Controversial HPV Vaccine Stirs Up Yet More Trouble

Controversial HPV Vaccine Stirs Up Yet More Trouble

Last year when I wrote about the HPV vaccine, developed to fight the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, I voiced concern about its safety and efficacy given that it was new and had been approved very quickly by the FDA (see Daily Health News, January 23, 2006). Many of these concerns remain, while new politically based controversies have arisen. Led by Texas (which since changed course), numerous states jumped to propose making the vaccination mandatory for all girls entering the sixth-grade. Given, however, that HPV is normally transmitted sexually, not through casual contact as is the case with other viruses (such as measles, mumps and rubella, for instance) in which childhood vaccines are mandated, this enthusiastic legislative response appears to be driven by politics and corporate greed rather than public health concerns, some speculate.

BIG PHARMA STRIKES AGAIN

Consumer advocacy groups and the news media are quick to blame Merck, manufacturer of the vaccine, for the tactics it employed in promoting the vaccine's use. First and foremost, the vaccine was tested in only a small sample of girls under 16 (fewer than 1,200) and as a new vaccine it has no track record for safety, I was told by Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a national, non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths. Secondarily, she adds, the majority of Americans do not want state governments forcing this kind of decision upon their families. There was clearly a groundswell of opposition to the mandated vaccine from all sides, hence the bill for it being overturned in the state of Texas. Some oppose it due to safety concerns... others because it tramples on parents' rights. A recent survey confirmed this opposition. In a University of Michigan Health System poll, only 44% of parents supported the mandatory HPV vaccine. The rest were neutral or opposed. Nonetheless, the manufacturers have succeeded in promoting their extraordinarily profitable materials as "necessary for the public's safety."

QUESTIONABLE MARKETING TACTICS

There's no doubt that vaccines mean big money for big business. In June 2006, pharmaceutical giant Merck received approval for its vaccine, sold under the name "Gardasil," from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after clinical trials showed very positive results, leading the FDA to speed its approval under its "priority review process." Shortly thereafter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a recommendation for its use in girls ages 11 and 12, followed within a few months by a huge advertising campaign from Merck, featuring young girls jumping rope and chanting "I want to be one less, one less" on TV and in magazines. Simultaneously, the company launched an aggressive behind-closed-doors lobbying effort in state after state to require the vaccination for all girls entering sixth grade or of middle-school age. The projected revenue for Gardasil should the mandates pass is hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Serious questions about a conflict of interest arose in Texas earlier this year. Literally the same day Governor Rick Perry's chief of staff met with Merck execs, the drug company made a significant contribution to Perry's campaign (as well as those of eight other Texas legislators). One of the Merck lobbyists in Texas is the governor's former chief of staff, and the governor is also closely aligned with Women in Government, a non-profit bi-partisan advocacy group of women legislators that receives money from Merck. Similar concerns have arisen in other states, including Florida, Virginia and Maryland, suggesting that Merck is more or less buying its way into the mandates.

Then there is the fact of Merck's recent poor track record for drug safety. Multi-million dollar lawsuits continue against the company for its osteoarthritis medication rofecoxib (Vioxx), abruptly pulled from the market in 2004 after causing heart attacks and stroke. It turned out that Merck had been aware of these cardiovascular risks for years, but covered them up. (Interestingly, Vioxx received a six-month priority review just as Gardasil did.) Now there are safety questions about another Merck drug, alendronate (Fosamax), which is used to treat osteoporosis. (For more on the dangers of Fosamax, see the January 18, 2007 issue of Daily Health News.)

SERIOUS HEALTH CONCERNS PERSIST

Politics aside, Fisher continues to have health concerns about the HPV vaccine, including...

