to the State of CA, and let them refute it. That's how I would handle it if it were me. But, that's just me.
I would not rely on the word of the State, or any other gubberment institution, to do the testing and expect a reliable outcome. If it's bad for you, it just is – you clean up and move on. If it's not your bad, someone will have a lot to answer for later on.
On a serious note, though, have you considered downsizing to a more manageable herd number?
I have seen IBS, GERD, Ulcers healed in three weeks with fermented raw milk. This happened in patients that were suffering with C-Dif and MRSA and being heavily medicated with all sorts of PHARMA.
That is life saving!!
I have seen many many kids with Asthma that are on at least three medications including heaving cortico steroids and inhalers, with their teeth were disolving, plagued with use of antibiotics, frequent colds and ear infections. After drinking raw milk…( and yes changing to a whole food diet ), no more colds, ear infections and no more medicationsand no more asthma!!!
That is life saving.
Asthma kills 4000 kids per year and causes untold grief for millions more.
No….I stand by my belief and support my statements entirely, raw milk improves lives and saves lives through prevention. No question, it is powerful immune food.
D. Smith….are you nuts??? Close my doors because of possible illnesss? You do not know raw milk consumers.
Ask a better question. How about this…how can we get better and grow to prevent even more illness. Down sizing….no. We are size appropriate for the land size we have. 1 cow per acre or 1.5 cows per acre is just fine.
Raw Milk is the Mountain that I will die on… I am committed to this journey and I know and experience raw milk benefits personally and everyday through the feed back of extremely grateful consumers including my own family and grand kids.
In 2004 Valley Childrens Hospital ordered emergency delivery of OPDC raw milk as a life saving therapy for a child with severe bowel problems. The bowel problem passed hours after the consumption of our raw milk. Bowel obstruction and lack of motility….kills.
Did the lettuce growers throw in the towel? Did the cantaloupe growers throw in the towel? if everyone that has grown food that has possibly made some one ill… threw in the towel, closed the doors and gave up….you would be starving right about now.
You do not know me….I am committed to safety and getting better and better. But at my core I am committed. Not a little committed….entirely committed.
Throwing in the towel is not in my DNA. Getting better, helping others and improvement is in my DNA. I invite you to experience OPDC. Please come see us.
Mark
I'm thinking of the reputation raw milk gets every single time something like this arises. Every diary farmer, large or small, who is trying to do the right thing by people and sell their product ends up paying for your mistakes or oversights. It's a fact and we feel it even back here in the sticks, believe me. What you and big herd operators like you do effects everyone from the producer to the consumer. Yes. It. Does.
I was pleasantly surprised to see migel's return to this blog and although his participation here may be a threat to your stereotyped and biased point of view I welcome and look forward to whatever he has to share.
Your statement that, death is rare in modern medicine is a load of crock.
Ken
I believe the raw milk farmers would love to have a more transparent and collaborative approach to epidemiology investigations.Do the lab people object?What can we do to begin this transition?
page 109 Methods in molecular biology Vol 163
Electrophoresis of nucleic acids Volume 2 Practical applications of capillary electrophoresis
Humana Press Totowa NJ
"a large genomic region" …would that be some place like … California?
the Cal. authorities use the word "probability", and Mr Marler advertises there's a "link" from OPD to manure in a calf pen, 200 miles away from the scene. The overwhelming probability is that the tests done came up with a false positive. Even more PROBABLE is that the opponents of REAL MILK stooped 'way down into their bag of dirty tricks and came up with a new mutant of bacteria!
To those who give these agentur of red fascism the benefit of the doubt, after their relentless nefarious mis-conduct over a decade, I say = has the govt. ever lied to you before? Quit worshipping at the altar of science falsely-called
http://www (dot) councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57
It is referring to the use of DNA fingerprinting for forensic use and applying it to a very large population or database. If you are looking for relatively common alleles (or genetic markers), then your chances of finding a statistical match are actually quite high and can lead to wrongful convictions. My question is this – how common are the particular markers they are using? What it the size of the bacterial population we are referring to (this has nothing to do with the population of California, but the population of bacterial diversity that you are comparing it to) How often do bacteria mutate and so you are able to readily differentiate between strains? Bacteria clone themselves and so you are able to see regional or even mammal specific similarities (for example all of the cattle in a herd are likely shedding the same bacteria). This has been used to help determine the source of environmental contamination in waterways (was it gull droppings, cattle run-off, discharge from a waste treatment plant). I just read a paper on it and can get you the specific citation if you are interested. So, if you have a strain that originated at OP, and it entered the environment at various points of contact, is it not possible to have that strain take hold somewhere else and not be associated with OP in future outbreaks? This is a question I have. They have been able to trace all of 0157:57 to a particular previous variation. What is the genetic variation in 0157:H7 currently and do current testing parameters account for this? I think this is particularly useful information in light of all of the positive test results we see in the absence of illness. Does this have to do with the health of the individual? Is it a less virulent strain of the pathogen? Is the success of a particular strain dependant on ratio of other bacteria in the milk (beneficial bacteria)? How does acidity of the environment affect the strain? You can use genetic fingerprinting and sequencing technology to help answer these questions.
Mark, exactness and truthfulness is important in the establishment of trust in a movement. Does raw milk have qualities that can contribute to health? Absolutely. But you can get the exposure to beneficial bacteria in other ways (ask my kids who like to eat dirt sometimes and play with the pigs and chickens). Can it alleviate problems caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk? Sometimes, but not universally. There are many populations that cannot digest the sugars in milk. Period. You could simply stop drinking milk and see the same affects. It reminds me of the problems we see in the USDA food pyramid (pointed out by nutritionist Marion Nestle). The pyramid mentions food groups like proteins, carbs that are based in needed nutrients…then mentions dairy. Dairy is a food, not a nutrient. They speak to calcium in this recommendation, but calcium can be gotten from other food sources. Many populations that cannot digest milk sugars still meet their necessary calcium intake. AND, some people DO NOT have a healthy gut. 0157:H7 is particularly good at adhering to the intestinal wall and then causing the damage it does because of the release of toxins. Has anyone looked at the intestinal health of those sickened? I suspect that this may have something to do with who gets sick and doesn't and the severity of the disease. Because of this, simply stating that there are the broad and universal health benefits are simply not true. If you have an unhealthy gut, are mal or under nourished, and are exposed to any number of bacteria, you can have serious problems. I saw MANY babies and young children die when I was in Niger, West Africa due to diarrhea.
