End Of The Raw Milk Story

1. Concerning raw milk, and it’s unnaturalness for human consumption: I would say yes and no.

   Blood type B makes up 10% of the human population. Blood type B happens to have a MILK SUGAR molecule as its template for the immune system to recognize compatible molecules. Blood type B people CAN digest milk, even though the other 90% cannot. So get over it, milk is not unnatural for everybody…just the ones who aren’t Type B blood. We are not all the same, on any dimension you care to look at.

   And when you talk about raw milk, it might be more truthful to specify that fresh, uncontaminated, unadulterated raw milk carries far less risk (for type Bs) than any other kind of milk. If you want to argue that ANY type of milk is not good to consume, please make that argument clearly so it can stand on its own merits. There will still be that 10% of us type Bs that will disagree with you about raw milk, and some of us will agree with you about milk being bad for the other 90%, especially if it’s pasturized and homogenized and sitting in plastic cartons for weeks. Any milk product, or any product for that matter, can be contaminated somewhere in the supply chain between producer and consumer.

   Raw milk from any old cow is probably not that good to consume. However, the raw milk producers who depend on it for their livelihood have to make sure their cows and the farms they are raised on are not going to produce a bad product. It’s udder stupidity to go up to any cow you see and try to drink it’s milk raw. Especially when you’re in the boonies of Afghanistan (real Peace Corps story from the 60’s). However, dedicated farmers who have family businesses devoted to producing the best milk a cow can give should not be lumped in with the factory farms who raise their cows on feedlots where the cows are standing in the common urine and feces all day.

   So why is pure, fresh, whole milk from clean, healthy cows bad for us? It has been a human food for thousands of years. So has cheese and yoghurt and kefir. Have you ever heard of acidophilus, the germ that makes pickled food? Gosh, they even sell us acidophilus in the store to repopulate our guts when we get medicined to death. Raw milk, like raw sea water (cf Quinton), has lots of beneficial bacteria which help us keep a healthy intestinal environment. The only think I can think of that is bad about raw milk is that it is very hard to get good, uncontaminated raw milk. Part of that is due to the milk lobby trying to shut the honest producers down with yearly lawsuits until they wear them down. cf Alta Dena Dairies and the Stueve family in Southern California. When the old folks retired, the younger members of the family decided not to continue the battle for raw milk. And I don’t blame them…I blame others.

   I agree that the ideal conditions for producing good raw milk are not prevalent these days, but I wish that people would separate the facts into relevant categories, and stop throwing out the babies with the bath water. Store sold milk is something I don’t drink. It’s my choice: when I choose to drink milk, I only drink raw cow or goat milk, because I trust the dairy that makes it (in glass bottles). Since I live a mile from several stores that sell it, it is easy to get and it’s fresh every week. Heck, I even kept a half-full bottle of raw milk on my counter for over six months and it did NOT spoil! Try that with any of the white junk they call milk, pasturized or not.

   Now tell me again why a Type B European should avoid good, uncontaminated raw milk from totally healthy cows never treated with medicine (if a cow ever needs medicine, it’s culled from the herd and not used for raw milk). I realize this is not available to 99% of the population in the world, but that’s no reason to attack it and try to eliminate the only good sources we have. Perhaps we should try to open the market to encourage more raw milk producers (with the highest of standards, of course) to provide this food to the 10% that can use it in good health.

   Thanks for your kind consideration.

   Reinhard Arnold

   • Thanks for sensible comment Reinhard.
     I’m all for choice and am not agreeing with the politics of opposing raw milk.
     However, let me remind you, one of my sayings is:
     the commonest cause of death is ignorance!

