Fever Reducers and The Flu


I have written before about medicating fevers and I thought I’d revive this topic again. I just got done reading a very interesting article about the 1918 flu and the theorized link about it’s high mortality rate due to aspirin use. I think it is very important for us to heavily weigh the risks of using fever reducers. I know there have been multiple times where I myself had a very hard time letting a fever just run its course rather than intervene to help my child “feel better.”

Here is a link to the original article I wrote awhile back about FEVERS.

And here is the article that I just got done reading that I’d like to share with you. It’s worth the read.

I am going to continue doing more research on the topic and I will share my research with you when I am able to compile it together along with what you can do to safely aide the body to heal itself from the flu and other illnesses.

The link to the article is HERE, and also pasted below:

” The primary defense which the human body has, to stop the spread of viral infections is to produce a fever. The fever is not a symptom of disease, but is actually the body’s primary anti-viral immune system.”

bayer-aspirinHumans have genetically developed a natural method to defeat viral infections called a fever. With a mild fever of 101 degrees the telomers on the ends of the RNA molecule cannot attach and the virus cannot reproduce itself, and the body’s white blood cells quickly destroy the invading virus. But the modern regular treatment for a fever from a cold
or flu is to reduce the fever to ease the discomfort. This is wrong.

The traditional knowledge of how to quickly and effectively cure a common cold or flu infection due to viruses has been known worldwide since ancient times. But you are not supposed to know that. You are not supposed to know that you can quickly cure a viral infection overnight by yourself and at no cost to you. You are supposed to believe that you need costly medications and medical treatments to cure new life-threatening diseases.

Best advice: do not try to lower a fever, it is your genetically derived natural human defense against any viral infection. Stay wrapped up and warm to cause a sweat. Drink fluids to replace the water lost by sweating. And within 6 to 8 hours overnight the cold or flu is gone.  Many older doctors knew this, which is the reason for the old docs
advice, go to bed, stay warm, drink fluids. But younger docs just  out of med school have been taught there is a drug or pill to treat everything. The result of using expensive pills or over-the-counter medications to reduce the fever from colds and flu is prolonged illness, the epidemic spread of viral diseases and the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands each year. Don’t buy them, don’t let them in the house.


PART ONE The Deadliest Killer of the 20th Century, With More Deaths Than All the World Wars, Lurks Right Inside Your House, and Threatens to Take You and Your Family. The Story No One Told You.

In 1918, a virulent, never seen before, form of influenza seemed to suddenly appear. It seemed to kill within hours, and spread around the world within days. It seemed to appear simultaneously all around the world. Its spread was faster than any then known means of human travel.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization warned of repeats of such a rapid and deadly pandemic, through such variants of influenza as SARS and Bird Flu. But without knowing what caused the 1918 pandemic or how it spread, how can the CDC or WHO make such a claim? Unless they already know something they are not telling.

As yet no one has been able to identify the actual medical cause of the 1918 Flu, with only a few samples of a “bird-like” virus taken from only several cadaver tissue samples. But no sample is complete. And those are only one or two samples from among the estimated 20 to 40 million people who seemed to die mysteriously almost overnight. The 1918 Flu spread faster and was more deadly, killing more people than even the Plague and Black Death of the middle ages. Why does no one talk about it?

And even if the viral cause were identified, no one can explain the lightning fast spread of the disease. Maybe it wasn’t a disease after all. Many researchers have even looked at some world-wide phenomena, such as extra-terrestrial biology filtering into the atmosphere from outer space. Or maybe, the jet stream spreading disease-laden dust from
Asia all around the world in a matter of days. In an area of investigation where there seems to be no real facts and less logic, any “fringe theory” or “outre logic” is just as valid as any other. Maybe something about the 1918 Flu is being covered up. Something that we are not supposed to know.

Actually, there is another rather simple mundane solution to the medical mystery. There did exist in 1918 a then new technical invention by which the “disease” was spread almost at the speed of light. The “1918 Flu” as spread around the world almost instantaneously by telephone. Of course, that claim needs an explanation, and proof.

In the 1890’s an American chemist made an improvement on an old home folk remedy called Willow or Aspen Tea. It seemed to relieve the pains of old-age gout, arthritis and other assorted pains. But the evil tasting tea containing acetylsalicylic acid was so strong that it caused many people to have nausea and vomiting, along with the pain relief if
they could tolerate drinking the tea. This potion was later neutralized, synthesized and buffered, and then sold to the German Bayer company as a pain reliever.

I have researched the source and history of the name Aspirin and found no reasonable explanation has ever been found. I have found, instead, that the German Bayer company, in order to sell to both the American and European markets, used a name familiar in both markets. In America the common folk remedy form was called “Aspen Tea” made from boiling willow bark from the Aspen tree family. In Europe, the same home remedy was called “Spirain Tea” made from boiling the leaves of the common European shrub Spirae.

Both preparations were found to contain large amounts of natural acetylsalicylic acid, but unbuffered. Combining the common home-remedy folklore names Aspen and Spirain comes up with the Euro-American brand name Aspirin. My research is the sole source for the information about that unique derivation of the brand name.

The reason for the deep confusion and lack of any clear history about the trade name is that for almost a decade from 1905 to about 1915, the use of the trade name, and the source of the name Aspirin, was tied up in international courts. In the late 1890’s when Aspirin became available as an easy to use “pop a pill” replacement to the sour tasting Aspen or Spirain Teas, many people used it to relieve the pain of joint arthritis. Many users also discovered, quite by accident, a unique side effect. If you had a fever when you took the Aspirin, it also made the fever suddenly
go away. What a discovery! It appeared to be a cure for the the common cold and flu.

By 1905 many other drug companies were making acetylsalicylic acid preparations and calling it Aspirin, but they were selling it as a common cold remedy. Bayer took these other companies to court and sued over
illegal use of their trademark. Many people believe that Bayer lost the decision and lost control of the name Aspirin. Most believe that Aspirin is now a generic name such as Kleenex, Scotch Tape or Xerox. Not so. It was an odd court decision and a confusing compromise. By 1915 it was decided in court that Bayer had the exclusive use of the tradename Aspirin, if it were sold as a pain-relieving analgesic.

The court also found that the other companies could also use the name Aspirin, if in their ads and packaging, they claimed that their product was an anti-febril agent or a fever reducer. This odd court decision is still in use today. You can still buy Bayer aspirin to relieve pain, and on the store shelf right next to it is Nyquil, Aleve, Tylenol, Motrin,
Bufferin, Anacin and a whole long list of others, all containing aspirin or aspirin-like compounds and claiming to be treatments for Colds, Flu and Fever. Reducing fever was not in Bayer’s original patent claim. Bayer didn’t know in 1895 of the use of aspirin as a fever reducer and had not put that in their original trademark application.

And how does that strange court decision fit into the rapid spread of the 1918 Flu? The primary defense which the human body has, to stop the spread of viral infections is to produce a fever. The fever is not a symptom of disease, but is actually the body’s primary anti-viral immune system. The fever stops the telomeres on the ends of viral RNA from making copies of itself.

The telomeres are like a zipper which unzips and separates the new RNA copy within miliseconds, but the telomeres are temperature sensitive and won’t unzip at temperatures above 101F. Thus the high temperature of the fever, stops the flu virus from dividing and spreading. It is an immune system response which only mammals have developed to prevent the spread of viral flu infections, which mostly 99% come from the more ancient dinosaur-like earth life forms called birds. Almost all influenza is a form of “Avian Flu.” A few influenza forms come from other dinosaur-like
life forms, the modern reptiles, but these are usually classified as very rare tropical diseases, since that is where most reptiles live.

The doctors in the early 1900’s didn’t know about that, and even today few if any doctors are aware that fever is not a symptom of disease, but is the primary and only way for the human body to stop viral infections. If you stop or reduce the fever, viruses are allowed to divide and spread uncontrolled throughout the body. I have already described this process in detail in my articles posted in the Brother Jonathan Gazette in 2003, so I won’t go into detail here. Do a search on “SARS” on the Gazette and you’ll find the articles. Normally the progress of a flu is that a virus
enters the mucous membrane lining of the lungs, enters cells, then makes many copies of itself, which causes the cell to expand to such an degree that it bursts open. The new viruses then cloak themselves with a coating
taken from the old damaged cell wall, thus hiding themselves from the human body’s own T-cell antibody immune defense system. To the body’s immune system the new viruses simply appear to be pieces of the body’s own
lung tissue.

By creating a fever, the viral infection is slowed down sufficiently so that the body’s T cells can find the swollen infected lung cells, surround them and metabolize (literally eat) the damaged cell with strong acids which also breaks down the RNA viruses into basic amino acids. This effectively “kills” the viruses so that they can’t reproduce. But viruses are not living things, and you can’t kill something that’s not alive. All the body can do is destroy or dissolve the RNA amino acid chain which makes up the virus.