http: // www (dot) councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57
It is referring to the use of DNA fingerprinting for forensic use and applying it to a very large population or database. If you are looking for relatively common alleles (or genetic markers), then your chances of finding a statistical match are actually quite high and can lead to wrongful convictions. My question is this – how common are the particular markers they are using? What it the size of the bacterial population we are referring to (this has nothing to do with the population of California, but the population of bacterial diversity that you are comparing it to) How often do bacteria mutate and so you are able to readily differentiate between strains? Bacteria clone themselves and so you are able to see regional or even mammal specific similarities (for example all of the cattle in a herd are likely shedding the same bacteria). This has been used to help determine the source of environmental contamination in waterways (was it gull droppings, cattle run-off, discharge from a waste treatment plant). I just read a paper on it and can get you the specific citation if you are interested. So, if you have a strain that originated at OP, and it entered the environment at various points of contact, is it not possible to have that strain take hold somewhere else and not be associated with OP in future outbreaks? This is a question I have. They have been able to trace all of 0157:57 to a particular previous variation. What is the genetic variation in 0157:H7 currently and do current testing parameters account for this? I think this is particularly useful information in light of all of the positive test results we see in the absence of illness. Does this have to do with the health of the individual? Is it a less virulent strain of the pathogen? Is the success of a particular strain dependant on ratio of other bacteria in the milk (beneficial bacteria)? How does acidity of the environment affect the strain? You can use genetic fingerprinting and sequencing technology to help answer these questions.
Mark, exactness and truthfulness is important in the establishment of trust in a movement. Does raw milk have qualities that can contribute to health? Absolutely. But you can get the exposure to beneficial bacteria in other ways (ask my kids who like to eat dirt sometimes and play with the pigs and chickens). Can it alleviate problems caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk? Sometimes, but not universally. There are many populations that cannot digest the sugars in milk. Period. You could simply stop drinking milk and see the same affects. It reminds me of the problems we see in the USDA food pyramid (pointed out by nutritionist Marion Nestle). The pyramid mentions food groups like proteins, carbs that are based in needed nutrients…then mentions dairy. Dairy is a food, not a nutrient. They speak to calcium in this recommendation, but calcium can be gotten from other food sources. Many populations that cannot digest milk sugars still meet their necessary calcium intake. AND, some people DO NOT have a healthy gut. 0157:H7 is particularly good at adhering to the intestinal wall and then causing the damage it does because of the release of toxins. Has anyone looked at the intestinal health of those sickened? I suspect that this may have something to do with who gets sick and doesn't and the severity of the disease. Because of this, simply stating that there are the broad and universal health benefits are simply not true. If you have an unhealthy gut, are mal or under nourished, and are exposed to any number of bacteria, you can have serious problems. I saw MANY babies and young children die when I was in Niger, West Africa due to diarrhea.
It is referring to the use of DNA fingerprinting for forensic use and applying it to a very large population or database. If you are looking for relatively common alleles (or genetic markers), then your chances of finding a statistical match are actually quite high and can lead to wrongful convictions. My question is this – how common are the particular markers they are using? What it the size of the bacterial population we are referring to (this has nothing to do with the population of California, but the population of bacterial diversity that you are comparing it to) How often do bacteria mutate and so you are able to readily differentiate between strains? Bacteria clone themselves and so you are able to see regional or even mammal specific similarities (for example all of the cattle in a herd are likely shedding the same bacteria). This has been used to help determine the source of environmental contamination in waterways (was it gull droppings, cattle run-off, discharge from a waste treatment plant). I just read a paper on it and can get you the specific citation if you are interested. So, if you have a strain that originated at OP, and it entered the environment at various points of contact, is it not possible to have that strain take hold somewhere else and not be associated with OP in future outbreaks? This is a question I have. They have been able to trace all of 0157:57 to a particular previous variation. What is the genetic variation in 0157:H7 currently and do current testing parameters account for this? I think this is particularly useful information in light of all of the positive test results we see in the absence of illness. Does this have to do with the health of the individual? Is it a less virulent strain of the pathogen? Is the success of a particular strain dependant on ratio of other bacteria in the milk (beneficial bacteria)? How does acidity of the environment affect the strain? You can use genetic fingerprinting and sequencing technology to help answer these questions.
Mark, exactness and truthfulness is important in the establishment of trust in a movement. Does raw milk have qualities that can contribute to health? Absolutely. But you can get the exposure to beneficial bacteria in other ways (ask my kids who like to eat dirt sometimes and play with the pigs and chickens). Can it alleviate problems caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk? Sometimes, but not universally. There are many populations that cannot digest the sugars in milk. Period. You could simply stop drinking milk and see the same affects. It reminds me of the problems we see in the USDA food pyramid (pointed out by nutritionist Marion Nestle). The pyramid mentions food groups like proteins, carbs that are based in needed nutrients…then mentions dairy. Dairy is a food, not a nutrient. They speak to calcium in this recommendation, but calcium can be gotten from other food sources. Many populations that cannot digest milk sugars still meet their necessary calcium intake. AND, some people DO NOT have a healthy gut. 0157:H7 is particularly good at adhering to the intestinal wall and then causing the damage it does because of the release of toxins. Has anyone looked at the intestinal health of those sickened? I suspect that this may have something to do with who gets sick and doesn't and the severity of the disease. Because of this, simply stating that there are the broad and universal health benefits are simply not true. If you have an unhealthy gut, are mal or under nourished, and are exposed to any number of bacteria, you can have serious problems. I saw MANY babies and young children die when I was in Niger, West Africa due to diarrhea.
The toxins produced by E.coli increase a small protein known as SDF-1 (for chemokine stromal-derived factor 1). It was discovered that elevated levels of SDF-1 in plasma were found in patients who went on to develop HUS. They have developed a medicine that blocks this protein.
Unfortunately Mark, there is no way that you will ever be able to 100% keep it from happening again, just because there are so many variables and vulnerabilities in the people if not the milk itself. You might improve the odds from 99.3% safe to 99.6% but there will always exceptions. I admire that you are working to minimize the risk and educate the public, especially when you could just have one of your employees be your mouthpiece rather than expose yourself in CP public forum, knowing that there will always be some that will pounce on any fine point to denigrate you. I'm glad you are committed, but hope you understand that it will always be an ongoing battle. Sometimes they may even be right, but discussion should always be respectful and often it is not. Walk a mile in his/her shoes before you tee off.
Reading all the scientific speak posted here sometimes makes my head hurt, it is certainly an education and I appreciate it but even science keeps evolving and is never 100%. All you can do is minimize the risk for yourself, but each of us is different so there is no cure all.
My perspective as a real food and raw milk consumer is simple. Americans tend to use crutches such as antibiotics and painkillers when they don't really need them and should live without them as much as possible. Then when you actually do need that crutch, you may find that it doesn't work as it should.
Bottom line, we all make our choices and live with the results. The real problem is that some don't want us to have a choice, and that's just abominable especially when government becomes involved and enforces non-choice due to money interests.