2. Dr. William Cambel Douglas raves about raw milk, as do many alternative Drs. He also has stats that “suggest” raw milk is best and safe. find it rather confusing to have respected practioners of naturalmedince to have completely differing points of view.
   Also I purchased your book Cancer Reseacrh Secrets because the ad that brought it to my attention said that it contained the good news about blood tests that can be done to find cancer early, and where you could get it, and the place where results would lead to the appropriate chemo regime for that type of cancer. What I learned instead is that you find those tests largly inacurate and did not give the source. I’ve read reams about alternative treatments for cancer, and am looking for the best way to treat my daughter’s colon cancer. She had 8 cetemeteres of her colon removed 6 months ago because of a bowel obstruction and the lab reported cancer, stage two. Later no cancer was seen on CAT scans however they recommended she undergo chemo for six months , citing stats as the rationale. I’ve had her on ImmPower and AVE Ultra for the last four months and also for a while Paw Paw until she had dihreah; and has since had bowel incontinence. She had her gall baldder removed the year before that. She is mentally and phsyically impaired and lives in a group home where the institutional food makes it impossible for her to have the ideal diet. I know you caanot prescribe for your readers; however any suggetions you have would be appreicated.
   Thanking you in anticipation of your earliest reposnse,
   sincerely from Elaine Kissel

   • Campbell, like many “experts”, does his research by going on line and Googling.
     My experience is based on 40 years of clinical practice.
     For your daughter, my dear, diet comes first, diet comes second and diet comes third.
     To help her best, somehow you must get to change her diet.
     No other advice is any use until that’s in place.
     You don’t explain the mental impairment. Is she in communication?
     Keith

   • Hi Elaine…

     Much sympathy for your situation…
     Please check out this site for the real possibility to help your daughter…

     http://www.camelotcancercare.com/

3. Are you sure about that last comment? Dr. Douglass wrote a book on raw milk based on his personal research way back when –perhaps when you and I were still in diapers/nappies and we missed it. (I am a fan of both of you so this is just FYI.)
   Here’s his latest (Today’s e-mail) information:

   “Freedom Friday: The fight for your right to drink milk

   The media is practically hyperventilating over an “outbreak” in Pennsylvania linked to bacteria in raw milk — and naturally, all the experts are lining up to wag their fingers and lecture us on the supposed risks of fresh dairy.

   Now, I won’t downplay anyone’s illness, including the few dozen people who are recovering in Pennsylvania as I write this.

   But there are nearly TEN MILLION raw milk drinkers in this country, according to the government’s own numbers. So if this stuff is that dangerous, why aren’t MORE people sick?

   Answer: Because raw milk is actually one of the safest foods you can put into your body — and the government’s own numbers prove it!

   Out of those 10 million raw milk drinkers, anywhere from a few dozen to a hundred or so people are sickened in any given year. That’s an illness rate of roughly a thousandth of a percent, give or take, depending on the year.

   Meanwhile, everything else — all the foods the feds claim are safe, including “fresh” produce — poison 25 percent of the nation every single year, or 75 million Americans.

   My friends at the Weston A. Price Foundation crunched the government’s numbers last year and found that you’re actually 35,000 times more likely to get sick off anything other than raw milk.

   But I don’t need to see the numbers to know how safe this stuff is. I drink it myself every single day, and I’ve never suffered from anything other than a thirst for more.

   It’s not just that this stuff tastes better than the watered down swill sold in supermarkets. Real raw milk is packed with beneficial bacteria and crucial enzymes — all of which are murdered by pasteurization.

   That’s why raw milk has been shown to aid digestion, fight illness, and even cure everything from asthma to autism — and that’s why even some of the very people sickened in the latest outbreak are on record as saying they plan to keep drinking it.

   Think they know something you don’t? You bet they do — but it’s a secret you can share right now. Just ignore the fearmongering and find your own supply of fresh raw milk.

   You’ll never drink the supermarket stuff again.

   I’m not done with food safety yet. Keep reading for more on the outbreaks you HAVEN’T heard about.

   Read on to get every last detail.

   The double standard on food safety

   When raw milk is even suspected of containing bacteria — even when no one has been sickened — the feds trumpet it as proof positive that all fresh dairy everywhere is dangerous.

   It’s pure nonsense, as I just told you.

   The government’s own numbers show you’re far more likely to get ill from eating foods like spinach and meat than raw milk — but when those foods are found crawling with bacterial filth, you don’t hear boo from health officials.

   They’re too busy covering it up!

   In late December, for example, the feds quietly recalled 228,360 pounds of spinach contaminated with potentially deadly E.coli O157:H7 with NO PUBLIC NOTICE at all.

   They didn’t mention it for more than a month — and when they finally did, it was in a fine-print notice hidden deep inside a long list of federal announcements.