• Insufficient study. In Fisher's opinion, Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the American people about the pre-licensure clinical trials. The HPV vaccine has been studied in fewer than 1,200 girls under age 16, yet is being recommended for all girls 11 and 12.
• Safety. There were 385 Gardasil adverse events reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) during the last six months of 2006. These included collapse into unconsciousness and seizures in the doctor's office after vaccination or in the next 24 hours. Two-thirds of those affected required additional medical care, and nearly one-third of all reports (where age was reported) were for girls 16 or younger. One out of four of these reactions occurred when Gardasil was administered along with other vaccines. As a result, NVIC is calling on the FDA and CDC to issue warnings that Gardasil should not be combined with other vaccines, and that girls be monitored for fainting, seizures, tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs for 24 hours after vaccination.
• Long-term effectiveness. At Merck's urging, the FDA agreed to fast-track the HPV vaccine in February 2006, and it was approved that June. Although testing was limited -- particularly in the age group for which the mandate is proposed -- some speculate it was in Merck's best financial interests to roll out the vaccine as soon as possible so that it could achieve market domination before GlaxoSmithKline introduced its own version. Rarely has a vaccine this new been granted such a rapid and sweeping mandate after FDA approval, observes Fisher. The process typically takes five to six years -- as it should, to verify there are no long-term health risks.
• Necessity. Fisher notes that cervical cancer causes less than one percent of all cancers and cancer deaths (between 3,000 and 4,000 US deaths annually). In contrast, tobacco is implicated in an estimated 438,000 American deaths each year.

So, I ask, if the government is going to legislate health, why not ban tobacco? Why instead mandate a controversial vaccine that impacts only a very narrow portion of the population, putting them at risk for side effects?

• Cost. At $360 for a three-shot regimen, Gardasil is unusually expensive and not all insurance plans may cover it. However, if the vaccine is mandated, insurance coverage is far more likely. Clearly that will make the people at Merck very happy. Fisher points out that because a competing HPV vaccine is in the pipeline, Merck is highly motivated to seize and dominate the market before a rival pharmaceutical firm steps in.
• Public health impact. There is no evidence that the HPV vaccines will eliminate all HPV strains or cervical cancer. The vaccine targets two high-risk HPV strains that are known to cause cervical cancer and two low-risk types that are know to cause genital warts. However, FDA and CDC officials have questioned whether other high-risk HPV strains will eventually replace those controlled by widespread use of the vaccine and continue to cause disease. It is not knownn if boosters will be needed and long-term safety is also unknown.

A PERSONAL DECISION

To find out whether legislation is under consideration in your state to mandate the HPV vaccine for young girls, visit the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures at www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm. If you learn that a mandate may be instituted, most states allow exemption to vaccination for medical reasons and for sincerely held religious beliefs. Only about 17 states allow exemptions for personal or philosophical beliefs. This may mean that your daughter would be excluded from attending public school if you cannot obtain one of these exemptions.

In the long run, the HPV vaccine may or may not prove to be safe and effective. Only time will tell -- and I'd argue, we need to let more time pass before making such a big decision. In the meantime, meet with your physician, review its pros and cons from unbiased sources, and come to an independent decision about what's best for your family. Be careful though, since all sides have strong opinions. Most physicians are influenced by their specialty and state medical societies, while consumer organizations questioning the safety of vaccines are often influenced by personal experience with vaccine reactions. The complexities of this issue may make it difficult to get a clear answer from any single source. Ideally, this is a personal decision that you should be able to make without inappropriate government, social or medical interference.

Source(s):

Barbara Loe Fisher, President, National Vaccine Information Center, www.909shot.com

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov

US Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov

All misdeeds great and small

I wonder who paid for this study...
Article 1: "Public trust in the integrity and ethical behavior of scholars must be maintained if research is to continue to play its proper role in our university and society.'

Item 2: The US Office of Research Integrity recently made changes to its ethics rules, including "reviewing" as part of its definition of misconduct--meaning a reviewer who plagiarizes an application for federal funding can be charged with misconduct. The change is apparently inspired by allegations of plagiarism in peer reviewers of applications for NIH funds.

Crisis? Again, no; again, vigilance is required and the occasional miscreants should be "named and shamed."

Item 3: A commentary with the tantalizing title 'Scientists behaving badly.' (3) This turns out not to be lewd tabloid revelations but a survey of the professional conduct of several thousand researchers. "US scientists engage in a range of behaviors extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP)" the authors conclude. Actually the series of misdemeanors are less serious, than, not far beyond, FFP. But the collective admission of guilt is shockingly high. One-third of scientists admitted to at least one transgression from a list of 16 that range from questionable to intolerable. These included 15% who changed the design, methods, or results of their research under pressure from a sponsor, 12.5% who overlooked other scientists' use of flawed data or questionable interpretations, 7% who ignored "minor rules" involving research subjects, and, 6% who withheld data that contradicted their previous conclusions.