"We found that CXCR4 was expressed in lymphoid organs, and its expression was increased in thymus after Stx exposure. CXCR4 is expressed on a variety of cells, including T- and B-thymocytes, and its altered expression here might indicate an immune response to the toxin. "
"Our data also demonstrate involvement of the CXCR4/CXCR7/SDF-1 axis in pediatric HUS cases, using plasma from a prospective cohort study of patients with E. coli O157:H7 infection (54, 55). Children in this phase of infection have prothrombotic abnormalities, which appear before, and plausibly contribute to, HUS. "
Appears to be an immune response. Regarding the drug: AMD3100/plerixafor- nasty side effects, spleen rupture, splenomegly, tumor cell mobilization, hematologic effects; Leukocytosis,Thrombocytopenia, fetal harm,
"8.4 Pediatric Use
The safety and efficacy of Mozobil in pediatric patients have not been established in controlled clinical studies." http://www.mozobil (DOT) com/document/Package_Insert.pdf
Let me apologize for my content and tone. I appreciate your comments and….you did not deserve my tone or words.
Yet Mark was the first one to post an apology… hmmm.
But OPDC is your baby and you must do what works for you. I just hate to see regulators having their way with the raw milk industry in any fashion because they love to score on the backs of producers, big and small. And when they do, it effects us one and all.
Good luck to you on all fronts.
Just because 2 children who drank some raw milk from Organic Pastures, got sick, does not mean that milk was the cause. So did 60, 000 others, who did not get sick in the same time-frame. There are many more factors other than just food.
Thousands of children PER DAY go through the petting zoo, in the stock barn at the Pacific National Exhibition. A sign advises parents to have children wash their hands. Ive been told by a leader who was in the barn for the 4H week in 2010, that a child from the public got sick with HUS and died, after going through the petting zoo. PNE officials warned the 4Hers to say nothing about it. The petting zoo stayed open for the duration of the PNE.
In the only incident on record in BC of raw milk ostensibly having made someone ill, the children who got sick had attended a petting zoo the week before. As soon as the Dr heard the children drank raw milk, that was it for a diagnosis So a goat milk herdshare which had been going for many years, without incident, from which their family got milk, quit, rather than deal with the health authority. . The petting zoo is still in business
Disabuse you-selves from the hysteria that assumes mere association = causality On any given day across America, therell be a thousand people who get food poisoning after eating a bag of ( for instance ) Doritos. Does mean that all those bags of Doritos contained poison ? Hardly.
There are a lot more PROBABLE CAUSES for a child to pick up bacteria in his local environment, than REAL MILK produced / delivered under more-scrupulous practices than youll find in just about any other commercial foodstuff you can name
Thats just it, Watson. The dog did not bark said Holmes . 60,000+ people who DIDNT get sick in that same time-frame are the control group. Dont let the ambulance-chaser and axe-grinder get away with blaming OPD til theres a genuinely logical link
In all cases of neurological inflammation leading to autistic behavior there seems to be an initial insult to the system, which results in a reduction of normal flora in the intestinal tract, with a subsequent loss of Vitamin K. Most often this seems to occur as a result of chronic streptococcal ear infections, the antibiotic use that follows, and a lack of re-population of the intestines with normal flora. Alternatively or in addition, excess stomach acid and insufficient bile (due to decreased liver function) creates a situation of relative acid access and acid pH in the intestinal tract. (Ingestion of glutamate, as MSG, itself has been reported to cause excess acid and heartburn.) This would create an environment that is conducive to yeast, E.coli, and streptococcal overgrowth and non-ideal for normal protective bacterial flora. This imbalance in normal flora can be further exacerbated by the excitotoxin glutamate. Excess glutamate has been shown to INCREASE THE SURVIVAL OF ENTEROHEMORRHAGIC E.COLI, PARTICULARLY UNDER ACIDIC CONDITIONS.
Called this several weeks ago:
"contamination found in the calving area originated from maternal cows and subsequently passed to calves, either directly through feeding, indirectly through fecal-oral transmission, or by translocation through movement of personnel and equipment used on the farm."
Remember all of my posts that got really, really trashed about this . . . .
I bet those maternal cows implicated here are now hamburger . . . )
Best,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
"On the matter of fermenting the milk to make kefir or yogurt, lots of consumers do that. Is McAfee suggesting people shouldn't do that, or that it should be done "at your own risk"?"
Jennifer said:
"I don't think Mark is suggesting that cultured milk products are inherantly bad. I have known that the harmful bacteria often survive in acidic environments (that is why stomach acids don't destroy them). That is why I choose to pasturize my cultured milks and soft cheeses."
Reading up on this subject, I found this article on the Marler blog. http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/two-raw-milks—one-for-the-pasteurizer-and-one-in-the-raw/
I sure wish the mother of the two children who ended up hospitalized had had this information before she made raw milk kefir from OPDC milk. Not that she is at fault in any way. She was following the directives of the likes of Sally Fallon I am sure.
Mark McAfee is the head of OPDC and RAWMI. Bill Anderson is on the board of the RAWMI along with you, David Gumpert, correct? RAWMI: "Headquartered near Kerman, California, in one of the top dairy and agriculture centers in the world, the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) provides training and leadership through its common standards to safely guide the growing raw milk market. The process involves scientific research, farmer training, the publication of listed farmers test results, and continuous education."
Here's the conversation, a little eerie really:
Mary said:
Bill Anderson,
What are your thoughts on grass fed raw milk gently pasteurized at home with a double boiler? How damaged is this milk? We cook other foods and they are still considered healthy. Why would it be different for milk?
Bill Anderson – July 20, 2011 8:33 PM
Mary-
My general philosophy is that biological solutions are always preferable to industrial solutions. I would agree that there are legitimate concerns about the increased food safety risks of fresh fluid raw milk, but I think the best way to address these is through culturing the milk rather than pasteurizing it. For example, this study shows how an African yogurt culture causes the death of E. Coli in milk:
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2004/2004mokuar.pdf
(there are many more studies similair to this one)
However, I can address the issue of home pasteurization.
Firstly, legal vat pasteurization requires that the airspace of the vat be maintained at least 5 degrees above the legal pasteurization limit for the entire duration of pasteurization, using culinary-grade steam. (Believe it or not, I am trained and licensed to pasteurize milk by the state of Wisconsin). In case there are particles of the raw milk that splashed onto the upper side wall or cover of the vat, this is to ensure those are pasteurized as well so they do not re-contaminate the milk after pasteurization. It would be very difficult to do this properly on the home scale.
Secondly, complicating the home pasteurization would be the ability to rapidly cool the milk after pasteurization. If contaminants (such as those mentioned above) make their way back into the milk while it is cooling, they will have free-reign over the milk since you have just destroyed all the natural flora of the milk. Since it is difficult to rapidly cool milk on the home scale, there is ample opportunity for these contaminants to grow. (You may have been better off just leaving the milk raw to begin with…)
Thirdly, I think that the term "gently pasteurized" is problematic. I actually think that HTST pasteurization (161.5F for 15 seconds) is preferable to vat pasteurization (145F for 30 minutes) because of the extended hold time in the latter. While both are equivilent in their logarthmic destruction of pathogenic organisms, from a quality standpoint the proteins in the vat pasteurized milk are more damaged.