   Shocking? Not at all — this kind of thing happens all the time. But that’s not the only way the feds protect big food processors.

   Just a couple of months ago, 68 people were sickened and at least 20 were hospitalized after a bacterial outbreak in 10 states linked to a salmonella outbreak at Taco Bell.

   But the CDC refused to name Taco Bell in its report. It was only listed as “restaurant A.”

   The feds did everything they could to protect Taco Bell despite the fact that the company is a serial offender, linked to at least three outbreaks in the past six years.

   On the other hand, my outrage on this one only goes so far. If you eat at Taco Bell, you’re pretty much asking for it in the first place.

   The contaminated produce is another story, because unless you have your own farm, you have to rely on the supermarket to feed your family. To keep yourself protected from this kind of contamination, I suggest soaking all fruits and vegetables in 3 percent hydrogen peroxide for at least 20 minutes and then rinsing with water.

   Don’t worry — you won’t taste it a bit.

   Keeping you out of taco hell,

   William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.”

   • This is wall-to-wall nonsense TJ. No science in it at all.
     It’s just opinion and quoting “facts” to distract from the raw milk story (as in: what the heck does tainted spinach or Taco Bell’s have to do with the milk safety argument?)
     Where he quotes figures, they are very wrong, such as the fact there are many thousands of people made sick by raw milk. There have been deaths.

     • I found this article on the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund website. It is enlightening on the CDC’s use of raw “dairy” statistics. Never forget Mark Twain’s comment that there are lies, damned lies & statistics. This article makes me think that the CDC is using questionable statistics by attributing health problems caused by the soft raw cheese, queso fresco, to raw milk & thus “proving” that raw milk is unhealthy.

       “http://farmtoconsumer.org/defending-raw-milk-against-cdc.htm?utm_source=FTCLDF+Digest+2012-03-13+March+blast&utm_campaign=Digest+2012-03-15&utm_medium=email”

4. Dr. Keith,

   When you were growing up did you drink milk? If so was it pasteurized?
   How about the cheese you ate, was it made with pasteurized milk?

   http://fiascofarm.com/dairy/rawmilk.htm

5. I’m keeping an open mind on the subject of raw vs. pasteurized milk, but from my reading the studies showing that raw milk is dangerous have not been done on organic raw milk. Have to say that when I was a small child, I drank first, raw goat’s milk, and later raw cow’s milk on my grandparents’ farm with no apparent harm. Fresh cream, fresh churned butter, buttermilk – it was all terrific. I also find Mike Adams visual graphic comparing organic raw milk to pasteurized milk quite interesting and educational (aka Health Ranger, http://www.naturalnews.com). Regardless of which opinion is held, I do think it absolutely ridiculous to give people prison terms and huge fines for selling raw milk to those who choose to buy it and want it. As with so many choices in our country, it’s just another one we’re losing, along with forced vaccinations of dubious merit et cetera.

   • No such thing as organic raw (or pasteurized) milk Edwina.
     You need to get into the real world.
     Eskimo mother’s are producing breast milk LOADED with pesticides. Polluntants have reached the poles and the remotest lakes on Earth.
     Nowhere on Earth is free from chemicals and the term “organic” no longer has any real meaning…
     Prof.

6. Both my parents & their parents grew up drinking raw milk, without any adverse health incidents. But then, I know that they took good care of their milk cows’ health. And they would sometimes heat the milk on the stove before drinking it. With modern advances in veterinarian health, I see no reason for banning raw milk to drink & use in food preparation. I would think that there should be other methods available for treating raw milk, besides pasteurization, so that any adverse pathogens are destroyed, thus rendering the raw milk safe to drink. Perhaps using ultraviolet light irradiation or using specific sound frequencies to destroy germs would make for viable & safe alternatives. There are plenty of ways to test raw milk these days. I see no reason why the government doesn’t just institute regular testing for the batches of raw milk that are produced & sold. The tests should be easily obtained in kit form these days & a seller of raw milk could perform the testing as well & keep records for the government inspectors.
   I, myself, rarely drink or use dairy products now. I really don’t think that it’s good for adults to consume on a regular basis. When I limit or remove dairy products from my diet, I have found that I have less mucus in my respiratory system & feel much better. The nutrition found in milk can often be found in other food products. I’ve recently started using almond milk as a substitute for dairy milk & find it suitable.