Crisis? It possibly is. The full extent of these questionable practices is unknown, their growth over time is unexplored, their impact is undiscovered and the proper response to them is unclear. Clearly more study is needed.

"The level of competition in science has absolutely skyrocketed," lead author Brian Martinson was quoted saying in one paper. "There is often a level of desperation that may lead people to behave badly." (4) But with no historical data, we can't blindly accept this as a recent and growing problem.

Re-education in ethics--especially for more senior scientists, who are more likely to offend--must be another priority. We may need a precise code of practice, along with enforceable penalties.

All this have consciousness

The begining of the mind research...
INDIGENOUS WEATHER MODIFICATION: "All Things Have Some Consciousness
The world view of Ifa differs from the world view of mainstream Western metaphysics in two ways; Ifa teaches that everything in nature has some form of consciousness called ori, and it teaches that the world is a multi-dimensional reality. Most forms of shamanism teach the idea that the visible world is influenced by invisible worlds that co-exist in the same dimensional space as the physical world. The invisible realms are usually called 'Spirit Worlds'. The word 'spirit' means 'essential nature' or 'essence'. From a shamanistic point of view Spirits are fundamental Forces in Nature that help shape the physical reality perceived by the senses in a non-altered state of consciousness.
Ifa teaches that all things in the world have some form of consciousness. The first step in developing the shamanistic skills of an Ifa initiate is to learn how to empathize with the consciousness of non human Forces in Nature"

DNA modified foods and intestinal bacteria

SO WHAT ARE WE REALLY CREATING?
I TELL MY CELLS WHAT I WANT!
YOU CAN TOO

Google Groups : sci.bio.evolution: "Usually with a nice little creature called Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This
actually inserts a portion of its genome into a plant it infects, causing
the cells to become cancerious and, cleverly, to secrete a substance known
as octopine, which very few organisms can use a carbon source. Agrobacterium
is of course one of the few, so it enjoys a monopoly food supply.

By removing the tumour and octopine genes from the transfer DNA, and
inserting a gene of interest, we can genetically engineer plants, with a
certain amount of hassle getting the transformed cells to regenerate into
whole plants.
(If you are wondering how to genetically engineer Agrobacterium, that is
relatively easy. The DNA is on a plasmid which the bacteria can be induced
to take up with minimal hassles, for genetic engineering).

The problem is we don't know how to control the site of integration, and it
may be that DNA which has integrated is less stable than other DNA. Also for
technical reasons the DNA needs an antibiotic resistance marker gene. There
are new protocols for getting these out of the released plants, but they add
cost to the engineering procedure. There is a theoretical possibility of
these antibiotic resistance genes getting into bacteria. However the genes
originally came from the bacterial gene pool anyway, so it is not really a
very serious concern to most scientists, though the media have jumped on it
because genetically engineered superbug make a nice story. "

POWER FOR WHO : sci.bio.evolution

There are hundreds of ways to generate energy and power for our civilizations. However the power/oil monopy is secured all POLITICAL authority, and will continue to profit if no new methods are developed regardless of what science puts together..


Google Groups : sci.bio.evolution: "Scientists have been exploring the microbiology of deep-sea hydrothermal
vents - geysers that form along volcanic mid-ocean ridges - using submersible vessels for almost 30 years. Until now, life in this environment was thought to depend on chemotrophic bacteria, although the identification of low-level illumination in the form of 'vent glow' gave a tantalizing hint that photosynthesis was a possibility.

Beatty et al. investigated whether geothermal illumination could support photosynthesis by analysing samples taken from the effluent plume of a type of vent known as a black smoker located at the East Pacific rise. Enrichment culturing yielded a non-motile bacterium that has been named GSB1. Analysis of the absorption and emission spectra of intact GSB1 cells isolated in pure culture - with major peaks at 750 nm and 775 nm, respectively - indicated the presence of light-harvesting bacteriochlorophyll c.