Finally, speaking as a cheesemaker, pasteurization limits are fairly narrow. If you cook milk above 180F, you denature whey proteins which fundamentally alters the way that the milk thickens and coagulates. I can't speak to the nutritional properties, but I can say that this milk will never make good cheese because the whey proteins are now unfolded and bound to the casein (curd proteins) preventing good seperation of curd and whey.
The preferable option is to get good clean tested & certified raw milk from your local grass-grazed dairy farm. If you want an extra measure of food safety, turn it into kefir or yogurt and then age it for a few days in the fridge. The acidity and competition from beneficial lactic-acid producing bacteria will render the milk safe in the off-chance that any small quantities of pathogens are initially present.
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 20, 2011 8:56 PM
Bill,
If milk was pasteurized in a double boiler at 161.5 degrees for 15 seconds, placed in glass quart size canning jars, and then put in a metal tub filled with ice would this cool the milk rapidly enough? Also, would you consider this damaged milk in regards to the protein structure?
Another question, when yogurt is made, what degree is it heated to and for how long?
I'd love to see a study done on kefir and yogurt to see if it does 100% kill pathogens.
mark mcafee – July 20, 2011 9:05 PM
I agree with Bill Anderson 100%. Culturing is a far better and more probiotic method to use than to pasteurize. The acidification, colonization, competition and other fermentation chemistry has been used for thousands of years. In fact history shows that most civilizations that drank rawmilk, drank as a fermented clabber…
Why…no available refrigeration. We are spoiled in first world countries and like are cereals etc.
I love my raw milk. I am also spoiled. I have 2000 gallons of it every day at the OPDC creamery 1400 feet from my house. We provide this non allergenic, easily digestible food to about 65,000 people every week in CA. 400 stores carry the product and more demand is measured every day.
There are truly Two Raw Milks In America.
The Milk Pool milk that has up to 750 coliforms and god knows how many pathogens and up to 100,000 SPC ( all of this as measured at the dairy milk tank and gets much higher at the creamery tank )
The Other Raw Milk that is for Direct Human Consumption with less than 10 coliforms, less than 15,000 SPC per ml and zero pathogens allowed ever and this is in finished product form….now tell me there is only one kind of RAW MILK in America….
Clearly, there are state laws that define these two raw milks. If you deny this, then I have a captive space alien that I would like Anderson Cooper to interview.
Mark
Bill Anderson – July 21, 2011 6:57 AM
Mary-
Well, speaking from experience canning things other than milk (salsa, pickles, etc…) you never want to put a glass mason jar full of hot liquid into an ice bath. The temperature differential will cause the glass to shatter.
If your only goal with home pasteurization is to render the milk safe to drink, I'd say you don't need to worry about the narrow limits of industrial pasteurization to prevent excessive protein denaturation. The better option is just to start with clean raw milk to begin (SPC less than 15,000/mL and coliform less than 10/mL) with and then culture it with a measured dose of robust beneficial lactic-acid producing bacteria. Many industrial yogurt producers will cook the milk upto 180F to denature whey proteins, but this is a modern practice and not the traditional way that yogurt is made.
Here is more interesting information about how lactic cultures kill E. Coli:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/03/teens-discovery-could-save-millions-of.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2185003
http://www.yourkefirsource.com/kefir-information/the-dangers-of-kefir-none
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 21, 2011 8:22 PM
Thanks for the information Bill. I wish all three had the actual journal article sited.
Bill Anderson – July 23, 2011 8:41 AM
Mary-
It looks like the story on the CNN website also appear on a Marler-Clark blog:
http://www.ecoliblog.com/e-coli-watch/student-discovers-protein-in-yoghurt-that-fights-e-coli/
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 23, 2011 9:23 AM
Dont get me wrong Bill. If someone was going to ask me to choose between consuming raw milk or yogurt or kefir made from raw milk, I would choose the later. Having said that, I want to see hard data showing that raw yogurt and kefir have the capacity to 100% kill all pathogens dead equal to pasteurization. The article you site states it has the potential to fight E.coli. That is different from making a statement that it kills all pathogens that could be present in raw yogurt and kefir. And by kills, I dont mean reduces. I mean kills, eliminates, wipes-out with zero pathogens remaining.
Bill Anderson – July 23, 2011 6:45 PM
Hi Mary,
Even PMO standards require certain bacterial limits in the raw milk in order to assure food safety. If CAFO raw milk with a Staph Aureus count of 5 million per mL is pasteurized using PMO time/temperature guidelines, it will still make you sick because Staph entero-toxin is heat-stable and can survive pasteurization.
To expect that there is a process that can be 100% effective in ensuring food safety is unrealistic. Pasteurized milk has caused innumerable outbreaks and even 2 recent deaths. Clearly it is not the pancea you make it out to be.
The whole point of using HACCP-like plans (such as Mark's RAMP) is to analzye risk factors, and work to ensure they are effectively managed and minimized.
That being said, I am confident that raw milk that meets bacterial standards for human-grade raw milk (SPC under 15,000 and Coliform under 10/mL) and is cultured to under pH 4.5 using a measured does of lactic-acid producing bacteria, is equivilent to pasteurization in its pathogen destroying capabilities. The question which not yet been solved is which strains of which lactic bacteria need to be used to accomplish this.
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 24, 2011 7:07 AM
Yes. Bill. I know that you are biased against pasteurization, but most outbreaks involve either faulty pasteurization or contamination after it has been pasteurized. As for Staph Aureus, how many document outbreaks have been caused by this bacterium?
The point I am trying to make is that people can make the choice to purchase raw milk from a local farmer and pasteurize it at home themselves. I believe there are many people out there that would like to support their local farmer, as well as being able to purchase milk that has not been produced using growth hormones, GMO feed, antibiotics and homogenization and at the same time dont want to take the risk of consuming milk that has not been pasteurized.
Home pasteurization is an option people can choose.
Bill Anderson – July 24, 2011 11:24 AM
If people want to pasteurize at home, that is their choice. I just want to make sure that consumers have a choice to purchase clean, tested, CERTIFIED raw milk, and that our regulatory system is based on science and not corporate interests.
My main point is that lactic-acid fermentation will achieve the same effect of destroying pathogens as pasteurization will achieve, only without destroying the bio-diversity or denaturing the nutrients and ezymes.
As a cheese maker, I know that raw milk cheese has more flavor than pasteurized. Raw milk cheese (with the notable exception of unacidified high-moisture high-salt varieties, i.e. queso blanco) also has an intrinsic immunity to listeria monocytogenes that pasteurized milk cheeses lacks. For this reason, it is actually safer to make cheese with CERTIFIED raw milk than it is to make it with pasteurized milk.