   • Do remember, Tracy, that heating milk on the stove is pasteurizing it.

   • There is a system usinf ultraviolet light to kill pathogens in milk. it works. the milk is still raw, but without the effects of heating, which aparently is a major factor for lactose intollerance

7. Dr. Pieter Dahler here.

   People call me “The Jungle, Desert and Ocean Dentist” and my indigenous Latin American associate, born from a remote tribe, “The Jungles, Deserts and Mountains Doctor” have found grave concerns regarding the ingestion of milk.

   We are only familiar with raw milk because that is what the many tribes (with many tens of thousands natives) we have been taken care of with our Non-Profit Foundation since 1969 (Dr. Pieter, age 27) and Dr. Rodrigo (since 1994, age 18) never had, used to have, and some have started to have when they introduced cows.
   We found that comparing people living in tribes that used to have (or still do) cows and people living in cities, with pasteurized milk products, have a greater incidence of cancer than those who have discarded cows or never had them.

   Note: we Drs. are able to detect early cancer in a very early predictive manner. (see later)

   Our concern has been there since I, Dr. Pieter, learned about the fact that the Navajos (Diné) had a low to nill incidence of cancer in the times before the 1960-80s. But when milk and milk products were introduced (thanks to refrigeration), the incidence of cancer began and continued to increase. Records from Shiprock, NM, Public Health Hospital, and Blanding, AZ, clinic.

   The problem is that cows suffer from Bovine Leukocytosis virus, (BLV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_immunodeficiency_virus That is passed on to their milk.
   I was a dental student in San Francisco 1967-71. The Dental University was close to the Haight Asbury District where the Hippies gathered. Their cancer and AIDS incidences were shocking.

   When I later became a physician as well and started to help the indigenous tribes, I wondered why they did not have such health problems. So I investigated and found the above Wikipedia correlations via medical records at various medical universities in many countries.

   Now, unless YOU verify that the raw milk you are now drinking comes from clean cows (which were regularly tested), you are playing Russian Roulette. It is estimated that 85% of the cattle in the USA is infected with the BLV. Milk from all sources, tested clean or not, is mixed so the presence of BLV is likely 100% in commercial milk products.

   Equally so for Avian Leukocytosis, (eggs) and our pets with Canine / Feline Leukocytosis.

   You should be tested in a manner which clearly identifies your health status
   .
   Most physicians skip over blood and urine lab test and only look for the Highs and Lows of our results. They fail to correlate carefully (with a toothcomb!!!) the 24 or so readings from these routine tests with eachother. That should be considered malpractice by the way!

   Dr. Rodrigo and I have studied hundreds of thousands of blood tests and found that 95% of such tests show signs of early cancer evidence, the rest were already advanced without the swelling or lesions, while the attending physicians could not find such evidence. So, the odds are against us all. The saying is that “you cannot see what you do not know (or have not been taught to look for!)”

   You can ask for a short explanation how YOU should personally record your latest blood etc. results from Docpieter@aol.com THEN you have ammunition to argue if your usage of milk, raw or not, has been a safe health contributing nutritional habit. Do not rely on subjective “evidence”. PROVE IT to yourself!

   P.S. In the tribes which stopped using cows and chickens, (they generally do not have pets!) the incidence of NEW cancers stopped. Our protocol to reverse existing cancers made them go away and they lived long lives (so far)…some over 100 already.

   At your service: Drs. Pieter and Rodrigo.

   • Thanks for the extended and valuable insight, Pieter.