Not knowing this, most doctors treat the flu with aspirin or fever reducers, as a palliative treatment to ease the aches, pains, and delerium fever effects. The result is that within hours, the fever goes down and the patient feels much better. What neither the patient nor the doctor knows is that with only a normal 98.6F body temperature, the viruses are allowed to reproduce unchecked. Within 72 hours, the viruses have grown from one or two virus bodies to millions or billions. The body is now completely overwhelmed. But while taking aspirin or cold medications,
there are no symptoms or warnings of what is yet to come.

As a last resort the body tries to quickly flush the infection of billions of viruses from the lungs with massive amounts of T-cells, and fluid in the lungs to “cough out” the virus. This is called viral pneumonia. Soon within hours the patient is in the hospital. The doctors try to treat the now 105 degree fever with more anti-febril aspirins, or related medications to “treat the fever.” Then within another 24 hours the patient, suffocating and gasping for breath, is dead.

You should note that the original infection did cause a mild fever, aches and pains, which the patient “self-medicated” with over-the-counter products. For the next several days, the patient seemed to have no symptoms, but was actually growing billions of copies of influenza virus in his lungs. Then days later, the patient and doctor seem to see a sudden rapid case of viral flu infection that is now overwhelming the body. Is that what really happened? What caused the patient’s death? Was it the original flu virus, or was it the use of Aspirin to lower the flu fever which then shutdown the patient’s own immune system response? Obviously, the latter. So how did this cause the massive rapid spread of the 1918 Flu?

The Bayer court case had just been settled, and many companies other than Bayer, could now legally market aspirin to treat colds and fever. But then “The Great War to End all War” was on, and most aspirin products were going directly to the front lines in France to treat the soldiers in the diseased hell hole trenches of WWI.

The World War I medics knew that aspirin could quickly reduce a fever. If a soldier had a fever, the docs gave aspirin. Magically the fever went down, the soldier felt better and quickly went back to the fighting. Then three days later, the same soldier was back, now with severe pneumonia and died almost overnight.

No doctors then made the connection between aspirin and pneumonia death, since the trenches were filled with many other seemingly related diseases such as diphtheria or tuberculosis. Death and dying on the front line was
common, so no investigation was done. Aspirin seemed to be a god-send since it allowed sick soldiers to swiftly get right back into the fighting.

After the Armistice of November 11, 1918 the fighting stopped and the soldiers went home. The soldiers around the world announced the good news to their families back home. Most of the low-ranked doughboys had to wait till they got back to their homebase in Kansas, or wherever, to call home They couldn’t afford the costly trans-Atlantic deep sea cable phone rates. But when the troop arrived in Kansas, the call from sergeant Tom was something like: “Hey mom, I’m coming home. I’ll see yu and dad next Tuesday in Chattanooga. How’s everybody? Oh, Aunt Esther has a fever? Hey tell her to take some aspirin. Yeah, that stuff in the medicine cabinet for treatin’ the aches and pains. Tell Esther, we used it in France. Works right away and the fever is gone. OK see yu Tuesday….”

So what does Esther do? She tries the aspirin, but the old Bayer label only says its for “aches and pains” and says nothing about fevers. She takes it and magically the fever is gone, and she feels much better, almost cured. She’s so much better, she gets out the horse and buggy to go see her sister, Lucy in Mt Carmel, where Lucy and the kids are down with the fever. Mt. Carmel has no telephones and even no roads, only the buggy path to reach the outside world. But within hours of sergeant Tom’s phone call home, by word of mouth, everybody in rural Mt. Carmel is now taking aspirin to treat fevers. Since the new information came from a soldier, from the US Army and the government, it must be true!

Within a week of the 1918 Armistice, by newfangled telephone, trans-oceanic telephone cables, and even the experimental ship-to-shore shortwave radios using Morse code, the message was flashed around the world — “Have a fever? Take Aspirin. It worked in France, it’ll work for you.” That message spread at nearly the speed of light over millions of telephone lines all around the world. The news of the “miracle cure” even spread by word of mouth within a day or so, even to places with no phones nor roads. Mysteriously, a week later, doctors round the world now had hundreds of sick and dying patients. Nobody could figure out why. The patients themselves never reported that just the week before they did have a mild fever. But it was so mild that when they took some aspirin, it simply went away. Nobody made the connection. The doctors only saw, by November 24, 1918 thousands of very sick patients with high fevers, lungs filled with fluid, and swift overnight death.

The medical profession had never seen anything like it before, nor since. It seemed to occur simultaneously all around the world and even reaching into such out of the way places like Mt. Carmel with no telephones nor roads. How could such a massive fast-spreading killer disease exist? It didn’t. It wasn’t a disease. It was a new use for an old
home folk remedy which everybody already had in their medicine cabinet, Bayer Aspirin to reduce fever.

The medical profession, at a complete loss to explain it, simply called it the “Spanish Flu” or the “1918 Flu” or many similar names. It was a mystery with no known source, so it was assigned many place names. So far, nobody has been able to prove any single pathogen was responsible. And even if they did, they still can’t explain how it seemed to spread world-wide at almost the speed of light, clear around the world within a week.

To this day there is no explanation. But, now you know. The “disease” was not a single pathogen, but many of the hundreds of similar types of flu which are always existing at any time around the world. What was different in November 1918 was the many hundreds of thousands of almost simultaneous phone calls from the millions of returning sergeant Toms saying, “…tell Aunt Esther to take the aspirin. It worked in France. It’ll work for her…” Nobody traced the spread of the 1918 Flu to sergeant Tom. Nobody made the connection.

That very same source of disease still exists today. What is different today is that cold and flu products are sold and used all year long. This results in an estimated one million deaths from mysterious viral pneumonia reported every year, but also all around the year. In 1918, the new use of aspirin for treating colds and flu all started at the same time in November, thus creating the false impression of a sudden massive onset of a new disease. Even today SARS is not a disease. It is the improper use of a brand new high-tech flu fighter called Tamiflu. The FDA approved the use of Tamiflu several years ago. In 2003 it began to be used world-wide. But how is it used?

Many millions of people around the world still self-treat their own colds and flu with over-the-counter meds containing aspirin. Those are the most commonly sold medications in the world. The patient’s mild fever quickly goes away. They forget about ever having felt sick. Then several days later the patient sees the doctor and now has a high fever, bad cough and fluid-filled lungs. The doctor, using the new CDC and WHO guidelines, treats the hospitalized “flu” patient with the new high-tech Tamiflu. But how often and at what dosage?

The doctors do what they’ve always done for the past 100 years. Tell the nurse to stick a thermometer in the patient’s mouth, increase the Tamiflu dosage by 10cc’s every hour until the fever starts to drop. Then maintain that dosage level until the patient dies. Then blame the death on some new highly contagious lethal virus. Nothing new here. It’s the same old story, since 1918. The only thing different is that they give it a new name like SARS, or Bird Flu or whatever sounds nifty and high-tech. Even today, each year about one million people world-wide die from the very same “disease” which first appeared in the fall of 1918. Has medicine, in the last 100 years, turned this “contagion” from Pandemic by Phone, into Illness by Internet? Is it the rapid and continuous spread of misinformation that is still killing millions?


Prickly Heat Rash?

Poor, poor Garrett. Every time I look at his little face and the back of his neck it makes me want to cry. He has this awful rash that has spread all over his face, ears and the front and back of his neck. It is worse on the back of his neck but I wasn’t able to get a picture of that because he was sleeping. These pictures were taken Friday. Today is Saturday (I started this post yesterday but never finished it) and today it is looking a lot better but many of the bumps are still there. The rash is definitely made worse with skin contact, such as his head resting on my forearm when nursing. So I try to keep a burp cloth between his skin and mine. I can’t believe what a warm blooded little guy I have. He stays so warm!

I’m really hoping that this is prickly heat rash because it should clear up in a few days if it is. Otherwise I am assuming that the rash is due to an allergy to me eating dairy and I’ll have to cut dairy out of my diet. His rash looks like all the other prickly heat rashes when I googled it though.

It is kind of weird that he got this rash because I don’t dress him in a lot of clothing, just a onesie. I’ve been keeping him in only a diaper now and have given him a few baths in lukewarm water, which is supposed to help. He does sweat a lot though and prickly heat is caused by blocked sweat glands. For awhile I had used some Eucerin cream on his rash because I read somewhere that it would help with the friction that makes the rash red and “angry” and it helped a lot at first but then made the rash worse because it clogged up his sweat glands even more.

Really hoping I don’t need to cut dairy. :)

Here is my poor sweet boy with his ugly, awful rash.