Further analysis by electron microscopy revealed the presence of light-harvesting chlorosomes, structures that are commonly found in green sulphur bacteria. Light energy is transferred to the chlorosome reaction centre through the Fenna?Matthews?Olson (FMO) protein; PCR using FMO-specific primers amplified a 970-bp FMO segment from GSB1, and sequence analysis led the authors to conclude that GSB1 is a green sulphur bacterium related to the Chlorobium and Prosthecochloris genera. For growth, GSB1 requires anaerobic growth conditions, sulphur in the form of elemental sulphur or H2S, CO2 and light."

Pesticide link to autism suspected - Los Angeles Times

"Pesticide link to autism suspected
A state study suggests two farm sprays may raise chances of having a child with the disorder.
By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer
July 30, 2007


Women who live near California farm fields sprayed with organochlorine pesticides may be more likely to give birth to children with autism, according to a study by state health officials to be published today.

The rate of autism among the children of 29 women who lived near the fields was extremely high, suggesting that exposure to the insecticides in the womb might have played a role. The study is the first to report a link between pesticides and the neurological disorder, which affects one in every 150 children.

But the state scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.

"We want to emphasize that this is exploratory research," said Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health. "We have found very preliminary data that there may be an association. We are in no way concluding that there is a causal relationship between pesticide exposure of pregnant women and autism."

The two pesticides implicated are older-generation compounds developed in the 1950s and used to kill mites, primarily on cotton as well as some vegetables and other crops. Their volumes have declined substantially in recent years.

utter nonsense becomes incontrovertible "fact."

This week we're going to take a break from our series on the cardiovascular system and discuss a dairy study released earlier this month. According to the results of the study conducted out of the University of Cardiff in the UK and as promoted in media throughout the world, drinking a pint of milk a day may protect men against diabetes and heart disease.

The Study

The 20-year study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, analyzed how the rates of metabolic syndrome were affected by dairy consumption.

Metabolic syndrome (also known as syndrome X or insulin resistance syndrome) is a cluster of conditions including obesity, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, and high triglycerides that increase the risk of heart disease. Metabolic syndrome is said to be the fastest growing disease entity in the world. On the other hand, although it does predict vascular disease and diabetes quite powerfully, it is probably not a true syndrome and should be thought of more as an elaborate risk formula—increasing the risk of death by some 50%.

The background
According to the study, which tracked 2,375 men between the ages of 45 and 59 over a 20 year period, eating dairy products reduces the risk of metabolic syndrome. The more they consumed, the lower the risk. At the start of the study, 15% had metabolic syndrome and had almost double the risk of coronary artery heart disease and four times the risk of diabetes of those without the syndrome. But the researchers found that men were 62% less likely to have the syndrome if they drank a pint or more of milk every day and 56% less likely to have it if they regularly ate other dairy products.

The more dairy products the men consumed, the less likely they were to have the syndrome.

The reality

In fact, although the study tracked a decreased risk of metabolic syndrome with increased dairy consumption, it found little actual correlation between dairy consumption and the incidence of diabetes itself. There were only 7 more cases of diabetes among the lowest consumers of dairy versus the highest. The incidence of heart disease was not tracked.

Also, people who had diabetes at the start of the study were excluded from the results so that we don't know if their condition improved or deteriorated while drinking milk. That would be significant information in determining the overall health value of dairy when it comes to metabolic syndrome.

Why it means nothing

There are a number of problems with the study, but let's start with the two most obvious.

1. What were the non milk drinkers drinking?
2. What does drinking milk say about the overall diet of the participants?

If not milk, what?

The study only references the amount of milk and dairy products people were consuming— nothing else—not, for example, what else they were drinking or eating. The simple fact is that people only drink so much liquid in a day. If they're drinking more milk, they're drinking less of something else. Conversely, if they're drinking less milk, they're drinking more of something else. If that something else is soda pop or sugared energy drinks, that's a problem. Each ounce of soda contains almost a teaspoon of sugar, usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup. That's a major factor in the onset of metabolic syndrome. Tea and coffee drinkers don't necessarily escape scot-free either. Six cups of coffee a day with 2 teaspoons of sugar in each cup still works out to 40 lbs (18.4 K) of sugar a year.

In other words, the so called health benefits attributed to milk in the study may have nothing to do with milk at all. They may instead be a reflection of lowered consumption of more harmful highly-sugared beverages.