8. Just to clear any confusion resulting from the post that I copied from Dr. W. C. Douglass’ e-mail — it was actually two separate points (and two separte posts – there was an other article in between the two subjects) that he was making, the link being bacteria, not raw milk. If you disagree with his information you should contact him for misinforming his many readers, perhaps as a professional courtesy.
   Personally I am on the fence. I love the taste of both our good local pasteurized milk and the (more) delicious local raw milk, neither cause me a bit digestive discomfort, however I have drastically cut back my dairy consumption as I have read others who share your view and believe it is contributing to osteoporosis.
   I have read the book and seen the myriad number of pictures from Weston Price’s research which concluded natural milk products, especially butter were a great step towards attaining robust health. (I do not think he found the Masai to be riddled with syphillis in the 1920s and 1930s when he visited them and photographed them extensively.)
   When two views from learned scientists are completely contradictory it does create a sense of dissonance. I am in that state , not quite knowing who is the ultimate authority… both sides make excellent scientific points. I do know that Dr. Douglass was once know as “America’s Doctor” as you were known as one the top alergerists in the western world. I have purchased your tapes and books and found them informative and the same can be said about Dr. Douglass’ offering.
   I do hope you are not offended; it’s difficult to state things scientifically when you are not trained to do so. I am quite grateful, however, for those willing to publish science for the lay person and to stand up against the biggest hoax — the standard of care protoculs of mainstream medicine . THANKS

9. I am no doctor, but I am studying nursing and intend to further my studies in biological research. However, from a layman’s point of view, I can only say this. I have a daughter who has a slight allergy to cow’s milk. I also have trouble tolerating it. It would always make me “gag” literally, when I would try to consume it as a child. We started purchasing and drinking goats milk as a substitute. Because it was so expensive, we searched for a less expensive alternative. We found that with a raw goat dairy farm. Thus, we now purchase our raw goat milk and that’s what we drink mostly.

   None of us, to this day have had any trouble whatsoever, with it, thank God. As far as we know, raw milk has been consumed for thousands of years and continues to be consumed in most other parts of the world. The incidences of illness and even deaths are not able to be deemed as numerically significant, as compared to the number of people who consume raw milk, who don’t actually get sick and/or die from its consumption. We’re talking about millions upon millions of people on planet earth, for thousands of years, who drank this stuff. Of course I am not minimizing the impact of even one death on account of raw milk or any other milk being contaminated. I am just letting it be known that we shouldn’t throw the ‘baby out with the bathwater”.

   In other words, we need to be careful no matter what we consume. If pastuerization is helpful to you and others, then so be it. If drinking your milk raw, with caution, of course (knowing the farmers’ standards), is helpful to you, then so be it, also. I think that it’s good to inform people of the risks associated with whatever we ingest. However, I also think it’s prudent to not overlook the fact that raw milk does offer some people benefits.

   The truth is, my daughter gets acid reflux when drinking from cows’ milk. However, she doesn’t have the same issues when she drinks the goats’ milk. In fact I have heard that the protein of goats are much smaller in size than that of a cow. Perhaps it’s because of the smaller proteins and/or the enzymes being in tact, that she can digest this milk much better. In fact my entire family digests the raw goat’s milk better. Besides, the dairy we purhcase it from also makes raw goat cheese that is sold in a well known supermarket. I can tell you, that farm is clean. Those animals are clean and healthy, thus far.

   I think the bottom line is that whatever we “choose” to consume, we should be vigilant and very proactive in making sure that we’re careful to be aware of risks and do what we can to prevent illness from our food consumption. And I will close with this. I’m so glad we have science. I am a religious person with common sense. That is, I believe in God, but I believe that God created science to help human kind. That being said, I believe in being logical, and dealing with facts, but a judgement cannot be made without all of the facts. I don’t think we have enough evidence to make a judgement against raw milk, in general. However, we do know this. The Bible talks about “milk and honey” and how the ancients drank it, no doubt, raw. But then again, the Bible also talks about how, before the flood, no one ate meat or consumed animal products, which would include dairy–they lived for hundreds of years. I don’t know about any of you, but it looks like the absolute best and healthiest choice appears to be dairyless. But again, it’s a choice, and should not be forced upon anyone.

10. Dr. Mumby, I enjoy your insight and candor in your news letters. The only gripe I have about your response(s) to the raw milk issue is that you chose to quote statistics from the CDC as proof. You lost a lot of credibility with me when you used a federal govt agency as ‘evidence’ to support. The CDC is well known to fudge(polite way of saying lie) about any/all statistics that involve competition with any of the large corporations that it regulates. For example: Every year the CDC engage in fear mongering about the flu in an effort to promote the flue vaccine – which has been proven to be no better than placebo and certainly more dangerous. There are many other examples I could use but, my point is this: People like me read your ‘stuff’ because we have found the AMA/corporate/federal watchdog agencies all to be untrustworthy and we truly want to make our lives better. The mere mention of their data as proof of anything scientific is silly in the extreme. Every agency has long been politicized and run by the highest monetary ‘donor’.

    regards,
    Ray

11. The one point that I did not notice being mentioned in the comments above is the food the cows are fed. In order for raw milk to be healthy, the cows must be raised on pasture, 100% grass-fed.