January 26th, 2013

Dear Readers,

I think it is important to update you and say a few things. First of all, my son is now 4 1/2 years old. My son had prickly heat rash. We live in a desert and it was 105 degrees the day he was born. I was putting too much clothes on him and keeping him swaddled with a blanket and had a hat on him. His immature skin had pores that got clogged easily and he had very sensitive skin. His rash resolved within hours by keeping him out of clothes and keeping him cool and taking him into lukewarm baths with me. To this day he still sweats a lot but doesn’t get rashes anymore from sweating.

Someone stole my image and used it as an image for measles. What an awful thing to do to parents. He never had measles and has never had any type of vaccine preventable illness. We don’t vaccinate, either.

He did have food allergies later on in life but we have been able to clear up many of them with an alternative allergy therapy called N.A.E.T.

Please keep in mind that your child could have a similar looking rash and be experiencing something COMPLETELY different. All though the rash looks like it, this wasn’t hives. I am very familiar with hives as I have kids that are prone to food allergies. This does look like some of the reactions they’ve had in regards to food.

In my son’s particular case this was heat rash. I wish you the best of luck in diagnosing your babies rash and getting to the root cause.

Secret Vaccines in the Military?

It sounds completely and utterly hoaky right? Watch this video that aired on the news and see what you think. I tried to find more information on David Faye online so that I could do a bit of background research into the situation but was unable to find anything other than links to this video. If anyone has any information please let me know.

The HPV Vaccine – What Every Mother with a Daughter Should Know

I’d like to take the time to break this article down into my own words and add additional research but I am short on time and sleepy. Instead, I will copy the article directly which I think speaks for itself. This article is worth reading. It’s worth trying to understand and conceptualize the deception that goes into making people believe that certain vaccines are necessary and/or worth the risk. If I were to pick out the most ridiculous vaccine available on the market today I’d have to say that this one would be up there at the top. Please, please don’t give your daughter this vaccine without first researching the vaccine. Not only could your daughter be affected but your grandchildren.

This article came from Mercola HERE:

Once you educate yourself and know the facts about Gardasil, the truth about HPV, and the statistics of cervical cancer, it will become quite clear just how outrageously useless — and dangerous — this vaccine really is.

The FDA, in not-so-rare form, insists there’s no medical reason to be worried about the side effects of Gardasil. “We’re monitoring the safety of the HPV vaccine very carefully, and the only adverse event that causes some concern is fainting after the vaccine,” says Robert Ball, director of the FDA’s office of biostatistics and division of epidemiology.

He continues to say, “Higher rates of Guillain-Barré have been associated with the swine flu vaccine and possibly with the meningitis vaccine Menactra, but it is no more common in those who get Gardasil than in those who don’t.”

Alright. Let’s say you agree with the idea that the cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome are pure coincidence, despite the fact that they occur within days or weeks of vaccination.

But what about the deaths?

Infant deaths following Merck’s rotavirus are routinely disguised under the label SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). So what do we have when healthy teenagers drop dead for no reason? SAD — Sudden Adolescent Death? Will that be the next big thing? Will there be SAD campaigns, with physicians educating the public about proper sleeping positions until you’re well into your 20’s?

Let’s get real.

I recently read a comment online from one mother who said she’d do anything in her power to make sure her children were protected, and she couldn’t understand “the narrow-minded opinions” and “fear mongering” of Gardasil nay-sayers.

Would you rather your daughters died of cervical cancer?” she wrote.

Well, that’s just it, right there! As I will show you, the chances of your daughter dying of cervical cancer are already VERY LOW, and the possibility of Gardasil sparing them from cervical cancer is so RIDICULOUSLY LOW that no reasonable person could argue for the use of this HPV vaccine if they knew all the facts.

How Likely are You to Develop and Die From Cervical Cancer?

According to the CDC, cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cervical cancer cases and the number of deaths thereof have decreased significantly. It is believed that this decline is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical pre-cancer before it turns into cancer.

According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality report, 11,892 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2004, and 3,850 women died from the disease. The American Cancer Society mirrors these statistics, estimating that about 3,870 women will die from cervical cancer in the U.S. in 2008.

Well. We’ve already lost 18 girls, some as young as 12, in the effort to spare them from the mere possibility of cervical cancer later in life. Others have developed debilitating and potentially life-threatening ailments within weeks of being vaccinated, and others still have had spontaneous abortions or given birth to babies with birth defects.

Also consider this: Cervical cancer usually develops in your late 20s to mid 30s. The protection period of Gardasil is estimated to be 5 years. That means, if you receive your first set of shots when you’re 10 years old, you’d need at least 2 to 4 additional booster shots to make it through your 30s. And THAT means you’ll have to expose yourself to the potential side effects of Gardasil over and over and over again.

But now to the real clincher, and I want you to read the following section as many times as you need to let this truly sink in…

U.S. statistics show there are 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26, which is the age bracket that Gardasil targets (and was tested on).

According to Merck, Gardasil was shown to reduce pre-cancers by 12.2% to 16.5% in the general population. So, instead of ending up with 30 to 40 cases of cancer per million, per year, in that age bracket, the HPV vaccine can potentially bring it down to 26 to 35 cases of cervical cancer.

What that means is that you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls.

Further, about 37 percent of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, so vaccinating ONE MILLION girls would prevent 1 to 2 DEATHS per year, at the bargain-basement price of $360 million per year, plus potentially lifelong suffering for an untold number of women, which has no price tag.


Understanding the HPV – Cancer Connection

There are more than 100 types of human papillomaviruses (HPVs). Of them, about 40 types of HPV affect your genitals or sex organs, and can cause genital warts, for example. 10-30 strains can lead to cervical cancer. The remainder can cause to skin infections and common warts on your hands and feet.

The CDC web site states that certain types of HPV can infect your cervix and lead to cervical cancer over many years. (This may be one of the reasons why cancer rates keep dropping, because there’s sufficient amount of time to treat any abnormalities if you’re getting regular Pap smears.)

It also says that in 90 percent of women infected, HPV clears up on its own within two years, at which point your cervical cells go back to normal. It is only when the HPV virus lingers for many years that these abnormal cells could turn into cancer.

Additionally, it’s important to know that the vast majority of abnormal Pap tests do NOT equate to cancer. Even abnormal Pap tests showing pre-cancerous cells of the CIN II grade clear by themselves without treatment 40 percent of the time.

And, current treatment of pre-cancers has limited the progression to actual cancer to only 1 percent. So, just like the polio vaccine, Merck’s HPV vaccine is coming out at a time when cervical cancer is already on a steady decline, and anyone who starts talking about how Gardasil has reduced cervical cancer rates in the next few years is likely talking absolute nonsense.

Informed Consent: Understand the Numerous Dangers of the HPV Vaccine

First of all, the Gardasil vaccine contains just four types of HPV out of the more than 100 strains. So if you contract one of the 96+ types that aren’t included, you’re out of luck. And, if you’ve already been exposed to one of the four types of virus in the vaccine, it doesn’t work against those either.

This means that even if you accept the risks and get vaccinated, your chances of getting some form of HPV are still very high. Whether or not the HPV virus will lead to genital warts or cervical cancer, however, depends in large part on the state of your immune system.

Gardasil, on the other hand, can damage your immune system, and can potentially lead to death. The main causes of death include blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, and “sudden death” due to “unknown causes” shortly after receiving the vaccine. Again, 11 of the reported deaths occurred within 2 weeks of vaccination, and 7 within 2 days, so whatever the mechanism that induces death, it’s quick and efficient.

Other side effects include:

  • Miscarriages and spontaneous abortion
  • Genital wart outbreak, even in patients who had tested negative for HPV and genital warts prior to vaccination
  • Facial warts and warts on hands and feet
  • Anaphylactic shock
  • Loss of consciousness
  • Grand mal seizures
  • Coma
  • Paralysis

Says Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, “Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to reevaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children.”

It’s also important to know that Merck has NOT evaluated Gardasil’s potential carcinogenity or genotoxicity.

There is currently no way of knowing how the HPV vaccine affects fertility, birth defects, cancer, if it can pass through breast milk, or if it can alter your genes or the genes of your future children (genotoxicity).

However, five subjects who got the vaccine around the time of conception had babies with birth defects, whereas no birth defects occurred among the subjects who received a placebo. Likewise, earlier last year when there were “only” 1,637 adverse reports, 18 of 42 women who had received the vaccine while pregnant experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities.

Also remember that you cannot sue Merck if your child dies after receiving the vaccine.

Drug companies have cleverly manipulated the government so that they are immune from prosecution. Instead they’ve made the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are paid out to families of children who are harmed or killed every year from vaccines.

And even though it is nearly impossible to get one of these payments, more than $1.5 billion has been paid out to affected families already. So ponder on these stats if you haven’t already taken a firm position on the vaccine issue.