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 24, 2011 4:23 PM
Bill,
Im talking about people having the opportunity to home pasteurize their raw milk that is purchased from small farmers, cowshare programs or large dairies like OPDC. The very milk you would want people to buy. It is just an option for people who dont want to take the risk of drinking raw milk, but want healthy milk. Im not talking about sterilizing the milk, just pasteurizing it enough to kill the bad guys in case the farmer had a bad day and shit got in the milk. Why take that risk if you dont have to?
As for raw cheese, I believe E.coli 0157:H7 made people ill last year. Remember the Costco outbreak. Shiga toxin E.coli is a potent bacteria.
As for this, My main point is that lactic-acid fermentation will achieve the same effect of destroying pathogens as pasteurization will achieve, only without destroying the bio-diversity or denaturing the nutrients and ezymes. I get that, but want to see had data proving that.
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 24, 2011 4:42 PM
Bill, I apologize. You did post this link. http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2004/2004mokuar.pdf I'm reading through it. It looks promising, but to be considered valid, it would have to be reproduced in another study and the same results would have to be found.
Bill Anderson – July 24, 2011 7:51 PM
Mary,
No offense to Mark and OPDC (love them!) but I do think that raw milk cheese is a preferable vehicle for the delivery of the delicious nutrients in raw milk. Of course, I could be biased… I am a cheese maker, after all.
The combination of lactic-acid fermentation, salt, reduced moisture content, and age, all work to eliminate pathogens. Plus with cheese, because of the age, you have a chance to test everything for pathogens before it is sent to market (where with fluid drinking milk, because of its short shelf-life, any test you perform is looking at something already heading to market).
The E. Coli outbreaks that happened last year from raw milk cheese, happened because the producers were not following good practices and testing their cheese like they should have been. By utilizing HACCP types of plans and testing protocals, it is entirely possible to produce raw milk cheese with equivilent or higher safety than pasteurized milk cheese.
That being said, I choose to drink raw milk. I like the flavor better, and living in Wisconsin there is an abundance of small local dairy farms to choose from. It also makes better cheese any day, hands down. The finest artisan cheeses in the world are made with raw milk.
Mary McGonigle-Martin – July 24, 2011 8:12 PM
Bill,
I just dont understand the logic of stating that no one has died from drinking raw milk in the last 30 years. It makes me angry when Mark says this and just as angry when you say it. What exactly is your point? Are you saying it is O.K. for raw milk to make people ill because they didnt die? Is it O.K. that Mari Tardiff still has to use a walker and that Lauren Herzog and Kalee Prue have permanent kidney damage and will probably require kidney dialysis sometime in their lives? What, they didnt die so contaminated raw milk is not a safety issue?
This information is posted on STOP about my sons illness.
Labor Day Weekend of 2006 changed our lives forever. Little did we know the raw milk our son consumed was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. While we innocently swam in our backyard swimming pool and enjoyed the holiday, this killer bacterium slowly invaded Chris' intestinal track. The first signs of trouble: a headache, followed by fever and lethargy. Next, a day filled with endless episodes of diarrhea, culminating that evening with blood in his stool. This signaled something was terribly wrong. From there, relentless, painful diarrhea and vomiting began, marking the beginning of our two month odyssey to Hell.
Nothing can prepare a parent for this medical announcement: "Your child has Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome". Or this one: "Your child will get worse before he gets better". Our son fought a war. It was against something invisible. You can't see or smell E. coli O157:H7 or the die off (called Shiga toxins) which are poisonous to the human body. The damage done by this bacterium is incomprehensible.
Christopher entered the emergency room during the evening of September 7th and was admitted to the hospital the following morning. He was diagnosed with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome on September 11, 2006. He endured a ventilator, kidney dialysis, chest drainage tubes, central lines, PICC lines, blood transfusions, plasma transfusions platelet transfusions, intravenous nutrition, narcotics, antibiotics, and surgeries. He recovered from renal failure, congestive heart failure, a collapsed lung, acute pancreatitis, high blood pressure and seizures. While in critical condition, he was in the care of a nephrologist, cardiologist, neurologist, gastroenterologist and multiple attending pediatric ICU physicians. Christopher was released from the hospital on November 2, 2006.
Our family is blessed. Chris won his war against E. coli O157:H7 and HUS. He survived.
Our son, Christopher Chase, is our hero. He taught us so much about the strength of the human spirit and is living proof that miracles do happen.
Bill, please help me understand what your point is, because I am clueless.
You ask a great question when you inquire about the diversity of PFGE patterns to interpret significance of indistinguishable patterns. Overall, PFGE has a very high level of diversity EC 0157 from human cases meaning cases that are not epidemiologically related are very likely to have different PFGE patterns. Pulsenet uses 2 enzymes when performing PFGE on 0157 which increases its amount of diversity. Note that PFGE diversity can be different between different organisms, for Salmonella enteritiditis the diversity level is quite low-I think that is a whole different topic which is fascinating. There are some common PFGE patterns with 0157, but these common patterns are still not very common-maybe 2% of total cases. So from a subtyping perspective, to have 5 cases in a relatively close location in a relatively short period of time with a rare (or completely unique) PFGE subtype is highly significant.
Feeling lazy today so I don't have a great reference for you. Here is an only reference which showed PFGE (with a single enzyme) in 1 state. If you need a better reference, I can get it for you.
Surveillance by molecular subtype for Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in Minnesota by molecular subtyping.
Bender JB, Hedberg CW, Besser JM, Boxrud DJ, MacDonald KL, Osterholm MT.
N Engl J Med. 1997 Aug 7;337(6):388-94.
Do you not think it would be more constructive to place a cease and desist on the use of vaccines and antibiotics in children?
If we continue to follow CDC and US Department of Health and Human Services unscientific, contradictory guidelines we are going to be in dire straights indeed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html
The following is an article describing a theory for autism, which you may find interesting.
http://www.health-reports.com/autism.html
A lack of understanding of the role of our inner ecosystem is preventing researchers from unlocking the mystery of autism. If we fully recognized the value of the amazing "subculture" of microflora that our intestinal tracts are designed to support, we would discover the key to preventing and healing this disorder.
Ken
I think you might Surprised that Mary Martin had similar questions as you about raw milk and kefir making.
I cut and pasted a conversation from the marler blog comments section where Mary, Bill Anderson, and Mark McAfee discuss raw milk and fermentation.
While waiting for Gumpert to approve the comment because of the links, you can read the conversation on my blog if you are so inclined:
http://farmmuckraker.blogspot.com/2012/01/organic-pastures-dairy-company-raw-milk DOT html
I think your request for scientific discussion and debate is remarkable for this blog, Jennifer. Good stuff. Keep it up!