Overall diet

A question that occurs to me is: why are men in their forties and fifties drinking milk every day? Is it because they want something to drink with their cookies and cake at lunch like children (probably not), or is it because they are making what they consider to be a conscious health choice (even if misguided)? If so, what does that say about the rest of their diet? We know that people who drink lots of soda pop also tend to be high consumers of fast foods and snack foods. In fact, they're usually sold in tandem, not only in fast food restaurants (KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, for example, are owned by Yum! Brands, a spin-off of PepsiCo) but also in grocery store power aisles. So if the drinking of milk was the result of an attempt by some of the participants to avoid fast foods and sodas, were those men also more likely to have eaten whole grain foods and fresh produce as opposed to fast foods and sugared snacks? We know that fast food diets are more likely to contribute to the onset of metabolic syndrome, and that whole foods are more likely to keep it at bay? It sounds likely that the men drinking milk were eating an overall better diet, but the study doesn't tell us either way. In any case, without that information, the study is meaningless. You could probably come up with the same results (maybe even better) by doing a survey on how much water the men drank— the more water, the lower the incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Heck, why didn't the researchers just cut to the chase and ask about the participant's sugar intake in foods and beverages?

What do we actually know?

When it comes to dairy, we actually know quite a lot. For example:

• Consumption of cow's milk in children has been linked to a threefold increase in Type 1 diabetes.
• Consumption of milk has been associated with insulin-dependent diabetes in numerous studies.
• Milk consumption is repeatedly promoted as lowering the incidence of obesity, and yet numerous studies indicate that it does just the opposite.

Then, of course, all the Cardiff study looked at were the triggers for Metabolic Syndrome. Perhaps milk is implicated in other problems such as cancer, allergies, arthritis, infection, and toxicity. And it is!

In Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, I talk about a number of the health problems associated with dairy consumption. Those are actually only highlights; there's much more. First of all, the following two sites might be of interest.

• The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. www.pcrm.org
• The NotMilk homepage www.notmilk.com

To summarize some of the things that you will find there, there are many, many problems associated with consuming dairy. Many of these are probably conditions you are already noticing in your own body—particularly those that relate to allergies, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders. For example:

• Galactose - Ovarian cancer rates parallel dairy-eating patterns around the world. The culprit seems to be galactose, the simple sugar broken down from the milk sugar lactose.
• Pesticides - concentrate in the milk of both farm animals and humans. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund found widespread pesticide contamination of human breast milk among 1,400 women in forty-six states. The levels of contamination were twice as high among the meat-and-dairy-eating women as among vegetarians.
• Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria - Joseph Beasley, M.D., and Jerry Swift wrote in The Kellogg Report (The Institute of Health Policy and Practice, 1989) that even "moderate use of antibiotics in animal feed can result in the development of antibiotic resistance in animal bacteria - and the subsequent transfer of that resistance to human bacteria."
• Vitamin D Toxicity - Heavy consumption of milk, especially by small children, may result in vitamin D toxicity. Records show that dairies do not carefully regulate how much vitamin D is added to milk. (Milk has been "fortified" with vitamin D ever since deficiencies were found to cause rickets.) A study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine (April 30, 1992) showed that of forty-two milk samples, only 12 percent were within the expected range of vitamin D content. Testing of ten infant formula samples revealed seven with more than twice the vitamin D content reported on the label; one sample had more than four times the label amount.
• Growth Hormones - Recently, cows have started to receive growth hormones to increase their milk production, although the long-term effects on humans are unknown.
• Casein - Perhaps the biggest health problem with cow's milk arises from the proteins in it: Cow's milk proteins damage the human immune system. Repeated exposure to these proteins disrupts normal immune function and may eventually lead to disease. Cow's milk contains many proteins that are poorly digested and harmful to the immune system. Fish and meat proteins are much less damaging, while plant proteins pose the least hazard.

Removing dairy from the diet has been shown to shrink enlarged tonsils and adenoids, indicating relief for the immune system—even more so if you are lactose intolerant.

Similarly, doctors experimenting with dairy-free diets often report a marked reduction in colds, flu's, sinusitis and ear infections. In addition, dairy is a tremendous mucus producer and a burden on the respiratory, digestive and immune systems.