Good Example of How to Fake a Safety Study

In yet another less-than-ethical twist, Merck was permitted to use an aluminum-containing placebo instead of a standard saline placebo. Since Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum, using an aluminum-containing placebo may paint an entirely inaccurate picture of its level of safety, since you’re apt to get similar, detrimental side effects in the placebo group.

In fact, about 60 percent of those who received either Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including:

  • Headache
  • Fever
  • Nausea
  • Dizziness
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea,
  • Myalgia (muscle pain)

Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

You should also know that aside from being injected with four types of HPV proteins, girls and women who receive this vaccine also receive the following adjuvants:

1. Aluminum adjuvants, which have been linked to neurological damage including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease

2. Polysorbate 80, which has been linked to infertility in mice.

3. Sodium borate, a main ingredient in roach killer.

How To Reduce Your Risk of Cervical Cancer to Virtually Zero

The following have been shown to be associated with increased risk of cervical cancer:

  • Nutritional deficiencies, especially vitamin A and folate
  • Mineral deficiency (zinc, selenium, calcium and iron)
  • Smoking
  • Birth control use
  • Douching

It is believed that smoking has more to do with the progression of an HPV infection to cervical cancer than any other single factor, as smokers with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer much more frequently than infected non-smokers.

Cervical cancer is also well documented to be caused by an infection acquired through sexual contact. So in addition to avoiding smoking and eating a nutritious diet, it is behaviorally avoidable.

According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the use of condoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent, offering FAR better protection than Gardasil’s protection rate of 12.2 to 16.5 percent.

As I’ve already mentioned, in 90 percent of all cases, your immune system is strong enough to clear up an HPV infection without ANY treatment. So maintaining a strong immune system is vital to beat HPV as well as any other infection or disease.
Related Articles:

The HPV Vaccine: Preventive Care or Human Sacrifice?

Gardasil — New Video Reveals Hidden Dangers

Why Use Vaccine for HPV When Green Tea Works?

Interesting Study…Lousy Conclusion

In a recent German study, which was presented to the American Thoracic Societies International Conference on May 21st, researchers found that mothers exposed to farms or “farm milk” during their pregnancies conferred protection from allergies to their newborns.

Researchers found that the mothers exposure to farms or “farm milk” affected the babies T regulatory cells. These cells are believed to suppress immune response and therefore maintain and develop a healthy immune system.

“We found that the babies of mothers exposed to farms have more and better functioning regulatory T cells,” explained Bianca Schaub, M.D., who led the research team at University Children’s Hospital in Munich.

“The effect was strongest among those mothers who entered barns or drank farm milk.”

First of all, let’s call it like it is. A duck is a duck is a duck. I find it fascinating that through this entire press release they refer to raw milk as “farm milk.” Pasteurized milk comes from a farm too but you can be sure that this study was not looking at mothers that consumed pasteurized milk.

What is also being said in this study (albeit quite silently) is that you don’t have to live on a farm or be exposed to one to be able to confer these benefits to your child, you can simply drink raw milk. Good news for us suburban and urban dwellers since most of America’s households are 99.8% bacterial free Lysol homes.

Another noteworthy item? This study points out the benefits of drinking raw milk while pregnant. If, as a pregnant woman, you decided to mention to a health care professional that you drink raw milk (I wouldn’t recommend this) you can be quite sure that it will have a “shock and awe” affect quickly followed by a stern lecture. Raw milk consumption is hugely controversial in America and a very big “no, no” while pregnant. Me? I am guilty. Then again I am the mother to a little girl who appears to be allergic and or sensitive to about a million different things on this planet. Okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration. Nevertheless, if the act of drinking raw milk will help repair the damage that has all ready been done to her immune system and possibly spare her sibling the same allergenic fate then I am all aboard. By the way, we’ve been drinking raw milk for over a year with great results.

But my biggest pet peeve? That would be the conclusion that Dr. Schaub (one of the doctors conducting the study) presented:

“It is a long way off,” she concluded, “but these findings may one day hopefully help researchers to develop an effective preventive strategy, perhaps even a vaccine, against allergic diseases.”

Oh, another vaccine. Beautiful. So you take something full of simplicity and truth and you see how you can twist it into your medical model of something to sell. Shocking.

Here is the press release.

Step Away From “the white liquid substance”

Below is a very well written article that eloquently discusses the risks and benefits of raw milk and the political and scientific dynamic of what has people so up in arms about this food. I love the interplay of pro’s and con’s and the realistic approach that it takes. I also enjoyed hearing about the presence, benefits and study of oligosaccharides that are found in breastmilk. You can be sure that the formula does not contain oligosaccharides. Of course I also love the powerful evidence that is presented in positive affirmation that we need bacteria and that the understanding of that, is at the tip of the ice-berg. As for me, six-and-a-half months pregnant, and my three-and-a-half year old? We will continue to drink raw milk. The title that I chose for the post is one of the quotes in the article that literally made me laugh out loud. The hysteria that follows raw milk (thus the white bio-hazard suits) cracks me up to no end.

Obtained from Harpers Magazine.

The Revolution Will Not Be Pasteurized:

Inside the raw-milk underground

By Nathanael Johnson

The agents arrived before dawn. They concealed the squad car and police van behind trees, and there, on the road that runs past Michael Schmidt’s farm in Durham, Ontario, they waited for the dairyman to make his move. A team from the Ministry of Natural Resources had been watching Schmidt for months, shadowing him on his weekly runs to Toronto. Two officers had even infiltrated the farmer’s inner circle, obtaining for themselves samples of his product. Lab tests confirmed their suspicions. It was raw milk. The unpasteurized stuff. Now the time had come to take him down.

Schmidt had risen that morning at 4 a.m. He milked his cows and ate breakfast. He loaded up a delivery, then fired up the bus. But as he reached the end of the driveway, two cars moved in to block his path. A police officer stepped into the road and raised his hand. Another ran to the bus and banged on the door. Others were close behind. Eventually twenty-four officers from five different agencies would search the farm. Many of them carried guns.

“The farm basically flooded, from everywhere came these people,” Schmidt later told me in his lilting German accent. “It looked like the Russian army coming, all these men with earflap hats.”

The process of heating milk to kill bacteria has been common for nearly a century, and selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption is currently illegal in Canada and in half the U.S. states. Yet thousands of people in North America still seek raw milk. Some say milk in its natural state keeps them healthy; others just crave its taste. Schmidt operates one of the many black-market networks that supply these raw-milk enthusiasts.

Schmidt showed men in biohazard suits around his barn, both annoyed and amused by the absurdity of the situation. The government had known that he was producing raw milk for at least a dozen years, yet an officer was now informing him that they would be seizing all the “unpasteurized product” and shuttling it to the University of Guelph for testing.

In recent years, raids of this sort have not been unusual. In October 2006, Michigan officials destroyed a truckload of Richard Hebron’s unpasteurized dairy. The previous month, the Ohio Department of Agriculture shut down Carol Schmitmeyer’s farm for selling raw milk. Cincinnati cops also swooped in to stop Gary Oaks in March 2006 as he unloaded raw milk in the parking lot of a local church. When bewildered residents gathered around, an officer told them to step away from “the white liquid substance.” The previous September an undercover agent in Ohio asked Amish dairyman Arlie Stutzman for a jug of unpasteurized milk. Stutzman refused payment, but when the agent offered to leave a donation instead, the farmer said he could give whatever he thought was fair. Busted.

If the police actions against Schmidt and other farmers have been overzealous, they are nevertheless motivated by a real threat. The requirement for pasteurization—heating milk to at least 161 degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen seconds—neutralizes such deadly bacteria as Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and salmonella. Between 1919, when only a third of the milk in Massachusetts was pasteurized, and 1939, when almost all of it was, the number of outbreaks of milk-borne disease fell by nearly 90 percent. Indeed, pasteurization is part of a much broader security cordon set up in the past century to protect people from germs. Although milk has a special place on the watch list (it’s not washable and comes out of apertures that sit just below the orifice of excretion), all foods are subject to scrutiny. The thing that makes our defense against raw milk so interesting, however, is the mounting evidence that these health measures also could be doing us great harm.

Over the past fifty years, people in developed countries began showing up in doctors’ offices with autoimmune disorders in far greater numbers. In many places, the rates of such conditions as multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease have doubled and even tripled. Almost half the people living in First World nations now suffer from allergies. It turns out that people who grow up on farms are much less likely to have these problems. Perhaps, scientists hypothesized, we’ve become too clean and aren’t being exposed to the bacteria we need to prime our immune systems.

What we pour over our cereal has become the physical analogue of this larger ideological struggle over microbial security. The very thing that makes raw milk dangerous, its dirtiness, may make people healthier, and pasteurization could be cleansing beneficial bacteria from milk. The recent wave of raw-milk busts comes at a time when new evidence is invigorating those who threaten to throw open our borders to bacterial incursion. Public-health officials are infuriated by the raw milkers’ sheer wrongheadedness and inability to correctly interpret the facts, and the raw milkers feel the same way about them. Milk as it emerges from the teat, it seems, is both panacea and poison.