Of course none of these questions removes the sad fact that OPDC products are responsible for sick, sick children whose kidneys would be better off today if they hadn't drunk raw milk. And Sylvia, we all know modern medicine has its flaws. MW I think meant that modern medicine saves these sickened kids lives whereas a decade or so ago they would have died. I glad medical research has kept up with the horrible superbugs now in our food supply. I can't say the same for WAPF guidelines.
Kristen Papac
Once children have been vaccinated, been eating processed foods and loaded with toxins, including heavy metals, this is a different body and the immune system is going to respond differently. Why in the hell would anyone suggest putting a high risk food like raw milk into a challenged body? It is insane.
I agree with you on the autism front generally. Having worked with children with autism most likely have gut dysbiosis in the words of GAPS founder Natasha Campbell-McBride. She champions the "healing and sealing" of the gut lining and growth of the biofilm that is necessary for proper immunity and detoxifying of the body.
That is why I am surprised when people like Ken or Mark suggest that raw milk, with it's teeming micro flora, is the panacea for children with autism. Of course that theory is oversimplified.
Natasha Campbell-McBride, who recently showed her support for Organic Pastures, by the way, on Facebook, knows that Certain children and adults with severely compromised immunity as attributed to their gut dysbiosis cannot handle any type of dairy until their gut lining is healed. This is often because the casein molecules, or whatever you call them as I am just a layperson, can penny rate the gut wall and directly enter the bloodstream where they can be attacked as foreign invaders (allergens).
Therefore, a lot of people need to take out dairy initially and "heal and seal" their gut before they can tolerate it again.
In light of my newfound laypersons understanding of ecoli 0157:H7, it seems to me that suggesting raw milk cows milk is a good idea for the autistic population is a dangerous proposition indeed.
Here is a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about the gut/brain axis and immunity. I found it through Chris Kresser, L.Ac has a great podcast about it at chriskresser.com. His podcast is called Real Health Radio.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164732944974356.html
I agree with you on the autism front. Having worked with children with autism most likely have gut dysbiosis in the words of GAPS founder Natasha Campbell-McBride. She champions the "healing and sealing" of the gut lining and growth of the biofilm that is necessary for proper immunity and detoxifying of the body.
That is why I am surprised when people like Ken or Mark suggest that raw milk, with it's teeming micro flora, is the panacea for children with autism. Of course that theory is oversimplified.
Natasha Campbell-McBride, who recently showed her support for Organic Pastures, by the way, on Facebook, knows that Certain children and adults with severely compromised immunity as attributed to their gut dysbiosis cannot handle any type of dairy until their gut lining is healed. This is often because the casein molecules, or whatever you call them as I am just a layperson, can penetrate the gut wall and directly enter the bloodstream where they can be attacked as foreign invaders (allergens).
Therefore, a lot of people need to take out dairy initially and "heal and seal" their gut before they can tolerate it again.
In light of my newfound laypersons understanding of ecoli 0157:H7, it seems to me that suggesting raw milk cows milk is a good idea for the autistic population is a dangerous proposition indeed.
Here is a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about the gut/brain axis and immunity. I found it through Chris Kresser, L.Ac has a great podcast about it at chriskresser DOT com. His podcast is called Real Health Radio.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164732944974356 DOT HTML
Kristen
You are so right on….it is insane. What the industrialized-Monsanto, PHARMA, Mike Taylor system has done to our bodies is insane. People are opting off that insane train. Hence raw milk consumers.
I have never ever said that raw milk is perfect…I have never said that raw milk is guaranteed safe. This a claim made by BIG DAIRY processors and the PMO gods at the FDA.
Explain… GUARANTEED and PERFECT to the three people that died from pasteurized milk in 2007.
This is important for all of those that use store bought or even Home conserved cultures or kefir grains.
The strength of a starter culture for kefir is critical. If the pH is lot achieved below at least 5.4 ( experts at Christian Hansen and Dr. Ron Hull data ) and the temperatures are not kept high enough…then coliforms will grow well. Coliforms and their kin can do very well if a weak starter culture is used or temperatures and pH targets are not achieved.
As for the person that stated that Mark should close his doors…well, I beg to differ, there are literally thousands of us contented OP consumers that are very happy & satisfied consumers that have been enjoying these products for a number of years. The few that you see here on this blog that would love to shut down the dairy DO NOT represent us that value these products.
I'm sure you are aware that Western Blot data has been notoriously falsified in journal data. Couldn't the same cut and paste technique be done with PGFE results?
Thanks for your response.
Deborah, doncha know that your question is totally irrelevant to fresh milk and has no bearing on this blog???? Thousands of people becoming ill and dying from even pasteurized milk have no relevance to even ONE person becoming ill from fresh milk.
To the anti-raw-milk gang, it doesn't matter how many people become ill or die from other causes, and for us to bring it up creates howls of "Diversion from topic at hand!" or their favorite: "I don't understand how ANYONE can condone even ONE child becoming ill on raw milk!!"
It appears that tptb stop "looking" if raw dairy is involved.
"Why is there no call on this blog to shut them down, to put them out of business, etc?! Yet, they not only are still in business, but also still producing very unhealthy products!! "
I believe that many on this blog have stated in some way or other the unjustness regarding your statement. I have written letters, emails and phone calls….I doubt that they have made a difference, yet continue to do so. I also do not consume processed/fast phoods and inform anyone in hearing distance of the toxins within. I purchase my foods from farmers to include eggs and meats/poultry. Currently I am not consuming dairy as I am in Arkansas and you cannot purchase raw milk other than goat milk and I am not a fan of goat milk. I will purchase raw goat milk cheese on occasion. I post numerous articles (science based and anecdotal) on face book and other blogs/emails.(I know people share much of what I post). I feel I am doing my part, however small.
Good point Goatmaid.
http://organicpastures.com/faq.html
From the link:
"Warm raw dairy products lose none of their nutritional value, but they begin the process of natural souring, which starts to change flavors (rapid increase beneficial bacteria). This is not a concern for food safety, but it does make the product into a naturally cultured dairy product much like Kefir. OPDC recommends that warmed raw milk be cultured and stored at 90 degrees for 24 hours. The resulting product is a delicious Clabbered Raw Milk. 90 percent of the people on planet earth drink their milk as a clabbered milk, not fresh. Cultures can be purchased at the health food store."
One hour ago on OPDC's SoCal Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/#!/Socalrawmilk
"Don't want to live without beautiful #RawKefir anymore? Make your own. We have Kefir starter grains and instruction sheets for u today."
Kristen's response on Twitter:
@Socalrawmilk: We have Kefir starter grains and instruction sheets for u today. …so your kids can get HUS. #rawmilk
Less inspectors=more contamination at already over contaminated chicken houses…..I would NOT want any turkey from the turkey farm in the video….