• Colic and Ear Infections - One out of every five infants in the United States suffers bouts of colic. Another common problem among infants receiving dairy, either directly or indirectly, is chronic ear infections. You just don't see this painful condition among infants and children who aren't getting cow's milk into their systems.
• Allergies, Asthma and Sinus Problems - Poorly digested bovine antigens (substances that provoke an immune reaction) like casein become "allergens" in allergic individuals. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by diarrhea, constipation and fatigue. Many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved and even eliminated by cutting out dairy. The exclusion of dairy, however, must be complete to see any benefit.
• Arthritis - Antigens in cow's milk may also contribute to rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. When antibody-antigen complexes (resulting from an immune response) are deposited in the joints, pain, swelling, redness and stiffness result; these complexes increase in arthritic people who eat dairy products, and the pain fades rapidly after patients eliminate dairy products from their diets.
• Childhood Anemia - Cow's milk causes loss of iron and hemoglobin in infants (one reason the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants not drink cow's milk) by triggering blood loss from the intestinal tract. Some research also shows that iron absorption is blocked by as much as 60 percent when dairy products are consumed in the same meal.
• Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Lung Cancer - A 1989 study in Nutrition and Cancer linked the risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with the consumption of cow's milk and butter. High levels of the cow's milk protein beta-lactoglobulin have also been found in the blood of lung cancer patients, suggesting a link with this cancer as well.

Concluding that dairy is good for you while ignoring these issues hardly makes sense.

Incompletely digested large dairy proteins, such as casein, become antigens (substances that provoke immune reactions) once they enter the bloodstream in individuals who are sensitive to them. Plus, the milk you buy in the store is not raw milk. If you must drink milk, be smart about your choices:

• Raw organic, if you can find it, avoids many of the problems—but presents health issues of its own unless you can be sure of the source.
• Organic pasteurized is better than non-organic, but because of the heat used in pasteurization, it presents significantly higher allergy problems than raw.
  I do not recommend non-organic, pasteurized, homogenized dairy products under any circumstances.
• And while whey eliminates the casein problem, it still contains the two main allergenic proteins, alpha-lactalbumin and beta-lactaglobulin— the two most heat sensitive proteins.
• Soy milk, of course, is not an effective alternative, since it is high in allergens itself, blocks the absorption of important minerals such as calcium, and contains high levels of phytoestrogens, which although beneficial in moderate amounts, can be counter-productive in large amounts— particularly for children.

Raw Milk

• Are there any health benefits to drinking raw milk? According to the FDA, no. And if all you measure are protein and fat content and added vitamin D, they are correct. But if you consider that pasteurization involves heating milk to approximately 1450 Fahrenheit for 30 minutes or longer and therefore kills all enzymes and beneficial bacteria in the process, then the answer is not so obvious. Heating the milk to pasteurize it "denatures" dairy proteins making some of them much more allergenic than they are in their natural state. Consider that many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved, and even eliminated, by simply cutting out dairy. And if you toss in the fact that pasteurization makes calcium insoluble and unavailable to the body (a key reason countries with the highest pasteurized dairy consumption have the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world), the health benefits swing decidedly in favor of raw milk.
• Can raw milk become contaminated? Yes, absolutely—but not often. Most raw milk dairies tend to run extremely clean operations because of the liability issues. And keep in mind that in this recent outbreak only 8 illnesses were reported. We see far more E. coli contamination in meat each year than in raw dairy—even as a percentage of users. And in fact, we regularly see contamination of pasteurized dairy too, but the FDA never seems to propose that people stop eating meat and pasteurized dairy. It seems raw milk just doesn't have a big enough lobby supporting it.

So am I advocating drinking raw milk?

Not necessarily. I still have issues with some of the proteins in dairy that tend to trigger allergic reactions, whether that dairy is raw or pasteurized. But if you are going to drink milk, raw organic milk is a healthier option than the pasteurized, homogenized moo-cow juice you find in the supermarkets.

Conclusion

I know that peer reviewed studies are the sine qua non of the medical world, but in reality many of them are so much less than they appear. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, you can get a study to prove any point you want—even contradictory points. And once a flawed study is published, it's then cited by other studies over and over again, until utter nonsense becomes incontrovertible "fact." Here are some examples.

• Echinacea
• Antioxidants
• Dairy and Weight Loss
• Echinacea again

Bottom line, when it comes to the current dairy study, pay no attention; it's decidedly flawed.