Schmidt responded to the raid on his farm by immediately going on a hunger strike. For a month he consumed nothing but a glass of raw milk a day. He milked a cow on the lawn outside Ontario’s provincial parliament. This was a battle, he said, for which he was prepared to lose his farm. He was ready to go to jail. Actually, he’d been awaiting arrest for more than a decade. For all that time, he told me, he’d carried a camera with him so that he could take pictures when the authorities finally came to shut him down. “And I upgraded. You know, first it was still, then video, then digital came along.”

The fifty-three-year-old Schmidt doesn’t have the demeanor of a rabble-rouser. His temperament, in fact, is not unlike that of the cows he tends. A large man, he moves deliberately, reacts placidly to provocation. He has thin blond hair, light-blue eyes, and pockmarked cheeks. On the farm he invariably wears black jeans, a white shirt, and a black vest. In the summer he dons a broad-brimmed straw hat; in the winter, a black newsboy’s cap.

When Schmidt emigrated from Germany in 1983, he wanted to start a farm that would operate in a manner fundamentally different from that of the average industrial dairy. Instead of lodging his cows in a manure-filled lot, he would give them abundant pastures. Instead of feeding them corn and silage, he’d give them grass. And instead of managing hundreds of anonymous animals to maximize the return on his investment, he would care for about fifty cows and maximize health and ecological harmony. If he kept the grasses and cows and pigs and all the components of the farm’s ecosystem healthy, he believed the bacterial ecosystem in the milk would be healthy, too.

Schmidt bought 600 acres three hours northwest of Toronto. There he built up a herd of Canadiennes, handsome brown-and-black animals with black-tipped horns. Most cattle farmers burn off the horn buds—a guarantee against being gored—but Schmidt believes it’s better to leave things in their natural state whenever possible. The dangers posed by the horns (like the dangers of drinking unpasteurized milk) weighed less heavily on him than the risk of disrupting some unknown element of nature’s design.

The farm flourished under his hand. Schmidt set up a cow-share system whereby, instead of purchasing raw dairy, customers leased a portion of a cow and paid a “boarding fee” when they picked up milk. People were technically drinking milk from their own cows. The animals were, for all practical purposes, still Schmidt’s property, but the scheme made the defiance of the law less flagrant, and health officials could look the other way. Then, in 1994, the Canadian Broadcasting Company aired a documentary about Schmidt and his unpasteurized product. A few months later he was charged with endangering the public health.

Because Schmidt believed that his style of biodynamic farming actually secured the public health, he decided to fight the charges. Newspapers began quoting him on the salubrious powers of raw milk and the detriments of industrial dairy. At this time, strange things started happening around the farm. Vandals broke into his barn. Schmidt found two of his cows lying dead in the yard, apparently poisoned. Then an unmarked van ran his cousin’s car off the road. Men jumped out of the van’s back and forced him inside, holding him there for two hours. Schmidt hadn’t been prepared for the struggle to take this turn. He sent his cousin back to Germany, agreed to plead guilty in court, and sold all but 100 acres of his farm to pay the government fines and cover his lost income.

Schmidt is a man of Teutonic certainty, but as he walked into the field soon after he’d sold the land, he was filled with doubt. The morning sun had turned the sky red, and mist hung around the legs of the cattle. While he twitched a stick at his bull, Xamos, to turn him away from the cows, Schmidt wondered whether it was even possible to run a farm in the manner he wanted. If he started selling his milk at industrial prices it would erode his meticulous style of farming. He would lose the direct connection to his customers. He’d have to push his cows to produce more milk. He’d be compelled to adopt the newest feed-management strategies and modernize his equipment. Schmidt didn’t see Xamos coming, just felt the explosion as the bull struck him. Even as he hit the ground, the animal was on him, bellowing. It stabbed with one horn and then the other, tearing up the earth and ripping off Schmidt’s clothes. One horn sank into Schmidt’s belly, another ripped into his chest and shoulder, grazing a lung. Only when his wife charged into the field, flanked by the couple’s snarling dogs, did Xamos retreat. Another man might have taken this attack as a sure sign, a demonstration of the folly of seeking harmony with nature. As Schmidt lay there bleeding into the earth, however, he felt only humility. “Nature is dangerous, yes,” he would tell me later. “But I can’t control it, and I can’t escape from it. I can only learn the best way to live with it.”

By the time Schmidt could walk again, almost six weeks later, he’d decided to continue farming on his own terms. He announced his intentions publicly, but the regulators must have felt that they’d made their point. For years he continued farming quietly, as an outlaw, until the morning that government agents descended on his dairy. After the hunger strike and the other public acts of protest, Schmidt settled in for the long fight. He hired a top defense lawyer in hopes of overturning Ontario’s raw-milk ban.

In the twenty-five years that Schmidt has operated the dairy, no one has ever reported falling sick after drinking his milk. Yet raw-milk illnesses do crop up. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the United States averages seventy cases of raw-dairy food poisoning each year. In the fall of 2006, for instance, California officials announced that raw milk tainted with E. coli was responsible for a rash of illnesses. It is legal to sell unpasteurized dairy in California, and the tainted milk came from Organic Pastures, in Fresno, the largest of several farms that supply the state’s health-food stores.

Tony Martin had agonized over buying the raw milk. He’d never brought it home before. He knew that milk was pasteurized for a reason, but he’d also heard that the raw stuff might help his son’s allergies. “There was a lot of picking it up off the shelf and putting it back,” he said. Chris, his seven-year-old, drank the Organic Pastures milk three days in a row over a Labor Day weekend. On Wednesday, Chris woke up pale and lethargic. On Thursday he had diarrhea and was vomiting. That night he had blood in his stool, and the Martins rushed him to the hospital. Shortly afterward, several other children checked into southern California hospitals. All of them had drunk Organic Pastures raw-milk products, and they all were diagnosed as being infected with a virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7. Some of the children recovered rapidly, but two, Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog, got progressively worse. The O157:H7 strain releases a jet of toxins when it comes

into contact with antibiotics, so doctors face the difficult decision of allowing nature to take its course or intervening and risking further damage. Chris’s doctors administered antibiotics, Lauren’s did not, yet both children’s kidneys shut down. While Chris was on dialysis, his body became so swollen that his father said he wouldn’t have recognized him if he passed him on the street. Chris was in the hospital fifty-five days. Lauren went home after a month but then relapsed and had to return. Both children eventually recovered but may have suffered permanent kidney damage.

The illnesses didn’t stop raw-milk sales. Even as the state ordered store managers to destroy the milk on their shelves, customers rushed in to buy whatever they could. Several Organic Pastures customers said regulators had simply pinned unrelated illnesses on the milk. They pointed out that siblings and friends of the sick children had drunk the same milk from the same bottles and didn’t get so much as diarrhea. Tests for E. coli in one of the milk bottles in question had also turned up negative. Although it seemed implausible that the state would frame Mark McAfee, the owner of Organic Pastures, it certainly was possible that regulators were predisposed to declare raw milk guilty. When state veterinarians came to search Organic Pastures for E. coli, they were surprised to see that the manure they pulled from the cows’ rectums was watery and contained less bacteria than usual. Patrick Kennelly, chief of the food-safety section at the California Department of Health Services, confronted McAfee with these facts in an email, writing, “Not only is this unnatural, but it is consistent with the type of reactions that an animal might have after being treated with high doses of antibiotics. . . . Why were your cows in this condition, Mark?”

McAfee does not use antibiotics on his organic farm. The state tests all shipments of his milk for antibiotics residue and has never found any. Allan Nation, a grazing expert, offered another explanation: the cows had been eating grass. Grass-fed cows carry a lower number of pathogens, he said. And for a few days in the spring and fall, when the weather changes and new grass sprouts, the cows “tend to squirt,” as Nation put it. But grass-eating cows have become so rare that, to California health officials, they seemed unnatural. The norms of industrial dairying had become so deeply ingrained that a regulator could jump to the conclu sion that all milk is dirty until pasteurized.

Around the time that Chicago passed the first pasteurization law in the United States, in 1908, many of the dairies supplying cities had themselves become urban. They were crowded, grassless, and filthy. Unscrupulous proprietors added chalk and plaster of paris to extend the milk. Consumptive workers coughed into their pails, spreading tuberculosis; children contracted diseases like scarlet fever from milk. Pasteurization was an easy solution. But pasteurization also gave farmers license to be unsanitary. They knew that if fecal bacteria got in the milk, the heating process would eventually take care of it. Customers didn’t notice, or pay less, when they drank the corpses of a few thousand pathogens. As a result, farmers who emphasized animal health and cleanliness were at a disadvantage to those who simply pushed for greater production.