    If a cow is fed grain, it changes the composition of its milk and the pH of its digestive system, and makes the animal prone to many infections, thus making its milk only fit for the cook-pot.

    If one is going to consume raw milk, make certain it is 100% grass-fed, and that you know your farmer. First question to ask is: “Do you drink your own product?”

12. I just printed the Medscape study and will read and get back to you.

    My initial reaction, without having read the Medscape article, is that you are quoting statistics gained from meta analysis to make your case that milk is bad to consume. Statistics gleaned from multiple sources carries some weight in discussing epidemiological events, but that is not what you are discussing in your article; you are making the point that dairy is bad to consume. When it comes to scientific knowledge about nutritional benefits / detriments of dairy products, raw or otherwise, statistics about the spread of disease are only part of the story. Any portion of the food production / consumption cycle can be fraught with contamination problems. Some means of regulating and testing needs to be implemented to protect the consumers from diseases that can be borne by ANY of our food products – produce, meat, and dairy; that’s what our USDA is supposed to be doing. Singling out dairy for it’s supposed ill effects on health and then not following up with solid well researched nutritionally based information instead of statistical analysis to make your case seems uncharacteristically weak, doesn’t feel like scientific reasoning is being used. Hurling charges of lack of scientific objectivity at the opposing perspective into the discussion closes off the ability of the all viewpoints to be heard – nobody wants to be thought of as being unscientific, heavens no! Making that charge suggests to me that you are yourself responding with less than completely well established facts. It feels like you are covering yourself by hurling a condemnatory charge against the opposing side first, a charge that could never be refuted but could not be proved either. If the evidence were so clear there would be no controversy.

    I will read the Medscape article and get back to you.

    • What a strange idea: to form an opinion and then go and read the facts.
      I usually do it the other way round 🙂
      Prof.

13. What an interesting topic on milk.
    I came to your website through your free ebook, Nature’s Healing Secret. My take on milk is to use it whichever way you like but, be prepared for whatever you get out of it, good or bad.
    Regards,
    Nnamdi.

14. Remember the milk man? I’m too young to remember but I know he existed from the elder generations. And he would deliver Fresh RAW milk from the small, local dairies. Interestingly, we don’t read about a scourge of infections and death from raw milk that happened during the era of raw milk delivery. People made out just fine, just like they did for millenia growing their own food or having it delivered from local neighborhood farms.

    Pasteurization came about for the convenience of the centralized (no longer small and local) BIG DA IRIES today so that their milk can stay on the supermarket shelf as long as possible. Sure, there’s always a bigger chance of infection with any animal food (whether it’s milk, eggs, or meat), which is why clean hygiene practice is hugely important.

    Even pasteurized milk goes bad if it’s out of the fridge for too long, and infection and death can follow. If there’s a big following of raw milk drinkers who say they are good with it, I tend to believe the truth of their many, cumulative experiences, rather than believing any one “expert.” Does that “expert” drink raw milk or have they, or is it just reading papers, not looking outside the ivory tower?

    • Having said all of the above, I don’t even drink milk, lol, but I don’t like to discount other people’s experiences. I think raw milk drinkers would be doing themselves a favor by limiting their consumption of it as well as other animal products, as high-quality as they may be. But if their bodies are better with animal products as Dr. Nicolas Gonzalez has found in a subset of the population he treats with leukemia and some other cancers. I would like to know what the Prof has to say about grass-fed butter and cream? Good topic overall. thanks.

    • A bit naive Jane,
      I remember the milkman. In cities they only delivered pasteurized (named for Louis Pasteur, it’s been around for 150 years).
      I was raised on a farm in the country and there we had raw milk delivered.

      • Prof Keith, I don’t think that Jane is being naive. I am troubled by some of your responses to your readers. I am thinking that you may need to tone it down just a wee bit. We appreciate your research. However, if it’s a fact, as you say, that pasteurization has only been taking place for approximately the last 150 years, then I have a question. What happened to all of the millions of folks who drank raw milk for the thousands of years before pasteurization came on the scene?

