N.Y. Times columnist admits raw milk is cure for allergies

In A Cure for the Allergy Epidemic?, an opinion column by Moises Velasquez-Manoff in the New York Times, Velasquez-Manoff notes that

In Europe, the consumption of unpasteurized milk has repeatedly correlated with protection against allergic disease. In America, 80 percent of the Amish studied by Dr. Holbreich consume raw milk. In a study published earlier this year, Dr. Schaub’s group showed that European children who consumed farm milk had more of those regulatory T-cells, irrespective of whether they lived on farms. The higher the quantity of those cells, the less likely these children were to be given diagnoses of asthma. Here, finally, is something concrete to take off the farm.

Brian Shilhavy of Health Impact News, who brought this article to my attention, does such a great job of summarizing the significance of what Velasquez-Manoff wrote. I quote him directly:

So the conclusion therefore should be that more people should drink raw milk to prevent allergies, right? Nope.

None of these scientists recommend that people consume raw milk; it can carry deadly pathogens. Rather, they hope to identify what’s protective in the milk and either extract it or preserve the ingredients during processing.

In other words, let’s certainly not advocate what we can see plainly works. Direct-from-the-farm raw milks sales would upset the Dairy Industry and their market for processed dairy products, and also bring about a loss of profit for the makers and marketers of all those allergy medicines. Instead, wait for us to develop something that is not natural so we can patent it, and then we will approve it and sell it to you. In the meantime, we’ll keep propagating the “raw milk is dangerous” myth, because fear is a great motivator.

Read the comments following Velasquez-Manoff's article, and you realize there are, quite likely, additional factors at work in the allergy field-"Amish children are much less exposed to petrochemicals and plastics and many items in the urban household." "No discussion of urban air pollution and how that might interact with seemingly beneficial microbes, more prevalent in rural air because there is less pollution." "[The] article . . . does not even mention the possible benefit of consuming probiotic and prebiotic foods to enhance the microbiome and hence improve immune response." Etc.

So. Okay. Other factors may be involved.

But I would like to call your attention to the infographic at the top of the page. And note, too, that there are good reasons to question claims such as the one that "Government studies have shown that the chances of getting sick from raw milk and raw milk products is increased by 30% [due to such bacteria as] Salmonella, Listeria and E.Coli."

Don't know what "government studies" this person was referring to. BUT . . . I would want to note that there are reasons to question this--what seems to make sense on the face of it--claim about bacteria. After all, pasteurization is all about killing bacteria, isn't it?

I urge you to read the other side. Great book by Dr. William Campbell Douglas, The Raw Truth About Milk . . . or, for a very much more abbreviated introduction to the idea, This "Scary Drink" May Resolve Your Troubling Health Issues by Dr. Joseph Mercola.

One last word: Is it illegal to purchase raw milk in your state? Perhaps you can buy a share of a cow, pay a farmer to care for your cow and milk it in your behalf, then drink the raw milk that your cow produces. . . .

Raw whole milk. Been drinking it, now, for about three years. It's now so much a part of our lives, I kind of forget about it . . . other than to consider how delightful it is.

Yum!

Gardasil--the failed drug for girls--now being promoted for boys (??!!??)

I referenced a couple of articles yesterday that discussed the track record of Gardasil for girls--y'know, how it is killing approximately one young woman a month, not to mention the hundreds of young women who have been permanently disabled by the vaccine . . . all to achieve a minor, potential, low-single-digits percentage relief from two possible sources of cervical cancer.

Well, with that kind of track record, what can you expect from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but a plan to ensure boys, also, are injected with the drug! (???)

What?!? Why?

In Douglass' inimitable style:

Since boys obviously can’t get cervical cancer, the vaccine peddlers have had to scheme up other reasons to push this on them.

And some of them are real beauts.

Ever hear of a life-threatening case of genital warts? Of course you haven’t — but the feds think your boy should be inoculated… just in case.

Not good enough for you? Don’t worry — they’ve cooked up some more “benefits” for you and your boy: If he grows up to prefer men over women, the vaccine might protect him from anal cancer.

I don’t know anyone outside of California who makes health decisions for a child based on the assumption that he might turn out to be gay someday — but even if he did, bear in mind that the CDC says the anal cancer rate among gays is “as high as” 37 for every 100,000.

That’s 0.037 percent, folks. And the “as high as” means it’s probably much lower than that.

But the writing’s on the wall — Gardasil will make the list for boys sooner or later. All you can do is arm yourself now — with information — so when they come a-knocking for your son, you’ll have the power to tell them where they can shove that needle.

Once more I ask: Is our government truly interested in preserving our lives, liberties, and our ability to pursue our own happiness? Or is it in the back pocket of certain large industrial interests to help them maximize their profits?