"Scientists are now recommending that mothers delay vital breastfeeding in order to improve the effects of vaccinations, stating that consuming breast milk could hamper the potency of vaccinations such as the rotavirus injection." "Whats more is the fact that the researchers seem to indicate mothers should instead choose to give their children synthetic formula. "
Stupid recommendations like this make scientists and tptb look…..what's a good word…stupid? Out for big $$$$$…
The world is what it is because we worship power at the expense of freedom and have deified technology at the expense of truth. An awakening of sorts is necessary for without it organisms such as e coli 0157 H7 or its progeny will have the last laugh.
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth.
Ken
Before you vote,know who voted for what…
http://naturalsociety (DOT) com/scientists-say-delay-breastfeeding-to-improve-vaccine-potency/
What did the scientists get paid to say this crap? And who paid them?
Since I cant link it, just go to OPDCs homepage and scroll down to the bottom on the left to find the information.
I wonder if the mom who made the kefir with the raw milk bought the kefir grains from OPDC?
Apparently it is important to have knowledge about your kefir grains otherwise they may be contaminated or poor quality leading to bacterial growth. According to this link, if you pasteurize your kefir ,you will not have the pro-biotic effects.
There are numerous web sites explaining how to make kefir using raw and cooked milk. I wonder how many people know anything about kefir grains?
I wonder if the mom who made the kefir with the raw milk bought the kefir grains from a substandard place or used contaminated grains? Did the state during their "investigation" even check the kefir grains?
But fermented products. That's the question. And I'm not going to shoot Mark down for suggesting it. It is a real question. I ferment milk and had the same question.
Here is a paper that shows that 0157:H7 can survive in a traditional goat milk fermented product called amasi.
Bhekisisa c. Dlamini, Elna M. Buys, Adaptation Escherichia coli 0157:H7 to acid in traditional and commercial goat milk amasi, Food Microbiology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.fm.2008.07.007
A couple things to note about the paper – 0157:H7 has varying degrees of acid tolerance. This is not just the survival of the organism in acidic conditions (as we know is the case because it survives our stomach at a PH of 2), but can actually replicate in acidic conditions depending on its tolerance of the acidic conditions. As the number of days of fermentation increased, the e coli count did decrease, with the acid adapted strain doing better in traditional cultures than the non-adapted.
I have made cultured milk products. I have used previous batches to re culture the next. I have used prepared cultures. I have used different strains of bacteria (some more acidic than others). I have used different fermentation times and temperatures. All of these factors affect the results. If you have a weak starting culture, it talks longer to ferment. If you do not keep the milk at the right temperature, the bacteria are not as successful and it takes longer to ferment. Suppose you do have small e coli contamination, and the bacteria is more acid adapted, and you do not properly ferment you milk… you can certainly have a product that can make you sick because the population of lactose fermenting bacteria (and the resulting PH) are related to the its success in eliminating the e. coli. BUT, let's remember that labs inoculate with e. coli at a much larger dose than you likely get in real life. This may be why fermented milks have been seen as protective against e. coli.
http : // 198. 170. 104 .138/biotech/2004/173-180 (dot) pdf
I would like to suggest that just preventing cross-contamination from one area of the farm to another is a difficult (dare I say impossible) thing…bacteria win that kind of war. Creating an environment that is inhospitable to them is something that is likely more effective. As we have all talked about, that speaks to soil health, feed, animal health, and husbandry.
500 acres with 400 acres to grow hay,etc….and 300 cows…does that mean 300 cows on 100 acres? Too bad they don't tell about killing 3 adults and an unborn baby. and they are still in business…
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/
We don't know for certain that kefir was the culprit in the two cases Mark McAfee alludes to. All we have is his conversation with a mom that she made kefir from OPDC milk, and fermented veggies. But he hasn't done the kind of interview and questioning to know for certain what happened, and whether the children, for example, ingested raw milk separately, or whether the kefir starter didn't take (leaving essentially raw milk that sat non-refrigerated for some amount of time).
I'm not suggesting raw milk kefir can't carry E.coli O157:H7. All I'm saying is there aren't a lot of experiences where it has. Once again, would be nice to know more, certainly about the situation at hand in California,
David
Kristen, PGEF is considered highly reliable in detecting different strains. The success of it relies on enough differentiation in the given population that you will not have repeats because you are using a recurring pattern. As "interested" pointed out, with 0157:H7 you have a lot of diversity and relatively rare common patterns (about 2% of cases). Who are those 2% of cases in the real world and what one does with that, I don't know .
"Interested", Thank you for the information. Another question: Once 0157 leaves a population (of, say cows, for example), what is the expected rate of mutation? Will it remain similar to the original population (as detected by PGEF)? Will you have a new banding pattern? How easy is to to determine population of origin?
The focus shifted to kefir because Mark McAfee took it there. He shared a private conversation with the mother and mentioned kefir as perhaps THE VARIABLE as to why her kids were the sickest ones.
I was shocked and dismayed:
1) because he was divulging a private conversation held at presumably a vulnerable time for that mother
2) why mention the kefir story at all? Why not say, "I'm sorry my milk has been linked to 5 I'll children, 3 of which were hospitalized.
3) I had been mislead by the WAPF association that kefir from raw milk is totally safe for children and babies and pregnant women. This is not cool.
My response:
1 and 2) Again it goes back to accountability. Everyone loves to pat McAfee on the back for being so transparent. What I see is diversion and distraction. No ones talking about calf poop and colostrum anymore. (although Amanda has mentioned the mouse poop!) I don't doubt for a minute that his subconcious is chuckling a little at all of us going on about raw milk kefir… Because guess who is bringing that very product the shelves? He's certainly got the kefir buzz going, no? In fact, I think he is a marketing genious and missed his calling with the big boys in new york.
3) Everyone loves that WAPF with McAfee of Organic Pastureshas brought more of a demand for raw milk than has been seen since the advent of pasteurization. Both organizations are at the height of their game it seems. And yet it is this same all or nothing attitude that lured me in: drink raw milk, the live and healthy milk or drink the dead stuff. There is no in between, no grey area: say organic grass-fed milk that has been gently pasteurized and fermented. Nope. Drink raw or drink nothin! Drink raw milk, every other milk is inferior! Drink raw milk and cure what ails you!
Do you see why we moms might be a bit tee'd off and snarky?
Kristen
"I would like to suggest that just preventing cross-contamination from one area of the farm to another is a difficult (dare I say impossible) thing…bacteria win that kind of war. Creating an environment that is inhospitable to them is something that is likely more effective. As we have all talked about, that speaks to soil health, feed, animal health, and husbandry."
Excellent points. What say you, OPDC?
This is just Marks M.O.. A child gets HUS, he gains access to the parents at the worst time of their lives, they share information and then he publically retells partial truths and then adds his own war facts (lies) and this becomes the true story throughout WAPF and raw milk world. Based on experience with this dance, I would suggest everyone read what he writes with a very critical eye.