        It stands to reason that we must take a balanced and more thorough look at this issue. The fact is, it wasn’t an issue before pasteurization came about. I think way more is being made out of this than is necessary, according to the facts. The truth is, a “one size fits all” attitude toward dairy, be it raw or otherwise, and any other food for that matter, is definitely not scientific nor prudent. Different things work for diffrent people. Our bodies are not all the same. It could be that modern practices are some of the very reasons that there are issues with dairy, for some, in the first place. The point is safety first. If safe practices are being properly used, then what are the issues with this, I mean really? The truth is that there have been people who have used raw milk for millenia and there has never been any documented epidemic from people consuming it. Now that is a fact. There are and have been deadly microbes in many types of foods, including vegetables and fruits. Cleanliness, the diets of the animals and safety first is key. Thank God that after you may have consumed the raw milk that was delivered to the farm you grew up on as a child, that you are still with us. We still love your articles. Keep em coming.

        • Sunshine, where did you get your information?
          What about the epidemics (actually endemic) of killer Brucollosis from milk?
          What about the epidemic/endemic of TB? (as a med student, I was still seeing bodies rotten from TB caused by raw milk on farms)
          It’s bovine TB and no question of where it came from. Tuberculin testing of cattle herds was a great step forward in preventing deaths.
          Why do you think Pasteur and Claude Bernard (who were colleagues, whatever you read from stupid websites) both worked on the development of pasteurization?
          Just for fun? Because there wasn’t a problem?
          They did it because milk was killing millions.
          Also, if you have followed me as you say, you must have missed my take on osteoporosis:
          milk is almost the whole cause of osteoporosis. Elderly Chinese women, who drink no milk, have never heard of osteoporosis.
          US women, with the highest dairy intake in the world, have the highest incidence of osteoporosis.
          Fracture of the femur kills more women in the USA than breast cancer.
          Facts, Sunshine. Facts, we can only talk facts, not prejudices.
          There is safety in facts. Mine is not an opinion. It’s facts. Prejudices kill.
          BTW you can download my booklet on osteoporosis free from this link: http://www.informed-wellness.com/osteoporosis2.pdf

15. A couple of items of interest. I did a quick serach for TB and milk and found a link to a NY Times article from 1895:
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0910FE355911738DDDA00894D9415B8585F0D3
    The Gist is at this time there were a lot of TB deaths; This article reports that the TB transmission mechanism theory was shifting from person to person airborne transmission and toward consuming milk from infected milch cows. The solution suggested (and implemented successfully at some farms) was cleanliness with testing herds and culling infected cows. Surprisingly Pasteurization was not mentioned – and the airborne transmission of TB seems to be the current fear ( note the recent scare when a TB patient flew on an airline).

    Second interesting item is Dr. Pottinger’s Cats. He was investigating diets and found that cats fed a large percentage of their diets as pasteurized milk had severe health problems in a few generations; this did not happen in cats with raw milk diets. There are some issues with his data/methods that critics have pointed out. I would like to see if his results could be duplicated under more controlled conditions, and then there is the issue of relating results in cats to people…..

16. I’m deaply disapointed at Dr. Keith opinion especially by calling milk crap.I guess you earn too much money and you forgot about hungry people in the world. Many would be deeply greatful too anyone offering them milk so their child can stays alive.I just don’t waste time listening to your “shaw offs”.I’ve never was hungry in my life even one day thanks too food available to all.Simple food is best food regardles what fancy names you use.If people use it for centuries ,like the milk,they get tolerance to it.The problem is the body does not start to produced enzymes by itself untill the mom does introduce the enzymes to her baby by munching food first in her mouth than offering it to baby.Remember the yeast dough,the professionals call it “starter”.Same idea.There is more to it but you are the reasercher.

    • Just emotions Margaret.
      Milk is designed for baby calves. I makes them gain 200-300 lbs. weight in just a few short months.
      NOT good for human babies.
      In fact people do not gain tolerance to milk as you suggest. The starving Africans and Asians have no lactase and get very sick with milk.
      Sorry.

Comments are closed.