After a century of pasteurization, modern dairies, to put it bluntly, are covered in shit. Most have a viscous lagoon full of it. Cows lie in it. Wastewater is recycled to flush out their stalls. Farmers do dip cows’ teats in iodine, but standards mandate only that the number of germs swimming around their bulk tanks be below 100,000 per milliliter.

When I was working as a newspaper reporter in Cassia County, Idaho, a local dairyman, Brent Stoker, had wanted to raise thousands of calves on his farm and sell them to dairies as replacements for their worn-out cows. Stoker’s neighbors, incensed by the idea of all that manure near their houses, stopped the project. Stoker wasn’t an especially dirty farmer—dairy associations showed off his farm on tours—but, to survive, dairies must produce a lot of milk, which means producing a lot of feces. I called Stoker recently, to talk dairy and catch up. He was in the middle of another fight with the neighbors. This time he wanted to build a large organic dairy. I said I hadn’t taken him for the organic type.

“Pay me enough and I am,” he said. Organic may mean no antibiotics and no pesticides, but it doesn’t necessarily mean grass-fed. When it comes to making milk, grass-fed cows simply can’t compete. Stoker’s current herd of non-organic cows produce a prodigious eighty pounds of milk per day. That’s mostly because they are fed like Olympic athletes. They eat a carefully formulated mix of roughage and high-energy grains. “If you were to try to pasture them, you’d lose production down to about forty pounds,” Stoker said. “Of course, the cow would last a lot longer.”

Cows are designed to eat grass, not grain. Unlike mammals that can’t digest the cellulose in grass, ruminants are able to access the solar energy locked in a green pasture by enlisting the aid of microbes. These bacteria are cellulose specialists and turn grass into the nutrient building blocks that cud-chewing animals need. In return, cows provide a place for bacteria to live—the rumen—and a steady supply of food. This relationship shifts when a cow begins eating grain. The cellulose specialists lose their place to bacteria better suited to the new food supply but not necessarily so well suited to the cow. The new bacteria give off acids, which in extreme conditions can send the animal into shock. Pushing too much high-energy feed through a cow can twist part of its stomach around other organs. This kink backs up the digestive flow to a trickle. The cow will stop eating, and sometimes you can see the knotted guts bulging under the skin. Other disorders also result from the combination of high-energy feeds and high production: abscessed liver, ulcerated rumen, rotten hooves, inflammation of the udders.

It is in a farmer’s interest to keep a cow healthy—but not too healthy. If a dairyman decreased the grain portion of a cow’s rations to a level that eliminated health problems, he would lose money. A balance must be struck between health and yield. It’s not surprising, then, that farmers end up sending grain-fed cows off to the hamburger plant at a much younger age than their pastured counterparts. On average, dairy farmers slaughter a third of their herds each year. As Brent Stoker put it, “We’re mining the cow.”

There are other bacterial opportunists that move in when a cow’s gastric environment is disturbed by a change in diet. Tired cows and ubiquitous feces combine to create conditions that are ideal for the transmission of pathogens. In a 2002 survey of American farms, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found Campylobacter in 98 percent of all dairies and E. coli O157:H7 on more than half of farms with 500 or more cows. When the milk at these large farms was tested, the researchers discovered salmonella in 3 percent of all bulk tanks and Listeria monocytogenes in 7 percent. If that milk were shipped to supermarkets without pasteurization, a lot of people would get sick. Healthy cows with plenty of energy are less likely to take on pathogens.

I asked Stoker if he’d ever considered returning to a smaller, healthier style of farming. “If I had a way to provide for my six kids and have a comparable standard of living I would do that,” Stoker said. “The way it is now, I’m more stressed, the animals are more stressed, our crops are probably more stressed. There’s nothing I would like more than to go back to that, but I’m too stupid to figure out how.”

The problem isn’t Stoker’s intelligence; it’s what he calls the “dishonesty of the market.” Advertisers promise that consumers can have the healthiest possible food from happy animals in idyllic settings at current prices. This obviously is a lie, but it’s a lie that most people accept. Although American consumers are periodically outraged by the realities of modern agriculture, they never stop demanding cheaper food. Stoker doesn’t mind playing the hand he’s been dealt. He’s good at producing cheap food. But, he acknowledged, “cheap food makes for expensive health care.”

The people who buy from Michael Schmidt are atypical consumers. They pay a premium for food they believe will keep them healthy. In their estimation, Schmidt has a biological formula working for him that will be to their benefit. The elements of a dairy farm—the cows, plants, microbes, and humans—have been together long enough to have sorted out their differences. By working within this system, Schmidt can take advantage of some natural efficiencies. Although the life expectancy of a conventional dairy cow is a little under five years, Schmidt’s cows are eight, nine, and twelve years old; they are glossy-coated and solid on their feet. Schmidt told me that he hasn’t needed to have someone trim his cows’ hooves in fifteen years. The cows produce only around twenty-five pounds of milk daily, one third the production of Brent Stoker’s animals, but Schmidt doesn’t have to pay much for veterinary service. He doesn’t have to slap haunches to roust exhausted animals from their beds; his cows actually line up on their own for milking. There’s a little trick he likes to show off when it’s time for them to return from the fields.

“Watch this,” Schmidt said, and he pulled open the door. The cows came jogging in, each one peeling out of line to take her place, unprompted, in the barn beneath a white placard bearing her name: anna, sophia, cantate, laura. They buried their heads in the hay. He beamed. So far the microbes that end up in Schmidt’s milk have been benign, possibly beneficial. He says biodynamic farming doesn’t open up new niches for unfamiliar forms of bacteria, and it encourages the ones people have adapted to.

It turns out that black-market buyers aren’t the only ones who think germ-infested milk is healthy. The yogurt giant Dannon has invested heavily in understanding the benefits of bacteria, and the company now sells dairy products stocked with healthy, or “probiotic,” microbes: DanActive, “an ally for your body’s defenses,” which comes in a small pill-shaped bottle and provides a dose of an organism owned in full by Dannon called L. casei Immunitas; Danimals, a more playfully packaged bacteria-infused drink, designed to appeal to children; and Activia, a yogurt containing a bacterium the company has named Bifidus regularis, which “is scientifically proven to help with slow intestinal transit.” Both Michael Schmidt and Dannon may be working to reintroduce bacteria into the modern diet, but Schmidt labors under a principle of submission. He accepts the presence of unknown microbes and tries to make his customers healthy by keeping the creeks that run through his farm clean, by maintaining the stability of his ecosystem. In contrast, Dannon’s is a philosophy of mastery.

Milk comes to Dannon’s Fort Worth processing plant in tanker trucks, arriving wild, full of its own diverse bacteria. It leaves the factory civilized and safe, in four-ounce cups. It takes a lot of machinery to accomplish this domestication: miles of stainless-steel pipes, huge fermentation vats, and dozens of white-frocked, hairnet-wearing workers. Although the process is intricate, the concept is simple: kill the bacteria, then add bacteria. Workers pasteurize the milk not once but twice. All yogurt is made when benign bacteria are mixed into milk. But Dannon also adds probiotic bacteria, and when I visited the plant last year, this is what I asked to see. Dannon employees looked at one another nervously. The bacterial strains are proprietary, and so are the methods surrounding their use. My public relations minder, Michael Neuwirth, exchanged a few words with J. W. Erskin, the plant manager, then nodded.

“We can see the place where it’s done,” Neuwirth said.

The room was lined with freezers. Neuwirth opened one, and frost billowed out. Inside were stacks of what looked like one-quart milk cartons, encrusted with ice. “This is for Activia, right?” Neuwirth asked.

“Yep,” Erskin said. “Regularis.”

The Dannon workers explained that each carton contained thousands of tiny pellets consisting of frozen milk and bacteria. You can buy non-proprietary yogurt-making bacteria for about $40 a bottle from several suppliers. No one at Dannon would tell me the price of the company’s proprietary strains, but Erskin said, “When our little friends die, it’s very costly.”

Workers wait for the moment when the milk reaches the ideal temperature, then add the bacteria. Lactobacillus bulgaricus, a yogurt-making bacterium, acts first, converting sugar to acid; Streptococcus thermophilus is next. These prepare the substance for the probiotic strains. Every bacterial move is choreographed. Although the Dannon people wouldn’t show me how the healthy microbes fit into this process, they did take me next door, to the bottling room, where the precision continued, though in engineering rather than biochemistry. The most beautiful machine there was the one filling little bottles with DanActive. The bottles moved across the ceiling, propelled by compressed air along a metal track, halting, then scooting forward, like a line of penguins. When the bottles reached the machine, an auger caught them in its threads, sending them spinning in an endless line around gears and carousels. The machine cleaned the bottles with acid, zapped them with sterilizing UV light, filled, sealed, boxed, and stacked them—in scherzo—at 460 containers per minute.