My favorite part of his story is how he is the protector of the family. Make me barf.
Mark, Melissa Herzog and I werent the least bit appreciative of your visit to the hospital or any statements you made publically about what our children ate or how ill they were. Your version was they were doing fine and the media exaggerated. Just a bunch of BS!
Im sure if this family had any clue that you are doing a repeat performance, they would be quite angry.
Get a clue about human decency.
"Although tests for E. coli in the milk in the familes' homes after the children's illnesses were confirmed turned up negative, "
http://www.cdfa.ca (DOT) gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=11-064
"While laboratory samples of Organic Pastures raw milk have not detected E. coli 0157:H7 contamination, "
It appears that it was not in the milk……
Jennifer, I had read on one of the sites that some people pasteurize their kefir grains, and that renders the probiotic affect ineffective. I don't make it so I am only telling what I read.
Since PFGE is not a sequencing based technology, the affect of mutation rate in a species may not be reflected in PFGE pattern changes. For the most part, point mutations will not have an impact of PFGE patterns (with the exception if it occurs at a restriction site or if the mutation creates a new restriction site). So the most common mutations may not be reflected in differences in PFGE patterns. However, PFGE patterns will be affected by large DNA insertions or deletions and by plasmids.
That being said, I can only give you information about my experience. I don't think there is many articles written about this particular area, if there are I am not familiar with them. Within an outbreak, a PFGE is quite stable between epidemilogically related cases and it is quite stable within an individual. I have seen instances where individuals are still shedding the same PFGE type for months. If you isolate many individual colonies, you can find different PFGE types that are similar to the predominant type (say about 1% of the colonies might be different-that is a very rough number though).
As far as comparing the PFGE change rate between different environments (human vs animal vs food vs environment), I really don't have any experience. My guess is (this is only a guess) that there is more selection in a human or animal compared due to immune response compared to environment.
Hope this helps.
The epidemiologist asks about many exposures when there is a "red flag" from the microbiologists doing the lab work. They don't stop at "raw milk." They go after all the risk factors associated with the pathogen, and do comparative studies to identify the most likely cause and implement preventive measures.
The innuendo on this blog that epidemiologists and microbiologists are corrupt is insulting. Frankly, I wonder why I'm even posting this, except I believe the minority is the anti-science folks that don't want to understand better why outbreaks happen and how to prevent them.
Regarding my "modern medicine" comment. I was referring to the ability to treat kidney failure with dialysis, etc. Ken and Sylvia – if you had a tragedy and lost kidney function, would you opt for pre-1970's medical treatment? Would you travel to a third world country for your medical care to avoid "modern medicine?"
MW
as for MW's sneer that we're anti-science … just the exact opposite. Let's see some scientific evidence of a LINK – as Mr Marler has it – between a DN A sample from a patch of manure in a calf pen, and a DNA pattern in a suburban household, 300 miles away. Did those who did the sampling bother to step outside the door of the home and take any sample of local dogpoop? Of course not ; the minute 'raw milk' was mentioned, every other posible vector of contamination was dispensed-with
I do not say that " … epidemiologists and microbiologists are corrupt". I do say that the so-called "health authorities have been proven liars, time and again, from Maine to Australia, when it comes to the fable merchandised about the risk of harm from consuming REAL MILK. I do say that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" … time and again, in split samples done in genuinely independent labs. the govt. lab is proven to have been 'making it up"
"They go after all the risk factors associated with the pathogen, and do comparative studies to identify the most likely cause and implement preventive measures."
If that is true than the whole investigation process should be completely transparent so that everyone can see what was done and how it was done…right?
"I wonder why I'm even posting "
narcissism comes to mind…..
"Doctors are treating foster childrens behavioral problems with the same powerful drugs given to people with schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder. We simply dont have evidence to support this kind of use, especially in young children, Dr. dosReis said."
http://www.accessdata.fda (DOT) gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020639s045s046lbl.pdf
"Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents and young adults"
One example of a non-3rd world country medical care…. there are so many facts that show medical care in the US is not the best in the world…
http://www.nytimes )DOT) com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=print
"World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. "
"I think a key point in understanding DNA fingerprinting is recognizing the difference between investigating epidemiological relationships vs. conducting a study to understand the evolution of the strain. PFGE is a robust method to link strains in time and place. It fails to describe long-term evolution unless multiple enzymes are used (6+)."
Can you elaborate on this point? What do you mean by the statement that "PFGE is a robust method to link strains in time and place" ?
It is true that there is a lack of trust in some epidemiology investigations,but this could be changed if they were conducted in a more transparent way. It takes patience and perseverance to gain trust.I believe you have a valid point of view.Help me to see what you see.Then you will have my trust.
I did not contact the mom with the two sick kids, she wrote me a letter and we connected via email and then she and I spoke on the phone. Mary, I did not visit anyone in hospitals….I did Not call anyone….I welcomed her request and we connected.
As some throw rocks at raw milk, those same people do not fully appreciate the immune and nutritional gifts of raw milk.
Come stand with me at a farmers market sometime and just listen….then you will appreciate the greater good experienced by thousands each day. Then the greater picture of true benefits will be appreciated.
Three things MUST happen for illness to occur :
A pathogen must be present and it must be virulent
There must be a load of pathogens great enough to cause illness
The host must be weak enough or susesptible to the pathogen.
Improper culturing effects at least one of these factors.
One may be at an advantage if treated here in North America mainly because modern medicine on this continent has given itself a large number of subjects to practice on due to the effects of its ever expanding toxic drug lines, (antibiotics, NSAIDs, ACE inhibitors, analgesics, fungicides, pesticides, etc.), thus ample experience in treating acute renal failure (ARF), as well as providing itself with an excellent opportunity to develop and improve technology and protocol.
Many of the above compounds come through food, water and air as a result of their continued and growing use in agriculture and the food processing industry thus adding insult to injury.
My statement with respect to epidemiology was that, It is an unreliable process that has failed to be consistently accurate and is therefore lacking in credibility.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/11/27/is-there-a-hidden-message-in-the-fdas-latest-escalation-a-ph.html#comment16018636
At no time did I imply that epidemiologist and microbiologists were corrupt.
Ken
I, for one, get pretty angry every time I see you post, Mark. Why? Because I trusted you at one point. I gave your milk to my children. And every time you deflect, blame, distract, and lie it pisses me off just a bit more. So please, keep talking.
Take some responsibility. It will do you some good.
Oh, wait. This is what narcissists do. They go on and on about how great they are but never take any responsibiltiy for the damage that lies in their wake the news of OPDC is spreading all over today. When will you raw milkers realize that there is a lot of shit in OPDC's wake? I find it funny that Sylvia called MW a narcissist because the biggest one in the room is your greatest MIS-leader.
Over and Out,
Kristen