Erskin stood beside me, watching through the Plexiglas window.

“It’s like a ballet,” he said.

Dannon’s new lines of products lend some credibility to the claims of bacterial necessity made by Schmidt and other raw-milk advocates. Albeit cautiously, scientists have also begun weighing in on whether such technologies as pasteurization have purged necessary bacteria from our food. When I started talking to milk experts, several told me I needed to speak to Bruce German. A food chemist at U.C. Davis, German realized early in his career that if he could determine what a food perfectly suited to our DNA looked like, he would have a Rosetta Stone with which to solve the puzzle of dietary well-being. He would be able to examine each molecular component of this food to understand what it was doing to make people healthy. No plant would do as a model, since evolutionary pressure tends to favor plants that can avoid being eaten. The model food would be just the opposite: something that had evolved specifically to be a meal, something shaped by constant Darwinian selection to satisfy all the dietary needs of mammals. That Ur-food, of course, is milk.

The day I visited German, he was hosting a reception in honor of Agilent, a company that had helped develop a machine able to analyze oligosaccharides, sugar polymers found in breast milk. As we walked across the U.C. Davis campus, German brought me up to speed. He’s a slight, energetic man, with smile lines creased into his face. His excitement for his work is infectious. Oligosaccharides make up a large portion of human milk, in which they are about as abundant as proteins. The curious thing about them, German said, is that they are indigestible. Which means, he said, one hand chopping the air, that they are there to feed the bacteria living inside a baby’s gut, not to feed the baby. As far as scientists know, only one microbe thrives on this sugar, a bacterium named Bifidobacterium infantis that has a fairly unique genome.

“There’s a lot of evidence that we coevolved with this organism,” German explained. “It’s really specialized to us and vice versa. Mothers recruit this entire life form to help the process of digestion.”

Chemists have identified numerous other compounds in milk that are there not just to nourish babies but to create a specific microbial ecosystem. Lactoferrin, lysozyme, and lactoperoxidase kill off only harmful bacteria, not beneficial bacteria. (These selective bactericides, along with oligosaccharides, are also in cow’s milk, though in lower concentrations.) Consider, German said, what it means that milk, the model food, has evolved such a sophisticated chemical system that caters not to us but to our microbial friends. It means, he said, raising his eyebrows, that “bacteria are tremendously important to us”—so important that researchers studying the microbes living inside us say it’s unclear where our bodily functions end and the functions of microbes begin.

By any rational measure, this world belongs to microbes. They were mastering the subtleties of evolution three billion years before the first multicellular organism appeared. They continue to evolve and adapt in a tiny fraction of the time it takes us to reproduce once. They flourish in polar ice caps, in boiling water, and amid radioactive waste. We exist only because some of them find us useful. Ninety percent of the cells in our bodies are bacteria. The entirety of human evolution has taken place in an environment saturated with microbes, and humans are so firmly adapted to the routine of sheltering allies and rebuffing enemies that the removal of either can devastate our defense systems.

For the past century, however, we’ve done our best to wall ourselves off from microbes. In 1989, David Strachan put forward the “hygiene hypothesis,” which posed that this separation could be causing the increased incidence of immune disorders. As the years have passed, many studies have helped refine his proposal. Scientists found that hygiene itself wasn’t a problem. People who never used antibacterial soap were just as likely to have asthma as those who scrubbed obsessively. In a 2006 study of thousands of children living on farms in Shropshire, England, Strachan and another scientist, Michael Perkin, found that raw-milk drinkers were unlikely to have eczema or to react to allergens in skin-prick tests. “The protective effect of unpasteurized milk consumption was remarkably robust,” Strachan and Perkin wrote. Then, in May of 2007, a group of scientists published a paper after surveying almost 15,000 children around Europe. They found that children who drank raw milk were less likely to have any among a wide range of allergies. Either there’s something about industrial milk that’s harmful, Perkin wrote in a commentary that accompanied the paper, or there’s something in raw milk that’s beneficial.

None of these findings mean that raw milk is safe. Every single study contains the caveat that raw milk often harbors pathogens. From an epidemiological perspective, Bruce German told me, advising raw-milk consumption at this point “would be crazy.” Health officials certainly should have a high level of confidence before approving anything risky. But in light of the new evidence, it was becoming harder to deny that something beneficial was being lost during pasteurization. And health offiicials also have an obligation to ensure that they are not outlawing what makes us healthy.

Last March I drove to Fresno to meet Organic Pastures owner Mark McAfee and see how he had fared since the E. coli outbreak. The dairy is made up of a few prefabricated double-wide trailers on 450 acres of pasture extending out into the hazy flatness of California’s Central Valley. When I arrived, some 200 cows were chewing their cud on thirty shadeless acres of closely cropped grass. McAfee culls about 14 percent of his herd each year, far below the industry’s average but still above Schmidt’s. When you have fewer than fifty cows, like Schmidt, it’s different, McAfee said. “You have time to give each one a foot rub every night. You can do yoga with them every morning.”

After walking through the dairy, we sat down in McAfee’s office. Lab results had found the exact same sub-strain of E. coli O157:H7 in almost all of the children who fell ill after drinking unpasteurized dairy. Yet McAfee remained unfazed. How did it help to show that the bacteria from each patient matched, he asked, when one patient, an eighteen-year-old in Nevada City, claimed he hadn’t drunk the milk? The disease trackers I talked to explained this by saying that sometimes germs move indirectly. Someone else in the family spills a little milk. You wipe it up. Then you wipe your mouth. But there was another theory I’d been hearing from scientists working to explain why O157:H7 had burst onto the scene in the 1980s with such virulence. Maybe, they said, it wasn’t that the bacteria had changed but that we had changed. In Brazil outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 are unheard of, though the bacteria exist there. A pair of recent studies show that Brazilian women have antibodies protecting them against O157:H7 and that they pass these antibodies to their children through the placenta and their breast milk. I found this interesting, especially in light of the fact that in every case I learned about, the victims of the Organic Pastures outbreak had just started drinking McAfee’s milk. Perhaps those who had been drinking the milk longer had developed the antibodies.

“It’s an old story,” McAfee said. “You see it again and again in the lists of outbreaks. City kids went to the country, drank raw milk, and got sick; country kids didn’t get sick.” But, I pointed out, this explanation still implicates Organic Pastures. McAfee shook his head. “Look, if I made four kids sick, I made four kids sick. But show me the 50,000 kids I made healthy. We don’t guarantee zero risk. We aren’t worried about the .001 percent chance that someone will get sick; we are worried about the 99 percent assurance that you are going to get sick if you eat a totally sterile, anonymous, homogenous diet.”

The problem for McAfee is that the .001 percent is shocking and visible. A dying child will make people change their behavior. The diseases that might stem from a lack of bacteria are much more subtle. They come on slowly. It’s difficult to link cause and effect. Businesses that contribute to chronic disease often flourish while businesses that contribute to acute disease get shut down. McAfee, now clearly incensed, dismissed this line of reasoning. “If my milk gets someone sick, I deserve some blame, but not all of it. People have to take responsibility for maintaining their own immune systems. And we have to look at an environmental level too. Where did these germs come from? E. coli O157:H7 evolved in grain-fed cattle. It’s amazing to me that we’ve sat by as factory farmers feed more than half the antibiotics in the country to animals and breed these antibiotic-resistant bacteria at the same time the food corporations are destroying our immune systems. I believe our forefathers would have grabbed their muskets and gone and shot someone over this. They would have had a tea party over this.”

Instead of grabbing his musket, McAfee is expanding. He’s building a $2 million creamery, complete with a raw-milk museum. He expects to finish construction in 2009. I asked what he’d do if regulators come to shut that down.

“I have an email list of 8,000, ready for immediate revolutionary action,” he said. When the California legislature quietly passed a law late last year with such strict standards that it constituted a de facto ban on raw milk, McAfee mobilized these forces. In January hundreds of people packed into a committee chamber in Sacramento carrying their children and wearing black got raw milk? T-shirts. A legislative study group is now working to come up with new standards.

Aside from the revolutionaries and reactionaries, what are the rest of us to do? When Schmidt’s case goes to trial this spring, his lawyer, Clayton Ruby, will challenge the constitutionality of mandatory pasteurization. In Canada, Ruby is one of those lawyers people threaten to hire in the same way people in the United States used to say they were going to hire Johnnie Cochran. He’s sure to argue eloquently, but the judge’s decision on milk will leave unanswered the larger question of how we should mend relations with our microbial friends. The court won’t tell us whether raw milk is good for people or how Schmidt has managed to distribute it for twenty-five years without making anyone sick. Someday scientists may answer these questions. But until then, we will have to conduct our own calculations to determine what constitutes clean and healthy food.

When I sat at Schmidt’s breakfast table early one morning, glass in hand, I understood the possible consequences of my choice. All the competing science was there, along with the stories of epic sickness I’d heard. And I have to confess, the thought crossed my mind that if I got sick it would make a hell of a story. But when it comes down to it, here’s why I drank the raw milk. The sun had just come up, and we’d already finished three hours of work in the barn. I was filled with a righteous hunger. The table was laden with eggs from the chickens, salami from the pigs, jarred fruit, steaming porridge, cheese, and yogurt. Although dairy isn’t for everyone, I come from the people of the udder: my ancestors relied so heavily on milk that they passed down a mutation allowing me to digest lactose. For many generations my forefathers sat down to meals like this after the morning milking. It felt unambiguously right.

This, of course, is the very definition of bias: the conflation of what feels right with what is scientifically correct. But as it was, I could only hope that my biases were rooted in something more than nostalgia. Perhaps they were. The way a place feels won’t tell you anything about whether bacteria have breached the wall of sanitation, but it does reveal something about the overall health of an ecosystem. Humans have relied on such impressions to assess the quality of their food for most of history. Someday the uncertainties of dietary science will fall to manageable levels, but until then I will rely on my gut. I drained my cup and poured thick clabbered milk and apple syrup on my porridge. If any bacteria disagreed with my body, the conflict was too small to detect.

Genetically Modified Foods: Do you know what you’re eating?

As if I needed another topic to worry myself over. Between this, celiac, and the BPA plastics issue (this will be coming in another blog post) I am emotionally and intellectually spent. Is anyone else tired of feeling like their family is being bombarded by environmental and physical dangers from every possible direction? I guess I’m getting to the point where I am not shocked why most American’s simply shrug their shoulders and decide to let someone else worry about these things and close their ears to topics such as these. The work that it takes to research a topic, make a decision and then carry out that change in lifestyle is sometimes very difficult. Ok, whine over. Here’s what I’ve been finding and yes, it is disturbing. Another one of those things that I’ve caught wind of several times but never bothered to look into and am now kicking myself because of it.

Definition: Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have had their DNA altered through genetic engineering. GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil.

How Common are Genetically Modified Foods?

The general population is unaware of how prevalent genetically modified (GM) food has become within our food chain. For example, if you were to randomly go to the grocery store and pick a boxed item off of the shelf you have a 75% chance of picking up a food with GM ingredients. This is because 7 out of every 10 items have been genetically modified. This is significant!

In a 10 year period, between 1995 and 2005, the amount of land cultivated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) had increased from 4.2 million acres to 222 million acres. In 2003, the countries that grew 99% of the worlds transgenic crops (genetically modified, containing DNA from another species) were the following countries:

United States – 63%

Argentina – 21%

Canada – 6%

Brazil – 4%

China – 4%

South Africa – 1%

By 2006, in the United States 89% of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% of maize (corn) were genetically modified.

Why Should I Be Concerned about Genetically Modified Food?

No one hides the fact that GM food products are everywhere. There is no debate on that. So then, why should you even care? There are many reasons to be concerned.

No Human Studies: To begin, there have never been any studies that test the affects of consuming genetically modified food in humans. The FDA only assumes that GM food products are equivalent to the original in the way our body reacts to them.

Not Easily Contained: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are not easily contained. Safety measures, referred to as Biological Containment have to be in place to protect conventional and organic crops from being contaminated with GM crops. There is the possibility that without proper containment (and knowledge of how to do this is in its infancy) that these new GM products could taint and/or wipe out important species in our food supply.

Genetic Alteration May Cause Damage to Digestive and Immune Systems: The actual process of genetic alteration may cause damage to mammalian (that’s us) digestive and immune systems. In 1998, Arpad Pusztai, a researcher in Scotland, performed the first independent, non-industry sponsored study analyzing genetically engineered food and it’s affects on mammals. His study found that rats that were fed transgenic potatoes showed evidence of organ damage, thickening of the small intestine and poor brain development. The transgenic potatoes had been genetically engineered to contain lectin, a sugar binding protein that makes the plant pest resistant. Ironically, the adverse reactions only occurred in the group of rats eating the transgenic potatoes even though the control rats were fed a diet of plain potatoes mixed with lectin from the same source. These results indicate that the damage does not come from the lectin itself but due to the process of genetic engineering. This is a very important distinction. It also means that all genetically engineered products would be at risk of causing harm, not just lectin and potatoes.

Effects on Ecosystems: There is concern over the impact of genetically modified organisms in both farmed and wild ecosystems. If we get to the point where there are weed free and insect-free crops it could result in declines of other wildlife such as birds which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for their food resources. A UK based study found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed crops .

-Monsanto: Monsanto is a giant biotech corporation that threatens to destroy the agricultural biodiversity that has existed for thousands of years. Up until recently the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to issue patents on seeds. However, in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for seed patents in a 5-4 decision which laid the groundwork for a handful of corporations to take control of the World’s food supply. Since that time Monsanto has become the world’s leader in the genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents (more than any other company). Farmers who buy their seeds are required to sign strict agreements that lay out how the seeds can be used and they must buy new seeds each year. They are also required not to share the seeds with other farmers. They have both the capacity and ruthless drive to destroy the worlds biodiversity and food supply for their own profit. To watch a video documentary that was aired on French Television please go HERE. Or you can go to You Tube and search for Monsanto and you will be bombarded with many, many videos.

Morgellon’s Disease: Is a new terrifying disease a result of genetically modified foods? As of February 2007, more than 10,000 reports of this mysterious disease have been reported on the Morgellon Foundation’s Wesbite. The reported cases are up from only 2000 cases in 2006. The disease has been reported in 15 nations across the world including Canada, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands as well as all 50 states in the United States. The majority of reports come from Texas, California and Florida. People who have the disease describe it as a feeling of bugs or parasites scuttling around under their skin and it is accompanied by open lesions that heal slowly and ooze out blue, black or white fibers that can be several millimeters long. The CDC has finally put up a web page about the phenomenon and refer to it as Unexplained Dermopathy. Below is a picture of a 3 year old male with the showing the fibers embedded in his lips and a picture of those same fibers removed.

The God Role: So this is just my very unscientific and emotionally laden argument but I’m sure it exists more eloquently somewhere out there on the ‘net. Even if you dismiss the possibility of God and approach it from a natural or mother earth perspective the notion that we, as humans, with very limited knowledge and perspective can upturn and modify nature to suit our needs and wants without consequence to the natural order of things seems naive. I myself believe in God and I believe that if God wanted DNA from this substance to be mixed with that substance he very well would have taken care of it himself. We have been given dominion but the abuse of that dominion will have powerfully devastating effects if left unchecked.

What Can I do? How Can I avoid Genetically Modified Food?

So how do you know if a food you are eating is genetically modified? Well, frankly, if you are buying it from the grocery store you don’t. But there are things you can do to dramatically decrease your exposure.

-Stay Away From Processed Foods: This is of course, easier said then done. This means that foods that come in packages (unless 100% organic) have high potential (at least 75%) of containing genetically modified ingredients. Most processed foods contain corn and soy products and most corn and soy products are genetically modified (61% and 89% respectively in 2006). This goes for fast food and restaurants as well. You have no way of knowing whether or not the food has been genetically modified. Your best bet is to stick with whole foods, that are in their original state that you prepare yourself. And yes, that is a big commitment.

-Buy Organic Whenever Possible: By definition food that is certified organic must be free of all GM organisms.

Examine Produce Stickers: The PLU code for conventionally grown fruits consists of four numbers. Organic contains five numbers prefaced by the number 9. GM fruits contain five numbers prefaced by the number 8.

-True Food Shopping Guide: Get to know and use the True Food Shopping Guide which is a list of acceptable products and brands that do not contain GM products.

-Grow your own Food: Start your own garden and purchase seeds that have not been genetically modified. Not only can you control what happens to the food you grow but you are cultivating a skill that will bless your entire family and subsequent generations.

-Shop Local: Buy produce and foods from local sources whenever possible. Not only are you helping to sustain our resources but you are helping your community and reducing your exposure to GM crops. Most GM crops are large industry crops. By supporting the little guy there will be less demand for high yield crops which are more likely to contain genetically modified organisms.

-Demand Better: Use your dollar to set the demand. These crops can not thrive if there are no consumers to buy them. Use your voice to tell your elected officials how you feel about GM crops. Ask your grocery stores to stock more organic foods.

Video’s, Documentaries and Other Links

VIDEO: The Future of Food


Wikipedia: A vast amount of information and sources are available

Dr Mercola: This is just one of many links that Dr. Mercola has on the subject. There are links to many other articles within this one or you can search on his website.

Human Genome Project Information: Information on Genetically Modified Foods.

USDA Data Sets: Some statistics